Rosenfeld Susan. Encyclopedia of American Historical Documents

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Europe to peace, security, justice and co-operation as well

as to rapprochement among themselves and with the other

States of the world,

Determined, in consequence, to give full effect to the

results of the Conference and to assure, among their States

and throughout Europe, the benefits deriving from those

results and thus to broaden, deepen and make continuing

and lasting the process of detente,

The High Representatives of the participating States

have solemnly adopted the following:

QUESTIONS RELATING TO SECURITY IN

EUROPE

The States participating in the Conference on Security

and Co-operation in Europe,

Reaffirming their objective of promoting better rela-

tions among themselves and ensuring conditions in which

their people can live in true and lasting peace free from

any threat to or attempt against their security;

Convinced of the need to exert efforts to make

detente both a continuing and an increasingly viable and

comprehensive process, universal in scope, and that the

implementation of the results of the Conference of Secu-

rity and Co-operation in Europe will be a major contribu-

tion to this process;

Considering that solidarity among peoples, as well as

the common purpose of the participating States in achiev-

ing the aims as set forth by the Conference on Security and

Co-operation in Europe, should lead to the development

of better and closer relations among them in all fields and

thus to overcoming the confrontation stemming from the

character of their past relations, and to better mutual

understanding;

Mindful of their common history and recognizing that

the existence of elements common to their traditions and

values can assist them in developing their relations, and

desiring to search, fully taking into account the individual-

ity and diversity of their positions and views, for possibili-

ties of joining their efforts with a view to overcoming

distrust and increasing confidence, solving the problems

that separate them and cooperating in the interest of

mankind;

Recognizing the indivisibility of security in Europe

as well as their common interest in the development of

co-operation throughout Europe and among themselves

and expressing their intention to pursue efforts accord-

ingly;

Recognizing the close link between peace and security

in Europe and in the world as a whole and conscious of the

need for each of them to make its contribution to the

strengthening of world peace and security and to the pro-

motion of fundamental rights, economic and social

progress and well-being for all peoples;

Have adopted the following:

1. (a) Declaration on Principles Guiding Relations

between Participating States

The participating States,

Reaffirming their commitment to peace, security and

justice and the continuing development of friendly rela-

tions and co-operation;

Recognizing that this commitment, which reflects the

interest and aspirations of peoples, constitutes for each

participating State a present and future responsibility,

heightened by experience of the past;

Reaffirming, in conformity with their membership in

the United Nations and in accordance with the purposes

and principles of the United Nations, their full and active

support for the United Nations and for the enhancement

of its role and effectiveness in strengthening international

peace, security and justice, and in promoting the solution

of international problems, as well as the development of

friendly relations and co-operation among States;

Expressing their common adherence to the principles

which are set forth below and are in conformity with the

Charter of the United Nations, as well as their common

will to act, in the application of these principles, in confor-

mity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the

United Nations;

Declare their determination to respect and put into

practice, each of them in its relations with all other partic-

ipating States, irrespective of their political, economic or

social systems as well as of their size, geographical location

or level of economic development, the following princi-

ples, which all are primary significance, guiding their

mutual relations:

I Sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in

sovereignty

The participating States will respect each other’s

sovereign equality and individuality as well as all the rights

inherent in and encompassed by its sovereignty, including in

particular the right of every State to juridical equality, to ter-

ritorial integrity and to freedom and political independence.

They will also respect each other’s right freely to choose and

develop its political, social, economic and cultural systems as

well as its right to determine its laws and regulations.

Within the framework of international law, all the par-

ticipating States have equal rights and duties. They will

respect each other’s right to define and conduct as it

wishes its relations with other States in accordance with

international law and in the spirit of the present Declara-

tion. They consider that their frontiers can be changed, in

accordance with international law, by peaceful means and

by agreement. They also have the right to belong or not to

belong to international organizations, to be or not to be a

party to bilateral or multilateral treaties including the right

to be or not to be a party to treaties of alliance; they also

have the right to neutrality.

1692 ERA 10: Contemporary United States

II Refraining from the threat of use of force

The participating States will refrain in their mutual

relations, as well as in their international relations in gen-

eral, from the threat or use of force against the territorial

integrity or political independence of any State, or in any

other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United

Nations and with the present Declaration. No considera-

tion may be invoked to serve to warrant resort to the threat

or use of force in contravention of this principle.

* * *

III Inviolability of frontiers

The participating States regard as inviolable all one

another’s frontiers as well as the frontiers of all States in

Europe and therefore they will refrain now and in the

future from assaulting these frontiers.

* * *

V Peaceful settlement of disputes

The participating States will settle disputes among

them by peaceful means in such a manner as not to endan-

ger international peace and security, and justice.

They will endeavour in good faith and a spirit of coop-

eration to reach a rapid and equitable solution on the basis

of international law.

For this purpose the will use such means as negotia-

tion, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial

settlement or other peaceful means of their own choice

including any settlement procedure agreed to in advance

of disputes to which they are parties.

In the event of failure to reach a solution by any of the

above peaceful means, the parties to a dispute will con-

tinue to seek a mutually agreed way to settle the dispute

peacefully.

Participating States, parties to a dispute among them,

as well as other participating States, will refrain from any

action which might aggravate the situation to such a

degree as to endanger the maintenance of international

peace and security and thereby make a peaceful settle-

ment of the dispute more difficult.

VI Non-intervention in internal affairs

The participating States will refrain from any inter-

vention, direct or indirect, individual or collective, in the

internal or external affairs falling within the domestic juris-

diction of another participating State, regardless of their

mutual relations.

* * *

Source:

John J. Maresca, To Helsinki: The Conference on Security and

Cooperation in Europe. Durham, N.C.: Duke University

Press, 1985, pp. 227–283.

Jimmy Carter, Human Rights Speech

at Notre Dame, 1977

Address delivered by President Jimmy Carter at Notre Dame

University on May 22, 1977. His speech was a major state-

ment outlining the administration’s central foreign policy

theme of championing the cause of human rights around the

world. He spelled out five “cardinal premises” that would

determine U.S. “global involvement.” They were advocating

human rights, establishing closer cooperation among the in-

dustrial democracies, pursuing détente with the Soviet Union

and China, supporting the developing nations against poverty

and hunger, and working with every country “to rise above

narrow national interest and work together” in order to “solve”

the major problems facing all humankind. Carter asserted that

in his presidency, “we have reaffirmed America’s commitment

to human rights as a fundamental tenet of our foreign policy.”

The address became most noted for Carter’s assertion that

“being confident of our own future we are now free of that

inordinate fear of communism which once led us to embrace

any dictator who joined our fear.”

Carter continued to advocate human rights throughout

the world after his defeat for a second term in 1980. As a result

of his mediation in a number of international disputes, Carter

was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.

________________________

_______________________

To Father Hesburgh and the great faculty of Notre Dame,

to those who have been honored this afternoon with the

degree from your great university, to the graduate and

undergraduate group who, I understand, is the largest in

the history of this great institution, friends and parents:

Thank you for that welcome. I’m very glad to be with

you. You may have started a new graduation trend which I

don’t deplore, that is, throwing peanuts on graduation day.

[ Laughter ] The more that are used or consumed the

higher the price goes. [ Laughter ]

I really did appreciate the great honor bestowed upon

me this afternoon. My other degree is blue and gold from

the Navy, and I want to let you know that I do feel a kin-

ship with those who are assembled here this afternoon. I

was a little taken aback by the comment that I had brought

a new accent to the White House. In the minds of many

people in our country, for the first time in almost 150

years, there is no accent. [ Laughter ]

I tried to think of a story that would illustrate two

points simultaneously and also be brief, which is kind of a

difficult assignment. I was sitting on the Truman Balcony

the other night with my good friend, Charles Kirbo, who

told me about a man who was arrested and taken in to

court for being drunk and for setting a bed on fire. When

the judge asked him how he pled, he said, “not guilty.” He

Foreign Policy Issues 1693

said, “I was drunk but the bed was on fire when I got in it.”

[ Laughter ]

I think most of the graduates can draw the parallel

between that statement and what you are approaching

after this graduation exercise. But there are two points to

that, and I’ll come to the other one in just a few minutes.

In his 25 years as president of Notre Dame, Father

Hesburgh has spoken more consistently and more effec-

tively in the support of the rights of human beings than any

other person I know. His interest in the Notre Dame Cen-

ter for Civil Rights has never wavered. And he played an

important role in broadening the scope of the center’s

work—and I visited there last fall—to see this work in-

clude, now, all people in the world, as shown by last

month’s conference here on human rights and American

foreign policy.

And that concern has been demonstrated again today

in a vivid fashion by the selection of Bishop Donal Lam-

ont, Paul Cardinal Arns, and Stephen Cardinal Kim to

receive honorary degrees. In their fight for human free-

doms in Rhodesia, Brazil, and South Korea, these three

religious leaders typify all that is best in their countries

and in our church. I’m honored to join you in recognizing

their dedication, their personal sacrifice, and their

supreme courage.

Quite often, brave men like these are castigated and

sometimes punished, sometimes even put to death,

because they enter the realm where human rights is a

struggle. And sometimes they are blamed for the very cir-

cumstance which they helped to dramatize, but it’s been

there for a long time. And the flames which they seek to

extinguish concern us all and are increasingly visible

around the world.

Last week, I spoke in California about the domestic

agenda for our Nation: to provide more efficiently for the

needs of our people, to demonstrate—against the dark

faith of our times—that our Government can be both com-

petent and more humane.

But I want to speak to you today about the strands that

connect our actions overseas with our essential character

as a nation. I believe we can have a foreign policy that is

democratic, that is based on fundamental values, and that

uses power and influence, which we have, for humane pur-

poses. We can also have a foreign policy that the American

people both support and, for a change, know about and

understand.

I have a quiet confidence in our political system.

Because we know that democracy works, we can reject the

arguments of those rulers who deny human rights to their

people.

We are confident that democracy’s example will be

compelling, and so we seek to bring that example closer to

those from whom in the past few years we have been sep-

arated and who are not yet convinced about the advantages

of our kind of life.

We are confident that the democratic methods are the

most effective, and so we are not tempted to employ

improper tactics here at home or abroad.

We are confident of our own strength, so we can seek

substantial mutual reductions in the nuclear arms race.

And we are confident of the good sense of the

American people, and so we let them share in the process

of making foreign policy decisions. We can thus speak

with the voices of 215 million, and not just of an isolated

handful.

Democracy’s great recent successes—in India, Portu-

gal, Spain, Greece—show that our confidence in this sys-

tem is not misplaced. Being confident of our own future,

we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism

which once led us to embrace any dictator who joined us

in that fear. I’m glad that that’s being changed.

For too many years, we’ve been willing to adopt the

flawed and erroneous principles and tactics of our adver-

saries, sometimes abandoning our own values for theirs.

We’ve fought fire with fire, never thinking that fire is bet-

ter quenched with water. This approach failed, with Viet-

nam the best example of its intellectual and moral poverty.

But through failure we have now found our way back to

our own principles and values, and we have regained our

lost confidence.

By the measure of history, our Nation’s 200 years are

very brief, and our rise to world eminence is briefer still. It

dates from 1945, when Europe and the old international

order lay in ruins. Before then, America was largely on the

periphery of world affairs. But since then, we have

inescapably been at the center of world affairs.

Our policy during this period was guided by two prin-

ciples: a belief that Soviet expansion was almost inevitable

but that it must be contained, and the corresponding belief

in the importance of an almost exclusive alliance among

non-Communist nations on both sides of the Atlantic. That

system could not last forever unchanged. Historical trends

have weakened its foundation. The unifying threat of con-

flict with the Soviet Union has become less intensive, even

though the competition has become more extensive.

The Vietnamese war produced a profound moral cri-

sis, sapping worldwide faith in our own policy and our sys-

tem of life, a crisis of confidence made even more grave by

the covert pessimism of some of our leaders.

In less than a generation, we’ve seen the world change

dramatically. The daily lives and aspirations of most human

beings have been transformed. Colonialism is nearly gone.

A new sense of national identity now exists in almost 100

new countries that have been formed in the last genera-

tion. Knowledge has become more widespread. Aspira-

tions are higher. As more people have been freed from

1694 ERA 10: Contemporary United States

traditional constraints, more have been determined to

achieve, for the first time in their lives, social justice.

The world is still divided by ideological disputes, dom-

inated by regional conflicts, and threatened by danger that

we will not resolve the differences of race and wealth with-

out violence or without drawing into combat the major

military powers. We can no longer separate the traditional

issues of war and peace from the new global questions of

justice, equity, and human rights.

It is a new world, but America should not fear it. It is

a new world, and we should help to shape it. It is a new

world that calls for a new American foreign policy—a pol-

icy based on constant decency in its values and on opti-

mism in our historical vision.

We can no longer have a policy solely for the industrial

nations as the foundation of global stability, but we must

respond to the new reality of a politically awakening world.

We can no longer expect that the other 150 nations

will follow the dictates of the powerful, but we must con-

tinue—confidently—our efforts to inspire, to persuade,

and to lead.

Our policy must reflect our belief that the world can

hope for more than simple survival and our belief that dig-

nity and freedom are fundamental spiritual requirements.

Our policy must shape an international system that will last

longer than secret deals.

We cannot make this kind of policy by manipulation.

Our policy must be open; it must be candid; it must be one

of constructive global involvement, resting on five cardinal

principles.

I’ve tried to make these premises clear to the Ameri-

can people since last January. Let me review what we have

been doing and discuss what we intend to do.

First, we have reaffirmed America’s commitment to

human rights as a fundamental tenet of our foreign policy.

In ancestry, religion, color, place of origin, and cultural

background, we Americans are as diverse a nation as the

world has even seen. No common mystique of blood or soil

unites us. What draws us together, perhaps more than any-

thing else, is a belief in human freedom. We want the

world to know that our Nation stands for more than finan-

cial prosperity.

This does not mean that we can conduct our foreign

policy by rigid moral maxims. We live in a world that is

imperfect and which will always be imperfect—a world

that is complex and confused and which will always be

complex and confused.

I understand fully the limits of moral suasion. We have

no illusion that changes will come easily or soon. But I also

believe that it is a mistake to undervalue the power of

words and of the ideas that words embody. In our own his-

tory, that power has ranged from Thomas Paine’s “Com-

mon Sense” to Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream.”

In the life of the human spirit, words are action, much

more so than many of us may realize who live in countries

where freedom of expression is taken for granted. The

leaders of totalitarian nations understand this very well.

The proof is that words are precisely the action for which

dissidents in those countries are being persecuted.

Nonetheless, we can already see dramatic, worldwide

advances in the protection of the individual from the arbi-

trary power of the state. For us to ignore this trend would

be to lose influence and moral authority in the world. To

lead it will be to regain the moral stature that we once had.

The great democracies are not free because we are

strong and prosperous. I believe we are strong and influ-

ential and prosperous because we are free.

Throughout the world today, in free nations and in

totalitarian countries as well, there is a preoccupation with

the subject of human freedom, human rights. And I

believe it is incumbent on us in this country to keep that

discussion, that debate, that contention alive. No other

country is as well-qualified as we to set an example. We

have our own shortcomings and faults, and we should

strive constantly and with courage to make sure that we are

legitimately proud of what we have.

Second, we’ve moved deliberately to reinforce the

bonds among our democracies. In our recent meetings in

London, we agreed to widen our economic cooperation,

to promote free trade, to strengthen the world’s monetary

system, to seek ways of avoiding nuclear proliferation. We

prepared constructive proposals for the forthcoming

meetings on North-South problems of poverty, develop-

ment, and global well-being. And we agreed on joint

efforts to reinforce and to modernize our common

defense.

You may be interested in knowing that at this NATO

meeting, for the first time in more than 25 years, all mem-

bers are democracies. Even more important, all of us reaf-

firmed our basic optimism in the future of the democratic

system. Our spirit of confidence is spreading. Together,

our democracies can help to shape the wider architecture

of global cooperation.

Third, we’ve moved to engage the Soviet Union in a

joint effort to halt the strategic arms race. This race is not

only dangerous, it’s morally deplorable. We must put an

end to it.

I know it will not be easy to reach agreements. Our

goal is to be fair to both sides, to produce reciprocal sta-

bility, parity, and security. We desire a freeze on further

modernization and production of weapons and a continu-

ing, substantial reduction of strategic nuclear weapons as

well. We want a comprehensive ban on all nuclear testing,

a prohibition against all chemical warfare, no attack capa-

bility against space satellites, and arms limitations in the

Indian Ocean.

Foreign Policy Issues 1695

We hope that we can take joint steps with all nations

toward a final agreement eliminating nuclear weapons

completely from our arsenals of death. We will persist in

this effort.

Now, I believe in detente with the Soviet Union. To

me it means progress toward peace. But the effects of

detente should not be limited to our own two countries

alone. We hope to persuade the Soviet Union that one

country cannot impose its system of society upon another,

either through direct military intervention or through the

use of a client state’s military force, as was the case with

Cuban intervention in Angola.

Cooperation also implies obligation. We hope that the

Soviet Union will join with us and other nations in playing

a larger role in aiding the developing world, for common

aid efforts will help us build a bridge of mutual confidence

in one another.

Fourth, we are taking deliberate steps to improve the

chances of lasting peace in the Middle East. Through

wide-ranging consultation with leaders of the countries

involved—Israel, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt—we have

found some areas of agreement and some movement

toward consensus. The negotiations must continue.

Through my own public comments, I’ve also tried to

suggest a more flexible framework for the discussion of the

three key issues which have so far been so intractable: the

nature of a comprehensive peace—what is peace; what

does it mean to the Israelis; what does it mean to their

Arab neighbors; secondly, the relationship between secu-

rity and borders—how can the dispute over border delin-

eations be established and settled with a feeling of security

on both sides; and the issue of the Palestinian homeland.

The historic friendship that the United States has with

Israel is not dependent on domestic politics in either

nation; it’s derived from our common respect for human

freedom and from a common search for permanent peace.

We will continue to promote a settlement which all of

us need. Our own policy will not be affected by changes in

leadership in any of the countries in the Middle East.

Therefore, we expect Israel and her neighbors to continue

to be bound by United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338,

which they have previously accepted.

This may be the most propitious time for a genuine

settlement since the beginning of the Arab- Israeli conflict

almost 30 years ago. To let this opportunity pass could

mean disaster not only for the Middle East but, perhaps,

for the international political and economic order as well.

And fifth, we are attempting, even at the risk of some

friction with our friends, to reduce the danger of nuclear

proliferation and the worldwide spread of conventional

weapons.

At the recent summit, we set in motion an interna-

tional effort to determine the best ways of harnessing

nuclear energy for peaceful use while reducing the risks

that its products will be diverted to the making of explo-

sives.

We’ve already completed a comprehensive review of

our own policy on arms transfers. Competition in arms

sales is inimical to peace and destructive of the economic

development of the poorer countries.

We will, as a matter of national policy now in our

country, seek to reduce the annual dollar volume of arms

sales, to restrict the transfer of advanced weapons, and to

reduce the extent of our coproduction arrangements about

weapons with foreign states. And just as important, we are

trying to get other nations, both free and otherwise, to join

us in this effort.

But all of this that I’ve described is just the beginning.

It’s a beginning aimed towards a clear goal: to create a

wider framework of international cooperation suited to the

new and rapidly changing historical circumstances.

We will cooperate more closely with the newly influ-

ential countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. We

need their friendship and cooperation in a common effort

as the structure of world power changes.

More than 100 years ago, Abraham Lincoln said that

our Nation could not exist half slave and half free. We

know a peaceful world cannot long exist one-third rich and

two-thirds hungry.

Most nations share our faith that, in the long run,

expanded and equitable trade will best help the develop-

ing countries to help themselves. But the immediate prob-

lems of hunger, disease, illiteracy, and repression are here

now.

The Western democracies, the OPEC nations, and the

developed Communist countries can cooperate through

existing international institutions in providing more effec-

tive aid. This is an excellent alternative to war.

We have a special need for cooperation and consulta-

tion with other nations in this hemisphere—to the north

and to the south. We do not need another slogan. Although

these are our close friends and neighbors, our links with

them are the same links of equality that we forge for the

rest of the world. We will be dealing with them as part of

a new, worldwide mosaic of global, regional, and bilateral

relations.

It’s important that we make progress toward normaliz-

ing relations with the People’s Republic of China. We see

the American and Chinese relationship as a central ele-

ment of our global policy and China as a key force for

global peace. We wish to cooperate closely with the cre-

ative Chinese people on the problems that confront all

mankind. And we hope to find a formula which can bridge

some of the difficulties that still separate us.

Finally, let me say that we are committed to a peace-

ful resolution of the crisis in southern Africa. The time has

1696 ERA 10: Contemporary United States

come for the principle of majority rule to be the basis for

political order, recognizing that in a democratic system the

rights of the minority must also be protected.

To be peaceful, change must come promptly. The

United States is determined to work together with our

European allies and with the concerned African States to

shape a congenial international framework for the rapid

and progressive transformation of southern African society

and to help protect it from unwarranted outside interfer-

ence.

Let me conclude by summarizing: Our policy is based

on an historical vision of America’s role. Our policy is

derived from a larger view of global change. Our policy is

rooted in our moral values, which never change. Our pol-

icy is reinforced by our material wealth and by our military

power. Our policy is designed to serve mankind. And it is

a policy that I hope will make you proud to be Americans.

Thank you.

Source:

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Jimmy

Carter, 1977. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing

Office, 1981–88. pp. 954– 962.

Panama Neutrality Treaty, 1977

Signed in Washington, D.C., by U.S. president Jimmy Carter

and Panama’s chief of government Brigadier General Omar

Torrijos, September 7, 1977, at the same time as the Panama

Canal Treaty, the Neutrality Treaty granted Panama control of

the Panama Canal at the end of 1999 and guaranteed the per-

manent neutrality of the canal. In addition, the Panama Canal

Treaty provided that the United States and Panama would con-

trol the operation and oversee the security of the canal jointly

until 1999, with increasing control being given to the Pana-

manians. The Neutrality Treaty further provided that both the

United States and Panama were responsible for defending the

canal, maintaining its neutrality, and keeping it open. Shipping

of all countries was to be guaranteed passage on a nondis-

criminatory basis. U.S. forces would have the right to act after

2000 to ensure that the canal remains open and secure. The

treaties were concluded after 14 years of negotiation, and they

replaced the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1903.

________________________

_______________________

The United States of America and the Republic of Panama

have agreed upon the following:

Article I

The Republic of Panama declares that the Canal, as an

international transit waterway, shall be permanently neu-

tral in accordance with the regime established in this

Treaty. The same regime of neutrality shall apply to any

other international waterway that may be built either par-

tially or wholly in the territory of the Republic of Panama.

Article II

The Republic of Panama declares the neutrality of the

Canal in order that both in time of peace and in time of

war it shall remain secure and open to peaceful transit by

the vessels of all nations on terms of entire equality, so that

there will be no discrimination against any nation, or its

citizens or subjects, concerning the conditions or charges

of transit, or for any other reason, and so that the Canal,

and therefore the Isthmus of Panama, shall not be the tar-

get of reprisals in any armed conflict between other

nations of the world. The foregoing shall be subject to the

following requirements:

(a) Payment of tolls and other charges for transit and

ancillary services, provided they have been fixed in confor-

mity with the provisions of Article III(c);

(b) Compliance with applicable rules and regulations,

provided such rules and regulations are applied in confor-

mity with the provisions of Article III;

acts of hostility while in the Canal; and

(d) Such other conditions and restrictions as are estab-

lished by this Treaty.

Article III

1. For purposes of the security, efficiency and proper

maintenance of the Canal the following rules shall apply:

(a) The canal shall be operated efficiently in accor-

dance with conditions of transit through the Canal, and

rules and regulations that shall be just, equitable and rea-

sonable, and limited to those necessary for safe navigation

and efficient, sanitary operation of the Canal;

(b) Ancillary services necessary for transit through the

Canal shall be provided;

vices shall be just, reasonable, equitable and consistent

with the principles of international law;

(d) As a pre-condition of transit, vessels may be

required to establish clearly the financial responsibility and

guarantees for payment of reasonable and adequate

indemnification, consistent with international practice and

standards, for damages resulting from acts or omissions of

such vessels when passing through the Canal. In the case

of vessels owned or operated by a State or for which it has

acknowledged responsibility, a certification by that State

that it shall observe its obligations under international law

to pay for damages resulting from the act or omission of

such vessels when passing through the Canal shall be

deemed sufficient to establish such financial responsibility;

Foreign Policy Issues 1697

(e) Vessels of war and auxiliary vessels of all nations

shall at all times be entitled to transit the Canal, irrespec-

tive of their internal operation, means of propulsion, ori-

gin, destination or armament, without being subjected, as

a condition of transit, to inspection, search or surveillance.

However, such vessels may be required to certify that they

have complied with all applicable health, sanitation and

quarantine regulations. In addition, such vessels shall be

entitled to refuse to disclose their internal operation, ori-

gin, armament, cargo or destination. However, auxiliary

vessels may be required to present written assurances, cer-

tified by an official at a high level of the government of the

State requesting the exemption, that they are owned or

operated by that government and in this case are being

used only on government non-commercial service.

2. For the purposes of this Treaty, the terms “Canal,”

“vessel of war,” “auxiliary vessel,” “internal operation,”

“armament” and “inspection” shall have the meanings

assigned them in Annex A to this Treaty.

Article IV

The United States of America and the Republic of Panama

agree to maintain the regime of neutrality established in

this Treaty, which shall be maintained in order that the

Canal shall remain permanently neutral, notwithstanding

the termination of any other treaties entered into by the

two Contracting Parties.

Article V

After the termination of the Panama Canal Treaty, only the

Republic of Panama shall operate the Canal and maintain

military forces, defense sites and military installations

within its national territory.

Article VI

1. In recognition of the important contributions of the

United States of America and of the Republic of Panama

to the construction, operation, maintenance, and protec-

tion and defense of the Canal, vessels of war and auxiliary

vessels of those nations shall, notwithstanding any other

provisions of this Treaty, be entitled to transit the Canal

irrespective of their internal operation, means of propul-

sion, origin, destination, armament or cargo carried. Such

vessels of war and auxiliary vessels will be entitled to tran-

sit the Canal expeditiously.

2. The United States of America, so long as it has

responsibility for the operation of the Canal, may continue

to provide the Republic of Colombia toll-free transit

through the Canal for its troops, vessels and materials of

war. Thereafter, the Republic of Panama may provide the

Republic of Colombia and the Republic of Costa Rica with

the right of toll-free transit.

Article VII

1. The United States of America and the Republic of

Panama shall jointly sponsor a resolution in the Organiza-

tion of American States opening to accession by all States

of the world the Protocol to this Treaty whereby all the sig-

natories will adhere to the objectives of this Treaty, agree-

ing to respect the regime of neutrality set forth herein.

2. The Organization of American States shall act as the

depositary for this Treaty and related instruments.

Article VIII

This Treaty shall be subject to ratification in accordance

with the constitutional procedures of the two Parties. The

instruments of ratification of this Treaty shall be

exchanged at Panama at the same time as the instruments

of ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty, signed this date,

are exchanged. This Treaty shall enter into force, simulta-

neously with the Panama Canal Treaty, six calendar

months from the date of the exchange of the instruments

of ratification. Done at Washington, this 7th day of

September, 1977, in duplicate, in the English and Spanish

languages, both texts being equally authentic.

Firmado en Washington, a los 7 dias de septiembre de

1977, en los idiomas ingles y espanol, siendo ambos textos

igualmente autenticos.

For the United States of America: Por Los Estados

Unidos De America:

For the Republic of Panama: Por La Republica De

Panama:

SIGNED

President of the United States of America

Presidente de los Estados de America

SIGNED

Head of government of the Republic of Panama

Jefe de Gobierno de la Republica de Panama

Source:

United States Treaties and Other International Agreements, Vol.

33, part 1, 1979–81, pp. 11– 34.

Camp David Accords, 1978

Two agreements (a so-called framework for peace) signed by

President Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Prime Minister Menachem

Begin of Israel September 17, 1978, after a 13-day conference

at the U.S. presidential retreat in Camp David, Maryland. U.S.

president Jimmy Carter engineered and led the long, intense

negotiations between Sadat and Begin, who agreed to work for

a full peace treaty within three months to end 30 years’

hostility between their two countries. In keeping with the

accords, Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula, taken in the Arab-

1698 ERA 10: Contemporary United States

Israeli “Six-Day” War in 1967, to Egypt. Interestingly, the Sinai,

which was several times as large as Israel prior to the war, pro-

vided that nation for the first and last time with land contain-

ing oil. Israel removed its settlements from the Sinai before

returning it to Egypt. Israel also temporarily halted building

new Jewish settlements in the West Bank, the area west of the

Jordan River, formerly belonging to Jordan and occupied by

Israel after the 1967 war. The Palestine Liberation Organiza-

tion (PLO), hard-line Arab states, and the Soviet Union de-

nounced the accords. Nevertheless, Israel and Egypt signed a

formal peace treaty in March 1979. However, the economic

benefits that Egypt expected to derive from the accords never

materialized, and Begin increased the Israeli presence in the

West Bank instead of granting additional autonomy. Sadat was

assassinated in 1981 by fellow Egyptians who advocated the

complete destruction of Israel.

________________________

_______________________

CAMP DAVID AGREEMENT

A FRAMEWORK FOR PEACE IN THE

MIDDLE EAST AGREED AT CAMP DAVID

Muhammad Anwar al-Sadat, President of the Arab Repub-

lic of Egypt, and Menachem Begin, Prime Minister of

Israel, met with Jimmy Carter, President of the United

States of America, at Camp David from September 5 to

September 17, 1978, and have agreed on the following

framework for peace in the Middle East. They invite other

parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict to adhere to it.

Preamble

The search for peace in the Middle East must be guided

by the following:

—The agreed basis for a peaceful settlement of the

conflict between Israel and its neighbors is United Nations

Security Council Resolution 242, in all its parts.

—After four wars during thirty years, despite intensive

human efforts, the Middle East, which is the cradle of civ-

ilization and the birthplace of three great religions, does

not yet enjoy the blessings of peace. The people of the

Middle East yearn for peace so that the vast human and

natural resources of the region can be turned to the pur-

suits of peace and so that this area can become a model for

coexistence and cooperation among nations.

—The historic initiative of President Sadat in visiting

Jerusalem and the reception accorded to him by the Par-

liament, Government and people of Israel, and the recip-

rocal visit of Prime Minister Begin to Ismailia, the peace

proposals made by both leaders, as well as the warm recep-

tion of these missions by the peoples of both countries,

have created an unprecedented opportunity for peace

which must not be lost if this generation and future gener-

ations are to be spared the tragedies of war.

—The provisions of the Charter of the United Nations

and the other accepted norms of international law and

legitimacy now provide accepted standards for the conduct

of relations among all States.

—To achieve a relationship of peace, in the spirit of

Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, future negotia-

tions between Israel and any neighbor prepared to negoti-

ate peace and security with it, are necessary for the

purpose of carrying out all the provisions and principles of

Resolutions 242 and 338.

—Peace requires respect for the sovereignty, territo-

rial integrity and political independence of every State in

the area and their right to live in peace within secure and

recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

Progress toward that goal can accelerate movement toward

a new era of reconciliation in the Middle East marked by

cooperation in promoting economic development, in

maintaining stability, and in assuring security.

—Security is enhanced by a relationship of peace and

by cooperation between nations which enjoy normal rela-

tions. In addition, under the terms of peace treaties, the

parties can, on the basis of reciprocity, agree to special

security arrangements such as demilitarized zones, limited

armaments areas, early warning stations, the presence of

international forces, liaison, agreed measures for monitor-

ing, and other arrangements that they agree are useful.

Framework

Taking these factors into account, the parties are deter-

mined to reach a just, comprehensive, and durable settle-

ment of the Middle East conflict through the conclusion of

peace treaties based on Security Council Resolutions 242

and 338 in all their parts. Their purpose is to achieve peace

and good neighborly relations. They recognize that, for

peace to endure, it must involve all those who have been

most deeply affected by the conflict. They therefore agree

that this framework as appropriate is intended by them to

constitute a basis for peace not only between Egypt and

Israel, but also between Israel and each of its other neigh-

bors which is prepared to negotiate peace with Israel on

this basis. With that objective in mind, they have agreed to

proceed as follows:

A. West Bank and Gaza

1. Egypt, Israel, Jordan and the representatives of the

Palestinian people should participate in negotiations on

the resolution of the Palestinian problem in all its aspects.

To achieve that objective, negotiations relating to the West

Bank and Gaza should proceed in three stages:

(a) Egypt and Israel agree that, in order to ensure a

peaceful and orderly transfer of authority, and taking into

account the security concerns of all the parties, there should

Foreign Policy Issues 1699

be transitional arrangements for the West Bank and Gaza

for a period not exceeding five years. In order to provide full

autonomy to the inhabitants, under these arrangements the

Israeli military government and its civilian administration

will be withdrawn as soon as a self-governing authority has

been freely elected by the inhabitants of these areas to

replace the existing military government. To negotiate the

details of a transitional arrangement, the Government of

Jordan will be invited to join the negotiations on the basis of

this framework. These new arrangements should give due

consideration both to the principle of self-government by

the inhabitants of these territories and to the legitimate

security concerns of the parties involved.

(b) Egypt, Israel, and Jordan will agree on the modal-

ities for establishing the elected self-governing authority in

the West Bank and Gaza. The delegations of Egypt and

Jordan may include Palestinians from the West Bank and

Gaza or other Palestinians as mutually agreed. The parties

will negotiate an agreement which will define the powers

and responsibilities of the self-governing authority to be

exercised in the West Bank and Gaza. A withdrawal of

Israeli armed forces will take place and there will be a

redeployment of the remaining Israeli forces into specified

security locations. The agreement will also include

arrangements for assuring internal and external security

and public order. A strong local police force will be estab-

lished, which may include Jordanian citizens. In addition,

Israeli and Jordanian forces will participate in joint patrols

and in the manning of control posts to assure the security

of the borders.

council) in the West Bank and Gaza is established and

inaugurated, the transitional period of five years will begin.

As soon as possible, but not later than the third year after

the beginning of the transitional period, negotiations will

take place to determine the final status of the West Bank

and Gaza and its relationship with its neighbors, and to

conclude a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan by the

end of the transitional period. These negotiations will be

conducted among Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and the elected

representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank and

Gaza. Two separate but related committees will be con-

vened, one committee, consisting of representatives of the

four parties which will negotiate and agree on the final sta-

tus of the West Bank and Gaza, and its relationship with its

neighbors, and the second committee, consisting of repre-

sentatives of Israel and representatives of Jordan to be

joined by the elected representatives of the inhabitants of

the West Bank and Gaza, to negotiate the peace treaty

between Israel and Jordan, taking into account the agree-

ment reached on the final status of the West Bank and

Gaza. The negotiations shall be based on all the provisions

and principles of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242.

The negotiations will resolve, among other matters, the

location of the boundaries and the nature of the security

arrangements. The solution from the negotiations must

also recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinian peo-

ple and their just requirements. In this way, the Palestini-

ans will participate in the determination of their own

future through:

(i) The negotiations among Egypt, Israel, Jordan and

the representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank

and Gaza to agree on the final status of the West Bank and

Gaza and other outstanding issues by the end of the tran-

sitional period.

(ii) Submitting their agreement to a vote by the

elected representatives of the inhabitants of the West Bank

and Gaza.

(iii) Providing for the elected representatives of the

inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza to decide how they

shall govern themselves consistent with the provisions of

their agreements.

(iv) Participating as stated above in the work of the

committee negotiating the peace treaty between Israel and

Jordan.

2. All necessary measures will be taken and provisions

made to assure the security of Israel and its neighbors dur-

ing the transitional period and beyond. To assist in provid-

ing such security, a strong local police force will be

constituted by the self-governing authority. It will be com-

posed of inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza. The

police will maintain continuing liaison on internal security

matters with the designated Israeli, Jordanian and Egyp-

tian officers.

3. During the transitional period, representatives of

Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and the self-governing authority will

constitute a continuing committee to decide by agreement

on the modalities of admission of persons displaced from

the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, together with necessary

measures to prevent disruption and disorder. Other mat-

ters of common concern may also be dealt with by this

committee.

4. Egypt and Israel will work with each other and with

other interested parties to establish agreed procedures for

a prompt, just and permanent implementation of the reso-

lution of the refugee problem.

B. Egypt—Israel

1. Egypt and Israel undertake not to resort to the threat or

the use of force to settle disputes. Any disputes shall be

settled by peaceful means in accordance with the provi-

sions of Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations.

2. In order to achieve peace between them, the parties

agree to negotiate in good faith with a goal of concluding

within three months from the signing of this Framework a

peace treaty between them, while inviting the other parties

1700 ERA 10: Contemporary United States

to the conflict to proceed simultaneously to negotiate and

conclude similar peace treaties with a view of achieving a

comprehensive peace in the area. The Framework for the

Conclusion of a Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel

will govern the peace negotiations between them. The par-

ties will agree on the modalities and the timetable for the

implementation of their obligations under the treaty.

C. Associated Principles

1. Egypt and Israel state that the principles and provisions

described below should apply to peace treaties between

Israel and each of its neighbors—Egypt, Jordan, Syria and

Lebanon.

2. Signatories shall establish among themselves rela-

tionships normal to States at peace with one another. To

this end, they should undertake to abide by all the provi-

sions of the Charter of the United Nations. Steps to be

taken in this respect include:

(a) Full recognition;

(b) Abolishing economic boycotts;

zens of the other parties shall enjoy the protection of the

due process of law.

3. Signatories should explore possibilities for eco-

nomic development in the context of final peace treaties,

with the objective of contributing to the atmosphere of

peace, cooperation and friendship which is their common

goal.

4. Claims Commissions may be established for the

mutual settlement of all financial claims.

5. The United States shall be invited to participate in

the talks on matters related to the modalities of the imple-

mentation of the agreements and working out the

timetable for the carrying out of the obligations of the par-

ties.

6. The United Nations Security Council shall be

requested to endorse the peace treaties and ensure that

their provisions shall not be violated. The permanent

members of the Security Council shall be requested to

underwrite the peace treaties and ensure respect for their

provisions. They shall also be requested to conform their

policies and actions which the undertakings contained in

this Framework.

For the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt:

A. Sadat

For the Government of Israel: M. Begin

Witnessed by: Jimmy Carter President of the United

States of America

Source:

A. S. Grenville and Bernard Wasserstein. The Major Interna-

tional Treaties since 1945: A History and Guide with Texts.

London: Methuen, 1987.

U.S.-Iran Agreement on Release of

the American Hostages, 1981

Agreement signed by the United States and Iran on January 19,

1981, the final day of Jimmy Carter’s presidency. The docu-

ment, signed by U.S. deputy secretary of state Warren Christo-

pher and Iranian executive state minister Behzad Nabavi,

called for the release of the 52 American hostages who had

been held in Iran since November 4, 1979. The takeover of the

American embassy by Iranian “students” came after an Islamic

government overthrew Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi who

had been trying to modernize his state. He had been put in

power in 1953 with the help of the United States. The agree-

ment called for the return of $8 billion in assets frozen by the

United States following the seizure of the hostages and the

U.S. embassy in Teheran in November 1979. In addition to

spelling out details of the asset transfer, the accord also called

for the establishment of an international tribunal to mediate

claims by American and Iranian nationals against the other

government. In addition, the United States agreed to lift trade

sanctions against Iran, promised to identify assets belonging to

the late Shah of Iran so that the Iranian government could lay

claim to them, and vowed not to interfere in Iran’s internal

affairs.

________________________

_______________________

To the Congress of the United States:

Pursuant to Section 204(b) of the International Emer-

gency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1703, I hereby

report to the Congress that I have today exercised the

authority granted by this Act to take certain measures with

respect to property of the Government of Iran and its con-

trolled entities and instrumentalities.

1. On November 14, 1979, I took the step of blocking

certain property and interests in property of the Govern-

ment of Iran and its controlled entities and instrumentali-

ties. This action was taken in response to a series of

aggressive actions by Iran, including the attack on the

United States Embassy in Tehran, the holding of U.S. cit-

izens and diplomats as hostages, and threats to withdraw

assets from United States banks, and otherwise seek to

harm the economic and political interests of the United

States. Subsequently, on April 7, 1980, and April 17, 1980,

I took further action restricting various kinds of transac-

tions with Iran by persons subject to the jurisdiction of the

United States.

2. Agreement has now been reached with Iran con-

cerning the release of the hostages and the settlement of

claims of U.S. nationals against Iran. Among other things

this agreement involves the payment by Iran of approxi-

mately $3.67 billion to pay off principal and interest out-

standing on syndicated loan agreements in which a U.S.

Foreign Policy Issues 1701