Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 12, 2016
Document Release Date: 
February 12, 2002
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
December 23, 1976
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP79M00467A002700110002-9.pdf1.44 MB
SENDER WILL~CHECK CL ICATION.TOP AND BOTTOM UNCLASSIFIED ONFIDENTIAL SECRET OFFICIAL ROUTING SLIP TO NAME AND ADDRESS DATE INITIALS I Asst to DDC 2 3 Asst to DCI (A. Falkiewicz) 4 5 6 ACTION DIRECT REPLY PREPARE REPLY APPROVAL DISPATCH RECOMMENDATION COMMENT FILE RETURN CONCURRENCE X INFORMATION SIGNATURE Remarks : 7 FOL HERE TO RETURN TO SENDER HONE NO. DATE F .,xecutive retary 3 Jan 77 UNCLASSIFIED CONFIDENTIAL SECRET FO1 No. r 7 Use previous editions auSGPO: 1976 - 202-953 t-67 L Approve Approved Fg Release 2002/06/06: CIA-RDP79M0S7A002700110 sjjtc December 23, 1976 Mr. George Bush 5161 Palisade Lane NW Washington DC 20016 .Dear Mr. Bush: Because of your interest in the subject, I have marked for your attention a feature in the current issue of Skeptic. If you would like to respond, we would be. pleased to consider your comments for inclusion in the letters section of the forthcoming issue. Cordially, Nancy J. Brucker Associate Editor NJB:cmb Esecuere Req ts~ Approved For Release 2002/06/06 CIA-RDP79M00467AO02700110002-9 812 ANPCAPA STRET ? SANTA E ARSARA, CAl1FORNA ? 93101.18051965-7021 UNITED STATES MISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS PRESS RELEASE 799 UNITED NATIONS PLAZA NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017 FOR RELEASE AT 9:00 P.M., EDT Press Release USUN--130(76) Tuesday, October 26, 1976 October 26, 1976 CHECK TEXT AGAINST DELIVERY Address by Ambassador William W. Scranton, United States Representative to the United Nations, to the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, Annual Award Dinner, Hotel Pierre, New York, New York, October 26, 1976. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FOREIGN POLICY AND THE AMERICAN PURPOSE Conscience -- conscience and the purpose to life which springs from it -- are what the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution and our free American society are. all about. This year -- our nation's Bicentennial -- is a time for America to make a special. effort to reevaluate and perhaps redirect our national life so as to affirm the values our nation began with. It is good to make such a reexamination, no matter what we find. And what we find is an America, engaged in free and open debate preparatory to a national election in stark contrast to most of-the world where governments by power groups are separated from popular control. The contrast today is as sharp.as it was two hundred years ago. But when we try to examine our foreign policy at our Bicentennial, to determine just how to pursue and its goals foreign policy in light of what America stands forintthe world, s we soon find ourselves a little puzzled. Approved F.elease 2002/06/06: CIA-RDP79M099A002700110002-9 Approved For Release 2002/06/06 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO02700110002-9 Approved Fe lease 2002/06/06: CIA-RDP79M0'A002700110002-9 SCRANTON -2- One is tempted to ascribe that confusion to the charges and counter-charges hurled in an election year. But it is more than a partisan matter; it runs deeper and it is more widely shared. Some people question what we stand for in foreign affairs, whether our ideals are being compromised for national survival, and even if the United States still represents its original values. When debate turns to morality in foreign policy, my thoughts return to the purpose and hopes with which we set about the American experiment. To Thomas Jefferson's words a few days before he died when he wrote of the Declaration of Independence: "May it be to the world what I believe it will be: to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all; the signal of arousing men to burst the chains...." And to Lincoln's words a few decades later when our people were divided, confused and about to plunge the Republic into civil war. Speaking under the full weight of American history, the President-elect returned to the Declaration for guidance and saw "something in the Declaration, something giving liberty not alone to the people of this country but hope to the world." "It was that which gave promise," he said in clarity at that tormented moment, "that in due time the weights should be lifted from the shoulders of all men." Now we find ourselves asking, are the words of Jefferson, and Lincoln part of our heritage or are they simply a part of our history? And there is the puzzle of our relationship with our allies and our adversaries. Take the case of Korea, for example. South Korea faces the very real threat of aggression by North Korea and is virtually surrounded by the Soviet Union, North Korea, and China. Unarguably American support is needed for peace and stability on the peninsula. Yet just as unarguably, the Seoul Government offends our concept of human rights. Our public speech and writing today, at the time of our Bicentennial, is full of the question: Should we support countries which do not meet our human rights standards? And if we must do so, how shall we speak to ourselves and to others about this necessity? And how will the way we speak affect us as a nation, effect our goals and our spirit? Approved For Release 2002/06/06 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO02700110002-9 Approved F0Release 2002/06/06: CIA-RDP79MO A002700110002-9 . ow SCRANTON -3- Then we look at the USSR: a regime which not only offends our dedication to human rights but which has declared itself our ideological opponent. In exercising detente we wonder once again if we have abandoned the path of our Founding Fathers. Last Tuesday brought news of yet another instance of unashamed- barbarism in the. Soviet Union -- when a group of Jewish dissidents inquiring about delays in obtaining exit visas.: reported that they were taken out into the woods near Moscow and beaten by Soviet plainclothesmen and later were arrested. Where is our commitment to transcendent principles -- the ultimacy of freedom and the individual human soul -- that America as ideological and diplomatic leader of the Western world today must display? What part of our ideology justifies cooperation with such a regime? Simply put, it is this: today in a world dominated by tension between nuclear superpowers, events on any continent can jar the delicate web of global balance.. The probable alternative to peace is not just war but mutual annihilation. One of our primary foreign policy goals is therefore to maintain that peace, to reduce suspicion and rivalry. We must work with nations governed by systems of all types to replace conflict by dialogue and reciprocal exchanges: in trade and economics, to reduce armaments and enhance security, and to set standards for-human rights. Yet we must remember always that whatever relaxation of tensions occurs, there should be no illusion that fundamental political and ideological differences will vanish in the process. These subjects go beyond questions of partisanship. They are fundamental to a universal ambiguity in this Bicentennial year, an ambiguity which precludes feelings of comfort and confidence. Yet the question goes deeper still. At the same time that we are wondering. how best to advocate human rights, throughout the world many tell us that our notions of human rights lack the priority we assign them, that our system in fact has nothing to offer and that our notions of human rights are a bourgeois anachronism of no relevance to the world that is to come -- and even worse, they are telling us that our-notions of human rights are nothing but a cloak for our naked and narrow self-interest. . Approved For Release 2002/06/06 :,CIA-RDP79M00467A002700110002-9 SCRANTftproved F.elease 2002/06/06 :4CIA-RDP79M0'A002700110002-9 This is a challenge that we can and must meet. To understand how it came about, to understand the danger that it poses not only to our self-confidence but to the future of the world's freedom, we must understand first of all that our awareness of human rights and of the natural dignity of human individuals are special in this world. Before becoming a place, or even a people; America was an idea in the minds of a few -- the idea that men and women can live together in a society without surrendering their rights as individuals. That uncommon source separates one revolution and one nation from all others before or since uniquely it came on behalf, not of a certain class, creed or special interest, but of mankind as a whole. Our idea recognized human rights not as unique in concept but inherent in the nature of man -- man's basic instinct and desire for freedom and individual opportunity. Human beings are individuals, not just members of political corm-nunities or parts of various social institutions. Government cannot simply take what it wants from the individual; government must deal with the individual according to the terms of the contract that the individual has made with it. In short, there exists a limit on the state's right to interfere with the rights and freedoms of the citizen because individuals have rights. Today all of this seems so natural to us that it appears strange even to talk about it. The idea of liberty lies at the very heart of this country's founding and its purpose.. "Inalienable Rights", the words in the very first sentence of the Declaration of Independence, brought our nation into existence. The idea of liberty is the single most important animating principle of our Constitution and of our people. The purpose of this liberty has been the individual, his energies and creative capacities, and how best to free those energies. Perhaps more than anything else this has been the chief theme of our whole history, both at home and in our dealings with other nations. It has been the engine of our stunning history of economic development. It was the engine of our bloody but necessary civil war. It brought us out of our isolation and onto the international scene. We have gone to war for it notably in the American Revolution and World War II, and we have made peace with it foremost in our minds. To this day it remains the most powerful argument for our social system. Approved For Release 2002/06/06 : CIA-RDP79M00467A002700110002-9 SCRANTONApproved For Release 2002/06/085#IA-RDP79M0 467A002700110002-9 In today'46xceedingly complex polit cal world of some 150 internationally recognized sovereign states, only a pre- .cious few embrace the concepts of human rights and freedoms of the individual which we cherish. The thoughts of freedom, of responsibility and of the individual, we find, are unique products of our Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian tradition. In-other parts of the world the relationship between citizen and state differs profoundly. Broadly speaking two other views of human rights are held, one within the Soviet system and another within the developing world. In the Soviet systen. any genuine respect for human rights encounters the harsh. opposition of basic Soviet dogma: that individual rights stand in the way of a planned and directed society and only a central political authority can properly guide economic development and insure an equitable distribution of property. To view human beings as essentially free is absurd, they say, for since powerful social forces and economic systems make man what he is, individual rights really have little meaning. The Constitution of the USSR promises protection for most of the rights outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but it does so only in the context of "Fundamental Rights and Duties of Soviet Citizens", emphasizing the duty of every Soviet citizen to refrain from any activity contrary to the interest of the State. In the UN General Debate last month, one Eastern bloc foreign minister underscored this distinction, one which nullifies any protection of individual human rights, ...an individual may exercise his rights," he said, "only as a member of a broader community." In the developing world some ideas of human rights also differ from ours. Some nations newly freed from colonial rule kept the systems they inherited. But others have turned to a new ideology called development. With masses of people in dismal living conditions, the striking need seemed to them primarily material and technical, and progress measured only in terms of sheer economic growth. To a people whose condition made them incapable of exer- cising basic rights and freedoms, these leaders asked, of what value are such concepts? To a starving man what does freedom of speech matter? To an illiterate what is freedom of the press? If material needs are the most important, this group concluded, then collective economic rights are the most important rights. Thus, the right to economic development replaces the right to private property, the right to political stability replaces the right to political dissent, and the freedom of the government to define the nation's self-image replaces freedom of the press. Approved For Release 2002/06/06: CIA-RDP79M00467AO02700110002-9 SCRANTON Approved Release 2002/06f66-: CIA-RDP79M007A002700110002-9 This differs fundamentally from the Communist ideology for it is not concerned with the theological importance of planning but with the practical need to achieve certain economic ends. Its allegiance is to expediency. . Four and a half years ago in testimony before a House Sub- committee, Rabbi Schneier stated of the situation in Northern Ireland, "Yes, we are dealing with religious factors but it is a complex problem that involves economics, it involves civil rights, it involves political rights, so we are not dealing with a religious problem, per se." He could as easily, have been speaking of any of the other issues that face us today, for everyone of them involve economics and development, cultural tradition, ideology, and the question of freedom. We must defend our idea of liberty for the sake of economic development itself. We must insist again and again on what we have learned from our own economic history: that liberty is the spur to economic development, not its enemy. If a nation wants economic progress, if it wants economic well-being more widely dispersed among its people, only individual citizens, ,not enforcing governments, can bring that about. For countries grow economically when the inventiveness, creativity and freedom of their citizens are unfettered, not when the vital energies of their people are locked and chained. So to countries who tell us they are too poor to afford our notions of human rights, we respond with the conviction that promoting and cherishing freedoms is a condition of better living. American policies, foreign or domestic, have a single source -- our determination to carry on the original values of our revolution, the values of human rights and individual freedoms. Foreign policy in this turbulent and nuclear world must be based on certain idealistic but practical precepts: first, our closest affiliation is with the countries whose culture or concepts or convictions coincide with ours, the countries of the Western world, especially Western Europe, some of our neighbors in this hemisphere, and Japan. Nations joined with us in dedication to human rights and individual freedoms. Approved For Release 2002/06/06 : CIA-RDP79M60467A002700110002-9- I SCRANTON -7- Approved 0 Release 2002/06/06 : CIA-RDP79MG07A002700110002-9 Second, we work with developing countries in our common interest to bring them lasting economic betterment, aiding and abetting them in every way we know how to see that human. rights and freedoms become part and parcel of that betterment. Third, because this is a nuclear age which can literally mean the decimation of mankind, we should negotiate with the Soviet - Union and the Soviet sphere to reduce armaments and enhance security, to offer measured but normal relations, with the.degree of normalcy contingent on their performance under the judicable standards agreed at Helsinki. At all times working through the Helsinki accords to pressure the movement of that totalitarian system toward standards for human rights. This we must do. Finally, to people everywhere who yearn for freedom and. human rights, we shall continue to offer hope. And that is not a hope produced by huge expenditures for arms or a hope linked to our possession of overwhelming power. It is the hope Lincoln and Jefferson spoke of, a hope we fulfill when our actions reflect what we stand for. Approved For Release 2002/06/06 : CIA-RDP79M00467A002700110002-9 pproy",for Re as OQ2JQ6/Q L 1 UNCLASSIFIED 13 Compt 14 D/ Pare 15 D/S . 16 DTR R Pr7WQQ4 Mk 7QQ.!l QQO,2-,9 ONFIDENTIAL.:- SECRET EXECUTIVE SECRETARIA Routing Slip DDA 8 D/DCI/IC 9 D/DCI/NI .. 10 GC 11 LC 12 IG ..?: 3 4 5 6 7 2 20 21 17 Asst/ DCI 18 AO/ DCI 19 C/IPS Remarks: , A m d for Release.:2002106/06: CIA -RDP76M00467A06 110Q02 STATI NTL 07 Approved FRelease 2002/06/06: CIA-RDP79M00~67A00270011pOa2-9 2% 0 , :0 1376 4rE3tecL,.~. .. _. 1 i 3 w U"/i; t~'".. ems. 7s .C.:i Et. :S'E;E?: LVi f~t~ .L l'C. t~'wL t:;: r~t, .L. ~~. Vii. yc-l .Q^`'wiC s O:?. 5 ~ \ cc- ate t`~j. 4+.s I y.:4 C, 1, :r1...: