effective enhancement of the well-being of its people. I look forward to the opportunity for our two nations to work together in the cause of peace, freedom, and the welfare of mankind in accordance with the principles of the U.N. Charter.

U.S. Embassy Antananarivo's telegram 1501 (Aug. 19, 1977) to Dept. of State; Dept. of State File Nos. P77 0152-2241 and D77 0300-651.

Mr. Barrett also presented on August 16, 1977, the following letter of accreditation from Secretary Vance to Comorian Foreign Minister Mouzawoir Abdallah :

I have the honor to inform you that Robert S. Barrett IV, Chargé d'Affaires ad interim of the United States of America at Antananarivo, has been assigned to serve concurrently as Chargé d'Affaires ad interim of the United States of America to the Republic of the Comoros. I accordingly hereby accredit Mr. Barrett in the foregoing capacity and ask that you give credence to what he shall say on the part of the Government of the United States.

Mr. Barrett has been charged to conduct the affairs of this office in a manner that will further strengthen the friendship between the United States of America and the Republic of the Comoros. Therefore, I entrust him to your confidence.

Accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration. Dept. of State File No. P77 0152-2240.

General

Diplomatic Relations; Recognition and
Nonrecognition of Governments

In response to a question during his press conference of June 13, 1977, President Carter listed as a goal of his Administration the establishment of normal friendly relations with the 14 nations which did not have diplomatic relations with the United States when he took office :

We don't want to be in a position that once a country is not friendly to us, and once they are completely within the influence of the Soviet Union they should forever be in that status.

And as I've already indicated, and named several countries— Somalia, Ethiopia, Iraq, even more controversial nations like Vietnam, Cuba-I want to move as best I can to re-establish normal friendly relationships with those countries.

In some instances, the obstacles are quite severe, as in the case of Cuba and perhaps Vietnam. But I think this is what our Government ought to do. And I would like to have a situation when I go out of office that all the nations in the world have diplomatic relationships with us.

We now have 14 who don't, and I've been pursuing this aggressively

*

*

*

13 Weekly Comp. of Pres. Doc. 880 (June 20, 1977).

The 14 countries with which the United States did not have such diplomatic relations were Albania, Angola, Cambodia, the People's

Republic of China, the Comoros Islands, the People's Republic of the Congo, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Iraq, North Korea, Mongolia, Southern Rhodesia, Vietnam, and the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen.

The New York Times, June 14, 1977, p. 12. President Carter first spoke of the normalization of U.S. "relationships with all states which are ready to work with us in promoting global progress and global peace" in his address to representatives to the United Nations in New York on Mar. 17, 1977. 76 Dept. of State Bulletin 330 (1977).

Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher gave an address at Occidental College in Los Angeles, California, on June 11, 1977, concerning the normalization of U.S. relations with other governments. He summarized in part the current policy of the Carter Administration on establishing diplomatic relations with other governments. Portions of his address follow:

.

We live in an interdependent world. And in one way or another we find our fate and our futures tied increasingly to those of other peoples. If we cannot communicate easily with them, we cannot effectively promote our own interests or build new bonds of common interest.

This brings me to my central point: We believe that diplomatic relations help us to discharge our basic duty to protect the interests of our government and our citizens. By keeping open a channel of communication with other countries, we best serve our longrange objective of encouraging the growth of democratic institutions.

We maintain diplomatic relations with many governments of which we do not necessarily approve. The reality is that, in this day and age, coups and other unscheduled changes of government are not exceptional developments. Withholding diplomatic relations from these regimes after they have obtained effective control penalizes us. It means we forsake much of the chance to influence the attitudes and conduct of a new regime. Without relations we forfeit opportunities to transmit our values and communicate our policies. Isolation may well bring out the worst in the new government.

For the same reasons, we eschew withdrawal of diplomatic relations except in rare instances-for example the outbreak of war or events which make it physically impossible to maintain a diplomatic presence in another capital.

If we continue to withhold diplomatic relations, this hesitancy invites confusion and can become the center of a touchy political issue. Eventual establishment of diplomatic relations then comes wrongly to be considered as a form of approval. In short, it means that someday, when we seek to normalize relations, we will be painting on a dirty canvas.

Indeed, efforts to restore relations once broken often encounter special difficulties. Inevitably, constituencies in both countries develop an emotional investment in the absence of relations. Financial claims and counter-claims pile up, and there is a backlog of issues which might have been resolved if normal relations had existed. Faced with this legacy of problems, the process of restoring relations must be approached with great care and deliberation.

In sum, we believe normal diplomatic relations are an asset to promote other objectives, an asset we cannot deny ourselves without incurring substantial cost. As Churchill put it: "When relations are most difficult, that is the time diplomacy is most needed."

There is no certainty that two nations will be able to resolve their disputes by talking about them. But without effective communications, without some form of dialogue, the odds are high that there will be no progress at all.

This is true, as each of you knows, among individuals. So it is among nations, as well.

Dept. of State Press Release 269 (June 10, 1977).

The October 10, 1977, edition of the Department of State Bulletin contained the following article, entitled "Diplomatic Recognition," outlining differing criteria used by the United States for recognizing foreign governments from 1792 to the present and summarizing the status of relations between the United States and 11 governments with which the United States did not maintain relations in 1977:

A Foreign Relations Outline*

Recently President Carter expressed his desire that the United States work toward establishment and maintenance of normal diplomatic relations with the governments of all states. The United States now has diplomatic relations with over 130 governments of states. It has no diplomatic relations, or is in the process of normalizing relations, with 11 other governments of entities widely recognized as states. (We do not recognize Southern Rhodesia as an independent state, in accordance with U.N. decisions and resolutions.) In a few cases, the United States has withheld recognition from, or has suspended relations with, another government; in other cases, governments have suspended relations with us.

Under our constitutional system, recognition and the establishment of diplomatic relations are Presidential prerogatives. Establishing and maintaining diplomatic relations with governments, however, is not a unilateral process; both states must agree that it serves their national interests.

The United States maintains relations with other governments because it helps us achieve our basic foreign policy objectives: By

*Based on a Department of State publication in the GIST series, released August 1977. This outline is designed to be a quick reference aid on U.S. foreign relations. It is not intended as a comprehensive U.S. policy statement.

communicating directly with governments on a full range of issues by stating our views and listening to theirs-we can help avoid misunderstandings and affect the decisions and actions of other governments. This is particularly true in crises, when good communication is essential.

Criteria for Recognition

Diplomatic recognition of governments is a comparatively recent practice in the history of international relations. Traditionally some European governments used nonrecognition of revolutionary change to protect monarchies and to emphasize the unique legitimacy of dynastic heirs and their governments. France ignored this tradition by recognizing the United States during our Revolutionary War. Later, when the revolutionary French Government took power in 1792, Thomas Jefferson, our first Secretary of State, instructed the U.S. envoy in Paris to deal with it because it had been "formed by the will of the nation substantially declared."

Throughout most of the 19th century, the United States recognized stable governments without thereby attempting to confer approval. U.S. recognition policy grew more complex as various Administrations applied differing criteria for recognition and expressed differently the reasons for their decisions. For example, Secretary of State William Seward (1861-69) added as a criterion the government's ability to honor its international obligations; President Rutherford Hayes (1877-81) required a demonstration of popular support for the new government; and President Woodrow Wilson (1913-21) favored using recognition to spread democracy around the world by demanding free elections.

Other criteria have been applied since then. These include the degree of foreign involvement in the government as well as the government's political orientation, attitude toward foreign investment, and treatment of U.S. citizens, corporations, and government representatives.

One result of such complex recognition criteria was to create the impression among other nations that the United States approved of those governments it recognized and disapproved of those from which it withheld recognition. This appearance of approval, in turn, affected our decisions in ways that have not always advanced U.S. interests. In recent years, U.S. practice has been to deemphasize and avoid the use of recognition in cases of changes of governments and to concern ourselves with the question of whether we wish to have diplomatic relations with the new governments.

The Administration's policy is that establishment of relations does not involve approval or disapproval but merely demonstrates a willingness on our part to conduct our affairs with other governments directly. In today's interdependent world, effective contacts with. other governments are of ever-increasing importance.

Status of Relations

Albania. There has been no Albanian expression of interest in establishing diplomatic relations.

Angola. The United States looks forward eventually to establishing relations with Angola.

Cambodia. The new government of what is now Democratic Kampuchea has expressed no interest in establishing relations with the United States.

People's Republic of China. The P.R.C. and the United States maintain liaison offices in each other's capitals. The goal of U.S. policy is normalization of U.S.-P.R.C. relations on the basis of the Shanghai communique (1972).

Cuba. The United States is seeking to normalize relations with Cuba through negotiations based on strict reciprocity.

Equatorial Guinea. The United States suspended relations following a dispute over treatment of the U.S. Ambassador.

Iraq. The United States will reestablish diplomatic relations, which Iraq suspended, whenever Iraq desires.

North Korea. The United States is prepared to move toward improved relations, provided North Korea's allies take steps to improve relations with South Korea.

Mongolia. The United States has made clear to the Mongolian People's Republic that we are prepared to continue negotiations begun in 1973 aimed at establishing diplomatic relations.

Vietnam. The United States and Vietnam have begun discussions to explore the possibility of normalizing relations.

South Yemen. The United States looks forward to normalizing relations with South Yemen.

77 Dept. of State Bulletin 462-463 (1977). For the text of the Shanghai Communique, see 66 Dept. of State Bulletin 435–438 (1972).

People's Republic of the Congo

On June 15, 1977, John H. Trattner, Director of the Office of Press Relations of the Department of State, read the following joint communique between the United States and the People's Republic of the Congo concerning the resumption of full diplomatic relations:

An American delegation led by the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, William E. Schaufele, Jr., and a Congolese delegation led by Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation. Theophile Obenga, met in Bonn, Federal Republic of Germany, on June 6, 1977. As a result of this meeting, the Governments of the United States of America and the People's Republic of the Congo have agreed to end the suspension of their diplomatic relations as of June 7, 1977, and to reopen their embassies in Brazzaville and Washington.

The two governments express their hope that this step will strengthen relations between their countries and contribute substantially to bettering their mutual understanding and cooperation based on the principles of reciprocal respect, sovereign equality, and non-interference in internal affairs. In this connection, the two governments reaffirm their adherence to the principles of inter