factors into account as a normal and necessary part of our planning and decision-making; the inadequacy of our institutions for dealing with problems that cut across traditional political boundaries; our dependence on conveniences, without regard for their impact on the environment; and more fundamentally, our failure to perceive the environment as a totality and to understand and to recognize the fundamental interdependence of all its parts, including man himself. As we are finding out day by day, both in public debate and private discussion, we cannot correct such deep-rooted causes overnight. Nor can we simply legislate them away. The need includes new knowledge, new perceptions, new attitudes--extending to all levels of government and throughout the private sector as well: to industry; to the professions; to each individual citizen in his job and in his home. It amounts to nothing less than a basic reform in the way our society looks at problems and makes decisions. Our educational system has a key role in bringing about this reform in the training of managers to deal with pollution, land planning, and all the technical requirements of a high quality environment. It is also vital that our entire society develop a new understanding and a new awareness of man's relation to his environment--what might be called "environmental literacy. This will require the development and teaching of environmental concepts at every point in the educational process. 11 While education may provide ultimate answers to long-range environmental problems, we cannot afford to defer reforms which are needed now. At the same time we cannot afford to overreact with projects that are ill conceived and hastily contrived, for this creates an imbalance on the other end of the environmental seesaw. The world has only begun to provide an institutional framework for effective environmental improvement-- one that now appears to be reversing an age-old thought process--by directing attention from producing new wonders, to controlling those that exist. 1. 2. 3. 4. Arny, Mary Travis. Ecology: A Writer's Handbook. New York: Ehrlich, Paul R. Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions. Jackson, Barbara Ward. Only One Earth: The Care and Mc Corny, James L. The Quality of the Environment. New 5. 6. Monsen, Joseph R. Business and the Changing Environment. Perry, John. Our Polluted World. Rev. ed. New York: 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Quigg, Philip W. Environment: The Global Issues. New York: Smith, Grahame J. C. Our Ecological Crisis: Its Biological, Studdard, Gloria J. Common Environmental Terms: A Glossary. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973. U. S. Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Quality. Fifth Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Govern- U. S. Department of State. World Environmental Quality: A PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC of CHINA The People's Republic of China with a population in excess of 800 million is only slightly larger than the United States. The core of China which contains most of this population is isolated from most of the world by mountains and the Pacific Ocean. Eighty percent of her work force is engaged in agriculture; thus very few workers are available for industrialization. She is suspicious of industrialized nations who exploited her land and people in the century prior to the 1950s. Since its establishment in 1949 the People's Republic of China has been preoccupied largely with internal problems. From the mid-sixties to the early seventies she was involved in the Great Proletarion Cultural Revolution - a product of Chairman Mao's doctrine of continuing revolution. He wanted to purge the party of pragmatic, bureaucratic elements who were turning toward Soviet style ideology. The Sino/Soviet split has been much discussed. Two elements are involved; the border clashes and ideology. The border clashes seem the lesser important. The main cause of the split appears to be ideology or the different interpretations of Marxist/Leninist doctrine. The Chinese call the Russians "Modern Revisionists", who collude with, and, at the same time, contend with the United States for hegemony and trade throughout the world. Communications between the United States and the People's Republic of China were minimal until 1972. The visit of the President of the United States on February 21 to 28,1972 eased this situation. These improved communications were continued by Secretary of State Kissinger in late November 1974, who returned to the United States with an invitation for President Ford to visit the People's Republic of China during 1975. The Joint Communique (which still applies), issued at the conclusion of President Nixon's 1972 visit is quoted below: "President Richard Nixon of the United States of America visited the People's Republic of China at the invitation of Premier Chou En-lai of the Peoples' Republic of China from February 21 to February 28, 1972. Accompanying the President were Mrs. Nixon, 587-271 O-75-15 U. S. Secretary of State William Rogers, Assistant to the President Dr. Henry Kissinger, and other American officials. "President Nixon met with Chairman Mao Tse-tung of the Communist Party of China on February 21. The two leaders had a serious and frank exchange of views on Sino-U. S. relations and world affairs. "During the visit, extensive, earnest and frank discussions were held between President Nixon and Premier Chou En-lai on the normalization of relations between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China, as well as on other matters of interest to both sides. In addition, Secretary of State William Rogers and Foreign Minister Chi Peng-fei held talks in the same spirit. "President Nixon and his party visited Peking and viewed cultural, industrial and agricultural sites, and they also toured Hangchow and Shanghai where, continuing discussions with Chinese leaders, they viewed similar places of interest. "The leaders of the People's Republic of China and the United States of America found it beneficial to have this opportunity, after so many years without contact, to present candidly to one another their views on a variety of issues. They reviewed the international situation in which important changes and great upheavals are taking place and expounded their respective positions and attitudes. "The U. S. side stated: Peace in Asia and peace in the world requires efforts both to reduce immediate tensions and to eliminate the basic causes of conflict. The United States will work for a just and secure peace; just, because it fulfills the aspirations of peoples and nations for freedom and progress; secure, because it removes the danger of foreign aggression. The United States supports individual freedom and social progress for all the peoples of the world, free of outside pressure or intervention. The United States believes that the effort to reduce tensions is served by improving communication between countries that have different ideologies so as to lessen the risk of confrontation through accident, miscalculation or misunderstanding. Countries should treat each other with mutual respect and be willing to compete peacefully, letting performance be the ultimate judge. No country should claim infallibility and each country should be prepared to re-examine its own attitudes for the common good. The United States stressed that the peoples of Indochina should be allowed to determine their destiny without outside intervention; its constant primary objective has been a negotiated solution; the eight-point proposal put forward by the Republic of Vietnam and the United States on January 27, 1972 represents a basis for the attainment of that objective; in the absence of a negotiated settlement the United States envisages the ultimate withdrawal of all U. S. forces from the region consistent with the aim of self-determination for each country of Indochina. The United States will maintain its close ties with and support for the Republic of Korea; the United States will support efforts of the Republic of Korea to seek a relaxation of tension and increased communication in the Korean peninsula. The United States places the highest value on its friendly relations with Japan; it will continue to develop the existing close bonds. Consistent with the United Nations Security Council Resolution of December 21, 1971, the United States favors the continuation of the ceasefire between India and Pakistan and the withdrawal of all military forces to within their own territories and to their own sides of the ceasefire line in Jammu and Kashmir; the United States supports the right of the peoples of South Asia to shape their own future in peace, free of military threat, and without having the area become the subject of great power rivalry. "The Chinese side stated: Wherever there is oppression, there is resistance. Countries want independence, nations want liberation and the people want revolution-- this has become the irresistible trend of history. All nations, big or small, should be equal; big nations should not bully the small and strong nations should not bully the weak. China will never be a superpower and it opposes hegemony and power politics of any kind. The Chinese side stated that it firmly supports the struggles of all the oppressed people and nations for freedom and liberation and that the people of all countries have the right to choose their social systems according to their own wishes and the right to safeguard the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of their own countries and oppose foreign aggression, interference, control and subversion. All foreign troops should be withdrawn to their own countries. "The Chinese side expressed its firm support to the peoples of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in their efforts for the attainment of their goal and its firm support to the seven-point proposal of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam and the elaboration of February this year on the two key problems in the proposal, and to the Joint Declaration of the Summit Conference of the Indochinese Peoples. It firmly supports the |