Office of the Historian

100. Telegram From the Mission to the United Nations to the Department of State1

New York, October 5, 1971, 0002Z.

3140. Subj: Reactions to Secretary’s General Debate Speech.2

1.
Summary. Reactions to Secy’s speech are highly favorable with overwhelming majority lauding it as major substantive statement on principal international issues, deserving of careful study. Soviets pleased over reference to goal of cooperation in US-Sov relations but are somewhat reserved on ME. High level Egyptian comment has been unavailable. Both India and Pakistan call speech balanced. In general, speech has been praised by Africans, LAs and Europeans. Even those who oppose US position on Chirep compliment Secy on powerful presentation of US case. A French national in the Secretariat commented that it was a good speech which should win US friends. End Summary.
2.
Malik (USSR) was pleased with section on US-Sov relations while taking usual Sov line on ME that US concentrating everything on interim settlement thereby blocking efforts of Jarring and the Four. Soviets, immediately after speech, were reserved with “we’ll have to read it again” line. Later they were more forthcoming saying that it was a “peace speech.” In particular Chuchukin used the line to several that it was “conciliatory” and Sovs were “pleased.” Ovinnikov was particularly struck with ME point one that neither side can expect to achieve complete agreement on terms of overall settlement as part of interim agreement.
3.
Ionescu (Romania) found speech positive and particularly encouraging re US-Sov relations.
4.
Tekoah (Israel) was guarded but noted emphasis on interim agreement was consistent with Eban’s speech.
5.
Jamieson (UK) said it was a singularly effective speech. This opinion shared by Ruggiero (Italy).
6.
Waldheim (Austria) thought speech “very forceful.” On Chirep, until now some members felt US trying to save face for ROC. This no longer the case and any lingering doubts as to US seriousness put to rest.
7.
Mojsov’s (Yugo) on Chirep said speech was a very forceful presentation but it raised a false issue (expulsion). Mojsov’s convinced we are serious “the lines are drawn for battle.”
8.
Jakobson (Finland) very favorably impressed, particularly by US-Sov section. He appreciated sentence on successor to U Thant. Said speech contained so much substance on so many issues that it would require careful study.
9.
Both Sen (India) and Shahi (Pakistan) commented that speech was clear and balanced. Naturally Indians would have preferred greater stress on political settlement in EP and Paks less, but in general their reactions were decidedly favorable.
10.
Although both FonMin and Mohammed Riad were present for speech, neither could be reached afterwards. Kassem (Egypt) reportedly thought speech not specific enough on withdrawal. Teymour (Egypt) thought Secy’s remarks “good” and “balanced.” He liked ME point on statement Canal agreement would merely be step toward complete and full implementation of Res 242.
11.
Toukan (Jordan) thought speech, especially on ME “balanced.”
12.
Latin Americans all seem to be pleased based on very positive comments from Reps of Colombia, Bolivia, Paraguay and Nicaragua.
13.
Bayulken (Turkey) singled out ME portion saying it very clear and laid out current situation. On Chirep, Bayulken indicated his doubts as to possibility of US success remained unchanged.
14.
Farah (Somalia) and OAU Rep very pleased over acceptance of ICJ decision on Namibia.
15.
Jarring expressed great appreciation for way his mission was treated in speech. He also said he thought substance on ME was excellent.
16.
Czech Rep said speech was very constructive and well balanced—only thing he regretted was skepticism shown re world disarmament conference.
Bush
  1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, UN 3 GA. Limited Official Use. Repeated to London, Paris, Moscow, Tel Aviv, and to the Interests Section in Cairo.↩
  2. Secretary Rogers’ address to the UN General Assembly on October 4 is printed in Department of State Bulletin, October 25, 1971, pp. 437–444.↩