and delivery capability increased, a situation developed in which both the United States and the Soviet Union could effectively destroy the society of the other, regardless of which one struck first.

There are helpful mutual restraints in such a situation. Sane national leaders do not initiate strategic nuclear war and thus commit their people to national suicide. Also, they must be careful not to precipitate a conflict that could easily escalate into nuclear war. They have to take elaborate precautions against accidental release of a nuclear weapon, which might bring on a nuclear holocaust.

In brief, the nuclear deterrent, dangerous though it is, has worked.

The present situation-in which both the United States and the Soviet Union could effectively destroy the other regardless of which struck first-radically weakens the rationale for continuing the arms race.

Competitive accumulation of more sophisticated weapons would not add to the basic security of either side. Militarily, it probably would produce little or no net advantage. Economically, it would divert resources needed elsewhere. Politically, it would perpetuate the tensions and fears that are the social fallout of the nuclear arms race.

So a capacity for mutual destruction leads to a mutual interest in putting a stop to the strategic nuclear arms race.

Nonetheless, technology advances remorselessly. It offers new opportunities to both sides to add to their offensive and defensive strategic systems. Both sides find it difficult to reject these opportunities in an atmosphere of rivalry and in the absence of a verifiable agreement. It raises temptations to seek strategic advantages. Yet, now such advantages cannot be hidden for long, and both sides will certainly take whatever countermeasures are necessary to preserve their retaliatory capability.

This is the situation in which the two sides now find themselves. Where national security interests may have operated in the past to stimulate the strategic arms race, those same national security interests may now operate to stop or slow down the race. The question to be faced in the strategic arms talks is whether societies with the advanced intellect to develop these awesome weapons of mass destruction have the combined wisdom to control and curtail them.

Confidence-Building Preliminary Steps

In point of fact, we have already had some

successes in preliminary limitations:

-We have a treaty banning military activities in Antarctica.

-We have a treaty banning the orbiting of weapons of mass destruction in outer space and prohibiting the establishment of military installations on the moon or other celestial bodies.

-We have reached agreement with the Soviet Union on the text of a treaty forbidding the emplacement of weapons of mass destruction on the ocean floors, about to be considered at the United Nations General Assembly.

These are agreements not to arm environments previously inaccessible to weapons. Manifestly, there are fewer obstacles to such agreements than there are to agreements controlling weapons already deployed or under development.

But even in already "contaminated" environments there have been two important control agreements:

-We have negotiated and ratified a Test Ban Treaty prohibiting the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, under water, and in outer space.

-We have negotiated, and are prepared at any time to ratify simultaneously with the Soviet Union, a Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

It should be pointed out, though, that the main objective of a Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is to prevent nonnuclear powers from acquiring atomic weapons. The treaty does not restrain any of the present nuclear powers from further development of their capabilities. The nonnuclear countries therefore tend to look upon the treaty essentially as a self-denying ordinance.

Accordingly, during the negotiations they insisted upon assurances that the nuclear powers would seriously pursue strategic arms negotiations. We concurred and incorporated a paragraph in the treaty which would require us to do so. I mention this to underscore two points:

-First, that the disarmament agreements previously concluded have widely been regarded as confidence-building preliminary steps which hopefully might lead to more meaningful agreements on strategic arms.

-Second, when the United States and the Soviet Union ratify the NPT, they will agree to undertake negotiations in good faith for a cessation of the nuclear arms race.

However, given the complexity of the strategic situation, the vital national interests involved, and the traditional impulses to seek protection in military strength, it is easy to be

414-802 O 71 - 28

cynical about the prospects for the talks into which we are about to enter.

Nonetheless, some basis for hope exists.

First is the fact that the talks are being held at all. The diplomatic exchanges leading up to these talks were responsible in nature. And the talks themselves will require discussion of military matters by both sides in which the veil of secrecy will have to be, if not lifted, at least refashioned. These factors lead us to the hope that the talks are being entered into seriously.

Second is the matter of timing. Previous disparity in nuclear strength has been succeeded by the situation of sufficiency, of which I have already spoken. And because this condition will continue for the foreseeable future, the time, then, seems to be propitious for considering how to curb the race in which neither side in all likelihood can gain meaningful advantage.

Third is a mutuality of interest. Under present circumstances an equitable limitation on strategic nuclear weapons would strengthen the national security of both sides. If this is mutually perceived-if both sides conduct these talks in the light of that perception-the talks may accomplish an historic breakthrough in the pattern of confrontation that has characterized the postwar world.

May I pause to point out again that I do not wish to predict that the talks will be easy or that progress is imminent or, for that matter, likely. Mutuality of interest for states accustomed to rivalry is difficult to perceive. Traditions are powerful. Temptations to seek advantage run strong. Developments in other areas are bound to have an impact on these discussions.

Both parties will approach the talks with great caution. The United States and the Soviet Union are entirely capable of protecting their vital interests and can be counted upon to do so. So there is little chance that either side would accept an outcome that leads to its net national disadvantage. In our case, also we would not agree to anything adversely affecting the national interests of our allies, who will continue to be consulted as the talks develop.

On the other hand we must also recognize that a prime technique of international politics, as of other politics, is talk. If these talks are serious, they can lead to better understanding on both sides of the rationales behind strategic weapons decisions. This in itself might provide a climate in which to avoid compulsive decisions. Talks need not necessarily call for an explicit agreement at any particular stage. Whether we can slow down, stop, or eventually throw the arms race into reverse, remains to be

seen.

It also remains to be seen whether this be by a formal treaty or treaties, by a series of agreements, by parallel action, or by a convergence of viewpoints resulting from a better understanding of respective positions.

What counts at this point is that a dialogue is beginning about the management of the strategic relations of the two superpowers on a better, safer, cheaper basis than uncontrolled acquisition of still more weapons.

U.S. Objectives

The United States approaches the talks as an opportunity to rest our security on what I would call a balanced strategy.

In pursuit of this balanced strategy of security we will enter the Helsinki talks with three objectives:

-To enhance international security by maintaining a stable U.S.-Soviet strategic relationship through limitations on the deployment of strategic armaments.

-To halt the upward spiral of strategic arms and avoid the tensions, uncertainties, and costs of an unrestrained continuation of the strategic

arms race.

-To reduce the risk of an outbreak of nuclear war through a dialogue about issues arising from the strategic situation.

Some say that there will be risks in such a process. But it is easy to focus too much on the risks that would accompany such a new environment and too little on the risks of the one in which we now live. Certainly, such risks are minimal compared to the benefits for mankind which would flow from success. I am confident that this country will not let down its guard, lose its alertness, or fail to maintain adequate programs to protect against a collapse or evasion of any strategic arms agreement. No delegation to any disarmament negotiation has ever been better prepared or better qualified than the United States delegation. The risks in seeking an agreement seem to be manageable, insurable, and reasonable ones to run. They seem less dangerous than the risks of open-ended arms competition-risks about which we perhaps have become somewhat callous.

I have mentioned the rewards of progress in terms of international security, world order, and improved opportunities for replacing a stalemated confrontation with a process of negotiation.

portant task before us." And he added that we must "make a determined effort not only to limit the buildup of strategic arms but to reverse it."

Just last week President Podgorny of the Soviet Union said: "A positive outcome of the talks would undoubtedly help improve SovietAmerican relations and preserve and strengthen the peace." To that I say "Amen."

He added that: "The Soviet Union is striving to achieve precisely such results." Well, so are we; and in this we have the support of the military services, of the Congress, and of the American people.

To that end this Government approaches the strategic arms limitations talks in sober and serious determination to do our full part to bring a halt to this unproductive and costly competition in strategic nuclear armaments.

This audience is a particularly appropriate forum for a brief discussion of certain policies of the United States, and I am honored to be here tonight.

You are well aware of the steadily rising flow of commerce, of ideas, and of men across the Atlantic-the joining of Americans and Europeans in industrial and commercial enterprises, the emergence of an Atlantic market in investment capital. About a third of United States world trade is with Western Europe. These developments since the Second World War have immensely deepened the bonds between the Old World and the New.

Indeed, the expanding bonds between Europe and America are among the most significant developments in world affairs. They are also a model of constructive international cooperation.

It is now nearly 20 years since President Truman authorized a return of United States military forces to Europe to join with our allies

Made before the Belgo-American Association at Brussels, Belgium, on Dec. 6 (press release 369, revised).

in creating a collective security system. That system has safeguarded Europe ever since. However, because there have been great changes in the world since then, some are asking whether the time has not come for American forces to be brought back home.

The answer that I can give you tonight is no. The judgment of the President of the United States is that the commitment to NATO must remain in force and must remain strong. This judgment is shared by the majority of Americans. It is clear, too, from our recent NATO meetings, that it is shared by our European allies.

As we enter an era of negotiation both our allies and our adversaries must have no doubts about our continuing commitment to Western Europe. And I am happy tonight to be able to give you that assurance.

We recognize today, as we did in 1950, that Europe, more than any other region in the world, is vital to U.S. security. In the words of the President: "We in America continue to consider Europe's security to be our own." Be

cause we believe this, we intend to maintain substantial levels of forces in Europe and we have made clear our intention to maintain our combat forces in Europe at essentially present levels until at least the middle of 1971.

But those of my countrymen who believe that our forces in Europe should be reduced argue that Americans are shouldering more than their fair share of the total Western security burden. They say that a more equitable sharing of that burden, taking into account the added potential of the European allies in the last decade, is feasible.

We recognize that our NATO allies spent over $24 billion for defense in 1968 and that they maintain more than 2 million men under arms. But we also believe that those in America who call for a greater European contribution to the costs of maintaining our common security have a point. It is generally recognized, not only in America but in Europe, that the burden is not now equitably shared.

Progress in redressing that balance will permit the United States to be better able to maintain its own commitment of forces in Europe. And progress is being made. Ten NATO nations have agreed to increase defense spending substantially next year; during the ministerial meeting a number of countries agreed to expand their air defense system; others agreed to increase the commitment of existing national forces to NATO command. So I think it is fair to say that we are working in harmony in NATO and that NATO will be able to maintain peace in the area.

It is quite clear, and recognized by all NATO countries, that strong deterrent forces are necessary for our collective security. But we must constantly seek to strengthen our security further by working to eliminate those issues which make for insecurity.

We believe there may be an opportunity now to inaugurate a period of negotiations over these issues.

It is important, however, that certain fundamental principles must be adhered to before negotiations begin:

First, whatever kind of negotiations NATO allies enter into, individually or together, there must be the closest consultation among them.

Second, we must maintain the military strength of our alliance until such time as we may be able to reach agreements on mutual and balanced force reductions.

Third, we must be careful not to confuse the process of negotiation with real progress toward agreements, and we must not lull ourselves into a false sense of détente.

As you know, the United States has already entered into a number of negotiations and is prepared to enter into others as long as there are prospects for achieving meaningful agreements. We have felt, for example, that there might be prospects for useful negotiations in the armaments field, where mutual interests clearly exist.

-Within recent days, with ratifications by the United States and the Soviet Union and signature by the Federal Republic of Germany, we are close to putting into effect the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the valuable product of a long process of negotiation.

-The United States and the Soviet Union have agreed, and placed before the United Nations General Assembly, a draft treaty to ban the emplacement of nuclear weapons on the ocean floors, as we already have banned them from orbit in outer space.

-We have been engaged for the past 3 weeks in the preliminary phase of strategic arms limitation talks with the Soviet Union. We are serious about these strategic arms talks. We want to put an end to the competitive accumulation of ever more sophisticated weapons systems which can no longer add significantly to the security of either side. We want to limit, and if possible reduce on both sides, inventories of strategic weapons. The preliminary talks in Helsinki have gotten off to a good start. The atmosphere has been businesslike and without polemics. We expect the preliminary round to conclude in a couple of weeks, thereby providing the basis for proceeding soon to substantive talks.

These steps to prevent the spread and to curb the level of nuclear armament necessarily involve bilateral negotiations between the major nuclear powers. We will consult fully with our Atlantic allies, and we will take no steps which would weaken their security-which is, after all, our security.

At the same time, the search for solutions to the political questions which still divide Europe is a fundamental task of the alliance. It is one which the allies have given an importance equal to the task of military deterrence. This has been consistent NATO policy since adoption of the 1967 NATO study on the Future Tasks of the Alliance, undertaken at the suggestion of Belgium's distinguished Foreign Minister Pierre Harmel.

For many years NATO has given serious study to the difficult question of how security in Europe, now sustained by a high balance of armaments, could be maintained at a lower and less expensive level of arms on both sides. Since

June 1968, it has explicitly stated its belief that mutual force reductions could significantly contribute to lessening of tensions.

Yesterday, the NATO Foreign Ministers issued a declaration in which they noted the lack of response to our offer to work toward a mutual and balanced reduction of forces on either side of the line which still arbitrarily and unnaturally divides Europe.

Nevertheless, in the hope that at some time we might receive a positive response from the other side, we have now instructed the NATO authorities concerned to prepare specific models of such reductions and have reaffirmed our belief that an agreement in this field would be another concrete step toward ending the arms race. We hope that the Warsaw Pact nations will in time indicate interest in this proposal.

Meanwhile, the three powers with special responsibilities in Germany are seeking discussions with the Soviet Union to bring about an improvement in the situation of Berlin. And the Federal Republic of Germany has taken useful new initiatives to establish contacts with Eastern European states and with Eastern Germany in an effort to surmount obstacles which have caused severe tension in the political life in Central Europe for a generation.

We will continue to probe every available opening that offers a prospect for better EastWest relations, for the resolution of problems large or small, for greater security for all. In this the United States will continue to play an active role in concert with our allies.

The West has taken many initiatives in the search for lasting security in Europe. The allies already have named a number of areas which provide ample opportunity for the Warsaw Pact to show interest in constructive negotiations. We would welcome, for example:

-A demonstration of Soviet willingness toward improving the situation in and around Berlin.

-Constructive responses to the Federal Republic's efforts toward an improved modus vivendi between the two parts of Germany and bilateral agreements on the nonuse of force.

-A positive Warsaw Pact response to our repeated proposals for mutual and balanced force reductions.

But while NATO has identified issues on which East and West might negotiate to achieve an increase in security and a reduction in tensions, what has been the Warsaw Pact's response? It has proposed a European security conference based on what appears to be a nebulous and imprecise agenda.

What does the Soviet Union want to achieve by proposing such a conference?

Does it want to deal realistically with the issues which divide Europe, or does it seek to ratify the existing division of Europe?

Does it intend to draw a veil over its subjugation of Czechoslovakia?

Does it wish to use a conference to strengthen its control over the trade policies of other members of the Warsaw Pact?

Does it wish to seek to retain the right to intervene in Eastern Europe?

These are questions that have to be answered before meaningful negotiations can be entered into.

We, of course, want a better European security system than the one we have, if that can be found.

We want to resolve the basic political issues.

But the Warsaw Pact proposals do not deal with these fundamental questions. What is proposed cannot properly be described as a security conference at all. The Warsaw Pact countries have suggested merely (1) that a conference discuss an East-West agreement on the principle of nonuse of force-which has been a basic principle of the United Nations Charter for over 20 years, so that another pronouncement of the nonuse of force would have no meaning-and (2) increased trade and technical exchanges, for which regular diplomatic channels are always available.

We are opposed in practice to an unrealistic and premature exercise which could lead to disappointment and quite possibly a deterioration in East-West relations.

We would favor a negotiation that holds out realistic hope for a reduction of tensions in Europe. But we will not participate in a conference which has the effect of ratifying or acquiescing in the Brezhnev doctrine.

I have referred several times to the importance of a strong and healthy Western alliance. My NATO colleagues and I have just had a most successful ministerial meeting.

We cooperate not only in common defense but in common search for positive solutions to political problems. I believe that in the process the political arm of the alliance is developing a capacity for creative diplomacy which is just as unprecedented as the unity developed for collective security.

There is now yet another dimension of our alliance which should appeal to people on both sides of the Atlantic. We have come to recognize that we had better make certain that what we have been defending has been worth the effort.