(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Department of State bulletin"




^c-> 



3^:^4i^i^ 





Given By 



SZ S. SUP • 



3^ 



/ 



^ 



3/3. </ 



fHE DEPARTMENT OF iiTAT t 









INDEX 




VOLUME XXXV: Numbers 888-914 



July 2-December 31, 1956 



i 

FICIAL 



iECORD 



r: : u J 



y 



u^"\ 



Vol. ^^ 

Boston Public Library 
Superin'on-^ rit of nocuments 

MAR 1 1958 



Corrections for Volume XXXV 

The Editor of the Bulletin wishes to call atten- 
• tion to the following errors in volume XXXV : 

October 29, page 664, "President's Determination 
Concerning Aid to Yugoslavia" : The date in the 
press release line and in the first line should be Oc- 
tober 15 rather than October 16. 

November 19, page 798, right-hand column, fourth 
line from the top : "noble" should read "humble." 

December 3, page 871, "Proposal of Ceylon, India, 
and Indonesia" : The document number should be 
A/Res/408. 



THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 



DfPOSJTORY' 



^ ^^^3, / AiU 




Vol. XXXV, No. 901 



October 1, 1956 



SECOND 1.0ND0N CONFERENCE ON SUEZ CANAL 

Statements by Secretary Dulles 503 

Joint Statement and Declaration 507 

INTER-AMERICAN COMMITTEE OF PRESIDENTIAL 
REPRESENTATIVES HOLDS FIRST MEETING 

Statement by Milton S. Eisenhowef 511 

Text of Final Communique 513 

UNESCO AND AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY • by Assist- 

ant Secretary Wilcox 516 



ED STATES 
;iGN POLICY 



For index see inside back cover 



THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 




Vol. XXXV, No. 901 • Publication 6397 
October 1, 1956 



Boston Public Library 
3uperintpnr|«nt of Documents 

NOV 7 -1956 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington 26, D.C. 

Price: 

52 Issues, domestic $7.50, foreign $10.25 

Single coijy, 20 cents 

The printbig of this publication has been 
approved by the Director of the Bureau of 
the Budget (January 19, 1955). 

^ote: Contents of this publication are not 
copyrighted and items contained herein may 
be rei>rinted. Citation of the Departmen't 
OF State Bulletin as the source wUl be 
appreciated. 



Tlie Department of State BULLETIN, 
a weekly publication issued by the 
Public Serfices Division, provides the 
public and interested agencies of 
the Government with information on 
developments in the field of foreigrt 
relations and on the work of the 
Department of State and the Foreign 
Service. The BULLETIN includes se- 
lected press releases on foreign policy, 
issued by the White House and the 
Department, and statements and ad- 
dresses made by the President and by 
the Secret€try of State and other offi- 
cers of the Department, as tvell as 
special articles on various phases of 
international affairs and the func- 
tions of the Department. Informa- 
tion is included concerning treaties 
and international agreements to 
which the United States is or may 
become a party and treaties of gen- 
eral international interest. 

Publications of the Department, 
United Nations documents, and legis- 
lative material in the field of inter- 
national relations are listed currently. 



Second London Conference on Suez Canal 



SECRETARY DULLES' STATEMENT AT WHITE 
HOUSE, SEPTEMBER 17 

White House press release dated September 17 

Pi-esident Eisenhower and I have been talking 
over the Suez question in advance of my depar- 
ture today for I^ondon. The United Kingdom 
has called together another meeting of the repre- 
sentatives of the 18 governments which supported 
the views put to the Government of Egypt by the 
five-nation mission headed by Prime Minister 
Menzies of Australia.^ 

Let me make certain things quite clear: 

1. The United States is dedicated to seeking by 
peaceful means assurance that the Suez Canal will 
carry out the international purpose to which it is 
dedicated by the convention of 1888. 

2. AVe are not, however, willing to accept for 
ourselves, nor do we seek from other nations ac- 
ceptance of, an operating regime for the canal 
which falls short of recognizing the rights granted 
to canal users by the 1888 convention. 

3. We are not trying to organize any boycott 
of the canal, but we cannot be blind to the fact 
that conditions might become such that transit 
through the canal is impractical or greatly dimin- 
ished. There must always be ways to assure the 
movement of vital supplies, particularly oil, to 
Western Europe. Accordingly, we are carrying 
out planning as a prudent precaution. But our 
hope remains that satisfactory operating arrange- 
ments can be worked out with Egypt. 

At London we will consider developments since 
the previous conference on the Suez adjourned 
August 23 and, I hope, find a common approach 
to the future. 



SECRETARY DULLES' STATEMENT AT FIRST 
PLENARY SESSION, SEPTEMBER 19 

Press release 497 dated September 20 

Our meeting here last month gave rise to solid 
hope that the Suez Canal problem could be settled. 
Eighteen of us had come to an agreement. We 
represented nations of Europe, Asia, Africa, 
Australasia, and America. Our shipping consti- 
tuted over 90 percent of all the Suez Canal ship- 
ping. Among us were those whose patterns of 
trade showed differing, yet important, dependence 
upon the canal. It was no small achievement that 
out of that diversity agreement was reached. That 
was possible only because there prevailed among 
us a spirit of conciliation, and of urgency, born 
out of the gravity of the situation with which the 
Government of Egypt has confronted us. 

What we agreed upon was a program to assure 
permanently an efficient and dependable operation, 
maintenance, and development of the Suez Canal 
in accordance with the treaty of 1888.^ That 
program was scrupulously respectful of the sover- 
eignty of Egypt. 

However, as our Committee of Five has just 
reported to us, the Government of Egypt unquali- 



' For background, see Bulletin of Aug. 27, 19.56, p. 335 ; 
Sept. .3. 1956. p. 371 ; and Sept. 24, 1956, p. 467. 

' For text of 18-nation proposals, see ibid., Sept. 3, 1956. 
p. 373. 



About the Bulletin's new cover . . . 

For 7 years following its inception in July 1939, 
the Bulletin appeared in a plain black-and-white 
cover. With the issue of October 6, 1946, the publi- 
cation adopted a more distinctive cover design 
using color. 

Now the Bulletin has undergone another trans- 
formation. The new cover, designed by the Divi- 
sion of Visual Services of the Department of State, 
gives greater prominence and readability to the 
table of contents and permits a wider range of color 
tones. As has been the practice during the last 
10 years, the color will be changed every 6 months 
to indicate the beginning of a new volume. 



October 7, 7956 



503 



fiedly refused to consider our proposal as a basis 
of negotiation. It made no counterproposal. 

This attitude of Egypt has created a new and 
difficult situation. 

Exercising the restraint enjoined by the charter 
of the United Nations, we continue to seek, by 
peaceful means, a solution of this difficult problem. 

Certain things are, I think, clear. 

1. The convention of 1888 gives our vessels the 
right at all times to pass through the Suez Mari- 
time Canal as a free and open waterway. 

2. Those rights are jeopardized by the action of 
the Egyptian Government in preventing the Uni- 
versal Suez Canal Company from exercising its 
agreed functions and in Egypt itself usurping all 
of those functions. 

It is true that, although the Egyptian Govern- 
ment has unilaterally terminated the concession to 
the Universal Suez Canal Company, which was 
part of the system referred to and established by 
the convention of 1888, that Government says that 
it will nevertheless live up to the convention itself 
and assure a fair and equal operation of the canal. 
But the testing issue is whether the Government 
of Egypt accepts that the parties to, and benefici- 
aries of, the convention of 1888 may in fact have 
the facilities needed to assure them in the exercise 
of their rights. If the Government of Egypt in- 
sists that ships' masters be in the position of sup- 
pliants, who can never pass through the canal 
except under such conditions as the Government 
of Egypt may from time to time impose, then 
there is no guaranty of free and secure passage 
such as the convention of 1888 prescribes. 

I know that the Government of Egypt has 
argued that it can always, by the use of force, 
interrupt traffic through the Suez Canal and that 
therefore transit must depend on Egypt's good 
faith and good will. But there are many sanc- 
tions against open and forcible interruption of 
free passage. The same is not true if any one 
government dominates and controls all phases of 
operation. The operation of the Suez Canal is a 
highly complicated, intricate affair. It offers infi- 
nite possibilities of covert violation and the prac- 
tice, in obscurity, of preferences and discrimimi 
tions. Lack of efficiency can be a grave hazard. 
It is against risks of this kind that the users can, 
and I believe should, protect themselves in the 
exercise of their rights under the 1888 treaty. 
The economic well-being of many nations and 



peoples is at stake, and there are no adequate sanc- 
tions against the dangers I describe. j 

3. The third point I would like to make is this : i 
When vital rights are threatened, it is natural and 
elemental to join to meet the common danger. 

The Government of Egypt has warned us not to 
join together in association. It is natural that it 
should prefer the canal users to be unorganized 
and divided. I recall that in its memorandum 
of September 10, 1956, to the Secretary-General J 
of the United Nations and to many governments,^ 1 
the Egyptian Government seeks the creation of a 
negotiating body that will reflect what it calls 
"different views." But for those endangered to 
come together and to harmonize their views is an 
elemental right, not to be forgone. 



Outline of Proposal for Association 

What is it that we seek? It is nothing hostile 
to, or prejudicial to, Egypt. 

Let me outline briefly the proposal for associa- 
tion as it is understood by the Government of the 
United States. 

1. It means first of all that we should continue 
our present association. This not for the purpose 
of enabling any one or more of us to impose 
our views upon any of our associates. The only 
basis for association is such a common will as we 
may freely achieve. Nor is it our purpose to coerce 
Egypt. It is merely that the necessities of the 
situation make continuing association useful for 
ourselves and for all who depend upon the canal. 
Also, such association will be in the interest of 
Egypt whenever she is willing constructively to 
seek a solution with those who are chiefly con- 
cerned. Also, it is in the interest of woi-ld peace 
that we stand together. 

2. We would, I suppose, in association, continue 
to accept, as a basis for the negotiation of a perma- 
nent solution, our joint statement of August 23, 
1956. 

3. We would, I suggest, find it useful to have 
a small operating staff which would be ready to 
assist our ships, and the ships that serve our coun- 
tries, in operating through the canal. We need 
not, I think, exclude the possibility of finding, on 
a provisional, de facto, practical operating basis, 
a measure of cooperation with the Egyptian canal 
autliorities, even though the Government of Egypt 



' Not printed. 



504 



Department of State Bulletin 



Extemporaneous Remarks Made by Secretary Dulles 
at Conclusion of Second Plenary Session, September 19 



I would like to indicate a little bit the broad perspec- 
tive in which the United States, at least, sees this 
meeting. This meeting is far more important than just 
the question of whether a boat or two gets through the 
canal or does not get through, or even whether the 
canal breaks down. We are dealing with one of the 
most significant aspects of postwar life. Upon what we 
do, in my opinion, will very largely depend the question 
of whether or not, in fact, we are going to build a 
peaceful world. 

Our problem is no less than that In its importance. 
Now, why do I say that? I say that because we all 
want a world in which force Is not used. True, but 
that is only one side of the coin. If you have a world 
iu which force is not used, you must also have a world 
in which a just solution of problems of this sort can be 
achieved. I don't care how many words are written 
into the charter of the United Nations about not using 
force. If, in fact, there Is not, as a substitute for force, 
some way to get just resolutions of some of these prob- 
lems, inevitably the world will fall back again into 
anarch.v and into chaos. 

And I would like to point out, fellow delegates, that 
the United Nations Charter itself does not just say, 
"There must be peace." What does it say? The very 
first article of the United Nations Charter says that 
the purpose of the United Nations is to bring about 
settlements "by peaceful means, and in conformity with 
the principles of justice and international law." And 
if that latter part is forgotten, the first part of it will 
inevitably come to be ignored. 

We have to realize, when we have to deal with prob- 
lems of this character, that we are not really in the 
long run furthering the cause of peace, even peace for 
those of us who seem remote from the particular prob- 
lem, if we don't feel that we have just as much a 
responsibility to try to seek a solution "in conformity 
with the principles of justice and international law" 
as we have a responsibility to try to prevent the use 
of force. If we only put our emphasis upon one side of 
that problem and forget the other, then our efforts are 
going to be doomed. And the hopes represented by this 
charter of the United Nations are equally going to be 
doomed. 

Now we are faced here with a problem whereby 
great nations are faced with a great peril. Nobody, 
I think, can fairly dispute Oiat fact. It is a peril that 
they could readily remedy if they resorted to the 



methods which were lawful before this charter was 
adopted. Then, we wouldn't be sitting around here — 
perhaps somebody else wouldn't be sitting where he is, 
either. But those days, we hope, are past. There has 
been exercised, and is being exercised, a great restraint 
in the face of a great peril. But you cannot expect that 
to go on indefinitely unless those of us who appreciate 
the problem, who are sympathetic with it, rally our 
forces to try to bring about a settlement which is not 
only a peaceful settlement but a settlement "in con- 
formity with the principles of justice and international 
law." 

Some may feel, although I do not think anyone here 
feels — it could be felt by some nations that are not 
immediately involved in this problem — that the only 
aspect of it that concerns them is the problem of peace 
and that, if you can just be sure that there won't be 
force used, you can just forget about the rest of it. 
That is only half of the problem, and you cannot solve 
the problem just by halfway measures which relate 
only to peace and which do not also put the full weight 
of our strength behind what we believe to be a solu- 
tion "in conformity with the principles of justice and 
international law." 

Now, we agreed on what we thought were principles 
of justice and international law in relation to this 
matter. Our conclusions are reflected in the statement 
that we agreed upon in the month of August. We are 
here primarily because we are the 18 who not only have 
this great interest of our own in the situation but 
because we agree on the principles of international 
law and of justice as applicable to this situation. I 
believe that we owe it to ourselves, to every one of 
the nations here involved, to stand together to try to 
work this thing out, not just in terms of peace but to 
work it out in terms of bringing about a just solution 
in accordance with the principles of international law 
and in accordance with the provisions of the charter. 
I believe if we don't do that, if we scatter, thinking 
that the problem is solved because perhaps the danger 
of war seems a little less than it did, then I believe we 
will have done a great disservice to ourselves. 

What we do in that respect — if that should be what 
we would do — would come back to plague us and haunt 
us in the days to come. So I say, let's stick together 
in this proposition and continue to work not only for 
"peace" but also for peace "in conformity with the 
principles of justice and international law." 



may not at the present time be willing to agree 
upon a permanent arrangement to be embodied in 
treaty form. 

Such a staff might, I suggest, be under an ad- 
ministrative agent knowledgeable in shipping 



matters who could act as desired on behalf of the 
ships of the members : He could retain and make 
available experienced pilots; he could assist the 
ships of members in arranging their orderly par- 
ticipation in the pattern of traffic through the 



October I, J 956 



505 



canal ; he could help coordinate routes through or 
around the canal, if the latter proved necessary; 
he could be authorized to act as the agent of the 
shipowners and collect and pay out such sums of 
money as are appropriate in connection with the 
maintenance of and transit through the canal, and 
the performance of his other duties. 

4. It would, I think, be useful if our association 
had a small governing board chosen from among 
our number who would be able to keep us informed 
with respect to developments, call us together 
whenever there was occasion, and appoint the ad- 
ministrative agent and fix his authority and the 
principles which would govern and control his 
action on behalf of the association. 

It is, I suppose, inevitable that those interested 
in the movement of passengers and freight be- 
tween the East and the West and in the production 
of oil and other goods for such transit should now 
be thinking in terms of long-range alternatives to 
the Suez Canal. For example, there is much talk 
at the present time about larger tankers which 
could go around the Cape of Good Hope with 
greater economy than smaller tankers passing 
through the canal. There is talk of new pipelines. 
I would hope that the governing board of our 
users' association would keep in touch with all of 
these projects and keep all of the members in- 
formed of any serious developments which would 
materially affect our economic lives. 

5. It would, I think, be useful if the association 
had a modest working fund to be advanced ini- 
tially by the members and reimbursed out of sums 
hereafter collected from member ships for serv- 
ices rendered. 

6. Membership in the association would not, as 
we see it, involve the assumption by any member 
of any obligation. It would, however, be hoped 
that members of the association would voluntarily 
take such action with respect to their ships and 
the payment of canal dues as would facilitate the 
work of the association and build up its prestige 
and authority, and consequently its ability to 
serve. This action, I emphasize, would be entirely 
a voluntary action by each of the member govern- 
ments if it saw fit to take it. 

Cooperation on Practical Basis 

Such, in broad outline, could be the association 
that we oi'ganize. The extent of its practical 
utility will, of course, depend much, though not 
wholly, upon Egypt's attitude. But our readi- 



ness to cooperate with Egypt on a practical basis 
serves again to demonstrate our desire to leave no 
reasonable step untried in the search for a solu- 
tion of the grave problem that confronts us and, 
indeed, the world. 

This readiness of ours to cooperate with Egypt 
on a de facto provisional basis may also suggest a 
provisional solution which the United Nations 
might find it useful to invoke while the search for 
a permanent solution goes on. It has, I know, 
been the thinking of many of us that, if the prin- 
cipal parties to the Suez dispute are unable to 
find a solution by means of their own choosing, the 
offices of the United Nations should be availed 
of. 

The United States believes that action along 
the lines here suggested will helpfully increase 
the possibilities of a peaceful and constructive 
solution. 



SECRETARY DULLES' FINAL REMARKS AT CON- 
CLUDING SESSION, SEPTEMBER 21 

Press release 501 dated September 22 

Mr. Chairman [British Foreign Secretary 
Selwyn Lloyd], as the proposal for the users' as- 
sociation has been evolved here, it does not, as we 
see it, impose any such legal obligations upon the 
members as would require my Government to sub- 
mit it to the Senate or the Congress for its action. 
It is an organization designed to promote the 
exercise by our citizens of rights which we believe 
that they have, and to settle existing difficulties, 
and to be, in general, an instrumentality for 
peace and order in this matter. 

Under these circumstances, my Government 
feels in a position to act at once on the matter. 
And I expect before leaving London this night to 
leave with you, Mr. Chairman, a statement on 
behalf of my Government informing you that 
we subscribe to the declaration, that it will be our 
intention to comply loyally with its letter and 
spirit and to seek to promote the purposes which 
are set out in the document. 

In concluding, Mr. Chairman, I want to join 
with others who have expressed their appreci- 
ation to you of the way in which you have con- 
ducted this conference, and to your Government 
for the courtesies and facilities that it has ex- 
tended to us. 

I believe that this conference has been of very 
great importance to finding peace in the way in 



506 



Department of State Bulletin 



which I suggested earlier, at least for now, that 
is, by working for a solution of these problems in 
accordance with the principles of justice and in- 
ternational law. I hope that we can stay to- 
gether for the future, because I believe that the 
risk of war increases as our disunity increases, 
and the chance of peace increases as our unity is 
preserved. 

I realize that we all face differing problems and 
that the circumstances for some are difficult. But 
I think that all can feel that, as we maintain our 
unity, we are making an indispensable contribu- 
tion today to the kind of international effort 
which any one of us may be calling for in the 
futui'e to help us out of predicaments in which we 
may be. 

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we have served a 
very important purpose and it is my Govern- 
ment's intention to continue along this way. 

MR. DULLES TO MR. LLOYD, SEPTEMBER 21 

I am glad to inform you that the Government of 
the United States subscribes to the Declaration 
providing for a Cooperative Association of Suez 
Canal Users.'' 

The United States as a member of this Associa- 
tion will seek in cooperation with the other Mem- 
bers to assist the Association to achieve its in- 
tended purposes. 

Immediately upon my return steps will be taken 
with our Treasury officials and with the represent- 
atives of owners of American flag vessels which 
largely transit the Suez Canal with a view to 
perfecting this cooperation in terms of actual 
operating practices. 



STATEMENT AND DECLARATION ISSUED AT 
FINAL SESSION, SEPTEMBER 21 

Press release 502 dated September 22 

Statement Issued by the Second London Confer- 
ence on the Suez Canal 

Representatives of the 18 Governments who 
joined in the proposals which were subsequently 
submitted to the Egyptian Government by the 
Five Nation Committee presided over by the Prime 
Minister of Australia, the Right Honorable Robert 
Menzies, as a basis for negotiating a settlement of 

* The name of the association was subsequently changed 
to the Suez Canal Users Association. 



the Suez Canal question, met in London from Sep- 
tember 19 to 21, 1956. Their purpose was to con- 
sider the situation in the light of the report of that 
Committee and other developments since the first 
London Conference. 

They noted with regret that the Egyptian Gov- 
ernment did not accept these proposals and did not 
make any counterproposals to the Five Nation 
Committee. 

It is the view of the Conference that these pro- 
posals still offer a fair basis for a peaceful solution 
of the Suez Canal problem, taking into account the 
interests of the user nations as well as those of 
Egypt. The IS Governments will continue their 
efforts to obtain such a settlement. The proposal 
made by the Egyptian Government on September 
10 was placed before the Conference but it was 
considered too imprecise to afford a useful basis 
for discussion. 

A Declaration was drawn up providing for the 
establishment of a Suez Canal Users Association. 
The text of this Declaration is annexed hereto. 
This Association is designed to facilitate any steps 
which may lead to a final or provisional solution 
of the Suez Canal problem. It will further co- 
operation between the Governments adhering to it, 
concerning the use of the Canal. For this purpose 
it will seek the cooperation of the competent Egyp- 
tian authorities pending a solution of the larger 
issues. It will also deal with such problems as 
would arise if the traffic through the Canal were 
to diminish or cease. The Association will be 
established as a functioning entity at an early date 
after the delegates to this Conference have had an 
opportunity to consult in relation thereto with 
their respective Governments. 

The Conference noted that on September 12, 
1956, the Governments of the U.K. and France 
informed the Security Council of the United 
Nations of the situation,^ and that subsequently, 
on September 17, the Government of Egypt also 
made a communication to the Security Council.'^ 
The Conference considers that recourse should be 
had to the United Nations whenever it seems that 
this would facilitate a settlement. 

The representatives of the 18 Governments have 
found their cooperation at the Conference valu- 
able and constructive. The 18 Governments will 
continue to consult together in order to maintain 



' U.N. doc. S/3645. 
' U.N. doc. S/3650. 



October 1, 7956 



507 



a common approach to the problems which may 
arise out of the Suez question in the future. 

It is the conviction of the Conference that the 
course outlined in this statement is capable of 
producing by peaceful means a solution which is 
in conformity with the principles of justice and 
international law as declared in Article 1 of the 
Charter of the United Nations. 

Declaration Providing for the Establishment of a 
Suez Canal Users Association 

I. The members of the Suez Canal Users As- 
sociation (Scua) shall be those nations which have 
participated in the second London Suez Confer- 
ence and which subscribe to the present Declara- 
tion, and any other adhering nations which con- 
form to criteria to be laid down hereafter by the 
Association. 

II. ScuA shall have the following purposes : 

(1) To facilitate any steps which may lead to a 
final or provisional solution of the Suez Canal 
problem and to assist the members in the exercise 
of their rights as users of the Suez Canal in con- 
sonance with the 1888 Convention, with due regard 
for the rights of Egypt ; 

(2) To promote safe, orderly, efficient and eco- 
nomical transit of the Canal by vessels of any 
member nation desiring to avail themselves of the 
facilities of Scua and to seek the cooperation of 
the competent Egyptian authorities for this pur- 
pose; 

(3) To extend its facilities to vessels of non- 
member nations which desire to use them ; 

(4) To receive, hold and disburse the revenues 
accruing from dues and other sums which any user 
of the Canal may pay to Scua, without prejudice 
to existing rights, pending a final settlement; 

(5) To consider and report to members regard- 
ing any significant developments affecting the use 
or non-use of the Canal ; 

(6) To assist in dealing with any practical 
problems arising from the failure of the Suez 
Canal adequately to serve its customary and in- 
tended purpose and to study forthwith means that 
may render it feasible to reduce dependence on 
the Canal; 

(7) To facilitate the execution of any provisional 
solution of the Suez problem that may be adopted 
by the United Nations. 

III. To carry out the above mentioned purposes : 



(1) The members shall consult together in a 
Council on which each member will be repre- 
sented ; 

(2) Tlie Council shall establish an executive 
group to which it may delegate such powers as it 
deems appropriate ; 

(3) An Administrator, who shall, inter alia, 
make the necessary arrangements with shipping 
interests, will be appointed to serve under the 
direction of the Council through the executive 
group. 

IV. Membership may at any time be terminated 
by giving 60 days' notice. 



Proposal To Exchange Flights 
Over Arctic With U.S.S.R. 

Press release -inc dated September 20 
DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCEMENT 

The United States Government on September 
19 informed the Government of the U.S.S.R. that 
it is prepared to enter into an agreement with the 
Soviet Government for reciprocal aerial observa- 
tion of Arctic ice in connection with the Interna- 
tional Geophysical Year, 1957-58, including ex- 
change of landing rights and the use of equipment, 
facilities, and personnel related to the flights.^ 
A note outlining the proposal by the U.S. Gov- 
ernment was delivered to the Soviet Embassy by 
the Department of State in Washington. 

Agreement is being sought through diplomatic 
channels on specific operating details such as a 
schedule of flights, designation of landing sites, 
and other factors. It is anticipated that the 
flights will begin in the spring of 1957 and will 
coincide with the period of maximum daylight, 
approximately March through September. The 
suggested American terminal is Nome, Alaska, 
while the suggested Soviet terminal is Murmansk. 

The U.S. proposal is designed to increase the 
potentials for geophysical research into the dy- 
namics of the flow of ice in the Arctic Basin, thus 
providing vital scientific knowledge of value to all 
nations. From the data collected it should be 
possible to determine the laws of motion of the 
movement of portions of the icepack and the ice- 

' For background on the International Geophysical Year, 
see Bulletin of Dec. 12, 1955, p. 989. For information on 
the IGY satellite program, see iUd., Aug. 13, 1956, p. 280. 



508 



Department of State Bulletin 



pack as a whole. The extent of melting can only 
be ascertained after the motions are better under- 
stood. 



TEXT OF U.S. NOTE 

The United States Government has undertaken 
to provide logistical support to the United States 
National Committee for the International Geo- 
physical Year in carrying out ice observation 
flights to survey dynamics characteristics and lim- 
its of the polar ice pack as part of the Committee's 
participation in the activities of the International 
Geophysical Year beginning next year. 

The Committee has informed the United States 
Government that the Soviet National Committee 
of the International Geophysical Year also was 
interested in making ice observation flights over 
the polar ice pack from Soviet territory. 

The United States Committee informed this 
Government that, at the Arctic Conference of the 
Igy in Stockholm in May 1956, it proposed that the 
flights mentioned above be coordinated by the two 
Committees in order to improve the resulting 
scientiflc data. The United States Committee also 
informed this Government that during the dis- 
cussion on this point, Soviet representatives at 
the Conference in turn proposed that alternate 
flights by Soviet and American planes between a 
suitable base in the Murmansk area and a suitable 
base in Alaska be exchanged in order to obtain a 
more comprehensive photographic record of tlie 
jaolar ice pack and its changes and indicated that 
the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist 
Republics would be willing to participate in such 
an exchange of flights. 

In the light of the above, the United States Gov- 
ernment proposes that the Soviet Government 
agree to an arrangement whereby Soviet and 
American planes would make alternate flights 
between Murmansk and Nome during the period 
of maximum daylight — approximately March to 
September — along routes and under such operat- 
ing conditions as agreed upon by our two Gov- 
ernments. 

If the Government of the Union of Soviet So- 
cialist Eepublics accepts this proposal in principle, 
the Government of the United States will make 
specific suggestions as to the manner, place and 
time for carrying out the necessary negotiations 
concerning the operational aspects of the project. 

October 1, 1956 



Anniversary of Death 
of Nikola Petkov 

Press release 500 dated September 22 

The execution of the Bulgarian patriot Nikola 
Petkov on September 23, 1947, by Bulgarian 
Communist authorities violated all principles of 
justice and humanity. He was falsely charged 
and condemned, and the democratic Agrarian 
Party, which he led, was arbitrarily suppressed. 
On this 9th amiiversary of Petkov"s tragic death 
the Communist regime of Bulgaria remains stig- 
matized by these acts which it has as yet made 
no eft'ort to rectify. 

Nikola Petkov was one of four Bulgarian 
leaders who signed tlie armistice in 1944 which 
took his country out of the war as an ally of 
Nazi Germany. He played an active role in es- 
tablishing a democratic coalition government. 
However, when it became evident in July 1945 
that the Communist minority had usurped the 
powers of government, Petkov and the majority 
of his Agrarian followers withdrew in protest. 
From then until his arrest in 1947, Petkov, as the 
acknowledged leader of the democratic forces in 
Bulgaria, opposed communism in his country 
with unyielding courage. 

By his devotion to the cause of freedom and 
his valiant efforts in defense of democratic prin- 
ciples, Nikola Petkov earned the lasting admi- 
ration and respect of the free world. The memory 
of his name is no less enduring than the ideals 
for which he struggled. 



Mr. Aigner Appointed to Tribunals 
on German External Debts 

The Department of State announced on Septem- 
ber 17 (press release 489) the appointment of 
Martin Aigner of New York City as the United 
States member of the Arbitral Tribunal and the 
Mixed Commission established pursuant to the 
Agreement on German External Debts of Febru- 
ary 27, 1953.1 The Arbitral Tribunal, which is 
composed of members appointed by the Govern- 
ments of the Federal Republic of Germany, 
France, the United Kingdom, and the United 
States, has exclusive jurisdiction as provided in 
article 28 of the agreement in disputes between the 



^Treaties and Other International Acts Series 2792. 

509 



parties to the agreement. The Mixed Commis- 
sion, composed of members similarly appointed, 
lias jurisdiction as provided in article 31 of the 
agreement in the interpretation of annex IV to the 
agreement. These tribunals have their seat at 
Coblenz, Germany. 



Surplus U.S. Foods To Feed 
Italian Children 

The Tntemational Cooperation Administration 
announced on September 4 that it had authorized 
the use of some 26,700 tons of surplus American 
food to help supplement the diet of 1,700,000 needy 
Italian children for a second year. 

The U.S. agricultural products are supplied to 
the Italian Government to improve and expand its 
school-lunch and other child-feeding programs. 
The foodstuffs provided by the United States — dry 
milk, butter, dried beans, flour, and cheese — sup- 
plementing food supplied by the Italian Govern- 
ment, are improving the nutritional value of the 
children's diet as well as making possible the feed- 
ing of a greater number of children. 

Under the first year's program, the United 
States has provided nearly 40,000 tons of American 
farm products for the 12 months of the Italian 
feeding program ending September 30. In addi- 
tion, the Italian Government has provided similar 
commodities as well as other foods such as fruits, 
vegetables, and sweets. 

As agreed by the two Governments, the joint 
child nutrition program covers a 3-year period, 
with the United States contributing less food each 
year and the Italian Government increasing its 
contribution each year, to keep the total of the 
major food staples at a level of more than 50,000 
tons distributed annually. Besides its increasing 
contribution of food, the Italian Government pays 
the ocean freight charges on the American food as 
well as all costs of the program in Italy. 

The new supplies are for the year beginning 
October 1. Valued at $13.5 million (Commodity 
Credit Corporation cost), they include about 3,900 
metric tons of dry milk, 1,400 tons of butter, 5,800 
tons of cheese, 2,400 tons of dried beans, and 12,900 
tons of flour or wheat equivalent. 

The U.S. commodities provided for the first 
year's program, valued at some $18 million 
(Commodity Credit Corporation cost), have in- 
cluded some 5,900 metric tons of dry milk, 1,500 



tons of butter, 7,600 tons of cheese, 3,600 tons of 
dried beans, 19,000 tons of flour or wheat equiva- 
lent, and 1,500 tons of vegetable oil. 

Italy's child-feeding program, which began in 
1945, now provides meals for 1,300,000 needy chil- 
dren in schools and kindergartens and 400,000 in 
orphanages and summer camps. Under the agree- 
ment between the United States and Italy, the 
Italian people are kept informed that the food sent 
from here is a gift of the people of the United 
States. The donated foods do not displace normal 
sales of these commodities. 

The U.S. foodstuffs are provided under title II 
of the Agricultural Trade Development and 
Assistance Act (Public Law 480). Title II, 
which is administered by Ica, authorizes grants to 
friendly nations of agricultural products held as 
surplus by the Commodity Credit Corporation. 



Congressional Documents 
Relating to Foreign Policy 



84th Congress, 2d Session 

The Powers of the President as Commander in Chief of 
the Army and Navy of the United States. H. Doc. 443, 
June 14, 1956. 145 pp. 

Imports of Cotton Textiles from Japan. Hearing before 
the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on the 
Green amendment to the Mutual Security Act of 1956 
(H.R. ll.S5t>). June 16, 1056. 29 pp. 

Control and Reduction of Armaments. Hearing before 
a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Foreign 
Relations pursuant to S. Res. 9.3 and 185, 84th Con- 
gress. Part 9, June 16, 19.56. 174 pp. 

Communist Interrogation, Indoctrination and Exploita- 
tion of American Military and Civilian Prisoners. 
Hearings before the Permanent Subcommittee on In- 
vestigations of the Senate Committee on Government 
Operations. June 19-27, 1956. 210 pp. 

Extension of Export-Import Bank Act. Hearing before 
the House Committee on Banking and Currency on 
H.R. 11261. Jwne 28, 1956. 29 pp. 

Foreign Trade in Cotton Textiles. Hearing before a 
subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Agriculture 
and Forestry on S. 4156, a bill to assist the United 
States cotton textile industry in regaining its equitable 
share of the world market. July 16, 1956. 33 pp. 

Assistant Secretaries for Research and Development ; 
Loan of Naval Vessels. Hearing before the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services on H.R. 11575, provid- 
ing for an Assistant Secretary for Research and De- 
velopment for each of the three military departments ; 
H.R. 11613, authorizing the loan of naval vessels to 
foreign governments. July 19, 1956. 29 pp. 

20th Semiannual Report of the Atomic Energy Commis- 
sion. S. Doc. lao, July 31, 19.56. 200 pp. 

Laws Controlling Illicit Narcotics Traffic. Addendum to 
S. Doc. 120, 84th Congress : Summary of Federal legis- 
lation enacted during the 2d session, S4th Congress, for 
the control of the illicit narcotics traffic, presented by 
Mr. Clements. S. Doc. 145, July 31, 1956. 11 pp. 



510 



Department of Stale Bulletin 



Inter- American Committee of Presidential Representatives 
Holds First Meeting 



Following is the text of a statement made hy 
Milton 8. Eisenhower on Septeniber 17 'before the 
Inter -American Committee of Presidential Rep- 
resentatives, lohich met at Washington September 
17-19, together with the communique which the 
Committee issued at the close of the meeting. Dr. 
Eisenhower serves as President Eisenhower''s rep- 
resentative on the Committee. 



STATEMENT BY DR. EISENHOWER 

White House press release dated September 17 

The President of the United States in his ad- 
dress at the signing of the Declaration of Prin- 
ciples at the Meeting of Panama last July laid 
stress upon the work that might be initiated to 
"... hasten the beneficial use of nuclear forces 
throughout the hemisphere, both in industry and 
in combating disease." ^ 

Much thought has been given by the United 
States Government to ways and means by which 
all of the American Republics jointly might ac- 
celerate the use of this new force to bring greater 
health and happiness and abundance into the lives 
of all our peoples. 

There are numerous ways in which nuclear en- 
ergy may be put to the service of human welfare. 
Our Governments were represented at the U.N. 
Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic En- 
ergy in Geneva last year, and there a vision was 
caught of the boons which might be gained by 
mankind through utilization of this new force. 
The United States is interested in the attainment 
of these benign results as soon as feasible. 

Many of the Governments of the other Ameri- 
can Republics have negotiated agi-eements for co- 
operation with the United States which will bring 
aid to their programs of nuclear research and new 



knowledge from this research to benefit their citi- 
zens. Such agreements have been negotiated with 
11 of the American Republics; three more are 
under discussion. Under one agreement already 
completed, the President's offer of aid in financ- 
ing the construction of a research reactor has been 
accepted and the United States commitment to 
pay a $350,000 contribution has been given. 

President Eisenhower announced in February 
of this year that the United States initially will 
make available for distribution abroad 20,000 kilo- 
grams of uranium 235, the refined fissionable ma- 
terial that serves as the fuel for nuclear-power 
reactors.^ Under United States laws, our Govern- 
ment can provide nuclear fuels for research and 
power reactors only to those friendly nations with 
which we have concluded agreements for coopera- 
tion. 

Such agreements for cooperation in the field of 
nuclear power are under discussion with three of 
the other American Republics — Argentina, Brazil, 
and Cuba. Discussions have not yet been under- 
taken by other member nations of the Organiza- 
tion of American States. The United States 
hopes they soon will be, for it is the desire of this 
Government that the American Republics make 
use of their full share of the stocks of nuclear fuel 
which have been already allocated, and the addi- 
tional supplies that shall hereafter be set aside, to 
aid in the development of atomic power in friendly 
nations. 

However, there are some helpful things that 
can be done while waiting for research and power- 
reactor agreements of cooperation to be concluded, 
and the United States is ready, willing, and able 
to accelerate the application of nuclear energy to 
human welfare in the American Republics. In this 
spirit, the United States Atomic Energy Commis- 
sion has recently taken two steps and soon will 
take a third. 



' Bulletin of Aug. 6, 1956, p. 219. 
Ocfober I, 7956 



HhiA., Mar. 19, 1956, p. 469. 



511 



The first of these steps was the inauguration last 
month of a special program of assistance to the 
University of Puerto Rico to enable it to establish 
programs of training and instruction in the Span- 
ish language in the field of atomic energy. A sec- 
ond step was the formulation earlier this month 
of a program to cooperate with the Inter- American 
Institute of Agi'icultural Sciences at Turrialba, 
Costa Rica. A third project is the convening early 
next year of a symposium in which scientists and 
atomic energy officials of the 21 American Repub- 
lics would exchange information and ideas on the 
peaceful applications of atomic energy. 

The increasing use of radioisotopes in biology, 
medicine, agriculture, and industry, the develop- 
ment of nuclear propulsion for ships, and the in- 
evitable large growth in electric power plants using 
nuclear energy instead of conventional sources of 
power are expected soon to put heavy demands on 
manpower resources for atomic-energy research 
and development. 

The United States attaches great importance to 
the solution of the problem of how best to develop 
enough competent atomic scientists, engineers, and 
technicians in the immediate future. The world 
has not yet reached high noon in the atomic age 
but is only at the beginning of the dawn of a mar- 
velous new era, the opportunities and responsibili- 
ties of which can hardly be imagined by any people 
now living. 

The United States Atomic Energy Commission 
has progressively expanded its training programs 
and undertaken new ones to augment the supply 
of scientists and engineers in this country. It is 
also providing training assistance to friendly na- 
tions. There are now two schools supported by 
the Commission in which foreign students are 
trained — the International School of Nuclear 
Science and Engineering at Argoime, near Chi- 
cago, and the Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear 
Studies in Tennessee. Only 16 students from the 
other American Republics of this hemisphere are 
now enrolled in these schools. 

New Program in Puerto Rico 

One of the most recent actions taken by the 
United States Atomic Energy Commission to al- 
leviate the impending shortage of nuclear scien- 
tists and technicians was the inauguration of a 
special program of assistance to and collaboration 
with the University of Puerto Rico. The Com- 



mission is providing a training research reactor 
and laboratory equipment and other forms of aid 
to the university to enable it to begin practical 
training, education, and research in the field of 
atomic energy not later than the beginning of the 
next college year. This program of assistance to 
the university will include aid to its School of 
Medicine, School of Science, College of Agricul- 
ture and Mechanical Arts, and Agricultural Ex- 
periment Station. 

The Commission and Puerto Rican officials are 
now planning the installation of a 20,000-kilowatt 
nuclear-power plant to supply more electric power 
for commercial purposes and to serve as an ancil- j 
lary training facility for students attending the 
university. The implementation of this plan is, 
of course, subject to congressional approval. 

This program will provide the University of 
Puerto Rico with unique nuclear training and re- 
search facilities within 3 or 4 years. Because 
these planned facilities would be truly outstand- 
ing and because instructions would be in Spanish, 
the University of Puerto Rico might well become 
a nuclear research and training center of interest 
to many of the countries of the hemisphere. In 
this connection, it is of interest to note that about 
300 students from Central and South America 
are now attending the university, some of them 
under the technical assistance j^rogram of the 
United States International Cooperation Admin- 
istration. If there should be evidence of a desire 
on the part of other students in the American 
Republics to enter the nuclear training and re- 
search courses at the University of Puerto Rico, 
the United States Govermnent would, of course, 
cooperate in a program to include such students. 
Earlier this month, the United States Govern- 
ment sent a team of three experts in the agricul- 
tural applications of atomic energy to Turrialba, 
Costa Rica, to discuss how atomic energy might 
be put to work in the program of the Inter- Ameri- 
can Institute of Agricultural Sciences. They 
found that the Institute is peculiarly adaptable to 
utilizing radioisotopes and radiation in tropical 
agricultural research. They reported that im- 
plementation of a program in the Institute utiliz- 
ing atomic energy for training and research in 
agriculture could be expected to make substantial 
contributions in plant nutrition and breeding, 
preservation of foodstufi's, and protection against 
disease and pests. 



512 



Department of State Bulletin 



Aid to Institute at Turrialba 

Four programs to assist the Institute are now 
being organized by the Atomic Energy Commis- 
sion. 

Firsts the Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear 
Studies in Tennessee, an organization of colleges 
and universities maintained by the Commission, 
will accept applications for the course starting in 
early 1957 for those staff members for whom the 
Director of the Institute at Turrialba considers 
additional training desirable. 

Second, the United States is prepared to make 
available to the Institute equipment for a radio- 
isotope laboratory. 

Third, if the Institute desires to set up a so- 
called "cobalt field" to study the effects of ex- 
ternal radiation on a variety of plants, the United 
States would be willing to supply the radiation 
source and to give help in the technique of its use. 
Also the United States could provide radioiso- 
topes for other research pvirposes. 

Fourth, irradiation of plants and seed to obtain 
beneficial effects in new varieties and to acquire 
new knowledge of plant growth and development 
will be carried on for the Institute at the Brook- 
liaven National Laboratory if the Institute so 
desires. 

Inter-American Symposium 

The United States Atomic Energy Commission 
is engaged in planning for an Inter- American 
Symposium on Nuclear Energy proposed to be 
held early next year at the Brookhaven National 
Laboratory on Long Island, N. Y. These plans 
anticipate that both the scientific and economic 
aspects of nuclear energy would be discussed at 
first hand by appropriate representatives of the 
21 American Republics. Among the topics pro- 
posed to be considered are: 

(1) the uses of radioisotopes in industry, agricul- 
ture, and medicine, 

(2) nuclear-reactor types and uses, with collat- 
eral discussion on the prospects of economic 
nuclear energy as a source of commercial 
power, and 

(3) factors to be considered in the organization 
and development of an effective nuclear 
energy program. 

Following this 4- or 5-day symposium, several 



days of tours would be arranged to permit prac- 
tical, close-at-hand inspections of our Atomic 
Energy Commission facilities and of hospitals, 
universities, and industrial establishments where 
the peaceful atom can be observed at work. 

Believing this symposium to be a desirable 
forum to stimulate the use of nuclear energy 
throughout the American Republics, the United 
States Government, through its embassies, will 
shortly extend personal invitations to individuals 
who are prominently identified with the nuclear 
energy programs in the Latin American countries. 
It is hoped that there will be derived from this 
symposium an increased realization that this new 
servant of man — the atom — can improve the 
health and well-being of all the American peoples. 



TEXT OF FINAL COMMUNIQUE 

The first session of the Inter- American Com- 
mittee of Presidential Representatives adjourned 
on the afternoon of September 19 after three days 
of intensive work. Representatives of 21 coun- 
tries met five times in closed session characterized 
by informal and frank discussions. 

The Committee was created pursuant to a sug- 
gestion made by President Dwight D. Eisen- 
hower of the United States, at the Meeting of 
Presidents at Panama, July 21-22, 1956, and ac- 
cepted by the Presidents of the other American 
Republics. This proposal was that each Presi- 
dent appoint a representative to consider together 
ways of making the Organization of American 
States a more effective instrument of inter- 
American cooperation in economic, social, finan- 
cial and technical fields, including attention to 
the problem of the peaceful uses of atomic energy. 

The objective of this first meeting was to iden- 
tify the problems for the solutions of which rec- 
ommendations will subsequently be drafted and 
submitted to the Presidents of the American 
States in fulfillment of the foregoing mission. 
As a first step in the Committee's deliberations, 
a general discussion was held concerning the ap- 
proach to the Committee's task which the various 
Representatives considered appropriate. 

The general di-scussion yielded a widespread 
recognition of the importance of the task assigned 
to the Committee and a universal desire to pro- 
ceed with the effective strengthening of the Or- 
canization of American States. It was felt that 



Ocfofaer I, J 956 



513 



ultimate recommendations should emphasize 
practical steps which the Organization of Amer- 
ican States might take to promote the economic 
and social welfare of the peoples of the American 
continents. It was generally believed that the 
effective raising of the living standards of the 
American countries constitutes a long-range 
pi-oblem, to the solution of which the Oas could at 
this time make effective contributions. 

The Committee then focused its attention upon 
the specific problems which in the opinion of the 
respective Kepresentatives merited further study. 
The specific problems suggested for study fell 
under the main headings of economic, social, finan- 
cial, technical, administrative and organizational, 
and nuclear energy. In all these fields emphasis 
was placed upon activities which might be con- 
sidered under the general heading of technical- 
assistance activities and training and educational 
work. Great interest was also displayed in the 
possibility of developing through the Oas more 
effective and useful attention to specific economic 
and financial problems facing the various govern- 
ments. 

Wliile Representatives at this stage did not feel 
in a position to express themselves definitively on 
any of the proposals which were advanced, the 
Committee can state that as a result of its three- 
day discussion, it has decided to proceed with 
study of the problems arising under the subjects 
summarized below : 

A. Economic 

1. Agriculture: Enlargement and wider dis- 
semination of technical information; tech- 
nical advice for governments; problems of 
development and trade in connection with 
agricultural products. 

2. Industry: Industrial development and in- 
crease in industrial productivity. 

3. Commerce: Expansion and facilitation of 
trade. 

4. Transportation: Expansion of, and greater 
facilities for, land and water transport. 

B. Social 

1. Public Health: Elimination of major dis- 
eases. 

2. Education: Expansion and improvement 
in educational facilities ; wider public par- 
ticipation in activities of the Oas. 



3. Housing: Methods of solving social prob- 
lems of housing; development of low-cost 
housing. 

4. Social Security and Welfare: Advice to 
governments on establislunent and im- 
provement of social security and welfare 
progi'ams and other activities of special 
concern to workers. 

C. Financial 

Obtaining capital from public and private 
sources. 

D. Technical 

Improvement and coordination of present 
technical assistance programs. 

E. Organization and Administrative 

Adequate administrative organization of the 
Oas and strengthening of Ia-Ecosoc [Inter- 
American Economic and Social Council], in 
the light of new recommendations for substan- 
tive work. 

F. AtoTrdc Energy 

Possibility of using nuclear materials in sci- 
entific research, and coordinating national 
training activities. 

The Committee has decided to meet again early 
in January, after the governments have had an 
opportunity to give further consideration to the 
problems mentioned above. The purpose of the 
second meeting will be to prepare a list of topics, 
drawn from the various suggestions discussed at 
the present meeting, which will constitute the 
agenda for a third and final meeting later in 1957. 

The Secretary General of the Oas is being re- 
quested to prepare factual reports on a number of 
subjects discussed during the present meeting and 
to present such additional observations on various 
topics as he may consider desirable. A secretariat 
for the Committee is being established by the 
Chairman of the Committee ^ to provide a central 
point of coordination and information for all com- 
mittee activities. 

At the final meeting, probably in March or 
April 1957, definitive recommendations regarding 
certain topics will be drafted for submission to 
the twenty-one American Presidents. 



'Dr. Eisenhower. 



514 



Department of State Bulletin 



$100 IViillion Credit Established 
for Argentine Recovery 

The following joint annov/ncement was made 
on September 17 hy Sarrmel C. Waugh^ President 
and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the 
Export- 1 mpo^'t Bank, and Ambassador Carlos A. 
Coll Benegas, head of the Argentine Financial 
Mission now visiting the United States. As head 
of the mission, Ambassador Coll Benegas repre- 
sents the Minister of Treasury of Argentina, 
Eugenio Blanco. 

The President and Directors of the Export- 
Import Bank and the Argentine Financial Mis- 
sion have reviewed the economic and financial 
aspects of the economic recovery program of 
Argentina. The Argentine delegation outlined the 
extent to which the attainment of the objectives 
of the program is dependent upon the acquisition 
of capital equipment from abroad, which Argen- 
tina requires to regain and improve its former 
levels of productivity and exports. Primary em- 
phasis was given to the rehabilitation of the trans- 
portation system, increasing the production of 
electric power, and the need for machinery to 
increase the output of Argentine industry and 
agriculture. 

During its negotiations with the bank, the Ar- 
gentine Financial Mission stressed the need for 
improving transportation facilities to reduce losses 
to the economy of Argentina resulting from the 
lack of sufficient capacity to move crops to market. 
The mission indicated that the transportation 
needs of Argentina fall into two categories : first, 
the emergency requirements, and, secondly, the 
overall rehabilitation of the transportation net- 
work, which over a period of years will require a 
substantial investment program to cover local costs 
and the capital equipment to be acquired abroad. 

Mr. Waugli stated that the bank was impressed 
by tiae progress Argentina is making in attaining 
monetary and financial stability and by the efforts 
of the Argentine Government on behalf of free 
enterprise in the Argentine. The bank will con- 
tinue to give due consideration to the progress 
Argentina continues to make in these respects. 

The Export-Import Bank agreed to establish 
credits up to $100 million for Argentina to assist 
in financing the purchase of United States equip- 
ment and services required for projects of an ur- 



gent nature in the private and public sectors, in- 
cluding transportation, industry, and agriculture. 
The field of transportation embraces railroads, 
merchant marine, ports, highways, and commer- 
cial aviation. Credits in the public sector will be 
repaid over a period of 18 years, with interest at 
the rate of 5 percent per annum. Any credits that 
may be considered for requirements of privately 
owned enterprises will be utilized for the most 
urgent capital-equipment needs for purposes 
which will benefit the dollar exchange position of 
Argentina, under terms and conditions appropri- 
ate to the individual case. 

It was agreed that a bank mission would visit 
Argentina at an early date to participate in a 
joint study of emergency requirements and related 
matters in order to facilitate the allocation of the 
credits. 

ExiMBANK and the Government of Argentina 
will continue their joint discussions in connection 
with the economic recovery program of the 
Argentine. 



U.S. Experts To Select Korean Art 
for Loan Exhibition 

The Department of State announced on Sep- 
tember 17 (press release 492) that Alan Priest, 
curator of Far Eastern art at the Metropolitan 
Museum of Art in New York, and Robert Treat 
Paine, Jr., one of the curators of the department 
of Asiatic art at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, 
have left for Korea mider the international edu- 
cational exchange progi-am. They were invited by 
the Government of Korea to assist in selecting 
objects from that country's national art collection 
for a loan exhibition to be held in the United States 
during 1958. They will also give lectures during 
their 6-week stay in Korea. 

Tentative plans are being made for the exhibi- 
tion to open at the National Gallery of Art at 
Washington, D. C, with other exhibitions sched- 
uled to be held at the Metropolitan Museum of 
Art, the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, the Insti- 
tute of Arts at Minneapolis, the California Palace 
of the Legion of Honor at San Francisco, and the 
Honolulu Academy of Arts. It will be the first 
time that a loan exhibition of Korea's national 
art treasures has ever been held outside of Korea. 



Ocfober I, 7956 



515 



UNESCO and American Foreign Policy 



iy Francis 0. Wilcox 

Assistant Secretary for International Organisation Affairs ^ 



This is the first time I have had the oppor- 
tunity formally to address the National Commis- 
sion for Unesco. I welcome this opportunity, for 
I am keenly aware of the importance of your Com- 
mission. As a matter of fact, as chief of staff of 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee back in 
1946, I had the privilege of assisting in its crea- 
tion when the Congress of the United States con- 
sidered American participation in Unesco. 

The Commission is a unique institution within 
the framework of our Government. It is created 
by an act of Congress, its membership is in part 
selected by the Government, and it is financed from 
public funds. At the same time, in its work and 
activities it is free from governmental interference 
and control. The Government, I am sure you will 
agree, has scrupulously refrained from any at- 
tempt to exercise control over your work program, 
and we welcome the fact that the Commission 
itself has jealously guarded its independence. 

Its members are representative of what is best 
in the educational, scientific, and cultural life of 
our Nation. Through you scholars, scientists, edu- 
cators, and artists, organizers of libraries and mu- 
seums, and representatives of cultural organiza- 
tions, the American people themselves are speak- 
ing to our Government and are advising us on the 
policies we as a government should pursue in 
Unesco, which is one of the most important of the 
specialized agencies of the United Nations. 

Beyond being a bridge between the people of 
the United States and tlieir Government, the Na- 
tional Commission has become a bridge also to 



'Address made before the U.S. National Commission 
for the United Nations Educational, Scientitic and Cultural 
Organization at New York, N. Y., on Sept. 18. 



the cultural life and aspirations of other countries 
that are members of Unesco. As a result of the 
contacts whicli have been established between the 
United States Commission and national commis- 
sions in other countries, you have opened up new 
ways of communications between the peoples of 
various lands. Working in close cooperation with 
each other, the different national commissions 
have done much to make Unesco more than just 
an organization of sovereign governments. 

Over the years the work of your Commission has 
grown in stature. I know of the great contribu- 
tions which only recently you have made in ad- 
vising our Government in its preparations for the 
important conference which Unesco will hold in 
New Delhi. 

For all this, ladies and gentlemen, I want to 
thank you very sincerely. You have demonstrated 
that the Government and the people of the United 
States are at one in promoting a peaceful world, 
a world richer in social and cultural achievement, 
a world in which individuals everywhere will have 
a chance to develop their gifts and abilities to the 
full. 

Importance of the Specialized Agencies 

I suppose it is true that any person, when he 
becomes involved in a job or a jjrogram, has a tend- 
ency to take broad, major principles for granted 
and to concentrate largely on the day-to-day pres- 
sures and emergencies that confront him. This 
can be true particularly of those of us who are 
associated with international organizations and 
their affairs. 

We may believe so much in what we are doing 
that we are inclined to forget that other people 



516 



Department of State Bulletin 



may not believe as we do or perhaps do not under- 
stand at all. Perhaps the fact that we do at times 
neglect the general for the specific explains some 
of the difficulties in dealing with the public that 
organizations like these can occasionally have. 

Today, therefore, let us spend a few minutes 
considering in general terms the part that oi-gan- 
izations such as Unesco play in our world today. 
These are things we do know, to be sure; but they 
are things of which we must over and over again 
remind ourselves and our neighbors if our work 
is to be fully successful. 

The specialized agencies, of which Unesco is 
one, represent what is perhaps the least glamorous 
aspect of United Nations activities. While the 
heated political debates in the General Assembly 
catch the headlines, the specialized agencies are 
carrying out their relatively humdrum tasks at the 
grassroots in many lands. They may not be work- 
ing in full view of the television cameras, but in 
their quiet and unobtrusive way they are success- 
fully grappling with problems that are very real to 
millions of people and are building solid support 
for the United Nations all over the world. 

There are a few chronic critics — but not many — 
who are inclined to belittle the work of the special- 
ized agencies. What good is it, they ask, if the 
United Nations can guarantee the delivery of our 
letters in Afghanistan or spare a few thousand 
people in Central America from the ravages of 
malaria, if it cannot prevent the outbreak of a 
thermonuclear war ? 

There is, of course, something to be said for this 
argument. After all, the prime responsibility of 
the United Nations remains the maintenance of 
international peace and security, and we should 
never lose sight of that important objective. But 
it can be argued that the specialized agencies, in 
slowly eroding the curtains of suspicion and dis- 
trust that hang between the nations, may be doing 
much more than we realize in creating the kind 
of climate in the world in which a lasting peace 
may eventually be built. 

To the United States, the specialized agencies 
provide an opportunity to exercise its leadership, 
to help develop a sense of unity among the nations 
of the free world, and to gain good will and pres- 
tige. To the extent that these agencies contribute 
to relieve tensions, to reduce poverty, disease, and 
illiteracy, and to raise standards of living, their 
work contributes measurably to the efforts of our 
Government to combat the threat of communism 



throughout the world. Likewise, to the extent that 
they help governments develop the habit of co- 
operation and the routine of working together 
toward common goals, tliey are helping to lay 
stable foundations for a peaceful world. 

Perhaps equally important, in a world where 
the underdeveloped countries are striving for psy- 
chological and political prestige and for freedom 
from any sort of domination on the part of other 
countries, our vigorous participation in the United 
Nations is extremely helpful. It is evidence to 
these countries that we are ready to take our part 
in working out mutual problems, ready to engage 
without fear or reservation in the free exchange of 
ideas, ready to lay a share of our great resources 
on the table for the common good. 

We also seek to win the respect and friendship 
of our neighbors. In this objective we are like 
most other countries. We believe that this con- 
stant aim of our diplomacy can be profitably fur- 
thered tlirough active participation in the agencies 
of the United Nations. As we meet with others 
to discuss common tasks, to compare solutions, and 
to work out agreements, we are helping to estab- 
lish the habit of cooperation among sovereign 
equals. In this way we are lessening the possi- 
bility of being misunderstood which might arise 
from the undertaking of policies which we our- 
selves solely determine. Through responsible ac- 
tion within the international system we lay a foun- 
dation for the respect and friendship of other 
countries. A wise man once said: "To have a 
friend you must be a friend." In the United Na- 
tions there is daily evidence that this precept is 
sound. 

Proper Role of the Specialized Agencies 

In the performance of its functions in economic, 
social, and humanitarian affairs the United Na- 
tions has been censured for undertaking programs 
beyond the proper scope of an international or- 
ganization. It has been criticized for timidity in 
the conception and slowness in the execution of 
these programs. It has been reproached for over- 
stepping the bounds of the charter and condemned 
for not meeting its responsibilities under the 
charter. On many occasions it has even been 
praised for a particular job well done. 

The diverse criticisms directed at the United 
Nations in connection with some of these activities 
are a reflection of the diverse points of view that 
are held regarding its proper role in this field. 



October 1, 7956 



517 



The United Nations has therefore had to grapple 
witli the vast difficulties inherent in international 
economic, social, and humanitarian problems as 
well as with tlie difficulties resulting from the fact 
that some of its most prominent members — in- 
cluding the United States — had difficulty in de- 
ciding how these problems should be approached. 
There are, for instance, suggestions fi'om a few 
critics to the effect that the United States should 



Publication on UNESCO 

The Department of State last month released a 
pamphlet prepared by the U.S. National Commission 
for UNESCO entitled U.N. Edticatiwial, Scientific 
and Cultural Organization . . . An American View 
( publication 6332, for sale by the Superintendent of 
Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfBce, Wash- 
ington 25, D. C. — price 35 cents) . More than half of 
the pamphlet is devoted to an account of UNESCO's 
work in the field of economic and social develop- 
ment, with emphasis on its program of fundamental 
education. The remaining chapters deal with 
"UNESCO and International Understanding" and 
"UNESCO and the American People" ; the latter 
chapter includes a section describing the functions 
of the National Commission. 



limit its participation in, or even withdraw from, 
certain of the specialized agencies. One argument 
is that increasing Soviet and Communist-satellite 
activity in these agencies is a threat to free-world 
interests. My own view is that this is an addi- 
tional reason, if any were needed, why the U.S. 
should continue in, and even increase its support 
for, the specialized agencies. 

Actually the Soviet decision to take a fuller part 
in this work, after giving little or no support in 
earlier years, is evidence of the growing effective- 
ness and influence of the specialized agencies. 
Everyone likes to be associated with success. The 
United States has been deeply involved with the 
development and success of the agencies since the 
beginning. I believe it would be sheer folly for 
us to lessen our interest, much less withdraw, at 
this time. 

In carrying on its work in the social and eco- 
nomic field the U.N. and its specialized agencies 
must be guided by two cardinal principles. In 
the first place, in their natural enthusiasm to get 
results they should not take action that will result 
in antagonizing the sovereign sensitivities of their 
member states. The possible advantages to be 



derived from even occasional invasions of the do- 
mestic jurisdiction of the sovereign states are far 
outweighed by the risks involved and the harm 
that can come to the organization from adverse 
criticism and the loss of valuable support. The 
United Nations is an organization of sovereign 
states, and we would be naive indeed if we did not 
learn to operate within our proper metes and 
bounds. 

In the second place, the United Nations should 
not attempt to do more than it can reasonably do. 
Progress in the social and economic fields is pain- 
fully slow, and there is much to be done. Yet it 
is clear to me that modest programs, well con- 
ceived and effectively administered, will take the 
United Nations further toward its goal than big- 
ger and perhaps ill-conceived programs that are 
poorly handled. Once again we must recognize 
that the United Nations will lose ground and may 
suffer incalculable damage if it tries to move too 
far and too fast. 

U.S. Support for UNESCO 

This, then, is the broad picture as I see it. Now 
to turn to UNESCO itself. As all of you are well 
aware, Unesco has not altogether escaped the criti- 
cisms which have been directed at the specialized 
agencies. As far as I know, no one has differed 
with the aims and purposes set forth in Unesco's 
constitution, but there has been a difference of 
view as to how Unesco has carried out these re- 
sponsibilities. 

We in the Department of State have followed 
the work of this organization very closely since the 
beginning. We study its publications, we par- 
ticipate in the General Conferences and in the 
planning of its program, and we follow as closely 
as possible the work the international secretariat 
does to carry out the resolutions of the General 
Conference. 

Based on this study and observation, our view 
in the Department of State is that this organiza- 
tion is properly carrying out the responsibilities 
entrusted to it by its 76 member states. We find 
that it has abided by the provision of its constitu- 
tion that forbids it to intervene in matters that 
are within the jurisdiction of its member states. 
We do not find that it has attempted, either in this 
country or in other countries, to infiltrate the 
schools or try to dictate what should be taught 
or how it should be taught in the schools. 



518 



Department of State Bulletin 



Nor do we find that Unesco in any way consti- 
tutes a threat to our freedoms and our way of 
life, as is sometimes charged. 

On the contrary, we believe Unesco is perform- 
ing many useful and valuable services for its mem- 
bers and is carrying on numerous programs of last- 
ing merit. Indeed, I believe Unesco's work in 
fundamental education alone — helping underde- 
veloped countries devise methods of teaching 
adults to read and write — would more than justify 
its existence. 

It is my conviction that a full examination of 
the record will support our views. As a matter 
of fact, each time an organization has undertaken 
a systematic and comprehensive review of Unesco's 
work, it has supported the view I have stated. 
There have been a number of impartial studies 
of this kind. 

At the same time, in honesty, it must be said 
that this Government, the Department of State, 
and our delegations to Unesco conferences do find 
points to criticize. We find that its program is in 
some respects too diffuse, that it tends to under- 
take too many projects with too little resources, 
and that it does not perform uniformly well in each 
undertaking. Further, it has all of the failings 
that any organization has that is dependent on 
human effort. It makes mistakes. 

But over the past 10 years we have witnessed 
very substantial progress in the definition of aims 
and goals, in the building of constructive programs 
of work, and in the development of the experience 
and the skills needed to carry out the difficult tasks 
Unesco undertakes. 

We believe, further, that participation in 
Unesco is in the national interest of the United 
States and that the organization should have the 
close study of a larger number of our people. We 
believe such study will result in broader support 
for the organization and its work. 

Significance of New Delhi Conference 

A Commission meeting that immediately pre- 
cedes a Unesco General Conference is always 
important. Because the 9th General Conference 
opening in New Delhi on November 5 is unusually 
important, however, this Commission meeting 
takes on an added significance. 

The conference is significant for several reasons. 
In the first place, it completes the first decade of 
the Unesco program. Wliile the organization 



may not yet be fully mature, we can safely state 
that it has now reached a stage in its development 
when it can move with more sureness than ever 
before. 

In the beginning, Unesco was little more than 
an idea, and a group of people who were deter- 
mined to make that idea work. Today it has 
benefited from a varied experience. There now 
is a record of solid accomplishment. Real pro- 
gress has been made in fundamental education. 
The Universal Copyright Convention has been 
ratified. There are free public libraries in areas 
today where 10 years ago they were unknown. 
The organization has learned much about bring- 
ing its resources to bear effectively on the needs 
of its member states. 

I think it would be fair to say that the 9th Gen- 
eral Conference finds Unesco in the position of a 
young man newly graduated from college. He 
has acquired certain basic knowledge and skills. 
He is ready to begin the serious work of life, to 
make his studies bear fruit. But, like the college 
graduate of today, Unesco is faced with so many 
opportunities that it scarcely knows wliich career 
to choose. 

Another reason why this General Conference is 
unusually important is that Unesco now has 76 
member states, whereas at the beginning it had 
only 30. Compared with the first General Con- 
ference, the New Delhi conference poses a huge 
problem in international negotiation. It might 
seem that a choir of 76 voices is not much more 
difficult to manage than one of 30. But we are 
talking of 76 singers who have no real training in 
liarmony. Many of these 76 voices will be sing- 
ing solos, trying to direct the rest of the choir, and 
rewriting the score — all at the same time. A bit of 
confusion may result until the choir gets properly 
organized. 

I have mentioned the presence of the Commu- 
nist bloc in international organizations. This is 
perhaps the single greatest problem, or, rather, 
single source of problems, which our delegation — 
and the organization — will face in trying to plan 
soundly for Unesco's future. It is true that the 
Soviet Union participated in the 1954 conference. 
But then it was new to the organization. It was 
feeling its way. It has learned fast. It is mov- 
ing with far more assurance. If past perform- 
ances are any indication, we can be fairly certain 
that it will be working hard and skillfully to use 
Unesco for its own ends. 



Ocfober I, 1956 



519 



UNESCO occupies today a position of increasing 
sigiiificance for both the Soviet Union and the 
free nations. With the recognition that out-and- 
out armed aggression might well result not only 
in total war but in total destruction, Communist 
tactics have been increasingly directed into eco- 
nomic and cultural channels. And it is precisely 
in the fields of education, science, and culture that 
the Soviets have now mounted an increasing of- 
fensive against the free world. 

It is curious to note what an abrupt change the 
Soviet Union has made in connection with the work 
of the specialized agencies. In the past they 
either ignored them completely or else sought to 
frustrate their work. They roundly denounced 
UNESCO as "an instrument of American cultural 
imperialism." 

Only recently have they changed their tune. 
Since Stalin's death they have joined Unesco and 
rejoined the Ilo. They are negotiating to rejoin 
the Who, and they are contributing to the U.N. 
Technical Assistance Program. We shall soon 
see what this new-found interest in the specialized 
agencies means for Unesco. 

Importance of the Conference to India 

I hardly need underline the political signifi- 
cance of the fact that the 9th General Conference 
will be held in India. India has a rich cultural 
heritage coupled with a great need for the bene- 
fits of modern education and science. It is nat- 
ural for Indians to regard Unesco as an im- 
mensely important element in international re- 
lations. 

This will be the first international conference of 
this size to be held in India and is a fitting recogni- 
tion of the significant role that country plays in 
the United Nations system. An excellent oppor- 
tunity will be afforded for the representatives of 
other countries to observe and appreciate the many 
fine qualities of the people of India. There has 
been considerable discussion in Unesco bodies of 
the need to further an appreciation by other coun- 
tries of the cultural values of Asian countries. 
This conference will be a useful step in this di- 
rection. 

I will not be giving away any secrets if I say 
that the United States delegation will be in- 
structed to seek at the conference, in consultation 
with other members, particularly the great nations 
of Asia, to work toward a program designed to 



bring about closer contacts, cooperation, and mu- 
tual appreciation between Asia and the West. 

On the physical side, the Government of India 
is going to gi'eat lengths to provide an appropriate 
setting for the conference. Three large build- 
ings — a hotel, an office building, and a conference 
hall — are being completed. This also may be con- 
sidered a yardstick of the importance which India, 
and indeed all Asia, attaches to Unesco and the 
conference. 

U.S. Objectives at the New Delhi Conference 

We have three main objectives at the 9th General 
Conference. The first I have already touched on. 
We seek to reaffirm the basic purpose of the 
organization as embodied in its constitution. 
Unesco was created "to contribute to peace and 
security by promoting collaboration among the 
nations through education, science and cul- 
ture. . . ." We think the constitution means what 
it says. We believe in what it says. Therefore, 
we wish to develop the widest possible community 
of interest among the nations represented at the 
conference. 

Unhappily there is a sharp cleavage between 
our interests and those of the Soviet bloc in 
Unesco. Certainly men who are dedicated to 
world domination must have interests that di- 
rectly conflict with a "universal respect for justice, 
for the rule of law and for the human rights and 
fundamental freedoms which are affirmed for the 
peoples of the world without distinction of race, 
sex, language or religion by the Charter of the 
United Nations." 

Nevertheless, it is our conviction that our first 
aim in this conference, as in all our relations with 
the organization, must be to make Unesco serve 
the cause of harmony among nations. We shall, 
no doubt, be able to develop a measure of harmony 
among like-minded free nations. 

The second objective of the United States at this 
conference will be to strengthen Unesco by 
strengthening its program. Put another way, we 
will attempt to insure that Unesco will work 
effectively through the adoption of sound work 
plans. 

Sound plans involve an increasing concentration 
of the program. As I suggested earlier, this point 
applies to many of the specialized agencies. 
Unesco has limited resources. They must be 
brought to bear on projects limited in number and 



520 



Department of Slate Bulletin 



sufficiently well defined to give every reasonable 
insurance of success. This means that Unesco, 
in our view, should stick to the sort of project 
that experience has shown it can do best. In gen- 
eral, we think we should capitalize on the work of 
the past 10 years rather than branch out into new 
and untested fields. 

In line with the effort to concentrate the Unesco 
program, the United States supported the devel- 
opment of the "major project" approach at the 
1954 Montevideo confei'ence. The concept was 
adopted at that meeting, and the organization has 
since developed three major projects for the con- 
sideration of the 9th General Conference — the 
development of ai'id-lands research, the extension 
of primary education in Latin America, and a 
program for mutual appreciation of Asian and 
Western cultural values. All these projects will 
be vigorously backed by the United States. Al- 
though the jDrojects are new as integrated major 
efforts, each builds on a solid foundation of pre- 
vious work by Unesco. It is for this sort of plan- 
ning that the United States will press. 

A third objective of the U.S. delegation will be 
to assure the continued integrity of the organiza- 
tion and its progi'am. We must allow for the 
possibility that there may be attempts to distort 
and twist the Unesco program. We will attempt 
to thwart any efforts that might be launched to use 
the organization as a chamiel for propaganda. 
We accept the fact that there will be politics at 
this conference. That is inevitable. But we want 
to insure that the politics serve the same purpose 
that they serve in the United States: that is, to 
produce results that reflect the will and the needs 
of the majority. 

I have tried today to review with you the broad 
basis upon which our support for Unesco rests; 
to assure you again of the faith this Government 
has, and the strong support it is determined to 
give, to the purposes and the program in whose 
behalf you are here; to stress the importance of 
the coming General Conference; and to indicate 
United States objectives at the conference. 

.Again this world is passing through anxious 
times, as it has more than once since Unesco was 
founded. When there is great tension and an air 
of crisis, it is not always easy for the American 
people, or our public officials, to shift their atten- 
tion to the quieter, less spectacular activities like 
those of Unesco and the other specialized agencies. 
Yet it is our job to take the long-range view and 

Ocfofaer J, 7956 



to influence those around us, to the extent that we 
are able, to take it also. Institutions such as 
Unesco are playing, and increasingly will play, 
an important role in preserving and strengthening 
the hope for peace and for a better tomorrow. 

We can take pride in this fact and from it draw 
strength as we carry forward this vital work. 



U.S. Committee for Prevention of 
Pollution of Seas by Oil 

Press release 495 dated September 19 

Thorsten V. Kalijarvi, Deputy Assistant Secre- 
tary of State for Economic Affairs, on September 
19 opened the first meeting of the United States 
National Committee for Prevention of Pollution 
of the Seas by Oil. This committee was convened 
by the Department of State in cooperation with 
the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Interior, 
and Treasury to study and to keep under review 
the problem of oil pollution and to recommend 
practical measures, including those of research and 
education, for oil pollution prevention. 

This meeting is another step taken by the United 
States to comply with the recommendation of 
resolution 7 of the London Conference of 1954 on 
Pollution of the Seas and Coasts by Oil.^ This 
conference recommended international coopera- 
tive measures to seek a solution to the problem of 
oil pollution, and the establishment in each country 
of a national committee to coordinate the efforts 
of governmental agencies and other interested 
persons. The conference also recommended that 
the United Nations serve as a clearinghouse for 
the exchange of technical and other information 
on oil pollution. 

The U.S. National Committee consists of repre- 
sentatives of govermnental agencies. The various 
departments, however, may be represented in more 
than one capacity and also may reflect the views 
of other nongovernmental organizations. The 
Department of Commerce, which as well as repre- 
senting its own interest will serve as the point of 
contact in connection with this problem with 
United States shipbuilders, port and harbor au- 
thorities, and hotel and beach resort associations, 
will be represented in the committee by William 
G. Allen of the Maritime Administration, Herbert 



' For an article on the London conference by Rear Adm. 
H. C. Shepheard and John W. Mann, see Bttlletin of 
Aug. 30, 195-t, p. 311. 

521 



Ashton of the Bureau of Foreign Commerce, and 
Edward Wickers of the Bureau of Standards. 
The Department of Defense has designated Capt. 
A. G. Schnable of the Navy and Col. George H. 
Walker of the Army Engineers as its representa- 
tives in the U.S. National Committee. The De- 
partment of the Interior, which will serve as point 
of contact with wildlife and fisheries associations, 
has appointed O. Lloyd Meehean of the Fish and 
Wildlife Service and R. M. Gooding of the Bureau 
of Mines as its delegates. Vice Adm. Alfred C. 
Richmond, Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, 
has been selected as the representative of the 
Treasury Department, with Rear Adm. Henry T. 
Jewell as his alternate. Arrangements for contact 
with the shipping industry and with maritime 
labor on oil pollution prevention already are pro- 
vided by the Oil Pollution Panel of the Merchant 
Marine Council, which reports to the Commandant 
of the Coast Guard. The Department of State 
will be represented in the committee by Henry L. 
Deimel and Jolm W. Mann. 

No chairman for the U.S. National Committee 
for Prevention of Pollution of the Seas by Oil 
has yet been selected. It is expected that the De- 
partment of State, after consultation with the 
other governmental agencies, will invite an indi- 
vidual prominent in the field of oil pollution and 
familiar with governmental procedure to serve as 
chairman of the new group. Until the permanent 
chairman is selected, the Treasury Department 
will designate the chairman pro tern; Admiral 
Jewell served in that capacity at the first meeting. 

Mr. Kalijarvi, in welcoming the delegates to the 
U.S. National Committee on behalf of the Depart- 
ment of State, reviewed the events which had led 
to the committee's formation. He stressed the 



importance of the work in which the committee 
wag to engage and wished the committee every 
success. 



Eximbank Loans to Overseas Buyers 
of Surplus Agricultural Commodities 

A plan of stepped-up assistance in financing ex- 
ports of surplus U.S. agricultural commodities on 
a short-term basis was announced on September 
10 by Samuel C. Waugh, President of the Export- 
Import Bank of Washington. 

The bank is prepared to receive applications 
from overseas buyers who desire credits to aid in 
obtaining U.S. agricultural surpluses in situations 
in which adequate credit is not available from the 
usual commercial sources. Loans for this purpose 
would be extended for periods of from 6 months to 
1 year ; longer terms may be authorized when war- 
ranted by special circumstances. 

The financing is available for exports of 15 com- 
modities: barley, cheese, corn, cotton, dry edible 
beans, grain sorghums, nonfat dry milk solids, oats, 
rice, rosin, rye, tobacco, turpentine, vegetable oils, 
and wheat. This list may be modified from time 
to time after consultation with the Commodity 
Credit Corporation of the Department of Agri- 
culture. 

Credits under the plan generally would be ex- 
tended to commercial banks abroad to finance pur- 
chases by foreign importers, or to the importers 
themselves where the guaranty of their own banks 
is ofi'ered. These short-term credits, like all Ex- 
port-Import Bank loans, would not be authorized 
in cases where financing was available from private 
sources. 



522 



Department of State Bulletin 



INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND CONFERENCES 



Calendar of Meetings' 

Adjourned During September 1956 

1st Suez Canal Conference London Aug. 16-23 

Suez Committee London and Cairo Aug. 24-Sept. 9 

2d Suez Canal Conference Loudon Sept. 19-21 

ITU International Radio Consultative Committee (CCIR): 8th Warsaw Aug. 9-Sept. 13 

Plenary Session. 

U.N. Conference of Plenipotentiaries on a Supplementary Conven- Geneva Aug. 13-Sept. 6 

tion on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions 

and Practices Similar to Slavery. 

17th International Exhibition of Cinematographic Art Venice Aug. 16-Sept. 8 

10th International Edinburgh Film Festival Edinburgh Aug. 19-Sept. 9 

6th International Congress of Soil Science Paris Aug. 29-Sept. 8 

5th International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Philadelphia Sept. 1-9 

Sciences. 

Atlantic Treaty .Association Education Conference Paris Sept. 3-7 

SEATO Committee of Economic Experts Bangkok Sept. 3-8 

U.N. ECE Inland Transport Committee: Group of Experts To Study Geneva Sept. 3-8 

Certain Technical Railway Questions. 

ICAO Legal Committee: Subcommittee on Legal Status of Air- Geneva Sept. 3-13 

craft. 

6th ILO Regional Conference of American States Members .... Habana Sept. 3-14 

FAO Council: 2.5th Session Rome Sept. 3-15 

International Geological Congress: 20th Session Mexico, D.F Sept. 4-11 

9th International Congress of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics . Brussels Sept. 5-13 

ICAO Joint Financing Conference To Revise the Danish and Geneva Sept. 6-25 

Icelandic Agreements. 

WHO Regional Committee for Western Pacific: 7th Session .... Manila Sept. 7-13 

FAO Conference: Special Session Rome Sept. 10-22 

PASO Executive Committee: 29th Meeting Antigua (Guatemala) . . . . Sept. 11-13 

9th Meeting of PASO Directing Council and 8th Meeting of Antigua (Guatemala) .... Sept. 16-29 

Regional Committee of WHO for the Americas. 

Inter-American Committee of Presidential Representatives: 1st Washington Sept. 17-19 

Meeting. 

U.N. ECAFE Working Party on Economic Development and Bangkok Sept. 17-29 

Planning: 2d Meeting. 

U.N. ECE Coal Committee Geneva Sept. 18-20 

ICEM Executive Committee: 5th Session Geneva Sept. 20-27 

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and Washington Sept. 24-28 

International Monetary Fund: 11th Annual Meeting of Boards of 

Governors. 

14th International Dairy Congress Rome Sept. 24—28 

U.N. Advisory Committee on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy . . . New York Sept. 28-29 

PASO Executive Committee: 30th Meeting Antigua (Guatemala) .... Sept. 29 (1 day) 

In Session as of September 30, 1956 

North Pacific Fur Seal Conference Washington Nov. 28, 1955- 

U.N. Committee To Review the Salary, Allowances and Benefits New York Sept. 13- 

System: 2d Session. 

3d ICAO Air Navigation Conference Montreal Sept. 18- 

ILO Tripartite Preparatory Technical Maritime Conference . . . London Sept. 19- 



' Prepared in the Office of International Conferences, Sept. 21, 1956. Asterisks indicate tentative dates. Following is 
a list of abbreviations : ITU, International Telecommunication Union ; CCIR, Comity consultatif international des radio- 
communications ; U.N., United Nations ; SEATO, Southeast Asia Treaty Organization ; ECE, Economic Commission for 
Europe ; ILO, International Labor Organization ; FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization ; ICAO, International Civil 
Aviation Organization ; WIIO, World Health Organization ; PASO, Pan American Sanitary Organization ; ECAFE, 
Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East; ICEJl, Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration; 
UNESCO, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization ; UNICEP, United Nations Children's 
Fund; GATT, General Agreement on Tariff.s and Trade; WMO, World :Meteorological Organization; NATO, North At- 
lantic Treaty Organization ; CCIF, Comity consultatif international tgl^phonique ; CCIT, formerly Comity consultatif 
international t^l^graphique, now Comity consultatif international tel6graphique et t616phonique (CCIT and CCIF 
combined). 

October I, 1956 523 



Calendar of Meetings — Continued 

In Session as of September 30, 1956 — Continued 

Conference on the Statute of the International Atomic Energy New York Sept. 20- 

Agencv. 

FAO/WHO Regional Nutrition Committee for South and East Tokyo Sept. 25- 

Asia: 4th Meeting. 

Scheduled October 1-December 31, 1956 

3d Suez Canal Conference London 

FAO Committee on Commodity Problems: Dairy Products Working Rome 

Party. 

Pan American Highway Congresses: 2d Meeting of Permanent Washington 

Executive Committee. 

ICEM Council: 5th Session Geneva 

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea: 44th Annual Copenhagen 

Meeting. 

South Pacific Commission: Technical Meeting on Pastures and Melbourne (Australia) . . 

Livestock. 

International Committee on Weights and Measures Paris 

UNESCO Regional Conference on Exchange of Publications in Habana 

Latin America. 

International Sugar Council: Statistical and Executive Commit- Geneva 

tees. 

Hague Conference on International Private Law: Sth Session . . The Hague 

International Sugar Council: 9th Session Geneva 

U.N. Sugar Conference: 2d Session Geneva 

International Tin Study Group and Management Committee: Sth London 

Meeting. 

U.N. Special Committee on Question of Defining Aggression . . . New York 

FAO Regional Conference for Asia and the Far East: 3d Session . . Bandung (Indonesia) . . . 

U.N. ECE Ad Hoc Meeting on Arbitration Geneva 

UN ICEF Committee on the Administrative Budget ...... New York 

International Congresses of Tropical Medicine and Malaria: Inter- Lisbon 

national Interim Committee. 

GATT Contracting Parties: 11th Session Geneva 

U.N. ECE Committee on Development of Trade: Sth Session and Geneva 

East- West Trade Consultations. 

WMO Commission for Maritime Meteorology: 2d Session .... Hamburg 

FAO World Eucalyptus Conference Rome 

South Pacific Commission: 16th Session Noumea (New Caledonia) . 

Committee on Improvement of National Statistics: 4th Session . . Washington 

U.N. Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation: 2d New York 

Meeting. 

UNICEF Executive Board and Program Committee New York 

U.N. ECE Timber Committee Geneva 

U.N. ECAFE Committee on Industry and Trade: 2d Session of Tokyo 

Trade Subcommittee. 

FAO Committee on Commodity Problems: 1st Meeting of Consul- Rome 

tative Subcommittee on the Economic Aspects of Rice. 

UNESCO Executive Board: 45th Session New Delhi 

UNESCO General Conference: 9th Session New Delhi 

FAO Rice Commission: Ad Hoc Working Group on Storage and Calcutta 

Processing of Rice. 

U.N. ECE Electric Power Committee: Working Party on Rural Geneva 

Electrification. 

ICAO Special Meeting on Charges for Airports and Air Navigation Montreal 

Facilities. 

7th International Grassland Congress Palmerston (New Zealand) 

U.N. ECE Electric Power Committee Geneva 

FAO International Rice Commission: Sth Session Calcutta 

ILO Governing Body: 133d Session (and Committees) Geneva 

4th Meeting of International North Pacific Fisheries Commission; Seattle 

Standing Committee on Biology and Research. 

U.N. General Assemblv: 11th Session New York 

U.N. ECE Timber Committee: Joint FAO/ECE Working Party Geneva 

on Forest and Forest Products Statistics. 

Caribbean Commission: Conference on Town and Country Develop- Trinidad, B. W. I 

ment Planning. 

Interparliamentary Union: 45th Conference Bangkok 

FAO Regional Conference for Latin America: 4th Session .... Santiago 



Oct. 
Oct. 


1— 


Oct. 


1- 


Oct. 
Oct. 


1_ 


Oct. 


1- 


Oct. 
Oct. 


1- 


Oct. 


2- 


Oct. 
Oct. 
Oct. 
Oct. 


3- 
3- 
4- 

8- 


Oct. 
Oct. 
Oct. 
Oct. 
Oct. 


s- 

8- 
10- 

11- 


Oct. 
Oct. 


11- 

15- 


Oct. 
Oct. 
Oct. 
Oct. 
Oct. 


16- 
17- 
18- 
22- 
22- 


Oct. 
Oct. 
Oct. 


22- 
22- 
29- 


Oct. 


2^ 


Oct. 

Nov 
Nov 


31- 

. 5- 
. 5- 


Nov 


. .5- 


Nov 


. 6- 


Nov 
Nov 
Nov 
Nov 
Nov 


. 6- 
. 8- 
. 12- 
. 12- 
. 12- 


Nov 
Nov 


. 12- 
. 12- 


Nov 


. 14- 


Nov 
Nov 


. 15- 
. 19- 



524 Department of State Bulletin 



Calendar of Meetings — Continued 



Scheduled October 1-December 31, 1956 — Continued 

U.N. ECE Conference of European Statisticians: Working Group 
on Censuses of Population and Housing. 

Consultative Committee for Economic Development in South and 
Southeast Asia ("Colombo Plan"): Officials Meeting. 

ITU International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Commit- 
tee (CCIT) : Preliminary Study Group. 

Inter- American Economic and Social Council: 1st Inter-American 
Technical Meeting on Housing and Planning. 

U.N. ECE Housing Committee: 1.3th Session and Working Parties . 

Customs Cooperation Council: 9th Session 

Inter-American Travel Congresses: Permanent Executive Com- 
mittee. 

NATO Council: Ministerial Session 

ITU International Telephone Consultative Committee (CCIF) : 
18th Plenary Assembly (and Final Meeting). 

U.N. ECE Committee on Agricultural Problems: 8th Meeting . . . 

U.N. ECE Steel Committee and Working Parties 

Consultative Committee for Economic Development in South and 
Southeast Asia ("Colombo Plan"): Ministerial Meeting. 

International Wheat Council: 21st Session 

UNESCO Middle East Conference on Vocational and Technical 
Education (with FAG and ILO). 

UNESCO Executive Board: 46th Session 

ITU International Telegraph Consultative Committee (CCIT) : 
8th Plenary Assembly (and Final Meeting). 

American International Institute for the Protection of Childhood: 
Directing Council. 

ILO Advisory Committee on Salaried Employees and Professional 
Workers: 4th Session. 

Caribbean Commission: 23d Meeting 

U.N. ECE Coal Committee 

U.N. ECE Inland Transport Committee 

Symposium on Tropical Cyclones 

U.N. ECAFE Railway Subcommittee: 5th Session of Working 
Party on Railway Track Sleepers. 

ITU International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Com- 
mittee (CCIT): 1st Plenary Assembly of New CCIT (former 
CCIT and CCIF combined) . 



Geneva Nov. 19- 

Wellington (New Zealand) . Nov. 19- 

Geneva Nov. 22- 

Bogotd, Nov. 26- 

Geneva Nov. 26- 

Brussels Nov. 26- 

Lima Nov. 28- 

Paris December 

Geneva Dec. 3- 

Geneva Dec. 3- 

Geneva Dec. 3- 

Wellington (New Zealand). . Dec. 4— 

London Dec. 4*- 

Cairo Dec. 4- 

New Delhi Dec. 6- 

Geneva Dec. 8- 

Montevideo Dec. 8- 

Geneva Dec. 10- 

Barbados, B. W. I Dec. 10- 

Geneva Dec. 10- 

Geneva Dec. 10- 

Brisbane (Australia) .... Dec. 10- 

Bangkok Dec. 13- 

Geneva Dec. 15- 



U.S. Delegations to 
International Conferences 

International Dairy Congress 

The Department of State announced on Sep- 
tember 11 (press release 477) that the U.S. Gov- 
ernment will be represented at the 14th Interna- 
tional Dairy Congress at Rome, Italy, Se]3tember 
24-28 by the following delegation : 

Chairman 

Ralph E. Hodgson, Chief, Dairy Husbandry Research 
Branch, Agricultural Research Service, Department of 
Agriculture ; member. Board of Directors, American 
Dairy Science Association 

Members of Delegation 

Clarence J. Babcock, Director, Dairy and Poultry Divi- 
sion, Foreign Agricultural Service, Department of 
Agriculture 

A. Morelle Cheney, Secretary, Dairymen's League Coop- 
erative Association, Inc., New York, N.Y. 

Bernt I. Christensen, Meridale Dairies, New York, N.Y. 



Chester K. Enstrom, President, Jones-Enstrom Ice Cream 
Company, Grand Junction, Colo. ; Director, American 
Dairy Association ; Director, International Association 
of lee Cream Manufacturers 

Herbert L. Forest, Director, Dairy Division, Agricultural 
Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture 

Kenneth E. Geyer, Manager, Connecticut Jlilk Producers 
Association, Hartford, Conn. 

Ira A. Gould, Jr., Chairman, Department of Dairy Tech- 
nology, College of Agriculture, Ohio State University, 
Columbus, Ohio 

David M. Gwinn, President, Penbrook Dairy Company, 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

T. Kline Hamilton, Diamond Milk Products, Inc., Colum- 
bus, Ohio 

Patrick B. Healy, Assistant Secretary, National Milk 
Producers Federation, Washington, D.C. 

Herbert B. Henderson, Chairman, Dairy Division, Uni- 
versity of Georgia, Athens, Ga. 

Milton Carl Hult, President, National Dairy Council, 
Chicago, 111. 

Eugene L. Jack, Professor and Head of the Department 
of Dairy Industry, University of California, Davis, 
Calif. 

William H. E. Reid, Professor of Dairying, University of 
Missouri, Columbia, Mo. 



October 1, 1956 



525 



Paul E. Reinhold, Chairman of the Board, Foremost 
Dairies, Jacksonville, Fla. 

Robert Rosenbaum, David Michael Company, Philadel- 
phia, Pa. 

Alfred O. Shaw, Head, Department of Dairy Science, 
Washington State CoUese, Pullman, Wash. 

George Malcolm Trout, Professor of Dairying, Michigan 
State University, East Lansing, Mich. 

Secretary of Delegation 

W. Raymond Ogg, Agricultural Attach^, American Em- 
bassy, Rome 

The International Dairy Congresses are held 
under the sponsorship of the International Dairy 
Federation, wliicli was organized in 1903 by the 
first International Dairy Congress at Brussels, 
Belgium. TRe Federation, composed of national 
associations in 20 countries, is administered by an 
international permanent bureau at Brussels. The 
aim of the Federation is to promote the solution 
of international scientific, technical, and economic 
dairy problems in the interests of humanity as a 
whole. The Federation studies economic ques- 
tions solely from the point of view of applied 
science, and its work is influenced by neither com- 
mercial nor political considerations. Congresses 
are held about every 3 years, usually in the capital 
of one of the member countries. The United 
States, while not a member of the International 
Dairy Federation, has participated officially in 
many of its Congresses. 

The program for the presentation and discus- 
sion of the scientific papers will be carried out 
under three sections, as follows : Section I : Milk 
for Liquid Consumption ; Section II : Dairy Prod- 
ucts — Technical and Economic Problems ; Section 
III: Legislation, Control, Methods of Analysis. 
In addition, the program includes three general 
lectures to be delivered during the Congress: (1) 
the position of the milk industry in the national 
economy; (2) an adequate supply of milk in tropi- 
cal countries, particularly in relation to milk-pro- 
ducing animals; and (3) effective and controlled 
use of surplus dairy products. 

ILO Preparatory Technical Maritime Conference 

The Department of State announced on Sep- 
tember 19 (press release 494) that the United 
States would be represented by the following tri- 
partite delegation at the Preparatory Technical 
Maritime Conference of the International Labor 
Organization beginning that day at London, 
England : 



Repeesenting the Goveenment op the United States 

Delegate 

Eocco C. Siciliano, Assistant Secretary of Labor 

Advisers 

L. James Falck, American Embassy, Bonn, Germany 

Joseph P. Goldberg, Special Assistant to the Commis- 
sioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor 

Dr. G. Halsey Hunt, Assistant Surgeon General, Depart- 
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare 

James L. Pimper, Assistant General Counsel, Maritime 
Administration, Department of Commerce 

Comdr. Paul E. Savonis, Coast Guard, Department of the 
Treasury 

Representing the Shipowners of the United States 
Delegate 

Maitland S. Pennington, Vice President, Seas Shipping 
Company, Inc. 

Adviser 

Rear Adm. Halbert C. Shepheard, Safety Counselor, 
American Pilots Association 

Representing the Seiafaeers of the United States 
Delegate 

John Hawk, Secretary-Treasurer, Seafarers International 
of North America 

Advisers 

Joseph Lane Kirkland, Department of Social Insurance, 

AFL-CIO 
John McDougall, Secretary-Treasurer, National Maritime 

Union of America 

Secretary of Delegation 

Maurice J. Scanlon, Office of International Conferences, 
Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Depart- 
ment of State 

The conference will bring together employer, 
worker, and government delegates from 21 coun- 
tries to discuss the following six-item agenda, as 
recommended by the Joint Maritime Commission 
and determined by the Governing Body of the 
Ilo at its 131st session in March 1956: general 
revision of the Ilo convention on wages, hours of 
work, and manning at sea; engagement of sea- 
farers through regularly established employment 
offices; flag transfer in relation to social conditions 
and safety; contents of medicine cliests on board 
ship and medical advice by radio to ships at sea; 
jurisdiction over the suspension of officers' certifi- 
cates of competency; and reciprocal or interna- 
tional recognition of seafarers' national identity 1 
cards. The conference is considered preparatory 
and technical because its task is to prepare the 
texts and documents on these subjects for a mari- 



526 



Department of State Bulletin 



time session of the Ilo General Conference to be 
held early in 1958. 

The countries invited to participate in the Pre- 
paratory Technical Maritime Conference are : Ar- 
gentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, China, 
Denmark, Finland, France, Federal Republic of 
Germany, Greece, India, Italy, Japan, Nether- 
lands, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Sweden, 
United Kingdom, and United States. 



ICAO Air Navigation Conference 

The Department of State announced on Sep- 
tember 17 (press release 490) that the U.S. Gov- 
ernment will be represented by the following dele- 
gation at the 3d Air Navigation Conference of the 
International Civil Aviation Organization (Icao) , 
to be convened at Montreal, September 18, 1956: 

Delegate 

Oscar Bakke, Chairman, Deputy Director, Bureau of 
Safety Regulations, Civil Aeronautics Board 

Alternate Delegates 

Robert W. Craig, ICAO Officer, Civil Aeronautics Admin- 
istration, Department of Commerce 

W. Edmund Koneczny, Chief of Airworthiness Division, 
Civil Aeronautics Board 

Advisers 

Jack Bowman, Chief, Regulations Section, Operations 
Division, .\ir Transport Association of America, Inc. 

Philip Donely, Assistant Chief, Dynamics Loads Division, 
Langley Aeronautics Laboratory, National Advisory 
Committee for Aeronautics 

Bernard C. Doyle, Aeronautical Research, Development 
and Design Engineer, Airworthiness Division, Civil 
Aeronautics Board 

William L. Halnon, Meteorologist, International Section, 
Synoptic Reports and Forecasts Division, Weather Bu- 
reau, Department of Commerce 

Max Karaiit, Vice President, Aircraft Owners and Pilots 
Association 

John D. Kay, Civil Aeronautics Administration-Coast 
and Geodetic Survey Liaison Officer, Department of 
Commerce 

James L. Kinney, ICAO Representative, Plight Operations, 
Office of Aviation Safety, Civil Aeronautics Administra- 
tion, Department of Commerce 

J. Matulaitis, Chief, Development Section, Engineering 
and Development Branch, Transportation Corps, De- 
partment of the Army 

John J. Quinn, Chief, Air Carrier Division, Civil Aero- 
nautics Board 

Burden Springer, Supervisory Aeronautical Engineer, 
Airframe and Equipment Branch, Office of Aviation 
Safety, Civil Aeronautics Administration, Department 
of Commerce 



Don Talmage, Engineering Department, Air Transport 
Association of America, Inc. 

The purpose of the conference is to discuss sub- 
jects principally in the fields of airworthiness and 
operations. Agenda items include ( 1 ) revision of 
international standards and recommended prac- 
tices for the airworthiness of aircraft and the com- 
plementary specifications for operating limita- 
tions; (2) consideration of a program of future 
work of the International Civil Aviation Organ- 
ization in the field of airworthiness; (3) considera- 
tion of the need for rearward- facing seats in 
public transport aircraft ; (4) marking of break-in 
points to be used by rescue crews to remove occu- 
pants of an aircraft in case of crash; (5) exchange 
of views on operational requirements for the fore- 
casting and reporting of gusts; (6) aircraft re- 
quirements for navigation lights; and (7) 
operational control. 

The conference is expected to last approxi- 
mately 5 weeks. 



Current U.N. Documents: 
A Selected Bibliography 

Security Council 

Report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council 
Pursuant to the Council's Resolutions of 4 April and 4 
June 1956 on the Palestine Question. S/3632, August 
3, 1956. 13 pp. mimeo. 

Report of the Trusteeship Council to the Security Council 
on the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands Covering 
the Period From 23 July 19.55 to 14 August 1956. 
S/3636, August 15, 1956. 97 pp. mimeo. 

Report Dated 20 August 1956 by the Chief of Staff of the 
United Nations Truce Supervision Organization to the 
Secretary-General of the United Nations on the Inci- 
dents of 16 and 17 August 1056 in the Negev and in the 
Gaza Strip. S/3638, August 21, 1956. 6 pp. mimeo. 

Letter Dated 5 September 1956 From the Representative 
of Israel Addressed to the President of the Security 
Council. S/3642, September 5, 1956. 2 pp. mimeo. 

Letter Dated 12 September 1956 From the Representatives 
of France and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
Northern Ireland Addressed to the President of the 
Security Council. S/3645, September 12, 1956. 2 pp. 
mimeo. 

Identical Letters Dated 17 September 1956 from the Rep- 
resentatives of Lebanon and Syria Addressed to the 
President of the Security Council. S/3648, undated. 
2 pp. mimeo. 

Letter Dated 15 September 1956 from the Representative 
of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Addressed to 
the Secretary-General of the United Nations [transmit- 
ting a "Statement by the Soviet Government on the need 
for a peaceful settlement of the Suez question," dated 
September 15]. S/3649, September 17, 1956. 10 pp. 
mimeo. 

Letter Dated 17 September 1956 from the Representative 
of Egypt Addressed to the President of the Security 
Council. S/3650, September 17, 1956. 5 pp. mimeo. 



Ocfober 7, 7956 



527 




Current Actions 



MULTILATERAL 



Austria 

State treaty for the re-establlshment of an independent 
and democratic Austria. Signed at Vienna May 15, 
1955. Entered into force July 27, 1955. TIAS 3298. 
Accession deposited: Poland, August 20, 1956. 

Finance 

Articles of .\greement of the International Monetary 
Fund. Opened for signature at Washington December 
27, 1945. Entered into force December 27, 1945. TIAS 
1501 . 
Sipiiatures and acceptances: Argentina, September 20, 

1956 ; Viet-Nam, September 21, 1956. 
Articles of Agreement of the International Bank for 
Reconstruction and Development. Opened for signa- 
ture at Washington, December 27, 1945. Entered into 
force December 27, 1945. TIAS 1502. 
Signatures and acceptances: Argentina, September 20, 

1956 ; Viet-Nam, September 21, 1956. 

Genocide 

Convention on the prevention and punishment of the 
crime of genocide. Done at Paris December 9, 1948. 
Entered into force January 12, 1951.^ 
Ratification deposited: Iran, August 14, 1956. 

Safety at Sea 

Convention on safety of life at sea. Signed at London 
June 10, 1948. Entered into force November 19, 1952. 
TIAS 2495. 
Acceptance deposited: Bulgaria, August 17, 1956. 

Slave Trade 

Convention to suppress the slave trade and slavery. 
Signed at Gene\a September 25, 1926. Entered into 
force March 9, 1927. 46 Stat. 2183. 
AcccKsion deposited: Viet-Nam, August 14, 1956. 

Trade and Commerce 

Sixth protocol of supplementary concessions to the Gen- 
eral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Done at Geneva 
Slay 23, 1956. Entered into force June 30, 1956. TIAS 
3591. 

Schednles of concessions entered, into force: Haiti, 
August 1, 19.56; Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, 
September 1, 1956. 

United Nations 

Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scien- 
tific and Ciiltural Organization. Done at London 
November 16, 1945. Entered into force November 4, 
1946. TIAS 1580. 
Si'jnature: Rumania, July 27, 1956. 
Acceptance deposited: Rumania, July 27, 1956. 

Women — Political Rights 

Inter-American convention on granting of political rights 
to women. Signed at Bogota May 2, 1948. Entered 
into force April 22, 1949.' 

Ratifications deposited: Peru, June 11, 1956; Nicara- 
gua, August 22, 1956. 



BILATERAL 



Pakistan 

Agreement amending the agricultural commodities agree- 
ment of August 7, 1956 (TIAS 3621). Effected by ex- 
change of notes at Karachi September 7, 1956. Entered 
into force September 7, 1956. 

Agreement concerning financial arrangements for the 
furnishing of certain supplies and services to naval 
vessels. Signed at Karachi September 10, 1956. Will 
enter into force December 9, 1956 (90 days from date 
of signature). 

Peru 

Agreement extending Army mission agreement of June 
20. 1949 (TIAS 1937) from its expiration until date of 
signature of new agreement. Effected by exchange of 
notes at Lima .luly 10 and August 17, 1956. Entered 
into force August 17, 1956. 

Army mission agreement. Signed at Lima September 
6, 1956. Entered into force September 6, 1956. 



DEPARTMENT AND FOREIGN SERVICE 



Foreign Service Examination 

Press rele.ise 491 dated September 17 

The Department of State announced on Sep- 
tember 17 that the semiannual Foreign Service 
officer examination will be given on December 8 
at more than 65 centers throughout the United 
States. This examination is open to anyone who 
meets the age and citizenship requirements out- 
lined below. 

Officials of the Department of State estimate 
that several hundred new Foreign Service officers 
will be required during the next year to fill posi- 
tions overseas and the many Washington positions 
now required to be filled by Foreign Service 
officers. 

After completing several weeks of training at 
the Foreign Service Institute in Washington,^ 
about half of the new officers will take up duties 
at one of the 268 American embassies, legations, 
and consulates around the world. At these posts, 
which range in size from the large missions such 
as Paris and London to the one-man posts such as 
Perth, Australia, the new officer may expect to do 
a variety of tasks, including administrative work, 
political, economic, commercial and labor report- 



■ Not in force for the United States. 



' For an article on the Institute, see Bulletin of Sept. 
10, 1956, p. 415. 



528 



Department of State Bulletin 



ing, consular duties, and assisting and protecting 
Americans and their property abroad. Other new 
officers will be assigned to the Department's head- 
quarters in Washington, where they will engage in 
research or other substantive work, or in the many 
administrative tasks which are essential to the 
day-to-day conduct of foi'eign affairs. 

To explain fully these opportunities in the For- 
eign Service which await qualified young men and 
women of America, a number of Foreign Service 
officers will visit more than 230 colleges and uni- 
versities in all 48 States this fall. In order to make 
known the diversified needs of the Department of 
State and Foreign Service, these officei-s will talk 
not only with promising students of history, po- 
litical science, and international relations but also 
with those who are specializing in economics, for- 
eign languages, and business and public adminis- 
tration. 

Those successful in the one-day written exami- 
nation, which tests the candidate's facility in Eng- 
lish expression, general ability, and background 
as well as his proficiency in a modern foreign lan- 
guage, will subsequently be given an oral exami- 
nation by panels which will meet in regional 
centers throughout the United States. Those can- 
didates who successfully pass the orals will then 
be given a physical examination and a security 
investigation. Upon completion of these phases, 
the candidate will be nominated by the President 
as a Foreign Service officer of class 8, vice consul, 
and secretary in the diplomatic service. 

To be eligible to take the examination, candi- 
dates must be at least 20 years of age and under 31, 
as of October 26, 1956, and must be American 
citizens of at least 9 years' standing. Wliile a 
candidate's spouse need not be a citizen on the date 
of the examination, citizenship must have been 
obtained prior to the date of the officer's appoint- 
ment. 

Starting salaries for successful candidates range 
from $4,750 to $5,350 per year depending upon the 
age, experience, and family status of the individ- 
I ual. In addition, insurance, medical, educational, 
and retirement benefits are granted, as well as 
annual and sick leave. 

Application forms may be obtained by writing 
to the Board of Examiners for the Foreign Serv- 
ice, Department of State, "Washington 25, D. C. 
The closing date for filing the application is 
October 26, 1956. 



Foreign Service Selection Boards Meet 

Press release 482 dated September 12 

The Department of State announced on Sep- 
tember 12 the convening of the Tenth Selection 
Boards which will review the records of all career 
Foreign Service officers for purposes of promotion. 
The Selection Boards are established by the Sec- 
retary of State under the terms of the Foreign 
Service Act of 1946. Consisting of senior officers 
drawn from the top ranks of the career Foreign 
Service and of distinguished private citizens, the 
boards normally meet once each year to evaluate 
the performance of Foreign Service officers and 
to determine the rank order listings, which are 
the basis for the President's promotion of the top 
officers in each class. 

This year the Selection Boards will be faced 
with the largest task which has ever confronted 
a similar body, since the size of the career Foreign 
Service group has been substantially expanded 
during the past year. Largely as the result of the 
integration of a number of civil service and For- 
eign Service Staff' officers, the career Foreign Serv- 
ice officer corps has increased from 1,900 in 1955 
to 2,800 this year. 

The Selection Boards will meet for 4 months. 
The boards will include 23 Foreign Service offi- 
cers, 7 "public members" drawn from private life, 
and 7 observers designated by the Departments 
of Commerce and Labor to sit on the boards in 
view of the direct interest of those Departments 
in the work of the unified Foreign Service of the 
United States. 

The Foreign Service officer members include 
four career ministers who have been called back 
to the United States for this purpose : 

John M. Cabot, Ambassador to Sweden, former Assistant 
Secretary of State and former Ambassador to Finland 
and to Pakistan 

Edward T. Wailes, Minister to Hungary, former Assist- 
ant Secretary of State and former Ambassador to the 
Union of South Africa 

Theodore Achilles, Ambassador to Peru 

Cecil B. Lyon, Ambassador to Chile 

The public members will be : 

Wendell W. Moore, Assistant Vice President, A. S. Aloe 
Co., St. Louis 

Graham H. Stuart, Professor Emeritus of Political 
Science, Stanford University 

Marvin L. Frederick, Personnel Consultant, Peat, War- 
wick, Mitchell and Co., New York 



October 1, 1956 



529 



Lloyd C. Halvorson, Chief Economist, National Grange 
Richard C. Thompson, former Export Manager, Electric 

Auto-Lite Co. 
E. Wallace Chadwick, former Member of Congress 
Edward D. Gray, former secretary. New York Petroleum 

Industries 



Consular Offices 

The Department announced on September 5 that, effec- 
tive October 1, 1956, the American Consulate at Rotterdam, 
the Netherlands, will be elevated to the rank of Consulate 
General. 



Designations 

Robert E. Stufflebeam as Special Assistant to the As- 
sistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs, 
with responsibility for working on problems related to 
employment of U.S. citizens in international organizations 
and agencies, effective August 12. 

Raymond E. Lisle as Deputy Director, OflSce of German 
Affairs, effective September 12. 



PUBLICATIONS 



Recent Releases 

For sale hy the Superintendent of Documents, V. S. Gov- 
ernment Printinr/ Office, Washington 25, D. C. Address 
requests direct to the Superintendent of Documents, ex- 
cept in the case of free publications, which may be ob- 
tained from the Department of State. 

Mutual Defense Assistance — Disposition of Equipment 
and Materials. TIAS 3562. 5 pp. 5(f. 

Arrangement between the United States and Uruguay. 
Exchange of notes — Dated at Montevideo June 1 and 
September 16, 1955, with related note — Dated at Monte- 
video April 20, 1956. Entered into force September 16, 
1955. 

Mutual Defense Assistance — Disposition of Equipment 
and Materials. TIAS 3563. 4 pp. 5«(. 

Agreement between the United States and Viet-Nam. Ex- 
change of notes — Signed at Saigon March 1 and May 10, 
1955. Entered into force May 10, 1955. 

Mutual Defense Assistance — Equipment and Materials 
for Use by Egyptian Police Units. TIAS 3364. 3 pp. 5<}. 

Agreement between the United States and Egypt. Ex- 
change of notes — Signed at Cairo April 29, 1952. Entered 
into force April 29, 1952. 

Mutual Defense Assistance — Equipment and Materials 
for Use by Egyptian Armed Forces. TIAS 3.'i65. 3 
pp. 5«f. 



Understanding between the United States and Egypt. 
Exchange of notes — Signed at Cairo December 9 and 10, 
1952. Entered into force December 10, 1952. 

Surplus Agricultural Commodities. TIAS 3566. 2 
pp. 5((. 

Agreement between the United States and Turkey — Sup- 
plementing agreement of March 12, 1956 — Signed at An- 
kara May 11, 19.56. Entered into force May 11, 1956. 

Surplus Agricultural Commodities. TIAS 3568. 2 
pp. 5<f. 

Agreement between the United States and Finland — Sup- 
plementing agreement of May 6, 1955, as amended and 
supplemented — Signed at Helsinki April 26, 1956. En- 
tered into force April 26, 1956. 

Surplus Agricultural Commodities. TIAS 3569. 6 

pp. 50. 

Agreement between the United States and Peru — Signed 
at Lima May 7, 1956. Entered into force May 7, 1956. 

Surplus Agricultural Commodities. TIAS 3572. 4 
pp. 50. 

Agreement between the United States and Portugal — 
Signed at Lisbon May 24, 1956. Entered into force May 
24, 1956. 

Surplus Agricultural Commodities. TIAS 3583. 10 pp. 
100. 

Agreement between the United States and Chile — Signed 
at Santiago March 13, 1956. Entered into force June 2, 
1056. 



Passport Visas. TIAS 3584. 3 pp. 50. 

Agreement between the United States and Iceland, 
change of notes — Signed at Reykjavik June 4, 19.56. 
tered into force June 4, 1956. 



Ex- 

En- 



Interchange of Patent Rights and Technical Information 
for Defense Purposes. TIAS 3585. 29 pp. 150. 

Agreement and protocol between the United States and 
Japan — Signed at Tokyo March 22, 1956. Entered into 
force June 6, 1956. 

Parcel Post. TIAS 3586. 15 pp. 100. 

Agreement between the United States and Nicaragua — 
Signed at Managua March 19, 1956, and at Washington 
April 4, 1956. Entered into force July 1, 19.56. 

Passport Visas. TIAS 3587. 4 pp. 50. 

Agreement between the United States and Iraq. Ex- 
change of notes — Signed at Baghdad June 6, 1956. En- 
tered into force June 6, 1956. 

Surplus Agricultural Commodities — Sale of Tobacco and 
Construction of Housing or Community Facilities. TIAS 
3588. 4 pp. 50. 

Agreement, with annex, between the United States and 
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ire- 
land. Exchange of notes — Signed at London June 5, 1956. 
Entered into force June 5, 1956. 

Passport Visas. TIAS 3589. 5 pp. 50. 

Agreement between the United States and Guatemala. 
Exchange of notes — Signed at Guatemala May 30, 1956. 
Entered into force May 30, 1956. 



530 



Department of Slate Bulletin 



October 1, 1956 



Index 



Vol. XXXV, No. 901 



Agriculture 

Eximbaiik Loans to Overseas Buyers of Surplus 
Agricultural Commodities 522 

International Dairy Congress (delegation) . . . 525 

American Republics. Inter-American Committee of 
Presidential Representatives Holds First Meet- 
ing (Milton Eisenhower, text of communique) . 511 

Argentina. $100 Million Credit Established for 
Argentine Recovery 515 

Atomic Energy. Inter-American Committee of 
Presidential Representatives Holds First Meeting 
(Milton Eisenhower, text of communique) . . 511 

Aviation. ICAO Air Navigation Conference (dele- 
gation) 527 

Bulgaria. Anniversary of Death of Nikola Petkov . 509 

Congress, The. Congressional Documents Relating 

to Foreign Policy 510 

Department and Foreign Service 

Consular Offices 530 

Designations (Lisle, Stufflebeam) 530 

Foreign Service Examination 528 

Foreign Service Selection Boards Meet 529 

Economic Affairs 

Eximbank Loans to Overseas Buyers of Surplus Ag- 
ricultural Commodities 522 

$100 Million Credit Established for Argentine Re- 
covery 515 

U.S. Committee for Prevention of Pollution of Seas 
by Oil 521 

Educational Exchange. U.S. Experts To Select 

Korean Art for Loan Exhibition 515 

Egypt. Second London Conference on Suez Canal 

(Dulles, texts of statements and declaration) . 503 
Germany. Mr. Aigner Appointed to Tribunals on 

German External Debts 509 

International Organizations and Meetings 

Calendar of Meetings 523 

ICAO Air Navigation Conference (delegation) . . 527 
ILO Preparatory Technical Maritime Conference 

(delegation) 526 

Inter-American Committee of Presidential Repre- 
sentatives Holds First Meeting (Milton Eisen- 
hower, text of communique) 511 

International Dairy Congress (delegation) . . . 525 
Second London Conference on Suez Canal (Dulles, 

texts of statements and declaration) 503 

Italy. Surplus U.S. Foods To Feed Italian Chil- 
dren 510 

Korea. U.S. Experts To Select Korean Art for 

Loan Exhibition 515 

Mutual Security. Surplus U.S. Foods To Feed 

Italian Children 510 



Netherlands. Consular Offices 530 

Publications. Recent Releases 530 

Science. Proposal To Exchange Flights Over Arctic 

With U.S.S.R 508 

Treaty Information. Current Actions . . . 528 
U.S.S.R. Proposal To Exchange Flights Over Arc- 
tic With U.S.S.R 508 

United Nations 

Current U.N. Documents 527 

ICAO Air Navigation Conference (delegation) . . 527 
ILO Preparatory Technical Maritime Conference 

(delegation) 526 

UNESCO and American Foreign Policy (Wilcox) . 516 

Name Index 

Aigner, Martin 509 

Coll Benegas, Carlos A 515 

Dulles, Secretary 503 

Eisenhower, Milton 511 

Lisle, Raymond E 530 

Petkov, Nikola 509 

Stufflebeam, Robert E 530 

Waugh, Samuel C 515 

Wilcox, Francis O 516 



Check List of Department of State 
Press Releases: September 17-23 

Relea.ses may be obtained from the News Division, 
Department of State, Washington 25, D. C. 

Press releases issued prior to September 17 which 
appear in this issue of the Bulletin are Nos. 477 
of September 11 and 482 of September 12. 

No. Date Subject 

489 9/17 Aigner appointed to German tribunals 

(rewrite). 

490 9/17 Delegation to ICAO conference. 

491 9/17 Foreign Service officer examination. 

492 9/17 Loan exhibition of Korean art (re- 

write). 
*493 9/18 Educational exchange. 

494 9/19 Delegation to ILO maritime conference. 

495 9/19 Committee for prevention of oil pollu- 

tion. 
49G 9/20 Note on U.S.-Soviet exchange of flights 
over the Arctic. 

497 9/20 Dulles : Suez conference statement. 

498 9/21 Dulles : Suez conference extemporane- 

ous remarks (excerpt). 
*499 9/21 Hemmendinger resignation. 

500 9/22 9th anniversary of death of Nikola 

Petkov. 

501 9/22 Dulles : final remarks at Suez confer- 

ence. 

502 9/22 Suez conference : declaration and state- 

ment. 

* Not printed. 



U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE; 1958 




United States 
Government Printing Office 

DIVISION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS 

Washington 25, D. C. 



PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE TO AVOID 

PAYMENT OF POSTAGE, »300 

(GPOl 



the 
Department 

of 
State 



OFFICIAL BUSINESS 



Publications on the United Nations . . . 

United Nations — 76 Countries Pledged To Act 

Publication 6349 10 cents 

This folder outlines some of the highlights in the record of 
the United Nations, and briefly describes functions and accom- 
plishments of the specialized agencies. 

You . . . and the United Nations, 7956 

Publication 6302 15 cents 

Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., U.S. Representative to the United 
Nations, gives concise answers to 20 questions regarding the 
United Nations. 

The United Nations in the Mainstream of History 
Publication 6355 10 cents 

Assistant Secretary Wilcox looks upon the United Nations in 
this address from a historical point of view, sums up its first 
decade, evaluates the trends that have set in, and considers the 
main problems that lie ahead. 

United Nations General Assembly — A Review of the 
Tenth Session 

Publication 6322 15 cents 

This new Background pamphlet describes highlights and con- 
tinuing issues of the 10th regular session of the U.N. General 
Assembly. 

These publications may be purchased at the prices noted 
from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Print- 
ing Office, Washington 25, D.C. 



Order Form 

Fo: Supt. of Documents 
G«vt. Printing Office 
Washing1.on 25, D.C. 



Enetoaed And: 



(cash, check, or 
money order). 



Please send me 
copies 

u 

D 
D 
D 



United Nations — 76 Countries Pledged To Act 
You . . . and the United Nations, 1956 
The United Nations in the Mainstream of History 
United Nations General Assembly — A Review of the Tenth 
Session 



Name: 

Street Address: 

CHv Znnp. anH State: 



THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 



L/rKuairORY 



-^ 



735-3, / /^30 





Vol. XXXV, No. 902 



October 8, 1956 



HE 

FFICIAL S 

EEKLY RECORD 

F 

NITED STATES 

IREIGN POLICY 



OPENING OF DISCUSSIONS ON STATUTE OF 
INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY 

Welcoming Address by Lewis L. Strauss 535 

Statement by James J. Wadsworth 537 

INTERNATIONAL UNDERSTANDING IN THE 

BUSINESS WORLD • Remarks by President Eisenhower . 551 

TRANSCRIPT OF SECRETARY DULLES' NEWS 

CONFERENCE OF SEPTEMBER 26 543 

INSCRIPTION OF SUEZ ITEMS ON SECURITY 

COUNCIL AGENDA • Statement by Ambassador Henry 
Cabot Lodge, Jr 560 



For index see inside back cover 



THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 




Vol. XXXV, No. 902 • Publication 6400 
October 8, 1956 



Boston PuWic Li::rary 
CuperintoT^.I^'^t of Documents 

NOV 7 -1956 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Ooverament Printing OfBce 

Washington 25, D.C. 

Pbke: 

52 issues, domestic $7.50, foreign $10.25 
Single copy, 20 cents 

The printing of this publication has been 
approved by the Dh-ector of the Bureau of 
the Budget (January 19, 1955). 

Note: Contents of this publication are not 
copyrighted and items contained herein may 
be reprinted. Citation of the Department 
or State Bulletin as the source will be 
appreciated. 



The Department of State BULLETIN, 
a weekly publication issued by the 
Public Services Division, provides the 
public and interested agencies of 
the Government with information on 
developments in the field of foreign 
relations and on the work of the 
Department of State and the Foreign 
Service. The BULLETIN includes se- 
lected press releases on foreign policy, 
issued by the White House and the 
Department, and statements and ad- 
dresses made by the President and by 
the Secretary of State and other 
officers of the Department, as well as 
special articles on various phases of 
international affairs and the func- 
tions of tile Department. Informa- 
tion is included concerning treaties 
and internatioTuil agreements to 
which the United States is or may 
become a party and treaties of gen- 
eral international interest. 

Publications of the Department, 
United Nations documents, and legis- 
lative material in the field of inter- 
national relations are listed currently. 



Opening of Discussions on Statute 

of International Atomic Energy Agency 



WELCOMING ADDRESS BY LEWIS L. STRAUSS 
CHAIRMAN, U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION' 

It is my privilege and great honor, on behalf 
of my fellow countrymen, to welcome you to the 
United States for the historic deliberations which 
you are about to undertake. I bring you warmest 
greetings from President Eisenhower and his sin- 
cere good wishes for the success of this conference. 

The fervent prayers of all mankind attend 
your labors here. Peoples of many lands look 
hopefully to you, not alone to spread the bounties 
of the beneficent atom that their lives may become 
healthier and more abundant but that in so doing 
you will also provide the foundations upon which 
a durable structure of peaceful understanding will 
eventually be erected. 

This is the largest conference of nations to be 
held since the end of the Great War, indeed per- 
haps the largest in the entire history of inter- 
national collaboration. Thus, your voice can be 
the voice of himianity itself, the conscience of the 
world of men. 

Since the end of the last war, the nations of the 
earth have been caught in the endless spiral of an 
atomic arms race. As recently as 3 years ago, 
there appeared to be no formula, and no hope, for 
averting mutual disaster. Indeed, 3 years ago a 
convocation for a purpose such as that which has 
brought you together today would have been un- 
thinkable. 

In the midst of the thick darkness of those days 
a lamp was kindled. Its light first shone forth 
in this very hall. Some of you perhaps were so 
fortunate as to be here on that late December 



' Made at the opening of the Conference on the Statute 
of the International Atomic Energy Agency at U.N. Head- 
quarters on Sept. 20 (U.S. delegation press release). 



afternoon in 1953. Standing at this very lectern 
before the representatives of your governments, 
standing in effect in the presence of all hiunanity, 
President Eisenhower pronounced the words 
which broke the evil spell that war had cast upon 
the world. 

They will be long remembered, and it is fitting 
to lecall those sentences today. 

He said : 

It is not enough to take this weapon out of the hands 
of the soldiers. It must be put into the hands of those 
who will know how to strip its military casing and adapt 
it to the arts of peace. 

The United States knows that if the fearful trend of 
atomic military buildup can be reversed, this greatest of 
destructive forces can be developed into a great boon, 
for the benefit of all mankind. 

And he went on to say this : 

The United States knows that peaceful power from 
atomic- energy is no dream of the future. That capability, 
already proved, is here — now — today. Who can doubt, 
if the entire body of the world's scientists and engineers 
had adequate amounts of fissionable material with which 
to test and develop their ideas, that this capability would 
rapidly be transformed into universal, efficient, and eco- 
nomic usage. 

He then outlined his plan for the international 
agency, including the pooling of fissionable ma- 
terials for peaceful uses and the establishment of 
safeguards against any use of those materials for 
other than peaceful purposes. He said : 

. . . the United States pledges before you — and there- 
fore before the world — its determination to help solve 
the fearful atomic dilemma— to devote its entire heart 
and mind to find the way by which the miraculous in- 
ventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, 
but consecrated to his life. 

When he reached the conclusion of his message, 
an ovation swept through the great assemblage. 



October 8, 1956 



535 



It evidenced the profound effect which his pro- 
nouncement had made upon his listeners. I shared 
with many of you the drama of that moment and 
sensed, in what will always remain as one of the 
most moving experiences of my life, the electric 
response which began in this room and echoed 
around the world, lifting the hopes and stirring 
the imaginations of men everywhere. 

No longer could it be said that man's genius in 
pushing back the frontiers of the physical uni- 
verse had outstripped his moral inspiration to con- 
trol his discoveries. 

What the President proposed was motivated 
solely by desire to find a way out of the atomic 
dilemma which had fastened itself upon the world 
and thereby to lift the darkest cloud overhanging 
humanity. His proposal was a product of bold 
vision, yet it had the great virtue of simplicity. 
It was above all else an easily workable plan, prac- 
ticable yet uninvolved. 

In the months following President Eisenhower's 
proposal, discussions were undertaken among 
those nations having either developed resources 
of nuclear raw materials or advanced atomic 
energy programs, and on December 4, 1954, the 
General Assembly of the United Nations by 
unanimous vote endorsed the proposal to create 
an International Atomic Energy Agency. 

In late February of this year, representatives of 
12 nations met in Washington. After 4 months 
of earnest, cooperative labor, they produced the 
draft statute which will be before you.^ 

This statute, or charter, is not a panacea for all 
the ills of the world. It will not within any pre- 
cisely measured time turn all deserts into green 
pastures. It will not relieve man of the necessity 
to labor for his daily bread. It will not usher in 
the millennium. 

Functions of Agency 

However, the creation of the International 
Atomic Energy Agency under the conditions en- 
visaged by the draft statute will do these things : 

It will accelerate the application of the peace- 
ful uses of atomic energy everywhere, reaching 
the uttermost parts of the earth. 

It will divert important amounts of fissionable 
material from atomic bomb arsenals to uses of 
benefit to mankind, and those amounts will stead- 



" For text, see Bulletin of May 21, 1956, p. 852. 
536 



ily glow with the maintenance of peace. More 
tons of these materials will be devoted to welfare, 
fewer tons to weapons. 

It will stimulate the discovery of new funda- 
mental data on which all progress depends. 

It will provide an opportunity for nations which 
have little or no atomic capability at present to 
acquire atomic facilities best suited to their needs 
either individually or in combination with their 
neighbors. 

It will increase man's knowledge of his own 
body and that of the plants and animals that 
nourish him, and of the pests which threaten him, 
to the end that the art of healing will be advanced 
and new ways found to increase the food supply 
of the world. Man's span of useful life thereby 
should be prolonged. 

It will be the means by which nations may ob- 
tain electrical energy to lighten their burdens and 
increase their productivity. It will thus con- 
tribute to higher standards of living in the world. 

It will encourage young and imaginative minds 
in many countries to seek careers in the new dis- 
ciplines of nuclear science and engineering to the 
end that they may improve the economy and health 
of their homelands. 

And, of course, most important of all, the suc- 
cessful operation of the agency will contribute j 
mightily to focus world attention and understand- 
ing on the gifts which atomic energy can make 
toward enriching human life and thus dispel some 
of today's doubts and fears. 

The cooperation which is foreseen under the 
provisions of the draft statute will be inter- 
national. This is proper, for the atom itself is 
international. It has no politics, follows no party 
line, and recognizes no geographical frontiers or 
allegiances. The language it speaks is universal. 

The little group that witnessed the first con- 
trolled chain reaction in Chicago in December 
1942 included men native to many lands. Their 
leader was the great Enrico Fermi, by birth a son 
of Italy. Among his colleagues were scientists 
from Canada, Hungary, and Germany. And 
contributing to that moment of triumph were the 
genius and the accumulated discoveries of other 
men and women from other lands. Such names 
as Einstein, Halin, Strassman, and Meitner of 
Germany, Bohr of Denmark, Rutherford and 
Chadwick of P^ngland, the Curies of Poland and 
France, Mendeleev of Russia, and Raman of In- 
dia, to name only a few of an illustrious galaxy. 

Deparimeni of Sfafe Bulletin 



Pooling Atomic Knowledge 

Knowledge of the atom cannot be claimed as a 
monopoly of a few large countries. This fact was 
dramatically highlighted at the great Conference 
on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy at Ge- 
neva in August of last year, when the scientists 
and engineers of 73 nations met in an atmosphere 
of friendship and mutual purpose and exchanged 
information on the peaceful development of the 
atom. I am happy to have been concerned with 
the inception of that fruitful and memorable 
gathering. 

This process of pooling knowledge of the atom 
has continued in the year that has passed since 
the conference. Scientific delegations have been 
exchanging visits and ideas, motivated only by 
the spirit of human progi-ess. A scientific com- 
mittee has been established under the aegis of the 
United Nations to study the effects of radiation. 
Nuclear science symposiums have been held in a 
number of countries, and a large and important 
sharing of the results of current research has re- 
sulted from smaller international conferences, 
such as those dealing with high-energy physics 
held earlier this year. 

In the spirit of these events, it is our hope that 
while in the United States you will find it possible 
to visit our national laboratory at Brookhaven, 
which is not far from this city, and — if your time 
permits, and I hope it will — journey to Shipping- 
port, Pennsylvania, to see our first full-size atomic 
power plant exclusively for commercial power 
production, which we began just 2 years ago this 
month and which is nearing completion there. 

Through all of these activities, the United 
States has contributed in keeping with our con- 
fidence in the eventual success of this conference. 
The steadily expanding extent of our cooperation 
with other nations in atomic energy matters, in- 
cluding agreements which we have negotiated with 
39 nations, is an earnest of that fact. We believe 
that our technology and atomic materials should 
benefit other peoples as well as our own. We also 
believe that necessary safeguards to health and 
peace must accompany the development of the 
atom. 

You will recall that President Eisenhower in 
his address of December 8, 1953, spoke of alloca- 
tions of fissionable material to the agency, by our- 
selves and by others, "to the extent permitted by 
elementary prudence." 



Last February 22, the President gave concrete 
form and vitality to the determination of the 
United States to aid other countries when he an- 
nounced that the Atomic Energy Commission 
would make 20,000 kilograms of uranium 235 
available for distribution to other nations for 
peaceful uses.^ This was an amount exactly equal 
to the uranium 235 made available for such uses 
in the United States. The President, in an- 
nouncing the allocation, emphasized that the 
United States welcomes the progress toward the 
international agency and will cooperate with it 
wholeheartedly when it is established. 

The faces of millions of people of every race 
and faith are turned toward this place today. 
Their hopes, indeed their prayers, that success 
shall here reward your efforts will surely over- 
come any barriers and resolve any differences that 
may yet block attainment of the great goal which 
is within your grasp. 



STATEMENT BY JAMES J. WADSWORTH « 

We now approach the last steps in the creation 
of the International Atomic Energy Agency 
which President Eisenhower proposed in this hall 
on December 8, 1953. If our work prospers as I 
hope and believe it will, this great conference of 
81 nations will not rise until it has adopted a 
statute of the agency in its final text. Thereby 
we shall have taken a decisive step in translating 
into fact the vision which has inspired us all, the 
vision of world atomic cooperation and peace. 

Many nations in the past 3 years have shared in 
this creative effort — nations from every quarter 
of the globe. In scope and in constructive spirit, 
the records of diplomacy in the past decade 
scarcely reveal its equal. It may be in order to 
take a brief glance over the road we have traveled. 

In proposing that this agency be created, the 
President of the United States had in mind two 
major purposes, both aimed at strengthening world 
peace. The first was to channel nuclear materials 
from national stores into a new international 
agency and thereby begin, in his words, "to di- 



' Ibid., Mar. 19, 1956, p. 469. 

* Made before the conference on Sept. 24 (U.S. delega- 
tion press release). Ambassador Wadsworth is U.S. 
Representative to the conference and chairman of the 
U.S. delegation. 



October 8, 7956 



537 



minish the potential destructive power of the 
world's atomic stockpiles." The second purpose 
was to devise methods whereby fissionable ma- 
terial would be allocated to serve only the peaceful 
pursuits of mankind. 

The United States has ever kept these twin 
objectives in view. We have been aware from the 
beginning that neither aim could be achieved by 
one nation, or even by a small group of nations, 
and that we were embarked upon a truly inter- 
national enterprise. For that reason, throughout 
these proceedings we have frequently turned to 
the United Nations. For the same reason our 
negotiations themselves have proceeded in ever- 
widening circles. The main steps in those nego- 
tiations are worth reviewing. 

Main Steps in Negotiations 

First^ an eight-nation group worked early in 
1954 to prepare a first draft of a statute for the 
proposed agency. 

Second^ the subject was thoroughly debated at 
the Ninth General Assembly in 1954. 

Third, on August 22, 1955, the draft statute as 
it then stood ^ was circulated to get the views of 
all members of the United Nations or of the spe- 
cialized agencies — a total at that time of 84 states. 

Fourth, the subject was again debated at the 
Tenth General Assembly in 1955, and a resolution 
endorsing the efforts of the negotiating group was 
unanimously adopted.* 

Fifth, the working group, now expanded to 12 
nations by the inclusion of Bi-azil, Czechoslovakia, 
India, and the Soviet Union, met in Washington 
starting last February 27. For almost 2 anonths 
this group, encouraged and guided by a resolution 
of the United Nations General Assembly, worked 
to revise the draft statute. In doing so, it consid- 
ered, and often adopted, ideas and suggestions not 
only of the four new members of the drafting 
group but of other nations the world over from 
whom comments had been received. 

Sixth, the resulting draft, imanimously ap- 
proved on April 18 by the 12-nation working 
group, now lies before this conference for final 
action. 



" For text, see Bulletin of Oct. 24, 1955, p. 
« Ihid., Nov. 14, 1955, p. 801. 



Mr. President [Joao Carlos Muniz], you who 
served so ably as the distinguished leader of the 
Brazilian delegation at that working group meet- 
ing in Washington will agree, I am sure, that it 
was an impressive success. We found that the 
differences of view were often great. But even 
greater was the will to bridge those differences. 
All the delegations, without exception, showed 
patience and persistence equal to the task. As a 
result, the draft statute before us today was 
adopted unanimously. This unanimity, in a 
world plagued by many deep political differences, 
augurs well for this meeting. Though some reser- 
vations have been entered on specific points, we 
are encouraged by the fact that, in comparison 
with the differences which our joint efforts have 
met and overcome, the questions still to be resolved 
do not loom too large. 

Mr. President, the United States was one of 
those which joined in the unanimous approval of 
the draft statute without reservation. There are 
parts of the statute which we might wish were 
different. In fact, I am sure that none of the 
sponsors regards the statute as perfect from its 
own particular point of view. I am equally sure 
that all of the sponsors believe, as we do, that 
the draft statute lays the foundation for an agency 
that will work and work well, one to which we can 
all give wholehearted cooperation. The United 
States is prepared to support this statute. We 
have no present intention of proposing any amend- 
ments other than one, which we plan to sponsor 
with others, which would clarify the functions 
of the preparatory commission provided for in 
annex I. 

At the same time, the United States comes to 
this conference prepared to give respectful con- 
sideration to any amendments submitted. We 
shall support those which we believe would im- 
prove the statute and enhance its acceptability. 
Mr. President, we shall oppose those which, in our j 
view, would not do this — especially those which 
might make full cooperation of any specific group 
of states difficult or impossible. 

I submit that this is a sensible approach. The 
draft statute reflects to a great degree a balance 
of views of a large number of states. Any pro- 
posed change should therefore be carefully scruti- 
nized in order to insure not only that it is in fact 
a change for the better but also that it does not 



538 



Department of State Bulletin 



endanger the balance of views thus far achieved. 
Mr. President, this is not the time for me to 
draw a picture of the material blessings which 
may come to the human race through the full 
harnessing of the atom for peace. The marvelous 
potential of atomic technology is known to the 
world. The agency will greatly advance the peace- 
ful atomic revolution. It will multiply manifold 
the energy at the service of man, stimulate eco- 
nomic development, and promote the interchange 
of scientific knowledge. The draft statute before 
us, in our view, would permit the agency to realize 
these high aims and would justify generous sup- 
port by the United States. 

Problem of Safeguards 

In addition to the requirement that the statute 
empower the agency to promote peaceful uses of 
atomic energy, it is indispensable that there be 
real assurance that the agency's activities will not 
further the use of atomic energy for military 
purposes and will not jeopardize health or safety. 
Atomic energy, as we all know, is uniquely dan- 
gerous as well as uniquely promising. The fuel 
for a reactor can be made into the explosive of a 
bomb; the radiation which cures can also kill. 

The United States has given much thought to 
the problem of safety and security with all that it 
implies. This problem has also been of great con- 
cern to other states. We recall that tlie Soviet 
Union initially took the view that to encourage 
peaceful development of atomic energy through- 
out the world would increase world insecurity by 
increasing the supply of materials from which 
nuclear weapons could be made. We are very glad 
that the United States and the U.S.S.E. both 
agree that the right solution to the problem is to 
apply adequate safeguards and not to curtail 
peaceful development. 

The provisions in the statute on safeguards are 
designed to permit peaceful development of 
atomic energy without jeopardy to world safety 
and security. I would like first, Mr. President, to 
refer to article II, which sets forth the agency's 
basic objectives. It reads as follows: 

The Agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the 
contribution of atomic energy to the peace, health, and 
prosperity of the world. It shall ensure, so far as it is 
able, that assistance provided by it or at its request or 
under its supervision or control is not used in such a way 
as to further any military purpose. 

To accomplish the latter objective, article XII ' /6id., Mar. 26, 1956, p. 515. 



prescribes certain definite safeguards. The appli- 
cation of these safeguards would be a common 
effort with international participation. The stat- 
ute would also permit the agency to apply its sa.fe- 
guards to bilateral or multilateral arrangements 
otherwise not subject to its supervision or control, 
if the parties to such arrangements so request. 
The United States hopes that parties to bilateral 
arrangements throughout the world will avail 
themselves of this provision, thus contributing 
toward the eventual establishment of a uniform 
system of safeguards of universal application. If 
this is done, Mr. President, the United States can 
look forward to making the agency the corner- 
stone of its international activities in the field of 
atomic energy for peace. 

In supporting these safeguards, we are quite 
aware that their aim is somewhat limited — even 
if all "outside" bilateral and multilateral arrange- 
ments were ultimately to come under agency safe- 
guards. We well understand that much of the 
military danger of the atom lies beyond their 
reach — indeed beyond the reach of the agency 
itself. We know there is nothing in the draft 
statute to prevent states from building nuclear 
weapons with their own resources. We also know 
that the draft statute in no way limits the ability 
of states which today produce nuclear weapons 
to continue producing them. But the fact that the 
agency will not be able to solve the whole immense 
world problem of nuclear weapons control does 
not exempt us from the duty to do all we can to 
provide full safeguards for the agency's own 
sphere of operation. 

Let me recall to my fellow delegates that the 
President of the United States has recently made 
a proposal that future production of fissionable 
materials should no longer be used to increase the 
stockpiles of explosive weapons. "My ultimate 
hope," he said, "is that all production of fission- 
able materials anywhere in the world will be de- 
voted exclusively to peaceful purposes." ' Ac- 
ceptance of this United States proposal would 
mean the application of safeguards to the United 
States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, 
and other states capable of making atomic weap- 
ons. These safeguards would certainly have to be 
more complete and more pervasive than those ap- 
plied to recipient states under this statute. 

We shall continue to strive for agreement which 
will translate President Eisenhower's proposal 



October 8, 7956 



539 



into reality. Meanwhile what we do to safeguard 
operations in the new agency is a significant step 
toward the goal. By its own safeguards the 
agency can increase mutual confidence and pro- 
vide technical and political experience helping us 
toward our still more ambitious goal — a world 
where the atom is devoted exclusively to the arts 
of peace. 

Mr. President, I have gone into some detail in 
this matter of safeguards in order to emphasize 
what the International Atomic Energy Agency 
can do, and indeed must do, to curb the destruc- 
tive misuse of atomic energy. Its still more basic 
I^urpose is the positive and creative development 
of the atomic era for human prosperity and wel- 
fare. Let us be under no illusions : there is much 
to be done, much to be learned before the atom can 
be widely and economically used for power. It is 
the duty of the agency to hasten the doing and to 
hasten the learning. 

Work of Preparatory Commission 

At the conclusion of this conference, the pre- 
paratory commission for which the statute pro- 
vides should meet as soon as possible to begin the 
tasks required to bring the agency into being. 
One of the first questions which the preparatory 
commission will consider will be the location of 
the agency's headquarters. In this connection, the 
United States was one of the first to express its 
support for Vienna, a great center of civilization 
which we think would be an ideal site. 

The general conference of the agency should be 
convened as soon as enough ratifications have been 
received to make this step worth while. In the 
meantime, we would urge that the preparatory 
commission draw up, for discussion and approval 
by the first general conference and board of gov- 
ernors of the agency, a realistic, responsible, prac- 
tical program of operation. 

In this way we should, within a year from now, 
see the International Atomic Energy Agency a 
going concern, actually at work making its vital 
contribution toward a peaceful and a stable world. 

Mr. President, the statute we are considering 
here exists only because of the dogged determina- 
tion of every one of the 12 nations which took 
part in writing it. These countries, with all their 
strong and differing views, were united in one 
thing — the will to agree. 
We have already seen the fulfillment of a fer- 



vent wish voiced by President Eisenhower — the 
wish that this proposal might, in his words, "open 
up a new channel for peaceful discussion." That 
channel is open today. For my part, Mr. Presi- 
dent, I believe that it will stay open because I am 
confident that every delegation present here has 
the same faith and the same determination to suc- 
ceed that has made it possible to bring this draft 
before you. 

Last year's conference on atomic energy in Ge- 
neva created a new atmosphere for scientific and 
technical interchange, an atmosphere of opemiess 
and mutuality where before there had been secrecy 
and insularity. One great challenge of our con- 
ference — and indeed it is one of the great chal- 
lenges of our time — is whether we can bring about 
the same kind of change in the international 
political atmosphere, whether we can devise insti- 
tutions that will permit man's most impressive 
scientific achievement to be put to work for his 
well-being. 

Tomorrow's world will largely depend upon 
what is done with atomic energy. Wliat is done 
with atomic energy will largely depend on the out- 
come of this conference. Let us hope — and 
pray — that a few weeks from today we shall be 
able to say to our fellow men: "We have done 
something here that makes it more likely that we 
and our children will live out our lives in peace" ; 
that, in the words of the United Nations Charter, 
we have done something "to save succeeding gen- 
erations from the scourge of war." 

U.S., U.K., Canada To Interchange 
Atomic Energy Patent Rights 

On September 24 the Atomic Energy Commis- 
sion and the Department of State (press release 
503) annomiced that the Governments of the 
United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada 
have entered into an agreement interchanging 
rights in inventions and discoveries in the atomic- 
energy field on which patents were held or applied 
for by one government in one or more of the other 
countries as of November 15, 1955. 

The purpose of the tripartite agreement is 
to allow use of the inventions in each country by 
government and industry without interference of 
the other governments. This is done by a "cross 
assignment" of rights, under which each govern- 
ment assigns to the others the rights, title, and 



540 



Department of State Bulletin 



I interests owned by it in the other countries. Each 
assigning government retains a nonexclusive, ir- 
revocable, paid-up license on each invention for 
its own purposes and for purposes of mutual 
defense. 

The exchange gives full rights to each govern- 
ment in its own country and pei-mits it to grant 
licenses to industry in accordance with national 
policy. It will permit the U.S. Government, with 
respect to the inventions acquired from the Cana- 
dian and United Kingdom Governments, to grant 
royalty-free licenses to American industry. The 
exchange also will permit the Canadian and 
United Kingdom Governments to follow their own 
domestic policies relating to patents. 

A nondiscrimination clause in the agreement 
binds each government to grant licenses to na- 
tionals of the other governments on the same 
terms accorded its own nationals. 

The agreement is expected to be of particular 
benefit to the growing private atomic-energy in- 
dustries in each of the signatory countries by 
eliminating questions of patent infringement. 
Firms engaging in home manufacture will need 
licenses only from their own governments, and, 
in view of the agreement's antidiscrimination pro- 
vision, firms of one country engaging in business 
in one or both of the other countries cannot be 
discriminated against by the govermnents of the 
other countries. 

All inventions and discoveries which are the 
subject of government-owned patents or patent 
applications as of November 15, 1955, are affected. 
These are of two classes : 

1. Inventions known as CPC (Combined Policy 
Committee) inventions, which arose from war- 
time collaboration among the three governments. 
In these cases, the inventors assigned their rights 
to the governments employing them and the patent 
rights obtained or applied for were held in trust 
pending settlement of the interests of the three 
governments. 

2. Inventions and discoveries which, though 
within the cooperative arrangement, were devel- 
oped independently and are owned by one govern- 
ment. 

The cutoff date of November 15, 1955, was se- 
lected as a matter of convenience. The intent of 
the agreement is that the interchange of rights 
shall cover the period during which atomic-energy 
operations were largely a government monopoly in 



eacji of the three countries. The agreement does 
not commit the governments for the future, nor 
does it affect inventions made as a result of the 
agreements for cooperation in atomic energy en- 
tered into by the United States with the United 
Kingdom and Canada on June 15, 1955.^ 

CPC inventions total about 50, and patent ap- 
plications have been filed on many of them in all 
three countries. The number of patents or patent 
applications relating to work carried on independ- 
ently of the wartime cooperative arrangement 
amounts to several hundred. Many of the ap- 
plications are still classified, and this has limited 
the number of patents issued so far. 

Agreement Between the Government of the United 
States of America, the Government of Canada, and 
the Government of the United Kingdom of Great 
Britain and Northern Ireland as to Disposition of 
Rights in Atomic Energy Inventions 

The Government of the United States of America, the 
Government of Canada, and the Government of the United 
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ; 

Recognizing that the rights, title and interests in cer- 
tain Inventions and discoveries (known as Combined 
Policy Committee inventions) resulting from wartime 
cooperation of the Governments of the United States, 
Canada, and the United Kingdom are held in a fiduciary 
capacity at present ; and 

Believing (1) that it is desirable at this time to make 
the final disposition of the rights, title and interests In 
those inventions and discoveries, and (2) that mutual 
benefit will result from the interchange of rights, title 
and interests in existing inventions and discoveries in 
the field of and related to atomic energy which are the 
subject of patents or patent applications by one Govern- 
ment in the country of one or both of the other Govern- 
ments; 

Have agreed as follows : 

Abticle I 

The term "Government" or "Governments" in this 
Agreement shall be deemed to include : 

1. In the case of the United States, the United States 
Atomic Energy Commission : 

2. In the case of the United Kingdom, the United King- 
dom Atomic Energy Authority ; 

3. In the case of Canada, the Atomic Energy Control 
Board, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Eldorado Min- 
ing and Refining Limited, National Research Council, and 
the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. 

Abticle II 

It is desirable to make final and ultimate disposition 
of the rights, title and interests in the Combined Policy 
Committee inventions, thereby terminating the fiduciary 



' Bdixetin of July 11, 1955, p. 59. 



October 8, 1956 



541 



provision heretofore applying. To that end, the Govern- 
ment or Governments employing the inventor or inventors 
shall own the entire rights, title and interests in any 
such Combined Policy Committee invention which is the 
subject of a patent or patent application in one or more 
of the three countries. 

Article III 

In addition, it is desirable and to the mutual benefit 
to exchange certain rights, title and Interests in all in- 
ventions or discoveries iu the field of atomic energy which 
are the subject of patents or patent applications by one 
Government in the country or countries of either one or 
both of the other two Governments as of November 15, 
1955. 

Article IV 

With respect to any invention or discovery within the 
scope of Articles II and III, each Government, within the 
limits of its ownership as of November 15, 1955 : 

1. Shall transfer and assign to the other Government 
or Governments such rights, title and interests as the 
assigning and transferring Government may own in the 
other's country, suljject to the retention by the assigning 
and transferring Government of a non-exclusive, irrev- 
ocable, paid-up license to make, use and have made or 
used such invention or discovery by or for the assigning 
and transferring Government or for purposes of mutual 
defense. 

2. Shall accord the right to a non-exclusive, irrevo- 
cable, paid-up license to the other Governments to make, 
use, and have made or used such invention or discovery 
by or for such other Government or Governments or for 
purposes of mutual defense in all countries. 

3. Shall not discriminate against nationals of the other 
Government or Governments in the grant of licenses in 
any patents or patent applications owned by each Gov- 
ernment or in which each Government acquires ownership 
or rights under this Agreement, but shall accord licenses 
to nationals of the other Government or Governments on 
the same or as favorable terms as it accords licenses to 
its own nationals (including its Government owned or 
controlled corporations when such corporations practice 
the invention or discovery in the performance of services 
for a party other than the licensing Government). 

4. Shall waive any and all claims against the other 
Government or Governments for compensation, royalty 
or award as respects any invention or discovery within 
the scope of Articles II and III, and release the other 



Government or Governments with respect to any claim on 
any such invention or discovery. 

Article V 

This Agreement shall come into force on the date of 
signature. 

In witness whereof, the undersigned, duly author- 
ized, have signed this Agreement. 

Done at Washington this twenty-fourth day of Sep- 
tember 1956, in three original texts. 

FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED 

STATES OF AMERICA: 
C. Burke Elbrick 
Lewis L. Strauss 

FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA: 
A. D. P. Heenbt 

FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED 
KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND 
NORTHERN IRELAND: 

Roger Maktns 



Icelandic Foreign Minister 
Invited to Wasiiington 

Press release 513 dated September 29 

In response to a suggestion made by Icelandic 
Foreign Minister Emil Jonsson, he has been 
invited to come to Wasiiington to exchange 
views with U.S. authorities concerning the defense 
installations in Iceland. Mr. Jonsson is expected 
to arrive in Washington September 30. 



Letters of Credence 

Uruguay 

The newly appointed Ambassador of Uruguay, 
Julio A. Lacarte Muro, presented his credentials 
to President Eisenhower on September 28. For 
the text of the Ambassador's remarks and the text 
of the President's reply, see Department of State 
press release 511. 



542 



[iepat\men\ of Sfafe Bulletin 



Transcript of Secretary Dulles' News Conference 



Press release SOS dated September 26 

Secretary Dulles: I have a short statement to 
read, copies of which will be available, I hope, 
before you leave.^ 

U.S. Objective in Suez Situation 

The purpose of the United States in relation to 
the Suez situation is precisely that which is set 
forth in the first article of the charter of the 
United Nations, namely, to seek a settlement "by 
peaceful means, and in conformity with the princi- 
ples of justice and international law." Now this 
is not easy to do quickly. There is not acceptance 
by all as to what is "just," nor as to the rights of 
the nations under international law. Therefore, 
a settlement in accordance with the provisions of 
the charter calls for patience and resourcefulness. 
We are confident that with these qualities there 
will be an agreed settlement. 

Some may ask what are the inducements for the 
kind of settlement that we seek if force is not used. 
How can a nation be brought to accept a settle- 
ment which recognizes the rights of others ? The 
answer is that no nation can live happily for long 
or live well without accepting the obligations of 
interdependence. 

Wlien a nation's conduct frightens others, there 
are inevitable consequences. For example, the 
tone of some of the official utterances of the Gov- 
ernment and of the press in Egypt has been so 
intensively anti-Western that many foreigners are 
being frightened away and tourists are not coming 
to Egypt and thus Egypt loses foreign exchange 
needed to pay for the imports which the Egyptian 
people want. Some commercial activities in 
Egypt are drying up because they depend upon 
foreign markets and foreign sources of credit and 
these are not readily available to a nation which 



rejects the implications of interdependence. Un- 
til recently important business and financial in- 
terests were thinking in terms of enlarging and 
deepening the Suez waterway with consequent 
benefit to Egypt. Now their thoughts are of big 
tankers and additional pipelines which will make 
it possible for nations to be less dependent upon 
the Suez Canal. 

It is understandable that a country which vmtil 
lately has been under foreign rule should be highly 
sensitive on matters of sovereignty. We must, in 
this respect, be tolerant. But we need not feel 
frustrated, because if we are patient, yet per- 
sistent and resourceful, there is a good chance 
that Egypt will come freely to recognize the im- 
portance of working with, and not working 
against, the many important countries which use 
the canal and which want good relations with 
Egypt. 

We believe that the proceedings which are to 
begin this afternoon in the United Nations Se- 
curity Council will help to bring about the just 
solution called for by the first article of the 
charter. 

Now if you have any questions. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, will the United States hack 
the British-French position in that U.N. debate, 
as we know it so far? 

A. Well, I think in general that we will. There 
has not yet been any definitive formulation of pre- 
cisely what relief the British and French will 
seek of the Security Council, so that I can only 
say we assume that it will follow the general lines 
of what was found at our first London conference 
to be a just and fair solution.^ It will probably 
also follow the lines of the second conference as 
to what we think might be a provisional solution 
which might be adopted pending agreement on 



' The following seven paragraphs were also released 
separately as press release 507 dated September 26. 



^ For text of 18-nation proposals of Aug. 23, see Bu]> 
LETiN of Sept. 3, 1956, p. 373. 



October 8, J 956 



543 



a permanent solution.'' Within the context of 
those two conferences and their actions will prob- 
ably be found, basically, tlie British and French 
position. On that assumption we would expect 
to be in accord with them. 

Q. Are you going yourself to New York, sir? 

A. I am not going today. I quite possibly will 
go when the matter comes up for substantive dis- 
cussions, particularly if the other Foreign Minis- 
ters, or several of them, are present to present their 
case. I think it would be courteous for me to go 
there and hear their presentation and perhaps 
make a substantive presentation of my own in 
view of the active part I have taken in this matter 
so far. I wouldn't expect to be up there for a 
long period to follow the entire proceedings, which 
might be somewhat protracted. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, you, said at some -point the 
users association, which will now shortly he 
formed, will present a ship or convoy to go with 
a pilot to the Egyptian Government at the mouth 
of the Suez Canal to determine whether the Egyp- 
tian Government loill permit one of the associa- 
tion'' s pilots to operate in the canal. 

A. Well, I think it is quite likely that that 
practical situation will be presented, although 
probably not in the immediate future, because it 
is going to take a little time to get the association 
organized and to make the arrangements to get 
pilots. But one of the things that we hope for 
is that, if the problem is presented in a jiractical 
way at the working-level basis, there may be at 
least a provisional result which will be temporar- 
ily acceptable to both sides and that would be 
a good way to present the issue. 

Q. Now I would like to ask one followup ques- 
tion. At a previous press conference when this 
kind of situation was discussed the question of 
alternatives also came up.* If the Egyptian Gov- 
ernment should refuse this or other acceptable 
terms of tratisit, would you he prepared to take 
alternative measv/res such as sending ships around 
the continent of Africa? 

A. We have no legal power to direct ships to 
particular voyages. But we assume, if they can- 



' For text of joint statement and declaration of Sept. 
21, see iUd., Oct. 1, 1956, p. 507. 
^Ibid., Sept. 24, 1956, p. 476. 



not get tlirough the canal upon reasonable terms 
and in view of the decision of the United States, 
at least, as I put it, not to shoot its way through 
the canal, that they would in fact go around the 
Cape. That, in turn, would involve a diminution 
in the amount of cargo that could be carried. 
That would be particularly felt in terms of oil. 
It would involve some cutdown in the oil which 
is drawn from the countries of the Middle East 
and its replacement with oil j^resumably from this 
hemisphere. That might involve increased ex- 
ports of United States oil, and under those cir- 
cumstances the Export-Import Bank, as I indi- 
cated, would be ready to play its normal role in 
helping to finance those exports. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, would the United States vote 
far the i7iscription of the Egyptian item in the 
Security Council? 

A. I don't want to anticipate what our posi- 
tion will be on those matters which will be com- 
ing up in the next 2 or 3 hours in New York. I 
would rather wait, because we don't know precisely 
how those issues will be formulated. Ambas- 
sador Lodge will have the immediate responsi- 
bility, and I don't want to prejudice the situation 
by making comments which might not be appli- 
cable since we can't tell exactly what the proce- 
dure will be this af ternoon.^ 

U.S.-Argentine Relations 

Q. Mr. Secretary/, could you discuss the scope of 
the role of Dr. Milton Eisenhower in United 
States diplomatic relations in Argentina? 

A. Well, I suppose that you are referring to a 
piece which we both may have read in the paper 
this morning. 

Q. Yes, sir. 

A. I am quite willing to comment on that be- 
cause it does relate to some factual matters re- 
lating to the conduct of United States foreign 
policy. I would say, first of all, that the rela- 
tionship of Dr. Eisenhower to Latin America has 
been a highly constructive one. It has never in- 
volved any interference whatsoever with the nor- 
mal functioning of the Department of State in 
relation to departmental matters and policy mat- 
ters. He did, after his first trip, come back with 
certain recommendations with respect to increased 



' See p. 560. 



544 



Deparlmenf of Sfafe Bulletin 



trade, increased credit, increased investments, in- 
creased technical assistance, which were adopted 
and which have formed the basis of our foreign 
policy toward Latin America. In all those re- 
spects our relationship is at a new high. 

Now as far as relates to the Peron government, 
I could just make these comments : 

The first is that the Peron government came 
into power under our preceding administration. 
It went out of power under tliis administration. 

The Peron government received loan agree- 
ments from our prior administration totaling up- 
wards of $100 million. It received no loan agree- 
ment from this administration, although we have 
extended credits now to the successor government. 

Under our prior administration many of our 
newsgathering agencies were denied facilities in 
the Argentine. One of the first acts of this ad- 
ministration was to see that those facilities were 
restored. 

Under our i^rior administration La Prensa had 
been seized and taken over by the Argentine Gov- 
ernment. During this administration, through 
the action of the new Argentine Government, La 
Prensa has been restored and is functioning in 
freedom. 

That is a record which, I think, ought to be 
known and of which this administration is proud. 

Legal Rights of User Nations 

Q. Mr. Secretary, in the prepared Suez state- 
■ment you mentioned the fact there is a disagree- 
ment over the legal rights in, this case. Is it the 
position of the United States that the legal right 
of user nations is to have a voice in the operation 
of the canal? 

A. The users association is to help the ships, 
the vessels of countries who have rights under the 
1888 treaty, to get the benefit of those rights on 
a de facto or practical basis. We are not, through 
that association, seeking primarily to raise a ques- 
tion of legal rights, however, but to see whether 
we can't get on to a practical operating basis with 
the Govermnent of Egypt. 

Q. I wasn't referring to the users association. 
I meant in the iroad, legal context do you believe 
the user nations as a hody or as individuals have 
a legal right to have a voice in the operation? 

A. We believe that the treaty of 1888 interna- 
tionalizes, you might say, the right of use of the 



canal. It creates a sort of an easement across 
Egyptian territory, of which we believe the bene- 
ficiaries of the treaty as well as the parties to the 
treaty have the right to make use. And we be- 
lieve they are also entitled to organize to exercise 
the right of use and, generally, tlieir rights mider 
the treaty. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, in your statement you dis- 
cussed the possibility of the coristruction of an 
alternative pipeline. There was mention today 
that the British and French today were consider- 
ing pipelines by Israel or Turkey to bypass the 
Suez. Is the United States prepared to help in 
the financial cost of such construction? 

A. Well, I haven't gone into that because I don't 
think there would be any occasion for the United 
States Government to help. I believe that the oil 
companies which are interested in assuring the 
steady and regular transit of oil have themselves 
the resources to do whatever they deem necessai-y 
in that respect; so the question of Government 
lielp has not come up so far as I am aware. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, have we had any informal 
talks at the diplonuitic or other level with the 
Soviet Union on the subject of the Suez, and, if 
not, do you think they might be liseful or en- 
lightening? 

A. Well, of com-se, I had talks with Mr. Shep- 
ilov, the Soviet Foreign Minister, at the first con- 
ference of the 22 nations. We have had no talks 
since that time. It may be that, in view of the 
activities which will be going on now in New York 
at the Security Council and the fact that the So- 
viet Union is a member of the Security Council, 
there could be further informal discussions be- 
tween any or all of the Security Council mem- 
bers. I don't exclude that as a possibility, but 
nothing has taken place of that sort since the first 
Suez conference in London. And nothing of a 
concrete nature is in contemplation. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, could you define for us the 
position regarding tolls — both the present posi- 
tion and the prospects for the iinmediate future? 
I refer to the tolls paid for by United States ships 
and also for ships owned by the United States but 
under foreign registry. 

A. It is planned, as I indicated in a letter ^ which 
I left with the Foreign Minister of the United 

' Ihid., Oct. 1, 1956, p. 507. 



Ocfober 8, 1956 



545 



Kingdom in London just before I left last week, 
it is indicated that we will take steps to amend the 
present Treasury license so as to preclude any 
direct payments to Egypt and to permit such pay- 
ments to Egypt only as they might occur through 
payments to the users association. Of course, you 
know the users association imder its charter is 
authorized to make certain payments over to the 
Government of Egypt, because we do not expect 
Egypt to help maintain the canal entirely out of 
its own funds. And there could in that way be 
payments to Egypt througli the users association, 
which would act, you might say, as an agent for 
the vessels. But outside of that, we would not 
exjiect that there would be any payments to Egypt 
by United States flag vessels. We do not have 
in mind extending that to vessels which are not 
of United States registry. That involves pos- 
sible questions of conflict of laws, and, until we 
know more clearly what the views might be of the 
countries of registry, we do not expect, certainly 
initially, to impose a restriction upon those ves- 
sels. We would hope that they might find it de- 
sirable voluntarily to conform to the same prac- 
tice as U.S. flag vessels. But the extension of 
our authority to vessels which are owned by cor- 
porations of other nations and incorporated under 
the laws of other nations and which fly under 
the flag of other nations is a step which we do 
not contemplate taking at the present time. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, is there a legal power in the 
United States Government to direct shipowners 
to pay funds to the users association? My im,- 
pression was that you could only prevent them 
ieinff paid directly to Egypt if they were paid 
into blocked accounts in this cov/ntry. 

A. There is no authority to compel payments to 
any particular person. There is authority to pro- 
hibit payments to particular persons. Now, as I 
tried to explain, the action contemplated would be 
to prohibit direct payments to Egypt. We would 
not prohibit payments which might flow to Egypt 
through the users association if they chose to make 
payment in that way. 

Q. That would he their choice? 

A. That would be their choice. We can't com- 
pel them to pay the users association, but, if they 
pay neither Egypt nor the users association, their 
chance of getting through the canal becomes con- 
siderably less, so that we would assume as a prac- 



tical matter they would, at least until they saw 
how it worked, pay into the users association. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, Israeli sources say that some 
70 tankers, a7nong them Norwegian, Danish, and 
American, have been blacklisted over the last 2 
years by the Egyptian Government in its block- 
ade of Israel for attempting to haul food to Israel. 
In addition to that you will recall within the 
last several months, perhaps ifs more than a year, 
an American ship was fired on by the Egyptians 
in the Gulf of Aqaba. Protests — diplomatic pro- 
tests — have been m/ide over these incidents to 
Cairo. But so far, unless I am misinformed, no 
other action has been taken and no results from 
Egypt. Against this background, is there any rea- 
son to believe that a ship brought by the users 
association to the canal under circumstances men- 
tioned a minute ago, that anything woidd happen 
on our part, on the Western nations^ part, if Egypt 
wouldnH let us through? 

A. Well, I have said, when you talk about any- 
thing "happening" on our part, if by that you 
mean that we would try, as I put it, to shoot our 
way througli, there is no reason to think that we 
would shoot our way through. I have excluded 
that, so far as that concerns any present United 
States policy. Now, I tried to point out in my 
opening statement that attitudes by any country 
which seem to be in defiance of the rights of others 
may, if that defiance is widespread, bring about 
repercussions which are undesirable, and unde- 
sired by the country which engages in that defi- 
ance. There are pressures which gradually grow 
up, not artificially stimulated but as quite natural 
and inevitable. I believe, if we are patient, re- 
sourceful, persistent, we can count on those pres- 
sures having some positive result. But I do not 
believe that the situation is such now as to call 
for any drastic action like going to war. 

Q. Well, pe7'haps it would he helpful if you 
could clarify, sir, a point that you made the other i 
day. I believe you said, in connection with the ' 
Sues, that, although pointing out that merchant 
ships usually are not armed, if a merchant ship 
was attacked in the canal, it would have the right 
to defend itself. Could you elaborate a little hit 
on that, as to what might ensue if something of j 
that kind happened? ' 

A. Well, I don't think it would be very useful 
to do that, because these ships that go through 



546 



Departmeni of Stale Bullefin 



the canal, these merchant ships and tankers, so far 
as I know, do not have any means to defend them- 
selves; so it's a rather hypothetical question. I 
was asked, I think, what would happen if it was 
attacked. I said a vessel that is attacked has a 
right to try to defend itself. I doubt whether 
there is sufficient means to do that, to make it 
worth while to go any further than I did. 

Route Around the Cape 

Q. Can you clarify the going around the Cape^ 
Mr. Secretary? If the canal remains open to the 
principal maritime powers, would toe send our 
ships or expect our ships to go around the Gape 
if the users association were not able to get its 
ship through on its own terms, that is, on its own 
power? 

A. Well, do you mean would we be the only 
country to send our ships around the Cape ? 

Q. If the canal remained open to the powers — 
that is, it ivasn't closed to functioning normally — 
and the only ship that was turned hack was a ship 
of the users association with its own pilot, would 
we expect it to go around the Cape? Would all 
members of the users association go aroumd it? 

A. Well, tliere is no obligation which results 
from joining the users association to act in uni- 
son, in respect to that matter, or to use the Cape. 
Each country decides for itself, or perhaps you can 
say each vessel decides for itself, what it will do. 
There are certain compulsions on tolls which ap- 
ply to the United States registry vessels, or will 
apply after we have taken the action which I de- 
scribed, and there would be comparable compul- 
sions which will be operated as regards the Brit- 
ish and French ships and some of the others. 
But that results from the voluntary action of 
their governments, and nobody, by joining the 
users association, is obligated to take that action. 
Undoubtedly there will be some vessels which 
would try to use the Suez Canal under any circum- 
stances. We can't prevent that. We cannot 
create, nor do we attempt to create, any universal 
boycott of the canal. 

Q. But there toould be an American boycott of 
the canal if the ships of the users association were 
fumed back? 

A. I didn't quite get the question. 



Q. But there would be an American diversion 
of shipping if a ship of the users association were 
turned bach? 

A. Well, any ship that was diverted would 
automatically, I suppose, go around the Cape. 
But because one ship was diverted wouldn't nec- 
essarily mean that all would be diverted. Any 
ships that couldn't get through the canal would 
presumably go around the Cape. 

Q. If Egypt closed the canal to shipping, I 
mean, it toould be diverted. If Egypt closed the 
canal to a given ship, then it would go around 
the Cape? 

A. That's right. 

Q. Only umder those circumstances? 

A. Yes. 

Q. In order to clarify this point, Mr. Secretary, 
for a moment, at least in my mind, would an asso- 
ciation ship which goes to th^ mouth of the canal 
insist on using its own pilot even though an Egyp- 
tian pilot might be available to guide that ship 
through the canal? 

A. No, I don't think so. I pointed out in a state- 
ment which I made in London — I think it was 
released to the press — it was in answer to a ques- 
tion put by the Japanese delegate, that the avail- 
ability of association pilots was a convenience and 
not a matter of necessity. We have no power to 
compel American flag vessels to take any particu- 
lar pilot or to refuse to take any particular pilot. 
That is a matter primarily for the master of the 
ship to decide for himself. 

Q. Well, Mr. Secretary, just to go one step 
farther on that. If an American ship came up 
there, a member of the users association, with its 
ovm pilot, and asked permission to go through, 
and Egypt said very politely, '■'■Well, you can go 
through if you use our pilot, but your pilot canH 
go through''^ — / think thafs what Jack had in 
mind — then what would the action of that ship 
probably be? 

A. It would be up to the master of that ship 
to decide what he wanted to do. If he wanted 
to take the Egyptian pilot, he is entitled to do so. 
We can't prohibit that. The issue is more likely 
to arise with reference to dues than it is with 
reference to the pilots, I think, because there the 



October 8, 1956 



547 



master may be under a prohibition against paying 
directly to the Egyptian authorities. 

Q. But isn't it a matter of fact, Mr. Secretary, 
that, since you are limiting this dues freeze or 
diversion only to United States flag ships, this does 
not greatly affect the ships owned hy United States 
citizens or corporations since the hulh of those 
using the canal are %inder Panamanian or Liherian 
registry? So that, in effect, it probably would 
have little effect, and it would alter very little the 
amownt of mo-ney now being paid hy these com- 
panies and ships to the Egyptian Government? 

A. That is a fact. But bear in mind that the 
amount of money which Egypt gets out of the 
Suez Canal is not a major factor in the Egyptian 
economy and the pressures which could be exerted 
by going around the canal would be relatively 
little. There will still be plenty of boats to go 
through the canal, because there are a lot of ships 
of some other registry. Ships will be transferred 
maybe to a registry which makes it easier for them 
to go through the canal, and there always will be 
as long as the qanal is open — there will always be 
a certain amount of revenue to Egypt from that 
source. Perhaps it won't be quite as much, but, 
on the other hand, the burden on Egypt will not 
be quite as much either. 

And I think we have to think a bit in terms of 
the fact that, if you try to hurt Egypt to the extent 
of a dollar at the cost to yourself of $1,000 or 
$10,000, that isn't a very profitable enterprise in 
the long run. It isn't as though tliis canal were 
vital to Egypt's economy. The amount of revenue 
that Egypt has derived from it has been some- 
where between, I think, $10,000,000 or $1.5,000,000 
in the past in terms of its share of the profits from 
the canal company, and the idea that any grave 
economic blow can be struck at Egypt through the 
nonuse of the canal is a quite false conception. 

Now we do believe that there are certain rights 
involved which raise questions of principle. But 
the attitude we take is primarily in the exercise of 
our rights as a matter of principle, not because 
we believe that that is a profitable enterprise from 
the standjioint of ourselves or from the stand- 
point of striking any grave blow at Egypt. 

The Implications of interdependence 

Q. Mr. Secretary, it was widely predicted that, 
if Egypt gets away with it, then the next step 
would be the nationalization of oil concessions 



and then the Western bases in the Arab co^intries. 
Some Soviet diplomats in London were also quoted 
to that effect. Would you care to com/ment on 
such a possibility? 

A. Well, I do not accept the possibility that 
Egypt, as you put it, is going to "get away with 
it." And the reasons why I don't accept that pos- 
sibility are set out in my opening statement : that 
a nation which attempts to defy the reasonable 
rights of others, the reasonable requests of others, 
loses in an infinite number of unpredictable but 
certain ways. And the way in which Egypt will 
suffer the most is not, perhaps, througli the diver- 
sion of a few ships from the canal, but it will be 
in these other ways. I think that Egypt will 
come to recognize that it is not good business to 
deny what I call the implications of interde- 
pendence. We live, all of us, in an interdepend- 
ent world, and you cannot deny the principle of 
interdependence in one respect without suffering 
from that denial in a whole lot of other respects, 
and the consequences, in the long run, of per- 
sistence in this course to Egypt would be very 
bad. And I don't see any prospect of Egypt 
making a success out of the path it is now going. 
I believe that Egypt will lose in terms of its own 
economic development ; it will lose in terms of the 
relationship which it has with other states, not ex- 
cluding other Arab States. Therefore, I do not 
think that the course Egypt has embarked upon 
is a course which is going to lead to an Egyptian 
success. But the way to bring about a cliange, as 
I say, in my opinion, is not to go to war about it. 
This kind of Egyptian action is going irrevocably, 
inexorably to bring about certain consequences. 
Those are not consequences, I say, which are arti- 
ficial, which are stimulated — these just are in- 
evitable, and I think that that will gradually be- 
come apparent. 

Q. Mr. Didles, are you reconsidering any action 
on the Aswan Dam financing? 

A. No, I am not. 

Q. There have been some reports in the paper 
that you were. 

A. Those reports are inaccurate. I explained at 
the time when we announced our decision about 
the Aswan Dam that the basic reason for not 
going ahead with it was because that Aswan Dam 
project, as then formulated, was a project of great 
magnitude, which required close cooperation of 
Egypt and foreign countries over a period of 



548 



Deparfmenf of State Bulletin 



around 15 years. I did not think it likely that 
that liind of an intimate, close relationship could 
be depended upon for that period of time. And 
those considerations and others mentioned at the 
time still prevail at the present time. In other 
words, the reasons why we didn't go ahead are just 
as valid today as they were before. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, in connection with your pre- 
vious answer — just previous to this one — if Egypt 
should persist in trying to get away with it, as it 
were, what other measures — economic, psychologi- 
cal, or otherwise — are we studying loith an idea of 
applying them to increase the pressure? 

A. We are not studying any methods with a 
view to applying them. We are not engaged in 
economic warfare against Egypt. But, as I point 
out, there are consequences, consequences which 
we couldn't obviate if we wished, the kind of con- 
sequences I talked about in my opening statement. 
Those are inexorable and are going to be there 
and constantly woi-king. And it is those kinds of 
pressures, influences, which lead nations to accept 
the consequences of interdependence, because they 
gradually realize that an assertion of sovereignty 
to such an extreme that it frightens others de- 
stroys their credit and confidence in them. That, 
in the long run, is a policy which leads only to 
negative results, and I believe that gradual recog- 
nition of that fact will bring about a basis for a 
reasonable settlement here. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, what ^iew does the United 
States take of Israel participation in the Suez 
Canal Users Association? 

A. Well, that matter has not come up. The pro- 
visional view which was taken at the second Lon- 
don conference was that the qualifications for 
membership would probably be similar to those 
which prevailed at the time of the first London 
conference, namely, 1,000,000 net tons or more 
of sliipping through the canal during the prior 
calendar year, or a pattern of trade which sliowed 
approximately 50 percent or more dependence 
upon the canal. If those are adopted, as seemed 
to be forecast by the talks of the second London 
conference of the 18, then Israel would not be 
eligible to be a member. 

On the other hand, you may recall that the 
proposal — that the statement that was issued about 
the users association did say that the facilities 
of the association would be made available to any 
vessels whethei- or not members. Because we be- 

Ocfober 8, 1956 

403245—56 .3 



lieve that the principle of nondiscriminatory pas- 
sage through the canal, in accordance with the 
1888 treaty, is one we should recognize ourselves 
and that we should not try to set up an organiza- 
tion which obtained preferential rights for our 
members. So if any other vessel wants to get the 
facilities of the association, those facilities will 
be available to it. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, then Israel, on the basis which 
you have just now discussed, would actually he 
deprived, as a consequence of the hlockade that 
Egypt has practiced — Israel would have no way 
of having tons go through, because in the past 5 
years, at least, no tonnage has been permitted to 
go through the canal and, consequently, this trade 
has had to he rerouted. Now in this sense wouldnH 
you say that Egypt would be in a sense again 
getting away with it as she has beeii with regard 
to Israel? 

A. Well, as I pointed out, whether or not Israel 
is an actual member of the association is irrele- 
vant from the standpoint of the facilities of the 
association being made available, let us say, to 
Israeli ships and to Israeli cargoes. They would 
have all the facilities of the association. 

It is awfully hard to guess as to what the vol- 
ume of Israeli trade would have been through the 
canal if it had been permitted, or what the number 
of vessels would have been, and so forth. So I 
doubt whether you could establish any criteria 
which would be based upon that kind of guessing, 
you might say. But I don't think that Israel is 
prejudiced by that result, because of the avail- 
ability, as I say, of the facilities of the associa- 
tion to aU ships. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, there has been a neio out- 
break of border incidents between Jordan and 
Israel. Do you see in this new situation any dan- 
ger of an adverse impact on the efforts to get a 
Suez Canal settlement? 

A. Well, I deplore and regret the outbreak of 
additional border incidents. They seem to indi- 
cate the nonacceptance of the principles for which 
the Secretary-General of the United Nations 
strove when he undertook his recent mission to 
that part of the world. At the moment I do not 
see any likelihood of a direct relationship of na- 
tionalization to the Suez Canal situation. Con- 
ceivably, one might develop, but so far the two 
issues have been rather independent of each other. 

549 



Foreign Governments Invited To Send 
Election Observers to United States 



DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCEMENT 

Press release 512 dated September 28 

In consonance with the program of increasing 
contacts between the people of the United States 
and the countries of Eastern Europe, including the 
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, a policy which 
was announced June 29, 1956, by the President,^ 
the Department of State has recently issued 
through its missions abroad an invitation to the 
.Governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist Re- 
publics, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, and 
Rumania to send representatives to the United 
States in October to view at first hand the free 
electoral processes in this country. As in previous 
election years, a number of representatives from 
other countries will arrive in October as guests of 
the U. S. Government. 

The Dejjartment assumes that the invitation 
would be of special interest to government officials 
or to professors of government, political science, or 
law and has suggested that the representatives 
named be selected from these groups. It also as- 
sumes that, since such visits are understood to have 
a reciprocal basis, Americans would be invited to 
view elections in their countries on the next appro- 
priate occasion. 



TEXT OF INVITATION 

In the interest of iiroinoting mutual understanding, the 
United States Government invites the Gov- 
ernment to send two or three representatives to the 
United States for a fifteen-daj' period in order to famil- 
iarize themselves with the two-party electoral processes 
whereby the Chief Executive and Members of the Con- 
gress of the United States are chosen. It is assumed that 
this would be of special interest to certain govei'nment 
ofiicials or to professors of government, political science 
or law and therefore suggests that the representatives 
named be selected from these groups. It is also suggested 
that a working knowledge of English would be most de- 
sirable to permit maximum advantage to be derived from 
the visit, although interpreters will be available as re- 
quired. Travel to and from New York and expenses of 
the representatives while in the United States will be 



arranged as well as an itinerary and program to permit 
the most advantageous observation of the two-party cam- 
paign. Representatives should plan to depart for the 
United States not later than October 22 and would Jinish 
their tour about November 7. 

Since such visits are customarily understood to have 
a reciprocal basis, it Is assumed that on the next appro- 
priate occasion Americans would be invited to view elec- 
tions in 

When the Foreign Office has responded to this invita- 
tion and nominated its representatives, the Embassy [Le- 
gation] will be glad to supply information and assistance 
regarding travel arrangements and visa.s. 



Deputy Under Secretary Murphy 
To Visit Germany 

Press release 506 dated September 25 

The Department of State announced on Septem- 
ber 25 that Deputy Under Secretary of State 
Robert Murpliy will represent the U.S. Govern- 
ment at the laying of the cornerstone of the new 
Conference Hall {Kongresshalle) in Berlin on 
October 3." Representative Kenneth Keating will 
also be present, as well as Mrs. Eleanor Lansing 
Dulles, Special Assistant to the Director of the 
Office of German Affairs. 

The Conference Hall, dedicated to Benjamin 
Franklin, will be the U.S. participation in the 
International Building Exhibition in 1957. It is 
a unique structure, both because of its advanced 
design and because of the joint United States and 
German effort which has made it possible. It is 
now being built in the Tiergarten area near the 
sector border separating West Berlin from the 
Communist Sector. Its facilities will include vari- 
ous halls for assembly and discussion, including an 
auditoriiun for 1,200 persons. 

During his visit to Berlin, Mr. Murphy, in ad- 
dition to an address at the cornerstone-laying cere- 
monies of the Conference HaU, will address the 
Ernst Renter Gesellschaft. This society honors 
the name of the late Mayor of West Berlin, who 
personified the courageous struggle of his fellow 
citizens against Communist pressure particularly 
during the Berlin blockade in 1948-19. 

]Mr. Murphy also will visit Bonn during his 
brief trip to Germany. In the course of his career 
in the Foreign Service Mr. Murpliy has had close 
associations witl\ Germany. He served at Mimich 
in the 1920's and fi-om 1948 to 1949 as political 



' Bulletin of July 9, 1956, p. 54. 
550 



' For background, see Buixetin of Jan. 2, 1956, p. 15. 
Department of State Bulletin 



adviser to the United States High Commissioner 
at Frankfort. He is also a former Acting Di- 
rector of tlie OfRce of German and Austrian Af- 
fairs in the Department of State. 



International Understanding 
in the Business World 

Remarks hy President Eisenhower ' 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of 
tliis great audience : 

It is a very definite honor for this Nation's Cap- 
ital to be the host to such a distinguished body. 
I assure you that we are complimented by your 
presence. 

I suppose seated here before me is the greatest 
concentration of financial genius that this world 
could produce. That being so, you can be sure of 
one thing: I am not going to talk about interna- 
tional finances. I think I would prefer to talk 
for a minute or two about some of the meanings — 
some of the results — of the kind of cooperation 
that you people are here to midertake. 

International cooperation is the key to peace. 
It must come about. It must progress from year 
to year — or the world must be the poorer by reason 
of that failure. 

We have the United Nations in order to spread 
understanding — one of the other— a place where 
we may debate our differences, rather than resort 
to the ancient arbiter of force — an organization 
to promote and sustain peace. We have such de- 
fensive organizations as Nato and Seato and the 
Organization of American States — all having as 
one of their main purposes the security of all of 
the member states against unwarranted attack. 

In this International Bank and the Interna- 
tional Monetary Fund, we have the possibility of 
extending this cooperative field into our business 
life — the international business life. As mutual 
understanding and good will and, above all, confi- 
dence in each other are the basis of any successful 
business within a nation, so it is in the international 
world. 

As confidence grows, in turn based upon mutual 



' Made at a meeting of the Boards of Governors of the 
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 
and the International Monetary Fund at Washington, 
D. C, on Sept. 28 (White House press release dated Sept. 

28). 



understanding, and based upon meetings such as 
these, we are bound to have a general rise in the 
living standards of the world. Business thrives 
in the spirit, the confidence, thus engendered. 

So, you pool long-term capital and provide tech- 
nical advice and help for all of the organisms 
that are struggling to produce wealth so that all 
the people of the world may prosper. You do it 
together and therefore add to the strength of each, 
so that the whole total becomes one not only for- 
midable — it is truly overwhelming in its influence. 

I have only one other word to say. It has to do 
with an experience of mine in wartime, where I 
was working with groups that had among them- 
selves to develop real cooperation or there could be 
no success. There are men in this audience who 
were my associates in that work. We early found 
one thing : Without the heart, without the enthu- 
siasm for the cause in which we were working, no 
cooperation was possible. With that enthusiasm, 
subordinating all else to the advancement of the 
cause, cooperation was easy. 

Now it seems to me you people have shown your 
enthusiasm for doing your part in developing this 
growing and expanding world economy by coming 
here, by coming from so many different nations — 
giving your time and your effort to meet with 
others in order that the whole may prosper. 

Because you do show that enthusiasm, that kind 
of leadership, I venture to ofl'er to each of you my 
felicitations and my complete confidence that noth- 
ing you could be now doing in your own country 
or elsewhere is more worthwhile than what you are 
doing here in this great meeting you have been 
holding. 

Again I say, Washington — this Nation's Capi- 
tal — this entire Government — the American peo- 
ple — are proud to have had you here. We hope 
only that these meetings may be frequent and each 
one of them more fruitful than its predecessor. 

Thank you very much. 



President's Citizen Advisers 
on Mutual Security 

James C. Hagerty, press secretary to President 
Eisenhower, announced on September o that the 
President had on that day appointed Benjamin 
Fairless, former president and chairman of the 
board of the United States Steel Corporation, as 
coordinator of a committee to review the foreign 



Ocfober 8, 1956 



551 



assistance programs of the United States and to 
make recommendations as to the future policy of 
tlie Government with respect to military, eco- 
nomic, technical, and other programs in the light 
of foreign policy and the national interest of the 
XTnited States. The group will be called the 
President's Citizen Advisers on the Mutual Secu- 
rity Program. 

On September 22 Mr. Hagerty announced the 
names of the other members of the group : 

Colgate W. Darden, Jr., ]iresident of tbe University of 

Virginia 
Richard R. Deupree, chairman of the board of Proctor and 

Gamble Co. 
John L. Lewis, president of the United Mine Workers of 

America 
Whitelaw Reid, cliairman of the board of the New York 

ITvralft TribiDic 
Walter Bedell Smith, former director of the Central 

Intelligence Agency, former Under Secretary of State, 

vice chairman of the American Machine and Foundry 

Co. 
Jesse W. Tapp. vice chairman of the board of directors of 

the Bank of America 

The group held its first meeting at Washington 
on September 27. 



President's Views on U.S. Aid 
to Refugees and Escapees 

Representative Kenneth B. Keating of New 
York on Septemher 20 wrote to President Ehen- 
hoicer in connection with his forthcoming visit to 
Europe as a member of the U.S. delegation to the 
Inte rgovernm/'ntal Committee for European Mi- 
gration. FoJlowing is the text of the President's 
reply, released hy the White House on Septejn- 
ler 25. 

September 24, 1956 

Dear Ken : I am delighted to learn of your 
fortlicoming visit to Europe in the interest of 
refugees and escapees. 

It is fundamental that free America remain an 
asylum for a substantial number of those who con- 
tinue to risk their lives to reach freedom. I was, 
therefore, greatly disappointed that the Congress 
failed to heed my several requests to pass legisla- 
tion to preserve this noble role of America in the 
world. It was no less than a tragedy for the people 
directly concerned abi'oad. Only nine days before 
the Congre.ss adjourned, I emphasized my feel- 
ings about this in a letter of July 18 to Senator 

552 



Arthur Watkins.^ I pointed out that this legisla- 
tion was urgently needed in a critical situation, 
and was fully in the spirit of one of our coimtry's 
j^roudest traditions — that of offering a haven to 
the persecuted and oppressed. 

I will, of course, again urge such legislation in 
the next session of the Congress. 

And I do hope that your present mission will 
help you to carry forward even more vigorously 
your efforts to persuade the House Committee 
on the Judiciary and the Congress of the need for 
early and favorable action in this field. 
Sincerely, 

DwiGHT D. Eisenhower 



U.S. Views on Polish Trials 

Statement hy President Eisenhower 

White House press release dated September 26 

Recent news from Poland indicates that at least 
some of the persons arrested in connection with 
the Poznan riots are soon to be put on trial. 
Friends of freedom throughout the world will be 
hoping that all of the accused will be given a 
genuinely fair and open trial with bona fide legal 
counsel to defend them and with an opportunity 
to speak tlieir minds freely without fear of sub- 
sequent retribution and deportation eastward. 

This would provide tangible evidence that some 
so-called Stalinist methods will be abandoned in 
practice as well as in theory. However, the 
limited information released publicly in Poland 
thus far regarding the trials is in no way reassur- 
ing. Apparently not even a complete list of those 
arrested has been made public. 

'\^1iatever the outcome of the trials, whatever j 
the immediate and long-term effects of the Poznan \ 
riots, one fact has become clearer than ever. 
There can be no permanent solution of the situa- 
tion in Poland until the Polish people are given 
an opportunity to elect a government of their own 
choosing. 

The basic problem in Poland is not what par- 
ticular type of economic or social system shall 
prevail ; that is something which the Polish people 
can and should decide for themselves. What is 
essential is that they be given the opportunity to 
do so in free and unfettered elections. 



' Bulletin of July 30, 1956, p. 194. 

Deporfmenf ot Stafe Bulletin 



General Pulaski's Memorial Day 

A PROCLAMATIOKi 

Whereas a grateful Nation has enshrined In its heart 
the memory of those selfless men who came from across 
the seas and aided in the achievement of our independence 
during the Revolutionary War ; and 

Whereas October 11, 1956, marks the one hundred 
and seventy-seventh anniversary of the death of Count 
Casimir Pulaslvi, one of those heroes who left his home- 
land to fight in our cause, and who for that cause laid 
down his life ; and 

Whereas the story of his valiant assault upon the 
city of Savannah at the head of the Pulaski Legion, where 
he received a mortal wound, has long stirred the imagi- 
nation and evoked the admiration of all who hold liberty 
dear ; and 

Whereas this distinguished Pole, who had achieved 
the rank of Brigadier General before his untimely death 
at the age of 31 years, left to posterity an Inspiring 
example of fidelity to principle which we should cherish 
and emulate : 

Now, therefore, I, DwiGHT D. Eisenhower, President 
of the United States of America, do hereby invite the 
people of this Nation to observe Thursday, the eleventh 
day of October, 1956, as General Pulaslri's Memorial Day 
with suitable commemorative ceremonies ; and I direct 
that the flag of the United States be displayed on all 
Government buildings on that day as a mark of respect 
to the memory of General Pulaski. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand 
and caused the Seal of the United States of America 
to be afiixed. 

Done at the City of Washington this twenty-fourth 
day of September in the year of our Lord nine- 
[seal] teen hundred and fifty-six, and of the Independ- 
ence of the United States of America the one 
hundred and eighty-first. 

By the President : 

John Foster Dulles 
Secretary of State. 



Ambassadorial Talks at Geneva 
With Chinese Communists 

Press release 504 dated September 24 

For more than 13 months the United States 
has been carrying on discussions with the Chinese 
Commimists at Geneva directed toward bringing 
about the release of our imijrisoned citizens and 
obtaining a commitment from the Chinese Com- 



munists for a meaningful renunciation of force 
to include the Taiwan area. Neither of these ob- 
jectives has yet been achieved. On September 21 
the Chinese Commimists issued a statement an- 
nouncing that they had proposed in the Geneva 
meetings that discussions be shifted to the ques- 
tion of relaxation of trade restrictions but that 
the United States had "in eilect refused." 

The United States is not prepared to enter 
into a discussion of trade restrictions with the 
Chinese Communists at a time when they continue 
to refuse to renounce the use of force in the Taiwan 
area and continue to hold imprisoned American 
citizens as political hostages, despite their pledge 
in the agreed announcement of September 10, 
1955,^ to permit them expeditiously to exercise 
their right to return. We have so informed the 
Chinese Communists at Geneva. 

It is hardly reasonable to expect the United 
States to discuss a relaxation of its trade restric- 
tions wlien the trade that would result from such 
a relaxation would strengthen a regime which re- 
fuses to renounce the use of force against us. 

ICA Loan Agreement 
With Republic of China 

A $20-million loan agreement between the 
United States and the Republic of China on 
Taiwan (Formosa) has been formally signed bj' 
both countries, the International Cooperation Ad- 
ministration annomiced on September 17. The 
loan was planned last year as part of the $70 mil- 
lion in economic aid extended by the United States 
to Taiwan from fiscal 1956 mutual security funds. 

The mutual security legislation for fiscal year 
1956 instructed Ica to make loans instead of 
grants of aid whenever possible. Similar agree- 
ments with 12 other countries will provide for the 
repayment to the United States of more than $210 
million of the economic aid funds extended during 
fiscal year 1956. 

Cliina entered a similar agreement with Ica 
in fiscal year 1955 for the repayment of $20 mil- 
lion of that year's economic assistance, which 
totaled $103 million. 

Both years' loans are repayable over 40 years, 
with interest at 4 percent if repaid in Chinese 
currency and 3 percent if repaid in U.S. dollars. 



' No. •Sl.'ie : 21 Fed. Reg. 7309. 
October 8, 1956 



' Bulletin of Sept. 19, 1955, p. 456. 



553 



Eepayment of the loans begins 4 years from the 
date of signing. 

The new loan to China, like the 1955 loan, was 
in Chinese currency which that country paid for 
U.S. surplus agricultural commodities sent as 
part of the aid program. The Chinese Govern- 
ment is using the funds primarily to extend loans 
to industries as part of its program to increase 
productive capacity and bring the country closer 
to self-support. 

The Chinese Government is spending almost 60 
percent of its total budget on its military effort, 
maintaining the second largest army in Free 
Asia. U.S. aid has played a significant part in 
transforming the once poorly equipped Chinese 
forces into well-armed, effective fighting units, 
and has helped prevent runaway inflation during 
this period of heavy militai-y spending and in- 
dustrial and agricultural development of the is- 
land's economy. Total U.S. nonmilitary aid to 
the Republic of China has amounted to over $475 
million since 1951. 

Current Chinese Government programs abet- 
ted by U.S. aid are emphasizing agi-icultural de- 
velopment, expansion of electric-power facilities, 
and improvement of transportation and manufac- 
turing facilities. 

Chinese efforts coupled with U.S. assistance 
have resulted in remarkable economic gains in 
Taiwan during the past 5 years. Overall local 
production in 1955 was an estimated 50 percent 
above the 1950 level and has continued to expand 
in 1956. Farm output rose about 30 percent and 
industrial output doubled in the same 5-year 
period. 

The new loan agreement was signed for China 
by P. H. Ho, chairman of the Chinese Technical 
Mission in this country. Signing for the United 
States was Samuel C. Waugh, Pi'esident of the 
Export-Import Bank of Washington, which ex- 
ecutes and administers collection of Ica loans. 



Correction 

Bulletin of September 17, 1956, p. 442 — The third 
paragraph niuler the heading "Statutory Authority" 
should read : "The Senate gave its advice and con- 
sent to ratification of the United Nations Charter 
on July 28, 1945, by a vote of 89 to 2." 



Japanese Cotton Exports 
to the United States 

Following is an exchange of notes between the 
United States and Japan on the subject of Jap- 
anese exports of cotton goods to the United States} 

Press release 509 dated September 27 

United States Note 

The Secretary of State presents his compli- 
ments to His Excellency the Ambassador of 
Japan and has the honor to refer to his note of 
May 16, 1956 in which it is stated that the Govern- 
ment of Japan intends to adopt in 1957 controls 
on exports of cotton goods to the United States 
similar to those in effect for 1956. 

The United States Government would appre- 
ciate receiving from the Govermnent of Japan 
further information as to plans for future con- 
trols. 

Department or State, 

Washington, September 25, 1956. 

Japanese Note 

The Ambassador of Japan presents his compli- 
ments to the Honorable the Secretary of State 
and has the honor to reply, as detailed in the at- 
tached paper, to the latter's note dated September 
25, 1956, in which it is stated that the United 
States Government would appreciate receiving 
from the Government of Japan information on 
plans for future controls relative to the export of 
cotton products to the United States. 

Embassy of Japan, 

Washington, September 27, 1956. 

[Attachment] 

The Japanese cotton textile industry and the 
appropriate agencies of the Japanese Govern- 
ment have now started discussions on the scale and 
scope of export adjustment measures for cotton 
textiles from Japan to the United States for 1957 
and subsequent years. 

The purpose of these measures, inaugurated in 
January 1956, is to effect orderly marketing by 
avoiding excessive concentration in any partic- 
ular period or on any particular item and by con- 



' For background, see Bijlletin of Dec. 26, 1955, p. 
1064 ; Apr. 30, 1956, p. 728 ; and June 4, 1956, p. 921. 



554 



Department of State Bulletin 



tinned efforts to achieve broader diversification 
of cotton textile exports. 

With a view to improving the program as far 
as practicable, the following points will be in- 
corjiorated. 

(1) The initial overall ceiling for Japanese 
exports of cotton cloth and of cotton apparel and 
other cotton manufactures will be determined by 
the level of trade in 1955. 

(2) Within the overall ceiling mentioned above, 
individual ceilings will be established, in addi- 
tion to those already in eii'ect, for such items which 
may tend to be exported in excessive concentra- 
tion, thus causing undue hardship to a particular 
segment of the United States industry. Velve- 
teens and ginghams, among other items, will be 
the subject of special study for further reduction. 

(3) Efforts will be made to distribute exports 
equally by quarters as far as practicable, and as 
necessary to meet seasonal demands for certain 
items. 

(4) This program shall be effective for some 
years, starting from January 1, 1957, but may be 
reviewed annually. 

The action now contemplated by Japan is based 
on the condition that all feasible steps will be 
taken by the United States Government to solve 
the problem of discriminatory state textile legis- 
lation and to prevent further restrictive action 
-with regard to the importation of Japanese tex- 
tiles into the United States. 



Changes in Wool Tariff 



WHITE HOUSE ANNOUNCEMENT 

White House press release dated September 28 

The President announced on September 28 that 
he has issued a proclamation invoking the so- 
called Geneva wool-fabric reservation. The Presi- 
dent's action, taken upon a recommendation 
from the Interdepartmental Committee on Trade 
Agreements, means that the ad valorem rate of 
duty applying to most woolen and worsted fabrics 
entering the country will be inci'eased when such 
imports, in any year, exceed an amount deter- 
mined by the President to be not less than 5 per- 
cent of the average annual U.S. production of 



similar fabrics for the preceding 3 calendar years. 

In any year the higher ad valorem duty, which 
will be 45 percent as authorized by the Geneva 
reservation, will apply only for the remainder of 
that year to imports in excess of the "breakpoint" 
determined by the President. At the beginning 
of tlie next calendar year the ad valorem duty 
will revert to present rates and will remain there 
until imports in that year reach the "breakpoint" 
determined by the President for that year. 

The President's action is to be effective October 
1, 1956. For the last 3 months of 1956 the Presi- 
dent specified that the higher ad valorem duty 
would apply only after, and if, 3.5 million pomids 
of imports have entered the country — and only 
until the new calendar year begins on January 1, 
1957. The "breakpoint" of 3.5 million pounds 
for the rest of 1956 is equal to three-twelfths of 
a quantity (14 million pounds) determined by 
the President to be not less than 5 percent of the 
average annual U.S. production of similar fabrics 
for the calendar years 1953-55. 

In 1957 and subsequent years the President will 
notify the Secretary of the Treasury of the amount 
of imports above which the higher duty will ap- 
ply in that year. 

Present rates of duty are 30(4 or 37i^^ per pound 
(depending upon the nature of the fabric) plus 
20 percent or 25 percent ad valorem (again de- 
pending on the nature of the fabi'ic). Wlien the 
"breakpoint" determined by the President is 
reached in any year, imports in excess of that 
amount will be subject to an ad valorem duty 
increase to the full 45 percent authorized by the 
Geneva reservation, but the specific duty (cents 
per pound) will be the same. 

The Geneva wool-fabric reservation is a right 
that was reserved by the United States in a 1947 
multilateral trade agreement at Geneva. It was 
reserved in connection with a tariff concession 
granted by the United States to the United King- 
dom and, under our most-favored-nation obliga- 
tions, it was extended to other countries. The 
1947 tariff concession and the Geneva reservation 
apply to woolen and worsted fabrics dutiable 
mider paragraphs 1108 and 1109 (a) of the Tariff 
Act of 1930, as modified. Most woolen and 
worsted fabrics entering the United States are 
dutiable under these paragraphs. The President's 
action applies only to imports of such fabrics. 



Ocfober 8, 1956 



555 



PROCLAMATION 31601 

1. Whereas, pursuant to the authority vested in the 
President by the Constitution and the statutes, including 
section 350(a) of the Tarife Act of 1930, as amended 
(ch. 474, 48 Stat. 943; eh. 118, 57 Stat. 125; ch. 269, 59 
Stat. 410), on October 30, 1947, the President entered into 
a trade agreement with certain foreign countries, which 
trade agreement consists of the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade and the related Protocol of Provisional 
Application thereof, together with the Final Act Adopted 
at the Conclusion of the Second Session of the Preparatory 
Committee of the United Nations Conference on Trade 
and Employment (61 Stat. (Parts 5 and 6) A7, All, and 
A2051), and by Proclamation No. 2761A of December 16, 
1947 (61 Stat. (Part 2) 1103)," the President proclaimed 
such modifications of existing duties and other import 
restrictions of the United States and such continuance of 
existing customs or excise treatment of articles imported 
into the United States as were then found to be required 
or appropriate to carry out the said trade agreement on 
and after January 1, 1948 ; 

2. Whereas items 1108 and 1109(a), and the appro- 
priate headings, in Part I of Schedule XX annexed to the 
said General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which 
items were given effect by the said proclamation of Decem- 
ber 16, 1947, read as follows : 



Tariff 
Act of 
1930, 
para- 
graph 



1108 



1109 (a) 



Description of products 



Woven fabrics, weighing not more than four 

ounces per square yard, wholly or in chief 

value of wool, regardless of value: 

If the warp is wholly of cotton or other 

vegetable fiber 



Other 

NOTE: The United States reserves the 
right to increase the ad valorem part of 
the rate applicable to any of the fabrics 
provided for in item 1108 or 1109 (a) of 
this Part to 45 per centum ad valorem on 
any of such fabrics which are entered in 
any calendar year in excess of an aggre- 
gate quantity by weight of 5 per centum 
of the average aimual production of 
similar fabrics in the United States during 
the 3 immediately preceding calendar 
years. 
Woven fabrics, weighing more than four ounces 

per square yard, wholly or in chief value of 

wool, regardless of value. 



Rate of duty 



30i per lb. 

and 25% 

ad val. 
37H* per lb. 

and 25% ad 

val. 



37Ht per lb. 
and 26% 
ad val. 



3. Wheeeias, pursuant to the authority vested in the 
President by the Constitution and the statutes, including 
the said section 350 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended, on April 21, 1951, the President entered into a 



^ 21 Fed. Feg. 7593. 

» Bulletin of Dec. 28, 1947, p. 1258. 

556 



trade agreement with certain foreign countries, which 
trade agreement consists of the Torquay Protocol to the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (3 UST (pt. 1) 
615, (pt. 2) 1841) , and, by Proclamation No. 2929 of June 2, 
1951 (65 Stat. C12),° the President proclaimed such modi- 
fications of existing duties and other import restrictions 
of the United States and such continuance of existing 
customs or excise treatment of articles importetl into the 
United States as were then found to be required or ap- 
propriate to carry out the said trade agreement on and 
after June 6, 1951 ; 

4. WHEREji.s item 1109 (a), and the appropriate head- 
ings, in Part I of Schedule XX annexed to the said 
Torquay Protocol, which item was given effect by the 
.said proclamation of June 2, 1951, reads as follows : 



Tariff 
Act of 
1930, 
para- 
graph 


Description of products 


Rate of duty 


1109 (a) 


Woven green billiard cloths in the piece, weigh- 
ing over 11 but not over 15 ounces per square 
yard, wholly of wool, regardless of value. 

NOTE: This item shall be subject to the note in 
item 1108 in Part I of Schedule XX (original) . 


Zmi per lb. 
and 20% ad 
val. 



5. Whereas on September 26, 1956, the Government of 
the United States notified the Executive Secretary to the 
Contracting Parties to the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade that it invoked the reservation con- 
tained in the note to item 1108 set forth in the second 
recital of this proclamation, effective October 1, 1956; 

6. Whereas the fourth general note to the said Sched- 
ule XX to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
specified in the second recital of this proclamation pro- 
vides as follows : 

"4. If any tariff quota provided for in this Schedule, 
Other than tho.se provided for in items 771, becomes effec- 
tive after the beginning of a period specified as the quota 
year, the quantity of the quota product entitled to enter 
under the quota during the unexpired portion of the quota 
year shall be the annual quota quantity less yi2 thereof 
for each full calendar month that has expired in such 
period." ; 

7. Whereas I find that upon invocation of the said 
reservation set forth in the second recital of this proc- 
lamation, effective October 1, 1956, it will be appro- 
priate to carry out the trade agreement specified in the 
first recital of this proclamation that the ad valorem 
part of the rate be 45 per centum ad valorem in the case 
of any of the fabrics described in the said item 1108 or 
1109 (a) in Part I of Schedule XX to the General Agree- 
ment on Tariffs and Trade set forth in the second re- 
cital of this proclamation, or in the said item 1109 (a) in 
Part I of Schedule XX to the Torquay Protocol set forth 
in the fourth recital of this proclamation, excepting in 
either case articles dutiable at rates applicable to such 



' 16 Fed. Reg. 5381. 



Department of State Bulletin 



fabrics by virtue of any provision of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended, other than paragraph 1108 or 1109 (a) : 

(a) during the period from October 1, 195G, to Decem- 
ber 31, 1958, both inclusive, if such fabrics are entered, 
or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after the 
total aggregate quantity of 3.500,000 pounds of such fabrics 
has been so entered or withdrawn ; which quantity I find 
to be not less than IVi pei" centum of the average annual 
production in the United States during the three immedi- 
ately preceding calendar years of fabrics similar to such 
fabrics ; and 

(b) following December 31, 195G, until otherwise pro- 
claimed by the President, if such fabrics are entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption in any calen- 
dar year after that total aggregate quantity by weight of 
such fabrics which shall have been notified by the Presi- 
dent to the Secretary of the Treasury, and published in 
the Federal Register, has been so entered or withdrawn 
during such calendar year; which quantity the President 
shall have found to be not less than 5 per centum of the 
average annual production in the United States during 
the three immediately preceding calendar years of fabrics 
similar to such fabrics; and 

8. Whereas the sixteenth recital of Proclamation No. 
3140 of June 13, 1956 (21 F. R. 4237),' amended the list 
set forth in the .seventh recital of Proclamation No. 2769 of 
January 30, 1948 (62 Stat. (pt. 2) 1479), and it is required 
or appropriate to further amend such list : 

Now, THEREFORE, I, DwiGHT D. EISENHOWER, Presi- 
dent of the United States of America, acting under and by 
virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution 
and the Statutes, Including the said section 350 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, do proclaim as follows : 

1. In order to carry out the said trade agreements 
specifi-;>d in the first and third recitals of this proclama- 
tion, until otherwise proclaimed by the President, the ad- 
valorem part of the rate which shall be applied to the 
said fabrics described in the seventh recital of this proc- 
lamation, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption in excess of the quantity specified in clau.se 
(a) of that recital, or in excess of a quantity notified to 
the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to clause (b) of 
that recital, shall be 45 per centum ad valorem. 

2. The said proclamation of December IG, 1947. speci- 
fied in the first recital of this proclamation, and the said 
proclamation of June 2, 1951, specified in the third recital 
of this proclamation, as amended, shall be suspended to 
the extent necessary to give effect to the foregoing pro- 
visions of this proclamation. 

3. In order to carry out the said trade agreement speci- 
fied in the first recital of this proclamation, the list set 
forth in the seventh recital of the said proclamation of 
January 30, 1948, as amended by the said proclamation of 
June 13, 1956, is hereby further amended by deleting 
the last line in item 1406 of such list, reading "Cigar 
bands . . . 35^ per lb." 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and 
caused the Seal of the United States of America to be 
affixed. 



Done at the City of Washington this twenty-eighth day 
of September in the year of our Lord nineteen 

[SEAL] hundred and fifty-six, and of the Independence 
of the United States of America the one hundred 

and eighty-first. 

By the President : 

John Foster Dulles 
Secretary of State. 



Tunisia To Receive U.S. Wheat 

As a gift of the American people to the people 
of Tunisia, the United States will ship up to 45,000 
tons of wheat to the newly independent North 
African nation to avert a threatening food short- 
age, the International Cooperation Administration 
announced on September 19. The critical food 
situation in Tunisia resulted from two successive 
short crops due to drought and from other vm- 
favorable conditions. The Tunisian Government 
requested U.S. assistance in order to prevent 
famine among Tunisians. 

The wheat is being made available to Tunisia 
under title II of the Agricultural Trade Develop- 
ment and Assistance Act (P. L. 480). This pro- 
vision of the law is administered by Ica and 
authorizes the use of surplus U.S. agricultural 
commodities for emergency purposes. The grain, 
which will begin to move to Tunisia as soon as 
shipping arrangements can be completed, will 
come from Commodity Credit Corporation stocks 
and will have a Ccc value of $6.5 million. 

Besides free distribution of the grain, the Tu- 
nisian Government will also be able to use the 
wheat as part payment to workers engaged in 
public works projects, which should alleviate 
serious unemployment now prevalent in Tunisia. 



Immigration Quota for Tunisia 

A PROCLAMATION' 

Whereas under the provisions of section 201 (b) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act, the Secretary of State, 
the Secretary of Commerce, and the Attorney General, 
jointly, are required to determine the annual quota of any 
quota area established pursuant to the provisions of sec- 
tion 202 (a) of the said Act, and to report to the President 
the quota of each quota area so determined ; and 



* Bulletin of June 25, 1956, p. 1057. 
October 8, 1956 



' No. 3158 ; 21 Fed. Reg. 7423. 



557 



Whereas under the provisions of section 202 (e) of the 
said Act, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Com- 
merce, and the Attorney General, jointly, are required to 
revise the quotas, whenever necessary, to provide for any 
political change requiring a change In the list of quota 
areas or the territorial limits thereof ; and 

Whebeas the country of Tunisia has heretofore consti- 
tuted a subquota area within the immigration quota 
established for France and has, therefore, been subject 
to the limitation provided in section 202 (c) (1) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (66 Stat. 177-178) ; and 

Whereas the country of Tunisia was granted its inde- 
pendence on March 20, 1956, and has been recognized as 
an independent country by the United States ; and 

Whereas the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Com- 
merce, and the Attorney General have reported to the 
President that in accordance with the duty imposed and 
the authority conferred upon them by section 201. (b) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act, they jointly have 
made the determination provided for and computed under 
the provisions of section 201 (a) of the said Act; and have 
fixed, in accordance therewith, an immigration quota for 
Tunisia as hereinafter set forth : 

Now, THEREFORE, I, DwiGHT D. EISENHOWER, President 
of the United States of America, acting under and by 
virtue of the authority vested in me by the aforesaid act 
of Congress, do hereby proclaim and make known that the 
annual quota area hereinafter enumerated has been de- 
termined in accordance with the law to be, and shall be, 
as follows : 



Area No. 


Quota Area 


Quota 


87 


Tunisia 


100 



The provision of an immigration quota for any quota 
area is designed solely for the purpose of compliance with 
the pertinent provisions of the Immigration and Nation- 
ality Act and is not to be considered as having any 
significance extraneous to such purpose. 

Proclamation No. 2980 of June 30, 1952'' is amended 
accordingly. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and 
caused the Seal of the United States of America to be 
aflSxed. 

Done at the City of Washington this twentieth day of 

September in the year of our Lord nineteen hun- 

[sEAL] dred and fifty-six, and of the Independence of the 

United States of America the one hundred and 

eighty-first. 

By the President: 

Herbert Hoover, Jr. 

Acting Secretary of State. 



Export- Import Bank Reports 
on Lending Activities 

The Export-Import Bank of Washington made 
156 loans totaling $375.9 million to finance exports 
of U.S. equipment, commodities, and services to 
39 countries in fiscal year 1956, according to the 
bank's annual report to Congress released on 
September 16 by the Board of Directors.^ 

The bank's statement advised Congress that 
more than two-thirds of the bank's loans sup- 
ported U.S. trade in the Western Hemisphere, 
which is the normal pattern of the bank's opera- 
tions. During fiscal year 1956 the bank author- 
ized 110 credits totaling $156 million in 17 Amer- 
ican Republics. 

The bank made 24 credits for $36.1 million to 
fuiance U.S. export sales in eight European coim- 
tries, and 9 loans totaling $158 million in four 
countries in Asia. 

A total of 34 credits for development loans 
amounting to $341.8 million, including a credit of 
$60 million to Japan to buy U.S. cotton,^ and 122 
individual exporter credits totaling $34 million 
comprised the 156 loans for the fiscal year. 

Large loans for industrial or economic develop- 
ment represented by far the greater dollar volume 
of the bank's business in fiscal year 1956, as hereto- 
fore, and created the major share of overseas 
purchases of U.S. goods for export under its 
loans. The bank, nevertheless, continued its serv- 
ices to U.S. exporters seeking smaller loans under 
individual applications or under lines of credit as 
a result of the exporter credit-line program initi- 
ated by the bank in November 1954. 

Under exporter credit lines the bank has made 
loans as low as $2,700, as it did in connection with 
a current sale to an importer in Mexico, and as 
large as $6.3 million to an importer in Italy. 

During the fiscal year, 141 credit lines totaling 
$177.4 million were in operation. These included 
51 new credit lines for $32.8 million. Credit lines 
usually are granted for a period of 1 year. Ten 
credit lines were allowed to lapse by exporters. 

The bank reported a gross income of $84.1 mil- 



' Bulletin of July 14, 1952, p. 83. 



' For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. 
Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C. ; price, 
65 cents. 

' Bulletin of Aug. 15, 1955, p. 263. 



558 



Department of State Bulletin 



lion for the fiscal year. After payment of $23.9 
million to the U.S. Treasury for interest on bor- 
rowed money, the net income established a record 
of $G0.2 million. The Directors voted, as in other 
years, to pay a dividend of $22.5 million to the 
Treasury on its holdings of Export-Import Bank 
stock. 

Summarizing its financial transactions for the 
fiscal year, the bank advised Congress that "total 
receipts were $339 million, total disbursements 
were $251.6 million, leaving $87.4 million as the 
net receipts paid to the Treasury to be applied 
toward the balancing of the federal budget, or a 
rate of approximately $1.6 million a week." The 
bank also brought its reserves to $404.7 million, the 
highest point so far attained. 

At the close of business June 30, the bank had 
paid to the Treasury during its 22-year service a 
total of $166.3 million in interest and $150.9 mil- 
lion in dividends, or total payments of $317.2 
million. 

Administrative expenses of the bank were 
slightly higher this year, the report said, as the 
bank continued to increase its staff in order to 
facilitate its loan operations and handle an in- 
creased number of loan applications. The bank 
currently operates with a staff of 172. Adminis- 
trative expenses for the year were 1.7 percent of 
gross income. The average ratio of administrative 
expense to gross income over the past 22 years has 
been 1.67 percent. 

During the year the President, Directors, and 
members of the staff traveled abroad to 32 coun- 
tries. The bank maintains no field offices, finding 
it more practicable to send representatives abroad 
periodically for investigations, inspections, or 
negotiations. 

In an effort to make the services of the Export- 
Import Bank better known to overseas traders in 
the United States, the President and Board of 
Directors endeavored this fiscal year to make more 
information available about the bank. The bank 
reported to Congress that these efforts were di- 
rected primarily toward reaching businessmen 
and commercial bankers who benefit directly from 
its facilities. 

Meetings were held in major cities of the coun- 
try with commercial banks under the sponsorship 
of the Federal Eeserve System. The report to 
Congress stated that "the Bank anticipates that 
it will be substantially more useful to United 



States private enterprise in the future as a result 
of this program of explanation and information,"" 
which is being continued. 

The bank reported to Congress that one of its 
borrowers in Brazil paid off a $14 million loan 
during the year, approximately 13 years in ad- 
vance of the stipulated final repayment date. 
This came about, the report said, as follows : 

In 1942-43, the Bank loaned $14 mUlion to Cia. Vale do 
Rio Doce, S. A., to finance a project for developing its^ 
iron ore mining operations for export from the Itabira 
region of the State of Minas Gerais. By means of this 
loan, additional capital, and subsequent financing, 350' 
miles of railway were rebuilt and re-equipped, and 
loading facilities provided at the port of Vitoria. In 
1942 the Brazilian company exported 35,000 tons of 
Itabira ore through this port. Thirteen years later, 
in 1955, the company exported 2,262,000 tons of ore 
from the same mines through the same port. 

As a consequence, this project has earned more than 
$100 million of dollar exchange for Brazil after service 
of the relative financing. The greater part of Itabira ore 
has been purchased by steel companies in the United 
States. 

The loan was repaid by Cia. Vale do Rio Doce in. 
April 1956, some 13 years before the final note on 
this credit was to become due. 



$3 Million World Bank Loan 
to Costa Rica 

The World Bank on September 18 announced a 
loan of $3 million in Costa Rica. The loan was 
made to the Central Bank of Costa Rica and will 
assist it in carrying on a lending program for the 
development of agriculture and light industry.. 
The Chemical Corn Exchange Bank of New York 
is participating in the loan, without the World 
Bank's guaranty, to the extent of $366,000, repre- 
senting the first maturity and half the second' 
maturity, which fall due October 1, 1958, and! 
April 1, 1959. 

Costa Rica is primarily an agricultural country^ 
Its requirements for capital goods are mostly for 
agriculture, for the processing of agricultural 
products, and for light industries. To meet the- 
need for imported capital goods the Government,, 
at the end of 1952, initiated a credit program 
through the banking system. Under this program 
the Central Bank extends credit to commercial' 
banks for the importation of capital goods re- 
quired by individuals or private enterprises. The- 



October 8, 1956 



559^ 



commercial banks in turn extend credit to their 
customers for the purchase of these goods throuiih 
normal trade channels. Applications for credit 
under this program are carefully examined, being 
considered, where appropriate, by the Rural 
Credit Boards or by the Ministry of Agriculture 
and Industries and the National Production Coun- 
cil to assure that they are for purposes significant 
to Costa Eica's development. 

The program has proved to be effective and has 
been an important factor in the improvement in 
agi'icultural output and efficiency during the last 
few years. The World Bank loan will provide 
the foreign exchange needed by the Central Bank 
to carry forward the program until 1958. It is 
expected that most of the loan will be used for 
imports which will directly aid the further ex- 
pansion of agriculture. 

Agriculture now contributes 45 percent to the 
national income, accounts for 90 percent of ex- 
ports, and directly employs over half the popula- 
tion. The availability of credit and the efficient 
administration of policies to promote agriculture 
have increased agricultural output in recent years. 
Technical services have been developed to an un- 
usual degree. The research and training center 
of tlie Inter-American Institute of Agricultural 
Sciences is located at Turrialba and has become a 
major agricultural and livestock research station. 
There are adequate extension services to spread 
the results of research and to demonstrate oppor- 
tunities for technological improvements. Farm- 
ers are receptive to the adoption of improved 
practices, and many of them have been able to 
take advantage of credits under the progi-am for 
the purpose of investment in equipment, materials, 
and property development. 

The loan is for a term of 7 years and bears in- 
terest of i% percent, including the statutory com- 
mission of 1 percent. Amortization will begin 
October 1, 1958. The loan is the first World Bank 
loan in Costa Rica and is guaranteed by the Gov- 
ernment of Costa Rica. 

After having been approved by the Executive 
Directors, the loan documents were signed on Sep- 
tember 18, 1956, by Gonzalo J. Facio, Ambassador 
of Costa Rica to the United States, on behalf of 
the Government of Costa Rica ; by Jaime Solera, 
Chairman of the Board, on behalf of the Central 
Bank of Costa Rica; and by Eugene R. Black, 
President, on behalf of the World Bank. 



INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 
AND CONFERENCES 



Inscription of Suez Items 
on Security Council Agenda 

Statement hy Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. 
U.S. Representative to the United Nations ^ 

The United States welcomes the initiative which 
the Governments of the United Kingdom and 
France have taken in bringing the Suez Canal 
matter to the Security Council for its considera- 
tion.= It is a further demonstration of the deter- 
mination of these two governments to fulfill their 
charter obligations and to seek a peaceful solu- 
tion. This is precisely what they and numerous 
other governments concerned with this situation 
have been doing since the action of the Govern- 
ment of Egypt against the Universal Suez Canal 
Company on July 26 of this year. 

These governments and the United States Gov- 
ernment have sought, consistent with our obliga- 
tions under article 33 of the charter, to resolve 
the differences which have arisen between them 
and the Government of Egypt through negotia- 
tions with Egypt. The docmnents before the 
Council summarize in some detail tlie events which 
transpired at the first and second London confer- 
ences on the Suez Canal. Eighteen nations which 
attended the first conference agreed to proposals 
which they deemed just and practical as a basis 
for negotiating a new treaty for the control and 
operation of the canal. Unfortunately, these pro- 
posals were not accepted by the Government of 
Egypt. The same 18 nations met again in a sec- 
ond conference and again demonstrated their 
resourcefulness in the interests of peace by initi- 
ating the formation of the Suez Canal Users 
xVssociation. 

The Governments of the United Kingdom and 
France and of the United States, as well as other 



' Made in the Security Council on Sept. 26 (U.S./U.N. 
press release 2459) . 

° For backsround, see Bulletin of Aug. 27, 1956, p. 335; 
Sept. 3, 1956, p. 371 ; Sept. 24, 1956, p. 467 ; and Oct. 1, 
1956, p. 503. 



560 



Department of State Bulletin 



governments, have consistently sought a settle- 
ment based on justice and on their rights as users 
of the Suez Canal. The Governments of the 
United Kingdom and France have now come to 
the Security Council, and we hope the other users 
of the canal will support them in their determina- 
tion that a lasting settlement which protects the 
rights of all concerned shall be achieved. It is 
essential that the rights of users of the canal rest 
on a basis other than unilateral promises. 

Mr. President, in the Security Council debate 
which is to ensue, the United States will seek a 
peaceful and just settlement of the Suez Canal 
situation, and it hopes that this will be the atti- 
tude of all members of this body. 

In this spirit, the United States will vote in 
favor of the adoption of the provisional agenda 
as circulated. We will vote in favor of the in- 
scription of the item proposed by tlie United 
Kingdom and France,^ and we wiU also vote in 
favor of the inscription of the item proposed by 
Egypt.* 

The United States will be acting in accordance 
with its generally liberal policy with respect to the 
inclusion of items on the agenda despite the serious 
reservations which we may have as to the merit of 
certain of those items. This is consistent with the 
United States action in voting in favor of the in- 
scription of items on at least four previous oc- 
casions when the proposed item was directed 
against the United States. 

In 1950, for example, we voted in favor of in- 
scribing an item charging the United States with 
armed invasion of the territory of China and vio- 
lation of the charter. Again in 1950 we voted for 
inscription of an item charging the invasion of 
China by United States air forces and bombing by 
those air forces of the territory of China. In 1952 
we did not object to the inscription of an item 
charging — of all things ! — the United States with 
engaging in bacteriological warfare. And in 1953 
we did not object to the inscription of an item 
charging the United States with actions in viola- 
tion of the Italian peace treaty and threatening 
the peace. In each of these previous cases the 
charges against the United States, preposterous 
and fallacious though they were, did not deter us 
from not objecting to the inscription of the item. 



We therefore do not feel that we should oppose 
the inscription of an item such as the one proposed 
by the Government of Egypt making charges 
against the United Kingdom and France. This of 
course does not mean that we agree with the con- 
tention contained in the Egyptian item — that the 
United Kingdom and France have acted in any 
way inconsistent with their obligations under the 
United Nations Charter. It should also be under- 
stood, Mr. President, that we vote as we do in the 
belief that the Anglo-French proposal should have 
complete priority and that consideration of the 
Egyptian item should be deferred until the Anglo- 
FrencJi item has been disposed of. 

With regard to the question of our next meeting, 
the United States Government concurs in the 
views already expressed by the representatives of 
the United Kingdom and France that, since sev- 
eral Foreign Ministers will participate in our 
debate, this Council should extend them the cour- 
tesy of waiting until they can conveniently 



arrive.' 



U.S. Position on Proposed 
Slavery Convention 

Statement hy Walter Kotschnig ^ 

In my brief remarks I will not address myself 
to any specific aspects of or any articles in the pro- 
posed convention. It is proper, however, at this 
point for me to define the position of the United 
States Government in this conference. 

The Government and the people of the United 
States detest and abhor slavery in any form or any 
institutions or practices similar to slavery. There 
are few, if any, countries in the world which have 
made such supreme sacrifices as have the Ameri- 
can people to abolish and exterminate slavery 



= U.N. doc. S/3654. 
* U.N. doc. S/3656. 



'' In the voting on Sept. 26, the Council decided unani- 
mously to inscribe the Anglo-French item. The vote on 
inscription of the Egyptian item was 7 (U.S.) -0-4 (Aus- 
tralia, Belgium, France, U.K.). 

' Made on Aug. 15 at Geneva before the U.N. Conference 
of Plenipotentiaries on a Supplementary Convention on 
the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Insti- 
tutions and Practices Similar to Slavery. Mr. Kotschnig, 
Director of the Office of International Economic and 
Social Affairs of the Department of State, was U.S. Dele- 
gate to the conference. 



Ocfober 8, 1956 



561 



within their own territory. The adoption of tlie 
13th amendment to our Constitution, which is the 
supreme law of the land, outlawed for all times all 
slavery in any form or guise. 

The United States also ratified the Anti-Slavery 
Convention of 1926.- In this connection I should 
like to point out that in ratifying that convention 
we made a reservation expressing our disagi-ee- 
ment with the concept contained in the convention 
permitting the use of forced labor on any basis 
other than as a punislmient for crime. In other 
words, we have consistently taken an absolutist 
position in our opposition to any form of slavery 
and have not been willing to accept any half- 
measures. 

I am reciting these facts so as not to leave the 
shadow of a doubt about the basic position of my 
Government with regard to slavery. What I have 
just stated must be clearly remembered to under- 
stand the attitude which my Government is taking 
to the proposed convention. 

First, my Government has some real doubt 
about the efficacy of any additional convention in 
the field of slavery. There are a number of states 
which have not yet ratified tlie convention of 
1926 — among them, states which might usefully 
ratify it with a view to abolishing all remnants 
•of slavery. It does seem to us that efforts to ob- 
tain additional ratification of the 1926 convention 
might be more fruitful than the conclusion of a 
new convention which again might not be widely 
enough ratified to make it fully effective. 

Second, many of the provisions of the proposed 
new convention deal with subjects generally con- 
sidered to be in the area of domestic jurisdiction. 
AVlierever this is the case my Government holds 
that better results might be achieved through pub- 
lic debate, which would i-esult in a clarification 
of facts and information and bring the weight of 
world public opinion to bear on any shortcomings. 
Perhaps even more effective are educational meas- 
ures, which obviously take some time, and possibly 
economic and other assistance designed to help 
eliminate any traces of slavery. 

In the light of this position held by my Gov- 
ernment and under these circumstances my delega- 
tion, by and large, does not propose to take an 
active part in the discussion of specific articles, 



■ Convention to suppress the slave trade and slavery 
(46 Stat. 2183; Treaty Series 778). 



nor is it the intention of the United States Gov- 
ernment to sign or ratify the convention. 

"We have nevertheless come to this conference 
considering the importance of the subject which 
it is discussing. We do not want to stand aloof 
from a United Nations effort of evident interest 
to many. We hope to be able to assist in the de- 
fining of some aspects of the proposed conven- 
tion, such as article 9, which bears upon the broad 
issue of the accession to the convention of various 
states. We believe that any convention developed 
under United Nations auspices should be truly a 
United Nations instrument and should be exclu- 
sively a vehicle of action of the members of the 
United Nations and its family, that is to say, the 
specialized agencies. This is a self-evident prin- 
ciple which if integrally applied will preserve the 
technical nature of the conference and will avoid 
undesirable political discussions which are beyond 
the scope of this technical conference. 

Mr. President, as representative of the United 
States Government, and on behalf of my Gov- 
ernment, I wish this conference every success in 
its work. 



nth Assembly of I titer- American 
Commission of Women 

The following report on the 11th Assembly of 
the Inter- American Commission of Women was 
prepared hy Mrs. Frances M. Lee, U.S. Repre- 
sentative on the Gominission and U.S. delegate 
to the Assernbly. Miss Jam Topper served as 
alternate delegate. Miss Muna Lee of the Bureau 
of Inter-American Affairs, Department of State, 
served as adviser to the U.S. delegation through 
the first week of the Assernbly. 

The Inter-American Commission of Women 
held its 11th Assembly June 1-21, 1956, at Ciudad 
Trujillo at the invitation of the Dominican Re- 
public. Its principal concern was to encourage 
citizenship training and full legal capacity for 
women under the laws of the various countries. 
Delegates were present from 18 of the 21 Amer- 
ican Republics. Official representatives were pres- 
ent also from the United Nations, the U.N. Edu- 
cational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, and 
the International Labor Organization. 

Generalissimo Rafael L. Trujillo addressed the 
Assembly at its opening session, and the Govern- 



562 



Department of State Bulletin 



ment provided full secretariat and other services. 
The universities and normal schools presented 
special progi-aras for the Assembly. 

In accordance with plans adopted in 1053, the 
Inter- American Commission of Women gives at- 
tention in each Assembly to only two major fields 
of interest. The agenda for this Assembly dealt 
primarily with political and civil rights for 
women, the latter topic embracing matters in the 
field of family and property law. The U.S. dele- 
gation based its contributions to the discussion on 
experience in this country in legislation and com- 
munity activities. Since responsibility for legis- 
lation relating to the family is resei'ved under the 
United States Constitution to our State govern- 
ments, the delegation was able to take advantage 
of variations in legal tradition and social and eco- 
nomic development in many different parts of the 
United States. 

The Commission's interest in responsible and 
intelligent use of the franchise has grown with 
the extension of woman suffrage. Wliereas in 
1928, when the Commission was organized, only 
the women in the United States had suffrage 
rights, today women vote in all but one of the 
American Republics. In 1952, when the U.S. 
delegation to the 8th Assembly provided a dis- 
play of pamphlet material used in citizenship edu- 
cation programs in this country, the supply of 
samples was immediately exhausted. In the As- 
sembly last year attention was called to a special 
Unesco publication designed for girls' schools and 
similar groups studying citizen responsibilities. 
In this Assembly interest was concentrated on 
leadership training. The Commission noted that 
the United Nations had recently established a pro- 
gram of advisory services in the field of human 
rights under which governments could request 
the organization of seminars, and urged the de- 
velopment of one or more seminars in Latin Amer- 
ica under this program on the responsibilities of 
citizenship. It also urged the inclusion of civic 
education in school curricula. 

The Assembly noted the increasing number of 
women in important iiublic posts. It recom- 
mended that information about women in the pro- 
fessions and other aspects of public life be in- 
cluded in the census data to be collected through- 
out the Americas in 1960. 

Dr. Grinberg-Vinaver, the United Nations rep- 
resentative in the Assembly, gave a report on the 



civil rights of women during the Assembly's dis- 
cussion of the rights of married women. The 
Commission adopted a resolution urging the re- 
moval of any existing limitations on the legal ca- 
pacity of married women and on their right to 
establish a separate legal domicile where neces- 
sary and to administer property, exercise parental 
responsibility, act as guardians, and fulfill other 
legal functions. The United States abstained on 
this resolution, explaining that, while in sympathy 
with its objectives, the United States does not 
regard detailed recommendations as appropriate 
in this field in view of the variations in the legis- 
lation in our States and because laws relating to 
marriage and the family are so closely related 
to the customs of each country. 

Since the chairman of the Commission, Mrs. 
Maria Concepcion Leyes de Chaves of Paraguay, 
could not attend the Assembly because of illness 
and did not expect to be able to resume her duties 
immediately, the Assembly authorized the Exec- 
utive Committee to further the work of the Com- 
mission during the interim. 

A number of nongovernmental organizations 
had observers at Assembly sessions. The National 
Council of Catholic "Women of the United States 
had a special observer present, and the Interna- 
tional Council of Women was also represented by 
a U.S. citizen. As was the case last year when the 
Commission met at San Juan, Puerto Rico, at the 
invitation of the United States,^ the presence of 
these organization leaders added greatly to the 
significance of the Assembly. 

The Commission decided to hold its next Assem- 
bly in 1957 at the headquarters of the Pan Ameri- 
can Union at Washington. Wliile the United 
States will not be the host to this Assembly, the 
sessions at Washington will be an unusual oppor- 
tunity for women's organizations in this country 
to observe the work of the Commission and offer 
hospitality to the delegates. The 1957 Assembly 
will be concerned primarily with education and 
economic opportunities for women. The rapid 
progress of women in both the political and eco- 
nomic fields adds to the urgency of these topics 
and to the need of careful planning for their study 
and discussion. 



' For a report by Mrs. Lee on the lOtli Assembly, see 
Bulletin of Oct. 10, 1955, p. 584. 



October 8, 1956 



563 



Current U.N. Documents: 
A Selected Bibliography 

General Assembly 

International Law Commission. Regime of the High Seas 
and Regime of the Territorial Sea. Addendum to the 
Report by J. P. A. Frangois, Special Rapporteur. Sum- 
mary of replies from Governments and Conclu.slnns 
of the Special Rapporteur (Continuation). A/CN. 
4/97/Add. .3, May 9, 1956. 17 pp. mlmeo. 

Draft Report of the International Law Commission 
Covering the Work of Its Eighth Session. Chapter 
II, Law of the Sea. II. Articles concerning the Law 
of the Sea. Part I, The Territorial Sea. A/CN.4/L. 
68/ Add. 2, June 25, 1956. 35 pp. mimeo. 

Report of the International Law Commission Covering 
the Work of Its Eighth Session, 23 April-1 July 1956. 
A/CN.4/104, July 7, 1956. 137 pp. mimeo. 

Constitutions, Electoral Laws and Other Legal Instruments 
Relating to Political Rights of Women. Memorandum 
by the Secretary-General. A/3145, July 26, 1956. 26 
pp. mimeo. 

Election of Members of the International Law Commis- 
sion. List of Candidates Nominated by Member States. 
A/3155, August 1, 1956. 5 pp. mimeo. 

System of Allowances to Members of Commissions, Com- 
mittees and Other Subsidiary Bodies of the General 
Assembly or Other Organs of the United Nations. 
Third report of the Advisory Committee on Adminis- 
trative and Budgetary Questions to the Eleventh 
Session of the General Assembly. A/3161, August 3, 
1956. 5 pp. mimeo. 

Election of Members of the International Law Commis- 
sion. Statements of Qualifications of Candidates 
Nominated by Member States. A/3156, August 6, 
1956. 64 pp. mimeo. 

Educational Advancement in Non-Self-Governlng Ter- 
ritories. Offers of Study and Training Facilities Under 
Resolution 845 (IX) of 22 November 1954. Report 
of the Secretary-General. A/3165, August 10, 1956. 
12 pp. mimeo. 

Registration and Publication of Treaties and Interna- 
tional Agreements. A/3168, August 16, 1956. 50 pp. 
mimeo. 

The Togoland Unification Problem and the Future of the 
Trust Territory of Togoland Under British Adminis- 
tration. Special report of the Trusteeship Council. 
A/3169, August 22, 1956. 18 pp. mimeo. 

Budget Estimates for the Financial Tear 1957. Form of 
the Budget. Report of the Secretary-General. 
A/C.5/662, August 30, 1956. 8 pp. mimeo. 

Trusteeship Council 

Administrative Unions Affecting Trust Territories. Re- 
port of the Standing Committee on Administrative 
Unions. T/L.716, July 30, 1956. 57 pp. mimeo. 

The Future of Togoland Under French Administration. 
Memorandum by the Administering Authority. T/1274, 
July .30, 19.56. 4 pp. mimeo. 

The Future of Togoland Under French Administration. 
Memorandum by the Administering Authority. T/1274/ 
Rev. 1, July 31, 19.56. 4 pp. mimeo. 

Draft Report of the Trusteeship Council to the Security 
Council on the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands 
Covering the Period From 23 July 1955 to __ August 
1956. T/L.717, August 1, 1956. 5 pp. mimeo. 

The Togoland Unification Problem and the Future of the 
Trust Territory of Togoland Under British Adminis- 
tration. T/L.719, August 2, 1956. 6 pp. mimeo. 

Conditions in the Trust Territory of Nauru. (Working 
paper prepared by the Secretariat.) T/L.686/Add. 1, 
August 3, 1956. 7 pp. mimeo. 



Conditions in the Trust Territory of Nauru. Report of 
the Drafting Committee. T/L.720, August 3, 1956. 

15 pp. mimeo. 

Conditions in the Trust Territory of Western Samoa. 
Report of the Drafting Committee. T/L.721, August 6, 
1956. 12 pp. mimeo. 

Conditions in the Trust Territory of New Guinea. Work- 
ing paper prepared by the Secretariat. T/L.687/Add. 1, 
August S, 1956. 4 pp. mimeo. 

Conditions in the Trust Territory of New Guinea. Report 
of the Drafting Committee. T/L.726, August 8, 1956. 

16 pp. mimeo. 

Conditions in the Trust Territory of Nauru. Summary of 
observations made by individual members of the Council 
during the general discussion and of the comments of 
the representative and Special Representative of the 
Administering Authority. T/L.727, August 8, 1956. 
27 pp. mimeo. 

Conditions in the Trust Territory of Western Samoa. 
Summary of observations made by individual members 
of the Council during the general discussion and of the 
comments of the representative and the Special Repre- 
sentative of the Administering Authority. T/L.728, 
August 8, 1956. 34 pp. mimeo. 

Conditions in the Trust Territory of New Guinea. Sum- 
mary of observations made by individual members of 
the Council during the general discussion and of the 
comments of the representative and Special Representa- 
tive of the Administering Authority. T/L. 729, August 
8, 1956. 36 pp. mimeo. 



Disarmament Commission 

Note Verbale Dated 25 July 19.56 From the Permanent 
Representative of India to the Chairman of the Dis- 
armament Commission. DC/98, July 31, 1956. 3 pp. 
mimeo. 



Economic and Social Council 

World Economic Situation. Full Employment. Imple- 
mentation of full employment and balance of payments 
policies. Replies of governments to the questionnaire 
on full employment and balance of payments, submitted 
under resolution 520 B (VI) of the General Assembly 
and resolutions 221 E (IX), 290 (XI) and 371 B (XIII) 
of the Economic and Social Council. Contents : Byelo- 
russian Soviet Socialist Republic, Cambotlia, Canada, 
Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Greece, Honduras, Italy : 
Statement for the Trust Territory of Somaliland, Nor- 
way, Poland, Sweden, Thailand, Ukrainian Soviet So- 
cialist Republic, Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet 
Socialist Republics, United States of America. E/2871/ 
Add. 1, May 23, 1956. 123 pp. mimeo. 

General Review of the Development and Co-ordination 
of the Economic, Social and Human Rights Programmes 
and Activities of the United Nations and the Specialized 
Agencies as a Whole. Co-ordination of UNICEP pro- 
grammes with the regular and technical assistance pro- 
grammes of the United Nations and the specialized 
agencies. A supplementary report by the Secretary- 
General under Council resolution 543 (XVIII). 
E/2S92, May 29, 1956. 18 pp. mimeo. 

The European Steel Market in 1955. E/ECE/239, E/ 
ECE/STEEL/106, June 1956. 131 pp. mimeo. 

Commission on International Commodity Trade. Second 
Report. Report to the Economic and Social Council on 
the second session of the Commission, held in Geneva 
from 28 November to 10 December 1955, and on the 
third session of the Commission, held in New York 
from 7 to IS May 1956. E/2886, E/CN.13/20, June 5, 
19.56. 47 pp. mimeo. 

Commission on International Commodity Trade. Inter- 
national Commodity Trade in 1955 and 1956 (First 
(Quarter). General review by the Secretariat. E/CN. 
13/22, June 5, 1956. 38 pp. mimeo. 



564 



Departmenf of State Bulletin 



TREATY INFORMATION 



Current Actions 



MULTILATERAL 

Atomic Energy 

Agreement between the Governments of the United States, 
Canada, and the United Kingdom as to disposition of 
rights in atomic energy inventions. Si^'ned at Washing- 
ton September 24, 1956. Entered into force September 
24, 1956. 

Cultural Property 

Convention for protection of cnltural property In event 
of armed conflict, and regulations of execution. Done 
at The Hague May 14, 1954. Entered into force August 
7, lOije.' 

Ratification deposited: Poland, August 6, 1956. 
Accession deposited: Bulgaria, August 7, 1956. 

Protocol for jjrotection of cultural property in event of 
armed conflict. Done at The Hague May 14, 1954. En- 
tered into force August 7, 1950.' 
Ratification deposited: Poland, August 6, 19.56. 
Accession deposited: Hungary, August 16, 1956. 

Telecommunications 

International telecommunication convention. Signed at 
Buenos Aires December 22, 1952. Entered into force 
January 1, 19.54. TIAS 3266. 
Ratifications deposited: Venezuela (with reservation), 

August 24, 1956 ; Thailand, August 27, 1956. 
Notification by Portugal of extension to: Portuguese 
Overseas Territories, August 20, 19.56. 

Final protocol to the international telecommunication 
convention. Signed at Buenos Aires December 22, 1952. 
Entered into force January 1, 1954. TIAS 3266. 
Ratification deposited: Venezuela, August 24, 19.56. 

Additional protocols to the international telecommuni- 
cation convention. Signed at Buenos Aires December 
22, 1952. Entered Into force December 22, 1952. 
Ratification deposited: Venezuela, August 24, 1956. 

Trade and Commerce 

Protocol of terms of accession of Japan to the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, with annex A (sched- 
ules of the contracting parties) and annex B (schedule 
of Japan). Done at Geneva June 7, 1955. Entered 
into force September 10, 1955. TIAS 3438. 
Signature: Turkey, August 16, 1956. 

Wheat 

International wheat agreement, 1956. Open for signature 
at Washington through May 18, 1956. 
Acceptances deposited: Argentina and Italy, September 
25, 1956 ; Canada, September 26, 1956. 



BILATERAL 



Greece 



Agreement concerning the status of United States forces 
in Greece. Signed at Athens September 7, 1956. En- 
tered into force September 7, 1956. 



India 

Agricultural commodities agreement under title I of the 
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act 
of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 454, 455; 69 Stat. 44, 
721), with annex and letters. Signed at New Delhi 
August 29, 1956. Entered into force August 29, 1956. 

Norway 

Agreement further amending annex C of the mutual 
defense assistance agreement of January 27, 19.50, as 
amended (TIAS 2016, 2418, 2437, 2914, 3143, 3492). 
Effected by exchange of notes at Oslo August 14 and 
23, 1956. Entered into force August 23, 1956. 

Peru 

Surplus agricultural commodities agreement for drought 
assistance, pursuant to titles I and II of the Agricul- 
tural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, 
as amended (68 Stat. 454, 455, 457; 69 Stat. 44, 721). 
Effected by exchange of notes at Lima April 17, May 
4 and 8, 1956. Entered Into force May 8, 1956. 

Spain 

Agreement amending the surplus agricultural commodi- 
ties agreement of March 5, 1956, as supplemented 
(TIAS 3510, 3.540, 3527), by providing for the purchase 
of beef. Signed at La Toja September 15, 1956. En- 
tered into force September 15, 1956. 

Agreement supplementing the facilities assistance pro- 
gram agreement of April 9, May 11 and 19, 1954, as 
extended (TIAS 3098, 32.57), by providing for further 
expansion of the program. Effected by exchange of 
notes at Madrid September 17, 1956. Entered into force 
Septemlter 17, 1956. 



DEPARTMENT AND FOREIGN SERVICE 



' Not in force for the United States. 
Ocfober 8, 1956 



New Passport Agency Opening 
at Los Angeles 

The Department of State announced on Sep- 
tember 27 (press release 510) the opening of a 
new passport agency at Los Angeles on October 1, 
1956. The agency will be located at 500 South 
Figueroa Street, Los Angeles 13, Calif. 

The agent in charge will be Miss 'Gene Burke, 
and the assistant agent will be William G. Nerren. 
The agency will be staffed with approximately 
15 persons. The staff will include adjudicators 
and technicians trained in the Passport Office 
at Washington, D.C. The agency will be 
equipped to issue passports m emergency or urgent 
cases after obtaining clearance from Washington 
by wire service. 

During the first 6 months of 1956, the Passport 
Office in Washington has tabulated a figure of 



565 



44,575 passport applications received from the 
State of California. Of this figure, approximately 
40 percent came from the Los Angeles area. It 
is anticipated that the new agency will handle 
approximately 35,000 passport applications next 
year. 

Resignations 

Herbert V. Prochnow as Deputy Under Secretary of 
State for Economic Affairs, efEective November 15. For 
texts of Mr. Prochnow's letter to President Eisenhower 
and the President's reply, see White House press release 
dated September 26. 

Designations 

Ware Adams as Director, Office of United Nations Po- 
litical and Security Affairs, effective September 19. 

Otis E. MuUiken as Deputy Director, Office of Inter- 
national Economic and Social Affairs, effective Septem- 
ber 19. 

Edward Freers as Director, Office of Eastern European 
Affairs, effective September 23. 

Liivingston Satterthwaite as Director, Office of Trans- 
port and Communications, effective September 23. 



PUBLICATIONS 



Recent Releases 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Gov- 
ernment Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C. Address 
requests direct to the Superintendent of Documents, 
except in the case of free publications, ichich may be 
obtained from the Department of State. 

Safety of Life at Sea— Correction of Error in the Regula- 
tions Annexed to the Convention of June 10, 1948. TIAS 
3590. 3 pp. 5!f. 

Notifications by the United Kingdom dated .Tune 5. 1953, 
and August 5, 1955. Acceptance by the United States 
dated September 22, 1955. 

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. 

752 pp. $2.25. 



Sixth protocol of supplementary concessions to the agree- 
ment of October 30, 1947— Done at Geneva May 23, 1956. 
Entered into force with respect to the United States June 
30, 1956. 

Health and Sanitation — Extension of Program. TIAS 
3592. 4 pp. 50. 

Agreement between the United States and Colombia. Ex- 
change of notes — Signed at Bogotd April 25 and May 17, 
1956. Entered into force May 25, 1956. 



Mutual Aid Settlement. TIAS 3594. 9 pp. 10^. 

Agreement between the United States and Poland — 
Signed at Washington June 28, 1956. Entered into force 
June 28, 1956. 

Safety of Life at Sea. TIAS 3597. 8 pp. 10^. 

Agreement between the United States of America and other 
governments. Done at Washington January 4, 1956. En- 
tered into force July 5, 1956. 



TIAS 3598. 2 pp. 



Surplus Agricultural Commodities. 

Agreement between the United States of America and 
Brazil, amending agreement of November 16, 1955. Ex- 
change of notes — Signed at Washington June 28 and 29, 
1956. Entered into force June 29, 1956. 

Surplus Agricultural Commodities. TIAS 3599. 3 pp. 5«f. 

Agreement between the United States of America and 
Italy, supplementing agreement of May 23, 1955, as sup- 
plemented. Signed at Rome July 5, 1956. Entered into 
force July 5, 1956. 

Atomic Energy— Cooperation for Civil Uses. TIAS 3600. 

7 pp. 104. 

Agreement between the United States of America and 
Austria. Signed at Washington June 8, 1956. Entered 
into force July 13, 1956. 

German Trade-Marks in Italy. TIAS 3601. 7 pp. 10«f. 

Understanding between the United States of America, 
France, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North- 
ern Ireland, and Italy. Signed at Rome July 5, 1956. 
Entered into force July 5, 1956. 

Economic Development. TIAS 3602. 3 pp. 5(S. 

Agreement between the United States of America and 
Libya. Exchange of notes — Signed at Tripoli June 27, 
1956. Entered into force June 27, 1956. 

Bahamas Long Range Proving Ground — Establishment 
of Additional Sites in Ascension Island. TIAS 3603. 
17 pp. 10«>. 

Agreement between the United States of America and 
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ire- 
land. Signed at Washington June 25, 1956. Entered 
into force June 25, 1956. 

Air Force Mission to Bolivia. TIAS 3604. 15 pp. 10(i. 

Agreement between the United States of America and 
Bolivia. Signed at La Paz June 30, 1956. Entered into 
force June 30, 1956. 

Army Mission to Bolivia. TIAS 3605. 14 pp. 100. 

Agreement between the United States of America and 
Bolivia. Signed at La Paz June 30, 1956. Entered into 
force June 30, 1956. 

TIAS 3591. Economic Development. TIAS 3606. 4 pp. 50. 



Agreement between the United States of America and 
Afghanistan. Exchange of notes — Signed at Kabul June 
23, 1956. Entered into force June 23, 1956. 

Defense — Criminal Jurisdiction Over United States 
Forces. TIAS 3607. 6 pp. 50. 

Understanding between the United States of America and 
Libya, relating to article XX (2) of agreement of Sep- 
tember 9, 1954. Signed at Tripoli February 24, 1955. 
Entered into force February 24, 1955 ; operative retro- 
actively October 30, 1954. 



566 



Department of State Bulletin 



October 8, 1956 



Ind 



ex 



Vol. XXXV, No. 902 



Agriculture 

Japanese Cotton Exports to the United States (text 
of notes) 554 

Tunisia To Receive U.S. Wheat 557 

American Republics. 11th Assembl.v of Inter- 
American Commission of Women (Lee) . . . 562 

Argentina. Transcript of Secretary Dulles' News 

Conference 543 

Atomic Energy 

Openins of Discussions on Statute of International 
Atomic Energy Agency (Strauss, Wadsworth) . 535 

U.S., U.K., Canada To Interchange Atomic Energy 

Patent Rights (text of agreement) 540 

Canada. U.S., U.K., Canada To Interchange 
Atomic Energy Patent Rights (text of agree- 
ment) 540 

China 

Ambassadorial Talks at Geneva With Chinese 

Communists 553 

ICA Loan Agreement With Republic of China . . 553 

Congress. President's Views on U.S. Aid to Ref- 
ugees and Escapees 552 

Costa Rica. $3 Million World Bank Loan ... 559 

Department and Foreign Service 

Designations (Adams, MulUken, Freers, Satter- 

thwaite) 566 

New Passport Agency Opening at Los Angeles . . 565 

Resignations (Prochnow) 566 

Economic Afifairs 

Changes in Wool TarifE (text of proclamation) . . 55a 

Export-Import Bank Reports on Lending Ac- 
tivities 5-^^ 

International Understanding in the Business World 

(Eisenhower) ^^^ 

Japanese Cotton Exports to the United States (text 

of notes) ^54 

$3 aiillion World Bank Loan to Costa Rica ... 559 

Tunisia To Receive U.S. Wheat 557 

U.S. Position on Proposed Slavery Convention 

(Kotschnig) ^^^ 

Educational Exchange. Foreign Governments In- 
vited To Send Election Observers to United States 
(text of invitation) 5.50 

Egypt 

Inscription of Suez Items on Security Council 
Agenda (Lodge) 560 

Transcript of Secretary Dulles' News Conference . 543 

Germany. Deputy Under Secretary Murphy To 

Visit Germany 550 

Health, Education and Welfare 

11th Assembly of Inter-American Commission of 

Women (Lee) 562 

U.S. Position on Proposed Slavery Convention 

(Kotschnig) 561 

Iceland. Icelandic Foreign Minister Invited to 

Washington 542 

Immigration and Naturalization. Immigration 

Quota for Tunisia (text of proclamation) . . . 557 

International Organizations and Meetings. Open- 
ing of Discussions on Statute of International 
Atomic Energy Agency (Strauss, Wadsworth) . 535 

Israel. Transcript of Secretary Dulles' News Con- 
ference 343 

Japan. Japanese Cotton Exports to the United 

States (text of notes) 554 

Mutual Security 

ICA Loan Agreement With Republic of China . . 5.53 

Icelandic Foreign Minister Invited to Washington . 542 

President's Citizen Advisers on Mutual Security . 551 

Tunisia To Receive U.S. Wheat 557 



Poland 

General Pulaski's Memorial Day (text of proclama- 
tion) 553 

U.S. Views on Polish Trials (Eisenhower) . . . 552 
Presidential Documents 

Changes in Wool Tariff 555 

General Pulaski's Memorial Day 553 

Immigration Quota for Tunisia 557 

International Understanding in the Business 

World 551 

U.S. Views on Polish Trials 552 

Publications. Recent Releases 56& 

Refugees and Displaced Persons. President's 

Views on U.S. Aid to Refugees and Escapees . . 552 
Treaty Information 

Current Actions 565 

U.S., U.K., Canada To Interchange Atomic Energy 

Patent Rights (text of agreement) .... 540 
Tunisia 

Immigration Quota for Tunisia (text of procla- 
mation) 557 

Tunisia To Receive U.S. Wheat 557 

United Kingdom. U.S., U.K., Canada To Inter- 
change Atomic Energy Patent Rights (text of 

agreement) 540 

United Nations 

Current U.N. Documents 564 

Inscription of Suez Items on Security Council 

Agenda (Lodge) 560 

Transcript of Secretary Dulles' News Conference . 543 
U.S. Position on Proposed Slavery Convention 

(Kotschnig) 561 

Uruguay. Letters of Credence (Lacarte Muro) . . 542 

Name Index 

Adams, Ware 566 

Dulles, Secretary 543 

Eisenhower, President 551, 552, 5.53, 555, 557 

Pairless, Benjamin 551 

Freers, Edward 566 

.Tonsson, Emil 542 

Kotschnig, Walter 561 

Lacarte Muro, Julio A 542 

Lee, Frances M 562 

Lodge, Henry Cabot, Jr 560 

MulUken, Otis E 566 

Murphy, Robert 550 

Prochnow, Herbert V 566 

Satterthwaite, Livingston 566 

Strauss, Lewis L 535 

Wadsworth, James J 535 

Check List of Department of State 
Press Releases: September 24-30 

Releases may be obtained from the News Division, De- 
partment of State, Washington 25, D. C. 
No. Date Subject 

503 9/24 U.S.-U.K -Canadian atomic agreement. 

504 9/24 Geneva talks with Chinese Communists. 
*505 9/24 Visit of Austrian provincial governors. 

506 9/25 Murphy to visit Germany. 

507 9/26 Dulles : U.S. position on Suez (combined with 

No. 508). 

508 9/26 Dulles : news conference. 

509 9/27 Exchange of notes with Japan on cotton 

exports. 

510 9/27 Passport agency in Los Angeles (rewrite). 

511 9/28 Uruguay credentials (rewrite). 

512 9/28 Invitations to Iron Curtain countries to ob- 

serve U.S. elections. 

513 9/29 Visit of Icelandic Foreign Minister. 



*Not printed. 



U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1956 




the 

Department 

of 

State 



United States 
Government Printing Office 

DIVISION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS 

Washington 25, D. C. 



PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE TO AVOID 

PAYMENT OF POSTAGE. S300 

tCPO) 



OFFICIAL BUSINESS 



A new release in the popular Background series . . 

United Nations General Assembly- 
A Review of the Tenth Session 



The tenth regular session of the United Nations General As- 
sembly convened on September 20, 1955, and adjourned 3 months 
later on December 20. 

Hiehlights of the tenth session which are described in this Back- 
ground pamphlet are : 

1. The admission of 16 new members, enlarging U.N. member- 
ship from 60 to 76 countries. 

2. The endorsement of further steps toward the establishment 
of an International Atomic Energy Agency and the recommenda- 
tion for a second international conference on the peaceful uses of 
atomic energy. 

3. The decision to give priority in U.N. disarmament talks to 
confidence-building measures, including President Eisenhower's 
proposal of mutual aerial inspection and Marshal Bulganin's plan 
for establishing control posts at strategic centers, as well as all such 
measures of adequately safeguarded disai'mament as are feasible. 

4. The progress made toward early establishment of the Inter- 
national Finance Corporation. 

5. The decision to explore the organization of a Special United 
Nations Fund for Economic Development. 

6. The Assembly approval of a Charter Review Conference "at 
an appropriate time," the date and place to be fixed at a subse- 
quent session of the Assembly. 

Copies of this publication may be purchased from the Superin- 
tendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OflSce, 
Washington 25, D.C., at 15 cents a copy. 



Publication 6322 



15 cents 



Order Form 

To: Supt. of Documents ■ e tt -^ j at .- ^ , a •., 

Govt Printing Office Please send me copies of Umted Nations General Assembly- 

Washington 25, D.C. ^ ^«"'^"' »' ""^ ^^"'^ Session. 

Name: 

Street Address : 

$ i 

{cash, cheek, w City, Zone, and State: 

money order). 

■ i / 



^cFUblTORY 




Vol. XXXV, No. 903 



October 15, 1956 



IE 

FICIAL 
lEKLY RECORD 

IITED STATES 
REIGN POLICY 



THE PROB LEM S OF PEACE • Address by Secretary Dulles . 571 

TRANSCRIPT OF SECRETARY DULLES' NEWS 

CONFERENCE OF OCTOBER 2 574 

SUEZ CANAL USERS ASSOCIATION ORGANIZED 

AT LONDON • Texts of Resolutions 580 

AMERICAN POLICY AND THE FUTURE OF NATO • 

by C. Burke Elbrick 583 

THE FUNCTIONS OF THE AMERICAN CONSUL • 

by Allyn C. Donaldson 602 

DEVELOPING ECONOMIC POWER FROM THE 
ENERGY OF THE ATOM • Remarks by Lewis L. Strauss 
and W. Kenneth Davis. 589 

For index see inside back cover 



f" 



STATE 




Boston r-j'-il'c Lr:rary 
''i-.nern*'^"''"'"^ of Documents 

NOV 7 -1956 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing OfBce 

Washington 25, D.C. 

Price: 

(2 Issues, domestic $7.60, foreign $10.26 

Single copy, 20 cents 

The prlnttog of this publication has been 
approved by the Director ot the Bureau of 
the Budget (January 19, 1966). 

Note: Contents of this publication are not 
copyrighted and Items contained herein may 
be reprinted. Citation of the Department 
Of State Bdxletin as the source will be 
appreciated. 



Vol. XXXV, No. 903 • Publication 6404 
October 15, 1956 



The Department of State BULLETIN, 
a weekly publication issued by the 
Public Services Division, provides the 
public and interested agencies of 
the Government tcith information on 
developments in the field of foreign 
relations and on the work of the 
Department of State and the Foreign 
Service. The BULLETIN includes se- 
lected press releases on foreign policy, 
issued by the White House and the 
Department, and statements and ad- 
dresses made by the President and by 
the Secretary of State and other offi- 
cers of the Department, as well as 
special articles on various phases of 
international affairs and the func- 
tions of the Department. Informa- 
tion IS included concerning treaties 
and international agreements to 
which the United States is or may 
become a party and treaties of gen- 
eral international interest. 

Publications of the Department, 
United Nations docutnents, and legis- 
lative material in the field of interna- 
tional relations are listed currently. 



The Problems of Peace 



Address hy Secretary Dulles ' 



I speak to you today of some of the problems 
of peace. That is, I know, an old subject. But 
it is also a very live subject. 

Quincy Wriglit, in his Study of War, lists 278 
wars fought between 1480 and 1941. That is 
three ware every 5 years. Several of these wars, 
including World War II, were fought after the 
League of Nations was formed and after the Pact 
of Paris had pledged all the nations to abolish 
war. Also several wars have been fought since 
the United Nations was formed in 1945. These 
include the Korean war, the Indochina war, and 
the Israeli-Arab war. Wars are today a threaten- 
ing possibility in several parts of the world. 

The fact is that war will be an ever-present dan- 
ger until there are better-developed institutions 
for peace, such as an adequate body of interna- 
tional law, an international police force, and a 
reduction of national armaments. Today we live, 
and I fear for long shall live, under the shadow 
of war. Only if we are vividly conscious of this 
fact will we make the exertions needed to prevent 
war. So, I talk again today about peace. 

Let us first of all recognize that war is not pre- 
vented merely by hating war and loving peace. 
Since the beginning, the peoples of the world have 
hated war and longed for peace. But that has 
not gained them peace. It has been amply 
demonstrated that the likelihood of peace is not 
measured by the intensity of peace-loving protes- 
tations. The Stockholm peace proposal is an ex- 
ample. By this ruse the Soviet rulers sought to 
turn the widespread urge for peace to their own 
uses. It contributed nothing to genuine peace. 



' Made at Williams College, Williamstown, Mass., on 
Oct. 6 (press release 525 dated Oct. 5) . 



Even a sincere effort like the Pact of Paris showed 
the futility of attempting to abolish war without 
creating adequate effective compensating insti- 
tutions to replace it. 

The fact is that love of peace, by itself, has never 
been sufficient to deter war. 

Deterrence of War 

One of the gi'eat advances of our time is recog- 
nition that one of the ways to prevent war is to 
deter it by having the will and the capacity to 
use force to punish an aggressor. This involves an 
effort, within the society of nations, to apply the 
principle used to deter violence witliin a commu- 
nity. There, laws are adopted which define 
crimes and their punishment. Thus there is cre- 
ated a powerful deterrent to crimes of violence. 
This principle of deterrence does not operate 100 
percent even in the best-ordered communities. 
But it is conceded to be effective and can be use- 
fully extended into the society of nations. That 
principle was incorporated into the United Na- 
tions Charter. Article 42 authorized the Security 
Council to use force, and the members were re- 
quired [article 43] to provide armed forces neces- 
sary for the purpose of maintaining international 
peace and security. However, these provisions of 
the charter have never been implemented because 
of the Soviet veto. The principle of deterrence has 
had to find expression in collective self-defense 
arrangements authorized by article 51 of the 
charter. 

The United States now has such collective self- 
defense arrangements with 42 other nations. 
These are designed to give advance notice to any 
potential aggressor that an attack upon one would 



Ocfober 15, 1956 



571 



involve a reaction by many, including the United 
States, designed to punish the aggressor to such 
an extent as to make the aggression unprofitable. 
As Senator Vandenberg said in the Senate as he 
sponsored the North Atlantic Treaty : 

Its invincible power for peace is the awesome fact that 
any aggressor upon the North Atlantic Community knows 
in advance that from the very moment he launches his 
conquest he will forthwith face whatever cumulative op- 
position these United Allies in their own wisdom deem 
necessary to beat him to his knees and to restore peace 
and security. 

Through the development of "this 'knock-out' 
admonition" — to use another of Vandenberg's 
phrases — a considerable barrier to war has been 
erected. But it would be folly to consider that 
the admonition alone constitutes an impenetrable 
barrier to war. Its effectiveness depends upon the 
continuing possession within the collective group 
of both the will and the capacity to act effectively 
if there should be aggression. The military pro- 
gram of the United States, including so-called 
foreign aid, represents the cost of this form of 
pe<ace insurance. It is necessary insurance, al- 
though concededly only partial insurance. 

Peace With Justice 

Another aspect of the problem is that there can 
never, in the long run, be real peace unless there 
is justice and law. Even today there are grave 
injustices such as the servitude of the Soviet satel- 
lites and the division of Germany. But even if 
perfect justice were once achieved, it would not 
automatically be a condition to be perpetuated. 
Change is the law of life, and new conditions are 
constantly arising which call for remedy lest there 
be injustice. Such injustices tend ultimately to 
lead to resort to force unless other means exist. 

This point is illustrated by an historical atlas. 
I suppose no one would feel that the political di- 
vision of the world as it was 50 years ago, 100 years 
ago, or 500 years ago should have been perpetu- 
ated. Yet almost the only way of change has been 
the use of force. Within a nation, or within the 
family of nations, violence is inevitable unless 
there are peaceful means of remedying injustices 
when they arise. 

This relationship of peace and justice was much 
considered at the time of the making of the United 
Nations Charter. The charter, as originally 
drafted at Dumbarton Oaks, invoked no standard 



of justice. The exclusive emphasis was upon 
peace, as though peace could be had permanently 
irrespective of justice. 

I recall urging, in March 1945, that "the organi- 
zation should be infused with an ethical spirit, the 
spirit of justice." I went on to say : 

I realize full well that "justice" is not readily defined. 
It means different things to different men. But it means 
something, and something very vital, to all men. The 
charter should require the new organization, as its first 
order of business, to undertake the difficult but essential 
task of developing conceptions of justice by which it will 
be guided. Only thus will it survive. 

At the San Francisco conference this concept 
was found generally acceptable. The charter was 
amended accordingly. The most significant of 
those amendments is found in the very first article 
of the charter. This article 1 initially stated the 
purpose of the United Nations to be "to bring 
about by peaceful means, adjustment or settle- 
ment of international disputes which might lead 
to a breach of the peace." At San Francisco it 
was said that the peaceful settlement must be "in 
conformity with the principles of justice and in- 
ternational law." 

Thus, when the United Nations deals with the 
problem of adjusting and settling disputes and 
situations which may endanger the peace, it is re- 
quired to operate as a court of equity applying the 
principles of justice as may seem relevant to any 
particular set of facts. 

This is not always easy to do. World public 
opinion readily opposes force. But it does not so 
readily support justice, which is often a vague and 
disputable concept. Nevertheless, those who love 
and want peace must recognize that, unless they 
exert themselves as vigorously for justice as they 
do for peace, they are not apt to have peace. 
Peace is a coin which has two sides. One side is 
the renunciation of force, the other side is the 
according of justice. Peace and justice are 
inseparable. 

A very practical illustration of the interdepend- 
ence of peace and justice is the present Suez 
Canal situation. There the Government of 
Egypt abruptly took to itself exclusive control of 
the operation of this waterway which, since its 
inception, had been operated through an interna- 
tional regime. The Egyptian Government took 
this action under conditions which suggested an 
intention to exercise this control not in the general 
interest but to promote the so-called "grandeur" 



572 



Department of State Bulletin 



of Egypt by being able to exert economic pressures 
upon other countries and to extract tribute from 
them. 

There are many countries for whom the Suez 
Canal is, in an almost literal sense, a lifeline. 
Their economic welfare depends upon the availa- 
bility of the canal and upon its technical compe- 
tence. There should be no risk of overt or covert 
discrimination as between users who were given 
the right of free and equal transit by the treaty, of 
perpetual duration, made in 1888. No nation 
should be required to live under an economic 
"sword of Damocles." 

There has been strong worldwide sentiment 
against using force to right this situation. That 
is natural and proper. But those who are con- 
cerned about peace ought to be equally concerned 
about justice. Is it just, or even tolerable, that 
great nations which have rights under the 1888 
treaty and whose economies depend upon the use 
of the canal should accept an exclusive control of 
this international waterway by a government 
which professes to be bitterly hostile ? That is the 
issue now before the United Nations Security 
Council, and it faces that organization with a 
crucial test. 

The Task of Waging Peace 

A final point I would make to you is that peace 
will never be won unless there is the same constant 
effort to win peace as is exerted in time of war 
to win victory. We have seen that throughout 
the ages peace has been wanted ; but war has been 
had. We also see throughout the ages that in time 
of war success goes not merely to those who want 
victory but to those who demonstrate the capacity 
and the sacrificial qualities needed to win it. On 
the other hand, peace is traditionally looked upon 
as a time of relaxation, when no special effort and 
special sacrifices are required. 

The fact is that waging peace is as difficult a 
task as waging war. It calls for many of the 
same qualities and for at least some measure of 
sacrifice. Today this country is making consider- 
able sacrifices in its waging of peace. These are 
measured by the military service of our youth; 
by the expenditure of about 10 percent of our gross 
national production for defensive purposes; by 
the granting of military and economic assistance 
to countries which are threatened and which have 



the will to resist ; and by the sacrificial efforts of 
many individuals not only in the military branch 
of government but also notably in our diplomatic 
and foreign service. But even so the willingness 
to sacrifice is not commensurate with the need. 
Time after time your Government seeks the serv- 
ices of especially qualified persons for urgent tasks 
which need to be performed in the waging of 
peace. In time of war the persons thus sought 
would unhesitatingly respond. In time of peace 
they find reasons for not responding. The reasons 
may be genuine, but they reflect the general feeling 
that peace does not require the kind of sacrifice 
that would unhesitatingly be made in time of war. 
Mankind will never win lasting peace so long as 
men use their full resources only in tasks of war. 
The task of peace is one that requires an effort like 
one required to win a great war. Wliy should we 
not make that effort? Neither voice nor pen can 
portray the awful horror of a third world war. 
Why should we not, to win the peace, develop and 
use the qualities that would be evoked in the effort 
to win a war ? This is a question to be answered 
in national terms as we strive to institutionalize 
peace. Also it is a question which each one of us 
has to answer in personal terms. You, or some 
of you, may be called on to answer that question 
in terms of your own life effort.. If you and others 
like you will do for peace what you would do for 
war, that would enable us more hopefully to face 
the future. 



Death of President Somoza 
of Nicaragua 

Following is the text of a statement iy Presi- 
dent Eisenhower regarding the death on Sep- 
tember 29 of President Anastasio Somoza of 
Nicaragua {White House press release dated 
Septemher 29) . 

The Nation and I personally regret the death 
of President Somoza of Nicaragua as a result of 
the dastardly attack made upon him several days 
ago by an assassin. 

President Somoza constantly emphasized, both 
publicly and privately, his friendship for the 
United States — a friendship that persisted until 
the moment of his death. 



October 15, 1956 



573 



Transcript of Secretary Dulles' News Conference 



Press release 516 dated October 2 

Secretary Dulles: I understand that there are 
here the representatives of 10 Latin American 
newspaper editors and publishers, who are here 
to attend a seminar sponsored by the American 
Press Institute of Columbia University. I am 
glad to welcome them here. 

Now I will receive any questions. 

U.S. Aid to Yugoslavia 

Q. Mr. Secretary., do you have any information 
on the furpose of Mr. Tito''s tnp to the Soviet 
Union, and any ideas at this stage on lohat effect 
it might have on the United States aid program 
to Yugoslavia? 

A. We believe, first, that the trip is more than 
a "vacation," and that it does, in fact, relate to 
serious matters which probably concern the rela- 
tionship of the Soviet Communist Party to the 
satellite countries and to the relationship which 
those satellites have to the Soviet Union. 

You may recall that when I was in Brioni last 
November I then had a press conference follow- 
ing my talk with Marshal Tito at which I express- 
ed the view that the satellites ought to be inde- 
pendent,^ and President Tito was asked whether 
he agreed with that and he said that he did. Now 
that involves some very serious questions of the 
relationship of the Soviet State, and Soviet Com- 
munist Party, to the satellites. Our belief is that 
the matters upon which President Tito is now con- 
ferring probably relate to that subject. Beyond 
that, I would only speculate. 

Of course, in answer to the second part of 
your question, we naturally take account of every- 
thing that happens up to the date when the Presi- 
dent will make his determination. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, there have been reports that 
the Soviet Union is projyosing to withdraw its 



troops from Eastern Europe and that that ques- 
tion is under discussion. Do you have anything 
to confirm there? 

A. No, I can't confirm it. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, on the question of the Presi- 
denfs decision-, is it necessary under the laio for 
him to make an immediate flat determination on 
each of the questions in the act on, I believe, Oc- 
tober 16, the end of the 90-day period? ^ 

A. We don't think that it is necessary, but we 
are getting an opinion on that subject from the 
Attorney General. It seems as though, the way 
the act reads, there would have to be a cessation of 
aid at the end of the 90-day period unless and until 
the President made such a finding but that his 
finding could, perhaps, be made after that date. 

Q. Has the idea of a second Panama or a sec- 
ond Sues ever come up lately? I know it is an 
old idea. I wondered if in view of the present 
situation it had come up again. 

A. A second Suez Canal and a second Panama 
Canal? 

Q. Yes, and through Nicaragua. 



' BurxETiN of Nov. 21, 1955, p. 833, footnote 1. 
574 



^ Section 143 of the Mutual Secm-ity Act of 1956 (P. L. 
726, 84th Cong.) reads: 

"Seo. 143. Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, no assistance under this title or any other title of this 
Act, or under any provision of law repealed by section 
542 (a) of this Act, shall be furnished to Yugoslavia af- 
ter the expiration of ninety days following the date of 
the enactment of this section, unless the President finds 
and so reports to the Congress, with his reasons therefor, 

(1) that there has been no change in the Yugoslavian 
policies on the basis of which assistance under this Act 
has been furnished to Yugoslavia in the past, and that 
Yugoslavia is independent of control by the Soviet Union, 

(2) that Yugoslavia is not participating in any policy or 
program for the Communist conquest of the world, and 

(3) that it is in the interest of the national security of 
the United States to continue the furnishing of assistance 
to Yugoslavia under this Act." 

President Eisenhower approved the act on July 18, 195(3. 

Deparfment of Stale Bulletin 



A. Well, there has been a great deal of thought 
given to the matter of deepening, widening, and 
possibly jDaralleling the Suez Canal, because it is 
not now adequate to take tankers of large draft 
and large tonnage and today it is cheaper to take 
such tankers and large vessels ai'ound the Cape 
rather than to try to put them through the canal. 
As a matter of fact, they couldn't get through the 
canal as it now is. 

Now the question as to whether or not that will 
take place in the light of current developments is 
a real question. A good many people are think- 
ing now more in terms of going around the Cape 
of Good Hope than they are through the Suez 
Canal because confidence has been so shaken. 

Now as far as the Panama Canal is concerned, 
there is thought being given to that possibility. 
As you know, we have a treaty with Nicaragua 
which contemplates the building of a canal 
through Nicaragua, and as the need comes for in- 
creased facilities across the Isthmus I suppose 
thought would be given to the alternatives of 
paralleling the present Panama Canal or possibly 
putting it in some other place where the danger 
of breakdown, either through natural causes or 
war causes, would be somewhat reduced through 
greater diversification. 

Q. Is that something that has come up lately? 

A. No. 

Q. And it w not anything that you are think- 
ing off 

A. No, not anything we are thinking of in terms 
of actually starting to make the dirt fly. 

Suez Canal Users Association 

Q. Mr. Seci'etary, toould the United States par- 
ticipation in the Suez Canal, hy the users associa- 
tion, he hy executive agreement, or will it require, 
as in Denmarlc's case, co7igressional consent? 

A. It will be purely bj^ executive agreement; 
in fact, the decision has already been made. It 
does not involve any obligations upon the United 
States, and where we have an arrangement which 
does not involve obligations it can be taken by 
executive action. I was looking, for example, 
at the arrangement that we have with Iceland. 
That was a treaty in a sense, in the sense that Ice- 
land ratified it; we did not. It is an executive 



agreement as far as we are concerned; it is a 
treaty as far as Iceland is concerned because it 
puts certain obligations on Iceland. It gives 
certain facilities to the United States. Therefore 
it was treated in one way in Iceland, another way 
in the United States. And where we make agree- 
ments which only give benefits to the United 
States and which impose no obligations, those can 
be done by executive action, as is being done in 
this case. 

Q. What about the -financial angle of the thing; 
that is, where will the money come from to pay 
the United States Govemmenfs share? 

A. WeU, there is no great financial problem 
involved. The money in the main will come cur- 
rently from, we expect, those who use the asso- 
ciation, who pay their dues into the association 
as their agent. Now there may be a need for 
some small amount of working capital to get 
started with. That will probably be made by 
small loans from the different member comitries, 
but it would only run into a matter of a few thous- 
and dollars apiece. 

Q. By the ^^users'''' you mean the ship lines, the 
ship operators? 

A. I mean there that loans will probably be 
made by the governments. The earlier current 
payments would be by the ships. 

Policy Toward Argentina 

Q. Mr. Secretary, Gainza Paz, publisher of La 
Prensa in Argentina, made a statement which was 
published this morning. Gainza Paz made a 
statement this moiling about American policy to- 
ward Argentina which is at variance with what 
you said last week. He points out, for example, 
that the $60-milUon loan to the steel mills was 
authorized hy the Export Bank during the Eisen- 
hoxoer administration. He accu„ses both adminis- 
trations of at times appeasing the Peron regime 
and ends his statement: "This policy of appease- 
ment and. friendship" (that is, during the Eisen- 
hoxoer administration) "was highlighted by the 
Milton Eisenhower visit in 1953, and praise was 
bestowed upon the dictator hy outstanding United 
States officials r Will you discuss that? 

A. "Well, you know one of the problems that we 
have is that sometimes people are very happy w«ith 



October 15, 1956 



575 



the results w« get but are not happy with the 
means by which we get them. The fact is that 
Peron is gone, the fact is that La Prensa is back 
again in private ownership and free publication 
and free news. Those are both results which I 
guess we all welcome. Now some people tliink 
we could have gotten those results better had we 
moie actively intervened in the internal affairs 
of the Argentine. As a matter of fact, that was 
tried by the Truman administration and it was 
actually that intervention which was a principal 
factor in bringing Peron into power. He came 
into power partly as a result of the i-esentment 
among the people that foreigners were trying to 
interfere in their internal affairs. So you see 
sometimes it doesn't actually get you very far to 
intervene openly. It often gets you backwards. 
The fact is that results that none of us wanted 
were achieved by the earlier policy; results that 
all of us wanted were achieved under the latter 
policy. 

Q. Do you suggest that the United States should 
get the credit for Mr. PerorCs departure? 

A. I think w.e should get credit in this sense, 
that we did not, by our own open intervention, 
bring into play forces which could have kept him 
in power, and we allowed the natural forces to 
prevail which took him out of power. 

Q. Mr. Secretary., could you comment upon Mr. 
Gainza Paz' estimate that the $60-million loan 
for the steel mills actually was authorized hy the 
Export-Import Banii during the Eisenhower ad- 
m,inistration while Peron was still in power? 

A. Yes. The story to which I addressed my- 
self last week ' was a statement which had been 
made that $100 million had been loaned by this 
Government to Peron, or upwards of that, and 
had been abstracted by him and largely hidden 
away by him in Switzerland, I believe the story 
was. Well, if you buy and pay for a steel mill 
there is no way to put that money in Switzerland 
as far as I know. The only money that could 
have been taken to Switzerland was money that 
was put up pursuant to the loan agreement made 
by the prior administration. Now this steel mill 
agreement, as I understand, was studied during 
the Peron regime, but the actual loan agreement 
was not signed until after Peron had gone. 

■ Bulletin of Oct 8, 1956, p. 545. 
576 



Q. Would you comment on the possible future 
use of American cotton surpluses to induce Egypt 
to accept a just solution? 

A. That is an extremely complicated problem 
because cotton is not just cotton. There are all 
kinds of varieties of cotton. Egyptian cotton, 
M'hich is of a certain fiber length, long fiber length, 
has uses and purposes which are not fully met by 
the American type of cotton, which is generally 
shorter staple cotton. There is cotton of South 
American origin, notably Peru, which is compet- 
itive with the Egyptian cotton. But I am not 
quite sure that om- cotton can compete with Egyp- 
tian cotton. Now it may be that ways can be 
found if they were sought — at the moment we are 
not seeking them — which would be somewhat dis- 
turbing of Egypt's cotton market. But we are not 
now engaging in any economic war against Egypt. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, I believe that you said that 
intervention in Argentina was tried by the Tru- 
man administration. Would you spell out what 
you had in mind there, how they intervened? 

A. I am afraid if I get into that I would get 
into politics. I have already treaded pretty close 
to political ground. The story, I think, is very 
well known. You can find it without asking me. 

Q. Is there a point you can start u^ off on as to 
how this toas brought about? 

A. No, I am afraid not. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, when do you plan to go to 
the U.N., and what is the position of the United 
States in relation to the British and French at 
the UJf. on the Suez issue? 

A. Well, I shall certainly be there on Friday 
when the session opens. It is possible I might 
go up somewliat earlier, although I have a speak- 
ing engagement here on Thursday night before 
the 13th Biennial Ecclesiastical Congress of the 
Greek Orthodox Church. Conceivably I might 
meet with some of the other Foreign Ministers, 
particularly Mr. Pineau and Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, 
before Friday, but my present plans, as far as 
they are formulated, are to go up on Friday morn- 



Western European Unity 

Q. Mr. Secretary, in the last week or two there 
has been a revival of talk of European unify both 
in terms of trading schemes and also political con- 
Department of State Bulletin 



sultatioTis. I wondered if you could tell us your 
reaction to those developments. 

A. My reaction to that revival is extremely 
favorable, as I think all who know me would sur- 
mise. I have been for many years a very strong 
advocate of Western European unity, and, of 
course, President Eisenhower has also been such 
an advocate. Now there are some people who in- 
terpret some of the reasoning as a slap at the 
United States because they say they want to be 
independent of the United States. I don't in- 
terpret that as a slap at the United States at all. 
As a matter of fact, I recall in a speech I made be- 
fore the American Club in Paris in November '48 
I made what I at least thought was quite an elo- 
quent plea for Western European unity and I said 
that the important thing is that Western Europe, 
which has a capacity to be strong and vigorous 
in its own right, should take that possibility and 
realize it so that it will not be dependent upon the 
United States or upon any other power. It does 
not need to fear any other power. And the idea 
put forward, now most vocally, perhaps, by Chan- 
cellor Adenauer, but which has renewed support 
now in many quarters, that Europe should be- 
come strong by itself, not so divided that it has 
to fear anybody or so weak that it has to depend 
upon anybody else, I think that thesis is unan- 
swerable and I hope it will prevail. I had the 
feeling that developments in this Suez situation 
were moving thoughts somewhat in that direction 
and, if so, that probably would be a very happy 
byproduct, indeed, of what otherwise is a rather 
tragic affair. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, has there teen any hint or 
intimation jrom, Egypt of rtvdking a separate 
agreement with the U.S. on the Suez dispute? 

A. Well, the United States is not going to make 
any separate agreement with Egypt. Any agree- 
ment that is made, as far as Ave are concerned, will 
be an agreement which will be by or in the interest 
of all of the users of the canal, the beneficiaries of 
the treaty of 1888. We are not going to make any 
side agreements. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, there have been rather wide- 
spread reports since the ending of the second Lon- 
don conference, where there was a decision to set 
up the users association, that there is a split on 
the one hand between the United States and the 
British and French on the other, or at least a dif- 



ference in degree of approach. Now could you 
comment on that and tell us how you view it, at 
least? 

A. As far as the formula for the users associa- 
tion is concerned, there is no detectable change, at 
least not detectable to me, between what it now is 
and what was planned, at least as far as the United 
States is concerned, and as we made known to the 
British and the French before the project was 
publicly launched in any way. There was drawn 
up a draft of the charter, so to speak, the articles 
of the users association, and what is coming into 
being today is almost exactly what was planned 
at that time. There is talk about the "teeth" be- 
ing pulled out of it. There were never "teeth" 
in it, if that means the use of force. 

Now there has been some difference in our ap- 
proach to this problem of the Suez Canal. This 
is not an area where we are bound together by 
treaty. Certain areas we are by treaty bound to 
protect, such as the North Atlantic Treaty area, 
and there we stand together and I hope and be- 
lieve always will stand absolutely together. 

There are also other problems where our ap- 
proach is not always identical. For example, 
there is in Asia and Africa the so-called problem 
of colonialism. Now there the United States 
plays a somewhat independent role. You have 
this very great problem of the shift from colonial- 
ism to independence which is in process and which 
will be going on, perhaps, for another 50 years, 
and there I believe the role of the United States 
is to try to see that that process moves forward in a 
constructive evolutionary way and does not either 
come to a halt or take a violent revolutionary 
turn which would be destructive of very much 
good. I suspect that the United States will find 
that its role, not only today but in the coming 
years, will be to try to aid that process, without 
identifying itself 100 percent either with the so- 
called colonial powers or with the powers which 
are primarily and uniquely concerned with the 
problem of getting their independence as rapidly 
as possible. I think we have a special role to play 
and that perhaps makes it impractical for us, as 
I say, in every respect to identify our policies with 
those of other countries on whichever side of that 
problem they find their interest. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, loould you spell out for us a 
little more your reaction to the Tito trip? From, 
your point of view, is it a good development or a 



October IS, 1956 



577 



bad development? Is it a reflection of weakness 
in the Soviet Union constellation or a sinister 
thing that might anticipate a strong movement? 

A. Well, I think that anything which calls for 
action as unexpected and in a sense as dramatic as 
this is evidence of differences which confirm the 
view which we have held now for some time that 
the Soviet Union and the Soviet Communist 
Party, in groping for new policies to replace 
those of Stalin, have set in motion forces which 
they do not dare completely to repress but, on the 
other hand, are not willing to welcome and en- 
courage. And this is evidence, I think, further evi- 
dence of the fact that they have a real and serious 
problem on their hands. But I wouldn't want to 
speculate as to how it would be resolved because 
I suspect that even the principal participants in 
this thing don't know at this particular moment 
how it will be resolved. We can't judge that until 
afterward. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, in the resolution of the prob- 
lem, what is your understanding or estimate at 
this time of lehat Marshal Tito''s role is? Is if as 
a nonalined individual or as a friend of the Soviet 
Union or a friend of the Western Powers? 

A. Well, I have no reason to doubt that his 
general policy is that which we discussed together 
when I was in Brioni and which I have already 
referred to, namely, that the now satellite coun- 
tries should have a greater measure of inde- 
pendence. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, you say you have no reason 
to doubt — do you mean you have no reason to 
think that he has changed? 

A. That's right, I have no reason to think that 
he has changed his policy. 

Q. May I ask something else on this subject, 
going back to something you said a while ago? 
You said you had asked the Attorney General for 
an opinion on the application of the law. The 
question related to a certain specific point lohich 
had been raised in the law. I understood your 
anstoer to relate to the date. Do you mean you 
have asked the Attorney General lohether the 
President's decision might be given at a later tims 
than October 16 and still be effective? 

A. That's correct. 



578 



Q. Mr. Secretary, there seems to be reason to 
believe that Japan cmd Bussia are going to sign 
an agreement terminating a technical state of war 
without getting into the question of territories, a 
sort of West German type settlement; that the 
Prime Minister will go to Moscow to settle that 
situation with the Soviets. I have ttoo questions. 
First of all, would you care to comment about that 
type of settlement; and, secondly, since the United 
States has a partly responsible role in the terri- 
tories, do we propose any type of action in the 
future that will settle that question? 

A. I would prefer not to comment on the course 
that is being followed by the Japanese Govern- 
ment at the present time. It's primarily their 
problem and, so long as they work it out in ways 
which do not infringe upon our rights under tlie 
Japanese peace treaty, I think we must recognize 
and do recognize that they have freedom of action, 
freedom of choice. I don't know myself just 
what the solution will be or whether it will work, 
but I believe that they must be and are the masters 
of their own destiny in this respect. 

Relations With Panama 

Q. Mr. Secretary, in Panama there seems to he 
some misunderstanding still about the United 
States-Panama treaty governing the Canal Zone.* 
The outgoing President yesterday criticized our 
attitude toward implementing this treaty, and the 
incoming President said he didn't see it as an in- 
surmountable obstacle and he was confident the 
United States would do the right thing. I won- 
der if you would comment on that situation. 

A. I was favorably impressed by the moderate 
tone of the statements made by the outgoing and 
incoming Presidents on this matter. The reality 
is that on all the fundamentals, I think, we get on 
extremely well with the Republic of Panama. It's 
a difficult situation. The Panama Canal cuts 
right through the middle of the territory of the 
Republic of Panama, and you can't have a situa- 
tion like that without having differences. So far 
these differences have been discussed, discussed 
very frankly. The last time they were discussed 
was when the President and I were in Panama 
at the meeting last July of the Presidents. And 
we can talk these things over very frankly, very 
openly. It is difficult to get solutions which are 



* For text, see iUd., Feb. 7, 1955, p. 238. 

Department of State Bulletin '^ 



not only agreed to on paper as they had been 
agreed to by the recent treaty of 1955, I think it 
was, but which actually operate in terms of the 
human beings that are there. There are natural 
tendencies on tlie part of our people, military and 
civilian, who are concerned with the operation of 
the canal, to have certain privileges which they 
think they are entitled to in the way of PX's and 
things of that sort. And stuff gets out from them 
improperly in ways that compete with the business 
of the merchants of Panama. There are questions 
of rates of pay and whether or not there is dis- 
crimination against the citizens of Panama. 
These are awfully difficult problems to work out in 
terms of your day-to-day application of the treaty. 
Now, I think that they are being worked out ; a 
great deal of progress has been made. I'm not 
such a Utopian as to think there will never be any 
problems between us because of the nature of the 
situation. As I say, where there is a strip that 
we control 10 miles wide running right through 
the middle of Panama, there are almost sure to 
be differences from time to time. But if the spirit 
that prevailed in the past continues to prevail, 
we will work them out. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, hoth last week and this loeeh 
you sounded like you could make a political speech 
on this Argentine question, and I was wondering 
if you might before the elections. 

A. Well, I'm still holding at least the remnants 
of hope which I expressed earlier, that I would not 
get politically into this campaign. I am not sure 
how long I will hold out, but I haven't given in yet. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, the Israel Government has 
expressed the desire to participate in the Suez de- 
bate in the Secunty Council. What is this Gov- 
emmenfs view of such a participation by Israel 
in the debate? 

A. Well, I think that that matter had been ad- 
journed for a decision when it came up last week, 
and it will probably come up again this week or 
perhaps at a later stage. It seems to me that the 
views of Israel ought to come in some form or 
manner to the knowledge and consideration of 
the Security Council. Now, we have to handle 
that matter with some care as a practical matter 
so that we don't open the door to everybody to 
come in, as that would make it a process which 



would have no end. So the precise form and 
manner of the presentation of the Israel case still 
remains to be decided. But 1 certainly think that 
Israel's point of view, and their case of violation 
of the treaty of 1888, as found by the Security 
Council in 1951, ^ that ought to come in some form 
or manner to the attention of the Security Council. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, another point on Latin 
America. Yesterday a couple of leading Argen- 
tine newspapers took exception to the expression 
of regret on the part of the President over the 
death of President Smnoza of Nicaragua^ the 
plain implication being that toe should welcome, so 
to speak, the demise of a dictator. Against the 
background of your remarks about Mr. Peron, do 
you want to comment on that in any way? 

A. Well, you know, one of the basic principles 
of the American Republics organization is to 
avoid interference in the internal afl'airs of other 
countries. I do not believe that it is productive 
to interfere, and I believe that a failure to practice 
the customary amenities as between sovereigii 
states could be looked upon as a form of interfer- 
ence. I realize that the American Republics are 
much divided among themselves on the question 
of democratic governments as against so-called 
dictator governments. But I do not think that, 
whatever our own views may be, it is wise or prof- 
itable to carry those views into the current con- 
duct of our relations with these countries. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, there have been frequent re- 
ports within the last few days about the possibil- 
ity of a compromise with Iceland on the base prob- 
lem. Do you see the possibility of such a compro- 
mise, to leave our troops there beyond early 1958? 

A. Well, we have not started any actual nego- 
tiations, nor do we know what the position of the 
Icelandic Government is going to be when we do 
start a negotiation. All I can say is that the fact 
that there is going to be a negotiation and that 
the representatives of Iceland came all the way 
here to try to create an atmosphere which would be 
favorable to a good and successful negotiation, all 
that gives me ground for hope that out of our 
negotiation, when it starts, there will come some 
positive, fruitful results. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, coming back to Europe, 



" Hid., Sept. 17, 1951, p. 479. 
" See p. 573. 



October 15, 1956 



579 



would you accept the idea developed in some Eu- 
ropean circles that the United Europe should he- 
come an independent group, a sort of a third 
inter7iational force which ivould lead a kind of 
neutralist policy betiveen the United States of 
America and the U.S.S.R.? 

A. Well, you have asked two questions there. 
It certainly is, I think, quite appropriate that 
Europe should become what you might call a third 
great power. The Soviet Union is today a great 
power. The United States is today a great jDower. 
The Western European countries have it within 
their capacity to be a great power. I remember 
that Mr. Attlee remarked, "Europe must federate 
or perish," and, while that was perhaps somewhat 
of an overstatement, it does indicate the impor- 
tance of there being a unity which will provide 
strength. Now, the idea that they would be neu- 
tral toward Soviet communism is, I think, un- 
thinkable. All of the premises of Western so- 
ciety, the whole nature of Western civilization, 
the fact that Western Europe is now the cradle 
of Christianity, all of this to my mind makes it 
unthinkable that if that new force came into 
being it would be neutral toward materialistic and 
atheistic communism. 

Q. Mr. Secretar^y, I believe you have an ap- 
pointment with Mr. Javits. What is the purpose 
of this? Is it at his suggestion or yours? 

A. Well, it is his suggestion that he come to 
see me. He is a person I think very highly of. 
I knew him when he was a member of tlie Foreign 
Affairs Committee and he is in Washington and 
it is quite natural that he should drop in to see me. 



U.S.-lcelandic Discussions 
Regarding 1951 Agreement 

Following is the text of a joint communique is- 
sued on October 3 at the close of discussions loith 
Icelandic Foreign Minister Emil Jonsson. 

Representatives of the Governments of Iceland 
and the United States have concluded frank and 
friendly conversations, in the spirit of their mu- 
tual obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty, 
in which they have discussed the defense functions 
under the United States-Icelandic Agreement of 
1951 concerning the defense of Iceland and the 
North Atlantic area. These conversations, which 

580 



had the purpose of ensuring that each Govern- 
ment has a better conception of the principles un- 
derlying the other Government's approach to the 
problem inider discussion, were preliminary to 
formal negotiations on the Agreement. At to- 
day's meeting it was decided that it would be mu- 
tually advantageous to begin negotiations in Rey- 
kjavik in mid-November. 



Suez Canal Users Association 
Organized at London 

Following are texts of resolutions adopted at 
London on October 1^ by the Council of the Sues 
Canal Users Association. 

Resolution on the Organization of the Suez Canal 
Users Association 

The Council of the Suez Canal Users Associa- 
tion, 

Considering tlie Declaration of September 21, 
1956,^ under which the Association was inaugu- 
rated on October 1, 1956; 

Desiring to provide for the organization of the 
Association in accordance with the Declaration; 

Resolves as follows: 

Part I — Organs 

Article 1 
The organs of the Association are : 

(A) A Council; 

(B) An Executive Group, and 

(C) An Administrator. 

Part II 

Article 2 
The Council consists of all members. 
Article 3 

(A) Sessions of the Council shall be convened 
once every six months. They shall also be convened 
whenever one of the members gives notice to the 
Administrator that it desires a session to be ar- 
ranged, or at the request of the Executive Group. 
Wlienever possible, notice of ten days should be 
given to members before the Council is summoned. 

(B) The Council may hold sessions in any place 
other than the headquartei-s of the Association, if 
the Chairman of the Council deems it necessary or 



' Bulletin of Oct. 1, 1956, p. 508. 

Department of State Bulletin 



at the request of two-tliii'ds of the members of the 
Association. 

Article 4 

Two-thirds of the members shall constitute a 
quorum for the meeting of the Council. 

Article 5 
The Council shall : 

(A) Elect at each session from among its mem- 
bers its chairman and vice-chairman, who shall 
hold office until the next session ; 

(B) Determine its own rules of procedure, ex- 
cept as otherwise provided herein. 

Article 6 
The Council shall : 

(A) Elect the members to be represented on 
the Executive Group in accordance with Arti- 
cle 7; 

(B) Appoint an Administrator after taking 
into account the recommendation of the Executive 
Group ; 

(C) Review the expenditure and approve the 
budget of the Association ; 

(D) Consider any matter within the purposes 
of the Association, request the Executive Group to 
study and report on any such matter, and give di- 
rectives on the general policy and operations of the 
Association to the Executive Group and through it 
to the Administrator; and 

(E) Receive, consider and take any necessary 
action on reports of the Executive Group. 

Part III— The Executive Group 

Article 7 

(A) The Executive Group shall consist of 
seven nations which shall be chosen by the Coun- 
cil of the Association from among the members 
with due regard to use of the Suez Canal, pattern 
of trade and geographical distribution.^ 

( B ) The members of the Executive Group shall 
be elected initially for one year. 

Article 8 

(A) The Executive Group shall elect its chair- 
man and adopt its own rules of procedure except 
as otherwise provided herein; 

(B) The Executive Group shall meet as often 



' On Oct. 5, the final day of the organizational session, 
the SCUA appointed the following six members to the 
Executive Group : France, Iran, Italy, Norway, the United 
Kingdom, and the United States. 



as may be necessary for the discharge of its duties, 
upon the summons of its chairman, upon request 
by any one of its members or upon request by the 
Administrator. It shall normally meet at the 
headquarters of the Association but meetings may 
take place elsewhere as convenient. 

Article 9 

(A) The Executive Group shall recommend 
to the Council a candidate or candidates for ap- 
pointment as Administrator. 

(B) The Executive Group shall make recom- 
mendations to the Council for the terms and con- 
ditions of service of the Administrator and the 
staff. 

Article 10 

(A) The Executive Group shall, in accordance 
with the directives of the Council given under 
Article 6(D), be responsible for giving policy 
guidance to the Administrator in carrying out the 
purposes of the Association. 

(B) The Executive Group may advise the 
Council on means for carrying out the purposes 
of the Association. 

Article 11 

(A) The Executive Group shall report to the 
Council, as necessary, at each session on the work 
of the Association since the previous session of 
the Council. 

(B) The Executive Group shall submit to the 
Council the financial statements and budget esti- 
mates of the Association, together with its com- 
ments and recommendations. 

Article 12 
The following provisions shall apply to voting 
in the Executive Group : 

(A) Each member shall have one vote. 

(B) All decisions shall be by a majority vote 
of the members present and voting. 

Part IV— The Administrator 

Article 13 
The Administrator shall be the chief adminis- 
trative officer of the Association and shall, subject 
to the provisions of Article 9, appoint the staff 
of the Association. 

Article 14 
The Administrator shall prepare and submit 
to the Executive Group financial statements and 
budget estimates. 



Oefofaer ?5, ?956 



581 



Article 15 
The Administrator shall keep members in- 
formed with respect to the activities of the Asso- 
ciation. 

Part V — Headquarters 

Article 16 
The headquarters of the Association shall be 
established in a place to be determined by the 
Council. The Administrator may, with the ap- 
proval of the Executive Group, establish addi- 
tional offices elsewhere. 

Resolution on Finance 

The Council resolves that : 

1. The basis for the permanent financing of the 
Association shall be the subject of proposals to 
be drafted by the Executive Group for submis- 
sion to the Council. 

2. Meanwhile, members of the Association 
should : 

( i ) without prejudice to whatever cost-sharing 

formula may be decided upon by the Council ; and 

(ii) subject to later adjustment between them 

when this formula and the budget shall have been 

agreed ; 

advance in equal shares the funds necessary for the 
Association for the first three months, on the as- 
sumption that by then a permanent budget for the 
Association will have been agreed. 

U.S.S.R. Accepts Invitation 
To Send Election Observers 

Following is the substantive portion of a note 
from the Soviet Foreign Office received by the 
A7nerican Embassy at Moscow on September 29. 

The Soviet Government accepts the invitation 
of the Government of the United States of 
America ^ to send to the United States of America 
two or three Soviet representatives to acquaint 
themselves with the electoral process by which the 
President and members of the United States Con- 
gress are elected. On its part the Soviet Govern- 
ment is prepared to receive on a basis of reci- 
procity two or three American representatives dur- 
ing the elections to the Supreme Soviet of the 
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. 



* For text of invitation, see Bttlletin of Oct. 8, 1956, 
p. 550. 



The Soviet Government shares the opinion or 
the United States Government expressed in the 
Embassy's note that these reciprocal trips will 
facilitate the development of mutual understand- 
ing between our countries. The Soviet Govern- 
ment airio considers that these trips will facilitate 
the furtherance of parliamentary contacts and ties 
between the officials of both states. 

The composition of the group of Soviet repre- 
sentatives will be communicated supplementarily. 

U.S. Commissioner General Named 
for Brussels World Fair 

The Department of State announced on October 
3 (press release 520) that Howard S. Cullman, 
honorary chairman of the Port of New York 
Authority, was sworn in that day as the U.S. 
Commissioner General of the Universal and Inter- 
national Exhibition of Brussels for 1958. The 
"V^Hiite House announced Mr. Cullman's appoint- 
ment on September 26. 

The exposition, popularly known as the Brus- 
sels World Fair, is the first major one of its type 
to be held since World War II. Dedicated to the 
theme, "A World Built By and For the People," 
the fair will "sound a note of hope that man on the 
threshold of the Atomic Age may find a better 
means of achieving human understanding and 
peace." 

The 84th Congress authorized U.S. participa- 
tion in the exposition and provided for the ap- 
jjointment by the President of a commissioner 
general who will be in charge, under the Secretary 
of State, of all matters pertaining to U.S. partici- 
pation. 

Mr. Cullman will be assisted by two deputy com- 
missionere who will be appointed at a later date. 

The Brussels Fair is scheduled to open in mid- 
April and to run until October 1958. It will be 
the latest of the traditional international exposi- 
tions in which the United States has participated. 
It will be comparable in importance with the Paris 
Exposition of 1937 and the New York World's 
Fair of 1939. 

In addition to over 50 countries, a number of 
international organizations will participate in the 
Brussels Fair. These include the United Nations, 
the Organization for European Economic Co- 
operation, and the Council of Europe. It is 
expected that over 35,000,000 visitors will attend. 



582 



Department of State Bulletin 



American Policy and the Future of NATO 



by C. Burke Elbrick 

Acting Assistant Secretary for European Affairs * 



It is a pleasure and an honor to be asked to 
join with you today in your discussion of Nato 
and of its relationship to some of the problems and 
opportunities we Americans face in the field of 
international relations. 

What I slioukl like to do is to examine with you 
the problems and progress resulting from our posi- 
tion in the Atlantic Community, to focus on the 
economic relationships between our European 
allies and ourselves, and finally to deal briefly with 
the role that Nato and our membership in it plays 
in our foreign policy. 

The name "Atlantic Commiunity" has come to 
be used, for want of a better term, for Canada, the 
United States, and the countries of Western Eu- 
rope which have, to a considerable degree, a com- 
mon heritage and history which have been marked 
by a concern for justice and individual liberty. 

Let me begin my stressing that one of the pur- 
poses which has consistently been a part of our 
foreign policy since 1945 has been the maintenance 
of unity and cooperation with those countries of 
Western Europe to which we are bound by strong 
economic and cultural ties. The common heritage 
which we share with the people of Western Eu- 
rope is a bond of great importance to them and to 
us. More than this, Western Europe possesses 
25 to 30 percent of the world's industrial capacity, 
resources, and skilled manpower. If for no other 
reason, this fact alone makes it imperative that 
Western Europe remain allied with us in the 
struggle against the tyrannical forces of the in- 
ternational Communist conspiracy directed from 
Moscow. 



' Address made before the Virginia World Trade Con- 
ference at Old Point Comfort, Va., on Oct. 5 (press re- 
lease .521 dated Oct. 4). 



We are all acutely aware that the basic Soviet 
Communist strategy for the accomplishment of 
world domination is "divide and conquer." This 
is one of the reasons why we place such great em- 
phasis on unity with those nations and peoples 
with whom we share a devotion to the principles 
of human liberty and law. 

How has the very considerable degree of unity 
that exists today among the members of the At- 
lantic Community been achieved, and how can it 
be maintained and strengthened? 

The only existing body through which the 
governments of the Atlantic nations can work to- 
gether on all levels — political, military, economic, 
and cultural — is Nato. This is not to say that all 
of our relations with our European friends must 
be channeled tlirough Nato but rather that Nato 
is an established, flexible mechanism which per- 
mits and facilitates as much cooperation as the 
countries of the Atlantic Community decide they 
want to engage in. 

Yon have discussed here today some of the 
forms of military cooperation which Nato has 
made possible. It is difficult to overestimate the 
contribution which this cooperation has made to 
the morale of the people of Western Europe, who, 
almost wholly defenseless in 1949, faced the threat 
of possible Soviet aggression. 
, Nato has developed the largest and most pow- 
erful collective defense force ever assembled by 
free nations in peacetime. It has kept Europe at 
peace through 7 dangerous years. Since it began, 
the Communists have gained no territory in Eu- 
rope and have, in fact, retreated from certain ad- 
vance positions. The internal riots, political 
strikes, and other manifestations of disorder and 
strife which the Commmiists fostered with con- 



Ocfober J 5, 1956 



583 



siderable effect in the early postwar years have 
largely died out. Meanwhile, behind the shield 
of Nato defensive strength it has been possible 
for the European peoples to rebuild their wartorn 
economies, increase their trade, and improve their 
standards of living. 

Nato's record is truly impressive. But we 
all know that we are living in a world that no 
longer permits us to rest on our laurels. Laurels 
were not made to sit on. They have a bad habit 
of turning into thorns. The survival and growth 
of the Atlantic Community — and of the free world 
as a whole — cannot be guaranteed by anything 
that we have done in the past but will depend 
upon the way we deal with the problems of the 
future. 

These problems are numerous and complex. 
For present purposes, however, I would like to 
discuss four broad problem areas. The first is 
the maintenance of a sound and progressive de- 
fense system. The second is the attainment of 
free-world economic health and gi'owth. The 
third is the advancement of unity among the Eu- 
ropean nations themselves. And the last is the 
further development of the Atlantic Community 
as a whole, in a mannej; that will promote cooper- 
ation in all fields of human activity and will 
assure the lasting solidarity of "Western civiliza- 
tion. 

(- ■ 
Military Defense System S 

Paradoxically, the first major problem of the 
Atlantic Community is so obvious that people 
sometimes tend to forget about it. We have heard 
a great deal recently about the shift in Soviet 
tactics from military to nonmilitary techniques 
of conquest. Some people have, therefore, leaped 
to the conclusion that military defense no longer 
deserves high priority. This conclusion is as 
dangerous as it is unwarranted. Wliile the shift 
in Soviet tactics is real — and while it is true that 
we must give increasing attention to the political, 
economic, cultural, and psychological aspects of 
the world struggle — this does not mean that we 
can afford to relax our military defenses. We 
should remember that the Soviet politico-economic 
offensive is not a substitute for their military 
threat but is in addition to the military threat. 

The Soviet Union and its satellites continue to 
maintain enormous military forces, capable of 
either general or local aggression. These forces 



are steadily being reinforced by growing stock- 
piles of nuclear weapons, long-range aircraft, im- 
proved electronic (Jevices, and similar modern 
instruments of warfare.- While we have reason to 
hope that the prospect of devastating retaliation 
by American and allied military forces will con- 
tinue to deter the Communist bloc from risking 
warfare, we have no guaranty of this. We must 
maintain and constantly improve our defenses as 
an indispensable insurance policy against aggres- 
sion. 

It is also well to remember that this is not the 
kind of insurance policy that can ever be "paid 
up." Military science and technology are never 
static. Each year brings advances in weapons and 
techniques that would have seemed fanciful a few 
years ago. It is necessary, therefore, not only to 
keep our forces in being but also to keep them up 
to date. This is an expensive, proposition for 
Americans and allies alike. But the alternative 
is to invite destruction. 

There may still be a few Americans who view 
the problem of defense in purely national terms 
and who do not fully appreciate the importance 
of the collective effort that Nato represents. They 
feel, perhaps, that our own nuclear stockpile, our 
strategic air power, our great industrial capacity 
and other resources are sufficient to provide for 
American defense and that the contributions of 
our allies have little value. This is a very short- 
sighted concept. Europe has many things that 
we need. We need the $12 billion per year that 
our European allies are spending on the combined 
defense effort — roughly $6 for every dollar's 
worth of United States aid they are receiving. 
We need their military manpower, which is more 
numerous than our own. We need Europe's sea 
and air bases, which are so vital to effective de- 
fense and retaliation against aggression. We need 
their factories and mines, which, added to our 
own, give the Atlantic Community nearly 70 per- 
cent of the world's industrial output. We need 
their science and technology, which played an in- 
dispensable role in producing the first atomic 
bomb and which still represent an invaluable 
counterpart to American scientific capabilities. 
In combination, North America and Europe have , 
the means to protect themselves against any fore- ^ 
seeable combination of hostile powers, but the task 
might well prove insuperable for either acting 
alone. 



584 



Department of State Bulletin 



Neea tor tconomic Stability 

It is evident from what I have said that de- 
fensive power is largely a matter of economics 
and that our ability to maintain an adequate mili- 
tary "insur&ce policy" depends in the final analy- 
sis upon the economic health of the member 
nations. It -iS equally true that our ability to 
compete with the Communist bloc in the nonmili- 
tary aspects of the world struggle — to win and 
hold the allegiance of nations and peoples — is also 
dependent upon our economic stability and 
growth. 

This brings us to the second major problem I 
mentioned. While I have already observed that 
Europe has huge assets, our allies also face acute 
economic problems. The average income and liv- 
ing standard in Western Europe is less than half 
the American average. Europeans are much more 
heavily dependent than we on foreign trade and 
investment, and their economies are easily upset by 
adverse developments in other parts of the world. 
They suffer constant difficulties in balancing in- 
ternational payments. At present, moreover, the 
rate of economic growth in free Europe is only 
about one-half the rate of growth behind the Iron 
Curtain. This is a disturbing trend despite the 
fact that the Soviets started from a much lower 
base than Western Europe. The recent increase 
in the rate of Western European economic growth 
is an encouraging sign. In fact it has in recent 
years exceeded that of the United States. 

We Americans cannot solve Europe's economic 
problems. These problems must be worked out by 
the Europeans themselves. To a considerable ex- 
tent, they can be solved only within the context 
of a worldwide improvement in economic condi- 
tions. However, it is evident that our own eco- 
nomic policies have an important impact upon the 
world economic picture. 

Wliat has United States foreign economic policy 
been in relation to these developments in Europe ? 

However independent this country may have 
been of the rest of the world in former years, we 
know now beyond any doubt that, so long as 
hunger, poverty, and unrest exist to any consider- 
able extent anywhere in the world, we cannot be 
entirely confident about our own peace and secu- 
rity. These conditions will be alleviated only as 
we and the rest of the world continue to increase 
our trade, develop our economies, and raise our 
standards of living. 

October 15, 7956 

404064—56 8 



Because of the tremendous economic strength 
and stability of the United States it is sometimes 
difficult for us to visualize how delicately balanced 
are the economies not only of the smaller countries 
but even of such relatively large and economically 
developed countries as Great Britain, France, and 
Germany. Our economic health depends upon an 
expanding trade ; yet we must constantly seek ways 
of permitting and encouraging the expansion of 
trade without adversely affecting friendly nations 
whose economies are not as strong and resilient as 
our own. 

Certainly it is imnecessary in addressing this 
audience and in this great port area of Hampton 
Eoads to dwell on the importance of the freest 
possible exchange of goods among all countries 
if the peoples of the world are to attain the higher 
standards of living which they seek. One of the 
foremost natural harbors of the world, this port 
has from the beginnings of the Commonwealth 
played an important part in the economic develop- 
ment of America. Today, as in the past, its pros- 
perity depends in important degree upon trade 
with the world, which in turn depends upon the 
political arrangements and relationships, the 
stability and unity which exist around the globe. 

The coal, tobacco, and other goods which leave 
this harbor move because there are dollars abroad 
with which to buy them, because there are indus- 
tries abroad which can use them, and because there 
is prosperity around the world which makes it 
possible for the industries to sell the goods they 
make. 

It has been and remains United States policy 
to encourage the reduction of barriers to freer 
trade among our European allies and in the entire 
free world. We do not dictate to the sovereign 
independent states of Europe, and we recognize 
that they must themselves work out solutions to 
their economic problems, but we can and do point 
out to them that our own prosperity derives in no 
small measure from the absence of trade and cur- 
rency restrictions among our 48 States. 

There is no need to recount the tremendous 
progress which the Western European countries 
have made since 1945 in rebuilding their econo- 
mies, expanding their trade, and increasing their 
standards of living. United States aid has, of 
course, played no small part in this spectacular 
development. Yet many difficult problems re- 



main. 



585 



In an effort to chart a course for future econom- 
ic progress, the Commission on Foreign Economic 
Policy, the so-called Randall Commission, in its 
report made in IDS^ offered 8ome guidelines 
which are worth repeating. The report declares : 

The free world must build its long-term future, not 
upon extraordinary assistance from the United States, 
but upon the resources and the efforts of the citizens of 
each country. That the foundations for such an interna- 
tional economy have already been laid is now clear, and 
it is reasonable to believe that with mutual helpfulness 
and understanding a self-sustaining trade and payments 
system can be built solidly for the future. 

There are encouraging signs that the world stands at 
the beginning of an era of expansion of world trade. 
Industrialized countries are coming to need more and 
more of the materials which the under-developed areas 
can provide. The latter, in turn, are demanding increas- 
ingly greater volumes of the machinery, industrial ma- 
terials, and highly fabricated consumer goods that go 
with economic growth. The time seems to be ripe for 
obtaining the benefits of swelling international com- 
merce. 

To achieve this growth, however, the free world must 
remove many of the impediments which still exist to the 
movement of goods, capital, and currencies. All of the 
countries involved must seek greater stability in the eco- 
nomic world by adopting sound internal fiscal policies, and 
must demonstrate confidence in their ability to earn their 
ovra way. To a greater extent than they have hitherto 
recognized, many of the countries must intensify their 
own efforts, must strive to create an economic climate 
that will attract investment capital, both from their own 
citizens and from foreign sources, and must lift the re- 
strictions that limit the freedom of the mechanism of in- 
ternational payments. 

In all this, the United States must exercise wise leader- 
ship. In so doing, we must remember that the alliance 
of the free world consists of agreements among sovereign 
nations. 

European Unity 

While Western Europe's economic position is 
closely related to the economic state of the free 
world as a whole, it is also true that there are cer- 
tain economic problems peculiar to Europe. One 
of the major obstacles to the development of a dy- 
namic European economy in past years has been 
the failure of the European nations to achieve un- 
ity among themselves. For this reason the en- 
couragement of European unity has been a major 
objective of United States policy. 

Europe's production and markets are divided 
into many small and often economically inefficient 



units. In the long history of the Western J^:uro- 
pean countries many customs, prejudices, and 
local interests, originally established for purposes 
of self-protection, have become solidified and now 
form serious barriers to freer trade. The cartels, 
tariff walls, and other trade and currency restric- 
tions erected many years ago limit the progress 
which might be realized with modern production, 
distribution, and financial procedures. 

As Europe began to recover after World War 
II, it became apparent to many statesmen and 
economists that established economic patterns 
would have to be replaced by freer trade and closer 
cooperation or integration if the Europeans were 
to compete successfully in an era of expanding 
trade. 

In 1947 Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Nether- 
lands agreed to take the first steps toward an eco- 
nomic union which would eliminate tariffs be- 
tween them and levy common tariffs on imports 
from other countries. The purpose of the Benelux 
Customs Union was to create an economic unit 
sufficiently large to enable the participants to com- 
pete successfully with larger countries in world 
markets. All of the necessary measures needed 
to achieve full economic union have not yet been 
adopted, but progress has been heartening. 

The Economic Commission for Europe (Ece) 
was established in 1947 to facilitate concerted ac- 
tion for postwar reconstruction, raise the level of 
European economic activity, and maintain and 
strengthen economic relations among the Euro- 
pean members of the United Nations, the United 
States, and the rest of the world. 

An important step toward European integra- 
tion was taken with the signing in 1948 of the 
Brussels Pact, which provided for closer collabo- 
ration in economic, social, cultural, and collective 
self-defense matters by France, Belgium, Lux- 
embourg, the Netherlands, and the United 
Kingdom.' 

When Congress in 1948 enacted the European 
Recovery Act, known as the Marshall plan, the 
Organization for European Economic Coopera- 
tion (Oeec) was established to assure coopera- 
tion by its 16 European member countries in their 
economic recovery by increasing production and 
trade, modernizing industry, stabilizing finances, 
and reducing trade barriers. With its offspring, 
the European Payments Union, created to facili- 



2 For excerpts, see Bxjlletih of Feb. 8, 1954, p. 187. 
586 



• For text, see iMd., Oct. 11, 1954, p. 528. 

Deparlment of State Bulletin 



tate payments among its member countries, the 
Oeec has proved to be an effective organization 
for tackling some of the knottiest economic prob- 
lems of Europe. 

One more important European effort in the 
field of economic integration deserves mention. 
The European Coal and Steel Community, first 
advanced by French Foreign Minister Robert) 
Schuman, was formed in 1952 by France, Ger- 
many, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Lux- 
embourg to eliminate national barriers to trade in 
coal and steel among these countries and to do 
away with restrictive agreements on tlie produc- 
tion and marketing of these key commodities. 

As the sovereign nations of Western Europe 
moved toward economic integration after World 
War II, it became apparent that a greater degree 
of political cooperation was necessary if signifi- 
cant progress was to be made in solving Europe's 
problems. The destructive effects of two world 
wars in this century have demonstrated all too 
clearly the disastrous results of unchecked rival- 
ries and rampant nationalism. 

I have mentioned the Brussels Pact, which in 
March 1948 drew together France, Belgium, Lux- 
embourg, the Netherlands, and the United King- 
dom for purposes of closer collaboration in eco- 
nomic, social, and cultural matters and for collec- 
tive self-defense. Tlie desire for greater unity 
which inspired the pact resulted a year later in 
the formation of the Council of Europe by the 
five Brussels powers and Italy, Ireland, Norway, 
Denmark, and Sweden, with Iceland, Germany, 
Greece, Turkey, and the Saar joining later. The 
Council of Europe has the power only to recom- 
mend policies to its member governments, yet it 
is valuable as a forum for stimulating actions and 
marshaling public opinion on major European 
problems. 

One of the most far-reaching ideas for ad- 
vancing European unity was the plan for a Euro- 
pean Defense Community, under which the six 
member nations of the Coal and Steel Community 
would have merged their defense forces into a 
single supranational force. The failure of this 
plan represented a setback for the movement to- 
ward unity, although some of the specific advan- 
tages of the plan were salvaged by creating a West- 
em European Union based on the original Brus- 
sels Pact. Despite this setback, the vision of a 
united Europe is still very much alive. At pres- 



ent, European governments are actively consider- 
ing proposals for pooling efforts toward the de- 
velopment and utilization of atomic energy for 
peaceful purposes as well as proposals for a broad 
common market. While there are many obstacles 
to the realization of these proposals, and while 
it is too early to predict the outcome, there can be 
no doubt that many European leaders retain their 
determination to achieve the strength and stability 
which only imity can bring. 

Strengthening the Atlantic Community 

The United States Government will continue to 
encourage all practical steps toward European 
unity because we realize that the integration 
of Europe can contribute substantially to the 
strength and solidarity of the Atlantic Commu- 
nity as a whole. As the movement progresses, 
however, we must simultaneously devote attention 
to a parallel objective — the broadening and tight- 
ening of the Atlantic relationship itself. Specifi- 
cally, we must consider ways and means of devel- 
oping Nato as an instrument of political, eco- 
nomic, and social cooperation as well as a mecha- 
nism of defense. 

The need for a further development of the Nato 
relationship has been accentuated by the new 
Soviet tactics of political, economic, and psycho- 
logical penetration. The dangers of this new 
approach should not be underestimated. The 
Russians are expert at deceptive propaganda. 
They are keenly aware of the inevitable frictions 
among free nations, and they will be quick to ex- 
ploit these frictions. They will lose no chance to 
incite division and weakness in the free world. 
This strategy will be supplemented by subtle 
economic pressures and enticements. Because the 
Russian economy is completely controlled by the 
state, it can and frequently is used for purely 
political purposes, and offers of Soviet markets 
and raw materials sometimes look attractive to the 
hard-pressed Western Europeans despite their 
awareness of the motives that underlie them. The 
United States can afford to ignore Soviet economic 
overtures, but our European friends cannot always 
do so. We believe that, because of their awareness 
of the danger of Soviet blandishments, the West- 
ern Europeans will take further steps toward 
economic integration, increased productivity, and 
reduced trade barriers so that the Soviet economic 
offensive, the real purpose of which is to break up 



Ocfober 75, 1956 



5S7 



the unity of the Atlantic Community, will have 
to be abandoned. 

T^^lat should be the direction of our efforts to 
strengthen Nato to meet this threat ? 

Should Nato seek to harmonize the foreign poli- 
cies of its members? 

Should Nato attempt to deal with the problems 
arising from Soviet economic offers to free- world 
countries ? 

Should Nato serve as a forum for the adjudica- 
tion of political issues between its members ? 

Should Nato carry out informational and cul- 
tural activities designed to develop greater unity 
among the partners? 

These and many other questions have been posed 
to each Nato member in a questionnaire, the re- 
plies to which are being studied by a committee 
known as the Three Wise Men.* Out of this study 
will come, we believe, some guidelines for the 
future development of the organization. 

While the study is not yet complete, certain key 
facts have emerged. It is clear that none of the 
countries desires any kind of Atlantic "super- 
government" — that what we are all seeking is 
more effective cooperation on a voluntary basis. 
There is also a general agreement that we do not 
wish Nato to interfere with or duplicate the func- 
tions of other international organizations, such 
as the United Nations and the Oeec. Nor do we 
wish Nato as an organization to assume operating 
functions which can be more efficiently performed 
by individual governments. Despite these qualifi- 
cations we believe that there are numerous op- 
portunities for attaining improved cooperation 
among the Nato countries. By extending and 
intensifying the processes of political and eco- 
nomic consultation we hope to achieve greater and 
more durable cohesion of purpose and action than 
has ever before existed among free nations. 

The United States believes that, whatever 
changes are proposed for the improvement of the 
organization and functioning of Nato, the basic 
task is to create and pi'eserve unity among the 
nations of the Atlantic Community. Instead of 
concentrating our attention almost exclusively 
upon the dangers facing us, we must now increas- 



* Foreisn Ministers Lester B. Pearson of Canada, 
Gaetano Martino of Italy, and Halvard Lange of Norway. 



ingly turn our thoughts to our opportmiities, to- 
ward the chances of building greater strength — 
political, economic, and spiritual. Such an effort, 
carried on successfully, could bring benefits, ma- 
terial and otherwise, far beyond the simple imity 
of action which is our defense requirement. A 
unified and flourishing Atlantic Community 
would bring rich rewards to all of the members, 
including the United States. 

In conclusion, I believe that the United States 
and the other nations of the Atlantic Community 
have the material resources, the organizational 
structures, and the potential ability to deter ag- 
gression, to achieve sound economic progress, and 
to develop a strong, lasting, and unified com- 
munity of free peoples. What is needed is the 
determination to apply these resources and abili- 
ties, to an even greater degree than has been the 
case, to the problems arising from the historical 
growth of political, economic, and spiritual rela- 
tionships among the partners themselves and the 
confusion among them which Soviet communism 
has attempted to sow. 



North Atlantic Planning Board 
for Ocean Shipping 

The Department of State announced on October 
5 (press release 526) that Rear Adm. Walter C. 
Ford, USN (retired). Deputy Maritime Ad- 
ministrator, will head the U.S. delegation at the 
eighth meeting of the North Atlantic Planning 
Board for Ocean Shipping at Washington, D.C., 
beginning October 8. This meeting is one in a 
regular series of meetings attended by represen- 
tatives of Nato nations for the purpose of organ- 
izing merchant shipping for the common defense 
in an emergency. 

The chairman will be Clarence G. Morse, U.S. 
Maritime Administrator. The U. S. delegation 
will include the following advisers: John W. 
Mann and Lehman P. Nickell of the Department 
of State, Paul F. Royster of the Department of 
Commerce, and Rear Adm. William V. O'Regan, 
USN, and Capt. A. G. Schnable, USN, represent- 
ing the Department of Defense. 



588 



Deparfment of State Bulletin 



Developing Economic Power From the Energy of tlie Atom 



Following are the texts of remarks made at an 
atomic energy symposiwm during a meeting of the 
Board of Governors of the International Bank 
for Reconstruction and Development at Washing- 
ton, D.G., on September 27 hy Lewis L. Strauss, 
Chairman of the U.S. Ato?nic Energy Commis- 
sion, and W. Kenneth Davis, director of the Com- 
m.ission''s Division of Reactor Development. 

REMARKS BY MR. STRAUSS 

I will confine my remarks on the engrossing sub- 
ject of atomic energy to the broad prospects and 
promises of that instrument for good which Provi- 
dence has placed in our hands at this juncture in 
human history. It is my hope that I may be able 
to contribute now and in the future in some very 
modest measure to the plans which the Interna- 
tional Bank is making for its role in the develop- 
ment of the peaceful atom. 

Before the proceedings of many more meetings 
of your Board have passed into the minute books, 
I feel sure that the bank will be taking an active 
part in spreading the benefits of atomic energy and 
will be financing atomic power projects in various 
countries. 

It is now nearly noon of this September 27, 1956. 
Before this day ends, the demographers tell us that 
the population of the world will have increased by 
some 80,000—80,000 more mouths to be fed, 80,000 
more people to be clothed, warmed, and sheltered. 
It would be useful if we could take such a statistic, 
multiply it by the per-capita consumption of kilo- 
watt hours in a year, and derive a figure of annual, 
necessary increase in installed generating capacity. 
It would be a large figure but not very meaningful 
since average, annual, per-capita power use around 
the world varies so enormously by regions. There 
is also another variable in the statistical increase 
in per-capita power demand, even in the highly 



developed countries. Will it level off, or will it 
continue to increase? We cannot answer save to 
draw upon our imaginations. 

But of one thing we can be fairly sure. The 
atom holds the hope of remedying much of the 
world's imbalance in standards of living. As this 
imbalance is overcome, to whatever degree — as 
more and more people enjoy the good things of 
life — the gi-eater will become the worldwide civil 
use of electrical energy. 

As of this moment, no large-scale power plant 
exclusively for civil use, generating cheap elec- 
tricity from nuclear energy, exists anywhere in 
the world. Very soon, however, our British 
friends, as we have just heard from Sir Edwin 
Plowden and Sir John Cockcroft, will have dual- 
purpose nuclear plants in operation at Calder 
Hall, producing primarily plutonium for weap- 
ons and in excess of 60,000 kilowatts of electricity 
as useful byproduct. Here in the United States 
within the approaching year, the nuclear plant at 
Shippingport, Pennsylvania, designed for com- 
mercial power only, will begin furnishing in ex- 
cess of 60,000 kilowatts of electrical energy to 
homes and industries of the Pittsburgh area. 
These are pioneer projects. 

We have entered upon the era of the beneficent 
atom, and it is no longer a vague dream of things 
to come. True, we are just across the threshold 
and adjusting our vision to the broad vistas be- 
fore us. 

I shall not attempt here to recite, or even to 
summarize, the things that already are being 
done, and will be done in increasing measure, to 
apply the beneficial atom to medicine, agriculture, 
and biology and to improve the products of indus- 
try. These advances are concerned in the main 
with the rapidly expanding use of radioisotopes. 
I shall speak only of the prospects of economic 
and efficient nuclear power. It is there that both 
challenge and opportunity exist for bankers and 



October 15, 7956 



589 



for management, no less than for the scientists and 
engineers who are advancing the technology of 
nuclear-reactor systems. 

Here in the United States, because we are for- 
tunately situated in the extent of our reserves of 
cheap, conventional fuels, we are some distance 
away from our goal of competitively priced nu- 
clear power. The atom, as a source of commercial 
power, is up against much stiffer competition here 
than perhaps anywhere else in the world, with the 
possible exception of a few locations where hydro- 
power is still plentiful. In most other areas of the 
world — for example, in the home of my distin- 
guished British colleagues on this panel — the road 
to competitive electric power from atomic energy, 
as they have so well described it this morning, is 
much shorter. In fact, in some fuel-short areas 
of the globe, in special circumstances, a power- 
producing reactor of existing design would prob- 
ably be economic even now. 

You have doubtless noticed that speculation and 
estimates as to how soon we will have economic 
nuclear power in the United States have resulted 
in a guessing game in which any number of per- 
sons may play; the more the merrier. Some of 
the estimates are obviously too rosy; others, in 
my opinion, suffer from extreme caution. It is 
well to bear in mind that the store of technological 
knowledge is being expanded so rapidly and we 
are engaged in research and development on so 
many different reactor concepts that a major break- 
through, putting us at or near the goal of economic 
nuclear power, could come with some suddenness. 

Progress of Past 14 Years 

One has only to look back upon the very recent 
past to realize how dangerous it is to predict the 
rate of progress on this subject. It has been less 
than 14 years since Enrico Fermi and his team of 
pioneers first harnessed the power of fission in a 
primitive reactor in Chicago. It was but 10 years 
ago that a group of specialists began serious 
studies of the first "power pile" at Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee. Only 7 years ago one of the mem- 
bers of that Oak Ridge group. Captain — now Rear 
Admiral — Rickover, began work on a project that 
today is the atom-powered submarine Nautilus, a 
vessel that has cruised upwards of 50,000 miles 
without refueling. In 1954, only 2 years ago, we 
began an experimental program embracing five 
different concepts of nuclear power reactors. 



Progi-ess in this brief span of time has been re- 
markable. Yet only a few years ago some of our 
most experienced advisers counseled that it would 
take between 30 and 50 years before atomic energy 
could substantially supplement the general power 
resources of the world. 

Since the day in December 1&42 when Fermi's 
pile went critical, producing only a few watts of 
heat, we have built and operated in the United 
States some 80 reactors of various types and sizes, 
including experimental power facilities with mil- 
lions of times more power than Fermi's first pile. 
As early as 1951 an experimental breeder reactor 
at the Commission's testing station in Idaho was 
hooked up to a small turbine and generator and 
has since furnished useful — but not cheap — elec- 
trical power for that installation. 

Industrial participation, freed by the Atomic 
Energy Act of 1954 from the smothering embrace 
of Government monopoly, is no longer a "study 
program" inquiring into the feasibility of nuclear 
power; it is a program of action and bold enter- 
prise. American industry now has plans to in- 
stall some 700,000 kilowatts of nuclear power and 
to finance it through natural banking channels, 
without calling on the Federal Government for 
any direct financial support. Another 400,000 or 
more kilowatts is included in the Commission's 
Power Demonstration Program, to be carried out 
jointly by Government and industry. Mean- 
while, the Government's own experimental pro- 
gram for power reactors has grown from the five 
concepts which I mentioned as of 1954, to nine as 
of today. 

The fact that all this has taken place within the 
short space of 14 years, and most of it within the 
last 3 years, demonstrates two fundamentals : 

First, that the anticipated time lag between dis- 
covery and practical application has been greatly 
compressed where atomic energy is concerned. 
This is a phenomenon of our times. 

Secondly, that the rapidly increasing demands 
for additional sources of energy all over the world 
are exerting powerful economic, social, and politi- 
cal pressures on science, engineering, and manage- 
ment — and on Government — urging speed in 
establishing the atom as one of the chief sources 
for meeting those demands. 

I shall briefly outline the response which the 
United States is making to this worldwide chal- 
lenge. Mr. Kenneth Davis, the director of our 



590 



Department of State Bulletin 



JJivision or Keactor^erelopnen^iinae^vnose 
able leadership so much of this progress is being 
made, will then tell you about our program in 
some detail, particularly its technical aspects. 

Domestic Nuclear Power Program 

Our program has as its domestic goal a nuclear 
power development which will justify its financing 
without Government subsidy — installations which 
will be built and operated by industry, that is to 
say, private utilities or local public-power groups. 
To achieve this goal we have a flexible partnership 
between Government and industry, and we believe, 
on the basis of progress to date, that this approach 
will achieve our goal within the shortest possible 
time. That goal is, as I have said, cheap or, at 
the very least, competitively priced nuclear 
power. 

Thus far, we have resisted pressures — mainly 
political — to establish arbitrary goals of installed 
kilowatts for a set date, since we are not entered 
in a nimabers game. We seek to improve the tech- 
nology of nuclear power reactors so that we may 
benefit our own people — and people everywhere — 
by providing the most efficient reactors. To en- 
gage in a crash construction of atomic power 
plants in the United States, based on the present 
state of our knowledge, would neither be prudent 
nor would it fulfill our obligation to develop the 
atom for peaceful purposes. Furthermore, we 
would be dissipating our very finite reservoir of 
scientific and engineering talent. It would be 
using a limited asset to build primitive plants 
when that resource should be applied to the many 
yet unsolved problems of reactor technology. 

Scientific and engineering skill being the most 
critical factor, the Commission is making a de- 
termined attack upon the manpower problem, but 
we anticipate that the situation will be more criti- 
cal before it improves. Trained people — rather 
than either money or uranium — are, at the mo- 
ment, the element in short supply in the peaceful 
development of atomic energy. 

It is fortunate, therefore, that our reserves of 
coal, oil, and gas are recoverable at comparatively 
low cost and are in such quantity that we have time 
to investigate and experiment with many types of 
power reactors. It will take time for the incen- 
tives of competitive enterprise to lower the costs 
of construction and operation and to train large 
numbers of nuclear scientists and engineers. 



itiui mm [luiiuiLiuuy m mm^mr^^B^m^ 

we operate : 

The Government, that is to say, the Atomic En- 
ergy Commission, conducts in its own laboratories 
the basic research and experimentation necessary 
to prove that particular reactor concepts will ad- 
vance the technology of nuclear power and that, 
therefore, the building of certain prototype plants 
for the commercial production of civilian power is 
justified. Industry is then offered the opportunity 
to build and operate such plants. We know of no 
other way to obtain meaningful economic cost data 
and operational guidance, for plants constructed 
by the Government on a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis 
aflPord no realistic estimate of how costs can be re- 
duced under competitive conditions. However, if 
the building of a prototype plant should be indi- 
cated — on and beyond the experimental plant 
stage — and if industry should fail to come forward 
to share in the project with its time, talent, and 
money, then the Government would build the pro- 
totype plant. I hasten to add, however, that in- 
dustry has not failed to accept its role in the con- 
cept of partnership. It has responded with en- 
thusiasm to each proposal we have made thus far. 

At the present state of the art, of course, the 
Government bears the cost of much of the research 
and development work necessary to build proto- 
type reactors. However, as our store of technol- 
ogy is enlarged and as research costs become more 
predictable, we anticipate that industry will as- 
sume this expense as it does in other fields of 
industrial development. It is already beginning 
to do so. 

There are a number of areas related to reactor 
development where we expect to encourage indus- 
try to take over work heretofore done by the Gov- 
ernment. These include the handling and disposal 
of radioactive wastes; the development and pro- 
duction of new and improved reactor materials 
such as beryllium and zirconium ; the design and 
manufacture of fuel elements; and the chemical 
processing necessary to separate the fission prod- 
ucts from spent fuel elements. 

This is the outline of the philosophy of our do- 
mestic nuclear power program, and it is our be- 
lief that it is designed in such a manner as to 
enable us to make important contributions to the 
development of atomic power throughout the 
world. I turn now to some aspects of the program 
directed toward international cooperation. 



October 15, 1956 



591 



"L'uriiig tins pasi ueciv intM e (>])L'nea atine unitea 
Nations in New York an international conference 
from which we hope will come agreement on the 
charter and working plans for a worldwide agency 
devoted to promoting the peaceful uses of atomic 
energy. I had the privilege at the opening session 
to welcome the delegates on behalf of our Gov- 
ernment.^ 

The International Atomic Energy Agency will 
represent a fulfillment of the historic proposal laid 
before the United Nations in December 1953 by 
President Eisenhower. However, during these 3 
years of patient negotiations and in anticipation 
of their eventual success, the United States has 
pushed ahead vigorously a program of coopera- 
tion with many nations in the development of the 
peaceful uses of nuclear energy. 

It will be recalled that the International Con- 
ference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, which 
met in Geneva in August of last year,'' reopened 
lines of scientific and technical communications 
that had been closed for many years. The .sub- 
ject of paramount interest there among the 1,400 
delegates from 73 nations was the progress and 
possibilities of nuclear power. 

But, even before the Geneva conference, our 
Government was using the authorization pro- 
vided in the 1954 Atomic Energy Act for inaugu- 
rating a system of bilateral agreements of coop- 
eration between nations interested in the civil uses 
of atomic energy. As of today, we have nego- 
tiated 39 research or power agreements with 37 
nations. 

Research Bilaterals 

The so-called research bilaterals provide for the 
exchange of unclassified information and assist- 
ance in the development of a nuclear research pro- 
gram, including supplying enriched uranium fuel 
for research reactors. A number of countries 
have contracted for or are negotiating for the de- 
sign and construction of such reactors. We also 
have worked out a procedure under which up to 
$350,000 in each case can be given as a grant to a 
research reactor project in a nation having an 



' Bulletin of Oct. 8, 1956, p. 535. 

' For an address made at the conference by AEC Com- 
missioner Willard F. Libby, see ihid., Sept. 5, 1955, 
p. 381 ; for a report by Mr. Strauss, see ihid., Oct 10, 1955, 
p. 555. 



agreement tor cooperation. ±iour sucn grants 
have already been earmarked for Spain, Brazil, 
Denmark, and the Netherlands. This activity has 
a direct bearing on nuclear power development in 
that it provides these nations with an operable 
and useful tool for training their own nuclear 
scientists and engineers in what will become their 
own atomic power industry. 

Seven of the agi-eements provide specifically 
for assistance in developing nuclear power pro- 
grams. These so-called power bilaterals would 
have little meaning unless fuel was available. In 
fact, the one question most persistently asked 
toward the close and after the Geneva conference 
was, "When, and on what terras, will enriched fuel 
be available for power reactors?" 

President Eisenhower answered this question of 
availability of fuel on February 22 of this year 
when he designated 40,000 kilograms — 40 metric 
tons — of U-235 to be used as needed, primarily 
for fueling power reactors in our own country 
and abroad. The allocation was 20,000 kilograms 
for civil uses in the United States and the same 
amount for our friends abroad.' 

The Commission is presently making a compre- 
hensive study of the additional information 
needed by nations trying to estimate the cost of 
nuclear plants to be fueled with U-235. We are 
aware that the surveys made by the bank on the 
potentials of nuclear power have emphasized the 
importance of this information. I hope that this 
data, including a detailed pricing schedule, will 
be available in the near future. And while I can- 
not forecast this schedule, I think that the example 
set by our announcements at Geneva last year, I 
where we said that the price schedules there ad- 
vanced were calculated to net us neither loss nor 
profit, may serve as a pattern. This would be in 
keeping with the spirit of President Eisenhower's 
program of developing the atom for peace. 

In passing, you may be interested to note that 
within the year more than 700 scientists, engi- 
neers, technicians, educators, administrators, and 
political leaders from many nations have visited 
various of our installations and that nuclear power 
was the subject of most interest to the majority 
of these visitors. Also, with the opening of the 
fourth session of the International School for Nu- 
clear Science and Engineering operated for the 



'Ibid., Mar. 19, 1956, p. 469. 



592 



Deparfmenf of Sfafe Bulletin 



(Jommission by the Argonne JNational L/aboratory 
near Chicago in cooperation with the North Caro- 
lina State and Pennsylvania State universities, we 
have enrolled more than 200 graduate scientists 
and engineers from 39 nations for an intensive 
34-week course in nuclear reactor technology. 

In collaboration with Great Britain and Can- 
ada we have made available a truly enormous 
amount of technical information, much of which 
is related to nuclear power development. This 
has all been done in the past 2 years. For example, 
we have recently reviewed some 30,000 documents 
and reports, all of them originally "classified," and 
as a result approximately one-third were declassi- 
fied completely and are generally available. More 
will certainly be released as time passes. 

These are a few of the highlights of our pro- 
gram for international cooperation in developing 
useful, economic power from the energy of the 
atom. What I would assume makes this informa- 
tion of particular interest to you is the fact that 
in many areas of the world there is an immediate 
pressure to obtain new sources of energy. A num- 
ber of these areas must import, in whole or in 
large part, the coal and oil necessary to keep their 
economies moving even at current levels. A new 
source of power in some of these areas would not 
only be a base for expanding technology but also 
for improving living standards. There are, as I 
have said, some communities abroad where even 
now the difference between the cost of power from 
conventional fuel and nuclear fuels is either small 
or nonexistent. 

Unfortunately, those countries which do not 
have sufficient power to insure a relatively good 
standard of living or to support adequate indus- 
trial production also frequently lack economic 
ability to undertake the installation of a nuclear 
power system — that is to say, without credit assist- 
ance. Such may be among the first projects to 
come before you. Such countries, however, may 
have resources of uranium ore but lack the means 
for exploration, mining, or the building of mills 
for extraction of the metal. That circumstance 
might furnish security and sources of sinking 
funds for long-term loans for power purposes. 

In summation, I think it is apparent that there 
will be a large demand for nuclear power in other 
parts of the world before it becomes generally eco- 
nomic in the United States. The acceleration of 
experience and the accumulation of data from the 



versatile programs now Demg pursuea nere wm 
continue to point the way to reduced costs. The 
technical and financial resources of each country 
will have to be weighed in determining when nu- 
clear power is economically justifiable for its 
economy. 

Judging by the progress that has been made in 
the past few years in the United States and the 
growing capacity of many nations to operate nu- 
clear power systems, there should be a sound 
market for nuclear power installations within the 
near future. A major role is indicated for the 
bank. 



REMARKS BY MR. DAVIS 

In considering the United States reactor devel- 
opment program, two factors should be kept in 
mind. The first is our long-range objective of eco- 
nomically competitive nuclear power in this coun- 
try. This goal is difficult to achieve because we 
have adequate supplies of relatively cheap fuel as 
well as large, efficient, and economical conventional 
generating plants. In developing economic nu- 
clear power we must, therefore, seek levels of 
efficiency beyond those which would suffice in most 
other areas of the world. 

The second consideration is that we have no 
reason to believe that any single type of reactor 
system will satisfy the variety of our needs. As a 
consequence we are investigating many technical 
approaches to nuclear power. While this variety 
of approaches is partially attributable to the fact 
that we do not yet know which reactor concepts 
are the best, many other and equally important fac- 
tors have influenced our program. For example, 
among these are the need for nuclear-power plants 
in a wide range of generating capacities ; the need 
for a balance between burners, converters, and 
breeders ; the possibility that natural uranium re- 
actors may prove more desirable than enriched 
reactors in some instances; and preferences as to 
reactor types which may be dictated by geographi- 
cal locations. 

Our power-reactor program can be considered as 
going through three development phases which 
follow one another in logical sequence. The first 
is exploratory, dealing with basic research and 
development in such fields as metallurgy, physics, 
chemistry, and heat transfer. The second phase is 
the reactor experiment. In this phase a relatively 



October IS, 1956 



593 



small reactor is built and operated to prove the 
technical feasibility of a concept. Information is 
gained concerning such items as reactor and sys- 
tems stability, control characteristics, actual cor- 
rosion rates, and mechanical component behavior. 
The third phase is the prototype phase. In this 
stage of development, large-scale reactors are built 
primarily for the purpose of demonstrating the 
economics of a certain system. While the proto- 
type may not be economical itself, it ^oill point 
the way toward improvements which will, in turn, 
lead to truly economical power. In addition, the 
prototype will give experience in the operation of 
a nuclear power plant which must meet certain 
commitments as to delivery of power on demand. 

Perhaps a fourth stage, that of full-scale com- 
mercial utilization, should be included, but I think 
this might more logically be considered as an 
ultimate objective rather than as a development 
phase. 

All concepts proceed through these phases un- 
less they are eliminated along the line as unsuc- 
cessful or lacking promise. The selection of con- 
cepts promising enough to be carried through suc- 
cessive phases of development is one of the more 
difficult tasks faced by those administering a de- 
velopment program of this nature. 

Power-Reactor Experiments 

The Commission has assumed the responsibility 
of providing the basic technology for power- 
reactor development. This work is complicated 
and costly, and the results are often uncertain. 
The design and construction of the prototype or 
demonstration reactors is another matter. Here 
the emphasis is on economics and reduction of 
costs. We know of no better way to achieve this 
end than to bring to bear normal business incen- 
tives. Hence, we have encouraged both the reactor 
designers and builders and the utility companies 
to accept the primary responsibility in the con- 
struction of these prototype reactors. 

We have insisted on limited and well-defined 
amounts of assistance by the Aec. This is not 
because we wish to reduce our cost, but because we 
believe this leads to real progress on cost reduc- 
tions. There is increasing evidence of a desire 
on the part of industry to move into the field of 
nuclear research and development. We have en- 
couraged such participation in the development 
of new reactor concepts which industrial groups 



may have originated and in as wide a variety of 
feasible approaches as possible. 

We may theorize as much as we will about re- 
actor possibilities, but theory is of most value 
when put to the test of an experiment. It also 
seems clear that the need for different sizes of re- 
actors in different locations can most likely be 
satisfied by more than one type of reactor. I will 
attempt to appraise the various possibilities at 
hand. 

We now have several power-reactor experiments 
under construction : 

1. An experimental boiling water reactor. This 
unit will have an output of 5,000 electrical kilo- 
watts and should be in operation early in 1957 at 
the Argonne National Laboratory. 

2. An organic-moderated reactor experiment 
which will produce 16 megawatts of heat. This is 
also scheduled for completion in 1957 at the 
National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho. 

3. An experimental fast breeder reactor with 
17,500 electrical kilowatts capacity. This reactor 
is planned for operation beginning in 1959. 

4. Three aqueous homogeneous circulating fuel 
reactors. One of these is being built at Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory and is scheduled to be in op- 
eration by next February. The output will range 
from 5,000 to 10,000 thermal kilowatts. 

The other two reactors of this type are smaller 
systems. One will have an output of 1,300 
thermal kilowatts and the other 2,000 thermal kilo- 
watts. They should be in operation at Los Alamos 
Scientific Laboratory by the end of this year. 

5. A sodium-cooled, graphite-moderated reactor 
experiment of about 7,500 electrical kilowatts out- 
put. This reactor is being constructed by Atomics 
International, Division of North American Avia- 
tion, under contract to the Aec, and should be 
operating late this year. 

The reactor experiments we have under way are 
but one phase of our program. We are also going 
ahead with studies of a number of more advanced 
concepts. One such study is for the design of a 
circulating liquid-metal fuel reactor to have an 
output of 5 to 10 megawatts of heat. Another 
study is being made of the closed-cycle gas system 
with a view toward the design of an efficient, high- 
temperature unit. 

We are also initiating further studies of the 
feasibility of heavy water, natural uranium re- 
actors as power sources. The choice between re- 



594 



Department of State Bulletin 



actorsutilizing enriched uranium and those re- 
quiring only natural uranium is a marginal one, 
and we believe the natural uranium type warrants 
further serious study. 

Evaluation of Various Types of Reactors 

I have not mentioned the pressurized water sys- 
tem in the same category as the other reactors since 
it has already demonstrated its applicability and, 
to some extent, the economical limits within which 
it can operate. Each of the reactor systems I 
have mentioned has certain advantages and dis- 
advantages which must be carefully weighed when 
considering economic feasibility and the prospect 
of early utilization. We still do not have suffi- 
cient economic data on the basis of which any of 
these concepts can be eliminated. However, I 
will point out briefly the advantages and disad- 
vantages of each type. 

The pressurized water reactor has one large ad- 
vantage just now— we know how to build and oper- 
ate it and we can make reasonable estimates of 
initial investment. From a technical point of 
view, as well as that of public safety, it is one of 
the more stable and inherently safe systems of 
which we have knowledge. Although we are most 
familiar with this type of reactor, there remain two 
major disadvantages inherent in a pressurized 
water system, namely, high initial cost and low 
steam temperature. The first disadvantage can 
be overcome in a very large installation in which 
the high cost of the reactor may be spread over a 
large generating capacity. The pressurized water 
reactor under construction at Shippingport, Penn- 
sylvania, will provide further operating experi- 
ence on this type of system. The generating ca- 
pacity of this unit, the first large nuclear plant in 
the country, will initially be 60,000 electrical kilo- 
watts, and it is expected that improvements in per- 
formance may raise this capacity to 90,000 electri- 
cal kilowatts. Financing is a joint AEC-industry 
affair. 

The reactor having inherent safety characteris- 
tics most similar to those of pressurized water sys- 
tems is the boiling water reactor. In this reactor 
we permit boiling to take place in the reactor core. 
The steam is then formed at essentially the tem- 
perature and pressure at which it will be used. 
It is easy to see that, since the reactor vessel must 
operate at a pressure of only about 600 pounds in- 
stead of 2,000 pounds to deliver 600-pound steam 



t^m^hirbinesT^the fabrication cost of the I'eactor 
vessel will be much less than in a pressurized water 
system. This saving in initial cost will not be con- 
fined to the reactor vessel alone but will extend to 
a large part of the piping system. The resulting 
decrease in initial investment should lend this type 
to applications in medium-capacity generating sta- 
tions. However, one present disadvantage of the 
boiling water reactor is the possibility of radio- 
active contamination of the steam, in turn leading 
to contamination of the turbine machinery. A 
possible safeguard against tliis condition involves 
the expense of an intermediate heat exchanger. 

The initial costs due to expensive pressure ves- 
sels can also be avoided by utilizing some coolant 
other than water. One alternative is the use of 
sodium as a heat-transfer medium. In a reactor 
of this type we can achieve high temperature at 
essentially atmospheric pressure. This high tem- 
perature may permit the generation of steam at 
temperature and pressure comparable to condi- 
tions found in the best fossil fuel generating sta- 
tions. These advantages are offset to some extent 
by the necessity for more expensive containment 
materials, but it is still likely that the original 
cost of a power plant of this type will be no more 
tlian that of a boiling water system. The major 
economic advantage would then have to come from 
increased operating efficiency. A sodimn-cooled 
system may prove to be quite flexible as to the 
power range over which operation will be eco- 
nomical. Both graphite-moderated and fast re- 
actors of this type are being developed. 

As an alternative to the use of sodium as a 
coolant, an experimental reactor is under construc- 
tion in which an organic material will be used 
as moderator and coolant. It is expected that this 
material will not only allow a substantial reduc- 
tion in pressure- vessel costs, but, since the material 
is essentially noncorrosive, cheap construction 
materials may be used and the need for expensive 
fuel-element cladding may be eliminated. The 
experiment now under construction will give data 
on radiation stability of the coolant and on the 
costs associated with the cleaning of the organic 
stream. These questions will have to be answered 
in order to evaluate the promise of reactors utiliz- 
ing organics. 

In all of the reactors I have been talking about 
a rather severe limitation on utilization of fuel 
is imposed by fuel-element damage and poisoning 
due to fission-product buildup. The necessity for 



Ocfober 15, J 956 



595 



i-egular shutdown to allow fuel-element replace- 
ment is an additional obstacle to efficient opera- 
tion. This obstacle may be overcome by using a 
fuel which is not subject to irradiation damage, 
which may be enriched while the reactor is in 
operation, and from which fission products may 
be removed without reactor shutdown. These re- 
quirements are met by a circulating fuel reactor, 
and, as I mentioned previously, there are two dis- 
tinct circulating fuel-reactor types under develop- 
ment. In the aqueous homogeneous reactor the 
uranium may be in the form of uranyl nitrate, 
uranyl sulfate, or uranyl phosphate in a circu- 
lating water solution. The water acts both as a 
moderating medium and as a heat-transport ma- 
terial. This system must be highly pressurized. 
The corrosion problem in all of these aqueous 
reactors is severe but appears capable of solution. 
Fuel inventories are small in these systems. The 
cost, a very high one, of reprocessing used fuel 
elements is eliminated, which contributes to the 
overall operating economy of the reactor. 

In the second circulating liquid-metal fueled 
reactor, we may find the solution to two major 
problems — high core pressures and corrosion prob- 
lems. The fuel proposed for this system, a 
uranium-bismuth solution, will, we hope, permit 
the production of high-temperature steam while 
maintaining the core at close to atmospheric pres- 
sure. It is believed that readily available con- 
struction materials may be used for the system and 
that fabrication will present no serious problem. 
The potential cost advantages of such a system are 
obvious, and, while the chemical processes are 
different, the economic advantages occurring from 
fuel stability and continuous cleaning and reen- 
riching will be the same as in the aqueous homo- 
geneous type. Reduction in initial construction 
costs should allow the economic operation of 
smaller plants as well as those of higher capacity. 
Furthermore, since the fuel has no adverse reac- 
tion with water, there is no danger from this 
point in using such a system iia a ship or sub- 
marine. 

The gas-cooled reactor, especially when operat- 
ing in connection with a closed-cycle gas turbine, 
appears in some respects to offer possible cost 
advantages over other types. Some of the poten- 
tial advantages are light weight, compact arrange- 
ment, ease of containment, low corrosion rates, 
and high efficiency. But there are many problems 



associated with the construction of such a system. 
Among them are the inherently difficult problem 
of control and stability, and the fabrication of 
satisfactory fuel elements. At the present stage 
of gas turbine development, this reactor type 
seems to be limited to the lower capacity sizes — 
up to perhaps 20,000 electrical kilowatts. Our 
techniques are improving, and we feel that in the 
reasonably near future we may be able to begin 
construction of a gas-cooled reactor experiment. 
We are interested in an efficient gas cycle and not 
in a unit where inefficient, low-temperature oper- 
ating conditions lead to high operating costs. 

Perhaps I have seemed to overemphasize the 
problems which remain to be solved and the great 
strides which must be made if nuclear power is to 
become competitive. It goes without saying that 
problems cannot be solved before they are known. 
A few years ago we could only imagine what prob- 
lems might be faced. We now know that some 
of these imagined problems could have been ig- 
nored, but other mucli more real ones liave taken 
their place. While we are sure that we have not 
found all the problems, we are confident that the 
solution of those we now recognize will move us 
well along toward our goal. These problems do 
not appear insuperable. They will not be solved 
easily, or overnight, or without considerable ex- 
pense in time and money. The fact remains, nev- 
ertlieless, that we have identified them and even 
this knowledge is in itself a major step forward. 

I have limited my discussion so far to the pro- 
duction of electric power from reactors. Wliile 
this appears to be the most immediate application 
of nuclear energy, it is not too difficult to foresee 
the day when reactors will be used by industry to 
supply process heat, and in the case of the food 
industry as a sterilization and preservation me- 
dium. There is also a good possibility that radia- 
tion from reactors may be used to improve such 
processes as oil refining and to alter and improve 
the characteristics of many materials presently in 
use. There is, at this time, under construction at 
Brookhaven National Laboratory a reactor for 
medical research and therapy. The use of reactors 
of this type is certain to become more widespread. 

Prototype Nuclear Power Plants I 

I should like to turn for a minute to the subject 
of prototype nuclear power plants. In order to 
bring private industry into the field of power-re- 



596 



Department of State Bulletin 



actor development and operation, the Atomic 
Energy Commission initiated the Power Demon- 
stration Keactor Program in January 1955 with 
an invitation to industry to submit proposals for 
the construction of nuclear power plants. En- 
couraged by the response to this first invitation, 
the Commission issued a second in September 1955. 

As a result of the proposals which were sub- 
mitted, a conti-act has been signed with Yankee 
Atomic Electric Company covering the construc- 
tion of a 134,000-kilowatt generating station. 
This will be a pressurized water system and will 
involve the use of Commission funds for necessary 
research and development. 

Five other proposals have been accepted as basis 
for contract negotiations. They are all of dif- 
ferent types and are scheduled for completion in 
1960 and 1961, adding another 217,000 kilowatts to 
the nuclear electrical capacity of the United States. 

Additionally, construction permits have been is- 
sued to two public utility companies and to the 
General Electric Company for the construction of 
nuclear plants financed entirely with private 
funds. One of these will be a pressurized water re- 
actor station of 136,000 electrical kilowatts nuclear 
capacity. The other two will utilize boiling-water 
reactors, one a small plant with a capacity of 3,000 
to 5,000 electrical kilowatts, and the other a full- 
scale plant with an electrical output of 180,000 
kilowatts. These nine plants, which should be in 
operation by 1960, will have a combined nuclear 
capacity of about 660,000 electrical kilowatts. 

While this is indeed an encouraging beginning, 
it should be kept in mind that these reactors will 
not be, and are not required to be, economically 
competitive with conventionally fueled plants. 
They will, however, serve as prototypes on which 
to base the design of more economical plants. In 
some cases, the excess operating costs expected 
during the initial years of operation will be par- 
tially offset from payments by the Aec for tech- 
nical and operating data. 

Making Nuclear Power Competitive 

I have defined an efficient nuclear power plant 
as being one which, when built and operated under 
standard industrial financing and operating pi-ac- 
tice, will produce power at costs equal to or less 
than the cost of power produced by the best con- 
ventional plant built at the same time and at the 
same location. It is obvious that in order to meet 



this criterion, nuclear plants must be improved to 
the point where no special assistance, under any 
guise whatsoever, is needed. This does not mean 
that certain operations such as enriching of fuel 
cannot be carried out by the Government. It does 
mean that these services must be paid for, at their 
actual value, out of operation income. 

In an effort to resolve the problems associated 
with the meeting of all expenses out of operating 
income, a vast number of studies of the economics 
of nuclear power have been made in recent years. 
In the absence of necessary development informa- 
tion and actual construction and operational costs, 
manj^ of these studies, if not most of them, must 
be considered only as speculation. They have 
generally arrived at two conclusions: first, that 
the particular type of reactor favored by those 
making the study is more practical than other 
types under consideration ; second, that this better 
reactor can produce power competitively with con- 
ventional power plants. 

Although, taken separately, such studies are of 
limited value, I believe that, collectively, they are 
important since they indicate a profound belief 
that nuclear power can be made competitive with 
conventional sources even in the United States, 
where we have a relatively plentiful supply of 
cheap fuel. "Wliile there is no law of nature which 
says that power from nuclear fuel must be com- 
petitive with conventional power, we do know the 
potential is present. Certainly, no one has dis- 
covered any fundamental considerations which 
would appear to make economic nuclear power 
unlikely of accomplishment. 

However, many studies and proposals overlook 
the development effort required to actually solve 
the many technical problems involved as well as 
the industrial effort needed to attain the desired 
construction and operation costs. The solution of 
these problems is a time-consuming and costly 
business requiring the imagination and ingenuity 
of our very best scientists and engineers. 

With our present program, we will soon enter an 
era in which we will gain a good deal of factual 
data on power-reactor technology and costs. At 
that time it will be more appropriate to discuss the 
economics of such systems and to make predictions 
concerning future costs. In any case, the assess- 
ment of relative costs of nuclear power in compari- 
son with conventional power cost is a difficult 
matter even in the United States, depending, as it 



October IS, 1956 



597 



does, upon the cost of capital, tax rates, load fac- 
tors, construction costs, and many local considera- 
tions. When such a comparison is attempted for 
reactor locations abroad, many additional factors 
must be taken into consideration. 

It may be possible to make some general ob- 
servations based upon our present state of de- 
velopment and upon our hopes for the future. I 
believe that large power reactors, construction of 
which is begun in the next 1 or 2 years, will, after 
completion and initial operation, show total power 
costs somewhat above those prevailing in any area 
of the United States which can utilize a plant of 
equal size. But the cost will probably be about 
the same as that from conventional plants in some 
fuel-short areas of the world which need large 
blocks of power. Another 2 or 3 j'eai-s should see 
construction begun on plants wliich will prove to 
be really competitive in relatively high fuel-cost 
areas of the United States — and fairly generally 
in other areas of the world. Tlie following 5 
years or so should lead to nuclear power plants 
being started on a generally competitive basis with 
all except extremely cheap fuels in any area. 

The situation regarding the course of develop- 
ment of small reactors is even more hazardous to 
predict. In general, the economic considerations 
for a small unit are relatively less favorable than 
those for a larger reactor system. For this reason, 
the utilization of small reactor systems may be 
generally behind that of the larger plants. How- 
ever, it is not unlikely that there may be many 
circumstances in which a small reactor will have 
an advantage. 

To repeat then, we are moving forward on many 
developmental fronts in order not to overlook any 
system which may, in time, prove successful as a 
source of economical power. 

In conclusion, I would like to quote from an in- 
teresting article which I ran across the other day : 

Pessimists like Sir Oliver Lodge shudder when they 
speculate on the future. Man is not yet .spiritually ripe 
for the possession of the secret of atomic energy, he 
reasons. Technically we are demigods, ethically still 
such barbarians that we would probably use the energy 
of the atom much as we used the less terrible forces that 
almost destroyed civilization during the last war. 

Others are convinced that the new insij^ht into nature 
which will be granted when the structure of the atom is 
at last known, and with it the method of controlling its 
energy, must be accompanied by a spiritual advance. 
Each new discovery about the atom makes man more 
consciously part of the world about him — links him witli 
the stars, which are themselves composed of atoms, and 



with the dazzling light of the sun, which springs from 
atomic activity — and thus impresses him with the little- 
ness of his greed and the puerility of his disputes. 

This prophetic quotation is from an article on 
"Atomic Energy — Is It Nearer?" by Waldemar 
Kaempffert in Scientific American. The date — 
August 1932 ! The article deals with the histori- 
cal importance of the then recent work on nuclear 
transmutations by "two young English physicists. 
Dr. J. D. Cockcroft and Dr. E. T. S. Walton." It 
follows an article on tlie discovery of the neutron. 

We are striving for the development of useful 
nuclear power with enthusiasm and with optimism, 
and with the conviction that this vast new source 
of energy will, one day, raise the standard of 
living throughout a peaceful world. While we 
are not unmindful of the formidable difficulties 
which confront us, we believe that it is not a ques- 
tion as to whether we will achieve economically 
useful nuclear power but rather when we will 
achieve it. 



Procedures for Obtaining U.S. Aid 
on Researcli Reactor Projects 

AEC press release dated September 21 

The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and the 
State Department are distributing to interested 
embassies and U.S. industrial organizations the 
details of the program for U.S. grants of up to 
$350,000 for research reactor projects undertaken 
by friendly nations that have agreements for 
cooperation with the United States. 

The procedures are substantially those already 
used and tested in handling the first requests for 
assistance received following the offer made by 
President Eisenliower last year to strengthen and 
advance the atomic research programs of those 
nations included in the bilateral agreement pro- 
gram. 

As previously announced, grants of $350,000 
each have been made to Brazil, Spain, Denmark, 
and the Netherlands. Negotiations for similar 
commitments are in progress with several other 
nations. The Congress appropriated $5,500,000 
for the program during the current fiscal year. 

These grants may be made toward the financing 
of an approved reactor project providing the 
total of $350,000 is not more than one half of the 
actual cost. In addition to the reactor itself, a 
project may include experimental equipment, sup- 



598 



Department of State Bulletin 



portiiiji; facilities, and activities necessary to make 
it an operable and useful training and research 
facility. The grants are payable when the recipi- 
ent nation certifies that the project has been 
completed. 
A detailed description of the procedures follows. 



INFORMATION FOR NATIONS DESIRING U.S. 
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE ON RESEARCH RE- 
ACTOR PROJECTS 

The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission has been 
given responsibility for implementing the United 
States offer announced by President Eisenhower on 
June 11, 1955, to contribute towards the cost of 
research reactors undertaken by "free nations who 
can use them effectively for the acquisition of the 
skills and understanding essential to peaceful 
atomic progress." ' Contributions made pursuant 
to the President's offer are financed from funds 
made available under the Mutual Security Act of 
1956. 

A prerequisite to a financial contribution by the 
United States toward the cost of a research reactor 
project undertaken by a foreign nation is an 
Agreement for Cooperation in the Civil Uses of 
Atomic Energy between that nation and the 
United States. Such agreements are negotiated 
for the United States jointly by the Department 
of State and the Atomic Energy Commission. 

Under an Agreement for Cooperation in the 
Civil Uses of Atomic Energy, the cooperating na- 
tion receives information on the design, construc- 
tion and operation of research reactors and their 
use as research, development and engineering tools. 
In addition, each agreement provides a basis for 
authorizing private citizens and organizations in 
the United States to supply the cooperating gov- 
ernment or authorized private persons under its 
jurisdiction, with appropriate equipment and serv- 
ices. Each agreement provides that the U.S. 
Atomic Energy Commission will furnish a speci- 
fied quantity of uranium enriched in the isotope 
U-235. The cooperating nation assumes respon- 
sibility for using and safeguarding the fissionable 
material in accordance with the terms of the agree- 
ment. Each agreement further provides for the 
exchange of information in the research reactor 
field on related health and safety problems and on 
the use of radioactive isotoiies in physical and bio- 

• Bulletin of June 27, 1955, p. 1028. 



logical research, medical therapy, agriculture and 
industry. 

Having entered into an Agreement for Coopera- 
tion, a nation desiring U.S. participation in 
financing a research reactor project should submit 
a project proposal to the Director, Division of 
International Affairs, U.S. Atomic Energy Com- 
mission, AVashington 25, D. C. The jjroject pro- 
posal should include, at a minimum, information 
on the points listed in the enclosed "Minimum 
Points to be Covered in Foreign Research Reactor 
Proposals" (enclosure A). For purposes of expe- 
diting review, it is desirable that five copies of 
the proposal be submitted. Interested nations 
should submit their proposals when they have 
firm plans for the scope and nature of the project, 
and have tentatively selected a bid for construc- 
tion of a specific reactor. The project proposal 
should be accompanied by a letter from the inter- 
ested country, stating its desire to take advantage 
of the President's offer of financial assistance. It 
is not necessary that a contract for construction 
of a reactor be signed by a cooperating country 
prior to receipt of formal assurance of availability 
of U.S. funds. 

The amount of the U.S. financial contribution 
may be set with respect to the cost not merely of 
a reactor per se, but of a reactor with such experi- 
mental equipment and supporting facilities and 
activities as are necessary to make it an operable 
and useful training and research tool. The U.S. 
grant thus envisages a "reactor project"; enclo- 
sure B lists representative items which may be 
considered as included within the term "reactor 
project," in computing the cost estimates with 
respect to which the amount of the U.S. contribu- 
tions will be set. 

A limitation of $350,000 has been set upon the 
amount of the U.S. contribution to any cooperat- 
ing country under the program for implementing 
the President's offer ; this amount is 50 i^ercent of 
the estimated cost of an assumed typical research 
reactor project. In the case of reactor projects 
estimated to cost less than $700,000, the amount 
of the U.S. contribution will be set at 50 percent 
of the estimated cost. It is also required that any 
contracts with U.S. firms provide that such por- 
tions of the equipment furnished by firms as may 
be appropriately die-stamped as a product of the 
United States shall be so stamped. 

The principal purpose of the review of the proj- 
ect proposal by the Aec is to confirm that the 



Ocfober 15, J 956 



599 



J )r(ij('ct qualifies fur U.S. rnianc'i;il assi.stuiicc iiiidcr 
the President's offer, and that it conforms with 
the governing Agreement for Cooperation. In 
addition, the amount of the U.S. contribution is 
determined in the course of the review. The co- 
operating nation is considered as having complete 
responsibility for the project, and thus the review 
of the proposal by the Aec is not intended as a 
basis for extending United States concurrence in 
the technical details of the proposal. The review 
does seek to confirm that the principal problems 
inherent in the construction and operation of a 
reactor are recognized, including the problem of 
possible radiation hazard to the environment, and 
that there is reason to feel confidence that they 
will be competently dealt with. Essentially, the 
review seeks to establish that a proposed project 
gives the promise of promoting the skills and un- 
derstanding essential to peaceful atomic progress, 
which is the main condition of qualification mider 
the President's offer. 

The Aec makes formal commitment as to the 
U.S. contribution when : 

(a) a finding has been made based upon review of 
the project proposal, that the project qualifies 
for financial assistance under the President's 
offer, and that it confonns with the applicable 
Agreement for Cooperation, and 

(b) formal assurance has been provided by the co- 
operating nation, that it has available and is 
prepared to expend sufficient funds for com- 
pletion and subsequent operation of the re- 
actor project. 

The U.S. financial contribution will be made in 
the form of a grant, and paid to the cooperating 
nation in American dollars, upon receipt from the 
government of the cooperating country of a cer- 
tification as to completion of the reactor project 
to the agreed scope, to be accompanied by a cer- 
tification by the principal firm or firms which have 
contracted to render services in connection with 
the project, as to completion of such services. 
Such certifications as are rendered by U.S. firms 
shall also state that such portions of the equipment 
furnished by them as may be appropriately die- 
stamped as a product of the United States, have 
been so stamped. 

In accordance with the terms of the governing 
Agreement for Cooperation, the U.S. Atomic 
Energy Commission is prepared to offer consulta- 



t i(i]i iiiul advice to a cooperating nation at any stage 
in its prosecution of a research reactor project. 

Enclosure A 

Minimum Points To Be Covered in Foreign Research 
Reactor Proposals 

1. A description of the reactor, to include : 

a. conceptual design of the reactor and important 
auxiliary equipment ; 

b. expected operating levels — maximum power, excess 
reactivity and reactivity analysis ; 

c. fuel, moderator, coolant, reflector and shielding; 

d. reactor control system ; 

e. experimental irradiation facilities — thimbles, beam 
holes, etc. 

2. A description of the reactor building, including 
contemplated floor plan and elevation drawings. (If 
the building is to provide for containment of radioactive 
vapor, the estimated maximum internal pressure for 
which it will be designed should be approximated.) 

3. A description of all the facilities, including research 
facilities, related directly to operation and utilization of 
the reactor. 

4. Indication of the principal organizations with which 
contracts will be entered into in connection with con- 
struction of the project, including the organization which 
will fabricate fuel elements. 

5. A detailed breakdown of the estimated cost of fa- 
cilities towards which the United States' financial con- 
tribution would be applied, including building, reactor, 
utility and other directly related auxiliary services. 
(When practicable, supporting bids should be provided.) 

6. A schedule for construction and completion of the 
project, indicating dates fuel material will be required, 
start-up of reactor, etc. 

7. A description of the organization planned to operate 
and utilize the facility, with indication of the training and 
qualifications of the principal personnel who will be re- 
sponsible for the effective and safe operation of the fa- 
cility. In particular, plans should be stated for fixing 
responsibility for performing and evaluating the hazard 
analysis of the reactor, and for supervision and ap- 
proval of experimental procedures subsequent to the ini- 
tial operation of the reactor. 

8. A description of any plans to accomplish technical 
training deemed necessary to effective utilization of the 
reactor, if availability of qualified technical personnel can- 
not he assumed ; a statement of how any such measures 
will be financed. Any plans for utilizing technical per- 
sonnel of qualified commercial firms during design, con- 
struction, start-up and early operation, should be included. 

9. An estimate of fuel requirements for the initial five 
years, i. e., total inventory requirements, burn-up, re- 
processing and recharging rates, etc. 

10. At least preliminary information on hazards and 
hazards control. This should Include : description of the 
site, with maps showing the location or alternative loca- 
tions of the reactor ; data on population density as a func- 
tion of distance and direction from the site, and the 



600 



Department of State Bulletin 



location of nearby buildings and residential areas ; en- 
vironmental data, including the general meteorology, 
geology, hydrology and seismology of the area ; con- 
templated restrictions on power level and excess reactiv- 
ity ; a general description of operating procedures and 
protective devices to function in event of operational er- 
rors, instrument malfunction, electric power failure or 
failure of the reactor cooling system ; and provision for 
disposal of normal gaseous, liquid and solid wastes, and 
of such waste materials accidentally released from the 
reactor. (It is expected that much of this information 
will be general and preliminary and that the cooperating 
country will ordinarily complete a compreliensive hazard 
summary report at a later time.) 

11. A brief characterization of the proposed technical 
program for utilization of the reactor, including types of 
experiments to be performed. 

Enclosure B 

Representative Items Which May Be Considered as In- 
cluded Within the Term "Reactor Project" in Com- 
puting the Cost Estimate With Respect to Which the 
Amount of the U.S. Contribution Will Be Set 

A. Reactor. 

1. Fuel. Only fabrication costs of the initial fuel ele- 
ments may be included. 

2. Moderator and Reflector. The moderator and re- 
flector in quantity and form ready for insertion in the 
reactor. 

3. Core Structure. The structure containing and pro- 
viding support for the fuel and moderator. (May also 
contain the reflector and thermal shield.) 

4. Shield. Shielding as required to reduce radiation 
levels to tolerance dosages for personnel and equipment. 

5. Cooling System. As required, may include heat ex- 
changers, pumps and drives, piping, valves, pressure tem- 
perature and flow instrumentation, equipment for coolant, 
purity control and makeup. 

6. Controls and Instrumentation. A complete control 
system for the operation of the reactor. This system will 
provide for normal operation of the reactor at a specifled 
level and incorporate a number of safety features such 
as automatic alarms, power setbacks and reactor shut- 
down. It is intended to include (1) the basic sensing 
elements of the control system (fission and gamma cham- 
ber, thermocouples, pressure gages, flow meters, etc.), (2) 
the electronic and electromechanical equipment required 
to translate signals received from the sensing elements 
into motion (amplifiers, solenoid release circuits, etc.), 
(3) the control elements (neutron absorbing regulating 
and .safety rods and their drives), and (4) a control con- 
sole (oi)erator's desk with key control buttons and 
switches and a bank of recording and indicating instru- 
ments. ) 

7. Miscellaneous Equipment Directly Related to the 
Reactor. Equipment as needed for normal operation of 
the reactor, including: special handling tools to be used 



in loading and unloading fuel, including transfer and 
shipping coSins, health physics instruments, off gas dis- 
posal equipment, sampling systems, etc. 

8. Design, Installation and Start-up. In addition to 
the detailed design, procurement and fabrication of the 
components listed al)ove, installation of these components, 
start-up and initial operation and testing of the plant. 

B. Facilities Directly Related to the Reactor. 

1. Building and Ancillai-y Facilities. Cost of design 
and construction of the building or buildings, including 
foundation, superstructure, overhead crane, utilities, 
heating and ventilation, laboratory shops and office 
space, site improvement and utility connections. 

2. Experimental Equipment. Initial equipment to be 
used in conjunction with experiments utilizing the re- 
actor or its products. 

3. Disposal System. Disposal system for solid and 
liquid radioactive wastes. 

C. Services Directly Related to the Reactor. 

1. Consultants. Payment of qualified consultants to 
assist in selection of the reactor, and planning for con- 
struction and operation of the reactor project. 

2. Training. On-site training of operating personnel 
for the reactor, prior to and during start-up. 



Discussions on Current Problems 
in International Aviation 

Press release 517 dated October 2 

The Department of State has arranged for a 
representative group from Government and in- 
dustry to meet at the Department on November 
14, 15, and 16 for informal discussions on current 
problems of international relations in the civil 
aviation field. 

Herbert Hoover, Jr., Under Secretary of State, 
has sent invitations to those who will participate. 
They include officers of Government agencies 
wliich have a substantive interest in this field, 
executives of airlines engaged in international 
operations, and executives of aircraft manufac- 
turing companies. 

The Department of State believes that it would 
be useful to both Government and industry at this 
time to bring a number of experienced individuals 
together for a full review of international de- 
velopments that have a bearing on civil air rela- 
tions between the United States and other govern- 
ments. Information and views will be exchanged 
on a broad range of complex problems. 



October 15, 1956 



601 



The Functions of the American Consul 



'by AUyn C. Donaldson 

Director, Office of Special Consular Services ^ 



I appreciate your invitation to speak to the Em- 
bassy (Consular) Aides Organization and to tell 
you something of the activities of the American 
consul. Actually, the role of the consul is not 
limited by nationality. The consul, as an insti- 
tution, is almost universal; his origins, his his- 
tory, and his functions give him much the same 
role to play today whether he is a I'epresentative 
of the United States or of any other civilized na- 
tion. Consequently, what I say about the func- 
tions of the American consul will generally apply 
very largely to the fimctions of a consul of any 
other country. 

Where did the consul come fi-om and how does 
he differ from the diplomat? There were agents 
who performed consular functions as long ago 
as in the days of Tyre and Carthage, but the con- 
sul as we know him dates his origin to the early 
Middle Ages and his rise is simultaneous with the 
rise of trade and commerce. In fact, it is this 
early preoccupation with trade and commerce that 
distinguishes the consul from the diplomat, a rep- 
resentative of the head of a state accredited to an- 
other sovereign. 

The first consuls were simply prominent trad- 
ers, not appointed by their own governments, 
whether royal or municipal, but selected by the 
host government as the spokesmen for their fel- 
low traders. Only by degrees did they eventually 
take orders from their home countries and finally 
accept appointment from them. Along with 
commercial functions, they had certain recognized 
judicial powers for settling disputes among their 



^Address made before the Emb.issy (Consular) Aides 
Organization at Washington, D. C, on Oct. 3. 



own nationals, powers seen in our time in the 
consular courts now being terminated in Morocco 
and abandoned in Cliina by the United States in 
1943. The first consuls fostered trade and com- 
merce and settled disputes. They also protected 
the interests of their fellow countrymen in foreign 
lands. 

Establishment of American Consular Service 

This protection of their fellow countrymen led 
directly to the establishment of the American con- 
sular service at the time of the establishment of 
the United States of America. Stranded seamen 
in France begged help fi"om our diplomatic rep- 
resentatives at the court of Louis XVI. Messrs. 
Franklin and Morris urged the Congress to estab- 
lish a consular service to relieve them of protec- 
tion duties. It was Thomas Jefferson who, as 
Secretary of State, established our consular service 
in 1790. The consuls were to foster trade and 
commerce, aid American seamen in distress, re- 
port on the arrivals and departures of American 
vessels in foreign ports, and, in general, protect 
the interests of American merchants abroad. 
This was important then, because modern types 
of communications were not available. 

Today, the functions of the consul have not 
changed a great deal except in regard to visa and 
passport matters, which did not exist in Jeffer- 
son's day. Time does not permit me to discuss 
our visa and passport laws and regulations. In 
other matters, the consul today, just as in Jeffer- 
son's time, is required to keep his country in- 
formed of trade possibilities ; he is still responsi- 
ble for the protection of seamen, although many 



602 



Department of State Bulletin 



of his former functions in this regui'd are now 
performed by the shipping agents of tlie various 
comj^anies hiring seamen ; with tlie great increase 
in travel in our time, the consul today has a serious 
responsibility in rendering certain protection serv- 
ices to his fellow citizens, particularly if they are 
in trouble in other lands. I would like to call your 
attention especially to these protection services. 

Protection of American Citizens Abroad 

My particular office, the Office of Special Con- 
sular Services in the Department of State, is con- 
cerned with the general protection of American 
citizens abroad and the protection of their prop- 
erty rights in foreign countries. Many inquiries 
are received of the "lost and found" variety: a 
young student fails to write home ; his mother wor- 
ries and writes to us; we have the nearest consul 
look up the young man and ask him to write his 
mother. Other cases are more complicated : some 
fathers have deserted their families in the United 
States and have formed new families abroad. In 
such situations, the consul is largely helpless, as all 
he can do is to give the aggrieved wife a list of local 
lawyers who can represent her in court action. 
Certain Americans abroad become mentally ill, 
and the consul must make every effort for their 
own sake and to spare embarrassment to his 
Government to assist the return of such persons to 
the United States. Through my office, he informs 
the nearest relatives of the situation, attempts to 
obtain the necessary funds, obtains any necessary 
attendants, transportation, etc., while we arrange 
in this country for appropriate hospitalization. 
Other Americans, either through misjudgment or 
thi'ough some misfortune such as robbery, find 
themselves alone in a foreign land completely pen- 
niless. A typical case of this kind occurred not 
long ago in Europe, where a young American 
tourist was robbed of her wallet, her passport, and 
all her luggage. After the first moment of panic, 
she went to the American Consulate General, 
which immediately cabled the Department to ob- 
tain passport data in order to be able to issue her 
a duplicate passport; my office got in touch with 
relatives and friends who were able to cable money 
promptly to enable her to return home. 

Cases of Infractions of Law 

Tlie above is a typical case which can be handled 
■without too much difficulty. A complication 



arises, however, if the person mvolved is in trouble 
with the local authorities for some infraction of 
the law. If the offense is minor, local authorities 
are often willing to let the consul arrange for the 
man's repatriation. Too many persons abroad 
think that it is the consul's duty to get them out of 
a foreign jail. Such, of course, is not the case. 
Where, because of the commission of an illegal 
act, an American is placed in jail, most civilized 
countries allow his consul to visit him and to aid 
him in any way that is appropriate, but the De- 
partment's regulations, dating back at least a hun- 
dred years, emphasize that the consul cannot in- 
terfere in the proper administration of local 
justice so long as the American is treated without 
bias and according to the same rules as apply to 
the citizens of the country. In other words, he is 
not to attempt to interfere with the proper ad- 
ministration of justice under local law. This 
right of the consul to visit one of his fellow na- 
tionals in jail is an important privilege generally 
included in consular conventions. It is essential 
that a consul interview persons in confinement in 
order that facts can be determined to guide his 
course of action. Any person who has ever been 
alone and friendless in another country can real- 
ize what it would mean for a man arrested by 
police speaking perhaps a language he does not 
understand to be able to get in touch promptly 
with his own consul. In similar manner, the De- 
partment of State uses its influence to assist con- 
sular officers of other governments accredited to 
the United States to obtain approval by local au- 
thorities in this country to visit any of their na- 
tionals who hapi^en to be in difficulties with the 
law. 

Importance of Freedom of Movement 

"Wliile it is accepted, of course, that the consul 
must operate in accordance with the laws and reg- 
ulations of the country to which he is accredited, 
it may be timely to point out that certain basic 
rights and privileges, generally granted by all 
states throughout history, must be accorded him 
if he is to perform effectively the duties of his office 
in regard to normal protection of his fellow citi- 
zens. Unfortunately, in some countries of the 
world today, contrary to generally accepted inter- 
national principles, freedom of travel and move- 
. ment within the area is not permitted and the con- 
sul finds it difficult, if not impossible, to extend 



October 15, 1956 



603 



the normal proir.-: i..n of hi- ( ;(i\iTniii:Mit to those 
of its citizens who are pit'seiitly resident there. 
Conversely, wlien such citizens are in turn denied 
free access to their own official representatives, 
the effects are equally unfortunate. It is recog- 
nized by all civilized states who ai-e niembere of 
the fanaily of nations that, on humanitarian 
grounds, no one should be denied his freedom and 
liberty by a miscarriage of justice. 

Unlike the consuls of certain other countries, 
the American consul is not permitted to perform 
marriages, although he may serve as a witness to 
a marriage of two fellow nationals and issue a 
Certificate of Witness to Marriage, which serves 
as a mai-riage certificate in most of the States of 
the United States. 

Tlie consul, in general, must protect the interests 
of his own people while at the same time maintain- 
ing the most friendly relations possible with the 
officials and citizens of the country in which he 
resides. When the demands on him from his own 
people are completely unrealistic and exaggerat- 
ed, he must reject them with consummate tact. 
He must at all times place his own position in the 
host country and the dignity and interests of his 
own Government above the unreasonable requests 
for aid which might jeopardize these relations, 
and it is not always easy to convince a fellow citi- 
zen that he cannot overthrow the decision of a lo- 
cal court or obtain funds from a government for 
the payment of private debts. 

I have stressed the services the consul performs 
for his own citizens, but it is obvious that he also 
has a most important role to perform regarding 
the citizens of the country in which he is accredit- 
ed. For many of them he may be the first Ameri- 
can they meet — their entire picture of the United 
States may be colored by the impression he makes 
on them. He can be the type of consul portrayed 
in Menotti's tragic opera, or he can be the type 
of consul who takes a warm interest in human be- 
ings and tries to be helpful. 

In conclusion, I believe you will be interested 
to Icnow that the Department of State has estab- 
lished a comprehensive selection and training 
program through whicli high standards for offi- 
cers will be maintained and the right type of con- 
sular officer will be sent to the field. I trust that 
the American consular officers you encounter in 
your country are a credit to the United States and 
fulfill completely the historical role of the consul. 



First Prize Essay Contest 

on International Travel , 

Arrangements have been completed for a prize , 
essay contest to be conducted under the auspices 
of tlie Inter-American Travel Congresses. Ad- 
ministrative details will be handled by the Pan 
American Union, Washington, D. C, and will be 
announced shortly. 

The contest is believed to be the first of its l?ind 
ever held in the field of tourism. It is open to all 
residents of the 21 American Republics and Can- 
ada who are connected in some way with the travel 
industry, either governmental or private. The 
topic will be "Freedom of International Travel." 
Cash prizes of $1,000, $500, and $250 will be 
awarded to the winners. 

Tlie contest was initiated by the United States 
delegation to the 6th Inter- American Travel Con- 
gress held at San Jose, Costa Rica, in April of 
this year.^ Funds for the prizes were contributed 
by four leading U.S. organizations : the Air Trans- Jj 
port Association of America, tlie American Auto- 
mobile Association, the American Merchant 
Marine Institute, and the Rail Travel Promotion 
Agency. 



Air Force Mission Agreement 
Signed With Argentina 

Press release 519 dated October 3 

The United States and Argentina concluded on 
October 3 at Buenos Aires a United States Air 
Force Mission xVgreement providing for the as- 
signment of a United States Air Force Mission to 
Argentina. Ambassador Willard Beaulac signed 
for the United States, and Foreign Minister Luis 
Podesta Costa and Air Minister Commodore Julio 
Krause signed for Argentina. 

The mission will act in an advisory capacity to 
the Argentine Ministry of Aeronautics and the 
Argentine Air Force with a view to enhancing 
the technical and operational efficiency of the 
Argentine Air Force. The agreement is for an 
indefinite term and enters into force on the date of 
signature. The personnel complement of mission, 
and specific duties to be performed by it, will be 
the subject of discussions at Buenos Aires between 



' For a report of the meeting at San Jos6, see Buixetin 
of June 18, 1956, p. 1029. 



604 



Department of State Bulletin 



representatives of the United States and Argen- 
tine Air Forces. 

The United States has United States Air Force 
Missions or Advisory Groups in 16 of the other 
Latin American Republics. A United States Air 
Force Mission was previously assigned to Ai-- 
gentina from 1939 to 1951. United States naval 
advisers have been assigned to Argentina under 
separate arrangements since 1935. 



Customs Tariff 

Protocol modifying the convention signed at Brussels 
July 5, 1890 (26 Stat. 1518) creating an international 
union for the publication of customs tariffs. Done at 
Brussels December 16, 1949. Entered into force May 
5, 1950." 
Ratified by the President: September 20, 1956. 

Wheat 

International wheat agreement, 1956. Open for signature 
at Washington through May 18, 19.56. 
Acceptance deposited: Ireland, October 1, 1956. 
Accession deposited: Saudi Arabia, October 2, 1956. 



Fourth-Quarter Export Quota 
for Salk Vaccine 

A fourth-quarter export quota of 7 million cc.'s 
of Salk poliomyelitis vaccine was announced on 
October 2 by the Bureau of Foreign Commerce, 
U.S. Department of Commerce. 

The Bureau said the quota, which reflects the 
improved domestic supply outlook, will permit 
additional countries of high incidence to initiate 
immunization programs for children in the age 
groups most susceptible to poliomyelitis. It will 
also permit those countries which have already 
received initial quantities of the vaccine to obtain 
additional amounts for continuation and expan- 
sion of programs now under way. 

In licensing against the new quota, the Bureau 
therefore will continue to give priority to those 
countries having a high incidence of poliomyelitis 
and which maintain effective immunization pro- 
grams. A total of 1,474,522 cc.'s of Salk vaccine 
was licensed for export in the third quarter. It 
was distributed among the following countries: 
Argentina, Belgian Congo, Brazil, Costa Rica, 
Cuba, Guatemala, Iceland, Israel, Norway, 
Panama, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela, 

Current Treaty Actions 



Correction 

Bulletin of September 24, 1956, p. 497— in the item 
headed "Germany" the date "August 6, 1956" should 
read "July 27, 1956." 



BILATERAL 

Argentina 

Air Force Mission agreement. Signed at Buenos Aires 
October 3, 1956. Entered into force October 3, 1956. 

France 

Agreement for establishment and operation of a rawin- 
sonde observation station on the island of Guadeloupe 
in the French West Indies. Effected by exchange of 
notes at Paris March 23, 195(i. 

Entered into force: June 18, 1956 (date of signature of 
an agreement embodying the technical details). 

Iran 

Treaty of amity, economic relations, and consular rights 
Signed at Tehran August 15, 1955.^ 
Ratified by the President: September 14, 1956. 

Netlierlands 

Agreement for establishment and operation of rawinsonde 
observation stations in Curagao and St. Martin. Ef- 
fected by exchange of notes at The Hague August 6 and 
16, 1956. 

Entered into force: September 12, 1956 (date of signa- 
ture of an arrangement embodying the technical 
details). 

Treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation, with proto- 
col and exchange of notes. Signed at The Hague March 
27, 1956.= 
Ratified by the President : September 14, 1956. 



■MULTILATERAL 

Bills of Lading 

International convention for unification of certain rules 
relating to bills of lading, and protocol of signature. 
Dated at Brussels August 25, 1924. Entered into force 
June 2, 1931. 51 Stat. 233. 
Accession deposited: Netherlands, August 18, 1956. 

Copyright 

Universal copyright convention. Done at Geneva Sep- 
tember 6. 1952. Entered into force September 16, 1955. 
TIAS 3324. 
Accession deposited: Iceland, September 18, 1956. 



Nicaragua 

Treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation. 
at Managua January 21, 1956." 
Ratified by the President: September 14, 1956. 



Signed 



Spain 

Agreement amending the surplus agricultural commodi- 
ties agreement of March 5, 1956, as supplemented (TIAS 
3510, 3540, 3527), by providing for the purchase of vege- 
table oil. Signed at La Toja September 15, 1956. En- 
tered into force September 15, 1956. 



' Not in force for the United States. 
' Not in force. 



October 15, 1956 



605 



DEPARTMENT AND FOREIGN SERVICE 



Meeting of Foreign Service Institute 
Advisory Committee 

The Department of State announced on October 
2 (press release 515) that the Advisory Commit- 
tee for the Foreign Service Institute of the De- 
partment of State was holding its third meeting 
in Washington that day. Present and future de- 
velopments in the Institute's program of in-serv- 
ice training for U.S. Foreign Service officers and 
otlier Government employees engaged in foreign 
affairs were to be considered. The 13-man com- 
mittee was appointed by Secretary Dulles to ad- 
vise the Institute. 

The day's agenda included a meeting with the 
Secretary following a luncheon in the Secretary's 
dining room with Deputy Under Secretary Loy 
W. Henderson, chairman of the committee, and 
the Department's Counselor, Douglas MacArthur 
II, as hosts. Morning and afternoon sessions were 
held in the office of Harold B. Hoskins, Director 
of the Foreign Service Institute and deputy chair- 
man of the committee. 

Those present, in addition to Mr. Henderson 
and Mr. Hoskins, were : 

Ellsworth Bunker, President, tbe American N'ational Bed 

Cross 
Robert D. Calkins, President, The Brookings Institution, 

Washington, D. C. 
Robert Cutler, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Old 

Colony Trust Company, Boston, Mass. 
Clyde Kluckholin, Director, Laboratory of Social Sciences, 

Harvard University 
William L. Langer, Chairman, Committee on Regional 

Studies, Harvard University 
Charles E. Saltzman, Goldman, Sachs and Company, New 

York, N. T. 
Robert Newbegin (ex officio), Deputy Assistant Secretary 

of State for Personnel 

The Institute's immediate goals are to increase 
and improve language-training opportunities for 
Foreign Service officers in Washington and at U.S. 
posts abroad, to expand other training opportuni- 
ties for officers abroad, and to start a course in 
Washington for senior officers in the Foreign Serv- 
ice comparable in the diplomatic field to the ad- 
vanced training given at the War College and 



other military colleges. The present program in- 
cludes courses in career training, language instruc- 
tion, modern management, and international 
studies. 

The relation of language training to other forms 
of instruction, and the problem of selecting mature 
officers for periods of full-time training lasting 6 
weeks or more were to be discussed by the com- 
mittee. Mr. Hoskins also disclosed that a course 
of basic training, now required of all newly ap- 
pointed Foreign Service officers, was being ex- 
tended from 3 to 6 months to allow more time for 
language training at the Institute. He also told 
of a plan whereby an officer stationed abroad may 
now take a course related to his work at any nearby 
university, such as the Sorbomie, the University of 
London, or the University of Perugia in Italy, 
provided he obtains the permission of the Insti- 
tute and of his superior in the field. 

Designations 

William C. Burdett as Special Assistant to the Assistant 
Secretary for Near Eastern, South Asian, and African 
Affairs, effective October 7. 

Howard L. Parsons as Director of the Office of North- 
east Asian Affairs, effective October 7 (press release 518 
dated October 3). 



Check List of Department of State 
Press Releases: October 1-7 

Releases may be obtained from the News Division, 
Department of State, Washington 25, D.C. 

No. Date Subject 

Delegation to Panamanian inaugura- 
tion. 

Foreign Service Institute Advisory 
Committee (rewrite). 

Dulles : news conference. 

Discussions on international aviation. 

Parsons appointment (rewrite). 

Air mission agreement with Argentina. 

U.S. participation in Brussels world 
fair (rewrite). 

Elbrick : "American Policy and the Fu- 
ture of NATO." 

Wailes sworn in as Minister to Hun- 
gary. 

Educational exchange. 

Educational exchange. 

Dulles : Williams College. 

North Atlantic Planning Board 
Ocean Shipping (rewrite). 

U.S.-U.S.S.R. atomic energy notes. 

*Not printed. 

tHeld for a later issue of the Bulletin. 



*.514 


10/1 


515 


10/2 


516 
517 
518 
519 
520 


10/2 
10/2 
10/3 
10/3 
10/3 


521 


10/4 


*522 


10/4 


*523 

*524 

525 

526 


10/4 
10/4 
10/5 
10/5 


1527 


10/6 



for 



606 



Department of State Bulletin 



October 15, 1956 



Ind 



e X 



Vol. XXXV, No. 903 



Argentina 

Air Force Mission Agreement Signed With Argen- 
tina 604 

Transcript of Secretary Dulles' News Conference . . 574 

Atomic Energy 

Developing Economic Power From the Energy of 

the Atom (Strauss, Davis) 589 

Procedures for Obtaining U.S. Aid on Research 
Reactor Projects 598 

Aviation. Discussions on Current Problems in In- 
ternational Aviation 601 

Belgium. U.S. Commissioner General Named for 
Brussels World Fair 582 

Department and Foreign Service 

Designations (Burdett, Parsons) 606 

The Functions of the American Consul (Donald- 
son) eo2 

Meeting of Foreign Service Institute Advisory Com- 
mittee 606 

Economic Affairs 

Developing Economic Power From the Energy of the 
Atom (Strauss, Davis) 589 

Discussions on Current Problems in International 
Aviation 601 

First Prize Essay Contest on International 
Travel 604 

The Functions of the American Consul (Donald- 
son) 602 

North Atlantic Planning Board for Ocean Shipping . 588 

Procedures for Obtaining U.S. Aid on Research Re- 
actor Projects 598 

Educational Exchange. U.S.S.R. Accepts Invita- 
tion To Send Election Observers (text of Soviet 
note) 582 

Egypt 

The Problems of Peace (Dulles) 571 

Suez Canal Users Association Organized at London 

(texts of resolutions) 580 

Transcript of Secretary Dulles' News Conference . . 574 

Europe. Transcript of Secretary Dulles' News Con- 
ference 574 

Health, Education, and Welfare. Fourth-Quarter 
Export Quota for Salk Vaccine 605 

Iceland 

j Transcript of Secretary Dulles' News Conference . . 574 
U.S.-Icelandic Discussions Regarding 1951 Agree- 
ment (joint communique) 580 

International Information. U.S. Commissioner 

General Named for Brussels World Fair 582 

International Organizations and Meetings. North 

Atlantic Planning Board for Ocean Shipping . . . 588 



Israel. Transcript of Secretary Dulles' News Con- 
ference 574 

Japan. Transcript of Secretary Dulles' News Con- 
ference 574 

Military Affairs. Air Force Mission Agreement 

Signed With Argentina 604 

Mutual Security 

Air Force Mission Agreement Signed With Argen- 
tina 604 

American Policy and the BMture of NATO (El- 

bricl<) 583 

The Problems of Peace (Dulles) 571 

U.S.-Icelandic Discussions Regarding 1951 Agree- 
ment (joint communique) 580 

Nicaragua 

Death of President Somoza of Nicaragua (Eisen- 
hower) 573 

Transcript of Secretary Dulles' News Conference . . 574 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

American Policy and the Future of NATO (El- 

bricli) 583 

North Atlantic Planning Board for Ocean Shipping . 588 
U.S.-Icelandic Discussions Regarding 1951 Agree- 
ment (joint communique) 580 

Panama. Transcript of Secretary Dulles' News Con- 
ference 574 

Presidential Documents. Death of President Som- 
oza of Nicaragua 573 

Protection of Nationals and Property. The Func- 
tions of the American Consul (Donaldson) . . . 602 

Treaty Information 

Air Force Mission Agreement Signed With Argen- 
tina 604 

Current Actions 605 

U.S.S.R. U.S.S.R. Accepts Invitation To Send 

Election Observers (text of Soviet note) .582 

United Nations. Developing Economic Power From 
the Energy of the Atom (Strauss, Davis) 589 

Yugoslavia. Transcript of Secretary Dulles' News 
Conference 574 

Name Indea> 

Burdett, William C 606 

Cullman, Howard S 582 

Davis, W. Kenneth 593 

Donaldson, Allyn C 602 

Dulles, Secretary 571, 574 

Eisenhower, President 573 

Elbriclf, C. Burlie 583 

Jonsson, Emil 580 

Parsons, Howard L 606 

Strauss, Lewis L 539 



U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTINS OFFICE; I9B6 




the 

epartment 

of 



Stat 



United States 
Government Printing Office 

DIVISION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS 

Washington 25, D. C. 



PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE TO AVOID 

PAYMENT OF POSTAGE, C300 

(GPO) 



OFFICIAL BUSINESS 



A new release in the popular Background series . . 

United Nations General Assembly- 
A Review cf the Tenth Session 



The tenth regular session of the United Nations General As- 
sembly convened on September 20, 1955, and adjourned 3 months 
later on December 20. 

Highlights of the tenth session which are described in this Back- 
ground pamphlet are : 

1. The admission of 16 new members, enlarging U.N. member- 
ship from 60 to 76 countries. 

2. The endorsement of further steps toward the establishment 
of an International Atomic Energy Agency and the recommenda- 
tion for a second international conference on the peaceful uses of 
atomic energy. 

3. The decision to give priority in U.N. disarmament talks to 
confidence-building measures, including President Eisenhower's 
proposal of mutual aerial inspection and Marshal Bulganin's plan 
for establishing control posts at strategic centers, as well as all such 
measures of adequately safeguarded disarmament as are feasible. 

4. The progress made toward early establishment of the Inter- 
national Finance Corporation. 

5. The decision to explore the organization of a Special United 
Nations Fund for Economic Development. 

6. The Assembly approval of a Charter Eeview Conference "at 
an appropriate time," the date and place to be fixed at a subse- 
quent session of the Assembly. 

Copies of this publication may be purchased from the Superin- 
tendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, 
Washington 25, D.C., at 15 cents a copy. 



Publication 6322 



15 cents 



Order Form ' 

Supt. of Documents „, , .,,,..>,. ^ 

Govt Printins Office Please send me copies of United Nations General Assembly- 

Washington 25, D.C. ^ ^«'^'««' »' "«« ^^"'* Session. 

Name: 

i 

Enclosed find: I c^ ^ « jj 

i Street Address : 

$ , ■ \ 

(cash, cheek, or ] City, Zone, and State: 

money order). | 



FHE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 




^5 =.-5./^^ 




Vol. XXXV, No. 904 



October 22, 1956 



CiAL 

KLY RECORD 



/^ Rec'd 
THE SUEZ QUESTION IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL 

Statements by Secretary Dulles 611 

Text of Resolution "."""r". . . 616 

CONSTANTINOPLE CONVENTION OF 1888 • Text of 

Convention Respecting the Free Navigation of the Suez 
Maritime Canal Signed at Constantinople, October 29, 1888 . 617 

U.S. ECONOMIC POLICY AND PROGRAMS IN THE 

FAR EAST • by Howard P. Jones 635 

ADVANCING THE SECURITY OF THE FREE WORLD • 

Excerpts from the Tenth Semiannual Report on the Mutual 
Security Program 642 

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO PARTICIPATE IN 
LIMITED TRADE AGREEMENT NEGOTIATIONS 
WITH CUBA 646 

CORRESPONDENCE WITH U.S.S.R. ON PEACEFUL 

USES OF ATOMIC ENERGY 620 



ED STATES 
riGN POLICY 



For index see inside back cover 




Vol. XXXV, No. 904 • Publication 6406 
October 22, 1956 



For sale by the Superintendent ol Documents 

U.S. Qovemment Printing Office 

Washington 26, D.C. 

Pbick: 

82 Issues, domestic $7.60, forolgn $10.26 

Single copy, 20 cents 

The printing of this publication has been 
approved by the Director of the Bureau of 
the Budget (January 19, 1956). 

Note: Contents of this publication are not 
copyrighted and items contained herein may 
be reprinted. Citation of the Department 
OF State Bulletin as the source will be 
appreciated. 



The Department of State BULLETIN, 
a weekly publication issued by the 
Public Services Division, provides the 
public and interested agencies of 
the Government with information on 
developments in the field of foreign 
relations and on the work of the 
Department of State and the Foreign 
Service. The BULLETIN includes se- 
lected press releases on foreign policy, 
issued by the White House and the 
Department, and statements and ad- 
dresses made by the President and by 
the Secretary of State and other offi- 
cers of the Department, as well as 
special articles on various phases of 
international affairs and the func- 
tions of the Department. Informa- 
tion is included concerning treaties 
and international agreements to 
which the United States is or may 
become a party and treaties of gen- 
eral international interest. 

Publications of the Department, 
United Nations documents, and legis- 
lative material in the field of inter- 
national relations are listed currently. 



% 



The Suez Question in the Security Council 



STATEMENT BY SECRETARY DULLES> 

As our general debate draws to a close, it is 
important to recall some fundamentals : 

1. We are here dealing with a situation which 
endangers the maintenance of international peace 
and security. That is conceded by all concerned. 

2. The nations of the world, and particularly 
and explicitly the 76 members of the United Na- 
tions, have conferred upon us, constituting this 
Council, the primary responsibility to maintain 
international peace and security. 

3. We are obligated in discharging this duty to 
act in accordance with the purposes and principles 
of the United Nations and that means to bring 
about by peaceful means, and in conformity with 
the principles of justice and international law, the 
adjustment or settlement of this dangerous situa- 
tion. 

Our duty is clear. It is to seek by feacefnl 
means a settlement in accordance with the princi- 
ples of justice and international law. We have 
thus a two-phased responsibility: one aspect re- 
lates to peace; the other aspect relates to justice 
and conformity with law. Let us then consider 
these two aspects of our task. 

Settlement by Peaceful Means 

Wliat are the possibilities of bringing about a 
settlement by peaceful means ? These possibilities 
are good. 

Nearly 21/2 months have elapsed since on July 
26 Egypt seized the Universal Suez Canal Com- 
pany and physically prevented it from discharg- 
ing the responsibilities which had been conferred 
upon it in 1868 to run until 1968. 



' Made before the U.N. Security Council at New Yorlj 
on Oct. 9 (U.S./U.N. press release 2468). For a statement 
on Sept. 26 by Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., on the 
inscription of the Suez items on the Security Council 
agenda, see Bulletin of Oct. 8, 1956, p. 560. 



The nations which are deeply aggrieved and 
endangered by this action have made no forcible 
response. They have scrupulously lived up to 
their obligation, under the charter, to seek, first 
of all, a solution by negotiation or other peaceful 
means. 

On August 1, 1956, just 4 days after the Canal 
Company seizure, the Governments of France, the 
United Kingdom, and the United States met to- 
gether and decided that a solution should first of 
all be sought by a meeting together of the 24 
nations principally concerned, including Egypt.^ 
That was Peace Move No. 1. 

From August 16 to 24, a conference was held. 
Egypt declined to attend. But there were repre- 
sented all seven of the unquestionably surviving 
signatories of the Suez Canal Treaty of 1888, seven 
other countries which are the principal users of 
the canal, and another eight countries whose econo- 
mies depend most largely upon the canal. 

This conference produced an agreement by 18 of 
the 22 upon a formula for settlement which they 
believed should be acceptable both to Egypt and 
to the nations which were users of the canal or 
dependent thereon.^ That was Peace Move No. 2. 

During that conference, a Committee of Five 
Nations was established, under the chairmanship 
of the Prime Minister of Australia [Robert G. 
Menzies], to communicate the views of the 18 to 
Egypt and to ascertain whether or not these views 
would be acceptable as a basis for negotiation. A 
meeting at Geneva was suggested. But the Gov- 
ernment of Egypt indicated that it was not con- 
venient for it to meet with the Committee except 
at Cairo. Accordingly, the Committee, consisting 
of one Prime Minister, three Foreign Ministers, 
and one Deputy for a Foreign Minister, traveled 
to Cairo in their quest for peace. That was Peace 
Move No. 3. 



2 lUd., Aug. l.S, 1956, p. 259. 

'/6i(f., Aug. 27, 1956, p. 335, and Sept. 3, 1956, p. 371. 



Ocfofaer 22, 7956 



611 



The Committee met in Cairo from September 
3 to 9, presenting and explaining the proposal of 
the 18 nations. That was Peace Move No. 4. 

At Cairo the Government of Egypt rejected the 
proposals of the 18, even as a basis for negotiation, 
and it made no counterproposal." Nevertheless, on 
September 19, the 18 nations again met to explore 
further the possibilities of peaceful adjustment. 
They reexamined and reaffirmed their August 
proposals as a fair basis for a peaceful solution of 
the Suez Canal problem, taking into accomit the 
interests of the user nations as well as those of 
Egypt. 

But they went on to seek to create a practical 
means of cooperation with Egypt. They thought 
that, even though Egypt might not be willing at 
this time to agree upon a permanent solution, there 
might perhaps be some practical association be- 
tween the users of the canal and the Egyptian 
Canal Authority. So they decided to set up a co- 
operative association which, acting as their agent, 
could deal with the Egyptian canal authorities in 
these practical matters.^ That was Peace Move 
No. 5. 

Then the Govermnents of France and the United 
Kingdom acted to bring to the attention of this 
Council the situation with which we now deal. 
That was Peace Move No. 6. 

Mr. President, in the light of this history no one, 
I think, can fairly question the peaceful desires 
of those who are aggrieved by the action of Egypt. 
Rarely, if ever in history, have comparable efforts 
been made to settle peacefully an issue of such 
dangerous proportions. This Council knows that 
it is not dealing with governments bent on the 
use of force. Even those most aggrieved have 
shown their desire to bring about a just solution 
by peaceful means. 

Settlement in Conformity With Justice and Inter- 
national Law 

Now, Mr. President, I turn to the second aspect 
of our problem — that is to find a solution which 
will conform to the principles of justice and of 
international law. And here also the way is clear. 

Oftentimes we are confronted by situations as 
to which there is no relevant body of international 
law. But in the present situation there is a govern- 
ing treaty, the convention of 1888. It provides 



that for all time the vessels of all the nations shall 
have the right of free and equal passage through ' 
the Suez Canal. It calls for a "definite system 
destined to guarantee" such right of use, and it 
incorporates by reference the concession of 1868 
to the Universal Suez Canal Company as provid- 
ing such a system. 

Much has been said about the need to respect the 
"sovereignty" of Egypt in relation to the canal. 

Sovereignty exists where a nation can do what- 
ever it wants. Generally speaking, a nation can 
do what it wants within its own territory. And 
generally speaking, no nation has any rights 
within the territory of another sovereign nation. 

Now the Suez Canal, to be sure, goes through 
what is now Egypt, and in this sense the canal is 
"Egyptian." But the canal is not, and never has 
been, a purely internal affair of Egypt with which 
Egypt could do what it wanted. The canal has 
always been, from the day of its opening, an inter- 
national waterway dedicated to the free passage 
of the vessels of all nations. Its character as an 
international right-of-way was guaranteed for all 
time by the 1888 convention. Egypt cannot right- 
fully stop any vessel or cargo from going through 
the canal. And for those who use that right-of- 
way to combine to secure the observance of their 
rights is no violation of Egyptian sovereignty but 
a clear exercise of their rights accorded by inter- 
national law, namely, by the convention of 1888. 

Mr. President, Egypt has accepted this legal 
view and has indeed expounded it before this 
Council. I recall that on August 5, 1947, the rep- 
resentative of Egypt spoke here before this Secu- 
rity Council of the situation which existed when 
the United Kingdom had treaty rights in lands 
abutting on the canal. The Egyptian representa- 
tive pointed out that this did not make freedom 
of passage dependent on the United Kingdom. 
In the course of his remarks, the Egyptian repre- 
sentative said : " 

The status of the Suez Canal is quite different from that 
of other artificial waterways which serve as arteries of 
international communication for it is fixed by that multi- 
partite international agreement to which I have just re- 
ferred [the Constantinople Convention of 1888]. The 
Suez Canal was an international enterprise from the very 
beginning, and within a few years after it was opened all 
the principal powers of Europe joined with the Ottoman 
Empire, acting for Egypt, to regulate its traflSc, its neu- 
trality and its defense. 



*Ibid., Sept. 24, 1956, p. 467. 
' Ibid., Oct. 1, 1956, p. 503. 

612 



° Security Council, 175th meeting, p. 1756. 

Department of State Bulletin 



And I underline the words of the Egyptian 
representative that under the convention of 1888 
the nations organized to regulate the traffic of the 
canal. 

On October 14, 1954, the representative of 
Egypt, again speaking before this Security Coun- 
cil in the Bat Galim case said : ' 

. . . The Canal company, which controls the passage, 
is an international company controlled by authorities who 
are neither Egyptian nor necessarily of any particular 
nationality. It is a universal company, it functions, and 
things will continue to be managed that way in future. 

So spoke the representative of Egypt before this 
Council on October 14, 1954. 

So much, Mr. President, for the law of the case. 

Then there is the question of justice, which we 
are also required to bear in mind and to apply. 
Wliat is the just thing to do ? The Council should, 
I believe, in this matter give much weight to the 
conclusions of the 18 nations which joined in an 
expression of their views last August. The 18 
included all but one of the clearly surviving signa- 
tories of the 1888 convention; they represented 
over 90 percent of the total traffic ; and they repre- 
sented countries whose economies are largely de- 
pendent upon the canal. Among the 18 were coun- 
tries of Europe, Asia, Africa, Australasia, and 
America. 

They affirmed that, as stated in the preamble of 
the convention of 1888, there should be established 
"a definite system destined to guarantee at all 
times, and for all the powers, the free use of the 
Suez Maritime Canal." That is the language of 
the preamble of the treaty. 

They enunciated four basic principles which, 
with due regard to the sovereign rights of Egypt, 
should find expression through such a system. 
And I quote their statement of these four basic 
principles, Mr. Chairman : 

a. EflScient and dependable operation, maintenance and 
development of the Canal as a free, open and secure in- 
ternational waterway in accordance with the principles 
of the Convention of 1888. 

b. Insulation of the operation of the Canal from the 
influence of the politics of any nation. 

c. A return to Egypt for the use of the Suez Canal which 
will be fair and equitable and increasing with enlarge- 
ments of its capacity and greater use. 

d. Canal tolls as low as is consistent with the fore- 
going requirements and, except for c. above, no profit. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, how could anyone seriously 



' Security Council, 682d meeting, p. 31. 
October 22, 1956 



dispute these principles? And indeed only one 
of them was disputed at the August conference, 
and that was seriously disputed only by the Soviet 
Union. That was the second principle to which I 
have referred, namely, that the operation of the 
canal should be insulated from the influence of 
the politics of any nation. 

But is not that the essence of the matter ? Here 
we have an international waterway which, as the 
Egyptian Government has said, "was an interna- 
tional enterprise from the very beginning." The 
economies of a score or more of nations of Europe, 
Asia, and Africa are vitally dependent upon it. 
If such a waterway may be used as the instrument 
of national policy by any government — any gov- 
ernment which physically controls it — then that 
canal is bound to be an international bone of con- 
tention. Then no nation depending on the canal 
can feel secure, for all but the controlling nation 
would be condemned to live under an economic 
"sword of Damocles." That would be to negate 
the 1888 convention and to violate both justice and 
law. 

If, Mr. President, as the charter commands, we 
are to seek justice, we must agree that the opera- 
tion of this international utility shall be insulated 
from the politics of any nation. 

I believe that this Council can accept unhesitat- 
ingly the principles enunciated by the 18 nations as 
principles of justice. 

Dealing Concurrently With Peace and Justice 

Now the 18 then went on to indicate a mechanism 
by which these principles might be applied. They 
suggested institutional arrangements for coopera- 
tion between Egypt and other interested nations 
and the creation of a Suez Canal Board on which 
Egypt and others would be represented. This 
Board, they suggested, should be associated with, 
and make periodic reports to, the United Nations. 
They suggested that arbitration should be agreed 
upon to settle disputes and that there should be 
effective sanctions against violation of the ar- 
rangement. 

There exist, of course, a great variety of means 
whereby the four basic principles stated by the 
18 could be carried out. I do not suppose that 
any one of the 18 regards the particular mecha- 
nism suggested as sacrosanct. And I believe that 
this Council ought not close its mind to any alter- 
native suggestions in this respect which might be 
made. 



613 



But so far as the basic principles are concerned, 
I do not see how they can be disregarded by this 
Council when it invokes, as it must, the principles 
of justice. 

So, Mr. President, we see that the problem that 
we face is not a problem of restraining nations 
which are bellicose and which want war, for there 
are no such nations. Nor do we have the problem 
of creating a new body of international law, or of 
applying justice where the equities are confused. 
Peace is sought by all, and the principles of jus- 
tice and of international law are clear. The prob- 
lem we face is that of dealing concurrently with 
peace and justice, as is required by our charter. 

No nation has more eloquently expressed the in- 
terconnection of peace and justice than has the 
Government of Egypt. 

It will be recalled that our charter, as drafted 
at Dumbarton Oaks by three great powers, con- 
tained no reference to justice. It merely called 
for peace, a peace which presumably would, they 
hoped, be durable, not because it was a just peace 
but because presumably it would be enforced by 
the might of a few great powers. 

But that concept was repudiated at San Fran- 
cisco. There the interdependence of peace and 
justice was recognized and the first article of our 
charter was rewritten so as to require this organi- 
zation to seek "to bring about by peaceful means, 
and in conformity with the principles of justice 
and international law, adjustment or settlement of 
international disputes or situations which might 
lead to a breach of the peace." The new words 
introduced, Mr. President, were those I empha- 
sized in my remarks — the words "and in conform- 
ity with the principles of justice and international 
law." And the charter went on to require this 
Security Council, in discharging its primary re- 
sponsibility in the maintenance of international 
peace and security, to act in accordance with the 
principles expressed in this article 1. 

At San Francisco the nation which most ar- 
dently, most effectively, and most eloquently cham- 
pioned this interconnection of peace and justice 
was Egypt. I would like to quote at this point a 
passage from one of the statements then made by 
the representative of Egypt. He said : 

We feel that the Council, the Security Council, will 
really play the part of the political court of law and 
it is indispensable that the principles of justice and law 
should always be present in its deliberations. The last 
araunient with which we were confronted was that if v/e 



asked the Security Council to respect justice and inter- 
national law it might make the burden of the Organiza- 
tion heavier, and more particularly the burden of the 
powers which were mainly responsible for the mainte- 
nance of peace and security. 

I believe {the Egyptian representative went on to say) 
that the adoption of our amendment would not be much 
as compared with the sacritiees we have all suffered and 
are aU ready to suffer again for the sake of maintaining 
peace and security in the world. If we want to keep 
peace and security only, we would not differ much from 
Hitler, who was also trying to do that and who, as a 
matter of fact, partly succeeded. But where the dif- 
ference lies is that we want to maintain peace and secu- 
rity in conformity with the principles of International law 
and justice. 

So spoke the voice of Egypt, and with those 
sentiments we can, I think, all agree. 

Importance of Suez Question 

Mr. President and fellow members of the Coun- 
cil, it is difficult to exaggerate the importance of 
this proceeding. Our Council enjoys on the one 
hand a demonstrated desire for peace on the part 
of all the parties. On the other hand the situation 
is governed by principles of justice and of law such 
as are rarely evident. If, under these favorable 
conditions, with all of these assets, our Council 
finds itself impotent to secure a settlement by 
peaceful means in accordance with the principles 
of justice and international law, then our failure 
would be a calamity of immense proportions. 

This seems to be recognized by those who have 
spoken around this table. And our general de- 
bate has on the whole been temperate and con- 
structive. 

I say "on the whole" for there have been ex- 
ceptions. One such was the portrayal by the 
Soviet Foreign Minister [Dmitri T. Shepilov] of 
so-called "United States monopolies" clad, as he 
picturesquely put it, in "snow white robes" and 
with "whetted appetites" on the prowl through- 
out the world seeking new victims. 

Another exception was the Soviet Foreign Min- 
ister's proposal that we should remit this problem 
to a committee to which the Soviet Foreign Min- 
ister said, and I quote from the English transla- 
tion of his speech : "The most important requisite 
is that the composition of the committee be bal- 
anced in such a way as to forestall the prevalence 
of some one point of view." Now, he obviously 
believes it unfortmiate that 18 nations, represent- 
ing over 90 percent of the traffic and a diversified 
user interest, could agi'ee on a solution. So lie 



614 



Departmenf of State Bulletin 



wants to make a fresh start by establishing a com- 
mittee which is so constituted that we can know 
in advance that it will never agree ! 

It is not without precedent that a government 
feels that it can gain by perpetuating controversy. 
We have a proverb about "fishing in troubled 
waters." But it is usually considered respectable 
to veil such purpose. Rarely has a scheme to per- 
petuate controversy been so candidly revealed. 

The Government of Egypt, in a more construc- 
tive vein, has proposed that we establish a nego- 
tiating body which will have the guidance of an 
agreed set of principles to work on and have 
agreed objectives to keep in mind and to attain. 
This was indeed the procedure which we sought 
to follow at the London conference which was 
held last August where, as I have indicated, a set 
of principles was formulated and cei'tain objec- 
tives were outlined. The heart of the problem, 
as I indicated, seems to me to be whether among 
these principles we can get acceptance of the prin- 
ciple that there should be a system to insure that 
the canal cannot be used by any country as an 
instrument of its distinctly national policy. 

If Egypt accepts that simple and rudimentary 
principle of justice, then I believe that the sub- 
sidiary problems can be resolved. But if that prin- 
ciple be repudiated, then it is difficult to foresee 
a useful role for a negotiating body. Indeed, 
under those conditions it is difficult to foresee any 
settlement in accordance with the principles of 
justice and of international law. 

And if this case cannot be so settled, then the 
whole system of peace with justice sought to be 
established by this charter will have been under- 
mined. 

Surely we can do better than that. I feel con- 
fident that no nation here desires other than 
friendly relations with Egypt. Indeed the settle- 
ment proposed by the user nations, representing 
over 90 percent of the traffic, will significantly 
promote the welfare of Egypt. A peaceful and 
equitable solution of this problem would open up 
a vista of new hope for an area of the world where 
the peoples have for long — for too long — been 
grievously oppressed by alarms of war and by the 
economic burdens of preparing for war. Also, we 
can open up a new hope for all humanity, which 
has begun, I fear, to lose confidence in the capacity 
of this organization to secure peace and justice. 

"Wlien the choices before us are thus clearly seen, 
who can doubt what our choice will be ? 



Mr. President, the United Kingdom-French 
resolution embodies the basic principles to which 
we have referred. It will enable this Council to 
make a choice which we can confidently expect will 
preserve peace with justice. It will uphold the 
authority and the prestige of this organization. 

Accordingly, as I said last Friday,' the United 
States intends to vote for that resolution. 



CLOSING STATEMENT BY SECRETARY DULLES 

U.S./IT.N. press release 2471 dated October 13 

I wish first of all to express my gratification at 
the large measure of progress that was made dur- 
ing this week of Security Council activity. This 
Suez Canal problem is one of vast importance and 
of great complexity, and it easily arouses great 
emotion. It is a tribute to this Council and above 
all to the Foreign Ministers of Egypt, France, and 
the United Kingdom and to our Secretary-General 
that the problem has been considered here calmly 
and constructively and that important agreements 
have emerged. 

We cannot expect a solution all at once. A solu- 
tion comes only by stages, and, by agreeing upon 
the principles — the requirements — of a definitive 
settlement, an important stage has been passed. 
We can enter into the next stage with confidence. 

The principles here agreed upon are realistic 
and concrete. They will permit the future pro- 
posals and conduct of the parties-in-interest in 
implementing them to be judged both by this 
Council and by the world. In my opening state- 
ment I spoke of the principles which governed a 
just solution of tlus problem. I emphasized one 
in particular, namely, that the operation of the 
canal should be insulated from the politics of any 
country. I said that, if that just principle were 
accepted, I believed the remaining problems could 



' Secretary Dulles made the following statement in the 
Security Council on Oct. 5 (U.S./U.N. press release 2465) : 

"Mr. President, I should like to postpone until a later 
date my own participation in this debate. However, I 
do at this point wish to make clear that the United States 
adheres to the position which it took at the first London 
conference last August as a party to the 18-nation pro- 
posals, and that the United States intends to vote for the 
resolution which has been introduced by the United King- 
dom and France. 

"Let me add that I welcome the suggestion of the United 
Kingdom for a restricted meeting of this Council after 
the general debate is concluded." 



October 22, 1956 



615 



Text of U.K.-French Proposal ° 

D.N. doc. S/3671 dated October 13 

The Security Council, 

Noting the declarations made before it and the 
accounts of the development of the exploratory 
conversations on the Suez question given by the 
Secretary-General of the United Nations and the 
Foreign Ministers of Egypt, France and the United 
Kingdom ; 

Agrees that any settlement of the Suez question 
should meet the following requirements: 

( 1 ) there should be free and open transit through 
the Canal vpithout discrimination, overt or co- 
vert — this covers both ijolitical and technical 
aspects ; 

(2) the sovereignty of Egypt should be respected ; 

(3) the operation of the Canal should be insulated 
from the politics of any country ; 

(4) the manner of fixing tolls and charges should 
be decided by agreement between Egypt and the 
users ; 

( 5 ) a fair proportion of the dues should be allotted 
to development ; 

(C) in case of disputes, unresolved affairs between 
the Suez Canal Company and the Egyptian Gov- 
ernment should be settled by arbitration with 
suitable terms of reference and suitable provi- 
sions for the payment of sums found to be due ; 

Considers that the proposals of the Eighteen 
Powers correspond to the requirements set out 
above and are suitably designed to bring about a 
settlemetit of the Suez Canal question by peaceful 
means in conformity with justice ; 

Notes that the Egyijtian Government, while de- 
claring its readiness in the exploratory conversa- 
tions to accept the principle of organized collabora- 
tion between an Egyptian Authority and the users, 
has not yet formulated sufficiently precise proposals 
to meet the requirements set out above ; 

Invites the Governments of Egypt, France and the 
United Kingdom to continue their interchanges and 
in this connexion invites the Egyptian Government 
to make known promptly its proposals for a system 
meeting the requirements set out above and pro- 
viding guarantees to the users not less effective 
than those sought by the proposals of the Eighteen 
Powers ; 

Considers that pending the conclusion of an agree- 
ment for the definitive settlement of the regime of 
the Suez Canal on the basis of the requirements .set 
out above, the Suez Canal Users' As.sociation, which 
has been qualified to receive the dues payable by 
ships belonging to its members, and the competent 
Egyptian authorities, should co-oiierate to ensure 
the satisfactory operation of the Canal and free 
and open transit through the Canal in accordance 
with the 18S8 Convention. 



be resolved. That principle has been accepted, 
and I adhere to my belief that the remaining prob- 
lems can be resolved. 

I turn now to the resolution introduced by the 
Governments of France and the United Kingdom. 

The first portion embodies the principles or 
requirements which have been agreed upon. From 
what was said here yesterday and what has been 
said here today, I believe that this portion of the 
resolution meets with our warm and complete 
acceptance. 

Now, I should like to comment briefly on the 
balance of the resolution as to which certain ques- 
tions have been raised. 

The third paragraph characterizes the proposals 
of the 18 powers as being suitably designed to 
bring about a settlement in conformity with jus- 
tice. I think, Mr. President, that that is an ac- 
curate and indeed conservative statement. Those 
proposals emerged last August out of a week of 
intensive study. I should like to read you the 
names of the 18 countries: Australia, Denmark, 
Ethiopia, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Japan, 
the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, 
Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, the United 
Kingdom, and the United States. 

Mr. President, this Council can, I think, con- 
fidently assmne that proposals having this broad 
foundation, which includes countries whose na- 
tionals represent over 90 percent of the shipping 
through the canal, the countries whose pattern of 
traffic shows the greatest dependence on the canal, 
and countries of wide geographical and cultural 
distribution, must be reasonable. 

Of course, the resolution does not suggest that 
the proposals of the 18 are the oniy proposals 
which could comply with the principles upon 
which we have agreed. No one has contended that. 



'An earlier draft resolution (U.N. doc. S/3666) was 
introduced in the Security Council by France and the 
U.K. on Oct. 5 but did not come to a vote. The above 
draft was submitted following private conversations be- 
tween Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold and the 
Egyptian, French, and British Foreign Ministers. 

In the voting on Oct. 13, the Council unanimously 
approved the first part of the proposal, which was later 
circulated as S/3675. A separate vote was taken on the 
remainder (beginning with the paragraph "Considers that 
the proposals . . .") ; the U.S.S.R. vetoed this part, and 
Yugoslavia also cast a negative vote. A Yugoslav pro- 
posal introduced on Oct. 13 (S/3672) did not come to a 
vote. 



616 



Department of State Bulletin 



In my opening statement I said there exists of 
course a great variety of means whereby the basic 
principles stated by the 18 could be carried out. 
I went on to say, "I believe that this Council ought 
not to close its mind to . . . alternative sugges- 
tions." 

I think this viewpoint is clearly reflected by the 
language of the resolution, which, while pointing 
out the acceptability of the proposals of the 18, 
goes on to invite the Egyptian Government to sub- 
mit alternative proposals which would equally 
accomplish the desired result. The resolution as 
it now stands, when read as a whole, makes quite 
clear that alternative proposals submitted by 
Egypt which would also meet these requirements 
would be equally acceptable. 

We are, I am sure, all glad to have heard the 
declaration made earlier today by the distin- 
guished Foreign Minister of Egypt [Mahmud 
Fawzi] thai indeed certain concrete proposals 
have been made by Egypt in the course of the 
confidential exploratory talks. This fact should, 
I think, make more acceptable this portion of the 
resolution which invites Egypt to make precisely 
such proposals. 

The last paragraph of the resolution deals with 
provisional measures. The Foreign Minister of 
the Soviet Union has suggested that because this 
matter is before the Council no provisional or 
interim measures are required. That, I think, is 
hardly logical. Our charter itself contemplates 
that provisional measures may be called for by 
the Council in relation to matters that are before 
it. In other words, the charter makes it quite clear 
that, simply because a case is pending before the 
Council, this does not exclude the need for interim 
arrangements. The Soviet Foreign Minister has 
suggested that the interim arrangements contem- 
plated would involve the exercise by the users asso- 
ciation of administrative powers in Egypt. That 
is not the case. Wliat is contemplated is practical 
cooperation at the working level between the users 
and the competent Egyptian authorities. 

It has also been suggested that the resolution 
would substitute the Suez Canal Users Associa- 
tion for the Egyptian authorities in the collection 
of dues. That is not the case. Wliat is said is that 
the users association is in fact, as organized, quali- 
fied to act in respect of dues payable by ships be- 
longing to its members. Whether these ships de- 
cide to pay to the association as their agent is for 
them and for their governments to decide. Neither 



this Council nor the users association itself at- 
tempts any compulsory regime. Since, however, 
the users association already has a membership 
representing approximately 90 percent of the 
shipping, it can be a useful instrument for prac- 
tical cooperation at the operating level while a 
definitive solution is being worked out. 

Mr. President, there is nothing in the resolution 
which should be in the slightest degree offensive 
to Egypt or which is derogatory of Egypt or 
Egyptian sovereignty. As we read it, it repre- 
sents an honest attempt to advance our pursuit 
of peace and justice through the next stage. 

We attach particular importance to the invita- 
tion to the Governments of Egypt, France, and 
the United Kingdom to continue their inter- 
changes. What has so far developed out of these 
interchanges held in the presence of the Secretary- 
General of the United Nations has already yielded 
important positive results. We believe that it is a 
procedure to be pursued. 

For the reasons given, Mr. President, the United 
States intends to vote for the resolution as sub- 
mitted by France and the United Kingdom.^" 

Constantinople Convention of 1888 

Following is a text of the 1888 Convention 
Resfecting the Free Navigation of the Suez Mari- 
time Canal released hy the U.N. Department of 
Public Information on September 25 ( U.N. press 
release SC/ 1793). 

Convention Respecting the Free Navigation of the 
Suez Maritime Canal 

Signed at Constantinople, October 29, 1888. 

In the Name of Almighty God, Her Majesty the Queen 
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, 
Empress of India ; His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, 
King of Prussia ; His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, 
King of Bohemia, etc., and Apostolic King of Hungary; 
His Majesty the King of Spain, and in his name the Queen 
Regent of the Kingdom ; the President of the French Re- 
public ; His Majesty the King of Italy ; His Majesty the 
King of the Netherlands, Grand Duke of Luxemburg, etc. ; 
His Majesty the Emperor of All the Kussias ; and His 



" For details of the vote, see footnote 9. After the vot- 
ing. Secretary Dulles made the following statement : 

"I regret that it has not been possible for the Council to 
agree on more than the principles, the requirements of 
a settlement. But that already is much. I think of 
course that it is understood that the Council remains 
seized of this matter and that the Secretary-General may 
continue to encourage interchanges between the govern- 
ments of Egypt, France, and the United Kingdom, a pro- 
cedure which has already yielded positive results." 



October 22, 1956 



617 



Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans ; wishing to estab- 
lish, by a Conventional Act, a definite system destined to 
guarantee at all times, and for all the powers, the free use 
of the Suez Maritime Canal, and thus to complete the sys- 
tem under which the navigation of this canal has been 
placed by the Firman of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan, 
dated the 22nd February, 1866 (2 Zilkad^, 1282) and sanc- 
tioning the concessions of His Highness the Khedive, 
have named as their Plenipotentiaries, that is to say : — 

(Here follow the names.) 

Who, having communicated to each other their respec- 
tive full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed 
upon the following articles : 

Article I 

The Suez Maritime Canal shall always be free and 
open, in time of war as in time of peace, to every vessel 
of commerce or of war, without distinction of flag. 

Consequently, the high contracting parties agree not 
in any way to interfere with the free use of the canal, 
in time of war as in time of peace. 

The canal shall never be subjected to the exercise of 
the right of blockade. 

Abticle II 

The high contracting parties, recognizing that the Fresh- 
Water Canal is indispensable to the Maritime Canal, take 
note of the engagements of His Highness the Khedive 
towards the Universal Suez Canal Company as regards 
the Fresh-Water Canal ; which engagements are stipulated 
in a convention bearing date the iSth March, 1863, con- 
taining an expose and four articles. 

They undertake not to interfere in any way with the 
security of that canal and its branches, the working of 
which shall not be exposed to any attempt at obstruction. 

Article III 

The high contracting parties likewise undertake to re- 
spect the plant, establishments, buildings, and works of 
the Maritime Canal and of the Fresh-Water Canal. 

Article IV 

The Maritime Canal remaining open in time of war 
as a free passage, even to the ships of war of belligerents, 
according to the terms of article I of the present treaty, 
the high contracting parties agree that no right of war, 
no act of hostility, nor any act having for its object to 
obstruct the free navigation of the canal, shall be com- 
mitted in the canal and its ports of access, as well as 
within a radius of three marine miles from those ports, 
even though the Ottoman Empire should be one of the 
belligerent powers. 

Vessels of war of belligerents shall not revictual or 
take in stores in the canal and its ports of access, except 
in so far as may be strictly necessary. The transit of 
the aforesaid vessels through the canal shall be effected 
with the least possible delay, in accordance with the 
regulations in force, and without any other intermission 



than that resulting from the necessities of the service. 
Their stay at Port Said and in the roadstead of Suez 
shall not exceed 24 hours, except in case of distress. In 
such case they shall be bound to leave as soon as possible. 
An interval of 24 hours shall always elapse between the 
sailing of a belligerent ship from one of the ports of access 
and the departure of a ship belonging to the hostile power. 

Abticle V 

In time of war belligerent powers shall not disembark 
nor embark within the canal and its ports of access either 
troops, munitions, or materials of war. But in case of 
an accidental hindrance in the canal, men may be em- 
barked or disembarked at the ports of access by detach- 
ments not exceeding 1,000 men, with a corresponding 
amount of war material. 

Article VI 

Prizes shall be subjected, in all respects, to the same 
rules as the vessels of war of belligerents. 

Article VII 

The powers shall not keep any vessel of war in the 
waters of the canal (including Lake Timsah and the 
Bitter Lakes). 

Nevertheless, they may station vessels of war in the 
ports of access of Port Said and Suez, the number of 
which shall not exceed two for each power. 

This right shall not be exercised by belligerents. 

Article VIII 

The agents in Egypt of the signatory powers of the 
present treaty shall be charged to watch over its execu- 
tion. In case of any event threatening the security or the 
free passage of the canal, they shall meet on the summons 
of three of their number under the presidency of their 
Doyen, in order to proceed to the necessary verifications. 
They shall inform the Khedival government of the danger 
which they may have perceived, in order that that govern- 
ment may take proper steps to insure the protection and 
the free use of the canal. Under any circumstances, they 
shall meet once a year to take note of the due execution 
of the treaty. 

The last mentioned meetings shall take place under the 
presidency of a special commissioner nominated for that 
purpose by the Imperial Ottoman government. A com- 
missioner of the Khedive may also take part in the meet- 
ing, and may preside over it in case of the absence of the 
Ottoman commissioner. 

They shall especially demand the suppression of any 
work or the dispersion of any assemblage on either bank 
of the canal, the object or effect of which might be to 
interfere with the liberty and the entire security of the 
navigation. 

Article IX 

The Egyptian government shall, within the limits of 
the powers resulting from the Firmans, and under the 
conditions provided for in the present treaty, take the 
necessary measures for insuring the execution of the said 
treaty. 

In case the Egyptian government should not have sutfi- 



618 



Department of State Bulletin 



cient means at its disposal, it sliall call upon the Im- 
perial Ottoman government, which shall take the neces- 
sary measures to respond to such appeal ; shall give 
notice thereof to the signatory powers of the Declaration 
of London of the 17th March, 1S85; and shall, if neces- 
sary, concert with them on the subject. 

The provisions of articles IV, V, VII, and VIII shall not 
interfere with the measures which shall be taken in virtue 
of the present article. 

Article X 

Similarly, the provisions of articles IV, V, VII, and 
VIII, shall not interfere with the measures which His 
Majesty the Sultan and His Majesty the Khedive, in the 
name of His Imperial Majesty, and within the limits of 
the Firmans granted, might find it necessary to take for 
securing by their own forces the defence of Egypt and the 
maintenance of public order. 

In case His Imperial Majesty the Sultan, or His High- 
ness the Khedive, should find it necessary to avail them- 
selves of the exceptions for which this article provides, 
the signatory powers of the Declaration of London shall 
be notified thereof by the Imperial Ottoman government. 

It is likewise understood that the provisions of the 
four articles aforesaid shall in no case occasion any ob- 
stacle to the measures which the Imperial Ottoman gov- 
ernment may think it necessary to take in order to insure 
by its own forces the defence of its other possessions 
situated on the eastern coast of the Red Sea. 

Abticle XI 

The measures which shall be taken in the cases pro- 
vided for by articles IX and X of the present treaty shall 
not interfere with the free use of the canal. In the same 
cases, the erection of permanent fortifications contrary 
to the provisions of article VIII is prohibited. 

Articxe XII 

The high contracting parties, by application of the 
principle of equality as regards the free use of the canal, 
a principle which forms one of the bases of the present 
treaty, agree that none of them shall endeavor to obtain 
with respect to the canal territorial or commercial ad- 
vantages or privileges in any international arrangements 
which may be concluded. Moreover the rights of Turkey 
as the territorial power are reserved. 

Abticle XIII 

With the exception of the obligations expressly pro- 
vided by the clauses of the present treaty, the sovereign 
rights of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan, and the rights 
and immunities of His Highness the Khedive, resulting 
from the Firmans, are in no way affected. 

Abticle XIV 

The high contracting parties agree that the engage- 
ments resulting from the present treaty shall not be 
limited by the duration of the acts of concession of the 
.Universal Suez Canal Company. 



Abticle XV 

The stipulations of the present treaty shall not inter- 
fere with the sanitary measures in force in Egypt. 

Article XVI 

The high contracting parties undertake to bring the 
present treaty to the knowledge of the states which have 
not signed it, inviting them to accede to it. 

Article XVII 

The present treaty shall be ratified, and the ratifica- 
tions shall be exchanged at Constantinople within the 
space of one month, or sooner if possible. 

In faith of which the respective plenipotentiaries have 
signed the present treaty, and have aftixed to it the seal 
of their arms. 

Done at Constantinople, the 29th day of the month of 
October, in the year 1888. 

For Great Britain Sir William Akthur White 

Germany Joseph de Radowitz 

Austria-Hungary — Henry, Babon de Calice 

Spain Miguel Florez y Garcia 

France Gustave Louis Lanneb, 

Count de Montebello 

Italy Albert, Baron Blanc 

Netherlands Gustave Keun 

Russia Alexandre de Nelidow 

Turkey Mohammed Said Pasha 



Large Tankers To Be Built 
for Oil Transportation 

Memorandum by the President ^ 

October 12, 1956 
I appreciate receiving a report from you stating 
that it would be possible under the authority of 
the Defense Production Act for the Government 
to enter into contractual arrangements with 
United States ship yard owners for the construc- 
tion of large tankers — up to the total called for by 
the Government's full emergency requirements — 
with the understandmg that the Government 
would acquire these tankers in those cases where 
private ship owners did not purchase them. 

I am directing, therefore, that you take steps 
immediately to bring together representatives of 
the National Petroleum Council to meet with the 
Secretary of State, the Seci-etary of the Treasury, 
the Secretary of Defense, the Secretaiy of the In- 
terior, and the Secretary of Commerce, to consider 
plans that will be helpful in assuring the efficiency 

'Addressed to Arthur S. Flemming, Director of the 
Office of Defense Mobilization (White House press release 
dated Oct. 12). 



Ocfober 22, 1956 



619 



and adequacy of the distribution of petroleum sup- 
plies in the foreseeable future in the free world. 

These plans should, so far as the interests of the 
United States are thereby served, provide for the 
building in United States ship yards of a sufficient 
number of large tankers to help supplement exist- 
ing means of distribution and, if necessary, to help 
serve as an alternative in the transportation of oil 
in the free world, particularly from the Middle 
East. The Government's commitments in these 
regards should be limited as indicated in the first 
paragraph above. In addition, the Federal Gov- 
ernment might, whenever necessary, provide 
funds for rehabilitation and modification of 



American ship yards so long as these projects can 
be undertaken on a self-liquidating basis. 

The study should proceed, of course, on the as- 
sumption that plans which are developed are to 
be consistent with the requests that you have made 
to oil importers to voluntarily keep imports of 
crude oil into this country at a level where they 
do not exceed significantly the proportion that im- 
ports bore to the production of domestic crude oil 
in 1954. 

The results of these deliberations should be 
reported to me as soon as practicable. 

DwiGHT D. Eisenhower 



Correspondence With U.S.S.R. on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy 



Press release 527 dated October 6 

An exchange of correspondence between the 
United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist 
Republics on the subject of the peaceful uses of 
atomic energy was released on October 6, 1956. 
This exchange supplements the publication of doc- 
uments exchanged between the two Governments 
during the course of negotiations concerning 
President Eisenhower's proposals before the U.N. 
General Assembly on December 8, 1953.^ 

In response to the President's proposal for es- 
tablishment of an International Atomic Energy 
Agency, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 
at first refused to participate, advancing the argu- 
ment (in notes of April 27, September 22, and 
November 29, 1954) that the peaceful use of fis- 
sionable material leads to the production of more 
fissionable materials and thus to an increase in the 
production and stocks of atomic weapons. 

The United States pointed out that this was a 
problem of grave concern but that diversion of 
materials from peaceful to military uses could be 
avoided by appropriate safeguards. In its note 
of April 14, 1955, the United States suggested the 
joint study of safeguards against diversion of 
materials to military uses. 

Following the atoms-for-peace conference at 



' For texts of the earlier documents, exchanged between 
Jan. 11 and Sept. 23, 1954, see Bulletin of Oct. 4, 1954, 
p. 478. 



Geneva, a meeting of experts of six nations, in- 
cluding the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 
was held to consider the technical aspects of guar- 
anteeing the peaceful use of atomic energy. Sub- 
sequent to this meeting, the Union of Soviet So- 
cialist Republics stated in a note of October 1, 1955, 
that it would be necessary to insert in the charter 
of the proposed agency a provision concerning 
control of materials to prevent their use for other 
than peaceful purposes. The Union of Soviet 
Socialist Republics also stated that, in view of the 
necessity for control, the agency should have a 
staff of inspectors to verify the use of fissionable 
and other materials and of special equipment re- 
ceived from the agency. The draft under consid- 
eration at the conference now in progress in New 
York contains such provisions. 

In order to safeguard against the diversion to 
military use of material provided bilaterally, as 
well as that provided through the agency, the 
United States proposed, on June 1, 1956, that dis- 
cussions be held as to the possibility of standard- 
izing the safeguards which the United States and 
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as princi- 
pal suppliers of material would seek to include in 
agreements covering bilateral transfers. Further- 
more, the United States was concerned, as stated 
in its aide memoire of August 15, 1956, that ade- 
quate safeguarding measures might not be taken 
in the period before the agency could commence 
operations. In its own bilateral agreements the 



620 



Department of State Bulletin 



United States has, with the concurrence of the 
other parties to tlie agreements, provided for safe- 
guards modeled on those of the proposed statute 
of the agency. 

In its aide memoire of September 24, the Union 
of Soviet Socialist Republics states that it has no 
objection to the U.S. proposal for a study of the 
possibility of standardizing safeguards. The 
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics suggests that 
this question be considered with the participation 
of the nations represented at the current interna- 
tional agency conference, as well as other interested 
nations. 

Safeguards in U.S. bilateral agreements are, of 
course, a matter of joint consent by the parties to 
the agreements, and the United States agrees that 
the question of standardizing safeguards in bi- 
lateral agreements should be discussed with na- 
tions interested in such agreements. In the 
view of the United States it would also be use- 
ful for preliminary discussions, of the type held 
among the six nations participating in the August 
1955 talks at Geneva, to be continued among states 
in a position to supply materials, equipment, and 
services for peaceful atomic development. 

The United States continues to believe that uni- 
formity of safeguards is essential in the interest 
of states receiving assistance, as they would other- 
wise be without the protection afforded them by 
a comprehensive safeguard system. Accordingly, 
the United States continues to believe that discus- 
sion of this matter would be useful. 

The texts of the documents follow. 



U. S. NOTE OF NOVEMBER 3, 1954' 

The Government of the United States has considered 
the aide-memoire of September 22 delivered by the Soviet 
Government and wishes to make the following com- 
ments : 

1. The Government of the United States notes with sat- 
isfaction that the Soviet Government is now willing to 
continue the negotiations concerning the peaceful uses 
of atomic energy which followed upon President Eisen- 
hower's proposal of last December 8. 

2. The Government of the United States has taken note 
of the "important principles" which the Soviet Govern- 
ment states must not be over-looked in considering this 
question of international cooperation in the field of peace- 
ful uses of atomic energy. The Government of the United 



'Handed by Secretary Dulles to Soviet Ambassador 
Georgi Zaroubin. 



States is prepared to discuss these principles and their 
application to an agreement between nations to establish 
an agency to foster the peaceful uses of atomic energy 
as well as their application to the operations of such 
an agency. 

3. In its aide-memoire of September 22, the Soviet 
Government states that it wishes not only to continue 
the negotiations on the President's plan for the peace- 
ful uses of atomic energy, bait also to continue examina- 
tion of its proposal of a preliminary ban on the use of 
atomic weapons. However, since the delivery of this 
aide-memoire of September 22, the Soviet Government has 
appeared to recede from its former position in the United 
Nations disarmament negotiations that such a ban must 
precede any useful planning for an international weapons 
control system. Under these circumstances the Govern- 
ment of the United States assumes that the Soviet Govern- 
ment has modified its earlier position that agreement on 
a ban on the use of atomic weapons is a necessary condi- 
tion precedent to useful discussion and agreement in the 
matter of international cooperation on the peaceful uses 
of atomic energy. 

4. As the Government of the United States has stressed 
throughout these negotiations, the President's proposal of 
last December 8 was not a disarmament plan. It was a 
definite step in international cooperation to bring the 
benefits of atomic energy to the peoples of the world. It 
was also an expression of America's sincere desire for a 
new international climate in which the problems of dis- 
armament might find a readier solution. It is hoped 
that participation by the Soviet Government in imple- 
menting the President's proposal will, by the same token, 
be a demonstration of its real interest in changing the 
present atmosphere of mutual distrust. 

The Government of the United States believes that the 
cause of international harmony can be substantially ad- 
vanced by cooperative efforts to foster the peaceful uses 
of atomic energy, siieh efforts to parallel the continuing 
negotiations looking to the establishment of a general and 
safeguarded disarmament program. The cause of hu- 
manity can only be prejudiced by deferring the interna- 
tional development of the peaceful uses of atomic energy 
until the immensely difficult problems of disarmament 
are solved. 

5. The Government of the United States notes that the 
Soviet Government's aide-memoire refers to the question 
of the possibility of diversion of fissionable material from 
power-producing atomic installations. The Government 
of the United States suggests that a good starting point 
at this stage of the United States-Soviet negotiations 
would be a mutual study of this problem and suggests 
that it be examined by experts from the Union of Soviet 
Socialist Republics and the United States. It would be 
agreeable to the Government of the United States for 
such discussions to take place at an early date either in 
the United States or In the Union of Soviet Socialist Re- 
publics or in some third country. If this is acceptable 
to the Soviet Government, the time and place of such a 
meeting could be arranged at short notice. 

6. It is noted that the Soviet Government is ready to 
examine with the Government of the United States the 
opinion of the Government of the United States that there 



October 22, 1956 



621 



are forms of i)eaceful utilization of atomic energy in 
whicii there is no need for weapons-grade material. Such 
applications of atomic energy will be considered by the 
international conference which the Government of the 
United States has proposed that the United Nations con- 
vene next year. It is suggested that participation by 
leading Soviet atomic scientists and engineers in the work 
of this couference will make clear the basis for the belief 
of the Government of the United States that applications 
of atomic energy which do not require weapons-grade 
material can be of great benefit to mankind. 

7. The Soviet Government refers to proiwsals by it 
regarding the peaceful uses of atomic energy. The Gov- 
ernment of the United States will be glad to learn the 
details of the proposals of the Soviet Government and the 
extent to which it is prepared to cooperate with other 
nations in fostering the development of the peaceful uses 
of atomic energy. 

8. The Government of the United States proposes that 
this note and further negotiations between the Govern- 
ment of the United States and the Soviet Government on 
this matter of implementing the President's proposal 
should proceed in private since confidential negotiations 
offer the best prospect of a fruitful exchange of views 
at this time. 

Washington, November 3, 195 J). 



SOVIET AIDE MEMOIRE OF NOVEMBER 29, 1954 3 

The Soviet Government, having considered the memo- 
randum of the United States Government of November 3 
which is In answer to the aide-memoire of the Government 
of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of September 22 
of this year, considers it necessary to state the following : 

In the aide-memoire of the Soviet Government of Sep- 
tember 22 of this year it was pointed out that agreement 
of positions between the United States of America and 
the Soviet Union on a number of substantive questions 
regarding the use of atomic energy has important sig- 
nificance for the achievement of international agreement 
on the utilization of atomic energy for peaceful purposes. 
At the same time the Soviet Government drew the atten- 
tion of the Government of the United States of America 
to certain important principles which must be taken into 
account in considering the question of international co- 
operation in the field of peaceful utilization of atomic 
energy. 

In this connection it was pointed out that an important 
prerequisite of the international agreement under refer- 
ence is the recognition that such agreement must not 
place any country or group of countries in a privileged 
position whereby this country or group of countries could 
enforce its will on other states. 

In its aide-memoire the Soviet Government drew the 
attention of the Government of the United States of 



America also to the fact that an international organ which 
can be created on the basis of an appropriate agreement 
between states will only successfully discharge its func- 
tions if this organ is not used to the detriment of the 
security of some or other states. At the same time the 
Soviet Government stated that it shares the opinion of 
the Government of the United States of America, ex- 
pressed in its memorandum of March 19 of this year, to 
the effect that the appropriate international organ "should 
submit reports to the UN Security Ciouncil and General 
Assembly." 

In its memorandum of November 3 of this year, the 
Government of the United States stated that it is ready 
to discuss important principles under reference which 
were advanced by the Soviet Government in its aide- 
memoire of September 22 and the application of these 
principles to the agreement regarding the creation of an 
international organ on peaceful use of atomic energy 
as well as their application to tlie activity of such organ. 

It must, however, be noted that the proposal introduced 
by the United States jointly with six other states at the 
Ninth Session of the General Assembly of the United Na- 
tions * is in contradiction with the above-mentioned princi- 
ples inasmuch as it contemplates the formation of an inter- 
national organ not as an organ of the UN responsible 
to tlie General Assembly and In appropriate instances 
to the Security Council but as a specialized institution 
not obliged to report to the UN. In view of this, the 
Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 
assumes that the Government of the United States of 
America will take steps to eliminate the above-mentioned 
contradiction in the position of the United States. 

In its memorandum tlie Government of the United 
States of America expressed the opinion asserting that 
the Soviet Government had changed its previous posi- 
tion on the question concerning the prohibition of use 
of atomic weapons since it did not bring up the ques- 
tion that agreement concerning prolilbition of atomic 
weapons should precede agreement on the question of 
international cooperation in the field of peaceful utiliza- 
tion of atomic energy. 

In connection with this the Soviet Government con- 
siders it necessary to state that, as before, it proceeds 
from the premise that only conclusion of international 
agreement on the unconditional prohibition of atomic 
weapons is capable of insuring wide international co- 
operation in the field of peaceful ultilization of atomic 
energy and of elimination of threat of atomic war. 

As an important step on the path toward the full elimi- 
nation of atomic, hydrogen, and other weapons of mass 
destruction from armaments of states together with the 
establishment of strict international control, the Soviet 
Government has proposed and proposes that states par- 



° Handed by Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov to 
the American Charge d'Affaires at Moscow, Walter N. 
Walmsley, Jr. 



'Draft i-esolution proposed by the United States, Aus- 
tralia, Belgium, Canada, France, the Union of South 
Africa, and the United Kingdom (U.N. doc. A/C.l/L. 
105, Nov. 6, 1954). A revised draft proposed by the 
same countries (U.N. doc. A/C.l/L.105/Rev. 1, Nov. 18, 
1954) was adopted unanimously by the General Assembly 
on Dec. 4, 1954 : for text, see BtnxETiN of Dec. 13, 1954, 
p. 919. 



622 



Deparlmenf of Sfate Bulletin 



ticlpatlng in the agreement assume a solemn and uncon- 
ditional pledge not to use atomic, hydrogen, and other 
types of weapons of mass destruction. 

In the course of the discussion in the United Nations 
of the question concerning the prohibition of atomic 
weapons and also in the course of negotiations which 
have taken place between the Union of Soviet Socialist 
Republics and the United States of America on the atomic 
problem, it has become clear that the principal obstacle to 
the achievement of the above-mentioned agreement is 
the position of the United States of America which refuses 
to accept the above-mentioned proposal of the Soviet 
Government. 

Taking this circumstance into account and striving to 
facilitate the achievement of this agreement on interna- 
tional cooperation in the tleld of peaceful use of atomic 
energy, the Soviet Government expressed agreement with 
the proposal that negotiations on above-mentioned inter- 
national cooperation should not have as a precondition 
prior achievement of an agreement regarding uncondi- 
tional renunciation by states of the use of atomic and 
other types of weapons of mass destruction. In this the 
Soviet Government proceeds from the fact that both the 
question of prohibiting atomic weapons and the question 
of reducing armaments of the conventional tyjje are being 
considered in the United Nations. The position of the 
Soviet Government on this question is expressed in its 
proposals introduced for the consideration of the General 
Assembly on September 30 of this year.'' 

The Soviet Government considers it necessary to remind 
the Government of the United States that in Its aide- 
memoire of April 27 and September 22 of this year it drew 
the attention of the Government of the United States of 
America to the fact that the very utilization of atomic 
energy for peaceful purposes is connected with the possi- 
bility of increasing the quantity of fissionable materials 
which serve as the basis for the production of atomic 
weapons which inevitably leads to increase in the scale of 
production of atomic weapons and to increase in stocks 
of them. 

The Government of the United States of America, in 
its memorandum of November 3, proposed that the above- 
mentioned problem should be jointly studied by exx)erts 
of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics and the 
United States of America. 

The Soviet Government does not object to the joint 
study of this problem by exi)erts of the Union of the 
Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of 
America. As regards the place and time of the conference 
of experts, it is the opinion of the Soviet Government 
that this question will not meet with difficulties once 
agreement on the program of work of the experts has been 
reached. 

The Soviet Government expresses agreement with the 
proposal of the Government of the United States of Amer- 
ica that further negotiations on the question of interna- 
tional cooperation in the field of peaceful use of atomic 
energy be confidential. 

Moscow, November 29, 1954. 



U.S. NOTE OF APRIL 14, 1955 • 

The Government of the United States has considered 
the aide-memoire of November 29, 1954, delivered by the 
Soviet Government and wishes to state the following : 

1. The Government of the United States notes that the 
Soviet Government agrees that negotiations looking to 
international cooperation in the development of peaceful 
uses of atomic energy can be fniitful without any prior 
commitment by the nations concerned to renounce the use 
of weapons. 

2. The Government of the United States repeats the 
assurance contained in its note of November 3, 1954, that 
it is willing to discuss the "principles" which the Soviet 
Government, in its aide-memoire of September 22, 1954, 
and November 29, 19.54, states that it considers important 
in the establishment and operation of an international 
agency for the development of the peaceful uses of atomic 
energy. However, the willingness of the Government 
of the United States to discuss these principles should 
not be taken to mean that the Government of the United 
States in advance of such discussion has accepted these 
principles, as the Soviet Government apparently assumes 
in its statements in the sixth paragraph of its aide-me- 
moire of November 29, 1954. It is suggested that the 
receipt of the specific comments of the Soviet Government 
on the outline of the objectives and functions of an inter- 
national agency, submitted by the Government of the 
United States on March 19, 1954, would present a good 
opportunity for discussion of the aforementioned "prin- 
ciples" as they might apply to the actual organization 
and work of an agency for the development of the peaceful 
uses of atomic energy. 

3. The Government of the United States believes, as it 
stated in its memorandum of July 9, 1954, that the nations 
most advanced in knowledge regarding the constructive 
uses of atomic energy have an obligation to make tliis 
knowledge available under appropriate conditions, for 
promoting the welfare of peoples generally. Accordingly, 
negotiations have been initiated, as the Soviet Government 
is aware, among the eight other nations "principally 
involved," looking toward the establishment of an inter- 
national atomic energy agency. Pending further concrete 
indications of interest on the part of the Soviet Govern- 
ment in participating in the work of this proposed agency, 
negotiations will continue among these eight nations. 
Drafting of an agreement to establish such an agency is 
now under way. A copy of such draft agreement when 
completed will be furnished the Soviet Government upon 
request. 

4. Encouraged by the recent affirmative vote by the 
Soviet Government in the United Nations General Assem- 
bly on the resolution concerning the "Atoms for Peace" 
program, the Government of the United States wishes to 
renew President Eisenhower's proposal of December 8, 
1953, to the Soviet Government that the powers principally 
involved begin now and continue to make joint contribu- 
tions from their stockpiles of normal uranium and fission- 
able materials to an international atomic energy agency. 



' For text, see ihid., Oct. 25, 1954, p. 625. 



° Handed by Livingston Merchant, Assistant Secretary 
for European Affairs, to Ambassador Zaroubin. 



Ocfober 22, 1956 



623 



With material support for the agency by the Soviet Gov- 
ernment, in addition to the support already announced 
by the Government of the United States and the Gov- 
ernment of the United Kingdom, an international pool of 
fissionable material could be established in the near future 
which would provide a basis for encouraging the use of 
this material for the peaceful applications of atomic 
energy. In this event, the international atomic energy 
agency would be made responsible for the storage and 
protection of the contributed fissionable material and 
other atomic materials. 

5. The Government of the United States notes that the 
Soviet Government does not object to a joint study by 
experts of the two nations of the problem of guarding 
against possible diversion of fissionable material from 
power-producing atomic installations and that the Soviet 
Government is of the opinion that the place and time of 
such a conference can be set without difiBculty once agree- 
ment on an agenda has been reached. Attached to this 
note is a proposed agenda for such a meeting of experts. 
If this agenda is acceptable to the Soviet Government, the 
Government of the United States would be prepared to 
commence discussions on these topics at any time after 
May 1, and would be pleased to receive a Soviet delegation 
in Washington, D. C. 
Washington, April H, 1955. 

[Enclosure] 

Agenda Proposed by the United States for a Meriting 
OF United States and Soviet Experts 

Bafeguarding Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy 

To discuss the safeguards required for the following 
peaceful uses of atomic energy under the auspices of an 
international atomic energy agency : 

1. Research and Development 

a. Reactors for production of radioisotopes for use in 
science, medicine, agriculture, and industry. 

b. Reactors to provide neutron irradiations for scien- 
tific research and for testing materials and compo- 
nents for power reactors. 

c. Reactors as pilot plants for the development and 
demonstration of economic atomic power. 

2. Large-Scale Utilization of Atomic Power 

a. Power reactors using as fuel either natural uranium 
or uranium partially enriched in U-235, but not con- 
taining thorium. 

b. Power reactors using as fuel either plutonium, U-233, 
or uranium highly enriched in U-235, but not con- 
taining thorium or significant amounts of U-238. 

c. Reactors containing the fertile materials U-238 or 
thorium for the specific purpose of producing fis- 
sionable material in addition to power. 

Safeguards are to be considered in relation to : 

1. The design and construction of reactors; 

2. Allocation and preparation of critical materials ; 

3. Operation of reactors; and 

4. Processing of irradiated materials. 



624 



SOVIET MEMORANDUM OF JULY 18, 1955 

In connection with the memorandum of the United 
States Government of April 14, 1955, the Soviet Govern- 
ment considers it necessary to state the following : 

1. The Soviet Government, guided by the desire to guar- 
antee utilization of atomic energy only for peaceful pur- 
poses, stands for the development of international coop- 
eration in this field. In this connection it declares its 
readiness to participate in negotiations on the creation 
of an international agency for peaceful utilization of 
atomic energy. For its part the Soviet Government would 
consider it expedient to examine now together with the 
Government of the United States of America and other 
interested countries concrete questions concerning the 
creation of such an agency, including its problems and 
functions. 

The Soviet Government expresses its readiness to de- 
posit into an international fund for atomic materials 
under an international agency for atomic energy 50 kilo- 
grams of fissionable materials, as soon as agreement has 
been reached on the creation of such an agency. 

The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Re- 
publics considers it necessary to note in this connection 
that, as it has already jjointed out, questions of develop- 
ment of international cooperation in the field of peaceful 
utilization of atomic energy are directly dependent on 
solution of the problem of the reduction of armaments and 
banning of atomic weapons. Conclusion of an interna- 
tional agreement on full banning of atomic weaiwns would 
facilitate weakening of international tension, strength- 
ening of mutual trust between states, averting the threat 
of atomic war, and would eliminate obstacles to the broad- 
est and most fruitful international cooperation in the 
field of peaceful use of atomic energy. In examining this 
situation the Soviet Government brought to the attention 
of the United Nations subcommittee on disarmament on 
May 10 of this year a proposal aimed at prohibiting the 
use and production of atomic weapons and all other forms 
of weaiwns of mass destruction and a conversion of exist- 
ing stock piles of atomic weapons to peaceful purposes.' 

2. In its memorandum of April 14, the Government of 
the United States of America expressed hope that the 
Soviet Government would comment on those proposals of 
the United States concerning aims and functions of an 
international agency which were set forth in a memoran- 
dum of the Government of the United States of America 
of March 19, 1954. 

The Soviet Government considers that an international 
agency for the peaceful uses of atomic energy must be 
organized in accordance with the following basic prin- 
ciples : 

(1) All states so desiring can join the agency. 

(2) Agreement on creation of such an agency must not 
place any country whatsoever or group of countries in 
a privileged position. 

(3) In rendering aid to any government whatsoever 



' For text, see Buixbtin of May 30, 1955, p. 900. 

Department of Stale Bulletin 



the agency must not condition that aid on requirements 
of political or military character. 

(4) The agency must not be utilized to the detriment 
of the security of these or other states. 

(5) The agency is created in the frameworli of the 
United Nations. The agency must report to the Security 
Council of the United Nations and General Assembly 
whenever this is requested by either of these organs. 
The Agency must also consult and cooperate with other 
United Nations organs whose work might bear on the 
work of the agency. 

(6) The agency carries out its activity of giving aid to 
states in the field of peaceful use of atomic energy on 
the following basis : 

A. The agency renders to states aid of a consultative 
character in the field of peaceful use of atomic energy. 

B. Fissionable materials and special equipment are 
made available by states rendering aid directly to re- 
questing states on the basis of agreements between the 
interested states concluded with participation of the 
agency. 

Responsibility for safekeeping and utilization of fis- 
sionable materials received will be borne by requesting 
state in accordance with agreement concluded. 

C. The agency encourages the exchange of scientific 
and technical information among countries and will 
bear responsibility for the broad dissemination of data 
which it has at its disposal. For this purpose the 
agency will create scientific research institutions and 
will maintain a group of specialists in the field of 
peaceful use of atomic energy who will render neces- 
sary assistance to states in this field. 

The agency renders cooperation and assistance to states 
in preparation of national cadres of specialists in the 
field of peaceful use of atomic energy. 

3. The Government of the United States of America in 
its memorandum raises the question of undertaking a 
joint study by experts of both countries of problems 
arising from the fact that the very application of atomic 
energy for peaceful purposes is connected with the pos- 
sibility of increasing the quantity of fissionable materials 
which serve as the basis for the production of atomic 
weapons. The Soviet Government confirms its agree- 
ment to the calling of such a conference of experts and 
declares that it has no reservation on the agenda for such 
a conference which was contained in the memorandum 
of the Government of the United States of America. It 
considers that it would be expedient to hold such a con- 
ference in Geneva directly upon completion of the work of 
the international scientific technical conference on the 
peaceful uses of atomic energy called for August 8 in 
Geneva. 

4. In connection with the declaration contained In the 
memorandum of the Government of the United States 
concerning rendering of assistance to other states in the 
field of peaceful use of atomic energy, the Soviet Gov- 
ernment considers it necessary to note the following : 

The Soviet Union is rendering technical and productive 
assistance to a series of states in the creation of scientific- 

Ocfober 22, 7956 

404933—56 3 



experimental bases for the development of research In the 
field of atomic physics and the utilization of atomic energy 
for peaceful purposes and preparation of scientific work- 
ers and engineers in the field of atomic physics, radio 
chemistry, application of isotopes in science and technol- 
ogy and also in the field of technology and atomic fur- 
naces and cyclotrons. The Soviet Government declares 
that it intends to broaden the circle of states with which 
the USSR will cooperate and assist in the field of the 
utilization of atomic energy for peaceful purposes. 

The Soviet Government would like to have the opinion 
of the Government of the United States on the foregoing. 

Moscow, 18 July 1955. 



U.S. NOTE OF JULY 29, 1955 » 

The Government of the United States has considered 
the memorandum of the Soviet Government dated July 
18, 1955, and has the following comments to make: 

1. The Government of the United States is pleased to 
note the readiness of the Soviet Government to deposit 
50 kilograms of fissionable material into an international 
fund under an international atomic energy agency — the 
deposit to be made when agreement has been reached on 
the creation of such an agency. 

2. The Government of the United States notes that the 
Soviet Government is now willing to participate in nego- 
tiations on the creation of an international atomic energy 
agency. As pointed out in the United States note of 
April 14, 1955, the United States and other countries prin- 
cipally involved have been developing a draft statute for 
such an international agency. A copy is attached." This 
draft is now under confidential study by the other nations 
principally involved. It is planned to submit a draft 
statute to all nations qualified to join such an agency 
when such study has been completed. The attached draft 
reflects current views as to the desirable nature of such 
an agency and covers various points made in the negotia- 
tions between the other nations principally involved since 
March 19, 1954. Comments of the Soviet Government 
on such draft would be welcome. It is hoped that the 
Soviet Union will be one of the states sponsoring such 
international agency. 

3. The Government of the United States notes the 
statement in the Soviet memorandum of July 18, 1955, 
that questions of the development of international coop- 
eration in the field of peaceful utilization of atomic energy 
are directly dependent on the solution of the problems of 
reduction of armaments and the banning of atomic weap- 
ons. The Government of the United States hopes that 



' Handed by the Acting Assistant Secretary for Euro- 
pean Affairs, Walworth Barbour, to the Soviet ChargS 
d'Affaires, Sergei R. Striganov. 

' Not printed here. Substantially the same as the text 
printed in the Bulletin of Oct. 24, 1955, p. 666, except that 
the latter text incorporates the changes referred to in the 
note of Aug. 17, 1955, from the Department of State to the 
Soviet Embassy (see below) . 



625 



the Soviet Government by this statement is not reverting 
to its earlier position that the establishment of an inter- 
national atomic energy agency must be preceded by an 
agreement to ban the use of nuclear weapons. It is the 
understanding of the Government of the United States, 
as set out in Its note of November 3, 1954, that the Soviet 
Government no longer insists on such a condition. It is 
believed that the peaceful uses of atomic energy should 
not be withheld from the peoples of the world pending 
solution of difficult disarmament problems. 

4. The Government of the United States notes the ac- 
ceptance by the Soviet Government of the United States 
agenda (attached to the United States note of April 14, 
1955) for a joint study of the problems Involved In safe- 
guarding the peaceful uses of atomic energy. In view of 
their special competence in this field it is suggested that 
experts from the United Kingdom and Canada be invited 
to participate in such technical meeting. Early views of 
the Soviet Government on this point are requested. 

A preliminary meeting of experts at Geneva foUovsing 
the United Nations International Conference on the 
Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy is agreeable to the Gov- 
ernment of the United States. In view of competing 
demands on the time of these experts, it is suggested that 
such preliminary meeting last no longer than five days. 
If additional time is required, a second meeting can be 
called at a mutually agreeable time and place. 

Washington, July 29, 1955. 



U.S. NOTE OF AUGUST 12, 1955 

The Government of the United States refers to its note 
to the Soviet Government dated July 29, 1955, which 
made reference to the acceptance by the Soviet Govern- 
ment of the United States agenda for a joint study of 
the problems involved in safegimrding the peaceful uses 
of atomic energy. 

In the United States note It was suggested that, in 
view of their special competence in this field, experts 
from the United Kingdom and Canada be invited to 
participate in such technical meeting. The Government 
of the United States believes that experts from France 
could make a valuable contribution to such a discussion 
and proposes that they also be invited to participate. 

The Government of the United States believes that 
the technical meeting to be held in Geneva will un- 
doubtedly become known. It is suggested that a joint 
communique be agreed on for issuance shortly in ad- 
vance of the convening of the meeting. The following 
text is proposed for the consideration of the Soviet 
Government : 

"At the conclusion of the United Nations Conference 
on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, experts from Canada, 
France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the 
USSR will meet in Geneva for a few days to discuss 
technical aspects of safeguarding the peaceful uses of 
atomic energy. The technical working group will meet 
in private." 

In order that arrangements for the technical meeting 



may proceed without delay, an early statement of the 
views of the Soviet Government on the points raised in 
this note and in the note of July 29, 1955, is requested. 
It is suggested that the Soviet Government may wish to 
designate a representative now on its Delegation to the 
United Nations Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic 
Energy to commence discussion in Geneva with Mr. 
Gerard C. Smith and Mr. John Hall of the United States 
Delegation concerning arrangements for the subsequent 
private technical talks. 

Washington, August 12, 1955. 



SOVIET MEMORANDUM OF AUGUST 13, 1955 

In connection with the note of the Government of the 
United States of America of July 29, 1955, containing 
the reiily to the memorandum of the Soviet Government 
of July 18, 1955, the Soviet Government states that the 
draft statute of an International agency for atomic energy 
received with the above-mentioned note will be given 
proper study by the Soviet Government. The views of 
the Soviet Government on this draft will be communicated 
to the Government of the United States of America. 

The Soviet Government expresses its agreement with 
the proposal of the Government of the United States of 
America concerning the time of convening and the duration 
of the work of the conference of experts of both countries 
for joint examination of problems arising from the fact 
that every application of atomic energy for peaceful pur- 
poses is connected with the possibility of increasing the 
quantity of fissionable materials which serve as a basis 
for the production of atomic weapons. 

As for the question raised in the note concerning the 
participation of experts of other countries in the above- 
mentioned conference, the Soviet Government considers 
it expedient that, together with experts of the United 
Kingdom and Canada, experts from Czechoslovakia should 
participate in the conference in connection with their par- 
ticular competence in questions subject to examination at 
that conference. 

Moscow, August 13, 1955. 



U.S. NOTE OF AUGUST 17, 1955 

The Government of the United States refers to the 
memorandum of the Soviet Government dated August 13, 
1955, and notes that the Soviet Government is giving 
study to the draft statute of an international atomic 
energy agency transmitted with the note of the Govern- 
ment of the United States dated July 29, 1955. The Gov- 
ernment of the United States will be pleased to receive 
the views of the Soviet Government on this draft. 

Pursuant to suggestions advanced during discussions at 
the Ninth General Assembly of the United Nations, the 
Government of the United States, which together with 
other governments principally involved has developed the 
draft statute, considers that a stage has been reached at 
which it is appropriate to solicit the views of other states. 



626 



Department of State Bulletin 



It is planned that, on or shortly after August 22, copies of 
the draft statute will be transmitted on a confidential 
basis to all states members of the United Nations or of 
its specialized agencies in order that they may express 
their views. The draft to be made available to such other 
governments will differ from the statute transmitted to 
the Soviet Government on July 29 in the following two 
respects : 

a. Article VII (A) 2 will be amended to provide that 
five, rather than four, states which are principal pro- 
ducers and contributors of raw materials will be selected 
for the Board of Governors in category 2; and 

b. Annex II will list the names of the states proposed 
for inclusion on the first Board of Governors in categories 
1 and 2. A copy of the draft Annex II as it will be dis- 
tributed is attached to this note. 

With regard to the question of participation in the 
meeting of experts to be convened in Geneva on August 22, 
the Government of the United States accepts the sugges- 
tion of the Soviet Government that experts from Czecho- 
slovakia also participate. The Government of the United 
States refers to its proposal in a note dated August 12, 
1955, that experts from France be invited, and requests 
an early statement of the views of the Soviet Government 
on this proposal and the other proposals relating to ar- 
rangements for the technical meeting raised in its note 
of August 12. 

Washington, August 17, 1955. 
[Enclosure] 

Revised Deaft of Annex II op the Peoposed Statute op 
AN Inteknational ATOMIC Eneegy Agenct 

In accordance with the principles set forth in Article 
VII, paragraph A, the First Board of Governors shall be 
constituted as follows : 

1. The five members of the Board under Article VII, 
paragraph A-1, shall be Canada, France, USSR, United 
Kingdom, United States. 

2. The five other members of the Board under Article 
VII, paragraph A-2, shall be Australia, Belgium, Czecho- 
slovakia, Portugal, Union of South Africa. 

3. Six other members of the Board shall be elected by 
the General Conference. 



SOVIET AIDE MEMOIRE OF AUGUST 19, 1955 

The Government of the USSR refers to the note from 
the Government of the United States of America of 
August 12, 1955, and its memorandum of August 13, 1955, 
containing the answer to the note of the Government of 
the United States of America of July 29, 1955. 

As was pointed out in its memorandum of August 13, 
the Soviet Government considers it expedient that to- 
gether with experts from the United Kingdom and Canada, 
experts from Czechoslovakia should participate in the 
conference in connection with their particular competence 



in questions subject to consideration at that conference. 
The Soviet Government agrees that in the conference of 
experts from the United States, USSR, United Kingdom, 
Canada, and Czechoslovakia, experts from France should 
also ijarticipate, and that a communication concerning the 
forthcoming conference of experts from the above-men- 
tioned countries should be published in the form of a 
joint communique with the following text : 

"At the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on 
Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, experts from Canada, 
Czechoslovakia, France, the USSR, the United Kingdom, 
and the United States will meet in Geneva for a few days 
to discuss technical aspects of safeguarding the peaceful 
uses of atomic energy. The technical working group wiU 
meet in private." 

Moscow, August 19, 1955. 



SOVIET AIDE MEMOIRE OF OCTOBER 1, 1955 

Having familiarized itself with the draft Charter of an 
International Agency on Atomic Energy, which was ap- 
pended to the memorandum of the Government of the 
United States of America of July 29, 1955, and also with 
amendments to the draft set forth in the memorandum of 
the Government of the United States of America dated 
August 17, 1955, the Soviet Government considers that the 
draft referred to, with certain amendments, can be used 
as a basis for drawing up a Charter of an International 
Agency on Atomic Energy. The creation of such an 
Agency, in the view of the Soviet Government, could have 
great significance In the matter of the development of 
international cooperation in the field of peaceful use of 
atomic energy. 

With a view to attracting the widest possible group of 
interested states to participate in the activity of the 
Agency, it would be appropriate to take measures so 
that there should be found in the Charter fuller reflection 
of certain principles which have, in the view of the Soviet 
Government, great significance for the development of 
international cooperation in the field of application of 
atomic energy for peaceful purposes. 

In this connection, the Soviet Government considers it 
necessary to make the following observations on the draft 
Charter of an International Agency on Atomic Energy. 

1. Having in view the existing close connection in the 
production of atomic energy for peaceful as well as mili- 
tary purposes and taking into account the fact that the 
activity of the Agency in the closest way will be con- 
nected with the use of dangerous fissionable materials, it 
is necessary to insert in the Charter a provision concern- 
ing control over the expenditure of materials provided the 
Agency, having in view not to permit the use of materials 
for purposes contrary to the peaceful application of 
atomic energy. It seems appropriate, therefore, to 
insure the proper observation and control over the work 
of the Agency on the part of the representative interna- 
tional organ. Proceeding from this, the Government of 
the Soviet Union considers it necessary that the Agency 
referred to should be established within the framework 



October 22, 7956 



627 



of the United Nations Security Council and General As- 
sembly, lu this connection it is necessary to make pro- 
vision in the Charter that if in connection with the 
Agency's activity questions are raised falling within the 
competence of the Security Council, these questions should 
be turned over by the Agency for decision to the Security 
Council, as the organ in which primary responsibility for 
maintaining peace and international security is placed- 

The creation of the Agency within the framework of 
the United Nations would safeguard appropriate condi- 
tions for its work and guaranties of security for states — 
both members and non-members of the Agency. 

2. It is appropriate that the Agency Charter proceed 
from the recognition of the principle that neither one 
country nor a group of countries will find itself in a 
privileged position. This principle must find its expression 
in the fundamental legal and organizational structure of 
the Agency. In particular, it is necessary in the Charter 
to provide for procedure of allotting aid, which would safe- 
guard to all states needing aid the possibility of receiving 
it from the Agency. The Agency should carry out activity 
in regard to furnishing aid to states in such a way that 
allotting of aid would not depend on presentation to the 
country receiving aid of conditions of a iwlitical, economic, 
or military character, or requirements of any other claims 
inconsistent with the sovereign rights of states. 

Any state, even if it is not a member of the United 
Nations or a specialized agency, must have the right to be 
among the Initiators in the establishment of an Interna- 
tional Agency for Atomic Energy. 

3. The Soviet Government considers it appropriate that 
permanent members of the Security Council should be 
permanent members of the Board of Governors of the 
Agency and that in the initial membership of the Board 
of Governors there should be included India, Indonesia, 
Egypt, and Rumania as members of the Board according 
to Article VII-A-2. 

In this connection it would be appropriate to increase 
somewhat the number of members of the Board of Gov- 
ernors. 

4. In view of the necessity of the existence of control 
both over the expenditure of dangerous fissionable ma- 
terials given over to the Agency and over their use by 
states receiving aid, the Agency should dispose of an ap- 
propriate staff of inspectors to whose functions should 
belong the investigation of atomic installations projected 
by these states and also the verification of the use of fis- 
sionable and other materials and of special equipment 
received from the Agency. Indicated functions should be 
accomplished by inspectorial apparatus of the Agency. 
In corresponding Charter Articles on this question, it is 
necessary to provide that such observations and control 
will be accomplished with due observation of sovereign 
rights of the above-mentioned states and within the 
framework of an agreement between a given state and 
the Agency. 

5. Concerning the question of Agency finances, it seems 
appropriate to make provision in the Charter that confir- 
mation of the draft of the budget and also of the scale of 
assessments of expenses among Agency members, and 
equally any other decisions on financial questions, should 
be made both by the general conference and also by the 



Board of Governors by a majority of three-quarters of 
the votes. 

6. In relation to the recognition of the jurisdiction of 
the International Court in disputes concerning the inter- 
pretation or application of the Agency Charter, it is ap- 
propriate to make provision that such recognition can 
take place with the consent of interested parties. 

The Soviet Government considers that the insertion of 
the above-mentioned provisions in the Charter of an Inter- 
national Agency on Atomic Energy would insure the par- 
ticipation of a wider group of states in the Agency's work 
and thereby would make possible the creation of more 
favorable conditions for international cooperation in the 
area of peaceful use of atomic energy, in this new im- 
portant area of international cooperation of states. 

The Soviet Government proposes to call a meeting of 
experts of governments of most interested states for a 
joint examination of questions connected with working 
out of the Charter of an International Agency for Atomic 
Energy. In this meeting there could participate experts 
of the United States of America, the USSR, and of all 
those states with which the United States of America is 
carrying on negotiations about the formation of an Inter- 
national Agency, and also experts of Czechoslovakia. 

Moscow, October 1, 1955. 



U.S. NOTE OF JANUARY 27, 1956 

The Government of the United States has considered 
the aide-memoire of October 1, 1955, delivered by the 
Soviet Government, and circulated at the request of the 
Soviet Government by the Secretary General of the United 
Nations on October 19, 1955, and wishes to state the 
following : 

1. The Government of the United States notes that the 
Soviet Government considers that the draft Statute for 
an International Atomic Energy Agency which was deliv- 
ered by the Government of the United States to the Soviet 
Government on July 29, 1955, as amended by the United 
States note dated August 17, 1955, can with certain 
amendments be used as a basis for drawing up a final text 
of an International Agency Statute. 

2. It is further noted that the Soviet aide-memoire 
emphasizes the need to provide in the Statute for the 
establishment of a system of inspection and control to 
investigate atomic installations projected by states re- 
ceiving aid and to verify the use of fissionable and other 
materials supplied to such states. The Government of 
the United States agrees that a system of inspection and 
control would be useful to prevent international assist- 
ance made available for the peaceful uses of atomic energy 
from being diverted to other than peaceful purposes. It 
is noted that the Soviet Government believes that the 
Agency should have an appropriate stafl: of inspectors and 
an inspectorial apparatus. The Government of the United 
States would be pleased to receive for consideration more 
detailed views of the Soviet Government on the necessary 
scope of such Agency control and inspection system and 
the nature of such inspectorial apparatus. 



628 



Department of State Bulletin 



3. It is assumed that this general question together 
with the other points referred to in the Soviet aide- 
memoire of Octolier 1, 1955, will be discussed at the worli- 
ing group meeting of the twelve nations now scheduled 
for February 27, 1956.'° 

Washington, January 27, 1956. 



SOVIET AIDE MEMOIRE OF MARCH 20, 1956 

Having considered the note of the Government of the 
United States of America dated January 27, 1956, in which 
the desire is expressed to get acquainted with the more 
detailed point of view of the Soviet Government concern- 
ing the necessary extent of control on the part of the 
International Atomic Energy Agency and the inspection 
system and organization, the Soviet Government wishes 
to state the following : 

The Soviet Government in general has no objections to 
the extent and character of the Agency's powers in the 
field of inspection, as they are defined in paragi'aph D 
of Article XIII of the draft Statute of the Agency which 
was distributed by the Government of the U.S.A. on 
August 22, 1955. However, for the purpose of averting 
abuses of the right of inspection on the part of the 
Agency, the Soviet Government considers it necessary that 
it should be especially stipulated in the Statute that veri- 
fication and control on the part of the Agency must be 
carried out with the observance of the sovereign rights 
of the states receiving aid and within the limits of the 
agreements between the respective states and the Agency. 

The Soviet Government agrees with the opinion of the 
Government of the U.S.A. that the details of such ques- 
tions as the extent of control on the part of the Agency, 
as well as the inspection system and organization, should 
be discussed at the conference of twelve countries which 
is now taking place in Washington. 

Washington, March 20, 1956. 



U.S. AIDE MEMOIRE OF JUNE 1, 1956 

At the meeting between Ambassador Zaroubin and Am- 
bassador Wadsworth" on March 2, 1956 the following 
questions were raised : 



"Representatives of the United States, Australia, Bel- 
gium, Brazil, Canada, Czechoslovaliia, France, India, Por- 
tugal, the Soviet Union, the Union of South Africa, and 
the United Kingdom met at Washington from Feb. 27 to 
Apr. 18, 1956, at the invitation of the United States and 
unanimously agreed upon a draft statute of an Interna- 
tional Atomic Energy Agency, for submission to an inter- 
national conference to be held at New York in September 
1956. For text of draft statute, see Bulletin of May 21, 
1956, p. 852. 

" James J. Wadsworth, Deputy U.S. Representative to 
the United Nations and U.S. Representative for Inter- 
national Atomic Energy Agency Negotiations. 



Would the Government of the Soviet Union be in- 
terested in exploring with the Government of the United 
States and the Governments of the other countries which 
will be rendering international assistance in the peaceful 
uses of atomic energy, the possibility of reaching agree- 
ments to standardize the safeguards (against use of as- 
sistance in such a way as to further any military pur- 
pose) which these Governments would call for in rendering 
their assistance? Particularly, would the Government 
of the Soviet Union be willing to examine the possibility 
of an agreement among these same Governments that 
in the event the proposed International Atomic Energy 
Agency establishes efllective minimum safeguards, these 
Governments would provide for their bilateral inte;.-- 
national arrangements designed to extend peaceful jses 
assistance to be safeguarded by the Agency under its safe- 
guard system? 

Washington, June 1, 1956. 



SOVIET AIDE MEMOIRE OF JULY 3, 1956 

In reply to the Aide-Memoire of the Department of 
State dated June 1, 19.56, the Embassy of the Union of 
Soviet Socialist Republics states that the Soviet Govern- 
ment does not object in principle to making a joint study 
with the Government of the United States and the govern- 
ments of other countries of the problem of safeguards to 
insure that special fissionable materials made available 
by the Agency are not used in such a way as to further 
any military purpose. 

With respect to the proposal of the Government of the 
United States that the system of safeguards of the Inter- 
national Agency be extended to include bilateral agree- 
ments on cooperation in the field of the peaceful use of 
atomic energy, it is well known that Article III, Paragraph 
5 of the draft Statute of the International Agency pro- 
vides for possible extension of Agency safeguards to cover 
bilateral agreements. In this connection the Soviet Gov- 
ernment believes that the consideration of this problem 
could be resumed after the Statute of the Agency is 
adopted by the Conference ^ and after it is ratified by the 
countries involved. 



Washington, July 3, 1956. 



U.S. AIDE MEMOIRE OF AUGUST 15, 1956 

The Department of State has noted in the aide-memoire 
of the Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 
of July 3, 1956, replying to the Department of State's 
aide-memoire of June 1, 1956, that the Soviet Government 
does not object in principle to making a joint study with 
the Government of the United States and other interested 



'■ The Conference on the Statute of the International 
Atomic Energy Agency opened at New York on Sept. 20, 
1956. For texts of opening statements by Lewis L. 
Strauss and James J. Wadsworth, see Bulletin of Oct. 
8, 1956, p. 535. 



October 22, 1956 



629 



governments of the problem of safeguards to ensure that 
nuclear materials made available by the International 
Atomic Energy Agency are not used in such a way as to 
further any military purpose. This willingness to do so 
is in keeping with the emphasis placed by the Soviet Gov- 
ernment in its aide-memoire of October 1, 1955, and on 
more recent occasions, on the necessity of adequate meas- 
ures to safeguard peaceful uses assistance against diver- 
sion to military purposes. 

Assuming that a draft Statute for the Agency will be 
adopted by the September Conference and will subse- 
quently come into effect, it will still be some time, how- 
ever, before the safeguards prescribed in the Statute will 
be operative. As indicated by the first question posed in 
the Department of State's aide-memoire of June 1, 19.56, 
the Government of the United States is also interested, 
therefore, in exploring the possibilities of reaching agree- 
ment to standardize the safeguarding terms on which 
countries would supply on a bilateral basis atomic energy 
assistance in the peaceful uses field. 

In this connection, it is recalled that the Soviet Govern- 
ment in its Memorandum of July 18, 1955, stated that the 
Soviet Union had already initiated a program for render- 
ing such assistance to a number of states and that it 
intended to broaden this circle of states. 

The Government of the United States has recently 
entered into bilateral agreements for furnishing certain 
countries assistance in the application of atomic energy 
to the production of power. For the information of the 
Soviet Government, there is enclosed the text of the safe- 
guards provisions (Enclosure One) that have proved 
acceptable to the governments concerned and have been 
incorporated into these agreements. These provisions are 
designed to be substantially the same as those set forth 
in the draft Statute of the proposed International Atomic 
Energy Agency. 

Canada and the United Kingdom are also making bi- 
lateral arrangements for supplying assistance in the 
peaceful uses field. France, it is understood, has similar 
plans. 

The Government of the United States believes that 
early agreement on the application, to new bilateral ar- 
rangements for peaceful uses assistance, of uniform safe- 
guards no less comprehensive than those now contained in 
the draft Statute of the Agency, would not only help to 
assure the future effectiveness of the Agency but would 
also serve to advance the cause of world security. The 
Government of the United States, therefore, would like to 
propose an early commencement of staff level talks to ex- 
plore the possibility of reaching such agreement. 

It is noted in the Soviet aide-memoire of July 3, 1956, 
that the Soviet Government considers that the question 
of agreement on Agency application of its safeguards 
system to bilateral assistance arrangements should be 
postponed until after the adoption of the draft Statute by 
the forthcoming International Conference and its ratifica- 
tion by the countries involved. The Government of the 
United States suggests that this question could be given 
further consideration as one aspect of the proposed ex- 
ploratory talks. In this connection, there is also enclosed 
the text of the provision (Enclosure Two) being included 
in the United States bilateral agreements concerning the 



possibility of the future application of safeguards by the 
Agency. 

Canada, France, and the United Kingdom have indicated 
their interest In participating in such talks. 

Assuming that the Soviet Government is also interested, 
it is proposed that the talks be held in Washington, D.C., 
in the first part of September. As early a reply as possible 
would be appreciated. 

The question of safeguarding peaceful uses of atomic 
energy assistance against diversion to military purposes 
is a matter of great public interest throughout the world. 
Accordingly, if the Soviet Government sees no objection, 
it is suggested that the recent exchange of aide-memoire 
on these proposed talks be made a matter of public record. 

Washington, August 15, 1956. 

[Enclosure 1] 

Article Incorporated in Bilateral Agreements of the 
United States for Extending Assistance in Relation 
to the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy 

Text of Article on Safeguards 

The Government of and the Gov- 
ernment of the United States emphasize their common 
interest in assuring that any material, equipment, or 

device made available to the Government of 

pursuant to this agreement shall be used solely for civil 
purposes. 

A. Except to the extent that the safeguards provided 
for in this agreement are supplanted, by agreement of the 
parties as provided in article XII, by safeguards of the 
proposed international atomic energy agency, the Govern- 
ment of the United States of America, notwithstanding 
any other provisions of this agreement, shall have the 
following rights : 

1. With the objective of assuring design and operation 
for civil purposes and permitting effective application of 
safeguards, to review the design of any (i) reactor and 
(ii) other equipment and devices the design of which the 
United States Commission determines to be relevant to 
the effective application of safeguards, which are to be 

made available to the Government of 

or any person under its jurisdiction by the Government 
of the United States or any person under its jurisdiction, 
or which are to use, fabricate or process any of the fol- 
lowing materials so made available, source material, spe- 
cial nuclear material, moderator material, or any other 
material designated by the United States Commission. 

2. With respect to any source or special nuclear material 

made available to the Government of 

or any person under its jurisdiction by the Government 
of the United States or any person under its jurisdiction 
and any source or special nuclear material utilized in, 
recovered from, or produced as a result of the use of any 
of the following materials, equipment, or devices so made 
available: (i) source material, special nuclear material, 
moderator material, or other material designated by the 
United States Commission, (ii) reactors, (iii) any other 
equipment or device designated by the United States 
Commission as an item to be made available on the con- 
dition that the provision of this subparagraph A-2 wiU 



630 



Department of State Bulletin 



applyi (a) to require the maintenance and production of 
operating records and to request and receive reports for 
the purpose of assisting in insuring accountability for 
such materials ; and (b) to require that any such material 

in the custody of the Government of 

or any person under its jurisdiction be subject to all of 
the safeguards provided for in this article and the guar- 
anties set forth in article XIV ; 

3. To require the deposit in storage facilities desig- 
nated by the United States Commission of any of the 
special nuclear material referred to in subparagraph 
A-2 of this article which is not currently utilized for 

civil purposes in and which is not purchased 

pursuant to article VII, paragraph E (a) of this agree- 
ment, transferred pursuant to article VII, paragraph E 
(b) of this agreement, or otherwise disposed of pursuant 
to an arrangement mutually acceptable to the parties; 

4. To designate, after consultation with the Govern- 
ment of , personnel who, accompanied, if 

either party so requests, by personnel designated by the 

Government of_ , shall have access in 

. to all places and data necessary to account 



for the source and special nuclear materials which are 
subject to subparagraph A-2 of this Article to determine 
whether there is compliance with this agreement and to 
make such independent measurements as may be deemed 
necessary ; 

5. In the event of noncompliance with the provisions 
of this article or the guaranties set forth in article XIV 

and the failure of the Government of to 

carry out the provisions of this article within a reason- 
able time, to suspend or terminate this agreement and re- 
quire the return of any materials, equipment, and devices 
referred to in subparagraph A-2 of this article; 

6. To consult with the government of in the 

matter of health and safety. 



B. The Government of _ 



undertake to facili- 



tate the application of the safeguards provided for in this 
article. 

[Enclosure 2] 

Article Incorporated in Bilaterai, Agreements of the 
United States for Extending Assistance in Relation 
to Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy 

Text of Article on International Atomic Energy Agency 

The Government of and the Govern- 
ment of the United States of America affirm their common 
interest In the establishment of an international atomic 
energy agency to foster the peaceful uses of atomic energy. 
In the event such an international agency is created : 

1. The parties will consult with each other to determine 
in what respects, if any, they desire to modify the pro- 
visions of this agreement for cooperation. In particular, 
the parties will consult with each other to determine in 
what respects and to what extent they desire to arrange 
for the administration by the international agency of those 
conditions, controls, and safeguards, including those re- 



lating to health and safety standards, required by the 
international agency in connection with similar assistance 
rendered to a cooperating nation under the aegis of the 
international agency. 

2. In the event the parties do not reach a mutually 
satisfactory agreement following the consultation pro- 
vided in paragraph A of this article, either party may by 
notification terminate this agreement. In the event this 
agreement is so terminated, the Government of 
shall return to the United States Com- 
mission all source and special nuclear materials received 
pursuant to this agreement and in its possession or in the 
possession of persons under its jurisdiction. 



SOVIET AIDE MEMOIRE OF SEPTEMBER 24, 1956 » 

In its Aide-Memoire of August 15, 1956, the Department 
of State raises the question of the standardization of 
safeguards against the utilization for military purposes 
of assistance rendered under bilateral agreements on the 
peaceful use of atomic energy even before the Statute 
of the International Agency and corresponding safe- 
guards provided by it enter into force. This Aide- 
Memoire also raises the question of the extension, after 
the Statute enters into force, of the system of safeguards 
provided by the Statute of the International Atomic En- 
ergy Agency to bilateral agreements on such safeguards. 

The Soviet Government has no objection to the pro- 
posal of the United States Government for a study of the 
possibility of standardizing safeguards. Taking into con- 
sideration the fact that the question of safeguards 
directly affects the interests of all countries receiving 
assistance, the Soviet Government deems it desirable to 
consider this question in participation with the nations 
represented at the General Conference on the Statute of 
the International Agency, as well as with other interested 
nations. The desirability of such a procedure in studying 
this question is dictated by the fact that, as is well known, 
the governments of a number of nations express certain 
considerations concerning the safeguards — considerations 
which must be taken into account. 

As far as the question of the extension of the system 
of safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency 
to bilateral agreements is concerned, the consideration of 
this question, in the opinion of the Soviet Government, 
could be taken up after the Statute of the Agency is 
adopted, taking into account the results of the Conference, 
after the necessary ratification of the Statute. 

The Soviet Government has no objection to the publi- 
cation of the recently exchanged Aide-Memoire concerning 
safeguards. 

Washington, September 24, 1956. 



"Handed by the Counselor of the Soviet Embassy, 
Sergei R. Striganov, to Under Secretary Hoover. 



October 22, 1956 



631 



Need for Reunifying Germany 
Through Free Elections 



Press release 531 dated October 10 

U.S. NOTE TO GERMAN FEDERAL REPUBLIC 

The following note was delivered hy the Govern- 
ment of the United States to the Embassy of the 
Federal Republic of Germany at Washington on 
October 9. 

The Government of the United States of Amer- 
ica presents its compliments to the Government of 
the Federal Republic of Germany and has the 
honor to acknowledge the receipt of the Federal 
Government's note of September 2, 1956, which 
enclosed a copy of the memorandum addressed to 
the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist 
Republics on the question of the reunification of 
Germany.^ 

The Government of the United States fully 
shares the Federal Government's view that it is 
incumbent upon the four powers to fulfill the task 
undertaken by them in the directive issued by the 
Heads of Government at Geneva in July 1955 ^ 
for the reunification of Germany by means of free 
elections carried out in conformity with the na- 
tional interests of the German people and the 
interests of European security. This is a task 
which, as the note of the Federal Government 
points out, cannot be adequately fulfilled "by mere 
assent to the principle of reunification, without 
any agreements being reached regarding practical 
ways and means of realizing it." 

The achievement of German reunification in 
freedom is a fundamental goal of United States 
policy. Together with the governments of France 
and the United Kingdom, the Government of the 
United States put forward proposals at the 
Geneva meeting of Foreign Ministers in 1955 for 
the reunification of Germany by free elections and 
for a treaty of assurance giving the Soviet Union 
far-reaching security safeguards when Germany 
was reunified. So far, however, the Soviet Gov- 
ernment has refused to discuss these proposals. 
The Government of the United States nevertheless 
continues to hope that the Soviet Government will 
fulfill its responsibilities in accordance with the 



' Bulletin of Sept. 24, 1956, p. 485. 
' ma., Aug. 1, 1955, p. 176. 



agreement reached by the Heads of Government. 
For its part, the Government of the United States 
will not cease to pursue its efforts to achieve the 
reunification of Germany, the continued division 
of which constitutes a grave injustice to the Ger- 
man people and makes impossible the establish- 
ment of a basis for lasting peace and security in 
Europe. 

To this end, the Government of the United 
States welcomes the initiative taken by the Fed- 
eral Government and shares the desire set forth 
in the latter's memorandum that it may lead to 
an exchange of views which might promote agree- 
ment among the Four Powers on reunification, as 
well as on a sound system of European security, 
which can be achieved only if Germany is reunited. 

In transmitting to the Soviet Government a 
copy of its reply to the note of the Federal Gov- 
ernment, the Government of the United States 
is conveying the hope that the Soviet Government 
will respond to the initiative of the Federal Gov- 
ernment in such a way that the Four Powers may 
be able to give effect to the agreement made at 
Geneva to achieve the reunification of Germany by 
means of free elections. 



U.S. NOTE TO U.S.S.R. 

Th^ following note was delivered hy the U.S. 
Embassy at Moscow to the Government of the 
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on October 
10. Parallel notes were delivered at the same time 
to the Soviet Government by the Governments of 
France and the United Kingdom. 

The Government of the United States of 
America presents its compliments to the Govern- 
ment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 
and has the honor to refer to the memorandum 
which was addressed to the Soviet Government on 
the second of September by the Government of 
the Federal Republic of Germany and of which a 
copy was sent to the Government of the United 
States. The Government of the United States 
now has the honor to transmit to the Soviet Gov- 
ernment a copy of the reply which it has returned 
to the Govermnent of the Federal Republic of 
Germany. 

The Government of the United States attaches 
great importance to the reunification of Germany, 
which is a basic objective of its policy. It is con- 



632 



Department of State Bulletin 



vinced that the continued division of Germany 
must be brought to an end in the interests not only 
of the Germans themselves but of all nations 
anxious to safeguard the peace of Europe. The 
Governments of France, the United Kingdom, the 
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the 
United States have on various occasions acknowl- 
edged their responsibility for bringing about the 
reunification of Germany, and agreed in the direc- 
tive given by tlie Heads of Government of the 
Four Powers to their Foreign Ministers in July 
1955 to carry out this responsibility. No progi'ess 
has been made since then. The detailed proi)osals 
put forward by the Western Powers at the subse- 
quent Foreign Ministers' Conference, which were 
designed both to end the division of Germany and 
to establish a firm system of European security, 
have met with no affirmative response from the 
Soviet Union. 

The Government of the United States therefore 
hopes that the Soviet Government will give careful 
consideration to the German memorandum and 
will, in response to the initiative taken by the Fed- 
eral Government, state its view as to how effect 
can be given to the agreement made by the four 
Heads of Government at Geneva to restore Ger- 
man unity by means of free elections. 

Military Procurement Agreement 
Witli Germany 

Press release 536 dated October 12 

An agreement on procedures for the sale by the 
United States to the Federal Republic of Germany 
of military equipment, materials, and services was 
signed by Acting Secretary of State Herbert 
Hoover, Jr., and German Ambassador Heinz L. 
Krekeler in Washington, October 8, 1956. The 
agreement establishes arrangements for payment 
for the material, control and inspection, shipping, 
and other procedural arrangements relating to 
sales to the Federal Republic pursuant to section 
106 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as 
amended. 

Controls Over Dollar Imports 
Relaxed by Austria 

The Department of Commerce and the Depart- 
ment of State (press release 532) aimounced on 
October 11 that a significant expansion of the list 
of items which may now be imported into Austria 



from the dollar area without import licenses has 
been decided by the Austrian Cabinet and will 
become effective on October 15. At that time the 
Austrian "Dollar Liberalization List" will be ex- 
panded to include approximately 40 percent of 
Austrian imports from the dollar area based on 
imports in 1953. 

As only 8 percent of Austria's dollar imports 
had previously been free from quantitative restric- 
tions, this new action is an important step toward 
reestablishing free, competitive trade between 
Austria and the United States without discrimi- 
nation against dollar goods. 

Included in the new liberalization list are many 
types of industrial machinery and various ores, 
cotton (as of January 1, 1957) , wool, iron and steel 
sheets, ferro alloys, crude oil and fuel oil, vehicle 
tires weighing more than 100 kilograms, some 
leathers, hides, and skins, various agricultural 
machinery items, and textile machinery and equip- 
ment. Also included are electric motors, tele- 
vision transmitters, tape recorders. X-ray tubes 
and film, electric razors, electric room heaters, 
dish-cleaning machinery, spare parts for automo- 
biles, car heaters, typewriters and calculating 
machines, cameras, various chemical products, 
railroad engines and steam engines, books and 
magazines, gutta-percha, and cocoa beans. 

It is expected that a copy of the new Austrian 
"Dollar Liberalization List" (in German) will 
soon be available for consultation in the European 
Division, Bureau of Foreign Commerce. An- 
nouncement of the arrival of this list will be made 
in the Foreign Gommierce 'Weekly. 



United States To Participate 
in Tangier Conference 

The Department of State announced on October 
8 (press release 528) that Cavendish W. Cannon, 
Ambassador at Rabat, would head the U.S. dele- 
gation to a conference opened that day at Fedala 
by the Sultan of Morocco. The Moroccan Gov- 
ernment has invited to this meeting the representa- 
tives of the eight powers now participating in the 
international administration at Tangier. The 
purpose of the conference is to negotiate a settle- 
ment of questions raised by the reintegration of 
Tangier into Morocco and to examine possibilities 
for preserving the benefits of the special economic 
and financial regime characteristic of Tangier. 



Ocfofaer 22, 7956 



633 



Working sessions of the conference will be held in 
Tangier. In addition to the host Government, the 
participants are Belgium, France, Italy, the Neth- 
erlands, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, 
and the United States. 

In addition to Ambassador Cannon, the U.S. 
delegation includes the following advisers : 

C. Vaughan Ferguson, Jr., Consul General of the United 
States at Tangier 

John M. Eaymond, Acting Deputy Legal Adviser, Depart- 
ment of State 

Joseph M. Sweeney, Professor of International Law, New 
York University; consultant, Department of State 

Harold Wright, Telecommunications Adviser, U.S. Infor- 
mation Agency 

John Parke Young, Chief, International Finance Division, 
Department of State 

Alfred J. Erdos of the Office of International 
Conferences of the Department of State will serve 
as secretary to the delegation. 



Special Committee on Question 
of Defining Aggression 

The Department of State announced on October 
8 (press release 529) that William Sanders has 
been designated U.S. representative on the 1956 
Special Committee on the Question of Defining 
Aggression. This Committee was established by 
the General Assembly of the United Nations at its 
ninth session. The Committee will report to the 
eleventh session, which meets in November. 

The Special Committee will hold a series of 
meetings at the United Nations Headquarters in 
New York beginning on October 8. 



IFC Designated as Public 
International Organization 

WHITE HOUSE ANNOUNCEMENT 

White House press release dated October 4 

The President on October 2 issued an Executive 
order designating the International Finance Cor- 
poration as a public international organization en- 
titled to the benefits of the International Organi- 
zations Immunities Act of December 29, 1945. 

The International Organizations Immunities 
Act provides that certain privileges, exemptions, 
and immunities shall be extended to such public 



international organizations as shall have been des- 
ignated by the President through appropriate 
Executive order, and to their officers and employ- 
ees and the representatives of the member states 
to such organizations. 

The International Finance Corporation is a 
new international organization closely affiliated 
with the International Bank for Reconstruction 
and Development. The United States became a 
member of the Corporation pursuant to the act of 
August 11, 1955, and the Corporation was formal- 
ly established on July 25, 1956, with headquarters 
in Washington. The objective of the new organi- 
zation is to encourage the growth of private enter- 
prise by providing, in association with local and 
foreign investors, risk capital for financing the 
establisliment, improvement, and expansion of 
productive private enterprises in member coun- 
tries when other sources of funds are not available 
on reasonable terms. 

The designation made by the Executive order 
will extend to the International Finance Corpora- 
tion the same benefits as were extended in 1946 to 
the International Bank for Reconstruction and 
Development. 



EXECUTIVE ORDER 106801 

By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 1 of 
the International Organizations Immunities Act, ap- 
proved December 29, 1945 (59 Stat. 669), and having 
found that the United States participates In the Inter- 
national Finance Corporation under the authority of the 
act of Congress approved August 11, 1955 (69 Stat. 669), 
I hereby designate the International Finance Corpora- 
tion as a public international organization entitled to 
enjoy the privileges, exemptions, and immunities conferred 
by the said International Organizations Immunities Act 

The designation of the International Finance Corpora- 
tion made by this order is not intended to abridge in any 
respect privileges, exemptions, and immunities which such 
corporation may have acquired or may acquire by treaty 
or congressional action ; nor shall such designation be 
construed to affect in any way the applicability of the 
provisions of section 3, article VI, of the Articles of Agree- 
ment of the Corporation deposited in tlie archives of the 
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. 



/^ (.JL^-yL^'Z^Cj-'iCl^ A^i<J-r^ 



The White House 
October 2, 1956. 



'21 Fed. Beg. 7647. 



634 



Department of State Bulletin 



U.S. Economic Policy and Programs in the Far East 



hy Iloward P. Jones 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Far Eastern Economic Affairs^ 



This morning I shall endeavor to outline some 
of the economic aspects of what your Government 
is trying to do toward maintaining the independ- 
ence of the free nations of the Far East aaicl to 
describe something of the political climate in 
which we must work. In approaching this sub- 
ject, I shall focus to some extent upon the Philip- 
pines as an example of how we work in partnership 
with these free nations. The accomplislunents of 
the Philippines since independence are well known 
to most of us here, as well as the part played in 
those accomplishments by our distinguished friend 
and colleague. Governor Cuaderno,- who shares 

this platform. 

I shall start out by making two assumptions: 
first, that the problems which face us in Asia and 
the major trends in Asia are well known to this 
group, and I shall therefore not take up time in 
preliminary analysis; second, that your main in- 
terest in what a representative of the Department 
of State may say will center around the question, 
""Wliat is your Government doing a.bout it?" 

American policy in the Far East can be stated 
very simply. It is to strengthen the countries of 
the free world, and to curb the power and prevent 
expansion of communism. To do this, it is essen- 
tial to help the people of free Asia in their aspira- 
tions for independence and a better life in an 
atmosphere of peace and prosperity while at the 
same time insuring military strength adequate to 
resist aggression. The mutual security program, 



' Address made before the Far East-America Council of 
Commerce and Industry at New York, N. Y., on Oct. 4. 

' Miguel Cuaderno, Sr., Governor of the Central Bank of 
the Philippines and newly elected chainuan of the boards 
of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. 



through technical and economic development as- 
sistance, is helping them to achieve tlieir objec- 
tives. The military assistance part of the program 
is assisting some of these countries in maintaining 
internal order and security and in creating a first 
line of defense against aggression wliile they build 
up internally. 

These Asian people must have hope that they 
will be more secure and better off tomorrow than 
they are today. So long as this hope exists, we 
may assume that, barring aggression, these free 
nations will remain free. There will be no reason 
for them to succmnb to the blandishments of com- 
munism. And thus our aid programs, in helping 
the governments of these countries to make such 
faith and hope possible, are forwarding United 
States objectives. 

You have all heard so much about the mutual 
security aspects of our foreign economic aid pro- 
grams that the words may have lost their meaning. 
The essence of the relationship, however, between 
the U.S. Government and these governments is 
one of partnership in achieving a mutually desired 
goal. But what are these programs? "Wliat do 
they accomjDlish? 

Our foreign economic aid program is a diversi- 
fied portfolio. Economic aid extended by our 
Government to the countries of the Far East con- 
sists of grants for programs of technical assistance 
or "Iniow-how." It consists also of grants and 
loans (repayable in dollars or local currency) for 
economic development programs. It includes de- 
velopment loans by our Export-Import Bank. 

We also sell our agricultural food surpluses for 
local currency. Then, usually, we reloan the bulk 
of this money on a long-term basis to the Asian 



October 22, 1956 



635 



governments for economic development. We also 
have programs for the exchange of teachers and 
students. We offer financial and other assistance 
in the building of nuclear research reactors. We 
train scientists under the U.S. atoms-for-peace 
program. 

In addition to what we do on a bilateral or 
country-to-country basis, we contribute to the fine 
work being done by the United Nations and its 
associated organizations and to the International 
Bank for Reconstruction and Development. These 
programs are, of course, substantially supple- 
mented by American private resources made avail- 
able through private investment in the area as well 
as through the important work being done in Asia 
by such private organizations as the Ford, Rocke- 
feller, and Armour Foundations. 

In order to encourage private American invest- 
ment, we have endeavored to negotiate investment- 
guaranty agreements. Because we recognize the 
advantages of cooperation among free Asian 
countries, we have a special fund to foster regional 
cooperation for expanding economic growth in 
Asia. This fund is being used for, among other 
purposes, a central regional nuclear research and 
training center soon to be established in the Philip- 
pines. Another example of a project under this 
fund is the development of a regional telecom- 
munications system to link Thailand, Laos, Viet- 
Nam, and other countries in Asia more closely to- 
gether. There is not a free country in Asia which 
has not benefited from at least a part of this port- 
folio. 

What the United States does serves only as a 
supplement to what the peoples of Asia themselves 
do. Theirs is the effort. We can only help. But 
this help can mean the difference between success 
or failure for these countries — between remaining 
free and succumbing to Communist pressures. At 
the least we can know that the progress which has 
been made in the economies of Asia has been in 
some part the result of our contribution. 

Economic Aid to the Philippines 

But even these are generalizations. Let us be 
more specific. This is a Philippine discussion. 
Let me use the Philippines as an example of Amer- 
ica's response to the problems of underdevelop- 
ment and see how the economic aid program in the 
Philippines is assisting the Philippine Govern- 
ment to that end. Please note again that I said 



"assisting the Philippine Government," for the 
major responsibility is in the liands of the indi- 
vidual governments which are hosts to our aid pro- 
grams. And no aid program can accomplish 
much unless, working as partners with us, the 
governments concerned take the action necessary 
to encourage economic development. By the same 
token, the credit for accomplishment goes, and 
should go, not primarily to the country which 
makes the aid available or to the American ad- 
ministrators of such a program but rather to the 
officials of the governments directly concerned. 
The assistance program is in fact a joint enter- 
prise between the recipient government and the 
U.S. Government, and no projects or programs 
are ever undertaken which do not have the full 
support of these governments and on which, con- 
sequently, there is complete mutual agreement. 

It is readily apparent to even the most cursory 
observer of the Philippine scene that it is essen- 
tial that there be improvement in the lot of the 
rural inhabitants of the Philippines. This is nec- 
essary both for political stability and for economic 
development. Since the vast majority of Fili- 
pinos are dependent upon agriculture for their 
livelihood, it is essential to raise living standards 
in the rural areas if the internal market in the 
Philippines is to grow and thus attract increased 
investment. President Magsaysay is strongly en- 
couraging a rural development program designed 
to accelerate the development of a self-reliant 
citizenry capable of increasing their living stand- 
ards through administering self-help programs. 

United States economic assistance in tlie rural 
development field is designed to encourage this 
self-help process. Typical projects include the 
assistance of rural credit and marketing coopera- 
tives, irrigation, and agricultural extension serv- 
ices; also, local health centers. Available evi- 
dence indicates there has been a measurable im- 
provement in the conditions in those barrios where 
tlie rural development program has operated for 
some time. 

The interest of the Philippine Government in 
this program is shown by its plans to spend more 
than $40 million over the next 5 years for ex- 
panded rural community development. The train- 
ing for the expanded rural development project 
was begun at the Agricultural College at Los 
Banos in April of this year. Plans have been 
considered for two additional training centers. 
In view of the importance of this program and 



636 



Department of State Bulletin 



its expected benefit to the Philippines, the United 
States provided an additional $4.2 million in fiscal 
year 1956 to help meet initial local costs for es- 
sential training. 

In addition to the assistance given to the rural 
areas which endeavors to increase income levels, 
I should like to spend a few moments describing 
what the Philippine Government and the United 
States economic assistance program jointly are 
accomplishing in directly assisting industrial de- 
velopment. It is of particular interest in view 
of the criticism by some Filipinos that the United 
States aid program is placing too much emphasis 
on agriculture. 

Industrial Development Center 

In February 1955, the Industrial Development 
Center (Idc) was established. The purpose of 
this center is to stimulate private investment in 
small and medium-sized industry through pro- 
viding financial assistance and technical advisory 
services for prospective investors and local indus- 
tries. In this fashion, American aid encourages 
local private investment in industry by providing 
financial and technical assistance. 

An industrial loan fund was established to sup- 
ply qualified enterprises with peso financing in 
order to help overcome the shortage of capital. 
The banks are encouraged to change their lending 
habits and make funds available to industrial 
enterprises. This is done by making time deposits 
available to the banks from counterpart funds 
equal to the size of the banks' loans to the borrow- 
ing firms. In the 6-month period from August 
1955 to February 1956, 90 manufacturing firms 
received financing aid; 51 of these were new 
establislunents. 

In March 1956, the Export-Import Bank ex- 
tended a $65 million line of credit to the Philip- 
pines.' This included a $15 million line of credit 
for importing capital goods from the United 
States for loc-type projects. The Idc has been 
given the responsibility for processing for subse- 
quent approval by the Central Bank all applica- 
tions for credit under this $15 million progi-am. 

In order to alleviate the problems created by 
the shortage of qualified technicians in the Philip- 
pines, the Idc's Engineering and Technology De- 
partment is giving technical-engineering assist- 
ance to firms in fields as diverse as brickmaking 

" Bulletin of Apr. 2, 1956, p. 568. 



machinery, electroplating, and chemical-product 
manufacture. The Idc is also engaged in advising 
manufacturers in accounting procedures and cost 
control. Another function which has given prom- 
ise of being of considerable benefit to industry in 
the Philippines is the training of industrial super- 
visors by the loc's Institute for Industrial Super- 
visors. It thus may be seen that the U.S. aid 
program in the Philippines jointly with the Phil- 
ippine Government is attacking each of the major 
bottlenecks — the lack of balance and diversifica- 
tion in the economy, the lack of trained personnel 
and lack of capital, the low productivity and low 
income levels. 

How successful is this program ? How well is it 
performing its function of encouraging private 
investment and thus advancing the economic prog- 
ress of the Philippines? Unfortunately, there is 
no way of measuring what the results would have 
been had there been no program in the Philippines. 
All we can do is to look at the economy of the 
Philippines and decide if it is stagnating, retro- 
gressing, or moving forward. Examination of the 
available statistics leads to the optimistic conclu- 
sion that the Philippines has embarked on the 
right road to economic advancement. 

The latest available information indicates that 
the general expansion of economic activity which 
has been present in the Philippines for the past 2 
years is continuing. All of us here are aware of 
the new industries continually being established 
in the Philippines. Manufacturing activity is re- 
ported to be about 20 percent higher than the same 
period of last year. Investment, as measured by 
the paid-up capital of newly registered corpora- 
tions and partnerships in the second quarter of 
1956, was almost 50 percent above the second quar- 
ter of 1955. 

There are, of course, serious dangers ahead. But 
there is every reason to believe that the Philippine 
Government will follow an economic course which 
will bring a more plentiful life to all Filipinos 
and, at the same time, increase the strength and 
already high prestige of the Philippines through- 
out the world. 

Other Aid Programs 

Viet-Nam, 

So much for the Philippines. Let us take a look 
at the accomplishments of another type of pro- 
gram. A little over a year ago, the newly inde- 



Ocfober 22, 1956 



637 



pendent government of Viet-Nam was fighting 
for its life. It was faced with the military and 
subversion threat of the Communists to the north 
of the 17th parallel; it was confronted with in- 
ternal strife. Self-seeking religious sects were 
challenging the government with their own armies. 
Hundreds of thousands of refugees who had fled 
from the Communists in the north had to be cared 
for and resettled. The problems facing this new 
nation were well nigh overwhelming. 

"VVliat is the situation today? We now find a 
firmly entrenched nationalist government under 
the leadership of President Diem. This govern- 
ment has proved its capacity not only to survive 
in face of Communist subversive eilorts but to as- 
sume the responsibilities of independence, includ- 
ing the holding of free elections for an assembly 
which is now drafting a constitution for a free 
Viet-Nam. 

The American aid program, concentrating on: 

( 1 ) strengthening the internal security of the 
country, 

( 2 ) assisting in the resettlement of the 800,000 
refugees, 

(3) aiding the Viet-Nam government in sta- 
bilizing and developing the economy, 

was a factor in this achievement. 

Indonesia 

In Indonesia the American aid progi'am, apart 
from our agricultural disposal program, has been 
largely in the form of technical assistance. A brief 
recital of some of the accomplishments of that 
program may bring home to us the significance of 
these efforts. 

Malaria in Indonesia is called the swamp 
dragon. It is the most feared and most common 
disease. It has been estimated that 30 million 
people in Indonesia 5 years ago were under con- 
stant exposure to malaria. Four years ago in some 
areas of east Java, one baby in two was destined 
to have malaria before he reached his first birth- 
day. Most children born today in these same areas 
will never have the disease. Extensive checks 
made last year in controlled parts of east Java 
failed to find a single case of malaria among chil- 
dren born after three annual DDT sprayings of 
the area. The disease chain had been broken. 
Under the cooperative Indonesian-American con- 
trol program, four million Indonesians have been 



so protected from malaria. The gains come not 
alone in better health and happier people. The 
program is conservatively estimated to be re- 
sponsible for an annual increase in rice production 
of 58,000 tons, or more than 2 days' rice ration for 
every man, woman, and child in Indonesia. In 
one area alone, over 50,000 acres of land abandoned 
because of malaria have been put back into pro- 
duction. This program is currently being ex- 
panded, and it is estimated that 4 years from now 
the danger of succumbing to malaria will have 
been practically eliminated for the 80 million 
people of Indonesia. 

Indonesia is one country of the Far East which 
still has a frontier. The young man of Indonesia 
can in fact "go west." Thousands of acres of land 
in Sumatra, Sumbawa, Sulawesi, and other islands 
are yielding to the advance of agricultural 
machinery piloted by young Indonesians who are, 
directly or indirectly, U.S.-trained. Last year 
some 30,000 families went "west" and established 
new farms in frontier areas. 

Most Indonesians are fanners. Holdings are 
small, frequently no larger than one acre; the 
farmer's problem is simply that of increasing 
production on his own piece of land so that his 
family may have a better living. The farmer's 
problem is also the Government's problem, be- 
cause insufficient agricultural production in Indo- 
nesia has necessitated large food imports requiring 
foreign exchange which the young nation needs 
to spend on the import of capital goods. 

As a result of research by the Indonesian Agri- 
culture Research Station in Bogor, which has two 
U. S. rice-breeding specialists on its staff, purified 
rice seed has been developed which produces 331/3 
percent higher yields per acre. Approximately 
one-third of the farmers on Java are already using 
this purified seed. U. S. corn breeders working 
with their Indonesian counterparts have developed 
a new variety of corn which has already proved 
able to produce 300 percent higher yields than 
indigenous varieties. The U. S. program in Indo- 
nesia has helped set up mechanized production 
units in cottage industry villages; assisted in the 
Indonesian Government's loan fund, which ex- 
tends credit to private industry to mechanize its 
operations; provided consulting services for pri- 
vately owned factories; and assisted the Govern- 
ment in the exploration of its natural resources. 
Improvements made at Tandjong Priok, Djakar- 
ta's harbor, in efficient handling of cargo have 



638 



Department of State Bulletin 



resulted in a saving of a total of $8 million over 
a 15-month period. 

Finally, Indonesia is being assisted in the vital 
area of education — in vocational education at the 
trade-school level and higher education in the fields 
of medicine, engineering, and agriculture. 

These are just samples selected at random, but 
they may serve to illustrate what is being done. 

Private Foreign Investment 

One of the great forces in Asia today is na- 
tionalism. Nationalism is a positive force. It 
can be a great constructive force. But there are 
some in Asia who are demanding bans against 
foreign investments, who are Urging their govern- 
ments to amplify their role as enterpreneurs, and 
who maintain that aU important sectors of the 
national economy should be in the hands of na- 
tionals of the country, not outsiders. And at this 
point I should like to emphasize that there are 
some things economic aid on a government-to- 
government basis cannot do. 

Economic aid in any form must be marginal. 
A priceless component of economic progress in a 
free society is the impetus and drive of private 
capital. It is a heartening fact that virtually all 
the free countries of Asia are now themselves tak- 
ing steps to encourage and stimulate the growth 
of a private, indigenous, entrepreneurial commu- 
nity. In almost every one of these countries there 
are now special institutions or progi-ams to assist 
would-be local private investors in financing new 
productive enterprises. Burma and now Laos are 
the most recent examples of countries midertaking 
such a program. 

As highly desirable as private local investment 
is, however, it still is unable to inject into the na- 
tional economies of these countries many of the 
modern skills, technical knowledge, and the large 
sums of capital and foreign exchange required 
for large-scale enterprises. The one best and by 
all odds most efficient source for this is private 
foreign investment. There are today ample capi- 
tal, managerial, and technical skills available in 
private industry to do the job that has to be done 
in Asia. But these skills are not present to any 
degree in Asia as of today. 

The question may properly be asked, Why 
should the United States Government through 
taxation funnel American capital into Asian coun- 



tries as, at best, a poor substitute for what private 
American investors themselves could do? Is it 
because our private investment capital won't go 
there? Because these countries are suspicious of 
private foreign entrepreneurs and won't let them 
in ? Because they are suspicious of the West ? Be- 
cause these countries believe in socialism and in- 
sist on government operation of enterprises that 
are pi"ivately owned in most Western countries? 
Because they are nationalistic and insist on run- 
ning their own economic as well as political 
affairs? 

Some of these answers apply in some countries ; 
others, in other countries. Whatever the reasons, 
they are likely to be based more upon fear than 
upon reality. The United States itself was to a 
significant degree built by British and European 
capital. In 1790, the year after the United States 
of America came into being, total foreign assets 
in the United States (about $75 million) com- 
prised as much as 10 percent of our total national 
wealth. During the 19th century net foreign capi- 
tal amounting to over $3 billion poured into the 
United States; yet the percentage of foreign as- 
sets had fallen early in the 19th century to 4 per- 
cent of our total national wealth and remained 
at approximately that figure throughout the cen- 
tury. 

What happened was that we used this foreign 
investment as a nucleus, around which our na- 
tional economy grew. By 1955 total foreign 
assets in the U.S. were estimated at about $29.6 
billion, yet this amount was only about 2 per- 
cent of our national wealth. The less devel- 
oped countries of today can utilize foreign 
capital in the same way. Private foreign invest- 
ment should properly be judged less by its effect 
upon the balance of payments, through profit re- 
mittances, than by the catalytic effect which it may 
have upon the increase in the rate of growth of 
national income. It is your job and mine to help 
remove the fear which is forestalling private capi- 
tal from moving into and being accepted by Asia. 
It is our job to convince the leaders of these na- 
tions that there is more mutual aid in foreign pri- 
vate investment for productive purposes which 
does not intrude upon national objectives than 
there is in all the governmental aid programs in 
the world — sound though the latter may be and 
proud though we as Americans can be of the part 
our country is playing in extending this aid. 



October 22, 1956 



639 



Let me cite just one small instance. I shall not 
mention the country, but in one underdeveloped 
nation last year a single American industry began 
investments of more than $160 million. In this 
same country, the United States aid program, 
making an important contribution too, totaled 
little more than $10 million a year. This puts the 
matter in proper perspective, providing a hint as 
to what these countries might anticipate from 
private foreign investment, once they establish a 
climate in which it can operate. And it should 
not be forgotten that, in addition to providing 
basic facilities in the country, employment, and 
teclinical education for the workers, the govern- 
ment itself gains at once and substantially through 
its power of taxation. The arrangement is one 
of mutual benefit and should be so regarded. 

New Communist Tactics 

This brief examination of "what your Govern- 
ment is doing about it" can perhaps be made more 
meaningful by some reference to the new Com- 
munist tactics in the Far East. 

To the leaders in the Kremlin, ever eager to 
capitalize on situations of weakness, the mass 
Asian frustration over their economic lot must 
have seemed readymade for the Communists' ex- 
ploitation. Almost as soon as mainland China be- 
came Communist, it began to flood free Asia with 
propaganda of fantastic achievements which the 
Communists asserted were the fruits of a Marxian 
approach. That many of the claims were beyond 
the realm of plausibility did not wholly detract 
from their propaganda value among the unsophis- 
ticated and those yearning for, and ever ready to 
believe that there might be, an economic panacea. 
Until 1955, however, the Communist bloc largely 
limited itself to eulogies of its achievements and to 
admonitions to the free Asian countries not to 
accept foreign aid lest they lose their independ- 
ence and revert to their colonial status. The Com- 
munists shed crocodile tears for the plight of the 
underdeveloped countries. Since they gave no 
foreign aid themselves, they denounced it as iniq- 
uitous and an instrument of imperialism. 

Speaking at the 6th session of the General As- 
sembly of the United Nations in 1951, the Soviet 
delegate decried all Western aid to the underde- 
veloped countries and stated, "the underdeveloped 
countries should not respond to the blackmail 
practiced agamst them in the guise of technical 



assistance." He warned the underdeveloped coun- 
tries that "the United States and the United j 
Kingdom had greater interest in exporting capital 
than the underdeveloped countries had in import- 
ing such funds." Pie urged instead that the coun- 
tries acliieve their economic progress through the 
sweat of their own efforts. 

This was typical of the Communist line until the 
end of 1954. Communist trade with the Far East 
up to that point was negligible and consisted pri- 
marily of samples of industx'ial equipment which 
could not be bought. 

Suddenly the Communist line shifted. The So- ^ 
viet economic policy veered from one of autarchy 
within the Soviet bloc to a view that foreign trade 
is both an "organic part of the socialist economic 
sj'stem" and "an integral element of Soviet for- 
eign policy." Soviet trade groups and economic 
missions suddenly arrived on the Asian scene. 
That genial pair of salesmen, Bulganin and 
Khrushchev, took the long trip to the Far East 
to drum up business. 

As a result, the bloc countries now have trade 
agreements with five of the countries of the Far 
East and South Asia : Burma and India each have 
8 and Indonesia has 7 ; Ceylon 6 ; and Cambodia 
one. Such agi'eements generally do not go beyond 
specifying amounts and types of goods for which 
the two countries involved will provide official 
trading facilities. They do not assure that trade 
will reach the specified levels, and in actual prac- 
tice exchanges have often been much lower. In 
effect, these much-touted trade agreements amount 
to little more than simple declarations of intent to 
trade. Nevertheless, the Sino-Soviet bloc's trade 
with free Asia has been increasing. For South 
Asia and the Far East taken together, the value of 
this trade has increased about 20 percent above the 
level m 1953. However, it still remains a small 
percentage of free Asia's total trade. 

In its trade drive, the bloc has based much of its 
appeal on the needs of underdeveloped countries 
to expand their markets for agricultural products 
and to stabilize their export earnings. They were 
not deterred from doing this by the fact that in 
previous years they had consistently denounced 
Asia's trade with the West on the grounds that 
that trade consisted primarily of agricultural and 
other raw materials and was therefore colonial in 
nature. This was overlooked, however, by much 
of Asia when the bloc publicized its willingness to 
take agricultural commodities in surplus in free 



640 



DepartmenI of State Bulletin 



Asia — sometimes at premium prices, as in the case 
of Ceylon rubber. State trading organizations 
have stood ready to carry out central decisions rap- 
idly, and all the organs of Communist propaganda 
lost little time in playing up the advantages of 
such trade and in fanning already strong preju- 
dices against Western economic policies — particu- 
larly surplus-disposal programs and various as- 
pects of U.S. aid policy. 

The Sino-Soviet bloc, however, has not had un- 
qualified smooth sailing. There has been dissatis- 
faction in Burma with Communist barter arrange- 
ments. The former Prime Minister of Burma has 
been quoted as saying that "anyone who takes bar- 
ter when he can get cash is out of his mind." The 
Burmese have found the Communist goods over- 
priced for their quality and uncertain as to deliv- 
ery. Much-advertised large Russian shipments of 
cement turned into an utter fiasco when the cement 
caked on the docks because of improper packing 
and became unusable. Fountain pens manufac- 
tured in Communist China proved balky when 
applied to paper. Burma disposed of large quan- 
tities of its surplus rice to China but could scarcely 
have been pleased when Communist China turned 
around and exported rice to Burma's traditional 
cash customers. 

The final score on this Communist game of "clap 
in, clap out" is not yet in. The Communists are 
intensifying their trade efforts. In this arena the 
competition is between Communist bureaucrats 
and American and other Western private busi- 
nessmen. Even though the Communist competi- 
tion is likely to be anything but fair, we have no 
fear of the outcome. 

There is another aspect of this problem to which 
we all need to be alert. The Chinese Communists 
are buying rice from Burma at fictitious prices and 
selling rice to Burma's own customers — Ceylon 
and Pakistan. They are even selling some rice to 
Japan. This is better than a triple play ; it helps 
entangle the free coimtries in the Communist eco- 
nomic spider web and reduces the amount of rice 
Taiwan and other free countries such as Burma, 
Thailand, and the United States can sell to Japan. 

"Wliile this is going on, an intensive effort is 
under way to invade Southeast Asian markets and 
incidentally elbow out Japan. Eed China con- 
sumer goods — from bicycles to bandanas — are be- 
ginning to pour into such centers as Bangkok and 
Singapore. The goods are priced below the mar- 



ket, but the quality is poor. A large thermos 
bottle, for example, is priced at less than $1.00 
U. S., but purchasers find it only lasts a short time. 
Both fear and artificially favorable terms play 
their part in this campaign. Chinese merchants 
are assigned quotas by the Communists, and the 
goods are delivered on consignment. 

Perhaps even more spectacular than the Com- 
munist trade offensive is the completely new face 
which the Communists are showing in extending 
foreign aid. It is a sobering fact that since 1954 
members of the Sino-Soviet bloc, after years of 
denouncing foreign aid as an unvarnished instru- 
ment of Western imperialism, have agreed to ex- 
tend to 11 underdeveloped countries in the world 
the equivalent of $1 billion in credits for the pur- 
chase of Communist goods and technical services. 
The bulk of these credits have gone to Yugoslavia, 
Egypt, India, and Afghanistan. Indonesia and 
Cambodia have now been added to this list. Indo- 
nesia recently agreed to accept a line of credit 
from Soviet Russia equivalent to $100 million. 
According to the announcement, the terms of the 
loan call for 2i/4 percent annual interest to be 
repaid in 12 years in commodities, pounds sterling, 
or other convertible currency. The individual 
projects for which the credit is to be utilized are 
to be agreed upon by the two governments. 

In assessing the attractiveness of the Russian 
economic aid offers, it is well to bear in mind that, 
although the Communists offer interest at 2 per- 
cent and 2y2 percent, their loans are generally 
payable within 10 to 15 years and usually do not 
provide for any grace period before the beginning 
of payments on principal. Under our mutual se- 
curity program, the United States makes 40-year 
loans with interest at 3 percent if repaid in dollars 
or 4 percent if repaid in local currency. The de- 
velopment loans of our own Export-Import Bank, 
although they currently bear a somewhat higher 
rate of interest, are often for a longer term than 
are the Communist offers and usually provide for 
some grace period. 

These new Communist efforts need not throw us 
off stride. It is important for us not to outbid but 
to outperform the Communists. As President 
Eisenhower pointed out in his message to Congress 
on the Mutual Security Act last March 19,^ "Our 
progi'ams which were conceived in the common 



* iMd., p. 545. 



Ocfober 22, 1956 



641 



interests of the free nations must go ahead affirma- 
tively ... to meet the common need." Indeed, 
one of the surest indications that our programs 
have been sound and have been serving to 
strengthen the cause of freedom in Asia is the 
very fact that the international Communists have 
now felt compelled to undertake a program which 
superficially resembles our own. 

Enough has been said to give a brief glimpse of 
some of the things your Government is doing to 
meet the basic problems of the Far East, and to 
outline the political climate in which it works. I 
return to the theme with which I started — it is 



the policy of the United States Government to 
strengthen the governments of the free world and 
to curb the power and curtail the influence of the 
Communists. To accomplish this, it is essential to 
assist the governments of Asia in insuring that 
their people have hope that they will be more 
secure and better off tomorrow than they are to- 
day. If we remain steadfast in this policy, we 
may assume that, barring aggression, these free 
nations will remain free. As a partner in a great 
enterprise, the U.S. Government is helping the 
free countries of Asia to help themselves in the 
realization of this goal. 



Advancing the Security of the Free World 



EXCERPTS FROM THE TENTH SEMIANNUAL REPORT ON THE MUTUAL SECURITY PROGRAM' 



PRESIDENT'S LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 

To the Congress of the United States : 

I am transmitting herewith the Tenth Semian- 
nual Eeport on the operations of the Mutual Se- 
curity Program, for the period January 1, 1956 
through June 30, 1956. 

The accomplishments during this six-month 
IDeriod under this program of mutual effort have 
further advanced the security, the economic prog- 
ress and the well-being of the United States and 
our partners in the free world. 

The White House, 
September W, 1956 



HIGHLIGHTS OF THE HALF-YEAR JANUARY- 
JUNE 1956 

Factors Affecting Mutual Security Policies 

The basic reasons for the mutual security pro- 
gram are clear. They have been spelled out many 
times in previous semiannual reports and discussed 
thoroughly and extensively by the President, the 
Secretary of State, and various congressional com- 



mittees. Summed up in one sentence, the program 
rests on the simple and hard fact that United 
States long-term security and welfare are insepa- 
rably interwoven with the security and welfare of 
other free nations just as their security and welfare 
are tied in with ours. 

The reasons why it is in the best interests of the 
United States to carry on the cooperative military 
and economic effort with other independent na- 
tions were reiterated in March by the President in 
these words : ^ 

. . . because there are still nations that are eager to 
strive with us for peace and freedom but, without our 
help, lack the means of doing so. 

. . . becaiise there are still forces hostile to freedom 
that compel the free world to maintain adequate and co- 
ordinated power to deter aggression. 

. . . because there are still peoples who aspire to sus- 
tain their freedom but confront economic obstacles that 
are beyond their capabilities of surmounting alone. 



^ H. Doc. 481, 84th Cong., 2d sess. ; transmitted on 
Sept. 24. Reprinted here are excerpts from section I of 
the report, "Highlights of the Half- Year January-June 
1956," and section II, "Use of Funds in Fiscal Year 1956." 
The remaining two sections deal with program activities 
in selected countries and with other aspects of the pro- 
gram, including investment guaranty insurance, liaison 
with U.S. business firms, and the escapee program. 

- From the President's message to Congress on the mu- 
tual security program, March 1956 (Bulletin of Apr. 2, 
1956, p. 545). 



642 



Department of State Bulletin 



These facts are as fundamental to our own security and 
well-being as the maintenance of our own armed forces. 

Mutuality of Effort 

One point should be strongly underlined. The 
"mutual" element in the mutual security plan is 
the key to the achievement of the "security" it 
seeks. By pooling its particular capabilities and 
resources and working in concert toward common 
goals, each nation participating in the program 
can achieve far more in terms of true military 
and economic security than it could obtain solely 
through its own efforts, and at considerably less 
cost to itself. This applies as well to the United 
States as to the other nations in the program. 

The concept of mutuality in our program oper- 
ations is illustrated by the following facts : 

^ During the 6 years of the Nato defense 
buildup, European Nato nations have paid for 
85 percent of the total cost; they have supplied 
60 percent of the materiel used by European Nato 
forces; and they have provided the bulk of the 
manpower assigned or earmarked to Nato com- 
manders. 

^ In addition to men and funds, nations in 
Europe are furnishing bases and facilities for 
U. S. troops stationed abroad. A large number 
of these bases and facilities are being provided 
under the Nato infrastructure program to which 
the United States has contributed about 38 per- 
cent of the cost. To date, over 140 airfields have 
been constructed under this program, many of 
which are occupied by units of the United States 
Air Force. In time of emergency, all these bases 
and facilities will be available to us. Without 
these bases, the effectiveness of our principal de- 
terrent, our nuclear retaliatory power, would be 
seriously impaired. 

^Eui'opean countries generally are maintain- 
ing their defense expenditures at a high level. 
In 1954 and 1955, these expenditures averaged 
about $12 billion a year, only a moderate decline 
from the postwar peak of $12.8 billion in 1953. 
Total defense expenditures for Nato countries 
are again rising and are now estimated to be run- 
ning at a rate of $13 billion annually; U. S. mili- 
tary assistance furnished to these countries 
amounted to $1.9 billion in 1955. 

^ In the Middle East and South Asia, the ma- 
jor portion of U.S. military assistance goes to 
four countries — Greece, Turkey, Iran, and 
Pakistan. Defense expenditures of these coun- 



tries in the 1956 fiscal year are estimated at sub- 
stantially more than double the value of military 
aid delivered by the United States. Greece and 
Turkey are making their military contributions 
to Nato. Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey, as members 
of the Baghdad Pact, have assumed responsibility 
in the collective defense of the Middle East area, 
so vital to the interests of the United States and 
other Western nations. 

^ In the Far East, South Korea, Taiwan, and 
free Viet-Nam are devoting 50 to 60 percent of 
their budgetary expenditure to defense, maintain- 
ing large military forces to guard that important 
area against Communist aggression. U.S. contri- 
butions of military items and economic assistance 
enable those nations to place their forces in strate- 
gic positions for the defense of the free world. 

► While the United States is contributing a por- 
tion of the financial resources as well as the techni- 
cal advice required for economic development, 
generally the bulk of the investment is provided 
by the participating countries themselves. For 
example, the U.S. contribution to India's first five- 
year plan has been about 6 percent of the total ex- 
penditure involved. In the 1956 fiscal year, the 
Philippines Government contributed more than 
70 percent of the total cost of joint economic de- 
velopment projects in which the United States 
participated. 

► In Latin America, where technical coopera- 
tion is the most widespread element of the mutual 
security program, U.S. obligations of $27 million 
for joint technical cooperation projects in fiscal 
year 1956 have been combined with host countries' 
own contributions of about $50 million in curren- 
cies and an additional $23 million in goods and 
services. 

Reappraisal of Program Direction 

While the fundamental objectives of the mutual 
security program remain clear and unchanged, 
several important developments have unfolded in 
the last year or so which bear directly on the 
methods and techniques we are using to achieve 
those objectives. As they affect mutual security 
operations, these developments center around two 
main points. One concerns the rising cost of 
building and maintaining a modern military 
establishment in participating countries and the 
growing competition between defense claims on a 
nation's resources and the claims of economic 



October 22, 1956 



643 



gi-owth. The other concerns the Soviet "new 
look," their growing industrial strength, and the 
expanded economic activities of the Sino-Soviet 
bloc in the Near East, South and Southeast Asia, 
and other strategic parts of the world. 

These two considerations have raised a number 
of questions on adapting the mutual security pro- 
gram to meet the issues that have grown out of 
new circumstances. The questions, in turn, in- 
volve a series of complex problems, few of which 
have an easy or pat solution. There is the prob- 
lem for example of keeping a proper balance be- 
tween the military and economic components of 
the mutual security program. In certain cases, 
there is unfortunately no satisfactory alternative 
to the maintenance of large and powerful but 
expensive forces. It would be foolish for instance 
to let down our guard in Europe, Korea, Taiwan, 
and free Viet-Nam. However, even accepting the 
necessity of maintaining adequate strength in 
those areas, we must consider to what extent ex- 
isting military forces should be modernized, and 
how much of a military burden the economies of 
the participating countries can stand. 

There is also the problem of the impact of 
sharply stepped-up Soviet economic efforts in the 
free world's newly developing countries. In 
directing ourselves to this problem, we come up 
against a host of related questions. Should the 
program be enlarged ? Should it be given greater 
flexibility to meet the new Soviet economic tactics ? 
How much can other countries, particularly in 
Europe, contribute to the progress of less devel- 
oped areas ? How much assistance can these areas 
effectively absorb? Should we give greater stress 
to short-term projects of popular appeal or con- 
tinue to emphasize long-range projects which 
though basic to economic improvement, may excite 
less popular interest ? To what degree might it be 
effective to provide more assistance through multi- 
lateral channels and less through our bilateral 
programs? Can our economic assistance be put 
on a loan basis to a greater extent or would the 
widening of loan activities and the softening of 
their terms be self-defeating? 

Several intensive studies of the mutual security 
program are planned or under way in an effort to 
find answers to these difficult questions. The re- 
sults of these various studies should insure that 
mutual security operations in the coming years 
will be conducted in a manner which will bring 



maximum returns to the American people and ' 
provide our free world partners with the most ef- 
fective kind of military and economic cooperation. ' 



USE OF FUNDS IN FISCAL YEAR 1956 

The Total Picture 

During fiscal year 1956, total obligations or res- 
ervations made from funds available for the mu- 
tual security program amounted to nearly $2.4 
billion. Of this total, $843 million was obligated 
or reserved by the Department of Defense for 
direct military assistance; $1.5 billion was obli- 
gated by IcA [International Cooperation Admin- 
istration] for other than direct military programs. 
By far the largest share of total available funds 
was used for direct military aid and defense sup- 
port programs. About $158 million was used to 
pay the costs of ocean freight for surplus agri- 
cultural commodities, for support to various 
multilateral programs such as the activities of 
United Nations organizations and the Organiza- 
tion of American States, for escapee programs, 
and for other purposes related to mutual security 
objectives. 

Direct military assistance under the mutual 
security program is extended by providing weap- 
ons and other military supply items, by carrying 
out training programs, and by sharing in the 
financing of joint military facilities. 

Nonmilitary assistance is extended in one of 
three ways, depending on how the needs and cir- 
cumstances of tlie participating country relate to 
the policy objectives of the United States : (1) de- 
fense support and technical cooperation; (2) de- 
velopment assistance and technical cooperation; 
or (3) technical cooperation alone. 

Defense support programs are designed to help 
certain countries which are receiving military as- 
sistance to support appropriate levels of military 
strength while also maintaining and promoting 
political and economic stability. Such support 
involves furnishing economic resources to enable 
the recipient country to undertake defense activi- 
ties that otherwise would not be possible or to 
increase the recipient's capacity to do so in the 
future. Without such support the security of the 
United States and other free world nations would 
be diminished to a serious extent, or would have 



644 



Department of State Bulletin 



to be compensated for by the maintenance at far 
greater expense of additional U.S. forces and their 
deployment abroad. 

Development assistance is aid given primarily 
to promote economic development or to deal with 
other problems whose solution is necessary to 
create or maintain economic and political stability. 
In most nations, development assistance also com- 
plements programs of technical cooperation by 
providing needed supplies, commodities or funds. 
Usually tliis type of aid is required to make pos- 
sible or accelerate activities required to promote 
basic U.S. interests. 

Development assistance differs from defense 
support in that the former is directed wholly 
toward goals which are not military in character, 
whereas the latter has as one of its essential aims 
the attainment of military objectives. 

Through technical cooperation progi-ams, we 
share knowledge, experience, techniques, and skills 
with the peoples of the economically less developed 
areas of the world for the purpose of helping them 
to advance their economic progress and raise their 
standard of living. These progi'ams emphasize 
and consist largely of advisory services, teaching, 
training, and exchange of information; they do 
not include the provision of supplies and equip- 
ment beyond that which is required for effective 
demonstration purposes. Participation and inter- 
est in these programs are steadily growing, as evi- 
denced by the increasing share of host country 
contributions. 

Direct Military Programs 

Military Equipment 

During the fii-st 6 months of 1956, $1.9 billion 
worth of military equipment and supplies was 
shipped to nations cooperating in the mutual de- 
fense of the free world. The greatest portion of 
this amount, almost two-thirds, was shipped to 
countries in Europe ; the Asia and Pacific area was 
the next largest recipient, with about one-quarter 
of the total. Over 50 percent of the value of the 
military deliveries was made up of planes and 
related Air Force items. Another substantial por- 
tion, some 40 percent, represented ammunition, 
tanks and combat vehicles, artillery, and other 
equipment for ground forces. Ships, naval air- 
craft and supporting items for naval forces ac- 
counted for the remainder. 

These 6-month deliveries brought to $14.2 bil- 



ICA OBLIGATIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 1956 ' 

(Millions of dollars) 



Region and country 


Total 


Defense 
support 


Devel- 
opment 
assist- 
ance 


Tech- 
nical 
cooper- 
ation 


Other 


Total 


1,550.5 


1,132.0 


157.2 


150.0 


111.4 


Asia— Total 


952.7 


824.0 


70.7 


56.9 


1.1 






Far East 


760. e 

45.1 

7.0 

0.9 

324.6 

48.6 

29.1 

73.3 

34.5 

197.1 

0.3 

IBS. 2 

18.0 

4.9 

60.4 

1.8 

107.1 

259.1 


7S(!. 7 
43.1 




SS.8 
1.9 
7.0 
0.9 
6.0 
0.9 
6.9 
3.3 
5.0 
3.6 
0.3 

SS.l 
2.7 
0.9 

10.0 
0.8 
8.7 

32.0 




Cambodia 








Japan 










319.6 

47.7 
23.2 
70.0 
29.6 
193.6 






Laos 




Philippines 




Taiwan... _ 




Thailand 




Viet Nam 










97. S 

'"'97.1" 
188.7 


70.7 
15.3 

4.0 
60.4 

1.0 

38.0 


1.1 


Afghanistan - . 








India 




Nepal 




Pakistan 


1.1 


Near East and Africa— Total 


0.6 




2.5 

2.9 

26.7 

65.4 

2.2 

24.0 

7.5 

7.7 

1.8 

7.0 

107.8 

1.1 

2.6 

no.i 






2.5 
2.9 
0.6 
7.9 
2.2 
1.5 
2.6 
2.3 
1.8 
2.0 
2.2 
1.1 
2.6 




Ethiopia 










26.2 
67.5 






Iran 








Israel . . __ 




22.5 
6.0 
6.5 








Lebanon.. 




Liberia 




Libya . 


"165^6' 


5.0 




Turkey 


0.6 


Overseas Territories 












Europe — Total 


110.1 














Germany (Fed. Rep.) 


17.3 

58.7 
30.0 

1.2 
2.8 

71.3 


17.3 
58.7 
30.0 

1.2 
2.8 






















Technical Exchange— "West- 








Regional 








Latin America — Total _ _. 


44.1 


27.1 


0.1 








0.1 
26.6 
3.6 
2.2 
1.3 
0.9 
0.5 
0.3 
1.7 
0.9 
17.7 
6.4 
1.2 
0.7 
0.8 
1.1 
1.5 
2.8 
0.2 
0.1 
0.6 
1.3 

157.6 








0.1 


Bolivia 




22.9 


2.7 
3.6 
2.2 
1.3 
0.9 
0.5 
0.3 
1.7 
0.9 
1.6 
1.4 
1.2 
0.7 
0.8 
1.1 
1.6 
2.8 
0.2 
0.1 
0.6 
1.3 

34.5 








Chile 
























Cuba 








Dominican Republic 














El Salvador 












16.2 
6.0 




Haiti 








































Peru 










































9.3 


4.4 


109. S 






Asian Development Fund... 


4.4 
29.0 
124.2 




4.4 


0.1 
9.9 
24.6 


""io.'i 


other 3 _ _. 


9.3 




90.6 







1 Preliminary figures. 

' Includes allocations to other U.S. Government agencies and adminis- 
trative expenses. 

lion the cumulative total of military equipment 
and supplies furnished to other friendly nations 
since the beginning of the program of military 
assistance in fiscal year 1950, with the proportions 



October 22, 1956 



645 



going to the respective areas for the entire period 
being roughly similar to those for the half-year 
period. Ammunition, tanks and combat vehicles, 
and aircraft accounted for over 60 pei'cent of all 
materiel furnished. Of the cumulative total, the 
ground forces received by far the largest share, 61 
percent. 



Nonmilitary Programs 

Almost half of the $1.5 billion obligated by 
IcA in fiscal year 1956 for other than direct mili- 
tary aid programs was used for the Far East, and 
within that area largely for South Korea, Taiwan, 
and free Viet-Nam.^ 

The great bulk of the total funds for nonmili- 



tary programs was earmarked for activities in the 
category of defense support; development assist- 
ance and technical cooperation combined ac- 
counted for less than one-fifth of the overall 
amount. In the Far East, for example, about 95 
percent of the funds obligated was for defense 
support programs. In Europe, virtually all of 
the nonmilitary programs, primarily in Spain and 
Yugoslavia, were in the defense support category. 
Except for the $4.4 million used in programs 
under the Asian Development Fund, all of the 
obligations for development assistance, $157 
million, were for countries in the Near East and 
South Asia, and in Latin America. Funds for 
technical cooperation were used in a wide range 
of activities throughout all parts of the free world. 



Notice of Intention To Participate in Limited Trade Agreement 
Negotiations Witli Cuba ^ 



The Interdepartmental Committee on Trade 
Agreements on October 8 issued notice of the in- 
tention of the U.S. Government to participate, 
under the authority of the Trade Agreements Act 
as amended and extended, in limited trade agree- 
ment negotiations with the Government of Cuba. 

In these negotiations, the United States will give 
consideration to jjossible taritf concessions on cer- 
tain types of unmanufactured tobacco (see below) 
in exchange for concessions by Cuba. The listed 
types of tobacco are imported into the United 
States, chiefly from Cuba, for use in the manu- 
facture of cigars. 

The negotiations will supplement those con- 
ducted at Geneva, Switzerland, earlier this year in 
which the United States, Cuba, and 20 other con- 
tracting parties to the General Agreement on 



^ For a survey of nonmilitary iirograms in the Far East, 
see Bulletin of Aug. 13, 1956, p. 269; for similar sum- 
maries of programs in Latin America and in South Asia, 
see ibid., Aug. 20, 1956, p. 317, and Sept. 24, 1956, p. 493. 

^ This material is also available as Department of State 
publication 6394 and may be obtained from the Division 
of Public Services, Department of State, Washington 25, 
D. C. See also 21 Fed. Reg. 7746. 



646 



Tariffs and Trade participated,^ and any resulting 
exchange of tariff concessions will be embodied in 
the respective schedules of the United States and 
Cuba supplemental to their present schedules to 
the General Agreement. 

In the case of most of the tobacco items listed, 
imports into the United States which are the 
product of Cuba are now entitled to preferentially 
lower rates of duty than are applied to like prod- 
ucts of other foreign countries. Any reduction in 
a rate applicable to the product of Cuba will apply 
to the Cuban product exclusively, but, in order to 
prevent increases in margins of preference, such a 
reduction may involve a reduction also in the rate 
applicable to the same type of tobacco which is 
the product of other countries. 

Tariff concessions by the United States will be 
considered within the limitation of the authority 
available to the President under the Trade Agree- 
ments Act as amended by the Trade Agreements 
Extension Act of 1955. The pertinent part of the 
legislation provides that rates might be reduced by 
15 percent below the January 1, 1955, rates by 



•' Bulletin of June 4, 1956, p. 941. 

Department of State Bulletin 



stages of 5 percent a year over a 3-year period, 
lint that no stage or reduction may be made eifec- 
live after June 30, 1958. Consequently there re- 
iiKiins authority to reduce rates by only 10 percent 
ht'low the Januaiy 1, 1955, rate in two annual 
at ages of 5 percent each. 

In accordance with past practice and the re- 
quirements of trade agreements legislation, the 
committee's notice sets in motion preparations for 
the negotiations, including opportunity for presen- 
tation by interested persons of both written and 
oral views on possible concessions which may be 
granted or obtained, and the determination of 
"peril points" by the United States Tariff Com- 
mission on all products on which the United States 
will consider granting concessions. 

The Committee for Eeciprocity Information, 
which will receive the views of interested persons 
concerning any aspect of the proposed negotia- 
tions, has announced that its hearings will open on 
November 14, 1956. Applications for oral presen- 
tation of views and information should be pre- 
sented to the committee not later than 12 noon, 
November 8, 1956. Persons desiring to be heard 
should also submit written briefs or statements to 
the committee by 12 noon, November 8, 1956. Only 
those persons will be heard who have presented 
written briefs or statements and have filed appli- 
cations to be heard by the dates indicated. Details 
concerning the submission of briefs and applica- 
tions to be heard are contained in the committee's 
notice. 

The members of the Committee for Reciprocity 
Information and the Committee on Trade Agree- 
ments are the same. They include a member of 
the U.S. Tariff Commission and representatives 
from the Departments of State, the Treasury, 
Defense, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, and In- 
terior, and the International Cooperation Admin- 
istration. 

Domestic producers, importers, and other inter- 
ested persons are invited to present to the Com- 
mittee for Reciprocity Information views and all 
possible pertinent information about products on 
the published list. All views and information 
will be carefully considered in deciding whether 
or not a concession should be offered by the United 
States on each product. Consideration will also be 
given to all relevant information submitted to the 
Committee for Reciprocity Information in con- 
nection with its hearings in October 1955 and 
January 1956 in preparation for the Geneva tariff 



negotiations. Accordingly, persons who presented 
information and views at those hearings and who 
do not desire to modify or supplement such ma- 
terial need not — but may if they wish — repeat 
their written or oral submissions. 

The U.S. Tariff Commission also announced on 
October 8 that it will hold public hearings begin- 
ning November 14, 1956, in connection with its 
"peril point" investigation, as required by section 
3 (a) of the Trade Agi-eements Extension Act of 
1951, on the extent to which U.S. concessions on 
listed products may be made in the negotiations 
without causing or threatening serious injury to a 
domestic industry producing like or directly com- 
petitive products. Copies of the notice may be 
obtained from the Commission. Views and infor- 
mation received by the Tariff Commission in its 
hearings referred to above will be made available 
to the Committee for Reciprocity Information for 
consideration by the Interdepartmental Commit- 
tee on Trade Agi-eements. Persons who appear 
before the Tariff Commission need not — but may 
if they wish — also appear before the Committee 
for Reciprocity Information if they apply in ac- 
cordance with the procedures of that Committee 
as outlined above. 

Persons wishing to suggest items on which the 
United States might request concessions should 
present their views to the Committee for Reci- 
procity Information. 



INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON TRADE 
AGREEMENTS 

Trade-Agreement Negotiations with Cuba under the Gen- 
eral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. 

Pursuant to Section 4 of the Trade Agreements 
Act, approved June 12, 1934, as amended (48 Stat. 
945, ch. 474; 65 Stat. 73, ch. 141) and to paragraph 
4 of Executive Order 10082 of October 5, 1949 
(3 CFR, 1949 Supp., p. 126) , notice is hereby given 
by the Interdepartmental Committee on Trade 
Agreements of intention to conduct trade-agree- 
ment negotiations with the Government of Cuba, 
under the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade, for the purpose of negotiating mutually 
advantageous tariff concessions to be embodied in 
schedules to the General Agreement. 

There is annexed hereto a list of articles im- 
ported into the United States to be considered for 
possible modification of duties and other import 



Ocfober 22, 1956 



647 



restrictions, imposition of additional import re- 
strictions, or specific continuance of existing cus- 
toms or excise treatment in tlie trade agreement 
negotiations of which notice is given above. 

The articles proposed for consideration in the 
negotiations are identified in the annexed list by 
si^ecifying the numbers of the paragraphs in tariil 
schedules of Title I of the Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended, in which they are provided for to- 
gether with the language used in such tariff para- 
graphs to provide for such articles, except that 
where necessary the statutory language has been 
modified by the omission of words or the addition 
of new language in order to narrow the scope of 
the original language. Wliere no qualifying lan- 
guage is used with regard to the type, grade, or 
value of any listed articles, all types, grades, and 
values of the article covered by the language used 
are included. 

In the case of any article in the list with respect 
to which the product of Cuba is now entitled to 
preferential treatment, a reduction in the rate ap- 
plicable to the product of Cuba may involve a 
reduction also in the rate applicable to other con- 
tracting parties to the General Agreement, in order 
to give effect to the provisions of that Agreement 
limiting increases in margins of preference. 

No article will be considered in the negotiations 
for possible modification of duties or other import 
restrictions, imposition of additional import re- 
strictions, or specific continuance of existing cus- 
toms or excise treatment unless it is included, spe- 
cifically or by reference, in the annexed list or 
unless it is subsequently included in a supplemen- 
tary public list. Except where otherwise indicated 
in the list, only duties imposed under the para- 
graphs of the Tariff Act of 1930 specified in the 
list with regard to articles described therein will 
be considered for a possible decrease, but addi- 
tional or separate duties or taxes on such articles 
imposed under any other provisions of law may 
be bound against increase as an assurance that the 
concession under the listed paragraph or section 
will not be nullified. 

In the event that an article which as of August 
15, 1956, was regarded as classifiable under a de- 
scription included in the list is excluded therefrom 
by judicial decision or otherwise prior to the con- 
clusion of the trade-agreement negotiations, the 
list will nevertheless be considered as including 
such article. 

Pursuant to Section 4 of the Trade Agreements 



648 



Act, as amended, and paragraph 5 of Executive , 
Order 10082 of October 5, 1949, information and ] 
views as to any aspect of the proposal, including 
the list of articles, announced in this notice may 
be submitted to the Committee for Reciprocity 
Information in accordance with the announcement 
of this date issued by that Committee. Persons 
interested in exports to Cuba may present their 
views regarding any tariff or other concessions 
that might be requested of the Government of 
Cuba. Any other matters appropriate to be con- 
sidered in connection with the negotiations pro- 
posed above may also be presented. 

Public hearings in connection with the "peril 
point" investigation of the United States Tariff 
Commission relating to the articles included in the 
annexed list, pursuant to section 3 of the Trade 
Agreements Extension Act of 1951, as amended, 
are the subject of an announcement of this date 
issued by that Commission. 

By direction of the Interdepartmental Commit- 
tee on Trade Agreements this 8th day of October, 
1956. 

Carl D. Corse 
Chamman 
Inter departmental Committee 
on Trade Agreements 

List op Articles Imported Into the United States 
Proposed for Consideration in Trade Agreement 
Negotiations 



Tariff 

Act of 

1930 



Par. 
601 



601 



603 



Schedule 6. Tobacco and Manufactures Of. 



Wrapper tobacco, and filler tobacco when mixed 
or packed together with more than 35 per- 
centum of wrapper tobacco, all the foregoing, 
stemmed or unstemmed. 

Filler tobacco not specially provided for (except 
cigarette leaf tobacco), stemmed or un- 
stemmed. 

Scrap tobacco. 



COMMITTEE FOR RECIPROCITY INFORMATION 

Trade Agreement Negotiations with Cuba under the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. 

Submission of Information to the Committee for Reci- 
procity Information. 

Closing date for filing applications to be heard and the 
submission of briefs November 8, 1956. 

Public hearings open November 14, 1956. 



Deparfmenf of State Bulletin 



i 



The Interdepartmental Committee on Trade 
Agreements has issued on this day a notice of in- 
tention to participate in trade-agreement negotia- 
tions with the Government of Cuba under the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. 

Annexed to the notice of the Interdepartmental 
Committee on Trade Agreements is a list of ar- 
ticles imported into the United States to be con- 
sidered for possible concessions in the negotiations. 
The Committee for Reciprocity Information here- 
by gives notice that all applications for oral pres- 
entation of views in regard to the proposed nego- 
tiations shall be submitted to the Committee for 
Reciprocity Information not later than 12 : 00 
noon, November 8, 1956. The application must 
indicate the product or products on which the 
individual or groups desire to be heard and an 
estimate of the time required for oral presentation. 
All persons who make application to be heard 
shall aJso submit to the Committee their views in 
writing in regard to the foregoing proposal not 
later than 12 : 00 noon, November 8, 1956. Such 
communications shall be addressed to "Committee 
for Reciprocity Information, Tariff Commission 
Building, Washington 25, D.C." Fifteen copies 
of written statements, either typed, printed, or 
duplicated shall be submitted, of which one copy 
shall be sworn to. 

Written statements submitted to the Committee, 
except information and business data proffered in 
confidence, shall be open to inspection by inter- 
ested persons. Information and business data 
proffered in confidence shall be submitted on sepa- 
rate pages clearly marked For Officml Use Only of 
Com/mittee for Recijyrocity Information. 

Public hearings will be held before the Com- 
mittee for Reciprocity Information, at which oral 
statements will be heard. The first hearing will 
be at 2:00 p. m. on November 14, 1956, in the 
Hearing Room in the Tariff Commission Building, 
8th and E Streets, N.W., Washington 25, D. C. 
Witnesses who make application to be heard will 
be advised regarding the time and place of their 
individual appearances. Appearances at hearings 
before the committee may be made only by or on 
behalf of those persons who have filed written 
statements and who have within the time pre- 
scribed made written application for oral presen- 
tation of views. Statements made at the public 
hearings shall be under oath. 

The United States Tariff Commission has today 
announced public hearings on the import items 



appearing in the list annexed to the notice of in- 
tention to negotiate to run concurrently with the 
hearings of the Committee for Reciprocity Infor- 
mation. Oral testimony and written information 
submitted to the Tariff Commission will be made 
available to and will be considered by the Inter- 
departmental Committee on Trade Agreements. 
Consequently, those whose interests relate only to 
import products included in the foregoing list, and 
who appear before the Tariff Commission, need 
not, but may if they wish, appear before the Com- 
mittee for Reciprocity Information. 

Persons interested in exports may present their 
views regarding any tariff or other concessions 
that might be requested of the Government of 
Cuba. Any other matters appropriate to be con- 
sidered in connection with the proposed negotia- 
tions may also be presented. 

Copies of the list attached to the notice of inten- 
tion to negotiate may be obtained from the Com- 
mittee for Reciprocity Information at the address 
designated above and may be inspected at the field 
offices of the Department of Commerce. 

By direction of the Committee for Reciprocity 
Information this 8th day of October, 1956. 

Edward Yardley, 

Secretary, 
Committee for Reciprocity Information 



President Decides Not To Reopen 
Escape-Clause Action on Watches 

White House press release dated October 5 

The President has concurred with the U.S. 
Tariff' Commission's recent finding that no formal 
investigation should be instituted at this time to 
determine whether the tariff should be reduced on 
imports of watches. The President found, with 
the Tariff Commission, that there is not sufficient 
reason at this time to reopen the escape-clause 
action which resulted 2 years ago in an increase 
in the duty on imports of watches. The Presi- 
dent's decision means that the increased rate of 
duty established in July 1954 as the result of 
escape-clause action ^ will continue to apply with- 
out reduction or other modification. 

The President's action was taken after various 
departments and agencies of the executive branch 
had been consulted. The Tariff Commission's 



• Bulletin of Aug. 23, 1954, p. 274. 



October 22, 1956 



649 



study was made pursuant to Executive Order 
10401, which requires periodic review of affirma- 
tive actions taken under the escape clause. This 
was the Tariff Commission's first such periodic 
review of the 1954 watch tariff increase. The 
Commission's report was submitted to the Presi- 
dent on July 25, 1956.= 



Current Treaty Astioms 



BILATERAL 
Ecuador 

Agreement amending agricultural commodities agreement 
of October 7, 1955 (TIAS 3391), to provide for addi- 
tional purchases of wheat and wheat flour. Effected 
by exchange of notes at Washington October 9, 1956. 
Entered into force October 9, 1956. 

Germany 

Agreement for reimbursable military procurement under 
section 106 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as 
amended (68 Stat. 832, 836; 69 Stat. 283; 70 Stat. 555). 
Effected by exchange of notes at Washington October 
8, 1956. Entered into force October 8, 1956. 



MULTILATERAL 

Agriculture 

International plant protection convention. Done at Rome 
December 0, 1951. Entered into force April 3, 19.52." 
Ratification deposited: Israel, September 3, 1956. 

Aviation 

Protocol amending articles 48 (a), 49 (e), and 61 of the 
convention on international civil aviation (.TIAS 1591) 
by providing that sessions of the Assembly of the In- 
ternational Civil Aviation Organization shall be held 
not less than once in 3 years instead of annually. Done 
at Montreal June 14, 1954.' 

Ratificatioiu deposited: Laos, June 4, 1956; New Zea- 
land, June 8, 1956; Japan, June 21, 1956; Venezuela, 
July 6, 1956 ; Thailand, July 18, 1956 ; Argentina, Sep- 
tember 21, 1956. 

Consuls 

Convention defining the duties, rights, prerogatives and 
immunities of consular agents. Signed at Habana Feb- 
ruary 20, 1928. Entered into force September 3, 1929. 
47 Stat. 1976. 
Ratification deposited: El Salvador, September 11, 1956. 

Copyright 

Universal copyright convention. Done at Geneva Sep- 
tember 6, 1952. Entered into force September 16, 1955. 
TIAS 3324. 
Ratification deposited: Portugal, September 25, 1956. 

Labor 

Convention (No. 58) fixing minimum age for admission 
of children to employment at sea. Adopted at Geneva 
October 24, 1936. Entered into force AprU 11, 1939. 
54 Stat. 1705. 

Ratifications deposited: Union of Soviet Socialist Re- 
publics, August 10, 1956 ; Iceland, August 21, 1956. 

Safety at Sea 

Convention on safety of life at sea. Signed at London 
June 10, 1948. Entered into force November 19, 1952. 
TIAS 2495. 
Acceptance deposited: Hungary, August 15, 1956. 

Slave Trade 

Convention to suppress the slave trade and slavery. 
Signed at Geneva September 25, 1926. Entered into 
force March 9, 1927. 46 Stat. 2183. 
Accession deposited: Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Re- 
public, September 13, 1956. 



' Copies may be obtained from the U.S. Tariff Commis- 
sion, Washington 25, D.C. 

'Not in force for the United States. 
' Not in force. 



DEPARTMENT AND FOREIGN SERVICE 



Recess Appointments 

The President on October 11 appointed Carl W. Strom 
to be Ambassador to Cambodia (press release 533 dated 
October 11). 



PUBLICATIONS 



Recent Releases 

For sale by the Superintendmit of Documents, U.S. Oov- 
ernment Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C. Address 
requests direct to the Superintendent of Documents, ex- 
cept in the case of free publications, which may be ob- 
tained from the Department of State. 



Civil Uses. TIAS 



Atomic Energy — Cooperation for 

3608. 3 pp. 5(f. 

Agreement between the United States of America and 
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ire- 
land, amending agreement of June 15, 1955. Signed at 
Washington June 13, 1956. Entered into force July 16, 
1956. 

Mexican Agricultural Workers. TIAS 3609. 30 pp. 15^. 

Agreement between the United States of America and 
Mexico, relating to agreement of August 11, 1951, as 
amended and extended. Exchange of notes — Dated at 
M6xico June 29, 1956. Entered into force June 29, 1956. 

Technical Cooperation — Water Resources and Well Drill- 
ing Program. TIAS 3610. 4 pp. 5<f. 

Agreement between the United States of America and 
Ethiopia, amending and extending agreement of June 23 
and 24, 1952, as amended and extended. Exchange of 
notes— Dated at Addis Ababa June 26 and 27, 1956. 
Entered into force June 27, 1956 ; operative retroactively 
May 11, 1956. 



650 



Department of State Bulletin 



October 22, 1956 



Index 



Vol. XXXV, No. 904 



American Republics. Advancing the Security of 
the Free World (excerpts from report on mu- 
tual security program) 642 

Asia 

Advancing the Security of the Free World (ex- 
cerpts from report on mutual security pro- 
gram) 642 

U.S. Economic Policy and Programs in the Far 

East (Jones) G35 

Atomic Energy. Correspondence With U.S.S.R. 

ou Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy .... 620 

Austria. Controls Over Dollar Imports Relaxed by 

Austria 633 

Cambodia. Recess Appointments (Strom) . . . 6-50 

Communism. U.S. Economic Policy and Programs 

in the Far East (Jones) 635 

Congress, The. Advancing the Security of the 
Free World (excerpts from report on mutual 
security program) 642 

Cuba. Notice of Intention To Participate in Lim- 
ited Trade Agreement Negotiations With Cuba 646 

Department and Foreign Service. Recess Appoint- 
ments (Strom) 650 

Economic Afifairs 

Constantinople Convention of 1888 617 

Controls Over Dollar Imports Relaxed by Austria . 633 

IFC Designated as Public International Organi- 
zation (text of Executive order) 634 

Large Tankers To Be Built for Oil Transportation 

(Eisenhower memorandum) 619 

Notice of Intention To Participate in Limited Trade 

Agreement Negotiations With Cuba .... 646 

President Decides Not To Reopen Escape-Clause 

Action on Watches 649 

U.S. Economic Policy and Programs in the Far East 

(Jones) 635 

Egypt 

Constantinople Convention of 1888 617 

The Suez Question in the Security Council (Dulles, 

text of resolution) 611 

Europe. Advancing the Security of the Free World 
(excerpts from report on mutual security pro- 
gram) 642 

Germany 

Need for Reunifying Germany Through Free Elec- 
tions (text of notes) 632 

U.S.-German Procurement Agreement (333 

Indonesia. U.S. Economic Policy and Programs in 

the Far East (Jones) 635 

International Organizations and Meetings 

IFC Designated as Public International Organiza- 
tion (text of Executive order) 634 

United States To Participate in Tangier Confer- 
ence 633 

Military Affairs. U.S.-German Procurement 

Agreement 633 

Morocco. United States To Participate In Tangier 

Conference 633 

Mutual Security 

Advancing the Security of the Free World (excerpts 

from report on mutual security program) . . 642 

U.S. Economic Policy and Programs in the Far 

East (Jones) 635 

U.S.-German Procurement Agreement 633 



North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Advancing 
the Security of the Free World (excerpts from 
report on mutual security program) .... 642 

Philippines. U.S. Economic Policy and Programs 

in the Far East (Jones) 635 

Presidential Documents 

IFC Designated as Public International Organiza- 
tion 634 

Large Tankers To Be Built for Oil Transporta- 
tion 619 

Publications. Recent Releases 650 

Treaty Information 

Current Actions 650 

U.S.-German Procurement Agreement 633 

Turkey. Constantinople Convention of 1888 . . 617 

United Nations 

Special Committee on Question of Defining Aggres- 

.sion 634 

The Suez Question in the Security Council (Dulles, 

text of resolution) 611 

U. S. S. R. 

Correspondence With U.S.S.R. on Peaceful Uses 

of Atomic Energy 620 

Need for Reunifying Germany Through Free Elec- 
tions (text of notes) 632 

Viet-Nam. U.S. Economic Policy and Programs in 

the Far East (Jones) 635 

Name Index 

Cannon, Cavendish 633 

Dulles, Secretary 611 

Eisenhower, President 619, 634 

Jones, Howard P 635 

Sanders, William 634 

Strom, Carl W 650 



Check List of Department of State 
Press Releases: October 8-14 

Releases may he obtained from the News Division, 
Department of State, Washington 25, D. C. 

Press release issued prior to October 8 which 
appears in this issue of the Buxletin is No. 527 
of October 6. 

Subject 

U. S. participation in Tangier con- 
ference (rewrite). 

Committee on defining aggression 
(rewrite). 

Negotiations with Mexico on standard 
broadcasting. 

Texts of notes on German reunifica- 
tion. 

Relaxation of Austrian controls over 
imports. 

Strom appointed Ambassador to Cam- 
bodia (rewrite). 

Note to Soviets on 1954 plane case. 

Hoover : "The Challenge to Engineer- 
ing." 

Procurement agreement with Ger- 
many. 

Educational exchange. 

* Not printed. 

t Held for a later issue of the BuLLE■n^^ 



No. 


Date 


528 


10/8 


529 


10/8 


*530 


10/9 


531 


10/10 


532 


10/11 


533 


10/11 


t534 
•535 


10/12 
10/12 


536 


10/12 


*537 


10/12 



U. S. 60VERNMENT PRINTINS OFFICE: 1956 




epartment 

of 

State 



DSb-CEC 

PUBLIC LIBRARYbUUK PUKCHASING 
STATISTSCAl. DEPARTMENT 
COPLEY SQUARE 
G BOSTON 17, MASS 



united states 
Government Printing 

DIVISION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS 

Washington 25, D. C. 



Office 



PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE TO AVOID 

PAYMENT OF POSTAGE, »300 

(GPO) 



OFFICIAL BUSINESS 



The Quest for Peace 



This 35-page album-style pamphlet presents quotations from 
President Eisenhower and Secretary of State Dulles highlighting 
the major steps in the search for peace through the security and 
unity of the free world. 

The quotations from the President and the Secretary of State 
set forth problem and action on the following subjects: 

Latin America 

1. Communist Penetration in 
Latin America 

2. Economic Development in 
Latin America 

3. Oi'ganization of American 
States 

4. Strengthening Inter- 
American Friendship 

Less Developed Countries — 
Target of Soviet Communism 

Seato (Southeast Asia Treaty 
Organization) 

Spanish Bases 

Trieste Settlement 



Atoms for Peace 

Austrian Treaty 

Bipartisanship 

Captive Peoples 

Change of Soviet Policy 

China 

Deterrence of War 

European Unity 

Foreign Trade 

Germany Enters Nato 

Indochina 

International Communism 

Iran 

Korea 



Copies of The Quest for Peace may be purchased from the 
Superintendent of Documents, Govermnent Printing Office, 
Washington 25, D. C, at 40 cents each. 



Publication 6391 



40 cents 



Order Form 

Supt. of Documents 
Govt. Printing Offic« 
Washington 25, D.C. 



Enclosed find: 



(cash, check, or 
money order). 



Please send me copies of The Quest for Peace. 

Name: 

Street Address: 

City, Zone, and State: 



THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 



p-^/ 




Vol. XXXV, No. 905 I ^fnu ^ -- -qc« 1 October 29, 1956 

\ B. P. L. 

SECRETARY DULLES' NEWS CONFERENCE OF 

OCTOBER 16 655 

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PRESIDENT 
EISENHOWER AND SOVIET PREMIER BULGANIN 

CONCERNING NUCLEAR TESTS • Texts o/ Letters . 662 

CLAIM AGAINST U.S.S.R. IN, 1954 PLANE ATTACK • 

Text of U.S. Note 677 

PROBLEMS FACING THE IITH SESSION OF THE 
CONTRACTING PARTIES TO THE GENERAL 
AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE • State- 
ment by Deputy Under Secretary Prochnow 683 

BERLIN, SYMBOL OF FREE-WORLD DETERMINA- 
TION • Addresses by Deputy Under Secretary Murphy . . 668 

For index see inside back cover 



THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 




Vol. XXXV, No. 905 • Publication 6409 
October 29, 1956 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Ooverament Printing Office 

Washington 25, D.C. 

Price: 

52 issues, domestic $7.60, foreign $10.25 

Single copy, 20 cents 

The printing of this publication has been 
approved by the Director of the Bureau of 
the Budget (January 19, 1965). 

Note: Contents of this publication are not 
copyrighted and Items contained herein may 
be reprinted. Citation of the Depahtment 
OF State Bulletin as the source will be 
appteclated. 



The Department of State BULLETIN, 
a weekly publication issued by the 
Public Services Division, provides the 
public and interested agencies of 
the Government with infornuition on 
developments in the field of foreign 
relations and on the work of the 
Department of State and the Foreign 
Service, The BULLETIN includes se- 
lected press releases on foreign policy, 
issued by the White House and the 
Department, and statements and ad- 
dresses made by the President and by 
the Secretary of State and other 
officers of the Department, as well as 
special articles on various phases of 
international affairs and the func- 
tions of the Department. Informa- 
tion is included concerning treaties 
and interruitioruil agreements to 
which the United States is or may 
become a party and treaties of gen- 
eral international interest. 

Publications of the Department, 
United Nations documents, and legis- 
lative material in the field of inter- 
national relations are listed currently. 



Secretary Dulles' News Conference of October 16 



Press release 543 dated October 16 

The following is the Department of State's re- 
lease of Secretary Dulles^ news conference of 
Octoler 16. 

Secretary Dulles: I have a statement to read, 
which will be mimeographed and available to you 
at the close of this conference.' 

Suez Situation 

There has, I believe, been progress toward 
achieving a just and peaceful solution of the Suez 
crisis. The Security Council of the United 
Nations adopted unanimously six principles which 
ought to govern the solution. These are sound 
principles and if they are effectively implemented 

j will accomplish what the principal users of the 
canal have sought. To me a most significant prin- 
ciple is that which says that the operation of the 

j canal shall be insulated from the politics of any 
nation. That was in the proposals which we made 
in London last August and that principle was 

I opposed by the Soviet Union at that time. Also 
the Security Council specifically said that there 
should be no disci'imination, overt or covert. 

I While the second part of the French-U. K. res- 
olution was vetoed, nevertheless the fact that it 
had the affirmative votes of 9 of the 11 members 
of the Coimcil gives it substantial moral support. 
We can hope that relations with Egypt will, in 
fact, develop along the lines therein outlined. 

I It may be recalled that after the voting took 
place on the French-U. K. resolution I stated that 
"it is understood that the Comicil remains seized 
of this matter, and that the Secretary-General 
may continue to encourage interchanges between 
the Governments of Egypt, France, and the United 
Kingdom, a procedure which has already yielded 
positive results." This statement was made at the 
request of a number of the members of the Council, 



'The following four paragraphs were also released 
j separately as press release 542 dated Oct. 16. 



and it met no objection from any member. It can, 
I think, be assumed that the Secretary-General 
will, in fact, continue to encourage exchanges of 
views and that the Governments of Egypt, France, 
and the United Kingdom intend to pursue this 
path. 

There are many difficulties still in the way. No 
one can say with certainty that there will be a 
peaceful solution in accordance with the principles 
of justice and international law, as called for by 
article 1 of the charter of the United Nations. 
Nevertheless, each difficulty overcome means one 
less difficulty remaining to be overcome, and we 
can thus take satisfaction from what occurred last 
week at the United Nations.^ 

Now, if you have any questions. 

Press Conference Transcripts 

Q. Mr. Secretary, I would like to raise at the 
iegirming of this press conference the question 
of transcnpts of the press conferences, particu- 
larly after the occasion of the last press conference. 
Can we. be assured from now on that what is put 
out hy the Department is a direct quote umder the 
heading ^'■transcript'''' — that it will in fact he a 
verbatim transcript, as is the case with the Presi- 
dent's press conferences? 

A. No, I am sorry to say you cannot be so as- 
sured. I must reserve the right, in case I make 
a blunder inadvertently which does damage to 
international relations, to correct those blunders. 
I do not profess to speak with perfection extem- 
poraneously, and the important thing from my 
standpoint and from the standpoint of my job is 
not to damage the international relations of the 
United States by seeming to say what I do not 
intend. Sometimes my words convey a meaning 
I do not intend to convey, and, if that happens, 
I must reserve the right to correct them so they 

" For background, see Bulletin of Oct. 22, 1956, p. 611. 



Ocfober 29, 1956 



655 



reflect what I intend. That means that those who 
carry the exact transcript can say what they want, 
a "corrected transcript." But I cannot be put 
in the position of jeopardizing the foreign rela- 
tions of the United States by being held literally 
to what I say extemporaneously, and, if that is 
the only condition on which I have to have a press 
conference, then we have to reconsider the con- 
cept of these press conferences. 

Q. I don't think that anyone here would wish 
to cut down on the nuinber of -press conferences 
hecause we all appreciate the fact that you have 
held more press conferences than any other niem- 
ier of the Cabinet. We also realise, I am sure, 
that the point you make is well taken, and we 
accept it. My only point is that it seems to 
a good rnany of us where a transcript is used it 
should in fact he that and, if it is going to he a 
corrected transcript, it should not he put out as a 
'oerhatim transcript. 

A. I figure it is up to the people who carry it 
to call it a "transcript" or "corrected transcript." 
To my mind that doesn't make any difference. 
The main thing is that I am speaking not only to 
the press but I am speaking to the world at these 
press conferences. While I realize that it is far 
more interesting and exciting to the press if I 
make blunders in expressing myself, the first in- 
terest is not interest in excitement but it is to 
report to the world accurately what I think about 
these questions. If that requires me to make a 
slight modification in order that my words as re- 
ported shall reflect my meaning, I must reserve 
the right to do it. If not, we will have to alter 
the character of the press conferences. 

Q. Can we have some assurance that, whsn you 
do correct the transcript in order to give your 
exact meaning, we will he so informed so that we 
will know and he in a position to report that fact? 

A. Well, of course, you know that, if you are 
told first what I said and then the slight modifica- 
tions necessary to convey my meaning, the only 
result of that is accentuating and magnifying the 
significance of the change. 

Q. But most of us, I think, could remember 
what you said and then compare it also with the 
transcript. 

A. If you remember it, and thus can compare it, 
you don't need further guidance. 



Q. The reason I bi^ng it up — at the White i 
House, when a change is made, it is so labeled, and 
I wondered why you couldn't adopt the same pro- ' 
cedure. 

A. Let me say this, a good many of the changes 
I make are changes due to typographical mistakes. 
Sometimes the stenographers — who are extremely 
talented and able persons — perhaps because I do 
not pronounce distinctly, make a mistake. I do 
not blame the person making the transcript. I 
blame myself. Do you want me to call attention 
to the fact that there is a typographical mistake, 
a name has been misspelled, or that a sentence, 
which I intended to end with a period is carried on 
with a comma? Those are the types of things 
generally I correct. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, since this seems to me more 
of a discussion rather than a question-and-answer 
period, I would like to say that I too have had the 
feeling many of us are disturbed by the tendency 
to change the record of a conference and if the 
changes could be made in such a way as to indicate, 
either by the title of the transcript or some other 
designation, that it isn't precisely what is given in 
a given press conference, I think it would help to 
give us a feeling of greater accuracy in reporting. 
We make our first report out of the news confer- 
ence without loaiting for the transcript. If it 
comes out and you, as you say, have blundered in a 
substantive toay — that is, if it is a point of sub- 
stance rather than a typographical error, we are 
put in the position of making an erroneous report 
as compared to the later account of what has 
happened. If toe could make the distinction clear, 
we would be very happy. 

A. I have been holding these press conferences 
now pretty continuously for nearly 4 years, and I 
think there has only been one occasion, 2 weeks ago, 
when any issue was raised about this. I think in 
the main I have been able to express myself with 
sufficient accuracy so no alterations were required 
except what you might call of a minor linguistic 
character, to break up sentences so as to make them 
more intelligible and in some cases, as I say, where 
stenographic mistakes have been made. During 
this period I think I have tried to be informative 
with no evasion. I seldom said "no comment," 
although I have at times. I have tried to make 
these press conferences a success from the stand- 
point of really informing the press and the world 



656 



Department of State Bulletin 



^vliat we stand for. If there is greater interest in 
catching me up on a statement inadvertently made, 
where I have inadvertently connected two 
thoughts because my mind jumped ahead of what 
I intended — if that is the purpose of these press 
conferences, then I don't think they serve a good 
purpose from the standpoint of the national inter- 
est. They may serve — from the standpoint of 
having an interesting time in the press, about how 
Dulles had bungled, about how Dulles corrected 
his transcript, and how Dulles cannot express him- 
self correctly — if that is the purpose of press con- 
ferences. I do not believe it is the purpose of press 
conferences to do that kind of thing. I believe you 
all honestly want to know what U.S. policy is and 
what our thinking is about some of these problems. 
As far as the initial reporting goes, you are free 
to report that as you understand it as long as you 
don't put it in quotation marks. If you want to 
put it in quotation marks, where it becomes in 
effect a state document, then I must reserve the 
right to be sure it accurately expresses the policy 
of the United States. 



H-Bomb Tests 

Q. V^liat do you 'believe the effect loill be abroad 
of Mr. Stevenson''s latest proposal on the H-bomb 
tests? 

A. Well, we have for a long time been studying 
this whole question of the H-bomb and the possi- 
bility of having eifective controls, and that has 
been a preoccupation of this administration for 
several years, ever since the big thennonuclear 
bombs have been developed. And we have been 
in contact with the British Government in par- 
ticular, which is the only other friendly govern- 
ment which has these bombs. I believe that, if 
there is an efi'ective way to control and limit the 
use of these bombs, we will find it. So far we have 
not found it, and I doubt very much if those who 
are not fully conversant with the details of the 
problem, which have to remain to some extent 
confidential, are in the best position to find it. As 
far as the will and the desire is concerned, I know 
that President Eisenhow^er has it. 

Reports to Congress on Travel 

Q. Mr. Secretary., President Eisenhower says he 
believes travel by Members of Congress should be 
accounted for '■^by voucher and exactly." You 



have in your possession many such vouchers. Did 
you prepare reports at once for proper convmittee 
chairmen of Congress showing as nearly as pos- 
sible how much each individual spent in the last 
fiscal year? 

A. I think that the chairmen of the congres- 
sional committees have this information and — 

Q. No, sir, they do not. 

A. They do not have it ? 

Q. No, sir, there is no indication by individuals 
from your Department. 

A. Well, certainly, the chairmen of the commit- 
tees are entitled to get, I think, in that matter 
anything they want to have. 

Q. They don't want it though. 

A. They don't want it? 

Q. No, sir. (Laughter) In fact, I believe Con- 
gressman Cannon of the House Appropriations 
Co'mmittee told you fust a year ago or last January 
not to send up such a report which was in the 
process of being prepared. 

A. You know these funds were made available 
by Congress for congressional purposes. We are 
in a sense an agent in the matter and not a princi- 
pal, and it is a rule of law and a practice that the 
agent does what the principal wants. Now we 
have no — 

Q. Are you happy as an agent under this ar- 
rangement? 

A. I see myself no particular reason why the 
infonnation should not be made public as there 
was made public information about the use of the 
Panama ships. But, as I say, we handle the funds 
pursuant to congressional action under congres- 
sional directive, and I do not think that in that 
capacity we can properly do with the funds or 
accounting for the funds what the principal who 
gives us the money may not want. 

Q. Sir, I believe you act as a volwntary agent m 
this matter for Congress. You could cease being 
a voluntary agent. 

A. I don't know that I am a voluntary agent. I 
am the beneficiary, or I am the person to whom the 
funds are appropriated, I believe. 

Q. Sir, I was thinking of counterpart funds, 
which are not — 



Oc/ober 29, 7956 



657 



A. Oh, you are talking about counterpart 
funds. 

Q. Yes, sir. 

A. I thought you were talking about the other 
types of funds which are in my so-called confi- 
dential account. 

Q. Both, really. 

A. Yes. I am not informed, I am sorry to say, 
about the question of the use of the counterpart 
funds. 

Troop Movements Into Jordan 

Q. Mr. Secretary, though I knoio we are not 
directly involved, would the United States con- 
sider it wise for Iraqi troops to occiify Jordan 
and if from, that there wovld arise in that country 
internal unrest as part of the election campaign 
of Octoler'21? 

A. I would rather not express any opinion on 
the merits of the case because it is an extremely 
delicate and complicated question. The situation 
is covered to a very considerable extent by a series 
of documents: There are the Israeli-Arab armi- 
stice agreements; there is the security treaty be- 
tween the Arab countries, which includes Iraq 
and Jordan; there is the security treaty between 
Great Britain and Jordan ; and there is the Bagh- 
dad Pact, which includes Great Britain and Iraq. 

Now in that maze of treaty relationships it is 
extremely difficult for a country like the United 
States, which is not a party to them and thus 
not as intimately acquainted with the legal and 
practical aspects of those mattei-s, to express an 
opinion. We have been kept informed, but only 
generally informed, as to the thinking of some 
of the parties at least in that situation. But we 
have not attempted to play any decisive role in 
the matter, nor would I want to express an opin- 
ion here as to the merits, which, in a way, are 
somewhat obscure and perhaps somewhat 
fluctuating. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, among the information that 
we home, do we have any which says that there 
might he a delay in the movement of Iraqi troops 
into Jordan? 

A. We do have information that indicates that 
there will be such a delay. Our infoi-mation is 
confirmatory of press reports which I think have 



658 



appeared this morning. It looks as though those 
reports were accurate. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, in case of an outbreak of\ 
fighting there in the sense of Israel attacking Jor- 
dan, would our declaration of April 9 of this year ' 
continue to hold — that is, that we would come 
to the aid of the cowntry aggressed against within 
constitutioiial processes? 

A. Yes, we said that we would give aid. I be- 
lieve the President's statement — there was a state- 
ment the President made from I think Augusta 
last April in which he said that within constitu- 
tional means we would assist and that we would 
give aid to any victim of aggression. That holds. 

Suez Canal Users Association 

Q. 31 r. Secretary, what is now to happen to 
the Suez Canal Users Association? Does this 
decision intend American flagships pay it the 
canal toll? 

A. The ScuA, so-called, Suez Canal Users As- 
sociation, is being developed through conferences 
which are being held almost daily in London. I 
would say that that development of Scua has been 
somewhat slowed down I think by the fact that 
this whole problem has been before the Security 
Council. The use of Scua has been under con- 
sideration by the Security Council, and nobody has 
known quite what would emerge out of the Secur- 
ity Council proceedings. Now that those pro- 
ceedings are suspended, at least for the time being, 
I think that the movement will go ahead. As far 
as the payment of dues is concerned, that is a 
matter I think where our position has been made 
pretty clear from the beginning and where we 
adhere to the proposition that we put forth from 
the beginning; namely, that we believe that the 
organization should be set up to act as agent for 
the ships, that it should collect the dues from them 
as their agent and be prepared to pay an appro- 
priate share of those dues over to Egj'pt in order 
to recompense Egypt for its contribution to the 
passage through the canal. That was expressed by 
Sir Anthony Eden in his speech describing the 
purposes of the Users Association and in my press 
conference which was held the next day, and we 
hope and believe that the matter will develop along 
those lines. 



' Ibid., Apr. 23, 1956, p. 668. J 

Department of State Bulletin 



It is quite an intricate afi'air. It is complicated 
by the fact that the status of the Universal Suez 
Canal Company is not entirely clear. Some 
countries consider that it has been effectively 
nationalized; others consider that it has not 
been — that it still has rights under the con- 
cession itself to go on collecting dues. And that 
has created a certain complication and has led to 
certain delays as the British and French policy in 
that respect has been evolved. But I hope and 
believe that we will be able to make more rapid 
progress now, particularly after the British and 
French Ministers get back. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, lohat is the technical situation 
or the legal situation in this country with respect 
to American shipping companies operating under 
the American fag? Have you caused any sort of 
rule or regulation to he issued which would coTnpel 
them to pay their fees to the Users Association, 
or did you have such authority? 

A. Well, so far, the shipping of Britain, France, 
and the United States has been carrying on pre- 
cisely as it carried on prior to the attempted 
nationalization of the Suez Canal Company. Now 
they have followed in the past divergent practices. 
The British and the French have paid into an 
account of the Suez Canal Company at Ix)ndon 
and Paris; the American ships have been in the 
habit of paying, you might say, "on the barrel 
head" as they go through the canal. And in all 
cases, in the cases of those three countries, or the 
ships with those flags, we have been carrying on as 
before. The British and the French have not 
shifted to require their ships to pay into Scua nor 
have we. And we are trying to work out a com- 
mon procedure in that matter, but, so far, the pay- 
ments are being made by the three countries, and, 
indeed, by other countries, precisely as they were 
made before. 

Now the practical result of that is that about 
half of the dues are being paid in effective cur- 
rency to the Egyptian authorities at the canal 
itself, and about half are being paid into accounts 
abroad in the name of the old Suez Canal Com- 
pany. 

Israeli Shipping 

Q. Mr. Secretary, among the six principles 
agreed upon by Egypt and the Western powers and 
approved by the Security Council was the prin- 



Documentary Publication 
on Suez Problem 

The Department on October 20 released a docu- 
mentary publication entitled The Suez Canal Prob- 
lem, July 26-Scptem'ber 22, 1956. The volume in- 
cludes the texts of agreements and treaties of the 
past century which have a particularly important 
bearing on the present status of the Suez Canal, 
together with key documents on the purported na- 
tionalization of the Universal Suez Maritime Canal 
Company by the Egyptian Government on July 26; 
all the substantive statements of the 22-Power Lon- 
don Conference ; published papers of the Five- 
Power Suez Committee and of the Second London 
Conference ; and significant public statements by 
President Eisenhower and Secretary Dulles 
throughout the period from the "nationalization" 
to the action at London to establish a Suez Canal 
Users Association. 

The Sues Canal Pro'blem (Department of State 
publication 6392) is for sale by the Superintendent 
of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, 
Washington 25, D. 0., for $1.25. 



ciple of free passage without any discrimination. 
Did the Western powers seek and did they receive 
any a.Hsurances from Egypt that this principle 
xvould be respected concerning the Israeli shipping 
through the canal? 

A. We received no such explicit assurances 
from Egypt. It was generally understood that 
the principle did cover all shipping, including that 
of Israel. I see that it is reported in the papers 
this morning that Mr. Mikoyan,^ at least on behalf 
of the Soviet Union, has expressed that was his 
understanding of the resolution, as it was ours. 
But we did not seek and receive any explicit as- 
surances of Egypt in that respect. But we do 
believe that it in effect constituted a reaffirmation 
by the Security Council of the 1951 decision.^ 

Q. Mr. Secretary, dispatches this moiming re- 
port that Syria is moving heavy equipment into 
Jordan. Do we have any way of knoiving whether 
this is Soviet equipment that the Syrians are 
moving into Jordan? 

A. I don't think that we do. It could be Soviet 
equipment; I think equally it could be British or 
French equipment which had been delivered to 
Syria at a considerably earlier stage. 

'Anastas I. Mikoyan, Soviet First Deputy Chairman, 
U.S.S.R. Council of Ministers. 

= Bulletin of Sept. 17, 1951, p. 479. 



Ocfober 29, J 956 



659 



Q. Are we at all distwrbed hy this Syria/n move, 
sir? 

A. Well, we can't, of course, complain over the 
fact that countries which have mutual security 
pacts help each other in terms of equipment and 
so forth, because we do the same ourselves with 
the countries with whom we have security pacts. 
A good deal depends upon what the real purposes 
and intent are. If it is purely defensive, then we 
cannot complain because we ourselves have said — 
I have made that clear in answer to an earlier 
question — that, if there were an aggression, we 
ourselves would assist the victims of aggression. 
Of course, the trouble is that aggression is not 
always easy to define and arms that are given in 
advance for defensive purposes may perhaps be 
used for other purposes. So we don't feel really 
in a position to judge whether that is a justifiable 
and helpful move or whether it has dangerous 
implications. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, are Syrian troops going with 
the equipment? 

A. Not so far as we know. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, there is a report out of Mos- 
cow that the Soviets will not veto a new Japanese 
request for admission to the United Nations. 
Does the United States have any plans this year 
to again sponsor Japanese admission to the United 
Nations? 

A. We have continuously supported and con- 
tinue to support and will go on supporting the 
admission of Japan to the United Nations. I 
don't know fi-om the technical standpoint whether 
the proposal in the Security Council would be 
made by the United States or by certain countries 
jointly. That I am just not familiar with. But 
you can be sure that anything feasible that we can 
do to promote that we shall do. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, what stand does the United 
States take regarding the recent reprisal raids of 
Israeli forces against Jordan? 

A. We believe that it indicates a deterioration 
of the situation and a failure of the efforts which 
were launched by the Secretary-General earlier 
this year. I think he has the same feeling. We 
greatly regret the fact that these rather large- 
scale operations are going on, and we believe that 
they are not consistent, really, with what Mr. 



Hammarskjold felt were the assurances he ob- , 
tained earlier this year. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, on the Users Association, 
when do you expect it will he set up as a going op- 
eration? Is it a matter of days or weeks? 

A. Well, I would hate to put an actual date on 
it. A good deal has already been done. They 
have created their executive committee, they have 
made provision for opening a bank account, they 
are in contact with various persons, one of whom 
they hope will be available to act as administra- 
tor of the operation, and, considering the fact that 
15 countries are involved and the fact that the 
matter was not pressed during the Security Coun- 
cil proceedings, I think good progress has been 
made. 

As I say, there are very considerable complica- 
tions in working out this question of dues, not 
merely in terms of what are the policies of the 
member nations and what would, for example, be 
the "appropriate share," which I think were Sir 
Anthony Eden's words, that should go to Egypt. 
That is a delicate and difficult subject. But also 
you have the problem of relations with the old 
Suez Canal Company and the fact that there might 
in some cases be a risk of double liability. That 
involves a very complicated legal problem, and 
the working out of these things does necessarily 
involve painstaking procedures. It calls for an 
agreement among a number of countries wliich 
have somewhat different viewpoints perhaps, and 
therefore I would not want to put aia exact date 
on it. But I do believe that fairly rapid progress 
will be made now that the Foreign Ministers, par- 
ticularly of Great Britain and France, have con- 
cluded their work at the Security Council and 
have gone home. I think that they will concen- 
trate on the matter perhaps over the next few 
days and I hope will make further and perhaps 
definitive progi-ess in this respect. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, do these comments of yours 
on the Users Association mean that the United 
States does not accept the decision or the judgment 
of the Council on the point — that part was vetoed 
and failed to pass the Cou/ncil? 

A. I am not quite sure that I understand your 
question. The vetoed portion of the United King- 
dom-French resolution called upon Egypt to co- 
operate with the Users Association. We still 



660 



liepat\mGn\ of %\aie Bulletin 



hope, and have no ground to abandon the hope, 
that there will still be that cooperation, and de- 
spite the fact that the resolution was vetoed we 
believe that it outlines the correct procedure and 
we intend to proceed along those lines. 

Q. Didri't Dr. Fawzi ^ say if he were a meiriber 
of the Council that he would vote against itf 

A. I don't think he singled out that particular 
paragraph to vote against. He said he would 
vote against the second portion of the resolution 
as a whole. He perhaps indicated that he didn't 
like that particular feature of it, but, on the other 
hand, there were indications, perhaps not for- 
mally given, wliich led us to believe it is not beyond 
the realm of possibility that there could be de- 
veloped practical cooperation with the Users As- 
sociation. 

"Insulating the Canal From Politics" 

Q. Mr. Secretary, in the statement you read you 
used the phrase from the six great principles about 
'■'■insulating the canal from the politics of any na- 
tion" tohich I ielieve is the phrase you originated 
at the London conference earlier. Gould you tell 
us now xohat you believe that to encompass, what 
is the meaning of that phrase in practical terms? 

A. Well, I believe that there should be a prac- 
tical operating arrangement of the canal which 
insures, insofar as any such insurance is possible, 
that there could not be an effort by any nation — 
and Egypt is perhaps the most likely nation at the 
moment — to use the canal for political purposes. 
Now every nation — and Egypt is no exception — 
has policies which from time to time make it want 
to favor some country or perhaps to put pressure 
to bear upon some coimtry. Now the essential 
thing is that the canal should not be an instrument 
of that kind of policy. 

Now, as far as any open intervention with the 
operation of the canal is concerned, of course, we 
can never stop, as long as the canal goes through 
Egyptian territory, as it does, the fact that Egypt 
could by the use of force prevent certain vessels 
from going through the canal. But that overt 
action would be so in defiance of the treaty of 
1888, so apparent to all the world, that there are 
very considerable sanctions, moral and perhaps 
practical sanctions. United Nations sanctions, 
against that kind of overt violation. 

'Mahmud Fawzi, Egyptian Foreign Minister. 



Now, the problem, as we see it and as I described 
it in London and elsewhere, is the danger of what 
I call covert violations. That word "covert" is 
used, you will notice, in the six principles, the 
danger that in various ways the ships of certain 
countries, let us say, against which Egypt wants 
to exert pressure may fail to get pilots in time, 
might get imqualified pilots, might be put at the 
end of the traffic line that goes through the canal. 
Now I think that there should be sufficient partici- 
pation, such a close contact with the practical, 
day-by-day operations of the canal, that nothing 
of that sort could go on without being promptly 
detected and brought to light. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, I donH ivant to press this 
beyond a reasonable point at this time, but do you 
see now whether this kind of guaranty or this kind 
of insulation from political pressure could be 
achieved by a supervisory board of some sort as 
well as by an operational board? 

A. Well, words have so many different mean- 
ings that it is awfully hard to express our ideas in 
words without danger of misinterpretation. The 
word "supervisory" is a word which has a whole 
gamut of meaning. If you were actually super- 
vising an operation you may be right there on that 
spot watching it and, indeed, directing it. So that 
I do not attach any magic to the word "super- 
vision" as against other words that have been used, 
like "participation" and so forth. I tMnk the 
practical problem is to have enough of an inter- 
national contact with the day-to-day workings of 
the canal so that there could not go on the type 
of covert preferences or discriminations to which 
I refer. 

Now, as I have said many times, while we put 
forward in London in August in the U.S. proposal 
one idea of how to accomplish that by something 
we called a Suez Canal Board, we also made clear 
at that time, and have made amply clear since 
then, and I made it clear again last week at New 
York, that we do not think that that is the only 
way in which you can accomplish those results. 
One can think of a score or more of practical 
methods wliich would accomplish the same result. 
I think the practical goal is quite clear, and I have 
tried to express it, namely, that while we have, I 
think, adequate sanctions against what might be 
called overt interference, there needs to be also 
some way to detect and prevent at its incipiency 
covert preferences or discriminations. I believe 
that there are many ways in which that could be 



Ocfober 29, 7956 



661 



found, and I believe that ways of that sort are 
being explored and, I would say, hopefully ex- 
plored in the talks that went on in New York. A 



good deal went on in New York which never was 
fuialized and which was tentative and exploratory, 
but which was, nonetheless, encouraging. 



Correspondence Between President Eisenhower and 
Soviet Premier Bulganin Concerning Nuclear Tests 



White House press release dated October 21 

THE PRESIDENT TO PREMIER BULGANIN 

October 21, 1956 

Dear Mr. Chairman : I have the letter which 
your Embassy handed me through Secretary 
Dulles on October nineteenth. I regret to find 
that this letter departs from accepted interna- 
tional practice in a number of respects. 

First, the sending of your note in the midst of a 
national election campaign of which you take 
cognizance, expressing your support of the opin- 
ions of "certain prominent public figures in the 
United States" constitutes an interference by a 
foreign nation in our internal affairs of a kind 
which, if indulged in by an Ambassador, would 
lead to his being declared persona non grata in 
accordance with long-established custom. 

Second, having delivered a lengthy communi- 
cation in the Kussian language, you have published 
it before it could be carefully translated and de- 
livered to me. Because of this, and of the necessity 
of placing the facts accurately before the public, 
I am compelled to release this reply immediately. 

Third, your statement with respect to the Secre- 
tary of State is not only unwarranted, but is per- 
sonally offensive to me. 

Fourth, you seem to impugn my own sincerity. 

However, I am not instructing the Department 
of State to return your letter to your Embassy. 
That is not because I am tolerant of these de- 
partures from accepted international practice, but 
because I still entertain the hope that direct com- 
munications between us may serve the cause of 
peace. 

You and I have exchanged a number of letters 
since our meeting in Geneva on the reduction of 
armaments and related matters in our effort to 



make progress toward the goal of peace.^ I hope 
that that practice may be resumed in accordance 
with accepted standards. 

[ The United States has for a long time been in- 
tensively examining, evaluating and planning de- 
pendable means of stopping the arms race and 
reducing and controlling armaments. These ex- 
plorations include the constant examination and 
evaluation of nuclear tests. To be effective, and 
not simply a mirage, all these plans require sys- 
tems of inspection and control, both of which your 
Government has steadfastly refused to accept. 
Even my "Open Skies" proposal of mutual aerial 
inspection, suggested as a first step, you rejected. 

However, though disappointed, we are not dis- 
couraged. We will continue unrelenting in our 
efforts to attain these goals. We will close no 
doors which might open a secure way to serve 
humanity. 

We shall entertain and seriously evaluate all 
proposals from any source which seem to have 
merit, and we shall constantly seek for ourselves 
formulations which might dependably remove the 
atomic menace. 
Sincerely, 

DwiGHT D. Eisenhower 



PREMIER BULGANIN TO THE PRESIDENT 

The Kremlin, 
Moscow, 
October 17, 1956. 

Deab Mr. President : In this letter I should like to 
broach a subject to which — for readily understandable 
reasons — a great deal of attention is being paid, especially 
recently, in the United States of America and elsewhere. 



^ For texts, see Bulletin of Oct. 24, 1955, p. 643 ; Mar. 
26, 1956, p. 514 ; and Aug. 20, 1956, p. 299. 



662 



Department of State Bulletin 



I have in mind the question of atomic weapons, and in 
particular the testing of this weapon. 

We have more than once had the opportunity to ex- 
change views on this subject, both during my personal 
meeting with you in Geneva last year as well as in the 
subsequent correspondence. However, since it has not 
as yet been possible to reach agreement on the question 
of atomic weapons, it would be desirable to try again to 
evaluate the existing possibilities for progress toward 
reaching agreement on the prohibition of atomic weapons. 

It is precisely for this reason that I am addressing this 
letter to you. 

We realize, of course, that an election campaign is being 
conducted in the United States in the course of which 
the discussion of various questions of international sig- 
nificance, among them the question of disarmament, ac- 
quires the form of a polemic. However, we cannot fail to 
note the fact that in a number of cases, in speeches by 
persons in an official capacity, there has been obvious 
distortion of the policy of the Soviet Union concerning the 
above-mentioned questions. Unfortunately, this applies 
particularly to the statements by Mr. Dulles, who does not 
hesitate to make direct attacks against the Soviet Union 
and its peace-loving foreign policy. 

I have already had the opiwrtunity to call your atten- 
tion to the importance which is attached by the Soviet 
Government to the problem of disarmament and to the 
search for ways of achieving agreement on this problem. 
Therefore you will understand our desire to have complete 
clarity, in considering the problem of disarmament, as to 
the positions taken by our Governments concerning the 
problem of disarmament, and in particular the atomic 
question. 

I think, Mr. President, that you will agree that the 
problem of atomic weapons remains one of the most urgent 
international problems. 

I need not speak at length of the fact that the Soviet 
Government has been and is in favor of an unconditional 
prohibition of atomic weapons. Inasmuch as the present 
situation, with its ever-increasing race in the production 
of these weapons, is inconsistent with the aim of further 
easing international tension and freeing nations from 
the fear of atomic war. It is well known that, even in 
the United States of America, there is increasing anxiety 
as to the possible consequences of the present race in 
atomic armaments. 

I can only express regret at the fact that the United 
States Government still does not consider it possible to 
cooperate in the efforts of many other nations, efforts 
which are directed toward the prohibition of atomic 
weapons and toward the conclusion of a pertinent inter- 
national agreement to this end. But let us assume that 
for a certain period of time no agreement on the prohi- 
bition of atomic weapons will be achieved. Does this 
mean that no effort should be undertaken to find various 
partial solutions for this question, solutions which would 
facilitate future agreement on total exclusion of atomic 
weapons from the national armament, with the provision 
that atomic energy should be used only for peaceful pur- 
poses? I think that such efforts should be continued, 
and their results depend to a great extent on the posi- 
tion of the United States and the USSR. 



Until the necessary agreement on the prohibition of 
atomic weapons is attained, it would, in our opinion, be 
desirable to reach agreement at this time on at least the 
first step toward the solution of the problem of atomic 
weapons — the prohibition of testing atomic and hydrogen 
weapons, as proposed in my message to you of Septem- 
ber 11, 1956.' 

I think you will also agree that, in the event that an 
agreement is reached on this question, no serious problem 
will arise in connection with the supervision of the imple- 
mentation of such an agreement, since any explosion of an 
atomic or hydrogen bomb cannot, in the present state of 
scientific knowledge, be produced without being recorded 
in other countries. Would not the best guarantee against 
the violation of such an agreement be the mere fact that 
secret testing of nuclear weapons is impossible and that 
consequently a government undertaking the solemn obli- 
gation to stop making tests could not violate it without 
exposing itself to the entire world as the violator of an 
international agreement? 

We fully share the opinion recently expressed by cer- 
tain prominent public figures in the United States con- 
cerning the necessity and the possibility of concluding 
an agreement on the matter of prohibiting atomic weapon 
tests and concerning the positive influence which this 
would have on the entire international situation. 

I cannot conceal a certain degree of surprise on my part, 
Mr. President, concerning the doubts expressed by you as 
to whether the Soviet Union is really willing to discon- 
tinue testing its atomic and hydrogen weapons. There is 
decidedly no basis for such doubts. I must say the same 
thing regarding your statement that discontinuance of 
testing the atomic weapon by the United States would be 
"a unilateral American act." Such a step on the part of 
the United States cannot in any way be unilateral, since 
the Soviet Union itself proposes that coordinated action be 
undertaken by the nations, with Soviet participation. 

We have also noted your statement to the effect that the 
question of prohibiting the testing of atomic weapons can 
be decided only by concluding an agreement on the pro- 
gram of di-sarmament as a whole. It would, of course, 
be well if such an agreement on disarmament could be 
reached in the very near future. But it is a well-known 
fact that such an agreement is not within sight at present. 
This is attested by the fact that the United States, as 
well as certain other participants in negotiations on dis- 
armament, renounces its own proposals as soon as the 
Soviet Union accepts these proposals. This was the very 
thing that happened, for example, with the proposals con- 
cerning the question of establishing a limit on the size of 
the armed forces of the five great powers. 

Since this is the situation, it is our deep conviction that 
the solution of the problem of testing atomic weapons 
should not be made contingent on an agreement concern- 
ing the problem of disarmament as a whole. 

As far as the Soviet Government is concerned, it is pre- 
pared to conclude an agreement with the United States 
of America immediately for discontinuing atomic weapon 
tests. We proceed, of course, on the basis of the assump- 



-Not printed here. For text, see White House press 
release dated Sept. 14. 



Ocfober 29, 7956 



663 



tion that other states having the atomic weapon at their 
disposal will likewise adhere to such an agreement. 

It goes without saying that the Soviet Government will, 
as always, continue to contribute toward the achievement 
of an agreement on other problems of disarmament, not to 
mention the fact that it has, as you linow, recently under- 
taken a unilateral reduction of its armed forces by 
1,840,000 men without waiting for such an agreement. 

I shall be grateful, Mr. President, for whatever con- 
siderations you may consider it possible to express In 
connection with the foregoing. 
With sincere respect, 

N. BULGANIN 



Reports of Unrest in Poland 

Statement hy President Eisenhower 

White House (Denver, Colo.) press release dated October 20 

Numerous reports have been emanating from 
Poland which indicate ferment and unrest. These 
are accompanied by stories of Soviet troop move- 
ments. I am closely in touch with Secretary 
Dulles in an effort to ascertain the facts. 

Naturally, all friends of the Polish people 
recognize and sympathize with their traditional 
yearning for liberty and independence. 



President's Determination 
Concerning Aid to Yugoslavia 

White House press release dated October 16 

The President on October 16 sent the following 
■findings and report to the Congress, as required 
hy section H3 of the Mutual Security Act of 1951f., 
as amended. The Presidenfs findings and report 
were contained in identical letters to the President 
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives. 

Dear Mr. President (Dear Mr. Speaker) : 
Section 143 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, 
as amended, provides for a suspension of assist- 
ance to Yugoslavia as therein specified unless I 
find and report to the Congress with my reasons 
therefor : " ( 1 ) that there has been no change in the 
Yugoslavian policies on the basis of which assist- 
ance under this Act has been furnished to Yugo- 
slavia in the past, and that Yugoslavia is inde- 
pendent of control by the Soviet Union, (2) that 
Yugoslavia is not participating in any policy or 
program for the Communist conquest of the 
world, and (3) that it is in the interest of the na- 



tional security of the United States to continue 
the furnishing of assistance to Yugoslavia under ; 
this Act." 

After careful study and examination of all the 
relevant facts available to me, I hereby find and 
report to the Congress affirmatively with respect 
to the three matters above mentioned. 

My reasons therefor are the following : 

1. The policy of assisting Yugoslavia was begun 
by this Government in 1949. That policy was not 
based upon approval of, or affinity with, the in- 
ternal policies of the Government of Yugoslavia. 
It was undertaken because, despite such internal 
policies, it was then deemed in the interests of 
the United States to support the independence of 
Yugoslavia against a major effort by the Soviet 
Union to dominate that country. The balance of 
available evidence leads me to find that Yugoslavia 
remains independent of control by the Soviet 
Union and desires to continue to be independent ; 
that it is still subject to efforts by the Soviet 
Union to compromise that independence ; and that 
some assistance from the United States continues 
to be required and is desired by the Government 
of Yugoslavia to assure the maintenance of its 
independence. 

I am aware of the fact that the designs of the 
Soviet Union against Yugoslavia are more subtle 
than heretofore, and that perhaps those designs 
are not adequately appreciated, or defended 
against, by Yugoslavia. Nevertheless, there re- 
main the basic factors, i. e., the independence of 
Yugoslavia; the dedication of Yugoslavia to its 
independence ; and the Soviet endangering of that 
independence. 

2. My finding that Yugoslavia is not partici- 
pating in any policy or program for Communist 
conquest of the world is based upon the fact that 
the ideology and doctrine of the Yugoslav Com- 
munist Party appear to adhere to the concept that 
each nation should determine for itself which kind 
of a society it wishes and that there should be no 
interference by one nation in the internal affairs 
of another. 

3. My reason for finding that it is in the interests 
of the national security of the United States to 
continue to furnish at least limited assistance to 
Yugoslavia is that otherwise, in my opinion, there 
is a danger that Yugoslavia will be unable to main- 
tain its independence. I believe, moreover, that 
the United States policies inaugurated in 1949 to 



664 



Department of State Bulletin 



enable Yugoslavia to maintain its independence 
remain valid. 

This determination on my part meets the 
statutory requirement in Section 143 regarding 
the utilization of the public funds allotted to 
Yugoslavia under the Mutual Security Act of 
1954, as amended, and under prior mutual security 
legislation. Its primary immediate effect will be 
to clear the way for conversations with appro- 
priate Yugoslav officials to examine the various 
possibilities for bilateral cooperation in the eco- 
nomic field thus made feasible under our laws. 
In the military field, the various departments of 
the government have, since the enactment of Sec- 
tion 143 in July of this year, at my direction, fol- 
lowed a policy of permitting only small, routine 
and long-planned deliveries of equipment. I 
intend that this attitude, which implies the non- 
delivery of jet planes and other items of heavy 
equipment, shall be maintained until the situation 
can be more accurately appraised during the days 
to come. I believe, however, that economic aid for 
the people of Yugoslavia, primarily in the form of 
foodstuffs, may now prudently and wisely be pro- 
ceeded with. 

In any case, I shall not consider that my action 
herewith definitely settles the various questions 
pertaining to United States- Yugoslav relations. 
These problems will, on the contrary, remain imder 
my constant review, and I have, in addition, 
directed that those officers who conduct our day- 
to-day relations with Yugoslavia vigilantly apply 
the very helpful criteria established by the Con- 
gress in Section 143 to ensure that the decision 
which I have now made remains justified in future 
circumstances. I have made it clear, furthermore, 
that my determination is not, even in economic 
matters, to be taken as a continuing directive 
necessitating the obligation or expenditure of the 
fimds available for Yugoslavia, regardless of cir- 
cumstances, but is one which restores discretion in 
this area to me and my subordinates to take such 
actions as accord with the applicable national 
policy relating to Yugoslavia and serve the 
national interest. Such an approach will, I am 
sure, serve the foreign policy interests of our 
country and, at the same time, afford adequate pro- 
tection against the miwise expenditure of public 
funds. 

Sincerely, 

DwiGHT D. Eisenhower 



Visit of Election Observers 
From U.S.S.R. and Rumania 

Press release 548 dated October 20 

The Department of State announced on Sep- 
tember 28 ^ that invitations had been extended to 
the Governments of the Union of Soviet Socialist 
Republics, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, and 
Rumania to send representatives to the United 
States to view at first hand the free electoral 
processes in this country. The U.S.S.R. and 
Rumania have informed the United States that 
they will send observers in reply to this invita- 
tion.^ The Governments of Poland, Czechoslo- 
vakia, and Hungary have declined. 

Arrangements have been completed for the first 
half of the itinerary of the U.S.S.R. observers. 
The second half of the itinerary is to be arranged 
after the observers have arrived in Washington 
to correspond with the request of the visitors and 
as the developments of the political campaign in- 
dicate. 

The U.S.S.R. has informed the Government of 
the United States that its observers will be L. N. 
Solovev, Deputy of the Supreme Soviet; V. L. 
Kudryavtsev, journalist and member of the edi- 
torial board of Izvestia; and M. I. Rubinshtein, 
Doctor of Economic Sciences of the Academy of 
Sciences of the U.S.S.R. The Department of 
State has made arrangements with the Govern- 
mental Affairs Institute to handle the details of the 
visits. Richard M. Scammon of the Institute and 
an interpreter will travel with the U.S.S.R. ob- 
servers during their stay in the United States. 

The U.S.S.R. observers will arrive at Idlewild, 
New York, on October 22 and will continue to 
Washington the same day. The party will be in 
Washington October 22 and 23. While in Wash- 
ington they will receive a briefing at the 
Governmental Affairs Institute on American 
politics and elections. They will also visit the 
Republican National Headquarters, the Demo- 
cratic National Committee, the Volunteers for 
Stevenson-Kefauver Headquarters, and the Citi- 
zens for Eisenhower local office. 

On October 23 the party wiU leave for Louis- 
ville, Ky., and will stay there until October 25. 
During their visit in Kentucky, at the request of 



• Bulletin of Oct. 8, 1956, p. 550. 

" For text of Soviet reply, see ibid., Oct. 15, 1956, p. 582. 



Ocfober 29, 1956 



665 



the Department of State, Mark Ethridge, vice 
president and publisher of the Louisville Courier- 
Journal^ will arrange for them to witness the de- 
velopments in the campaign in that State. 

On October 25 the party will return to New 
York, where they will hear President Eisenhower's 
speech at Madison Square Garden. On October 26 
the party will leave for Los Angeles, Calif. 

"While in Los Angeles, at the request of the 
Department of State, the Los Angeles Council on 
World Affairs, of which Walter Coombs is Execu- 
tive Director, will arrange for the party to witness 
campaign developments in the area. On October 
27 the party will hear the speech of the Demo- 
cratic candidate for President, Adlai Stevenson, 
at Gilmore Field. 

The further itinerary for the visit of the 
U.S.S.R. observers and the itinerary of the 
Eumanian observers will be issued later. 



Journalists From NATO Countries 
To Observe U.S. Elections 

The Department of State announced on October 
15 (press release 539) that a group of 12 journalists 
from 7 member nations of the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization — Denmark, France, Federal 
Republic of Germany, Greece, Italy, the Nether- 
lands, and Norway — arrived in New York on 
October 14 to spend a month in the United States 
devoted primarily to studying the American politi- 
cal scene. They have been invited to visit this 
country under the International Educational Ex- 
change Program of the Department of State. The 
visiting newspapermen will observe party organi- 
zation methods, campaign procedures, and 
election-day practices. They will also be given 
opportunities to study recent developments in the 
industrial, agricultural, and military fields. The 
Governmental Affairs Institute is cooperating 
with the Department in planning their itinerary 
and ai-ranging their activities. 

The group arrived in Washington on October 15. 
Their time in the Capital will be spent in discus- 
sions with ofllicers of the Departments of State and 
Defense, attendance at press conferences, and ex- 
changes of views with officials at both the Re- 
publican and Democratic National Committee 
Headquarters. A reception will be given in their 
honor by Deputy Under Secretary Robert Murphy. 

The journalists will leave for Norfolk, Va., on 



October 18 to visit Saclant [Supreme Allied 
Commander Atlantic] Headquarters, where they ' 
will have an opportunity to observe various as- ' 
pects of the Nato base's facilities and unique train- 
ing program. From Norfolk they will go to Los 
Angeles, Calif., where they will stay 3 days. Plans 
have been made for them to visit aircraft factories, 
industrial plants, the University of California at 
Los Angeles, and Hollywood. 

The itinerary includes several days in Portland, 
Oreg. There the World Affairs Council in co- 
operation with both major political parties has 
planned activities for the group, including oppor- 
tunities to hear campaign speeches by candidates 
and, through side trips, to observe life in small 
American communities and on farms. 

The visitors will leave Portland on November 3 
for St. Louis, Mo., where they will stay until 
November 7. On election day they will visit the 
headquarters of the two parties in addition to 
several polling places and in the evening will visit 
the newsroom of one of the leading St. Louis dailies 
to watch the tabulation boards and television sets 
as the returns are reported. 

Returning to New York on November 7, tlie 
group will visit the headquarters of the National 
Association of Manufacturers, offices of labor or- 
ganizations, the New York Times, and the United 
Nations. Visits to some of the city's housing 
projects are also planned. The journalists will 
leave for their homelands on November 13. 



Construction of Nuclear-Powered 
Merchant Vessel 

White House press release dated October 15 
Statement by President Eisenhower 

I have today directed the Atomic Energy Com- 
mission and the Department of Commerce to 
proceed as rapidly as possible with the design and 
construction of the first nuclear-powered mer- 
chant ship, in accordance with provisions of 
Public Law 848 [84th Congress]. 

This is a project in which I long have had a deep 
interest. When I advanced the idea of a nuclear- 
powered merchant vessel in April of 1955, 1 stated 
that the ship "will demonstrate to people every- 
where this peacetime use of atomic energy, 
harnessed for the improvement of human living." 

We have had a nuclear-powered warship since 



666 



Department of State Bulletin I 



the launching of the submarine Nautilus in Janu- 
ary 1954. Merchant ship propulsion, however, is 
as yet unrealized — although it is one of the most 
promising applications of nuclear energy. Atomic 
merchant ships will be able to operate on longer 
runs at higher sustained speeds. They will be able 
to carry more cargo on long voyages than conven- 
tional ships because of the saving in fuel space. 
They will need less time in port, since they will 
operate for long periods without refueling. 

This new vessel will be a floating laboratory, 
providing indispensable information for the fur- 
ther application of atomic energy in the field of 
ocean transportation. The reactor itself will be 
a definite step forward in nuclear propulsion. I 
am confident that the ship will be the forerunner 
of atomic merchant and passenger fleets which one 
day will unite the nations of the world in peaceful 
trade. 

I should like to emphasize that the ship's reactor 
design will not be secret. The reactor will be built 
on an unclassified basis. It will be possible for 
engineers not only of our own country but of other 
nations to view the nuclear power plant and see at 
first hand this demonstration of the great promise 
of atomic energy for human betterment. 

Attached to this statement is a letter from the 
Secretary of Commerce and the Chairman of the 
Atomic Energy Commission which contains a 
description of the ship. 

The Atomic Energy Commission will furnish 
the reactor and be responsible for its installation. 
The Maritime Administration, Department of 
Connnerce, will be responsible for the design and 
construction of the ship. 

Letter From Secretary of Commerce Weeks and AEC 
Chairman Strauss, October 15 

Dear Mr. PREsmENT: Responsive to your let- 
tei-s of July 30, 1956,^ we are gratified to be able 
to report to you that meetings between the Mari- 
time Administration, Department of Commerce, 
and the Atomic Energy Commission have taken 
place and agreement in principle has been 
reached on the characteristics of a nuclear 
powered merchant ship as provided in H.R. 6243, 
an Act to amend Title VII of the Merchant Ma- 
rine Act of 1936 [Public Law 848]. 

The agreement provides that the Atomic En- 



^ Not printed here. 
Ocfober 29, J 956 



ergy Commission will furnish and be responsible 
for the installation of a 20,000 horsepower pres- 
surized water reactor of advanced design. The 
Maritime Administration will provide and be 
responsible for the design and construction of a 
combination passenger-cargo ship of approxi- 
mately 100 passengers and 12,000 cargo dead- 
weight ton capacity having a service speed of 21 
knots. The ship will be approximately 595 feet 
in length, 78 feet in beam, and will draw about 30 
feet of water. 

The time of delivery of the vessel depends on 
the time necessary for completion of the power 
plant, which is now estimated at 39 months from 
the time of a contractual commitment although 
efforts are continuing to i-educe this time. In 
order that all work may proceed with greatest 
dispatch, and, further, in order that there will 
be centralized responsibility, the entire project 
will be under the management of a single project 
manager chosen jointly by the Maritime Admin- 
istration and the Atomic Energy Commission. 



Shipping Liaison Committee 

Press release 547 dated October 19 

The Department of State announced on October 
19 the formation of a Shipping Liaison Committee 
to afford ready means for interchange of informa- 
tion between the Department and U.S. shipping 
interests concerning the use of the Suez Canal by 
vessels of U.S. ownership. 

The committee will be composed of appropriate 
officials of the Department of State, of the Mari- 
time Administration, and of those segments of the 
steamship industry normally using the Suez Canal. 
Chairman of the committee will be Thorsten V. 
Kalijarvi, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for 
Economic Affairs. 

This committee is intended to afford opportunity 
to the shipping industry to present its views re- 
garding Suez directly to the appropriate officers 
of the Department and permit the Department to 
keep the industry as fully informed as practicable 
on developments in the problem. To this end it is 
expected that invitations to serve on the committee 
will be extended to individuals representing the 
following three segments of the U.S. shipping 
industry regularly using Suez : (1) dry-cargo liner 
companies, (2) the occasional tramp steamers, and 
(3) the tanker fleets. 

667 



Berlin, Symbol of Free-World Determination 



Following are translations of two addresses 
made in Gei'mcm hy Deputy Under Secretary 
Murphy at Berlin, the -first at the cornerstone- 
laying ceremonies for the new Conference Hall on 
October 3 and the second before the Ernst Renter 
Gesellschaft at the Free University on October 4, 
together with a series of messages read at the Con/- 
ference Hall ceremonies. 



CONFERENCE HALL ADDRESS, OCTOBER 3 

There are times and occasions when a symbohc 
act is clothed with importance and stands out in 
the perspective of history. The occasion for 
which we are gathered here today, in the laying 
of the cornerstone for this Conference Hall, is one 
of those moments.^ It will be remembered long 
after we, perhaps, have been forgotten. 

Today in Free Berlin we are laying the corner- 
stone for a splendid building in the construction 
of which the citizens of Berlin and my countrymen 
have jointly participated. I should like to pay 
special thanks to Mr. Hugh Stubbins, the Ameri- 
can Institute of Architects, and their German as- 
sociates for the design of this impressive modern 
building which is a symbol of cooperation between 
our peoples and of our hopes for the future. 

Consider the significance of these three build- 
ings — the Memorial Library, the Free University, 
and now the Conference Hall — built as they are 
in this great city only part of which is free, an 
island of Western civilization, surrounded on all 
sides by a tyranny that denies freedom of thought 
or expression or action to millions of human 
beings. That the people of the United States and 
the people of Berlin have worked together to build 
a Free University, a public library, and a Confer- 
ence Hall is characteristic of values that they have 

^ For background, see Bulletin of Jan. 2, 1956, p. 15, 
and Oct. 8, 1956, p. 550. 



shared in the past, which they cherish today, and 
which they are determined to maintain in the fu- 
ture. Freedom of thought, freedom of religion, 
and freedom of assembly are cornerstones not 
only of these buildings but also of the principles 
on which our respective societies are based. 

The whole world knows of the "spirit of Berlin," 
the determination to remain free in the face of 
relentless pressures and subtle forces working to 
destroy that liberty. You and we know how the 
strength that has kept us free has sprung from our 
heritage, from the fight, from the determination, 
from the sacrifices that were made by our fore- 
bears because they prized liberty and because they 
valued the dignity of man. 

German Devotion to Education 

It was in 1809 that some scholars driven from 
Halle because of its incorporation into the King- 
dom of Westphalia came to Berlin to seek the 
opportunity to establish a university. Wilhelm 
von Humboldt gave them assistance and encour- 
agement, and one of the great universities of the 
modern world came to birth. A patriotic German 
woman wrote at the time that the "new university 
has been conceived in the midst of defeat, 
wretchedness, and terror." Somehow, even after 
the exhaustions of defeat, and in the face of crush- 
ing exactions, the government of the day found 
means to endow the new university. Soon the 
youth of Germany were flocking to Berlin to listen 
to the voices of courage and wisdom that were 
heard there. 

It was in 1809 that Fichte, speaking in the city 
overwhelmed by the troubles of the period, said : 
"The struggle of arms is over ; we must begin that 
of principles, manner, and character." Certainly 
that was one of the symbolic moments of history, 
like the one in which I have confidence we are 
participating today. The greatness to which the 
university grew and the quality of the intellectual 



668 



Department of State Bulletin 



life that centered in Berlin for the ensuing 100 
years need no attestation. The scholarly life and 
the teaching of men like Wilhelm von Humboldt, 
Fichte, Leopold von Ranke, Helmholtz, Mommsen, 
and many others left its mark throughout the 
civilized world. 

This devotion to education and learning was not 
confined to a gi-eat university. It was the vital 
force that ran through German society. It could 
not have existed without the dedication of an en- 
tire people. If the Volhsschulen and the German 
schoolmaster had not been possessed of this dedi- 
cation, there could not have been the rebirth on 
the ashes of war of the great Germany of the 19th 
century. 

This building which we are dedicating today 
represents in many ways the spirit of Berlin. 
Dark as the future seemed in 1806, the problems 
wliich had to be faced of course were not of the 
magnitude nor the brutality of the ones that you 
have overcome in the last 11 years. The small 
Berlin of that day, a city of just over 100,000 
population, also was an island surrounded by hos- 
tile forces, but it did not face the appalling prob- 
lems of the great city of over 4,000,000 people 
which was shattered in the last war. The physical 
destruction of a great industrial and transporta- 
tion center such as modern Berlin and the con- 
tinuous occupation of part of a city for over 11 
years by a tyrannous force, the barriers thrown 
up to prevent its access not only to the sources of 
its industrial strength but even to the neighboring 
truck farms that supply it with produce repre- 
sented problems of a magnitude and scale with 
which no people have previously had to deal. 

The story of the people of Berlin's fight to pre- 
serve their city and their identity in the 11 years 
since the end of the war is known wherever men 
prize freedom and independence. The year 1945 
found this great metropolitan city so badly dam- 
aged that many thought it could never be rebuilt. 
It was the people of Berlin, their fierce desire to be 
free, their determination to retain their identity 
that made it possible. In Berlin in 1945 the net- 
work of facilities necessary to a modern city had 
been destroyed or were out of use ; its transporta- 
tion system, its power plants, its water supply had 
been devastated. With nothing but their hands 
and stout hearts and their courageous determina- 
tion, the people of Berlin grimly and immediately 
began the vast work of reconstruction. 

Ocfober 29, 1956 

405759—56 3 



And then came the blockade of 1948 and 1949. 
It was in those 11 months that a solid unity was 
forged between the peoples of Berlin and the 
United States. We in the free world came to know 
that a battlefront vital to our own well-being was 
the one that was being contested in this be- 
leaguered city, exposed to this cruel test after all 
its wartime suifering. The people of the free 
world and people of Berlin knew that we shared 
a common cause, a battle to keep alive the civiliza- 
tion that we cherished. 

Again, on June 17, 1953, we had a reaffirmation 
of the identity of spirit and strength that is shared 
by those of us who have had this greatest of privi- 
leges of freedom. On that day, cut off from aid 
and assistance, the spirit of a people who would 
be free and maintain their national identity was 
manifested. It was a day that will not be for- 
gotten as long as liberty and independence are 
alive in our world. 

And so it is today, 11 years after the end of the 
war, that I am honored to represent my Govern- 
ment at the dedication of the building that stands 
as a symbol to the courage and the soul of a city 
and a living symbol of the bond that ties our great 
and fi'ee peoples together. 

The Role of Benjamin Franklin 

How appropriate it is that this building which 
rei^resents this bond should be identified with 
Benjamin Franklin! Not simply because that 
great hero-philosopher of the American Revolu- 
tion, whose ever-seeking, ever-curious mind of the 
Enlightenment had brought him to Hanover to 
talk to Freiherr von Muenchhausen and to become 
a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences and 
visit the University of Gottingen, but because the 
range of his interests, his delight in learning, and 
the unfettered qualities of his mind had so much 
in common with the spirit of the great scholars and 
leaders of thought in the Germany of that day. 

It was Immanuel Kant who said, "No man must 
be the means for the ends of another, but must be 
an end in himself, all the time." Surely the great 
philosopher would be pleased to know that an in- 
scription that will be in this building will quote 
Franklin's words: "God grant that not only the 
love of liberty, but a thorough knowledge of the 
rights of man may pervade all the nations of the 
earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot any- 
where on its surface, and say, 'This is my coun- 

669 



try.' " It is doubtful if anyone could better repre- 
sent the qualities which you, the people of Berlin, 
and we of the United States share and cherish. 
No one could be less "a man made by a stencil" — 
Schab lonenmensch. 

Franklin's wisdom was of invaluable service to 
the young nation which he represented for so many 
years in London and Paris. The years of his pub- 
lic life paralleled the years in which the Colonies 
were developing their unity and coming into 
existence as a country. He represented the best 
of those years of enlightenment of the 18th cen- 
tury, and it has been written of him that he shared 
"its healthy, clarifying scepticism ; its passion for 
freedom and its humane sympathies ; its preoccu- 
pation with the world that is evident to the senses ; 
its profound faith in common sense, in the efficacy 
of reason for the solution of human problems and 
the advancement of human welfare." 

What could be more fitting than that his name 
should be honored in the construction of this Con- 
ference Hall representing as it does the joint effort 
of the Federal Kepublic of Germany, the City of 
Berlin, and the people of the United States ? 

Here, in the renaissance of a great city, the 
cooperation of the Federal Republic, the City of 
Berlin, and the United States has built these three 
great new buildings: the Memorial Library, the 
Free University, and the Conference Hall. They 
represent a living force, free expression, free asso- 
ciation, a common recognition by our peoples of 
the identity of free men. This is the Berlin that 
is the window of the free world, standing as an 
active, vital, living representation of its intel- 
lectual and spiritual values. It is here at this 
outpost of freedom that a beacon of light proclaims 
the identity in soul and body of the great society 
that takes its strength from its faith in God. 

In the past 11 years the people of Berlin have 
repeatedly demonstrated their will to retain their 
religious, their intellectual, their political, and 
their economic freedom — their will to be in the 
great community of the free. The free world can- 
not continue its existence without this determina- 
tion. It is like a chain : Its strength is that of its 
weakest link. The people of the United States 
have been able to work with their Berlin friends 
in their dark hours. We, like them, are deter- 
mined to maintain our freedom at any price ; work- 
ing together we have strengthened each other. 
May the years of the future demonstrate increas- 
ingly our success, in this and in other joint en- 



deavors, to build a world in which our successors 
may live as free men and women under God ! 

MESSAGES READ AT CORNERSTONE CEREMONY 

President Eisenhower to Ralph Walker 

To Chairman, Benjamin Franklin Foun- 
dation, Ralph Walker: On the occasion of the 
laying of the cornerstone of the Congress Hall in 
Berlin, I wish to greet the people of Berlin and 
express my sincere hope that this building will 
well serve the high purposes for which it was 
designed. 

This cooperative effort of the German and 
American people is not only a symbol but an in- 
strument to serve the cause of liberty and those 
basic human values which we are committed to 
preserve. 

DwiGHT D. Eisenhower 

Secretary Dulles to Ralph Walker 

Dear Mr. Walker : I was delighted to learn 
that the cornerstone-laying ceremony for the 
Berlin Kongresshalle will be held October 3 un- 
der the auspices of the Foundation you have so 
ably headed since your appointment as Chairman 
on October 14, 1955. 

I regret that it is not possible for me to partici- 
pate in the ceremony with you, but the Deputy 
Under Secretary of State, Mr. Robert Murphy, will 
be there to express the good wishes of all of us. 
For my part, I would like to take this occasion, 
which marks the completion of the important pre- 
liminary stages in the construction of the building, 
to express appreciation of the time and effort you 
have devoted to the success of this project at every 
stage of its development. 

This building, dedicated to Benjamin Frank- 
lin, who typifies the spirit of freedom and human- 
itarianism which binds together the United States 
and the Federal Republic of Germany, is unusual 
not only in design but in the part it is intended 
to play in the divided city of Berlin. I am sure 
that the Hall will do much to carry out our hope 
of attracting to the city groups of intellectual 
leaders and of stimulating there an increasing 
exchange of ideas through free assembly and de- 
bate, thereby furthering the cause of human free- 
dom. 

You and your associates in this enterprise will 
be able to feel a sense of great pride because of the 



670> 



Deparfment of Stafe Bulletin 



significant personal contribution you have made 
to this end. 

Sincerely yours, 

John Foster Dulles 

Ambassador Conant to Deputy Under Secretary 
Murphy 

Dear Bob : Will you please extend to those pres- 
ent at the cornerstone-laying ceremony my con- 
gratulations and say how much I regret that illness 
prevents my being present. I had intended to say 
at this ceremony a few words of introduction for 
yourself. This privilege I am deprived of, but, 
of course, it is quite unnecessary to introduce in 
Berlin a man who played such an important part 
in the heroic stand of the free world against 
tyranny during the Berlin blockade. Not only be- 
cause of your present position and the many im- 
portant positions which you have previously held, 
but primarily because of your work in and for 
Berlin, I am sure that all will welcome you in 
Berlin with enthusiasm. 

Will you please express my appreciation, both 
personal and official, to all those who have labored 
together to make the Conference Hall a reality — 
and I think I may call it a reality although I know 
that only the cornerstone is being laid. I should 
like particularly to express my appreciation of 
the work of Mr. Walker for his part in the effort 
and to congratulate Mr. Stubbins for his interest- 
ing plan. I should like to thank the Berlin au- 
thorities and all those Americans who worked with 
them. Above all, words of praise should go to 
Mrs. Eleanor Dulles^ for her imstinting labor. 
I am sure all will agree when I say we owe it 
primarily to Mrs. Dulles that we are able to lay 
this cornerstone today. 

Again with regrets at my absence, 
Sincerely, 

James B. Conant. 



FREE UNIVERSITY ADDRESS, OCTOBER 4 

Yesterday I had the privilege of participating 
in the cornerstone laying of the Conference Hall 
in the Tiergarten, and I said how especially fitting 
I felt it was for that building to be associated with 
the memory of Benjamin Franklin, as a repre- 

' Special Assistant, Office of German Affairs. 
Ocfober 29, 1956 



sentative of that gi'eat period of enlightenment 
from which have emerged so many of the intel- 
lectual and spiritual values which we share. 

Today we are gathered to honor the memory of 
one of Berlin's great citizens. Mayor Ernst Renter. 
Wlien we recall the courage with which our an- 
cestors fought to bring about the existence of our 
respective countries, we are reminded of Ernst 
Renter and his spirit and will — his ability to 
overcome discouragement. It was my privilege 
to observe him closely in those hard years. He 
never wavered, he never despaired. He was an 
inspiration to all of us. This man, who suffered 
in countless ways, who was exiled by tyranny, and 
who returned to a city completely in ruins to start 
its rebuilding under the most adverse circum- 
stances that ever faced a great people, symbolizes 
the indomitable spirit of the people of this great 
city and their faith in freedom. 

There are many bonds between the people of the 
United States and the people of Germany. Our 
American faith in the future of a free, independ- 
ent, and united Germany is the stronger because 
of men like Ernst Renter. 

Yesterday, speaking at the cornerstone laying 
of the Conference Hall, I referred to those days 
in Berlin's history, 150 years ago, when the outlook 
for the present and future was dark and men suf- 
fered from despair and discouragement. One 
hundred and fifty years ago Berlin itself was oc- 
cupied, Germany was divided and weak. But his- 
tory, the enlarged reflection of human life, is like 
human life itself, surprising and unpredictable. 
What gi-eater surprise has it held than the rebirth 
of vitality and force that took place here in Berlin 
during the 19th century? The small Berlin of 
some 100,000 people that in 1806 was an occupied 
city, the capital of a small state whose territory 
was being apportioned by others, was a himdred 
years later to become the capital of a great coun- 
try, one of the three or four largest cities in the 
world, an intellectual center, and the hub of a vast 
industrial system. 

If we think of the years between 1806 and 1871, 
we become aware of the faith, the will, and the 
perseverance that went into the slow progress of 
building a unified country. For us one lesson of 
these years was the success that was achieved when 
a unified German state became a reality. This was 
the success that crowned the efforts of a people 
determined to be free and united. But there is 
another lesson to be gained and remembered from 



671 



this half a centmy of hope and effort, and this 
lesson is most important: Men cannot be denied 
their freedom — men cannot be denied their na- 
tional identity when spiritual strength and de- 
termination exist together. 

"We in our country share this knowledge with 
you. We went through a period of 25 years from 
1763 to 1788 when we were struggling to become a 
nation. These were years of frequent discourage- 
ment, even during our Eevolutionary War years of 
bitter dark despair. There was more than one 
time when only the faith of our ancestors and 
their will to be a united, fi-ee people kept their 
effort alive. 

Germany, like the United States, knows well 
what these years of discouragement can be — we 
have both been through them and have known 
that the strength of faith and will is in the end 
irresistible. Today we and you share this faith 
and will. We know that, no matter how gi-eat the 
sacrifices and how trying the effort may be, the al- 
liance of free men will prevail and the day will 
come when a united, independent, and free Ger- 
many will take its rightful place among the family 
of nations. 

Policy of Collective Security 

In the past 11 years since the end of the war, we 
in the free world have been faced with a threat to 
our existence. And in answer to this threat we 
have seen an evolution of policy among the free 
nations of the world which our children and their 
children may well record as one of the most sig- 
nificant developments of history. 

This period has been marked by a rapidly in- 
creasing awareness among the free nations of the 
world of an identity of interests. We in the free 
world have been faced with a threat to our very 
existence, a danger that unless we could rapidly 
coordinate our resources and strength we would 
lose our independence and freedom. 

In this 11-year period a combination of old- 
fashioned Russian expansionism and aggressive 
communism has by intimidation, by threat of 
force, and by violence reduced the once independ- 
ent countries of Eastern Europe to the status of 
imhappy satellites. It led the massive insurrec- 
tion in Greece; it has kept Eastei-n Germany cap- 
tive; it attempted to subjugate all of Berlin; Asi- 
atic countries have suffered Communist-inspired 
internal aggression; Norway, Denmark, Turkey, 



and especially the Federa.1 Republic of Germany 
were subjected both to blandishments and threats 
as they joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organi- 
zation ; and in Korea there was war. 

The continuation of this series of maneuvers 
throughout the postwar years has made it harshly 
clear to most of the nations of the free world that 
(hey were in constant danger of Soviet Communist 
domination. They recognized that their indi- 
vidual security could not be maintained unless a 
system of collective security was built. 

We in the United States have recognized that 
because of our position and because of our strength 
we have had a special responsibility in building 
with our friends this collective security system. 
Our allies and the United States developed the 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the South- 
east Asia Treaty Organization, the Anzus Pact 
with Australia and New Zealand, and the Rio Pact 
with our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere. 
In all, the United States has collective security 
treaties with some 42 nations. 

This policy of the free nations based on the 
principle of collective security has been successful. 
It contemplates the creation of European unity. 
It has stopped the expansion of the Soviet Union. 
Favorable conditions have been established which 
have culminated in the entry of the Federal Re- 
public of Germany in Nato and the restoration of 
sovereignty to Japan, both of these latter achieved 
over the adamant opposition of the Soviet Union. 

The threat to our way of life has not been elimi- 
nated. But we do not permit that threat to stul- 
tify our thinking or paralyze our actions. Presi- 
dent Eisenhower has said that the policies of our 
country must be shaped "not for a moment but an 
age of danger," and this is true for all of the free 
world. 

We share common interests and common values. 
We believe in a code of morality and are not im- 
pressed by primitive materialism. The concept of 
preventive war is not acceptable to the United 
States or its allies. Unless the Communists force 
war upon us, we must rely upon our common M 
strategic policies to maintain our security. " 

We are engaged in perhaps the most complex 
task that any group of nations working together 1 
has ever undertaken. We must maintain our unity * 
and simultaneously change the nature of an adver- 
sary to induce him over a period of time to aban- 
don expansionist policies and participate reason- 



672 



Department of State Bulletin 



ably and responsibly in world affairs, and we are 
determined to achieve this objective without resort 
to war. 

Tlie free nations cannot tolerate indefinitely the 
concept of a divided and precarious world com- 
munity in which peace rests only on the fear en- 
gendered by nuclear stalemate. We of the Atlan- 
tic Community must especially summon all of our 
resources of material power and spiritual energy 
in the unremitting endeavor to achieve a situation 
in which the existence of diverse systems and ide- 
ologies becomes possible without sacrifice of fun- 
damental principles or values, and in which the 
peace will be assured through firm and endorsable 
guaranties against unilateral and aggressive mili- 
tary a,ction by any state or group of states. 

It is true that we are stronger than we have 
ever been before. Never has the world seen an 
alliance of so many different countries represent- 
ing so many cultures. Yet we are faced by a vast 
hostile bloc, intent on dominating the world. Our 
world, with its vital interdependence, no longer 
enjoys absolute bulwarks of time and space. This 
is the time for wise leadership and steady nerves, 
for clarity of purpose and economy of means, for 
unswerving determination and flexibility in 
procedure. 

We in the United States propose to maintain 
our own strength. We are at the center of the al- 
liances of the free world, and there is no substitute 
for strength at the center. The pattern of col- 
lective security that has been built in the postwar 
years will be maintained and strengthened. We 
must see that the area of freedom expands and 
that nations that now stand uncommitted realize 
that their identity is with the free world. 

Secretary Dulles has said : ^ 

It is not enough to prove that despotism is bad. It is 
equally necessary to go on — and on— proving that free- 
dom is good. . . . 

That is the great mission to which the free nations 
are dedicated. If we can continue to show freedom as 
a dynamic liberalizing force, then we need not fear the 
results of the peaceful competition which the Soviet 
rulers profess to offer. More than that, we can hope 
that the forces now at work within the Soviet Union and 
within the captive countries will require that those who 
rule shall increasingly conform to principles of freedom. 

Shift in Soviet Tactics 

Since the death of Stalin, and especially since 
the spring of 1955, the Communist bloc has shown 

' Bulletin of July 2, 1956, p. 7. 
Ocfofaer 29, J 956 



a marked change in its foreign conduct. It has 
lessened its emphasis on force and violence, clos- 
ing out military and subversive operations in 
Korea, Indochina, Malaya, and the Philippines. 
It has sought to achieve more normal relations, 
especially with its neighbors, and it has ended its 
occupation of Austria. It has turned increasingly 
to conventional diplomatic relations, exchanging 
state visits, extending economic credits, selling 
arms openly ra.ther than clandestinely, more than 
doubling its cultural exchange program. 

In particular, it has paid new attention to cul- 
tivating government-to-government relations. 
Scarcely a country in the world has not been the 
recipient of some amiable Soviet gesture. In 
short, it has tried to create a new image of the 
U.S.S.E. in the eyes of world opinion, an image of 
a respectable, peaceable, reasonable, well-meaning 
country, a country that is strong but need not be 
feared. 

This shift in the Soviet approach may have been 
under consideration in Stalin's time, but his 
death certainly accelerated it. Stalin's passing 
permitted the Soviet rulers to make a fresh as- 
sessment of the world situation. In making this 
assessment, they appear to have reached four 
conclusions : 

1. Nuclear war, especially during a period in 
which Soviet capabilities are inferior to those of 
the West, was unacceptable. 

2. Stalin's tactics by and large had reached a 
point of diminishing returns, and their further 
employment might lead to unnecessary risks. 

3. The enormous cost of modern weapons sys- 
tems, including air defense, intensified domestic 
economic problems and retarded internal develop- 
ment. 

4. Despite the political problems inherent in 
solving the succession to Stalin and the economic 
problems involved in rapid industrialization, the 
Soviet Union felt itself under no compulsion to 
seek a final settlement with the free world. 

In terms of the direction to be taken by Soviet 
policy, these conclusions appeared to point toward 
the avoidance of extremes. At one extreme, it 
was dangerous to pursue a course of action that 
might lead to general war. At the other extreme, 
it was unnecessary in view of Soviet strength, in- 
cluding thermonuclear successes, to face up to a 
real settlement of issues with the free world. 
Thus, the remaining alternative was "peaceful co- 



673 



existence." This concept is not, however, a pas- 
sive one. The past 18 months — one of the most 
dynamic periods in the history of Soviet diplo- 
macy — testify that the Soviet rulers regard "co- 
existence" as an activist policy with new oppor- 
tunities for furthering the Soviet's international 
objectives. 

The very novelty of some rather recent Soviet 
actions has attracted attention and in some areas 
abroad has excited hopes that the Soviet Union 
is in the process of embarking on a new course. 
Certainly the changes that have taken place cannot 
be dismissed out of hand. They require careful 
evaluation and constant watching. 

Elements in U.S.S.R. That Have Not Changed 

It is also of the greatest importance that we keep 
our attention vigilantly on the elements that have 
not changed in the U.S.S.R. today. 

First of all, the Soviet Union remains a dicta- 
torship. Stalin's power has been collectivized, 
with Khrushchev holding a disproportionate 
share, but the substitution of an executive com- 
mittee for a single boss still leaves unaltered the 
dictatorial nature of the system. The denuncia- 
tion of the so-called cult of personality has yet to 
be matched by the introduction of checks and bal- 
ances against the emergence of another despot. 
The power of decision — the ability to direct the 
mighty resources of the Soviet Union in any de- 
sired direction — continues to be the exclusive and 
absolute right of the few, unchecked by law, in- 
stitution, or ethic. 

Secondly, the Soviet Union remains wedded to 
a hostile ideology. To be sure, the Soviet rulers 
have been giving fresh accent to the theme of 
peaceful coexistence, but they have made no effort 
to disguise its meaning. "The fact that we sup- 
port peaceful coexistence," Klirushchev told the 
20th Party Congress, "does not mean that one can 
relax in the struggle against bourgeois ideology." 
In India he was both frank and colorful : "We tell 
the gentlemen who are expecting the Soviet Union 
to change its political program : 'Wait for the pigs 
to fly.' " 

Third, the Soviet Union remains a formidable 
military machine. It is not necessary to recite the 
details of the constant development of Soviet mili- 
tary capabilities on the ground, in the air, and 
under the sea. Soviet forces are no longer almost 
exclusively designed for massive land battles on 
the Eurasian Continent. Special emphasis has 



been placed on the development of nuclear wea- 
pons. We know that the Soviet guided missile 
program is well advanced. Moscow's well-adver- 
tised reduction in manpower has not been paral- 
leled by any letup in its development and produc- 
tion of the most modern weapons. 

Fourth, the Soviet Union continues to press the 
development of heavy industry. Economic power, 
rather than popular welfare, remains the overrid- 
ing goal. The post-Stalin regime has sought to 
improve conditions in neglected areas of the econ- 
omy, especially agriculture, but it has retained 
the traditional framework of top priority for 
heavy industry. 

To sum up then, we find that, despite the variety 
of changes that have taken place on the Soviet 
scene, the main elements that make the Soviet 
Union a threat to our security remain unaltered. 
In meeting this new situation, we shall, as Presi- 
dent Eisenhower has said, employ dynamic and 
flexible means, not merely to counter Soviet tactics 
but to advance our own objectives. 

Fundamental Principles of U.S. Policy 

There are continuing and fundamental princi- 
ples of United States foreign policy on which aU 
Americans are agreed regardless of political party. 
These fundamental principles are well known to 
you in Berlin. They are : to maintain the strength 
and unity of the free world and further develop 
the institutions which express that strength and 
unity ; and to continue our opposition to arbitrary 
and despotic rule until the point has been reached, 
as we are firmly convinced it will be, where the 
leaders of the Soviet finally realize that their 
analysis of the world situation, in particular of 
your own German situation, has been wrong and 
must be abandoned. 

The United States believes that strengthening 
the Atlantic Community remains of the greatest 
importance. This can be done in part by develop- 
ing means of closer European cooperation and by 
the strengthening of the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization. 

European cooperation has progressed since the 
war. The development of hostile Soviet-bloc 
power since 1945 has intensified the awareness of 
common interests, common needs, and a common 
destiny by those nations of the West which have 
come to feel themselves bound together into a 
community by their history and heritage. 

The sense of community was sharpened by ex- 



674 



Department of State Bulletin 



periences deriving from World War II and its 
aftermath. Quite apart from the Soviet threat, 
the nations of Europe had reached a point, after 
1945, beyond which their further well-being and 
even existence could be assured only through close 
cooperative political and economic actions and no 
longer through exclusively national policies and 
measures. Out of this necessity, there have de- 
veloped a variety of cooperative international or- 
ganizations linking the nations of the area and 
directed toward the solution of common problems. 
Some of these — the Council of Europe, the Oeec, 
the Coal and Steel Community — have made sig- 
nificant progress toward European integration. 
And recently we have seen important support for 
two other significant steps toward European inte- 
gration in the serious consideration that has been 
given to the Euratom program and to the "com- 
mon market." 
President Eisenhower said in February of 1955 : 

I cannot overemphasize the importance to the security 
of the free world of a greater economic, industrial, and 
social connection and, indeed, finally, some greater politi- 
cal connection between the nations of free Europe. 

Importance of NATO 

The other factor fundamental to strengthening 
the Atlantic Community is continued progress to- 
ward a more effective North Atlantic Treaty Or- 
ganization. This will remain a key element of top 
priority in our planning. The political functions 
of Nato should be appropriately broadened. As 
long as the main elements of Soviet policy remain 
as they are today, the military strength of Nato 
must be maintained and developed. We in the 
United States are determined to spare no effort to 
reach this goal. We have made in the past and 
will continue to make in the future an extraordi- 
nary contribution to the success of our collective 
defense effort. 

I wish to emphasize the importance of Nato as 
a mutual defense effort, an effort which necessi- 
tates an appropriate contribution from each Nato 
partner according to resources and geographic 
position. The aim of these individual contribu- 
tions is a balanced and flexible defense force ca- 
pable of action in all military situations. This is 
as true for our own United States military plan- 
ning as it is for Nato itself. Given the different 
histories and institutions of the United States and 
other Nato members, the Nato organization has 
been a tremendously convenient veliicle to help us 



carry out our desire to help other members in the 
mutual defense effort, and it is hard to imagine 
how we could render as effective assistance with- 
out it. As you know, the basic principle of Nato 
is the unity which stems from the mutual under- 
standing and voluntaiy cooperation of its mem- 
bers ; when we have acted together, we have been 
successful, but when members have acted contrary 
to this spirit of cooperation, the entire organiza- 
tion suffers. 

I have pointed out that it is a major foreign- 
policy objective of the U.S. to continue our opposi- 
tion to arbitrary and despotic rule. In relation to 
those nations once free members of the European 
community that have lost their freedom, we have 
repeatedly made it clear that we will never accept 
their enslavement and that we shall undertake no 
agreements which confirm or sanction the status 
quo. Secretary Dulles said last year : * 

We shall not seek to cure these injustices by ourselves 
invoking force. But we can and will constantly keep these 
injustices at the forefront of human consciousness and 
thus bring into play the force of world opinion which, 
working steadily, will have its way. For no nation, how- 
ever powerful, \vishes to incur, on a steadily mounting 
basis, the moral condemnation of the world. . . . 

What the world needs to know at this juncture is that 
our Nation remains steadfast to its historic ideals and 
follows its traditional course of sharing the spiritual, 
intellectual, and material fruits of our free society, in 
helping the captives to become free and helping the free 
to remain free. . . . 

You will recall that Winston Churchill in one 
of the war's memorable phrases, described a cer- 
tain point in World War II as "not the end, nor yet 
the beginning of the end, but the end of the be- 
ginning." The more we learn of the ferment now 
loose in the Soviet Union and its satellite empire, 
the more it seems to me that we may be at such 
a point in the relations between the free world and 
the Soviet bloc. 

Inherent Contradictions of Communism 

There is much evidence that the Soviet leaders 
have decided, for a time at least, to put less stress 
on violence in foreign affairs and to permit some 
tolerance internally. Our own policies perhaps 
have had some influence in promoting this worth- 
while progress. It is too early to say that there is 
anything irreversible in their decisions to date, 
and the power elements in the Soviet system still 
exist largely unchecked by institutional safe- 

' Ihid., Dec. 19, 1955, p. 1005. 



October 29, 7956 



675 



guards or the force of legitimate public opinion. 
However, we are beginning to deal for the first 
time with a mature Soviet society, and the Soviet 
leaders are finally having to face up to the inher- 
ent contradictions of communism: 

— How to rear a new class of scientists, man- 
agers, and officials free enough to make further 
l^rogress and slave enough to accept the shabby 
dogma of a 19th-century formula for despotism. 

— How to manage the conflicting claims of 
empire, with less reliance on coercion, with con- 
tinued restriction of consumption, and with the 
increasing devotion of resources to heavy industry 
and military technology. 

— How to maintain dependable Communist 
movements in the underdeveloped states and at the 
same time pose as wishing to help those states 
strengthen their independence and make a success 
of their moderate non-Communist governments. 

These and other contradictions inherent in their 
system, including the perhaps yet-to-be- fatal flaw 
involved in their lack of an accepted and orderly 
system of succession in their leadership, bind and 
restrict Soviet choices of action. For our part, 
one essential condition must be met. The Soviet 
leaders must be deprived of victories. The free 
world must be resolute and skillful in preventing 
further Soviet conquests by force or by trickery. 
Only in this way will they be induced to advance 
further toward a responsible participation in 
international affairs. Our posture of firmness and 
strength must convince them that they cannot 
revert in safety to their methods of violence. 
And our political posture must be such as to per- 
suade them that they must come to terms with the 
world of the 20th century, terms to satisfy reason- 
able requirements of security, peace, and justice 
for all peojiles. The maintenance of this politico- 
militar}' posture is the task of all of us. 

We in the United States believe that these ob- 
jectives are i-ealistic and are obtainable. We 
believe that the fulfillment of this task is possible. 
We are convinced that, if it is fulfilled and the 
Germans in the East and the West maintain their 
determination to be a free and united people, we 
can bring about a gradual evolution in the attitude 
of Soviet leadership and a revision in their posi- 
tion toward the reunification of a free Germany. 



Arbitral Commission on Property, 
Rights, and Interests in Germany 

The Department of State announced on Octo- 
ber 19 (press release 546) the appointment of 
Albert I. Edelman of New York City as the 
United States member of the Arbitral Commis- 
sion on Property, Rights, and Interests in Ger- 
many. This Commission was established pursuant 
to chapter five of and the annex to the Convention 
on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the 
War and the Occupation,' as amended by schedule 
IV of the Protocol on the Termination of the Oc- 
cupation Regime signed at Paris on October 23, 
1954.- The tribunal, which is composed of mem- 
bers appointed by the Governments of the Federal 
Republic of Germany, France, the United King- 
dom, and the United States, has jurisdiction in all 
disputes envisaged under article 7 of chapter 5 and 
article 12 of chapter 10 of the settlement 
convention. The Cormnission meets at Coblentz, 
Germany. 



Congressional Documents 
Relating to Foreign Policy 



84th Congress, 2d Session 

War Claims and Keturn of Enemy Assets. Hearings be- 
fore a subcommittee of the House Committee on In- 
terstate and Foreign Commerce on bills to amend War 
Claims Act of 1948 and Trading with the Enemy Act. 
April 30, 1956 (before entire committee) ; June 6-July 
18, 1956 (before Subcommittee on Commerce and Fi- 
nance). 489 pp. 

Investigation of the Unauthorized Use of United States 
Passports. Hearings before the House Committee on 
Un-American Activities. Part 1, May 23, 1956, 75 pp. ; 
part 2, Blay 24 and 25, 1956, 110 pp. 

Foreign Agents Registration Act. Hearing before Sub- 
committee No. 3 of the House Committee on the Ju- 
diciary on H.R. 4105 and S. 1273, bills to amend sec- 
tions 1, 3, and 4 of the Foreign Agents Registration 
Act of 1938, as amended. July 9, 1956. 65 pp. 

Relating to the Calling of an Atlantic Exploratory Con- 
vention. Hearing before the Senate Committee on 
Foreign Relations on S. Con. Res. 12. Part 2, July 11, 
1956. 89 pp. 

The Great Lakes Basin. Hearings before a subcommittee 
of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. August 
27, 1956, Washington, D. C. ; August 29 and 30, 1956, 
Chicago, lU. 172 pp. 



' For text, see S. Executives Q and R, 82d Cong., 2d sess. 

^ For text, see London and Paris Agreements, Septem- 
ber-October 1954, Department of State publication 5659, 
p. 86. 



676 



Department of State Bulletin 



Claim Against U.S.S.R. in 1954 Plane Attack 



Press release 534 dated October 12 

The U.S. Ambassador at Moscow on October 
12 delivered to the Soviet Ministry of Foreign 
Affairs a note presenting a formal international 
diplomatic claim for damages against the Soviet 
Government for losses resulting from the destruc- 
tion in the airspace over the international waters 
of the Sea of Japan on September 4, 1954, of a 
United States Navy P2V-type aircraft, commonly 
known as a Neptune type, by military aircraft of 
the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist 
Kepublics. There was one victim of the attack, 
and nine survivors. The claim totals $1,355,650.52. 

The U.S. Government protested the incident to 
the Soviet Government on September 6, 1954,^ 
reserving at the time all rights to claim damages 
for loss of property and lives from the illegal 
attack by Soviet aircraft. The incident was 
brought to the attention of the Security Council 
of the United Nations and discussed by the Council 
on September 10, 1954.= 

TEXT OF U.S. NOTE OF OCTOBER 12 

Excellency: I have the honor to transmit, upon the 
instruction of my Government, the following communica- 
tion from my Government to your Government : 

The Government of the United States of America makes 
reference again to the destruction in the air space over 
the international waters of the Sea of Japan on Septem- 
ber 4, 1954 of a United States Navy P2V-type aircraft, 
commonly known as a Neptune type, by military aircraft 
of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Re- 
publics. Because the United States Government believed, 
and believes, that the repetition of such incidents might 



'Bulletin of Sept. 13, 1954, p. 364. The note, dated 
Sept. 6, was released at Washington on Sept. 5. 

^ For statement by Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., 
see ibid., Sept. 20, 1954, p. 417. 



endanger the maintenance of international peace and 
security, it brought the incident to the attention of the 
Security Council of the United Nations, which discussed 
the incident and its implications on September 10, 1954. 
As it stated in its note to the Soviet Government, number 
202 of September 6, 1954, the United States Government 
also reserved all rights to claim damages for loss of 
property and lives and for other circumstances resulting 
from the illegal attack by Soviet aircraft. 

A careful study and review of all the available evidence 
vrith respect to the incident confirms the essential cor- 
rectness of the statements made by the United States 
Government and compels the United States Government 
to deny the version of the facts of the incident and reject 
the claims of justification for the attack advanced by the 
Soviet Government. The United States Government in 
this connection has given careful consideration to the 
statements of fact regarding the incident made by the 
Soviet Government's representative in the Security 
Council on September 10, 1954 and in the Soviet Govern- 
ment's latest note on this subject, number 74/OSA, re- 
ceived by the American Embassy at Moscow on September 
8, 1954.' 

The purjwse of the present communication is to prefer 
against the Soviet Government a formal international 
diplomatic claim for damages as set forth below. 

I. 

The United States Government is prepared to prove by 
evidence in an appropriate forum, and it charges, the 
following : 

1. By virtue of the Security Treaty between the United 
States of America and Japan signed at San Francisco on 
September 8, 1951, as well as by virtue of its rights under 
international law, the United States Government on, and 
from time to time prior to, September 4, 1954, dispatched 
military aircraft from the territory of Japan over adja- 
cent international air space including the international air 
space over the Sea of Japan. These facts were undoubt- 
edly well known at all relevant times to the Soviet Gov- 
ernment. 

2. Shortly before two o'clock in the afternoon of Sep- 
tember 4, 1954, a P2V Neptune-type patrol aircraft, bearing 
number 128357, of the United States Navy Air Arm de- 
parted from its base at Atsugi, Japan, under orders from 



' Not printed here. 



October 29, 1956 



677 



appropriate United States Navy autliorities to conduct a 
routine patrol mission in tlie international air space over 
tlie Sea of Japan upon a course from Niisata, Japan. The 
mission was entirely peaceable in character, and it was 
directed, and it was conducted, under the authorization 
of the Security Treaty with Japan and in the exercise of 
the United States Government's rights under international 
law. 

Upon its departure the Neptune-type aircraft had on 
board a crew of ten persons, all members of the United 
States Navy and all nationals of the United States. 

The crew, officers and enlisted men, were competent by 
education, training, and skill to perform the various tasks 
relevant to the flight, particularly aerial navigation and 
pilotage. The Neptune aircraft and the equipment 
thereon were at all times during the flight in efficient 
and good working order. 

The aircraft in the course of its flight attained, and at 
all times relevant to the present claim maintained, ex- 
cept as recited below, an altitude of about 8,000 feet, and 
it maintained a normal cruising speed of approximately 
180 knots. At no time did the aircraft leave, after de- 
parting from Japanese territorial air space, the interna- 
tional air space of the Sea of Japan. As it approached 
closer to the land mass at the northern end of the Sea of 
Japan, the crew made repeated and careful navigational 
checks, confirmed by visual observation on the part of the 
crew and facilitated by the fact that weather and visibil- 
ity in the area were good, to insure that they were flying, 
and would continue to fly, exclusively in the international 
air space well over the universally acknowledged high 
seas of the Sea of Japan. 

At 5 : 58 o'clock in the afternoon, while the airplane 
was flying on a course of 090 degrees magnetic, over the 
high seas of the Sea of Japan, its position was approxi- 
mately 41 degrees 51 minutes north and 132 degrees 47 
minutes east. At 6 : 07 o'clock in the afternoon, the course 
was changed to 067 degrees magnetic. The ground speed 
of the aircraft at the time continued at approximately 
180 knots and its altitude was approximately 8,000 feet. 

The course of 067 degrees had been continued for ap- 
proximately five minutes, when, without prior signal or 
warning, Soviet fighter aircraft of the MIG type, at least 
two in number, came up behind the Neptune aircraft, 
approaching it in an offensive, hostile firing position, with 
the glaring sun behind the fighters, and then, having de- 
termined that this was a United States Neptune, still with- 
out any prior warning ox)ened fire uiwn the Neptune sev- 
eral seconds after 6 : 12 o'clock shooting numerous rounds 
of ammunition at it from the rear in a manner calculated 
to effect the Neptune's immediate destruction. The pilot 
of the Neptune, perceiving that he was under hostile at- 
tack from the rear, although not seeing nor having seen 
the attacker or other Soviet aircraft, turned sharply to 
the right and went simultaneously into a steep dive at a 
rate of descent of approximately 2,000 to 3,000 feet per 
minute, attempting to fly farther and farther away from 
the Soviet land mass and seeking the protective cover of 
a cloud bank approximately ten miles farther away ; but 
to no avail. The attacking Soviet aircraft, unrelenting, 
resumed the hostile attitude, from above and to the rear 



right of the Neptune ; as the Neptune was descending, 
one of the Soviet aircraft approached from the rear right 
and from that rear position resumed hostile firing against 
the Neptune at 6 : 13 o'clock. The Neptune, continuing its 
steep dive in its attempt to reach the cloud bank above 
described, made evasive maneuvers to the right and left, 
carrying it farther still from the Soviet land mass. At 
the second firing pass by the Soviet aircraft, the pilot of 
the Neptune intensified evasive maneuvers directed to- 
ward reaching the cloud bank shelter. But the Soviet 
fighters, still unrelenting, resumed firing positions to the 
rear of the Neptune, now at an altitude of approximately 
3,000 feet from the surface of the sea, and reopened firing 
attack and this time succeeded in hitting the left wing 
of the Neptune causing it visible, multiple injuries. Only 
then did the attacking Soviet MIG aircraft disengage and 
climb back to higher altitude westward. 

The Neptune's left wing was set on fire in consequence 
of this final attack. The fire continued to spread quickly 
through the wing to the fuselage, and when the Neptune 
had reached an altitude of 400 feet over water and the 
protection of the cloud bank, the pilot determined that it 
was necessary to abandon the aircraft in the interest of 
the safety of the crew. The Neptune thereupon was 
landed on the sea and came to a complete stop within 
50 to 75 yards after the initial Impact. 

The United States Government has determined that 
the point of the first attack by the Soviet fighter aircraft, 
above described, was over the high seas to the southeast 
of Cape Ostrovnoi, in the neighborhood of 42 degrees 22 
minutes north and 134 degrees 11 minutes east, or fur- 
ther to the south and east of that position, that is, not 
closer to Soviet territory than approximately 33 to 40 
nautical miles ; that the point of the second attack by the 
Soviet fighter aircraft was slightly further to the east, 
but in the same area although, as indicated above, at 
lower altitude ; that the point of the third attack was at 
the edge of the cloud bank, approximately 10 miles to the 
east of the position of the first attack, and in the neigh- 
borhood of 42 degrees 22 minutes north and 134 degrees 
24 minutes east, and even farther from Soviet territory 
than the earlier attacks. 

Of the ten members of the crew on board the Neptune 
aircraft, nine succeeded in making their way out of the 
aircraft to the surface of the sea and entered a survival 
raft which had been carried aboard. Such was the dead- 
liness of the damage effected by the Soviet aircraft how- 
ever that one member of the crew. Ensign Roger H. Reid, 
was trapped in the fuselage which sank as the crew mem- 
bers were leaving it and while he was attempting to put 
out an additional survival life raft. 

The nine surviving crew members in their survival 
raft remained afioat in the area in which they had been 
shot down. No attempt whatever was made by any au- 
thority of the Soviet Government at rescue of the sur- 
vivors. As the result of an emergency radio message sent 
from the Neptune aircraft upon the Soviet attack, rescue 
aircraft of the United States Government from Japan 
and Korea discovered the survivors shortly before dawn 
on September 5, 1954, at 42 degrees 19 minutes north and 
134 degrees 20 minutes east, and the survivors were duly 



678 



Department of State Bulletin 



rescued and returned to Japan. All were in a state of 
shock resulting from the incident and their exposure, and 
one suffered physical injuries resulting directly from 
the unlawful action of tlie Soviet aircraft. In spite of a 
diligent and careful search by aircraft and surface ves- 
sels, the body of Ensign Roger H. Reid could not be found. 

3. The United States Government concludes from its 
investigation that the two Soviet MIG-type attacking 
aircraft were dispatched by responsible Soviet ground 
authorities and their pilots were then and continuously 
thereafter under the control, and performed the actions 
of approach and firing upon the explicit direction, of re- 
sponsible Soviet ground authorities. 

4. The United States Government must conclude from 
its consideration of all the evidence and all the surround- 
ing circumstances that the acts of interception of the 
Neptune aircraft, attack upon it and its destruction, were 
deliberate and calculated on the part of responsible Soviet 
Government authorities; that each of these acts was 
committed with full knowledge on the part of such au- 
thorities that the Neptune aircraft was then lawfully 
flying in the international air space over the Sea of Japan ; 
and that these acts were directed and committed with the 
preconceived intention of accomplishing both the destruc- 
tion of the aircraft and the death or injury of the crew. 

II. 

The Soviet Government in its various notes to the 
United States Government on this incident has given a 
version of the facts which has by now taken on the char- 
acter of a stereotype. The United States Government 
tinds as a result of its investigation that the Soviet Gov- 
ernment's version contains material misstatements of fact. 
These misstatements were repeated and additional ones 
were made by the Soviet representative in the Security 
Council on September 10, 19.54 in the course of the dis- 
cussion of this incident in the Security Council. 

Of these material misstatements of fact the most sig- 
nificant are the following: 

1. The Soviet Government states and has reiterated 
that the Neptune aircraft at IS hours 12 minutes local 
time on September 4, 1954 "violated the state frontier of 
the USSR in the region of Cape Ostrovnoi to the east of 
the Port of Nakhodka." At no time, in any of its notes or 
in the statements made by the Soviet representative in 
the Security Council, has the Soviet Government stated 
any position in coordinates of latitude and longitude at 
which any known or claimed frontier of the Soviet Govern- 
ment in this area was crossed by the Neptune aircraft in 
the course of its flight. The United States Government 
categorically denies any such crossing at any time during 
the flight and reiterates that the Neptune aircraft at all 
times stayed within the international air space over the 
Sea of Japan. 

2. The Soviet Government states that two Soviet flght- 
ers approached the American airplane "for the purpose 
of showing it that it was within the limits of the frontiers 
of the Soviet Union and of proposing that it immediately 
leave the air space of the USSR." This statement the 
United States Government categorically denies. At no 
time did the attacking Soviet aircraft or any other air- 



craft make any approach to the Neptune aircraft in flight 
in any attitude consistent with any peaceable purpose, 
conveying any signal or attempting to communicate any 
such message whatsoever ; on the contrary, the Soviet 
fighter aircraft approached the Neptune aircraft from 
behind and made their presence known only by firing from 
hostile firing positions calculated to effect the immediate 
destruction of the Neptune aircraft and without any prior 
warning whatsoever. The United States Government 
notes again that this stereotype Soviet allegation, made in 
the Soviet versions of other incidents of similar illegality, 
is not supported by any allegations as to the means or 
methods by which the Soviet fighter aircraft are claimed 
to have undertaken to convey the alleged message. 

3. The Soviet Government further states that the 
American airplane "opened fire on the Soviet airplanes" 
when the latter approached for the above-mentioned pur- 
pose. This statement the United States Government cate- 
gorically denies. The only firing by any member of the 
crew of the Neptune aircraft took place while the Neptune 
was in its sharp descent and seeking disengagement, when 
one of the attacking Soviet fighters, having already fired 
on the Neptune aircraft for the purpose of destroying it, 
appeared again in continuation of the hostile attacks and 
one of the Neptune crew, in self-defense and in a vain 
attempt to ward off a repetition of the previous hostile 
attack, sent fire in the direction of the oncoming attacker, 
which simultaneously fired at the Neptune. As was 
pointed out in the Security Council discussion, and as the 
Soviet Government is well aware, an allegation that a 
patrol aircraft of the Neptune type initiated hostile firing 
at a fighter-aircraft of the MIG type is senseless. 

4. The Soviet Government states that the Soviet air- 
planes "were obliged to open answering fire". This the 
United States Government categorically denies. At the 
time of the attack the Neptune aircraft was following an 
easterly course which, if continued, would place it pro- 
gressively farther and farther away from the Soviet-held 
land mass. The MIG-type Soviet aircraft, moreover, 
could easily place itself out of range of the Neptune's 
armament when the crew member fired in vain self-defense, 
and this must have been obvious. Had the Soviet pilots 
been instructed or had they intended to convey any signals 
to the Neptune aircraft, they could easily with their speed 
and maneuverability disengage the Neptune aircraft and 
remain out of range of its guns and still observe it and 
communicate any signal. They were not "obliged" to fire 
at the Neptune. 

5. The Soviet Government states that after the opening 
of answering fire upon it the American airplane "withdrew 
in the direction of the sea" and that Soviet authorities 
have no further information of the fate of the Neptune 
aircraft. As the facts above recited show, the attacking 
Soviet fighters did not disengage until the obviously mor- 
tally wounded Neptune aircraft had reached an altitude 
so low above the surface of the sea as to make further 
attack by fighter aircraft ri.sky as well as unnecessary, 
and was approaching the protective cover of a low lying 
cloud layer approximately ten miles to the right of the 
Neptune at the point of first attack. These facts were 
known to the Soviet pilots and undoubtedly were com- 
municated to the competent higher Soviet authorities. 



October 29, 7 956 



679 



The United States Government notes that having wrong- 
fully accomplished the destruction of the Neptune air- 
craft the responsible Soviet authorities made no attempt 
to mitigate their wrong by attempting to effect any rescue 
of the survivors even though, contrary to fact, the Soviet 
Government asserts that the Soviet action against the 
Neptune aircraft took place within Soviet territorial air 
space. 

III. 

The United States Government concludes, and it charges, 
that the foregoing actions of the pilots of the Soviet 
aircraft and of the comi)etent Soviet authorities made the 
Soviet Government guilty of deliberate violations of inter- 
national law on account of which it has become liable to 
the United States Government for damages and other 
amends. The United States Government has dealt in 
other communications to the Soviet Government with alle- 
gations by the Soviet Government of versions of fact and 
implications of law similar to those contained in the 
Soviet Government's notes regarding the present incident. 
Particular reference is made to the United States Gov- 
ernment's note of October 9, 1954 * concerning the case of 
the United States B-50 aircraft shot down by Soviet 
aircraft over the Sea of Japan on July 29, 1953. In regard 
to the present incident, however, the United States Gov- 
ernment desires specifically to state: 

1. To the extent that the Soviet Government claims a 
violation of any Soviet frontier, the United States 
Government again declares that the limit of the territory 
of the Soviet Government in the area in which the present 
incident occurred extends no farther than three nautical 
miles from the mean low water mark of the Soviet-held 
land mass, following the sinuosities of the coast and the 
sinuosities of each of the Soviet-held islands. The United 
States Government prefers, however, to challenge the 
Soviet Government's territorial claims in this regard only 
In the channels of peaceful diplomatic negotiation and 
judicial determination. The present incident occurred in 
international air space well outside any territorial air 
space officially claimed by the Soviet Government at any 
time so far as is known. But the United States Govern- 
ment reasserts that in its opinion there is no obligation 
under international law to recognize any Soviet claims 
to territorial waters or air space in excess of three miles 
from the Soviet coast. 

2. The Soviet Government, in its note of September 8, 
1954, has made statements questioning the conduct by 
United States military aircraft of patrol flights over the 
Sea of Japan. The United States Government reiterates 
that any peaceable flights conducted by United States 
military aircraft in international air space have the un- 
questionable sanction of international law and that par- 
ticularly the flight of the Neptune aircraft in the inter- 
national air space over the Sea of Japan recited above 
Was so sanctioned. In addition, as the United States 
Government has stated, apart from their general inter- 
national law sanction, jieaceable flights in this area by 
United States military aircraft, and the flight of the 



' Bulletin of Dec. 6, 1954, p. 857. 



Neptune in the present case, were and are specifically 
sanctioned and envisaged by the Security Treaty of 
September 8, 1951 between the United States of America 
and Japan. The Government of Japan has, at all relevant ' 
times, been, and it is, a sovereign government having 
littoral rights along the Sea of Japan and in the air 
space above it. 

3. Any shooting by the crew of the Neptune aircraft at 
the attacking MIG-type aircraft in the circumstances de- 
scribed above was lawful in the exercise of the right of 
self-defense. In the circumstances described above, had 
the purpose of the Soviet fighter aircraft been to commu- 
nicate signals or warnings, it was the duty of their pUots 
and of their ground controllers to engage in no hostile ap- 
proach or fire as a method of communication or to engage 
in any hostile maneuver or attitude in flight. 

IV. 

The United States has suffered the following items of 
damage in direct consequence of the foregoing illegal acts 
and violations of duty and international legal obligations, 
for which the Soviet Government is liable, and the United 
States Government demands that the Soviet Government 
pay the following sums on account thereof : 

1. Loss of the United States Navy P2V-5 aircraft, Nep- 
tune type, No. 128357, and the equipment thereon, amount- 
ing in total to $939,183.00. 

2. Damages to the United States by the vrillful and un- 
lawful conduct of the Soviet Government, amounting in 
total to .$316,467.52. 

3. Damages to the next of kin, nationals of the United 
States, for the death of crew member Ensign Roger H. 
Reid, amounting to $50,000.00. 

4. Injuries to the nine surviving members of the crew, 
amounting to $50,000.00. 
Total $1,355,650.52 

The United States Government has not included in its 
demand for damages, specified above, any sum on account 
of items of intangible injury deliberately and intentionally 
caused to the United States Government and to the Amer- 
ican people by the wrongful actions of the Soviet Govern- 
ment in this case. In this regard the United States Gov- 
ernment has determined to defer to a future date the for- 
mulation of the kind and measure of redress or other 
action which the Soviet Government should take which 
would be appropriate in international law and practice 
to confirm the illegality of the actions directed by the 
Soviet Government against the United States Govern- 
ment and against the American people. 

The United States Government calls upon the Soviet 
Government to make its detailed answers to the allega- 
tions and demands made in this communication. Should 
the Soviet Government in its answer acknowledge its in- 
debtedness to the United States on account of the fore- 
going and agree to pay the damages suffered, the United 
States Government is prepared, if requested, to present 
detailed evidence in support of its calculations of damages 
suffered and alleged. 

Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my high- 
est consideration. 



680 



Deparfment of State Bulletin 



President Orders Investigations 
on Effects of Fig and Date Imports 

IMPORTS OF FIGS AND FIG PASTE 

White House press release dated October 2 

The President on October 2 directed the U. S. 
Tariff Commission to make an immediate investi- 
gation into the effects of imports of dried figs and 
fig paste on the Federal Fig Marketing Order Pro- 
gram and on the amount of products processed 
in the United States from domestic figs. The 
President's action was taken in response to a rec- 
ommendation from the Secretary of Agriculture. 
The Commission's investigation will be made pur- 
suant to section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment 
Act, as amended. 

President's Letter to Edgar B. Brossard, Chairman 
of TariK Commission 

Dear Mr. Chairman : I have been advised by 
the Secretary of Agriculture that there is reason 
to believe that dried figs and fig paste are practi- 
cally certain to be imported into the United States 
during the 1956-57 crop year under such condi- 
tions and in such quantities as to render ineffective 
the Federal Fig Marketing Order Program and 
to reduce substantially the amount of products 
processed in the United States from domestic figs. 

The Tariff Commission is therefore directed to 
make an immediate investigation under Section 
22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, as 
amended, to determine if there is a need for im- 
port restrictions for dried figs and fig paste. The 
Commission's findings should be completed as 
promptly as practicable. 

A copy of the letter from the Secretary of 
Agriculture is enclosed.' 
Sincerely, 

DwiGHT D. ElSENHOVTER 

IMPORTS OF DATES 

White House press release dated October 2 

The President on October 2 directed the U. S. 
Tariff Commission to make an immediate investi- 
gation into the effects of imports of dates on the 
Federal Date Marketing Order Program, on the 
Department of Agriculture's program for the 
diversion of dates to new uses, and on the amount 

' Not printed. 



of domestic dates processed in the United States. 
The President's action was taken in response to 
a recommendation by the Secretary of Agricul- 
ture. The Commission's investigation will be 
made pursuant to section 22 of the Agricultural 
Adjustment Act, as amended. 



President's Letter to Edgar B. Brossard, Chairman 
of Tariff Commission 

Dear Mr. Chairman : I have been advised by 
the Secretary of Agriculture that there is reason to 
believe that dates are practically certain to be im- 
ported into the United States during the 1956-57 
crop year under such conditions and in such quan- 
tities as to materially interfere with the Federal 
Date Marketing Order progi-am and the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture's program for the diversion 
of dates to new uses, and as to reduce the amoimt 
of domestic dates processed in the United States. 

The Tariff Commission is therefore directed to 
make an immediate investigation under Section 
22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, as amend- 
ed, to determine if there is a need for import re- 
strictions on dates. The Commission's findings 
should be completed as promptly as practicable. 

A copy of the letter from the Secretary of Agi'i- 
culture is enclosed.' 
Sincerely, 

DwiGHT D. Eisenhower 



President Approves Report 
on Imports of Dried Figs 

White House press release dated October 12 

The President on October 12 approved the U.S. 
Tariff Commission's fourth periodic report on the 
1952 escape-clause action with respect to dried figs. 
The Commission reported on August 30, 1956, that 
it does not appear that conditions have so changed 
as to warrant the institution of a new formal 
investigation on imports of dried figs.^ 

On August 30, 1952, the tariff on imports of 
dried figs was increased pursuant to an escape- 
clause action. The Tariff Commission's fourth 
periodic report to the President on subsequent 
developments in the dried figs trade was made in 
accordance with Executive Order 10401.^ 



"Copies of the report may be obtained from the U.S. 
Tariff Commission, Washington 25, D. C. 
^ Bulletin of Nov. 3, 1952, p. 712. 



October 29, 1956 



681 



World Bank Loan To Aid 
Development of Southern Italy 

The World Bank announced on Octobei" 11 that 
it has made a loan equivalent to $74,628,000 to the 
Cassa per il Mezzogiorno for the agricultural and 
industrial development of southern Italy. The 
bank has now lent a total of nearly $165 million 
for Italy's program to raise the standard of living 
in the area comprising the Italian mainland south 
of Kome and the islands of Sicily and Sardinia. 
Previous loans of $10 million each were made in 
1951 and 1953 and one of $70 million in 1955. 

The Bank of America is participating in the 
loan, without the AVorld Bank's guaranty, to the 
extent of $500,000 of the first maturity, which falls 
due September 1, 1959. 

The Cassa per il Mezzogiorno is the govern- 
mental agency established in 1950 to administer 
a 12-year program for the development of south- 
ern Italy. The program will cost the equivalent 
of $2 billion, and after 6 years of existence the 
Cassa has reached the halfway mark and has ap- 
proved projects that will absorb more than half its 
resources. 

Eugene R. Black, President, who signed the 
loan documents on behalf of the World Bank, 
pointed out that this fourth loan was the best evi- 
dence of the bank's continued interest in and sup- 
port for the work of the Cassa. 

Industrial Projects. The 10 industrial projects 
for which the equivalent of $23,963,000 has been 
allocated from the bank's loan will cost a total of 
more than $50 million. The bank funds will be 
re-lent to the concerns carrying out the projects. 
There are two cement factories and two glass fac- 
tories, a vegetable cannery, an automobile as- 
sembly plant, a plant for the construction of bus 
and truck bodies, a fertilizer factory, and plants 
for the production of hardboard and of polyethy- 
lene. They will provide some 3,000 new jobs and 
have a favorable effect on the balance of payments 
of about $9.6 million a year, as well as reducing 
the cost of internal transport. 

Seven of the projects will be on the mainland, 
two will be in Sicily, and one in Sardinia. Three 
of tlie borrowers on the mainland are well-known 
northern industrial firms which will for the first 
time establish factories in the south. All three 
plants will be in the Naples area, where unemploy- 
ment is high. 

Electric Power Projects. Wliile the Cassa does 



not itself finance power projects in its program, 
considerable expansion of power facilities is es- 
sential to the economic development of the Cassa 
area, and power companies in the south of Italy 
all have large investment programs planned for t 
the next 10 years. The bank's loan in 1955 in- 
cluded $30 million for power development and the 
Cassa will re-lend $25.2 million of the $74,628,000 
loan to power companies to help to finance projects 
which will cost a total of about $42 million. They 
include three hydroelectric plants on the main- 
land — two in the neighborhood of Cassino be- 
tween Rome and Naples, and one south of Salerno 
on the west coast — and a thermal plant at Augusta 
on the east coast of Sicily. The projects will in- 
crease installed capacity of the Cassa area by 
217,000 kilowatts, or 14 percent, and the annual 
generation of power by 17 percent. All of the 
plants will be in operation in 1959 and some of 
them will be completed earlier. 

The Cassa. After 6 years of operation, the 
Cassa has signed more than 55,000 contracts and 
paid out the equivalent of $760 million on work 
completed or in progress. Private interests, en- 
couraged by the Cassa's activities in the south, 
have added materially to this investment. So 
far the Cassa has completed 1,000 miles of canals 
and improved river beds and 750 miles of main 
and secondary canals; it has irrigated 114,000 
acres, constructed 1,300 miles of new roads, and 
improved 5,600 miles of old ones; it has planted 
67 million trees; and it has brought drinking 
water to 245 villages with 1,350,000 inhabitants. 

Flumendosa Irrigation Project. The loan will 
provide $25 million of the equivalent of $85 mil- 
lion to be spent on the Cassa's most ambitious 
single project, irrigation of up to 123,500 acres of 
the Campidano di Cagliari, a plain in southwest- 
ern Sardinia. Water for irrigation will come 
from the Flumendosa River and its tributaries, 
the Flumineddu and the Mulargia. The Flumen- 
dosa runs between mountains on the east coast 
of the island, and at present its waters flow 
wasted into the sea. The project will include the 
construction of dams on the three rivers to store 
the water and a series of tunnels and canals to 
take it from the reservoirs thus created and dis- 
tribute it over the plain. It is estimated that, 
when the Flumendosa project has been completed, 
the value of farm production will increase by the 
equivalent of nearly $21 million amiually and the 
total income of the region by $30 million. 



682 



Department of State Bulletin 



INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND CONFERENCES 



Problems Facing the 11th Session of the Contracting Parties 
to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 



Statement hy Herbert V. Prochnow 

Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Affairs ^ 



When the Contracting Parties met in their 10th 
session last October, the head of the United States 
delegation, Ambassador Bonbright, remarked that 
economic conditions in the world continued to be 
favorable for further progress toward the freer, 
nondiscriminatory trade which we have jointly 
accepted as onr objective in the general agree- 
ment.^ I believe that a similar observation may be 
made today. Again, we can be encouraged by 
gains made by many countries during the year in 
production and productivity, in volume of trade, 
and in the size of their monetary reserves. Tliese 
gains have enabled a number of countries to dis- 
mantle more of their import restrictions and trade 
controls and to move nearer a system of nondis- 
crimination in trade and payments. 

In looking at these favorable developments, 
however, we cannot disregai'd the economic prob- 
lems that have arisen for certain countries repre- 
sented here. In some cases the favorable trade 
conditions that had existed for them have become 
adverse and their monetary reserves have de- 
clined; in other cases the strengthening of their 
balance of payments has proved to be a slow proc- 
ess demanding — and fortunately bringing forth — 
steadfastness and patience. There has also been 
observable during the past year a problem of a 
more general nature, namely, the emergence of 



'Made at the opening of the 11th session of the Con- 
tracting Parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade at Geneva, Switzerland, on Oct. 11 (press release 
541 dated Oct. 15). Mr. Prochnow is chairman of the 
U.S. delegation to the 11th session. 

' Bulletin of Nov. 21, 1955, p. 860. 

Ocfofaer 29, J 956 



inflationary pressures in many parts of the world. 
I believe that all of us here recognize that, if these 
pressures are not prudently and effectively dealt 
with, they can injure not only tlie economic health 
of the individual countries in which they originate 
but also the economic health of many other coun- 
tries throughout the world. It is encouraging to 
note the early recognition which many govern- 
ments have shown of the dangers of inflationary 
developments and of the importance of dealing 
with them. 

This 11th session of the Contracting Parties con- 
venes only a few months after the conclusion of 
another round of general tariff negotiations.'' The 
results of those negotiations have confirmed the 
role of the general agreement as a most effective 
instrument for the orderly reduction of unneces- 
sary barriers to international trade. 

The progress that has been made in the reduction 
and removal of such barriers since the creation of 
the general agreement is a source of hope and 
encouragement. The United States has played 
its part in making certain that this progress 
was maintained and that tariff gains would be 
protected. 

It is, of course, obvious that the restoration 
of world production facilities since the end of 
World War II has increased the competition for 
markets and the demands for protection from 
affected industries. It would be idle to pretend 
that governments can or should in every instance 
resist these pressures. The path of progress is 

' IhUl., June 25, 1956, p. 1054, and July 9, 1956, p. 74. 

683 



never an uninterrupted one. One must always 
expect some backsteps, some adjustments in a 
policy aimed at the elimination of unnecessary 
trade barriers. Wliat counts most is the long- 
term trend, and it is here, I think, that many gov- 
ernments adhering to this agreement may be com- 
mended for the generally forward movement of 
their international trade policies since 1947. 



U.S. Steps To Reduce Trade Barriers 

Since 1948, when the general agreement entered 
into force, the United States Trade Agreements 
Act has been renewed six times. Its renewal in 
1955 by a bipartisan majority of the Congress for 
a period of 3 years reflected the extent to which 
the principle of reciprocal tariff reductions as a 
means of expanding world trade has been accepted 
as an integral part of United States foreign eco- 
nomic policy. Relatively few of the thousands of 
United States concessions representing hundreds 
of millions of dollars' worth of trade have been 
withdrawn or modified. I trust it is not immodest 
to say that the successive renewals of the Trade 
Agreements Act by the United States and its 
willingness to participate in five tariff negotia- 
tions under the general agreement have made a 
significant contribution to the achievements for 
which the general agreement is best known. 

During the last year, my Government has con- 
tinued to demonstrate its attachment to the prin- 
ciples embodied in the general agreement. On 
August 2 the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 
was signed by the President.^ Section 2 of the 
act makes export value the method of valuation 
to be used generally. This represents a change 
desired by foreign traders everywhere — a change 
from the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930 — 
and it should encourage the expansion of mutually 
advantageous trade between the United States and 
the rest of the world. In this measure, which had 
been preceded by the customs simplification laws 
of 1953 and 1954 and by the abolition of the re- 
quirement for the certification of consular in- 
voices in 1955,'' the United States was acting in 
accordance with the principles of the general 
agreement having to do with the necessity for 
simplifying customs formalities. 

The continuing awareness of the United States 

* nid., Aug. 13, 1956. p. 273. 
' Ibid., Sept. 5, 1955, p. 399. 



of the necessity for simplifying customs pro- ( 
cedures whenever possible is also manifest in the 
study of the problems of classification in the i 
United States tariff structure now being made by 
the United States Tariff Commission pursuant to 
the Customs Simplification Act of 1954. 

Also during the past year the United States 
Senate gave its advice and consent to the ratifica- 
tion of the Samples Convention, which was 
drafted by the Contracting Parties. This action 
by the Senate offered further evidence of the basic 
United States policy that international coopera- 
tive action should be employed wherever possible 
to facilitate the movement of goods between na- 
tions. The draft legislation necessary for the 
implementation of the Samples Convention is in 
preparation. 

It is because of its concern for the effectiveness 
of the general agreement that my Government 
hopes that those Contracting Parties which have 
not yet accepted the protocols amending the sub- 
stantive provisions of the general agreement will 
soon find themselves in a position to do so. These 
protocols have been open for acceptance since 
March of 1955.* They reflect the experience of 
governments under the general agreement and 
their careful assessment of the international trade 
picture in the calculable future. They have been 
accepted by some of the Contracting Parties, in- 
cluding the United States. We urge that they be 
accepted by others so that they may enter into 
force at an early date. In accepting these amend- 
ments Contracting Parties will be demonstrating 
their awareness that the general agreement, if it 
is to continue to be an effective instrument, must 
reflect the significant changes in the international 
trade situation that have occurred since the gen- 
eral agreement was drafted in 1947. 

Balance-of-Payments Question 

Because of the substantial improvement in the 
world trade and payments situation today as com- 
pared with that which prevailed only a few years 
ago, the United States believes that the Contract- 
ing Parties should direct their attention to making 
more effective the provisions of the agreement 
which make possible the multilateral consideration 
of import restrictions maintained for balance-of- 
payments reasons. Significant changes have taken 

" Ibid., Apr. 4, 1955, p. 577. 



684 



Department of State Bulletin 



place in the balance of payments and reserves of 
individual countries, in the stability of their cur- 
rencies, and in the domestic factors affecting the 
forces of supply and demand. Foreign trade and 
exchange regulations have undergone numerous 
modifications, and old patterns of trade have con- 
tinued to be modified both by administrative action 
and by alterations in fundamental economic con- 
ditions. In some cases import controls have been 
intensified ; in other cases they have been relaxed. 
It is my Government's view that an invitation 
should be extended by the Contracting Parties to 
those govermnents which apply restrictions under 
article XII to consult regarding those restrictions 
in accordance with the provisions of paragi'aph 
4 (b) of that article. The United States delega- 
tion will have detailed comments to make on this 
particular matter during the session. I should 
like, however, to stress the importance attached 
by my Government to this proposal. As was men- 
tioned earlier, the Contracting Parties have every 
reason to be proud of the progress that has been 
made in the dismantling of unnecessary tariff bar- 
riers under the auspices of the agreement and in 
the settlement of problems within the context of 
the agreement. Progress has also been made with 
regard to the reduction and removal of quanti- 
tative restrictions on imports. The United States 
proposal for consultations under article XII is 
designed to accelerate the progress with respect to 
quantitative restrictions. 

My Govermnent believes that the experience of 
the Contracting Parties over the past 8 years 
demonstrates the utility of a multilateral, sys- 
tematic, and careful examination of import con- 
trols. Such examinations make possible the full- 
est understanding of the basis for those controls, 
their scope, their effect on the trade of other Con- 
tracting Parties, and the possibilities of their re- 
laxation and eventual elimination. 

Certainly all of us are aware of the extent to 
which the proverb that "nothing is so permanent 
as the temporary" applies to import restrictions. 
They have a tendency to harden, and govern- 
ments are no different from domestic industries 
in eventually taking them for granted. There is 
an opportunity here which my Government be- 
lieves the Contracting Parties should seize at this 
session. A demonstrated awareness by the Con- 
tracting Parties of the task that must be faced 
and of a willingness to face it at this session can- 



not help but enhance the usefulness of the agree- 
ment to all its participants. 

GATT and the Common Market 

During the 11th session the Contracting Parties 
will be called upon to consider their role in re- 
lation to the six-country initiative directed to- 
ward the creation of a common market. In this 
connection they will also wish to consider their 
role with respect to the possible development of 
the European free trade area which is now being 
studied by the Oeec. 

My Government believes that the Contracting 
Parties to the general agreement should keep 
themselves fully informed of developments with 
respect to both the six-country common market 
and the possible European free trade area. Cer- 
tainly, in projects of such magnitude, having 
widespread international commercial rejjercus- 
sions, the Contracting Parties have a role to play. 
Consideration should be given by the Contract- 
ing Parties at this session to arrangements which 
would facilitate consultation and cooperation by 
them with the governments and other institutions 
concerned with these undertakings. This is par- 
ticularly true in view of the provisions of article 
XXIV of the agreement and the fact that countries 
participating in these endeavors to promote eco- 
nomic integration are also adherents to the agree- 
ment. 

During the 11th session the Contracting Parties 
will also be called upon to consider the applica- 
tion of Switzerland for accession to the general 
agreement. The United States Government wel- 
comes the application by Switzerland and is pre- 
pared to consider this request sympathetically. 
My Government would be prepared to support an 
arrangement which would permit Switzerland to 
associate itself with the general agreement on a 
provisional basis, pending an ultimate solution to 
the problem presented for the general agreement 
by the Swiss agricultural controls. 

The Contracting Parties will also be called upon 
to consider the proposal of Brazil with respect to 
the revision of its tariff'. The United States dele- 
gation is aware of the important considerations 
which have prompted the Government of Brazil 
to revise its tariff and is sympathetic to the desire 
of all economically underdeveloped countries to 
coordinate their international trade policies with 
the legitimate economic needs and aspirations of 



October 29, 1956 



685 



their populations. The United States delegation 
will give its most earnest attention to the pro- 
posal of Brazil in the hope that a constructive solu- 
tion to this problem may be developed at this 
session. 

During this session the Contracting Parties will 
have the opportunity to consider the report of the 
Intersessional Committee on the training program 
which they approved on an experimental basis at 
the 10th session. My Government believes that 
this program should continue to be supported by 
the Contracting Parties. The report by the Ex- 
ecutive Secretary to the Intersessional Committee 
describing the operation of the program is a most 
encouraging one and rightly indicates the great 
promise which it holds for the future. 

I have touched only briefly on some of the steps 
taken by my Government in the trade field in the 
past year and on some of the major problems which 
need to be considered by the Contracting Parties 
at the present session. The agenda before us is 
a long and substantial one and continues to reflect 
the importance which governments attach to the 
agreement and their desire to make it work as ef- 
fectively as jDossible. I am confident that this 
session will prove a constructive and fruitful one 
in furthering the objectives we share as partners 
in the general agreement. 



U.S. Delegations to 
International Conferences 

Contracting Parties to GATT 

The U.S. delegation to the 11th session of the 
Contracting Parties to the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade (Gatt), which opened at 
Geneva, Switzerland, on October 11, is as follows : 

Cliairm<in 

Herbert V. Prochnow, Deputy Under Secretary of State 
for Economic Affairs 

Vice CUairman 

Carl D. Corse, Chief, Trade Agreements and Treaties 
Division, Department of State 

Congressiwial Adviser 
Representative Tliomas B. Curtis, Missouri 
Advisers 

Louis Boochever, American Embassy, Luxembourg 
Richard DeFelice, Foreign Agricultural Service, Depart- 
ment of Agriculture 



Ethel Dietrich, U.S. Mission to the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization and European Regional Organizations, 
Paris 

Phil S. Eckert, Foreign Agricultural Service, Bonn 

Morris Fields, Chief, Commercial Policy and United Na- 
tions Division, Department of the Treasury 

Mortimer Goldstein, Office of International Finance and 
Development, Department of State 

Walter HoUis, Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for 
Economic Affairs, Department of State 

Eugene Kaplan, Office of Economic Affairs, Department 
of Commerce 

Virginia McClung, Trade Agreements and Treaties Divi- 
sion, Department of State 

Bernard Norwood, Trade Agreements and Treaties Divi- 
sion, Department of State 

Albert P.Tppnno, Trade Agreements and Treaties Division, 
Department of State 

Vernon L. Phelps, American Embassy, Bonn 

Albert Powers, Office of Economic Affairs, Department of 
Commerce 

Joe A. Robinson, U.S. Consulate General and Resident 
Delegation for International Organizations, Geneva 

John Stewart, Foreign Agricultural Service, Department 
of Agriculture 

Secretary of Delegation 

Henry J. Sabatini, U.S. Consulate General and Resident 
Deleaation for International Organizations, Geneva 

World Eucalyptus Conference 

The Department of State announced on October 
16 (press release 544) that the U.S. Government 
would be represented by the following delegation 
at the AVorld Eucalyptus Conference of the Food 
and Agriculture Organization (Fag), to be held 
at Rome October 17-29, 1956 : 

Woortbridge Metcalf, chairman. Berkeley, Calif. 
Willard F. Bond, United States Operations Mission, Libya 
W. Raymond Ogg, Foreign Agricultural Service, Rome 
Walter W. Sold, American Embassy, Rome 

This project is a further step in Fao's endeavor 
to promote interest in quick-yielding eucalypts, 
following the Eucalyptus Study Tour held in 
Australia in 1052. The central theme of this 
conference is "Eucalypts in World Forestry." 
The objectives are to bring about an exchange of 
views among the foresters best acquainted with 
eucalypts, with particular emphasis on plantations 
outside their natural habitat; to summarize rec- 
ommended practices in all phases of establishment, 
management, and utilization ; to analyze research 
needs; and to propose methods of coordinating 
future research and action programs in the intro- 
duction of eucalypts in suitable regions through- 
out the world. 



686 



Department of State Bulletin 



Befrinning on October 24, the delegates will be 
taken on a study tour arranged by the Italian 
Forest Service. They will visit points of interest 
in the vicinity of Bari, Foggia, Caserta, Naples, 
and Catania in Sicily. 

All Fag member governments have been invited 
to participate in the conference. 

ECE Timber Committee 

The Department of State announced on Oc- 
tober 18 (press release 545) that Walter M. 
I^utliold, Chairman of the Board of the Deer Park 
Pine Industries, Inc., Deer Park, Wash., has been 
designated the U.S. delegate to the 14th session of 
the Timber Committee of the U.N. Economic Com- 
mission for Europe to be held at Geneva, October 
22-25, 1956. 

The Timber Committee is one of the principal 
subsidiary organs established by the U.N. Eco- 
nomic Commission for Europe. The Economic 
Commission for Europe and the Food and Agri- 
culture Organization of the United Nations work 
together on timber questions; in the Ece Timber 
Committee importers and exporters regularly re- 
view the timber situation. 

At the 14th session, delegates will present state- 
ments concerning the development of consump- 
tion, production, and trade in 1956, together with 
prospects for 1957, in the categories of sawn soft- 
wood, sawn hardwood, and small-sized roundwood. 
Other items of interest will be reports of the Joint 
Fao-Ece Committee on Forest Working Tech- 
niques and Training of Forest Workers ; the Joint 
Fao-Ece Working Party on Forest and Forest 
Products Statistics ; and the Working Party on the 
Standardization of General Conditions of Sale for 
Timber. 



Data on Atomic Radiation 
Transmitted to U.N Committee 

D.S./U.N. press release 2463 dated October 3 

A nine-volume record of 250,000 worldwide fall- 
out samples analyzed by the U.S. Atomic Energy 
Commission as part of its monitoring program 
was transmitted to the United Nations Scientific 
Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation on 
October 3 by the U.S. Eepresentative to the 
United Nations, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. 

Four of the volumes detail the day-by-day re- 



sults of samples collected at monitoring stations 
across the United States. The five others, each 
repi'esenting a region, give identical data for the 
62 localities abroad where daily samples are col- 
lected. Single bound volumes of the fallout data 
fi'om each country in which a sampling station is 
located will be made available to scientists of that 
country upon request at the U.S. Embassy or 
Consulate in the area. 

The main purpose of the Atomic Energy Com- 
mission's worldwide monitoring network is to 
gather data on the distribution of fission products 
resulting from nuclear test detonations. Samp- 
ling is done by exposing a 1 foot square sheet 
of gummed film on a stand 3 feet above the ground 
for a period of 24 hours. The exposed film is 
then mailed to the Commission's Health and 
Safety Laboratory in New York City, where it 
is ashed and the radioactive content measured. 
The nine volumes transmitted to the United Na- 
tions present the data from each sample in terms 
of: Beta activity (expressed in millicuries per 
square mile), accumulated strontium (expressed 
in millicuries per square mile), and infinity 
gamma dose (expressed in millirads, the unit for 
measuring the dose of ionizing radiation to the 
tissue). The analyses indicate that the average 
gamma dose from fallout is 3 percent of that 
naturally delivered fi-om cosmic rays and radio- 
active materials normally present in the soil. 

The United Nations Scientific Committee on 
the Effects of Atomic Radiation was establislied 
by the General Assembly at its lOtli session on 
the initiative of the United States. The commit- 
tee was established in the belief that the widest 
distribution should be given to all available scien- 
tific data on the effects upon man and his environ- 
ment of radiation, including radiation levels and 
radioactive fallout. 

The United States also forwarded two new re- 
ports on the analysis of materials for strontium 
90, potentially the most hazardous of the fission 
products which compose airborne dust or fallout, 
to the United Nations Committee. Entitled, 
"Project Sunshine Bulletin No. 12, University of 
Chicago, The Enrico Fenni Institute for Nuclear 
Studies" and "Summary of Analytical Results 
from the HASL Strontium Program to June 1956, 
Health and Safety Laboratory, U.S. Atomic 
Energy Commission," these reports detailed the 
analysis of approximately 5,900 samples of soil, 
milk, air, rain, tapwater, urine, human and animal 



Ocfober 29, 7956 



687 



bone, canned fish, and vegetation for possible 
strontium content. 

The bulk of the data in these volumes and 
reports covers the years 1952 through September 
1955 and has served as the basis for previous sum- 
mary reports on the subject. One of these, "Radio- 
active Fallout Through September 1955" by 
Eisenbud and Harley, was transmitted to the 
United Nations by the United States Mission in 
August of this year.^ Similar reports appeared in 
the journal Science in 1953, 1955, and 1956. In its 
recent report on "The Biological Effects of Atomic 
Eadiation," the National Academy of Sciences also 
drew heavily on this material. 



Current U.N. Documents: 
A Selected Bibliography 

General Assembly 

Provisional Agenda of the Eleventh Regular Session of 
the General Assembly ; Item Proposed by India. Letter 
dated 12 September 1956 addressed to the Secretary- 
General by the Permanent Representative of India to 
the United Nations. A/311S/Add. 1, September 13, 
1956. 1 p. mimeo. 

Provisional Agenda of the Eleventh Regular Session of 
the General Assembly : Item Proposed by India. The 
question of race conflict in South Africa resulting from 
the policies of apartheid of the Government of the Union 
of South Africa. Letter dated 12 September 1956 ad- 
dressed to the Secretary-General by the Permanent 
Representative of India to the United Nations. A/3190, 
September 13, 1956. 3 pp. mimeo. 

Pi'ovisional Agenda of the Eleventh Regular Session of 
the General Assembly. A/3191, September 13, 1956. 
6 pp. mimeo. 

Questions Relating to Economic Development. Memoran- 
dum by the Secretary-General. A/3192, September 18, 
1956. 9 pp. mimeo. 

Report of the Negotiating Committee for Extra-Budgetary 
Funds. A/0I94, September 21, 1956. 12 pp. mimeo. 

Election of Members of the International Law Commis- 
sion. Additional Statements of Qualifications of Candi- 
dates Nominated by Member States. A/3156/Add. 1, 
September 27, 1956. 7 pp. mimeo. 

Constitutions. Electoral Laws and Other Legal Instru- 
ments Relating to Political Rights of Women. Memo- 
randum by the Secretary-General. A/314.5/Add. 1, 
October 3, 1956. 2 pp. mimeo. 

Security Council 

Letter Dated 17 September 19.^6 from the Acting Perma- 
nent Representative of Jordan Addressed to the Presi- 
dent of the Security Council. S/3651, September 18, 
1956. 1 p. mimeo. 

Letter Dated 19 September 1956 from the Permanent 
Representative of Israel Addressed to the President of 
the Security Council. S/3652, September 19, 1956. 3 pp. 
mimeo. 

Letter Dated 19 September 1956 from the Permanent 
Representative of Israel Addressed to the President of 



' Bulletin of Aug. 20, 1956, p. 326. 



the Security Council. S/3653, September 20, 1956. 5 pp. 
mimeo. 

Letter Dated 24 September 1956 from the Representative ■ 
of Egypt Addressed to the President of the Security , 
Council. S/.3656, September 24, 1956. 1 p. mimeo. 

Report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council 
Pursuant to the Council's Resolutions of 4 April and 
4 June 1956 on the Palestine Question. S/3659, Septem- 
ber 27, 19.56. 28 pp. mimeo. 

Report by the Chief of Staff of the United Nations Truce 
Supervision Organization Dated 26 September 1956 Con- 
cerning Incidents on the Jordan-Israel Armistice De- 
marcation Line. S/3660, September 27, 1956. 5 pp. 
mimeo. 

Letter Dated 3 October 19.56 from the Representative of 
Israel Addressed to the President of the Security Coun- 
cil. S/3663, October 4, 1956. 1 p. mimeo. 

Letter Dated 5 October 1956 from the Representative of 
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern 
Ireland Addressed to the President of the Security 
Council [enclosing the text of proposals adopted in 
London on August 21, 1956, by representatives of 18 
Governments for the peaceful solution of the Suez Canal 
question]. S/3665, October 5, 1956. 4 pp. mimeo. 



Economic and Social Council 

Advances in Steel Technology in 1955. Prepared by the 
Secretariat of the Economic Commission for Europe. 
E/ECE/23S, E/ECE/STEEL/102, February 19.56. Vol- 
ume I — 1.54 pp. mimeo. Volume II — 140 pp. mimeo. 

Economic Commission for Latin America. Expanded 
Technical Assistance Programme. Assistance rendered 
to the countries and territories of Latin America during 
1955. Report of the Secretariat of the Technical As- 
sistance Board. E/CN.12/AC.34/3, April 20, 1956. 37 
pp. mimeo. 

Interim Co-ordinating Committee for International Com- 
modity Arrangements. 19.56 review of international 
commodity problems. E/2893, June 7, 1956. 84 pp. 
mimeo. 

Economic Development of Under-Developed Countries. 
Industrialization. Report by the Secretary-General un- 
der Economic and Social Council resolution 597 A 
(XXI) . E/2895, June 8, 1956. 22 pp. mimeo. 

Financing of Economic Development. Interim report of 
the Ad Hoc Committee on the question of the estab- 
lishment of a Special United Nations Fund for Economic 
Development prepared in accordance with General As- 
sembly resolution 923 (X). E/2S96, June 8, 1956. 104 
pp. mimeo. 

United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on a Sup- 
plementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the 
Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to 
Slavery. Preparation of the Convention. Note by the 
Secretary-General. E/CONF. 24/3, June 8, 1956. 11 
pp. mimeo. 

General Review of the Development and Co-ordination of 
the Economic, Social and Human Rights Programmes 
and Activities of the United Nations and the Special- 
ized Agencies as a Whole. E/2894, June 11, 1956. 14 
pp. mimeo. 

Advisory Services in the Field of Human Rights. Provi- 
sional observations by UNESCO on the implementation 
of resolution 926 (X) of the United Nations General 
Assembly concerning advisory services in the field of 
human rights. E/2854/Add. 1, June 13, 1956. 9 pp. 
mimeo. 

World Economic Situation. Full employment. Imple- 
mentation of full employment and balance of payments 
policies. Yugoslavia. E/2871/Add. 4, June 14, 1956. 
22 pp. mimeo. 

General review of the development and co-ordination of 
the economic, social and human rights programmes and 
activities of the United Nations and the specialized 
agencies as a whole. E/2894/Rev. 1, June 14, 1956. 
14 pp. mimeo. 



688 



Department of Sfate Bulletin 



TREATY INFORMATION 



Jordan 

Agreement providing for investment guaranties pursuant 
to section 413 (b) (4) of the Mutual Security Act of 
1954 (68 Stat. 832, 846). Eft'eeted by exchange of notes 
at Amman July 10 and September 24, 1956. Entered 
into force September 24, 1956. 



Current Actions 



MULTILATERAL 

Agriculture 

International plant protection convention. Done at Rome 
December 6, 1951. Entered into force April 3, 1952.' 
Ratification deposited: Union of South Africa, Septem- 
ber 21, 1956. 

Finance 

Articles of agreement of the International Finance Cor- 
poration. Done at Washington May 25, 1955. Entered 
into force July 20, 1956. TIAS 3620. 
Signatures: Israel and Luxembourg, September 26, 1956. 
Acceptances deposited: Israel, September 26, 1956; Aus- 
tria, September 28, 1956; Luxembourg, October 4, 
1956. 

Postal Services 

Convention of the Postal Union of the Americas and 
Spain, final protocol, and regulations of execution. 
Signed at Bogotd November 9, 1955. Entered into force 
March 1, 1956. TIAS 3653. 

Ratifications deposited: Honduras, July 3, 1956; Vene- 
zuela, August 22, 1956 ; Peru, September 17, 1956. 

Agreement relative to parcel post, final protocol, and 
regulations of execution of the Postal Union of the 
Americas and Spain. Signed at Bogotd November 9, 
1955. Entered into force March 1, 1956. TIAS 3654. 
Ratifications deposited: Honduras, July 3, 1956; Vene- 
zuela, August 22, 1956 ; Peru, September 17, 19,56. 

Agreement relative to money orders and final protocol of 
the Postal Union of the Americas and Spain. Signed 
at Bogota November 9, 1955. Entered into force March 
1, 1956. TIAS 3655. 

Ratifications deposited: Honduras, July 3, 1956; Vene- 
zuela, August 22, 1956 ; Peru, September 17, 1956. 

War 

Geneva convention relative to treatment of prisoners of 
war ; 

Geneva convention for amelioration of condition of 
wounded and sick in armed forces in the field ; 

Geneva convention for amelioration of condition of 
wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of armed 
forces at sea ; 

Geneva convention relative to protection of civilian per- 
sons in time of war. Dated at Geneva August 12, 1949. 
Entered into force October 21, 1950; for the United 
States February 2, 1956. TIAS 3364, 3362, 3363, and 
3365, respectively. 
Ratification deposited: Argentina, September 18, 1956. 



DEPARTMENT AND FOREIGN SERVICE 



Consular Offices 

The Department of State announced on October 
15 (press release 538) that the American Consulate 
at Melbourne, Australia, will be redesignated as 
a Consulate General effective November 1. Consul 
General Gerald Warner is the principal officer at 
Melbourne. 

This action has been taken because of Australia's 
increasing importance in its contacts with the 
United States. The office is moving to new 
quarters before the expected influx of visitors to 
Melbourne for the Olympic Games, November 22 
to December 8. 



Recess Appointments 

President Eisenhower on October 15 appointed James 
W. Riddleberger as Assistant Secretary of State for 
European Affairs (press release 540). 



Designations 

Walter N. Walmsley as Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
International Organization Affairs, effective October 8. 



PUBLICATIONS 



BILATERAL 



Brazil 

Agreement extending the military mission agreement of 
July 29, 194S, as amended (TIAS 1778, 2970, 3330). 
Effected by exchange of notes of March 31 and May 25, 
1956. Entered into force May 25, 1956. 



' Not in force for the United States. 
October 29, 1956 



Recent Releases 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Oov- 
ernment Printing Office, Washiniiton 25, U. C. Address 
requests direct to the Superintendent of Documents, 
except in the case of free publications, which may 6e 
obtained from the Department of State. 

U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization— 
An American View. Pub. 6332. International Organiza- 
tion and Conference Series IV, UNESCO 29. 36 pp. 35^. 

689 



An illustrated pamphlet tracing the work of the U.N. 
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization through- 
out the world and relating it to American interests. 

Sample Questions From the Foreign Service Offier Exam- 
ination. Pub. 6388. Department and Foreign Service 
Series 56. 36 pp. l~i^. 

A pamphlet presenting samples of the kinds of ques- 
tions which are asked in the written examination. 

Weather Stations — Cooperative Program on St. Andrews 
Island. TIAS 3611. 10 pp. lO?*. 

Agreement between the United States of America and 
Colombia. Exchange of notes — Signed at Bogota Feb- 
ruary 6 and March 14, 1956, and amending agreement 
effected by exchange of notes — Signed at Bogotd June 7, 
13, and 20, 1956. Entered into force July 6, 1956. 

United States Educational Foundation in Israel. TIAS 
3612. 14 pp. 10<i. 

Agreement, with exchange of notes, between the United 
States of America and Israel. Signed at Washington 
July 26, 1956. Entered into force July 26, 1956. 

The Arbitration Tribunal and the Arbitral Commission 
on Property, Rights and Interests in Germany. TIAS 
3615. 45 pp. 20c'. 

Administrative agreement, with annex — Signed at Bonn 
July 13, 1956. Entered into force July 13, 1956. Op- 
erative retroactively May 5, 1955. 

Mutual Defense Assistance — Disposition of Equipment 
and Materials. TIAS 3616. 5 pp. 5(f. 

Agreement between the United States and Korea. Ex- 
change of notes — Signed at Seoul May 28 and July 2, 
1956. Entered into force July 2, 1956. 

Radio Communications Between Amateur Stations on 
Behalf of Third Parties. TIAS 3617. 5 pp. 5^. 

Agreement between the United States of America and 
Panama. Exchange of notes — Signed at Panama July 19 
and August 1, 1956. Entered into force September 1, 
1956. 

Surplus Agricultural Commodities. TIAS 3618. 4 pp. 
5(f. 

Agreement between the United States and the Nether- 
lands — Signed at The Hague August 7, 1956. Entered 
into force August 7, 1956. 

Technical Services and Purchase of Rice. TIAS 3619. 
8 pp. 10<f. 

Agreement between the United States and the Union of 
Burma. Exchange of notes — Signed at Rangoon June 30, 
1956. Entered into force June 30, 1956. 

Articles of Agreement of the International Finance Cor- 
poration. TIAS 3620. 32 pp. 15^. 

Agreement — Signed at Washington by the United States 
December 5, 1955. Entered into force July 20, 1956. 

Surplus Agricultural Commodities. TIAS 3621. 5 pp. 
5C. 

Agreement between the United States and Pakistan — 
Signed at Karachi August 7, 1956. Entered into force 
August 7, 1956. 



Consular Officers— Free Entry Privileges. TIAS 3622. 

3 pp. 5<}. 

Agreement between the United States and Yugoslavia. 
Exchange of notes — Signed at Washington May 21, 1956. 
Entered into force July 30, 1956. 

Rama Road in Nicaragua. TIAS 3623. 4 pp. 5<f. 

Agreement lietween the United States and Nicaragua. 
Exchange of notes — Signed at Managua March 13 and 
August 2, 1956. Entered into force August 2, 1956. 

Economic Cooperation. TIAS 3624. 14 pp. 10<t. 

Agreement between the United States and Indonesia — 
Signed at Djakarta October 16, 1950. Entered into force 
provisionally October 16, 1950. 

Atomic Energy— Cooperation for Civil Uses. TIAS 3626. 
6 pp. 5(>. 

Agreement between the United States and New Zealand — 
Signed at Washington June 13, 1956. Entered into force 
August 29, 1956. 

Mutual Defense Assistance — Disposition of Equipment 
and Materials. TIAS 3627. 2 pp. 5«f. 

Agreement between the United States and Pakistan — 
Implementing article I, paragraph 3, of agreement of 
May 19, 1954 — Signed at Karachi March 15 and May 15, 
1956. Entered into force May 15, 1956. 

Surplus Agricultural Commodities. 

5^. 

Agreement between the United States and the Union of 
Burma — Amending article I, paragraph 1, of agreement 
of February 8, 19.56. Exchange of notes — Signed at Ran- 
goon July 25, 1956. Entered into force July 25, 1956. 



TIAS 3628. 2 pp. 



Check List of Department of State 
Press Releases: October 15-21 

Releases may be obtained from the News Divi- 
sion, Department of State, Washington 25, D. C. 

Press release issued prior to October 15 which 
appears in this issue of the BtHXETiN is No. 534 of 
October 12. 

No. Date Subject 

538 10/15 Melbourne made consulate general. 

539 10/15 NATO journalists visit U.S. (rewrite). 

540 10/15 Kiddleberger appointment (rewrite). 

541 10/15 Prochnow : opening statement at 

GATT. 

542 10/16 Dulles : Suez situation (combined with 

No. 543). 

543 10/16 Dulles : news conference transcript. 

544 10/16 Delegation to Eucalyptus Conference. 

545 10/18 Delegate to ECE Timber Committee. 

546 10/19 Edelman appointed member of German 

Arbitral Commission (rewrite). 

547 10/19 Shipping Liaison Committee formed. 

548 10/20 Visit of election observers from 

U.S.S.R. and Rumania. 



690 



Department of Stale Bulletin 



October 29, 1956 



Index 



Vol. XXXV, No. 905 



Atomic Energy 

Construction of Nuclear-Powered Merchant Vessel 

(Eisenhower, Strauss, Weeks) 666 

Correspondence Between President Elsenhower and 
Soviet Premier Bulganin Concerning Nuclear 
Tests 662 

Data on Atomic Radiation Transmitted to U.N. 

Committee 687 

Australia. Consular OflBces 689 

Congress, The 

Congressional Documents Relating to Foreign 

Policy 676 

Secretary Dulles' News Conference of October 16 . 655 

Department and Foreign Service 

Consular Offices 689 

Designations (Walmsley) 689 

Recess Appointments ( Riddleberger ) 689 

Economic Affairs 

Construction of Nuclear-Powered Merchant Vessel 

(Eisenhower, Strauss, Weeks) 666 

Contracting Parties to GATT (delegation) . . . 686 

ECE Timber Committee (delegate) 687 

President Approves Report on Imports of Dried 

Figs 681 

President Orders Investigations on Effects of Fig 

and Date Imports 681 

Problems Facing the 11th Session of the Contract- 
ing Parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs 

and Trade (Prochnow) 683 

Shipping Liaison Committee 667 

World Bank Loan To Aid Development of Southern 

Italy 682 

Educational Exchange 

Journalists From NATO Countries To Observe U.S. 

Elections 666 

Visit of Election Observers From U.S.S.R. and Ru- 
mania 665 

Egypt 

Documentary Publication on Suez Problem . . . 659 

Secretary Dulles' News Conference of October 16 . 655 

Shipping Liaison Committee 667 

Europe. ECE Timber Committee (delegate) . . 687 

Germany 

Arbitral Commission on Property, Rights, and In- 
terests in Germany 676 

Berlin, Symbol of Free-World Determination 

(Conant, DuUes, Eisenhower, Murphy) .... 668 

Japan. Secretary Dulles' News Conference of Oc- 
tober 16 655 

Jordan. Secretary Dulles' News Conference of Oc- 
tober 16 655 

International Organizations and Meetings 

Contracting Parties to GATT (delegation) ... 686 

ECE Timber Committee (delegate) 687 

Problems Facing the 11th Session of the Contract- 
ing Parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs 

and Trade (Prochnow) 683 

World Eucalyptus Conference (delegation) . . . 686 

Iraq. Secretary Dulles' News Conference of Oc- 
tober 16 655 

Israel. Secretary Dulles' News Conference of Oc- 
tober 16 655 



Italy. World Bank Loan To Aid Development of 

Southern Italy 682 

Military Affairs. Claim Against U.S.S.R. in 1954 
Plane Attack (text of note) 677 

Mutual Security. Pre.sident's Determination Con- 
cerning Aid to Yugoslavia 664 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Journalists 
From NATO Countries To Observe U.S. Elec- 
tions 666 

Poland. Reports of Unrest in Poland (Eisen- 
hower) 664 

Presidential Documents 

Construction of Nuclear-Powered ilerchant 

Vessel 666 

Correspondence Between President Eisenhower and 
Soviet Premier Bulganin Conc-erning Nuclear 
Tests 662 

President's Determination Concerning Aid to Yugo- 
slavia 664 

President Orders Investigations on Effects of Fig 
and Date Imports 681 

Reports of Unrest in Poland 664 

Publications 

Documentary Publication on Suez Problem . . . 659 
Recent Releases 689 

Rumania. Visit of Election Observers From 

U.S.S.R. and Rumania 665 

Syria. Secretary Dulles' News Conference of Oc- 
tober 16 655 

Treaty Information. Current Actions 689 

U.S.S.R. 

Claim Against U.S.S.R. in 1954 Plane Attack (text 

of note) 677 

Correspondence Between President Eisenhower and 
Soviet Premier Bulganin Concerning Nuclear 
Tests 662 

Visit of Election Observers From U.S.S.R. and Ru- 
mania 665 

United Nations 

Current U.N. Documents 688 

Data on Atomic Radiation Transmitted to U.N. 

Committee 687 

ECE Timber Committee (delegate) 687 

World Eucalyptus Conference (delegation) . . . 686 

Yugoslavia. President's Determination Concern- 
ing Aid to Yugoslavia 664 

Name Index 

Bulganin, Nikolai A 662 

Conant, James B 671 

Dulles, Secretary 655, 670 

Edehnan, Albert I 676 

Eisenhower, President 662,664,666,670,681 

Murphy, Robert 668 

Prochnow, Herbert V 683 

Riddleberger, James W 689 

Strauss, Lewis L 666 

Walmsley, Walter N 689 

Weeks, Sinclair 666 



u. s. coverhhent rRimac office: i9S« 




DSb-DEC 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 
STATISTICAL DEPARTMEMT 
COPLEY SQUARE .__ _^ 



G 



p/^r- 




Department 
State 



^.Ni fRTNTINv. 

DIVISION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS 

Washington 25, D. C. 



PENALTY FOR PFIIVATE USE TO AVOID 

PAYMENT OF POSTAGE, 9300 

(GPO) 



OFFICIAL BUSINESS 



The Quest for Peace 



This 35-page album-style pamphlet presents quotations from 
President Eisenhower and Secretary of State Dulles highlighting 
the major steps in the search for peace through the security and 
unity of the free world. 

The quotations from the President and the Secretary of State 
set forth problem and action on the following subjects: 



Atoms for Peace 

Austrian Treaty 

Bipartisanship 

Captive Peoples 

Change of Soviet Policy 

China 

Deterrence of War 

European Unity 

Foreign Trade 

Germany Enters Nato 

Indochina 

International Communism 

Iran 

Korea 

Copies of The Quest for Peace may be purchased from the 
Superintendent of Documents, Govermnent Printing Office, 
Washington 25, D. C, at 40 cents each. 



Latin America 

1. Communist Penetration in 
Latin America 

2. Economic Development in 
Latin America 

3. Organization of American 
States 

4. Strengthening Inter- 
American Friendship 

Less Developed Countries — 
Target of Soviet Communism 

Seato (Southeast Asia Treaty 
Organization) 

Spanish Bases 

Trieste Settlement 



Publication 6391 



40 cents 



Order Form 

To : Supt. of Documents Please send me copies of The Quest for Peace. 

Govt. Printing Office 

Washington 25, D.C. 

Name: 

Street Address: 

Enclosed And: City, Zone, and State: 



(cash, check, or 
moneu order). 



THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 



^4^i 




Vol. XXXV, No. 906 



November 5, 1956 



CiAL 

KLY RECOR 



^Fn STATES 
:iGN POLICY 



3 



THE TASK OF WAGING PEACE • Address by Secretary 

Dulles 695 

COMMUNIST IMPERIALISM IN THE SATELLITE 

WORLD • Remarks by President Eisenhower 702 

U.S. CONCERN FOR HUNGARIAN PEOPLE • State- 
ments by President Eisenhower and Secretary Dulles .... 700 

INCREASED TENSIONS IN MIDDLE EAST 

Statement by President Eisenhower 699 

Department Announcement Concerning Americans in Mid- 
dle Eastern Countries 700 

A REVIEW OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY 

• by Deputy Under Secretary Murphy 716 

FOREIGN AID UNDER THE MICROSCOPE • by 

Thorslen V. Kalijarvi 723 

THE QUESTION OF DEFINING AGGRESSION • 

Statement by William Sanders 731 

U.S. POLICIES AND ACTIONS IN THE DEVELOP- 
MENT AND TESTING OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS 

Statement by President Etsenhoicer 704 

Memorandum on Weapons Tests and Peaceful Uses of the 

Atom 706 

Memorandum on Disarmament Negotiations 709 

For index see inside back cover 



THE DEFARTIVIEISIT OF STATE 




Vol. XXXV, No. 906 • Pubucation 6411 
November 5, 1956 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington 26, D.C. 

Price: 

62 issues, domestic $7.60, foreign $10.25 

Single copy, 20 cents 

The printing of this publication has been 
approved by the Director of the Bureau of 
the Budget (January 19, 1956). 

Note: Contents of this publication are not 
copyrighted and items contained herein may 
be reprinted. Citation of the Department 
OF State Bulletin as the source will be 
appreciated. 



The Department of State BULLETIN, 
a weekly publication issued by the 
Public Services Division, provides the 
public and interested agencies of 
the Government with information on 
developments in the field of foreign 
relations and on the work of the 
Department of State and the Foreign 
Service. The BULLETIN includes se- 
lected press releases on foreign policy, 
issued by the White House and the 
Department, and statements and ad- 
dresses made by the President and by 
the Secretary of State and other offi- 
cers of the Department, as well as 
special articles on various phases of 
international affairs and the func- 
tions of the Department. Informa- 
tion is included concerning treaties 
and international agreements to 
which the United States is or may 
become a party and treaties of gen- 
eral international interest. 

Publications of the Department, 
United Nations documents, and legis- 
lative material in the field of inter- 
national relations are listed currently. 



The Task of Waging Peace 



Address hy Secretary Dulles ' 



I recall being here almost exactly 4 years ago. 
A few days afterward I was Secretary of State- 
designate, and ever since then I have been quite 
busy. I am glad, however, to have found it pos- 
sible to return here to Dallas and to join your 
World Affairs Council as it celebrates its fifth an- 
niversary. 

"When I was here before, we talked about gome 
of the problems ahead of us. I suggest that we 
do the same tonight, looking fii'st at the signifi- 
cance of some broad principles. These are not 
partisan principles. Indeed, they are largely the 
outgrowth of nonpartisan consultations between 
the Executive and the Congress. 

Then I shall speak of the Suez Canal problem. 
It is an unfinished drama of suspense which illus- 
trates the kind of effort, often called "waging 
peace," which will be required, day in and day out, 
for many years, in many matters, as we seek a 
just and durable peace. 

Maintaining Military Power 

Let me speak first of our military strength. 
That js«-must.liaye. For moral strength alonejs 
not enough. If we wei-e relatively feeble in re- 
lationTo the vast military power possessed by 
unscrupulous men, then we would not be the master 
of our own destiny. 

But, while it is simple to decide to be mili- 
tarily strong, it is difficult to decide in what way to 
be strong. There are many ways — air, army, navy 
— conventional and atomic weapons — defense and 
offense. We cannot be equally strong in all ways 
and at all times and at all places without assum- 
ing an intolerable load. 



'Made before the Dallas Council on World Affairs, 
Dallas, Tex., on Oct. 27 (press release 560). 



Fortunately, it is not necessary for the United 
States alone to possess all of the military power 
needed to balance that of the Soviet bloc. We 
have allies, and they contribute to the common 
defense. But we do have one special responsibil- 
ity. We alone have the economic and financial 
strength and the "know-how" to prevent the world 
from being dominated by the atomic and nuclear 
weapons which the Soviet Union is feverishly 
developing. We must possess a capacity to re- 
taliate on a scale which is sufficient to deter aggres- 
sion. We must have that capacity, not in the ex- 
pectation of having to use it but because if we 
have that capaci ty we shal l probably never ha ve 
tQ-USfiit^ 

But there may be local aggressions, so-called 
"nibblings," not initially involving the most po- 
tent weapons. We and our allies should, between 
us, have the capacity to deal with these without 
our action producing a general nuclear war. 
Furthermore, it would be reckless to risk every- 
thing on one form of armament, because no one 
can forecast with certainty the requirements of 
a future war. 

Thus, we and our allies, in addition to having 
great nuclear power, should have conventional 
forces which can help to defend the free world. 
The combined free-world military strength must 
be sufficiently balanced, sufficiently flexible, and so 
deployed that it can deter or defeat both big and 
little aggressions. 

Of course, peace which rests upon the deterrent 
effect of military power is not an ideal peace. 
There ought to be a controlled limitation of arma- 
ment. To achieve that is perhaps the most diffi- 
cult of all tasks of peace. But if the difficulties 
are great, so also is the necessity to overcome those 



November 5, J 956 



695 



difficulties. Let our action reflect faith that what 
needs to be done can be done. 

Strengthening Collective Security 

I turn now to a second major area of concern. 
That is the maintaining and strengthening of our 
collective-security arrangements. 

The United States now has collective-security 
associations with 42 other nations. The principal 
charters are the Rio Pact of the American Re- 
publics, the North Atlantic Treaty, and the South- 
east Asia Treaty. 

All of these arrangements, in their present form, 
are the product of a sense of danger born of the 
aggressive and violent foreign policies of power- 
hungry dictators — firstly Hitler and then the 
Soviet and Chinese Communist rulers. 

But now that sense of danger is somewhat dis- 
sipated. The Soviet Union has continued inten- 
sively its efforts to develop military supremacy. 
But it has also sought — at least until this week — 
to appear more peace-loving. In consequence, 
rightly or wrongly, it became widely felt that 
there was less danger of general war. The cement 
of fear is not so strong to hold us together as it 
was to bring us together. 

That is not logical, because the basic danger 
persists — vast military power in the hands of a 
dictatorship unrestrained by moral principles. 
We should, therefore, hold fast that which has 
made us more safe. But we cannot get away from 
the fact that, as people feel less endangered, they 
tend to draw apart — unless they find a basis for 
imity which transcends that sense of danger. 

That is perhaps most readily achieved in the case 
of the Organization of American States. That 
association has a rich and venerable backgroimd. 
It is designed not merely to repel external aggres- 
sion but to solve controversies among the Ameri- 
can nations themselves. At the recent Panama 
meeting it was agreed that more emphasis should 
be put upon economic and cultural relations. This 
concept is being actively developed. 

We face the same problem in relation to the 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Its members 
are now studying how to develop its nonmilitary 
aspects. Senator Walter George is acting for the 
United States in relation to this matter and bring- 
ing his great experience and talents to bear upon it. 

In the case of our Pacific and Asian associations 
the problem is somewhat different because the 
Chinese Communists keep fear alive. They con- 

696 



tinue to threaten the Republics of Korea and Viet- i 
Nam with military force. They periodically 
threaten to take Taiwan (Formosa) by force. 
They have occupied portions of Burma with armed 
force. 

In the Far East danger is still apparent, al- 
tliough even there the Chinese Communists occa- 
sionally seek to woo with blandishments. So, even 
there we cannot rely on the cement of fear alone. 
To find sounder ties will be one of the tasks of the 
Foreign Ministers of the Seato countries when 
they meet next spring. 

We do not, of course, forget tlie United Nations. 
It was designed to provide collective security for 
all and increased economic and social fellowship. 
The United Nations has performed and is per- 
forming a great service in these respects. But it 
still falls short of what it could be. The strength- 
ening of the United Nations is another vital phase 
of the collective effort to build peace and justice 
in the world. 

Newly Independent Nations 

A third major area of concern relates to the 
nearly 700 million people who, in 18 new nations, 
have achieved full independence since World 
War II. These new nations are distinctive in 
many respects. But they are alike in being imbued 
with national patriotism that won them their free- 
dom. Also they are all inspired by a vision of 
progress toward well-being. 

Some of these newly independent nations real- 
ize that their independence can best be assured 
through such collective-security arrangements as 
we have described. We are proud to be associated 
with these nations and are determined to justify 
their confidence. 

Other newly independent nations prefer not to 
adhere to collective-security pacts. We acknowl- 
edge, of course, their freedom of choice. 

We have a deep interest in the independence of 
all of these new nations and stand ready to con- 
tribute, from our store of skills and resources, to 
helji them achieve a solid economic foundation for 
their freedom. 

This is a challenging problem for the free world. 
For, in the long run, political independence and 
economic well-being are interdependent. Much 
has been done, and is being done, to meet the prob- 
lem. But it is on a piecemeal basis. The search 
for adequate and dependable processes is still un- 
finished business. 

Department of State Bulletin 



Surely it is within the capability of the free 
world to assure that no people dedicated to free- 
dom have to choose between Conununist serfdom 
and economic destitution. 

Captive Nations 

Another intensive concern of our foreign policy 
is in relation to the captive nations of the world. 
We had looked upon World War II as a war of 
liberation. The Atlantic Charter and the United 
Nations Declaration committed all the Allies to 
restore sovereign rights and self-government to 
those who had been forcibly deprived of them and 
to recognize the right of all peoples to choose the 
form of government under which they would live. 
Unliappily, those pledges have been violated, and 
in Eastern Europe one form of conquest was 
merely replaced by another. 

But the spirit of patriotism, and the longing of 
individuals for freedom of thought and of con- 
science and the right to mold their own lives, are 
forces which erode and finally break the iron 
bonds of servitude. 

Today we see dramatic evidence of this truth. 
The Polish people now loosen the Soviet grip upon 
the land they love. And the heroic people of 
Hungary challenge the murderous fire of Ked 
Army tanks. These patriots value liberty more 
than life itself. And all who peacefully enjoy 
liberty have a solemn duty to seek, by all tiiily 
helpful means, that those who now die for free- 
dom will not have died in vain. It is in this 
spirit that the United States and others have 
today acted to bring the situation in Hungary to 
the United Nations Security Council. 

The weakness of Soviet imperialism is being 
made manifest. Its weakness is not military 
weakness nor lack of material power. It is weak 
because it seeks to sustain an unnatural tyranny 
by suppressing human aspirations which cannot 
indefinitely be suppressed and by concealing 
truths which cannot indefinitely be hidden. 

Imperialist dictatorships often present a for- 
midable exterior. For a time they may seem to 
be hard, glittering, and irresistible. But in real- 
ity they turn out to be "like unto whited 
sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful out- 
ward, but are within full of dead men's bones, 
and of all uncleanness." They have vulnera- 
bilities not easily seen. 

Our Nation has from its beginning stimulated 
political independence and human liberty 



throughout the world. Lincoln said of our Dec- 
laration of Independence that it gave "liberty 
not alone to the people of this country, but hope 
to all the world, for all future time." During the 
period when our Nation was founded, the tides of 
despotism were running high. But our free 
society and its good fruits became known through- 
out the world and helped to inspire the subject 
peoples of that day to demand, and to get, the 
opportunity to mold their own destinies. 

Today our Nation continues its historic role. 
The captive peoples should never have reason to 
doubt that they have in us a sincere and dedicated 
friend who shares their aspirations. They must 
know that they can draw upon our abundance to 
tide themselves over the period of economic 
adjustment which is inevitable as they rededicate 
their productive efforts to the service of their own 
people, rather than of exploiting masters. Nor 
do we condition economic ties between us upon 
the adoption by these countries of any particular 
form of society. 

And let me make this clear, beyond a possibility 
of doubt : The United States has no ulterior pur- 
pose in desiring the independence of the satellite 
countries. Our unadulterated wish is that these 
peoples, fi'om whom so much of our own national 
life derives, should have sovereignty restored to 
them and that they should have governments of 
their own free choosing. We do not look upon 
these nations as potential military allies. We see 
them as friends and as part of a new and friendly 
and no longer divided Europe. We are confident 
that their independence, if promptly accorded, 
will contribute immensely to stabilize peace 
throughout all of Europe, West and East. 

Peoples of U.S.S.R. 

Let me add a word about future relations with 
the peoples who compose the Union of Soviet So- 
cialist Eepublics. They, too, can have hope. The 
spread of education and industrial development 
create growing demands for gi-eater intellectual 
and spiritual freedom, for greater personal secu- 
rity through the protection of law, and for greater 
enjoyment of the good things of life. And there 
has been some response to those demands. 

There is ground to believe that that trend will 
prove to be an iri-eversible trend. It may bring 
the day when the people of the United States can 
have, with the people of Eussia, the relations of 
fellowship which they would like and when the 



November 5, 7956 



697 



Governments of our countries can deal with each 
other as friends. 

Suez Canal Controversy 

I have spoken in terms of the general. But also 
there is the particular. A world which vitally re- 
flects human passions and imperfections will con- 
stantly produce particular situations which en- 
danger the peace or good relations between na- 
tions. History records a long succession of such 
situations ; there" are several now, and there will be 
more to come. I shall speak briefly of one — the 
Suez Canal controversy. I pick that because it is 
of great immediate importance and because it il- 
lustrates the ever-present task of "waging peace." 

The Suez Canal is the world's most important 
manmade waterway. It is made international by 
treaty. Since it was opened 90 years ago, it has 
been operated by the Universal Suez Canal Com- 
pany. On July 26, 1956, the Egyptian Govern- 
ment, for national purposes, seized that company 
and took over the canal operations. 

The Foreign Ministers of France, Great Britain, 
and the United States quickly met to consider what 
should be done. Some people thought that force 
should at once be employed to restore the situation 
that Egypt had disturbed. But our three Govern- 
ments agi-eed to call together, in conference, the 
24 nations most directly involved, including 
Eygpt. 

That was "Peace Effort No. 1." 

The conference was held in London in August. 
Only two of those invited, including Egypt, failed 
to attend. At that conference 18 nations of Eu- 
rope, Asia, Africa, Australasia, and America, rep- 
resenting over 90 percent of the canal traffic, for- 
mulated a proposal to assure efficient and depend- 
able operation, maintenance, and development of 
the canal as called for by the Convention of 1888. 

This London conference was "Peace Effort 
No. 2." 

Then the 18 nations which had agreed to the pro- 
posal I mention sent a 5-nation mission to Cairo, 
headed by Prime Minister Menzies of Australia, 
to lay their suggestion before President ' Nasser. 

That mission to Cairo was "Peace Effort No. 3." 

When President Nasser rejected the proposal, 
the 18 nations met again at London in September. 
There they formulated a plan to create a coopera- 
tive association to represent the interest of the 
canal users. It was hoped that the association 
miglit develop, on a provisional, practical, operat- 



ing basis, an acceptable measure of cooperation 
with the Egyptian canal authorities. 

This September conference was "Peace Effort 
No. 4." 

Wliile the Users Association was in process of 
organization, the United Kingdom and France 
brought the Suez problem to the United Nations 
Securitj' Council. After being in session for 9 
days, the Council adopted six principles which 
should govern the Suez solution.- These six 
principles were substantially those which had been 
adopted by the 18 user nations when they met in 
London last August. 

France and the United Kingdom also proposed 
measures to advance the implementation of these 
principles. That portion of the resolution re- 
ceived 9 of 11 votes, but it failed of adoption be- 
cause of a Soviet Union veto. 

That Security Council proceeding was "Peace 
Effort No. 5." 

While the formal proceedings of the Security 
Council were taking jalace, informal and private 
exchanges of views were being held by the Foreign 
Ministers of Britain, France, and Egypt, under 
the auspices of the Secretary-General of the United 
Nations. 

These private and informal talks were "Peace 
Effort No. 6." 

It is now hoped that further exchanges of views 
will be resumed between the three Governments 
mentioned. These meetings, if tliey occur, would 
constitute "Peace Effort No. 7." 

I trust that this recital has not been tedious. I 
can assure you that the efforts themselves, while 
they have been exacting, have not been tedious 
for the many people from many lands who have 
thus sought to secure a peaceful and just settle- 
ment of the situation resulting from the seizure, 
by the Egyptian Government, of an instrumental- 
ity of vital international significance. 

Under the international conditions which pre- 
vailed prior to the adoption of the United Nations 
Charter, we would almost surely have had war be- 
fore now. The future is still obscure. But 3 
months have been devoted to almost continuous 
efforts to bring about a settlement by agreement. 
Peace has been waged with intensity and imagi- 
nation. The next stage, which may be decisive, 
depends primarily on the three Governments most 



= Bulletin of Oct. 22, 1956, p. 616. 



698 



Department of Slate Bulletin 



directly involved — France, the United Kingdom, 
and Egypt — with the Secretarj'-General of the 
United Nations playing an important role. 

It seemed to us from the beginning that any 
solution should take account of two basic facts. 
One is that an international waterway like the 
Suez Canal, which has always had an interna- 
tional status, cajuiot properly be made an instru- 
mentality of any government's national policies 
so that equal passage may depend on that govern- 
ment's favor. That does not require Egypt to 
forgo the rights which are normal to it as the 
sovereign nation through whose territory this in- 
ternational waterway passes. It does mean that 
Egypt should not be in a position to exercise such 
arbitrary power, open or devious, over the opera- 
tions of this international waterway that the 
nations dependent on the canal will in effect be 
living under an economic "sword of Damocles." 
That would be an intolerable state of affairs. It 
would be inconsistent with the United Nations 
Charter requirement that these situations must be 
dealt with in conformity with the principles of 
justice and international law. 

The second basic proposition is that economic 
interdependence between Europe, Asia, and Af- 
rica, such as is served so indispensably by the Suez 
Canal, cannot be made truly secure by coercion 
and force. 

If implementation of these two principles is 
sought in good spirit, there can be a negotiated 
conclusion. 

I cannot predict the outcome. The situation is 
grave. Thei'e are complicating and disturbing 
factors unrelated to the canal itself. But if the 
Governments most directly concerned — those of 
Britain. France, and Egypt — with help from the 
United Nations, do come to agree, they will have 
written an inspiring new chapter in the agelong 
struggle to find a just and durable peace. They 
will deserve the praise which world opinion and 
history will surely bestow upon them. 

Maintaining the Peace 

What we have said about the Suez Canal prob- 
lem perhaps makes clear that none of the general 
policies which have been outlined during the first 
portion of my talk can be translated into reality 
without encountering and overcoming a multiplic- 
ity of specific obstacles. 

We all know the obstacles which men face and 



surmount, in time of war, to secure victory. It 
seems not to be realized that it is necessary to make 
comparable efforts, in time of peace, to preserve 
peace. Peace will never be won so long as men 
reserve for war their finest effort. Peace has to 
be waged, just as war has to be waged, and men 
and nations have to work intensively and sacrifi- 
cially to overcome the threats to peace and justice. 

I see no reason why that should not be done. 
Surely peace is a goal which deserves to be sought 
with the same dedication that would be devoted in 
war to winning victory. Today it is the more 
important because we now live in a world where, 
if war comes, there may be no victors. 

I am confident that the mood I describe is that 
of our people and of our political leaders, with- 
out regard to party. If that mood be matched by 
the people and leaders of other lands, then we can 
see the future as one which, despite its vast per- 
plexities, beckons us hopefully to great tasks of 
creation. 



Increased Tensions 
in IVaiddle East 

STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT EISENHOWER 

White House press release dated October 28 

During the last several days I have received 
disturbing reports from the Middle East. These 
included information that Israel was making a 
heavy mobilization of its armed forces. These 
reports became so well authenticated that yester- 
day morning, after a meeting with the Secretary 
of State, I sent a personal message to the Prime 
Minister of Israel expressing my grave concern 
and renewing a previous recommendation that 
no forcible initiative be taken which would endan- 
ger the peace. 

I have just received additional reports which 
indicate that the Israeli mobilization has continued 
and has become almost complete, with consequent 
stojjpage of many civil activities. The gravity 
of the situation is such that I am dispatching a 
further urgent message to Prime Minister Ben- 
Gurion. 

I have given instractions that these develop- 
ments be discussed with the United Kingdom and 



November 5, 7956 



699 



France, which joined with the United States in 
the Tripartite Declaration of May 25, 1950,^ with 
i-espect to the maintenance of peace in the Middle 
East. 

^^Hiile we have not heard of such large-scale 
mobilization in countries neighboring Israel wliich 
woidd wan-ant such Israeli mobilization, I have 
also directed that my concern over the present 
situation be communicated to other Middle East 
states, urgently requesting that they refrain from 
any action which could lead to hostilities. 

The Security Council of the United Nations now 
has before it various aspects of the maintenance of 
peace in the IMiddle East. I earnestly hope that 
none of the nations involved will take any action 
that will hinder the Council in its efforts to acliieve 
a peaceful solution. 



DEPARTMENT ANNOUNCEMENT CONCERNING 
AMERICANS IN MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRIES 

Press release 563 dated October 28 

The President in his statement today drew at- 
tention to increased tensions in the Middle East 
and indicated steps which this Government is tak- 
ing to ameliorate the situation and prevent hostil- 
ities in that area. 

The United States earnestly hopes that a high 
order of statesmanship will be shown by the gov- 
ernments involved, and that the peace will not be 
violated. As a matter of prudence, however, meas- 
ures are being instituted to reduce the numbers of 
Americans, particularly dependents, in several of 
the Middle Eastern countries. ^Vliile it is not 
contemplated that a full-scale evacuation will take 
place, persons who are not performing essential 
functions will be asked to depart until conditions 
improve. 

The Department of State urges American citi- 
zens planning to visit countries in the Middle 
East to defer such plans until the situation is 
cleai^er. 

In announcing these measures, the Department 
emphasizes their precautionary nature and is con- 
fident that the governments of the several coun- 
tries will, in any circumstances which might arise, 
afford full protection to American lives and prop- 
erty in accordance with their responsibility under 
intei-national law. 



' For text, see Bulletin of June 15, 1953, p. 834, footnote. 
700 



U.S/Corecern for Hungarian People 

Following are texts of statements hy President 
Eisenhower and Secretary Dulles concerning 
developments in Hungary^ together with an ac- 
count of a conversation hetween Deputy Under 
Secretary Murphy and the First Secretary of the 
Hungarian Legation. 



STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT 

White House press release dated October 25 

The United States considers the development 
in Hungary as being a renewed expression of the 
intense desire for freedom long held by the Hun- 
garian people. The demands reportedly made by 
the students and the working people clearly fall 
within the framework of those human rights to 
which all are entitled, which are affirmed in the 
charter of the United Nations, and which are spe- 
cifically guaranteed to the Hungarian people by 
the treaty of peace to which the Governments of 
Hungary and of the Allied and Associated Powers, 
including the Soviet Union and the United States, 
are parties. 

The United States deplores the intervention of 
Soviet military forces which, under the treaty of 
peace, should have been withdrawn and the pres- 
ence of which in Hungary, as is now demonstrated, 
is not to protect Hungary against armed aggres- 
sion from without but rather to continue an occu- 
pation of Hungary by the forces of an alien 
government for its own purposes. 

The heart of, America goes out to the people of 
Hungary. 



STATEMENT BY SECRETARY DULLES 

Press release 562 dated October 28 

The Government of the United States is actively 
concerned with the suffering caused the Hun- 
garian people by the street fighting and military 
operations in Hungary. It has been in constant 
touch with the American Red Cross authorities. 
The American Red Cross has offered assistance 
through the International Red Cross in Geneva, 
Switzerland, and this Government has' offered to 
extend assistance to alleviate suffering on the part 
of the Hungarian people. It will continue to 

Department of State Bulletin 



pursue this matter vigorously. It is understood 
that the Red Cross societies of 30 countries have 
made offers of assistance. 



CONVERSATION BETWEEN MR. MURPHY AND 
MR. ZADOR 

On October 27 Lincoln White, Acting Chief of 
the News Division, made the following statement 
to correspondents. 

At the request of the Department of State, the 
First Secretary of the Hungarian Legation, Tibor 
Zador, was asked to come in to see Deputy Under 
Secretary Murpliy today. Mr. Murphy told him 
that, since our Legation is cut off from contact 
with Washington, we are eager to get information 
about conditions in Hungary. Mr. Zador said 
that he had been in communication with his Lega- 
tion in London, which has radio communications 
with Budapest. He said that the Legation in 
London had confirmed that the new govermnent 
had been established. 

Mr. Murphy cited reports of fighting and the 
intervention by Soviet military forces, and Mr. 
Ziidor said this was true and referred to a "riot" 
in Budapest. He had no information about the 



' Later the same day Mr. White read to correspondents 
the fi>llo\ving message which had heea transmitted to the 
Department on behalf of the U.S. Legation in Budapest 
by the Hungarian Foreign Ministry : "This short clear 
[not coded] message sent through facilities of Hungarian 
Foreign Ministry. Situation report 1400 hours 27th all 
communications have been closed down EJth a.m., Thurs- 
day [Oct. 25]. We have understood however that Wash- 
ington was kept abreast on broad outline of situation here 
from news report and certain other sources. No incident 
in Legation area since massive demonstration 1700 hours 
25th. Szechenyi apartment area saw heavy firing Thurs- 
day morning with considerable damage to apartments. 
Most American personnel spent night 25th in the base- 
ment of the apartment house and were evacuated to the 
Legation shortly before noon of the next day. 

"U.S. citizens Mr. and Mrs. Chrysler [Bernard Kreisler], 
Mr. and Mrs. Mathys and Mr. Wolf departed for Vienna 
with convoy of other nationals 26th. Four U.S. citizens 
of the Garst Group [representatives of the Garst and 



provinces. He said the fighting started after 
student demonstrations. The students had de- 
manded certain changes, which, he said, had been 
made. He said that the students were justified in 
these demands but that "Fascists" had taken ad- 
vantage of the situation. Mr. Murphy asked 
whether the workers had made the same demands. 
Mr. Zador said that they had. 

Mr. Murphy asked whether Hungary welcomed 
the intervention by Soviet forces, citing reports of 
the number of Hungarians who had been killed by 
these forces. The First Secretary said that this 
was quite legal under the Warsaw Pact. 

Mr. Zador was told by Mr. Murphy that we had 
been in touch with the American Red Cross and 
that 15 national Red Cross societies, including that 
of the United States, had made offers of assistance 
through the International Red Cross but that the 
League at Geneva had not been able to contact the 
Hungarian Government. Mr. Murphy stressed 
that we were very much interested in the humani- 
tarian aspects of the situation and hoped that 
something could be done to alleviate the suffering 
of the Hungarian people. 

Mr. Murphy closed the conversation by lodging 
a firm protest about the fact that our diplomatic 
representative in Hmigary is completely cut off 
from communications with his Govenmient.^ 



Thomas Hybrid Corn Co., Coon Rapids, Iowa] still in 
Margit Island Hotel. All American personnel and de- 
pendents unharmed as of 1400 hours 27th. Also Mrs. 
Diana Hgirtaaf of Norway who would appreciate notifica- 
tion family through Norwegian Embassy. 

"Government radio has announced that groups of three 
or more persons will be fired on and that all individuals 
are confined to houses after 1000 hours 27th. Legation 
personnel have been advised by Hungarian Foreign Office 
that while curfew does not apply to diplomatic personnel 
they would advise that streets were unsafe and should 
not be used by any member foreign mission." 

The reference to "5th a. m." in the second sentence of 
the message presumably means "5 p. m.," since the De- 
partment had received a communication sent by the Lega- 
tion the afternoon of the 25th. Asked about the phrase 
"certain other sources" in the third sentence, Mr. White 
told correspondents that news reports had been the only 
source of information since the cutting off of communica- 
tions. 



November 5, 7956 



701 



Communist Imperialism in the Satellite World 



Remarhs iy President Eisenhower: 



Here we commemorate the establislnnent of an 
organization created to further a great American 
purpose. For individual freedom, rooted in hu- 
man dignity and in human responsibility, is a 
theme that runs through the whole story of Amer- 
ican labor. And, certainly, it is significant that the 
First Continental Congress met in PhiLadelphia's 
Carpenters' Hall in 1774 and, in that same hall, the 
Constitutional Convention assembled 13 years 
later. 

Freedom is not restricted to the fundamental 
rights of which we so often speak, including free- 
dom of worship, freedom of speech, freedom of 
assembly. Your forebears in the labor movement 
recognized that the industrial revolution ha.d cre- 
ated new problems, requiring a new ajoproach by 
worker and employer alike — an approach that 
stressed the equal dignity, the equal responsibility 
of labor and management. 

Consequently, your Brotherhood stands for: 
freedom to organize, freedom to bargain, freedom 
to strike. Above all, freedom to vote with com- 
plete independence — that was one of the first reso- 
lutions, I am told, your Brotherhood called for 75 
years ago. In standing for those things, you help 
extend tlie boundaries of human freedom and am- 
plify our concept of them. 

Others, men like Marx and Lenin, saw in a far 
different light and setting the new problems cre- 
ated by the industrial revolution. And they came 
up with a completely different answer, substitut- 
ing for free labor and free management the omnip- 
otent state. 



' Made before the United Brotlierbood of Carpenters and 
Joiners of America at Washington, D. C, on Oct. 23 
(White House press release). 



The industrialized world is now divided be- 
tween those who follow the philosophy of freedom 
and those whose lives are regimented under the 
philosophy of communism. 

Unrest in the Satellite World 

I should like to talk to you briefly on the fruits 
of communistic imperialism, now daily becoming 
evident in the satellite world. Let us take one 
country as an example. 

The Poles, as a people, have known freedom. 

For that matter, in the persons of Kosciuszko, 
and Pulaski, and countless others, they were build- 
ers of American freedom. And, by tjie hundreds 
of thousands, they helped build industrial Amer- 
ica and tlie free labor movement. 

But, for 17 years now, they have been victims of 
two tyrannies in succession. Neither tolerated 
freedom. And the Polish people rebelled against 
botli, for the love of freedom was and is the strong- 
est mark of the Polish character. 

A people like the Poles who have once known 
freedom cannot be for always deprived of their 
national independence and of their personal 
liberty. That truth applies to every people in 
Eastern Europe who have enjoyed independence 
and freedom. 

For a time, that truth may be obscured. 
Tyranny can, for a while, effectively present a 
false facade of material accomplishment. But 
that illusion is no substitute for the freedom that 
men and women cherish from raising their chil- 
dren in family loyalty — choosing their jobs or 
their friends and associates — practicing their re- 
ligious faith without fear. 

Eventually, as in the satellites today, the cost 
proves greater to a once proud and independent 



702 



Departmeni of State Bulletin 



people than the value of the monuments or facto- 
ries — or prisons — that have been erected. 

In those lands, the fruits of imperialism are dis- 
content, unrest, riots in one place and demonstra- 
tions in another, until the tyranny exercised over 
them either dissolves or is expelled. 

The day of liberation may be postponed where 
armed forces for a time make protest suicidal. 
But all history testifies that the memory of 
freedom is not erased by the fear of guns and the 
love, of freedom is more enduring than the power 
of tyrants. But it is necessary that the inspira- 
tion of freedom and the benefits enjoyed by those 
who possess it are known to those oppressed. 



TIM WalvM •( H» UMtltf I 

We, M a luttion — in that light— linvp a job to do, 
ft mission as the rhompion of hunmii free<1orn. 
This ia it: 

First — So to conduct ourselves in all our inter- 
nstioniii .-eUtiona that we never compromise the 
fcndamental principle that all peoples who hare 
proved themselves t-apable n* self-pr.rpinnieni 
have B rijfht to an indepen"'--"! poTemnieiit of 
thsir owo full, free choice. 

Second — So to help those freethmi-lovinir peo- 
ples who need and want and cr.n profitnhly use oiir 
Bid that they may ftdTance in their ability for self- 
support and may add sfrenpth to the swurity nnil 
peace of f he free world. 

Third — So to rnannp? our comtnerce with other 
DBtioi» that we ere joined with them in a genuine 
partnership of trade, fosterinp n spiral o^ mutti- 
ally share«l prosperity jind nlnindam-e that will be 
proof af^l'i'it all propapuid-.i and Ribversion. 

Fourth— So to exemplify at hone the oppor- 
ttoities. the rewards for work well »hine— all the 
f!ood things of a free syslpni — that the wtirld will 
recognize in human freedmr the suiv r«i:iil to hu- 
man pood. 

Working in this manner, we .«hiill expand the 
aretts in which free men, free govemnh'iits can 
flourish. We shall help filiriiik the iireas in wliitli 
human beings can be exploited and their govern- 
ments subverted. 

In this mis-sion. none ."should play a more im- 
portant role than free American labor. Vour 



Hmwmht 5, 19S6 



wholehearted support is assurance of success; your 
indifference, a guaranty of failure. 

More than that, you can most persuasively pro- 
claim this mission to the world. And the world 
will listen. For you speak with an authentic 
voice, whose accent reflects all the working places 
of America. 

Proof That Marx Was Wrong 

Above all, in the struggle between the cause of 
freedom and the cause of communism, you are the 
living proof that Marx was wrong. Free Ameri- 
can labor has prospered in every index of life — 
in pocketbook and in schooling, in leisure for rec- 
reation and culture, in dignity and in spirit : 

Not by engaging in a class war ; 

Not by abandoning to government freedoms and 
responsibilities ; 

Not by surrendering any right or duty of free 
men for the pottage of state guaranties; 

But by joining in voluntary association to bar- 
gain and to negotiate ; 

By recognizing that the prosperity of agricul- 
ture and industry and labor are inseparably 
joined ; 

By demonstrating in factory and union meeting 
and community that American citizenship, with its 
freedoms and its obligations, is based on a spiritual 
faith in the equal dignity and equal rights of all 
men and women. 

Therefore, as an American citizen and as Presi- 
dent of the United States, I am proud and happy 
I can be here this evening to celebrate the 75th 
anniversary of the United Brotherhood of Carpen- 
ters and Joiners of America. On its record, the 
Brotherhood has proved itself a worthy represent- 
ative of free American labor, a dynamic builder 
of the free American system. 



Honduran Government Recognized 

Press release 561 dated October 27 

The United States Embassy at Tegucigalpa, 
Honduras, on October 27 informed the Foreign 
Minister of Honduras, Esteban Mendoza, that the 
United States Government has recognized the new 
Government of Honduras. 



703 



U.S. Policies and Actions in tlie Development 
and Testing of Nuclear Weapons 



Following are the texts of a statement hy Presi- 
dent Eisenhower and two related memoranda 
which were released to the fress hy the White 
House on Octoher 23. 



STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT EISENHOWER 

I have concluded it to be in the public interest 
to place before you, the American people — and 
before the world — a full ajid explicit review of 
your Government's policies and actions with re- 
spect to the development and testing of nuclear 
weapons, as these affect our national defense, our 
efforts toward world disarmament, and our quest 
of a secure and just peace for all nations. 

In this cause of world peace, one truth must 
never be lost from sight. It is this : the critical 
issue is not a matter of testing nuclear weapons — 
but of preventing their use in nuclear war. Amer- 
ica has repeatedly stated its readiness, indeed its 
anxiety, to put all nuclear weapons permanently 
aside — to stop all tests of such weapons — to devote 
some of our huge expenditures for armament to 
the greater cause of mankind's welfare — to do all 
these things whenever, and as soon as, one basic 
requirement is met. This requirement is that we, 
as a nation, a.nd all peoples, know safety from 
attack. 

In this spirit and in this awareness, we as a na- 
tion have two tasks. First : we must — and do — 
seek assiduously to evolve agreements with other 
nations that will promote trust and understanding 
among all peoples. Second: at the same time, 
and until that international trust is firmly secured, 
we must — and do — make sure that the quality and 
quantity of our military weapons command such 
respect as to dissuade any other nation from the 
temptation of aggression. 

Thus do we develop weapons, not to wage war, 
but to prevent war. 



Only in the clear light of this greater truth can 
we properly examine the lesser matter of the test- 
ing of our nuclear weapons. 

On this specific matter, I last wcdc directed th» ^e 
appropriate Depaitmenta and As^nciea of your 
Gk>vcrnEarat to submit to me summariee ot all rele- 
rant farts in their respective areas of rpsponsi- 
bilit-*.'. This record cotcts the span of the post 1 1 
year?— since the tirst atomic explosion which «c- 
currr-1 in a test in New Mexico. It may be per- 
tinent to note that my direct persona] conoerp with 
theeo matten extends almost unintenmptedly orer 
thess some H years — in my succesive capacities 
M -Uhicl of Staff of the Army, Advisor to the .Sec- 
retary of Defense, Supreme Commander Allied 
rowers Europe, and, since 1053, as your President 
uiid Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Force*. 
Tliis record of your Goremmont's policies amt 
actions — insofar as it does not prejtidico natioim) 
securty — is herewith made public. It encompas- 
ses fftrts in the several nreas of nstioiiul defense, 
scientific development, and diplomatic conduct. 

This record reflects, clearly and consistently, the 
l>eri<isten(, fieai-eful puriioses of oui nation. 

n. 

1 'teem it pro|ier. in thi.-t sa^.imaiy statement, t» 
take note of the most salient points of fart in the- 
arcc^jpanying record. 

On.e. Your Qovpminent hns been tmremittipn 
ill it^effoiti loense the btinlen of armaments for 
all ?f»e world, to establish effective international 
conr'til of the testinp nnd use af nil Tiiicleiir wenp- 
«>m, nrtt «o promote infernH*ional use of atomic 
t-nerjiy for (Hp needs and purposes of ^■•^^^t. The 
luanifift evidences of this extend from the bejrin- 
ninftof this Administration toth? present: (a) my 
iip}>eal to these specific purpoeer. as early ns mv 
iul<''ir!»of .\pril u;, WTti; (b) the offer of "atoms 
for i>eafe" in I>cejnber of the same yesr; (c) the 



•# SMfe 0«lltfi* 



704 



appointment of a Special Assistant for Disarma- 
ment, with Cabinet rank, to develop and coordi- 
nate our efforts toward disarmament ; (d) my offer 
at the Meeting of the Heads of State at Geneva, in 
July of 1955, for immediate exchange of military 
blueprints between the United States and the So- 
viet Union, and mutual air inspection by the "open 
skies" formula; (e) acceptance of the Soviet pro- 
posal for ground-control teams if combined with 
air inspection; (f) the approval this week of the 
Statute to govern the International Atomic En- 
ergy Agency with 81 nations participating in its 
peaceful purpose; and (g) our continuing, con- 
structive participation in the work of the U.N. 
Disarmament Commission. 

Facts such as these have given substance and 
validity to my statement before the United Na- 
tions General Assembly on December 8, 1953: 

The United States pledges before you — and therefore 
before the world — its determination to solve the fearful 
atomic dilemma — to devote its entire heart and mind to 
find the way by which the miraculous inventiveness of 
man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated 
to his life. 

Two. The indispensable principle upon which 
we have insisted has been the securing of effective 
safeguards and controls in any program of dis- 
armament. Our readiness to begin disarmament 
under such safeguards has been affirmed repeat- 
edly during the past three and one-half years. At 
the Geneva Meeting of Foreign Ministers last 
autumn, it was specifically reaffirmed by the Sec- 
retary of State, with particular reference to nu- 
clear weapons and their testing. 

There is only one reason why no safe agreement 
has been effected to date : the refusal of the Soviet 
Union to accept any dependable system of mutual 
safeguards. In the past two years alone, the Soviet 
Union has rejected no less than 14 American pro- 
posals on disarmament and control of nuclear 
weapons. 

Three. In the light of these facts, your Govern- 
ment has kept enlarging its stockpile of nuclear 
weapons, and has continued its development and 
testing of the most advanced nuclear weapons. 
The power of these weapons to deter aggression 
and to guard world peace could be lost if we failed 
to hold our superiority in these weapons. And the 
importance of our strength in this particular 
weapons-field is sharply accented by the imavoid- 
able fact of our numerical inferiority to Commu- 
nist manpower. 



Four. The continuance of the present rate of 
H-bomb testing — by the most sober and responsi- 
ble scientific judgment — does not imperil the 
health of humanity. On the amount of radio- 
active fallout, including strontium 90, resulting 
from tests, the most authoritative judgment is that 
of the independent National Academy of Sciences. 
It reported last June, following a study by 150 
scientists of the first rank, that the radiation ex- 
posure from all weapons tests to date — and from 
continuing tests at the same rate — is, and would 
be, only a small fraction of the exposure that indi- 
viduals receive from natural sources and from 
medical X-rays during their lives. 

Five. On the other hand, the continuance of this 
testing is having two important beneficial results. 

(A) The most recent tests enable us to harness 
and discipline our weapons more precisely and 
effectively — drastically reducing their fallout and 
making them more easy to concentrate, if ever 
used, upon military objectives. Further progress 
along this line is confidently expected. 

(B) And these same recent tests have helped us 
to develop — not primarily weapons for vaster de- 
struction — but weapons for defense of our people 
against any possible enemy attack, as well as 
knowledge vital to our whole program of civil 
defense. 

Six. There is radioactive fallout, including 
strontium 90, from the testing of all nuclear weap- 
ons, of whatever size. But the character of the 
weapon, as well as its size, determines the fallout. 
Such fallout cannot be avoided — as has been im- 
plied — by limiting tests to the smaller nuclear 
weapons. Such fallout of strontium 90 as does 
take place i-esults from the process of atomic fis- 
sion. Fission is the basic phenomenon of the 
smaller weapons. Thus, the idea that we can "stop 
sending this dangerous material into the air" — ^by 
concentrating upon small fission weapons — is 
based upon apparent unawareness of the facts. 

Seven. With reference to the Soviet Union : its 
sympathy with the idea of stopping H-bomb tests 
is indisputable. This idea merely reflects the So- 
viet Union's repeated insistence, ever since dis- 
cussion of the Baruch plan in 1946, that all plans 
for disarmament be based on simple voluntary 
agreements. Now, as always, this formula allows 
for no safeguards, no control, no inspection. 

Eight. A simple agreement to stop H-bomb 
tests cannot be regarded as automatically self-en- 



November 5, 1956 



705 



forcing on the unverified assumption that such 
tests can instantly and surely be detected. It is 
true that tests of very large weapons would prob- 
ably be detected when they occur. We believe 
that we have detected practically all such tests to 
date. It is, however, impossible — in view of the 
vast Soviet land-mass that can screen possible fu- 
ture tests — to have positive assurance of such 
detection, except in the case of the largest weap- 
ons. Nor is it possible to state, immediately fol- 
lowing the long-range detection of a test, its size 
and character. 

Nine. If your Government were to suspend re- 
search and preparation for tests — as well as the 
tests themselves — and resume such preparation 
only upon knowledge that another nation had ac- 
tually exploded another H-bomb, we could find 
our present commanding lead in nuclear weapons 
erased or even reversed. For the preparation for 
such a test may require up to two years. 

Ten. If your Government were to suspend only 
its tests, while continuing precautionary research 
and preparation — if that were feasible — we could 
still suffer a serious military disadvantage. It re- 
quires a year or more to organize and effect such 
tests as those conducted at our proving ground in 
the Pacific Ocean. 

III. 

These facts dictate two conclusions. 

First. We must continue — until properly safe- 
guarded international agreements can be reached — 
to develop our strength in the most advanced weap- 
ons — for the sake of our own national safety, for 
the sake of all free nations, for the sake of peace 
itself. 

Second. We must — and we shall — continue to 
strive ceaselessly to achieve, not the illusion, but 
the reality of world disarmament. Illusion, in 
this case, can assume either of two forms. It can 
mean a reliance upon agreements without safe- 
guards. Or it can be the suggestion that simple 
suspension of our nuclear tests, without sure 
knowledge of the actions of others, signifies prog- 
ress — rather than peril. 

There is nothing in postwar history to justify 
the belief that we should — or that we could even 
dare — accept anything less than sound safeguards 
and controls for any disarmament arrangements. 

I remain profoundly hopeful that- — if we stay 
strong and steadfast — the reality of significant 
woi'ld disarmament will come to pass. 



There is every reason to believe that — if there 
but be sincerely peaceful purpose on all sides — 
the nations of the world can achieve and agree 
upon a system of dependable controls governing 
disarmament. 

AVe shall never cease striving to this end. 



MEMORANDUM ON WEAPONS 
PEACEFUL USES OF THE ATOM 



TESTS AND 



In response to a request by the President, the 
following statement has been prepared by the 
Executive Branch officials chiefly concerned. It 
covers : 

I. The United States Program of Testing 
Atomic Weapons. 
II. Fallout from Atomic Tests. 

III. Long-Eange Detection of the Detonation of 
Nuclear Weapons. 

IV. International Atoms-for-Peace Program. 

I. The United States Program of Testing Nuclear 
Weapons 

1. Beginning with the first test in 1945, the 
United States has conducted 13 test series. With 
the exception of the first test, which was in time 
of war, each series was publicly announced before 
it was held. 

2. Each of the series and every shot in each 
series was individually justified and evaluated as 
necessary for the advancement of our nuclear 
weapon teclmology or to gain important weapon 
effects information. 

3. Of the shots in the several series, approxi- 
mately 20 percent have been of high-yield thermo- 
nuclear designs and 80 percent of fission devices. 

4. The first test— Trinity— in July 1945 dem- 
onstrated the feasibility of an atomic weapon. 

5. In July 1946, 2 devices were fired at Opera- 
tion Crossroads at Bikini Atoll for information 
as to the effects of atomic bursts on ships. 

6. Subsequent tests took place as follows : 

Operation Sandstone during the spring of 1948. 

Operation Ranger in tlie winter of 1950-51. 

Operation Greenliouse in the spring of 1951. 

Operation Buster-Jangle in the fall of 1951. 

Operation Tumbler-Snapper in the spring of 1952. 

Operation Ivy in the fall of 1952. 

Operation Upshot-Knothole in the spring of 1953. 

Operation Castle in the spring of 1954. 

Operations Teapot and Wigwam in the spring of 1955. 

Operation Redwing in the summer of 1956. 



706 



Department of State Bulletin 



7. These tests were designed to fulfill, and have 
fulfilled, the following purposes : 

(a) The development of successive designs 
using less material and therefore increasing the 
defensive strength of the United States in teiuiis 
of the amount of material available. 

(b) The development of designs of smaller con- 
figuration and lighter weight with the objective of 
providing weapons which can be more readily and 
effectively used. 

(c) The development of high-yield thermonu- 
clear weapons. This development has been of 
vital importance to our striking force and to its 
capability to deter aggression. 

(d) In the more recent tests the development of 
warheads for missiles designed to defend our 
populations and important installations against 
enemy attack. In the most recent tests, the de- 
veloj^ment of weapons of high yield but low pro- 
duction of fission products. The successful at- 
tainment of this objective will make it possible for 
us to have weapons with greatly reduced radiologi- 
cal hazard (fallout). 

8. A major effort in our test series has been to 
secure information for the protection of our civil 
population in the event of attack with nuclear 
weapons. This information has been dissemi- 
nated to our people through and by the Federal 
Civil Defense Administration. 

9. The time required to prepare for a test series 
depends upon a number of variables such as : 

(a) The state of readiness of devices for test. 

(b) "VVliether the tests are to be conducted at 
our Eniwetok Proving Grounds or within the Con- 
tinental limits of the United States (where only 
small devices can be accommodated). 

(c) The number and complexity of the test de- 
vices and of the measurements and observations to 
be made. 

The period required for preparation has varied 
from a minimum of months for the test of simpler, 
small devices at the Nevada Test Site of the Com- 
mission to from 1 to 2 years for tests of larger yield 
thermonuclear devices at the Eniwetok Proving 
Grounds. 

II. Fallout From Atomic Tests 

10. This phenomenon associated with atomic ex- 
plosions has been known since Operation Trinity. 
It acquired a greatly increased importance with 



the advent of early thermonuclear weapons al- 
though the objectionable fallout of an atomic ex- 
plosion, especially the component strontium 90, 
is the result of atomic fission, which is the specific 
reaction in existing small atomic weapons. 

11. The Atomic Energy Commission has been 
continuously engaged in the study of the biological 
effect of radiation, both from the point of view of 
determining safety standards in its installations 
and for those individuals and institutions to whom 
radioactive isotopes are supplied, and in connec- 
tion with the testing operations of the Commission. 

12. The Commission has made public all the 
pertinent information which it had collected on 
this subject, with due regard to national security. 
The National Academy of Sciences, the Nation's 
foremost independent scientific body, engaged in 
an independent study of the biological effects of 
atomic radiation, conducted by approximately 
150 of the most distinguished authorities in their 
several fields. The results were publicly reported 
in June, 1956. 

13. The report states that, except for accidents, 
the biological damage from peacetime activities, 
which include the testing of atomic weapons, has 
been "essentially negligible." For a fuller state- 
ment of the radiation exposure from all weapons 
tests to date and from future tests continued at 
the past testing rate, the entire report of the 
National Academy of Sciences should be 
examined. 

14. As regards fallout of strontium 90 from 
weapons testing, Dr. Willard F. Libby of the 
Atomic Energy Commission has stated that the 
present rate of testing, if continued indefinitely, 
would not produce a dangerous level of concen- 
tration of strontium 90 in the human body. Dr. 
Shields Warren, eminent radiologist, has stated 
that bone deposition of strontium 90 is well below 
the natural background level of radiation, and 
that to cause harmful effects the dose would have 
to be increased many times. 

15. Mention might be made at this point of 
various speculations concerning the effect of 
atomic explosions upon the weather. The 
National Academy of Sciences also established a 
Committee on Meteorology which gave attention 
to this question and which concluded that there 
was no evidence to indicate that climate has been 
in any way altered by past atomic and 
thermonuclear explosions. 

16. The Atomic Energy Commission has made 



HoyembGt 5, 1956 



707 



extensive reports on the subject of fallout, includ- 
ing the most authoritative scientific data, 
in testimony before various committees of the 
Congress. 

17. On the initiative of the United States, an 
international study of the subject was undertaken 
under the auspices of the United Nations. This 
study is now in progress. 

III. The Long-Range Detection of the Detonation 
of Nuclear Weapons 

18. A system for monitoring the occurrence of 
an explosion, attributable to an atomic source, 
was initiated by the Govermnent in sufficient time 
to detect a Soviet nuclear explosion which oc- 
curred on the 29th of August, 1949, and which was 
announced by the President on September 23rd 
of that year. 

19. Including that test and since that date, the 
organization concerned with this responsibility 
has detected 7 series of weapons tests within So- 
viet territory. These series have been announced 
by our Government as they occurred and were 
detected. Particular detonations which ^jre- 
sented any unusual characteristics have been 
specifically identified at the time of detection. 

20. No Soviet weapons tests series has been 
publicly announced by the Soviet Government in 
advance of its occurrence. No description of the 
eifects of tests useful to a program for the pro- 
tection of civil populations has been made 
available by the Soviets. 

21. The United States long-range monitoring 
program employs a variety of systems which in 
the interest of national defense have not been 
described and, being intelligence operations, 
should remain classified. 

22. While the system of long-range detection 
or monitoring is believed to be as effective as it 
can be made in the present state of scientific knowl- 
edge, it cannot insure the detection of every test 
irrespective of size, location, or type and compo- 
sition of the weapon tested. 

23. A determination as to size and nuclear 
character of detected weapons cannot be reached 
immediately upon detection, nor for several weeks 
and occasionally months thereafter. This is par- 
ticidarly true with respect to the larger, more 
complicated thermonuclear devices. 

24. Our evaluation of nuclear weapons tests 
made by other countries has been dependent upon 



the calibration afforded by our own tests of weap- ( 
ons of known characteristics. ; 

I 

IV. The Program for the Peaceful Uses of Atomic 
Energy (Atoms-for-Peace) and the Establishment 
of the International Atomic Energy Agency 

25. When the Administration of Pi'esident 
Eisenhower took office, it inherited a disarmament 
stalemate and an atomic arms race, both of which 
stemmed largely from the repeated rejections by 
the U.S.S.E. of the Baruch proposals of 1946-47 
for putting all atomic energy under international 
control. 

26. As a result of the President's consideration 
of this problem, the idea for the Atoms-for-Peace 
program was evolved and presented to the world 
in the speech on December 8, 1953, which the Pres- 
ident made to the General Assembly of the United 
Nations. This speech pictured the holocaust of 
an atomic war, the blessings of an atomic peace, 
and proposed an international agency to which the 
powers possessing atomic materials would begin 
and continue to make contributions of such mate- 
rials for peaceful uses. 

27. Worldwide acclaim of President Eisen- 
hower's proposal made it difficult for the Soviets 
to succeed in their efforts to sabotage it as they 
had the Baruch plan. 

28. During the protracted negotiations follow- 
ing the speech, the United St-ates took a number 
of affirmative steps without awaiting establish- 
ment of the Agency. 

(a) Upon recommendation of President Eisen- 
hower, the Atomic Energy Act was rewritten by 
the Congress in 1954 in order to permit interna- 
tional cooperation, as a result of which agreements 
have been entered into with 37 nations, providing 
for the exchange of information on the peaceful 
uses of atomic energy to build research reactors 
and power reactors. Scores of students from 
friendly countries have been trained in technical 
schools set up by the Atomic Energy Commission. 
In addition, we have presented atomic energy 
libraries to 45 fi'iendly nations. 

(b) On June 11, 1955, President Eisenhower 
announced a proposal by our Government to share 
one-half the cost of research reactors to be built 
in friendly foreign nations. The purpose was to 
marshal world opinion in support of a demand 
that atomic science be used for the benefit of 
mankind. 



708 



Deparlment of State BuUetln 



(c) We initiated the largest scientific congress 
ever held (the International Conference on the 
Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, Geneva, August, 
1955) at which a very large amount of nonraili- 
tary atomic information vras exchanged. 

(d) The President allocated in 195-1, 1955, and 
1956 a total of 40,200 kilograms of fissionable ma- 
terial for research and power reactors in the 
United States and abroad. 

(e) The United States announced to the Co- 
lombo Plan nations in a meeting in Singapore in 
October 1955 that it would support an Asian Nu- 
clear Kesearch Center for the training of scientists 
and engineers in the Far East; plans have been 
formulated for this Eesearch Center to be located 
in Manila. 

(f ) The Atomic Energy Commission is assisting 
in the establishment of a research and training 
center at the University of Puerto Rico where 
instruction and training in the nuclear sciences 
will be given in the Spanish language, thereby 
expanding the Commission's training program for 
the special benefit of students from Latin Ameri- 
can countries. 

(g) In conjunction with the Organization of 
American States, the Atomic Energy Commission 
has initiated a program of assistance to the Inter- 
American Institute of Agriculture Sciences at 
Turrialba, Costa Rica. 

(h) The United States has announced plans for 
an Inter- American Symposium on Peaceful Uses 
of Atomic Energy to be held next May at the 
Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island. 

29. President Eisenhower's United Nations 
speech in the meantime has borne fruit : 

(a) On the initiative of the United States, 
representatives of 12 nations — including the 
U.S.S.R.— met in Washington earlier this year 
and drafted the statute (charter) of the Inter- 
national Atomic Energy Agency. 

(b) Delegates from 81 nations began a confer- 
ence on September 20 in New York to consider 
the statute (charter) ; agreement was reached to- 
day, October 23d. 



MEMORANDUM ON DISARMAMENT NEGOTIA- 
TIONS 

In response to a request by the President, the 
following chronology of principal actions and 

November 5, 1956 

406465 — 56 3 



events relating to international negotiations con- 
cei-ned with disarmament, control of atomic en- 
ergy and atomic weapons, and limitation of atomic 
weapons tests has been provided by the Execu- 
tive Branch officials chiefly concerned. 

1. The foreign ministers of the U.S., U.K. and 
U.S.S.R. on December 26, 1945, agreed at Mos- 
cow to sponsor, in the U.N. General Assembly, a 
resolution recommending the creation of a U.N. 
Commission on Atomic Energy (Unaec). 

2. On January 24, 1946, the General Assembly 
approved a resolution setting up an Atomic En- 
ergy Commission. 

3. The U.S. representative to the U.N. Atomic 
Energy Commission, Bernard Baruch, presented 
on June 14, 1946, U.S. proposals for international 
control of atomic energy. He called for estab- 
lishment of an International Atomic Develop- 
ment Authority which would own or manage all 
potentially dangerous activities in atomic energy. 
The U.S. declared its willingness, under effective 
control, to give up its atomic weapons monopoly, 
destroy or dispose of its atomic stocks, and turn 
over atomic secrets to an international atomic 
agency in which no nation would wield a veto. 
The agency would own or manage all potentially 
dangerous activities in atomic energy and control 
and license all atomic activities in that field. The 
U.S. proposal specifically provided that the 
Authority should be given the exclusive right to 
conduct research in the field of atomic explosives, 
and should foster beneficial uses of atomic energy. 

4. On July 19, 1946, the U.S.S.R. proposed an 
alternative plan for a convention which would for- 
bid "use of atomic weapons in any circumstances," 
prohibit production of atomic weapons, and pro- 
vide for destruction of all atomic stocks within 
three months after ratification of the treaty. 
The U.S.S.R. insisted on retention of Security 
Council veto power over any control system. This 
proposal, in essence, remained the Soviet position 
through the succeeding years. 

5. On December 30, 1946, the U.N. Atomic En- 
ergy Commission approved by a vote of 10 to 
(with the U.S.S.R. abstaining) essential princi- 
ples of the U.S. plan for control of atomic energy. 

6. On June 11, 1947, the Soviets made propos- 
als in the Atomic Energy Commission again call- 
ing for a convention outlawing production and 
use of atomic and other weapons of mass destruc- 
tion. They called for a separate convention which 

709 



would provide for an "International Control Com- 
mission" with limited inspection rights, but sub- 
ject to Security Council veto. 

7. On September 11, 1947, the U.N. Atomic 
Energy Commission reaiRrmed its approval of 
the U.S. plan by a vote of 10 to 1 (U.S.S.R. 
opposed). 

8. On May 17, 1948, the U.N. Atomic Energy 
Commission voted 9 to 2 to adjourn indefinitely 
on grounds that the Soviet position provided no 
useful basis for further commission discussions. 

9. On November 4, 1948, the General Assembly 
adopted by a vote of 40-6 (the U.S.S.R. op- 
posing) a Canadian resolution approving the 
U.N. Atomic Energy Commission majority plan 
(the U.S. proposal) as a basis for "establishing 
an effective system of international control of 
atomic energy." The resolution created a com- 
mittee of six to determine if there existed "any 
basis for agreement on international control of 
atomic energy." 

10. On September 23, 1949, President Truman 
announced the first atomic explosion in the 
U.S.S.R. 

11. On October 24, 1949, the committee of six 
reported on fundamental differences between the 
U.S.S.R. and the "Western powers with regard 
to control of atomic energy. The report concluded 
that the majority powers put world security above 
sovereignty, while the U.S.S.R. put its sover- 
eignty first and insisted on unimpeded exercise 
thereof. 

12. The United States on October 24, 1950, pro- 
posed that the work of the U.N. Atomic Energy 
Commission and the U.N. Commission on Con- 
ventional Armaments be more closely brought to- 
gether and that this work be carried forward by 
"a new and consolidated disarmament commis- 
sion." 

13. On November 7, 1951, the U.S., U.K. and 
France sponsored proposals in the U.N., provid- 
ing for regulation, limitation and balanced reduc- 
tion of all armed forces and armaments, includ- 
ing atomic weapons. The proposals provided for 
a progressive disclosure and verification of all 
armed forces and armaments, including atomic, 
and provided that the U.N. majority plan should 
continue to serve as a basis for control of atomic 
energy, unless a better or not less effective system 
could be devised. 

14. On November 16, 1951, the U.S.S.R. re- 
jected the tripartite proposal and submitted a 



counterproposal calling for a convention prohibit- 
ing atomic weapons. 

15. On January 11, 1952, the General Assembly 
adopted a resolution creating the U.N. Disarma- 
ment Commission. 

16. On January 12, 1952, the U.S.S.R. dele- 
gation submitted proposals which provided that 
prohibition of atomic weapons and "strict inter- 
national control" of atomic weapons should come 
into effect simultaneously, but that the control 
organ not be entitled to interfere in the domestic 
affairs of any state. 

17. On April 5, 1952, in the first meeting of the 
Disarmament Commission, the U.S. cosponsored 
the first of a series of working papers, including 
a "proposal for progressive and continuing dis- 
closure and verification of all armed forces and 
armaments, including atomic." 

18. On August 29, 1952, the U.S.S.R. categori- 
cally rejected the U.S. sponsored proposals and 
reaffirmed previous Soviet positions. 

19. On November 1, 1952, the U.S. exploded the 
first hydrogen device at Bikini. 

20. On April 8, 1953, the General Assembly 
noted the impasse in the Disarmament Commis- 
sion deliberations and requested the Commission 
to continue its work and report back to the next 
General Assembly. 

21. President Eisenhower in his speech of April 
16, 1953, proposed "international control of atomic 
energy to promote its use for peaceful purposes 
only, and to insure the prohibition of atomic weap- 
ons" under "adequate safeguards, including a 
practical system of inspection under the United 
Nations." 

22. On August 21, 1953, the U.S.S.R. exploded 
a hydrogen device. 

23. In the United Nations General Assembly on 
September 24, 1953, the Soviet Union reiterated 
their proposal for an unconditional prohibition of 
atomic and hydrogen weapons and continued to 
call for such a prohibition without specifying the 
nature of controls. 

24. The General Assembly on November 28, 
1953, adopted by a vote of 54-0, with the Soviets 
abstaining, a resolution cosponsored by the U.S. 
which called for the establislmient of a subcom- 
mittee of the Disarmament Commission "consist- 
ing of 'representatives of the powers principally 
involved' which should seek in private an accept- 
able solution." 

25. President Eisenhower addressing the United 



710 



Department of Slate Bulletin 



Nations General Assembly on December 8, 1953, 
emphasized U.S. readiness to meet privately with 
other powers principally involved to seek an ac- 
ceptable solution to the atomic armaments race 
and proposed that the governments concerned 
begin at that time and continue to make joint con- 
tributions from their stockpiles of normal uranium 
and fissionable materials to an international atomic 
energy agency, and that such agency find ways to 
assure that the contributed materials be devoted 
to peaceful purposes. 

26. The U.S.S.R. on December 12, 1953, indi- 
cated a willingness to participate in discussions on 
the President's proposal but added the reservation 
that there should be a discussion of an uncondi- 
tional obligation not to employ hydrogen, atomic 
or other weapons of mass destruction. 

27. On April 2, 1954, Prime Minister Nehru 
proposed a "standstill agreement" on tests of 
nuclear weapons. 

28. On May 25, 1954, the U.S. introduced into 
the U.N. Disarmament Subcommittee a proposal 
for the establishment of international control 
organs to enforce a disarmament program. 

29. On May 28, 1954, the World Peace Council 
(Communist) launched a demand for a cessation 
of tests together with a prohibition on the use of 
nuclear weapons. 

30. The U.S. supported a French-U.K. proposal 
of June 11, 1954, in the Disarmament Subcom- 
mittee which called for a phased approach to dis- 
armament through successive stages and for nu- 
clear disarmament phased with reduction of con- 
ventional arms and forces. The proposal included 
a proviso that states would regard themselves as 
prohibited from using nuclear weapons except in 
accordance with the U.N. Charter. 

31. In late June 1954, after consideration of the 
matter with his top officials. President Eisenhower 
adopted an interdepartmental recommendation 
that the United States should not at that time 
agree to a test moratorium, but that disarmament 
policy review should be continued and expedited. 

32. After initial rejection of the Anglo-French 
proposal, the U.S.S.R., on September 30, 1954, an- 
nounced at the U.N. General Assembly that it 
would accept that proposal as a basis for a draft 
international convention on disarmament. 

33. On November 4, 1954, the General Assembly 
unanimously called for "further efforts ... to 
reach agreement," by the Disarmament Committee. 

34. On November 23, 1954, the Communist 



World Peace Council proposed that the great pow- 
ers reach "immediate agi-eement on the banning of 
all experimental explosions of atomic and hydro- 
gen bombs," and combined tliis with a. demand 
that governments undertake "never to use nuclear 
weapons whatever may be the pretext." 

35. On February 23, 1955, Pi-esident Eisenhower 
at a news conference stated that the United States 
sees nothing to be gained by a separate ban on 
thermonuclear tests outside of a decent and pro- 
per disarmament. 

36. In the resumed meetings of the U.N. Sub- 
committee the U.S. during March 1955 called at- 
tention to the difficulties that had arisen in "ac- 
counting fully for all past production of nuclear 
materials" which "raises doubt that presently fore- 
seeable plans can completely guarantee the elimi- 
nation of all nuclear weapons." 

37. On March 8, 1955, the U.S., U.K., France 
and Canada submitted a proposal to the U.N. 
Disarmament Subcommittee on the timing or 
phasing of a disarmament program; which was 
not accepted by the U.S.S.R. 

38. On March 12, 1955, the U.S., U.K., France 
and Canada submitted to the U.N. Disarmament 
Commission Subcommittee a joint draft resolution 
for the U.N. General Assembly on the principles 
to govern reductions in armed forces and conven- 
tional armaments ; which was not accepted by the 
U.S.S.R. 

39. To undertake a complete review of disarma- 
ment problems and to develop an approach taking 
account of the growing teclmological problems 
that had arisen, the President on March 19, 1955, 
appointed Harold E. Stassen as Special Assistant 
to the President for Disarmament and directed 
that special studies of basic U.S. policy on the 
matter be made, utilizing men both in. and out of 
Government. 

40. On April 21, 1955, the U.S., U.K., France 
and Canada submitted to the U.N. Disarmament 
Commission Subcommittee a joint draft resolution 
for the U.N. General Assembly on the principles 
of disarmament controls; which was rejected by 
the U.S.S.R. 

41. At the U.N. Subcommittee in London the 
Soviet Union, on May 10, 1955, recognized that 
"there are possibilities beyond the reach of inter- 
national control for evading control and for or- 
ganizing clandestine manufacture of atomic and 
hydrogen weapons." The Soviet Union further 
recognized the danger of moimting nuclear stock- 



November 5, 1956 



711 



piles and the necessity of guarding against sur- 
prise attack. The U.S.S.R. made a disarmament 
proposal wliich included, without provision of 
safeguards, as one of the first measures of its ex- 
ecution : "the reduction of arms and the prohibi- 
tion of atomic weapons. States possessing atomic 
and hydrogen bombs shall pledge themselves to 
discontinue tests of these weapons." 

42. The first comprehensive report of the Spe- 
cial Assistant on Disarmament was presented to 
the President on May 26, 1955. Tliis report 
stressed, among other things, the extreme impor- 
tance of providing against surprise attack, the 
absolute necessity of effective inspection in any 
agreement, the role of an aerial component and of 
scientific instnunents and photography in such a 
system. 

43. The President, in June, 1955, considered and 
approved the conclusions of an interagency group, 
following a second review of the matter, to the 
effect that a moratorium on H-bomb testing would 
not be in the interest of the U.S. and should not 
be agreed to except as a part of a comprehensive 
safeguard disarmament agreement. 

44. On June 22, 1955, the U.S. announced a 
proposal that the United Nations undertake to 
pool the world's knowledge about the effects of 
atomic radiation on human health, and later re- 
quested that this item be placed on the agenda 
of the General Assembly; subsequently a resolu- 
tion to this effect was adopted. 

45. On July 18, 1955, while the Summit Meeting 
at Geneva was proceeding the Soviet Union indi- 
cated that it was ready to participate in negotia- 
tions for the establisliment of an international 
atomic energy agency. 

46. President Eisenhower at the Geneva Meet- 
ing of heads of government on July 21, 1955, gave a 
comprehensive statement of the broad principles 
of U.S. policy and proposed that as a practical 
step the Soviet Union and United States, the two 
great countries which possess new and terrible 
weapons in quantities, agree immediately to an 
exchange of blueprints of their military establish- 
ments and to provide each other with facilities 
for aerial reconnaissance. The President stated 
that such a step would provide against the possi- 
bility of a great surprise attack and would be but 
a beginning toward a comprehensive and effective 
system of inspection and disarmament. 

47. On the same day. Marshal Bulganin re- 



iterated the Soviet proposal for establishment of 
control posts at large ports, at railway junctions, 
on main motor highways and airdromes, in order 
to prevent surprise attack. 

48. The U.S. on August 30, 1955, presented an 
outline plan for the implementation of the Presi- 
dent's proposal to the U.N. Subcommittee on Dis- 
armament at the beginning of a series of meetings 
at the U.N. Headquarters in New York; which 
was rejected by the U.S.S.R. 

49. Marshal Bulganin, in a letter to President 
Eisenhower on September 19, 1955, raised objec- 
tions to the "open skies" proposal. 

50. On October 7, 1955, the U.S. proposed an 
extension of President Eisenhower's plan of aerial 
inspection to cover other countries, thus applying 
to U.S. bases overseas; which was not accepted by 
the U.S.S.R. 

51. President Eisenhower on October 11, 1955, 
in a letter to Marshal Bulganin encouraged fur- 
ther study by the Soviet Union of the Geneva pro- 
posal and stated United States willingness to ac- 
cept the Soviet proposal for ground control teams, 
along with the President's open skies proposal. 
The U.S.S.R. continued to reject the open skies 
proposal. 

52. At the Foreign Ministers' Conference at 
Geneva on November 10, 1955, Mr. Molotov indi- 
cated willingness of the Soviet Union to consider 
the concept of aerial photography as one of the 
forms of control to be considered "at the conclud- 
ing stage of the implementation of measures to 
reduce armaments and to prohibit atomic 
weapons." 

53. On November 11, 1955, at the Geneva For- 
eign Ministers' Conference, Secretary Dulles 
stated that "if agreement can be reached to elimi- 
nate or limit nuclear weapons under proper safe- 
guards, the United States would be prepared to 
agree to corresponding restrictions on the testing 
of such weapons." 

54. On November 29, 1955, Secretary Dulles 
stated at a press conference that the question of 
suspension of nuclear testing had been studied for 
a great many months, and that no formula had 
been found which would be both dependable and 
in the interest of the U.S. with regard to the pro- 
tection of people and freedom in the world. 1 

55. The United Nations General Assembly on 
December 16, 1955, adopted by a vote of 56-7, 
against Soviet opposition, a resolution cosponsored 



712 



Department of State Bulletin 



by the United States which urged that the sub- 
committee of the Disarmament Commission give 
priority to (a) such confidence building measures 
as the President's open skies plan and the Bul- 
ganin ground inspection plan, and (b) all such 
measures of adequately safeguarded disarmament 
as are now feasible. 

56. Marshal Bulganin, in a letter to President 
Eisenhower on February 1, 1956, again declined to 
enter into an aerial inspection system. 

57. On December 24, 1955, Pope Pius XII in a 
Christmas broadcast declared that the three steps 
of "renunciation of experimentation with atomic 
weapons, renunciation of the use of such, and gen- 
eral control of armaments" must be effected 
together. 

58. On January 25, 1956, Governor Stassen testi- 
fying before the U.S. Senate Disarmament Sub- 
committee reiterated U.S. policy and pointed out 
that we do not have the technical facilities to de- 
tect all test explosions. 

59. On February 14, 1956, Khrushchev before 
the 20th CPSU Congress in Moscow stated "we are 
willing to take certain partial steps — for example 
to discontinue the thermonuclear weapon 
tests. . . ." 

60. In a letter to Premier Bulganin of March 1, 
1956, President Eisenhower answered questions re- 
garding the "open skies" proposal, and added a 
proposal for efforts to bring under control the 
nuclear threat and reverse the trend toward a con- 
stant increasing of nuclear weapons hanging over 
the world. He stated the United States would be 
prepared to work out, with other nations, suitable 
and safeguarded arrangements so that future pro- 
duction of fissionable materials anywhere in the 
world would no longer be used to increase the 
stockpiles of explosive weapons. The President 
suggested that this might be combined with his 
proposal of December 8, 1953, "to begin now and 
continue to make joint contributions" from exist- 
ing stockpiles of normal uranium of fissionable 
materials to an international atomic agency. The 
President stated that the ultimate hope of this 
Government is that all production of fissionable 
materials anywhere in the world will be devoted 
exclusively to peaceful purposes. 

61. On March 21, 1956, the U.S. presented to the 
Subcommittee of the Disarmament Commission at 
London a proposal for a demonstration test area 
of open skies inspection in a strip of land 300 
miles long and 100 miles wide in the U.S.S.R. and 



in the U.S. ; which was rejected by the U.S.S.R. 

62. On March 21, 1956, the U.S. proposed to the 
U.N. Disarmament Commission Subcommittee im- 
mediate exchanges for a test period of techni- 
cal missions for purposes of preliminary study of 
the methods of control and inspection ; which was 
not accepted by the U.S.S.R. 

63. On March 22, 1956, the U.S. proposed to 
the UN. Subcommittee that, subject to certain 
accompanying conditions and safeguards, the first 
phase level of reduced armed forces and arma- 
ments should be on a basis of measurement of 
2.5 million men each for the U.S. and U.S.S.R.j 
750,000 each for the U.K. and France. 

64. On March 26, 1956, the U.S. proposed to the 
U.N. Disarmament Commission Subcommittee, 
as part of an air and ground inspection system, the 
advance notification of planned movements of 
armed units through international air or water or 
over foreign soil; which was not accepted by the 
U.S.S.R. 

65. On March 27, 1956, the U.S.S.R. proposed at 
the London meetings of the U.N. Disarmament 
Subcommittee the discontinuance of further tests 
of thermonuclear weapons as a measure independ- 
ent of attainment of agreement on general 
disarmament. 

66. At the London meetings of the Disarma- 
ment Subcommittee, the U.S. delegation on April 
3, 1956, put forward a working paper suggesting 
a step-by-step plan for a first phase of a compre- 
hensive disarmament program including limita- 
tion on conventional armaments, provision against 
surprise attack, including President Eisenhower's 
jjroposals for control of the nuclear threat, and 
limitations on the testing of nuclear weapons as 
part of a safeguarded disarmament program. 
The paper included a proviso that "the testing of 
nuclear weapons will be limited and monitored 
in an agreed manner," by an armaments regula- 
tion council which the U.S. proposed should be 
established. This proposal was not accepted by 
the U.S.S.R. 

67. On April 21, 1956, Mr. Stevenson urged that 
the U.S. "give prompt and earnest consideration 
to stopping further tests of the hydrogen bomb." 

68. On April 23, 1956, Governor Stassen at the 
U.N. Disarmament Subcommittee in London 
stated that the U.S. is prepared to agree to restric- 
tions on the testing of nuclear weapons provided 
there has been agreement on an effective limitation 
of nuclear weapons under proper safeguards as a 



November 5, 7956 



713 



part of the disarmament agreement, and provided 
this agreement limiting nuclear weapons has been 
satisfactorily carried out. 

69. On April 24, 1956, Governor Stassen held a 
discussion with Bulganin and Khrushchev in Lon- 
don in which the necessity, method, and sincerity 
of the "open skies" proposal and 2.5 million force 
level were presented at length and debated. 

70. On April 25, 1956, President Eisenhower 
at his press conference stated that the United 
States has no more interest in developing bigger 
nuclear weapons, but is proceeding with testing to 
find ways and means to limit the weapon, to make 
it useful for air defense, to reduce fallout, and to 
make it more a military weapon and less one of 
mass destruction. 

71. On May 4, 1956, the four Western powers, 
in a joint declaration at end of Subcommittee 
meetings, reiterated the necessity for a "strong" 
control organization with inspection rights, in- 
cluding aerial reconnaissance, operating from the 
outset and developing in parallel with the disar- 
mament measures. 

72. On June 6, 1956, Marshal Bulganin in a let- 
ter to the President announced the intention to cut 
the armed forces of the Soviet Union by 1.2 million 
men. 

73. In the U.N. Disarmament Commission, the 
U.S.S.R. supported a Yugoslav draft resolution 
of July 10, 1956, which called for "such initial 
disarmament measures as are now feasible and 
such forms and degrees of control as are required 
for these measures" and specified as one such meas- 
ure "the cessation of experimental explosions of 
nuclear weapons as well as other practicable meas- 
ures in the field of nuclear armaments." 

74. On July 12, 1956, Mr. Gromyko of the 
U.S.S.R. in the U.N. Disarmament Commission, 
made a statement accepting the figure of 2.5 mil- 
lion men for the armed forces of the U.S. and the 
Soviets, but only as a first step, and without 
accepting the accompanying conditions and safe- 
guards. 

75. On July 13, 1956, in the Disarmament Com- 
mission, Ambassador Wadsworth stated that "in 
the absence of agreement to eliminate or limit nu- 
clear weapons under proper safeguards, continu- 
ation of testing is essential for our national de- 
fense and the security of the free world." 

76. On July 16, 1956, the U.S., U.K., France 
and Canada proposed to the Disarmament Com- 



mission the principles on which a sound disarma- 
ment program could be based; which was rejected 
by the U.S.S.R. 

77. On July 16, 1956, the 12-nation U.N. Dis- 
armament Commission adopted a resolution re- 
calling the terms of the General Assembly resolu- 
tion endorsing the open skies, and requested the 
Subcommittee to continue its studies. 

78. Also on July 16, 1956, U.S.S.R. Foreign 
Affairs Minister Shepilov, before the Supreme 
Soviet in Moscow, stated the "question of discon- 
tinuing tests of atomic and hydrogen weapons 
can be . . . settled independently" of disarma- _ 
ment agreement. 

79. President Eisenhower in a letter of August 
4 to Premier Bulganin reaffirmed the proposals 
of his March 1, 1956, letter and asked if progress 
could not be made on the matter. 

80. On August 26, 1956, the White House an- 
nounced that the Soviets had exploded a nuclear 
device two days earlier. 

81. On August 31, 1956, the President an- 
nounced that a second Soviet atomic explosion had 
occurred on the previous day. 

82. On September 3, 1956, the Aec announced 
that a third explosion in the test series had taken 
place on the preceding day. 

83. On September 5, 1956, Mr. Stevenson, at the 
American Legion Convention, restated his pro- 
posal as "to halt further testing of large nuclear 
devices, conditioned upon adherence by the other 
powers to a similar policy." 

84. On September 10, 1956, the Soviets an- 
nounced that a nuclear weapon test had occurred 
that same day. 

85. Marshal Bulganin in a letter to President 
Eisenhower on September 11, 1956, rejected the 
President's proposal that further production of 
fissionable material no longer be used to increase 
the stockpiles of explosive weapons. He stated 
that to prohibit the manufacture of nuclear weap- 
ons without forbidding their use and without elim- 
inating them from the armaments of nations 
would "not in any measure solve the problem of 
eliminating the threat of atomic war." He also 
stated that discontinuation of nuclear tests "does 
not in itself i-equire any international control 
agreements" ; that it was possible to "separate the 
problem of ending tests of atomic and hydrogen 
weapons from the general problem of disarma- 
ment"; and that "an agreement among nations 



714 



Department of State Bulletin 



concerning the termination" of such tests would be 
"the first important step toward the unconditional 
prohibition of these types of weapons." 

86. On October 6, 1956, President Eisenhower 
issued a statement that "the testing of atomic 
weapons to date has been, and continues, an in- 
dispensable part of our defense program"; and 
that "as part of a general disarmament program, 
the American Government, at the same time, has 
consistently affirmed and reaffirmed its readiness — 
indeed its strong will — to restrict and control both 
the testing and the use of nuclear weapons under 
specific and supervised international disarmament 
agreement." 

87. From October 8 through October 12, Italian 
aerial reconnaissance tests were conducted to dem- 
onstrate the effectiveness and value of the Eisen- 
hower open skies proposal. 

88. On October 17, 1956, Marshal Bulganin 
in a letter to President Eisenliower stated, "Until 
the necessary agreement on the prohibition of 
atomic weapons is attained, it would, in our opin- 
ion, be desirable to reach agreement at this time 
on at least the first step toward the solution of 
the problem of atomic weapons — the prohibition 
of testing atomic and hydrogen weapons. . . ." 
He also stated, "We fully share the opinion re- 
cently expressed by certain prominent public 
figures in the United States concerning the neces- 
sity and the possibility of concluding an agi-ee- 
ment on the matter of proliibiting atomic 
weapon tests. . . ." 

89. On October 21, 1956, President Eisenliower, 
in a letter to Marshal Bulganin, stated : 

The United States has for a long time been intensively 
examining, evaluating and planning dependable means 
of stopping the arms race and reducing and controlling 
armaments. These explorations include the constant 
examination and evaluation of nuclear tests. To be 
effective, and not simply a mirage, all these plans require 
systems of inspection and control, both of which your 
Government has steadfastly refused to accept. Even my 
"Open Skies" proposal of mutual aerial Inspection, sug- 
gested as a first step, you rejected. 



However, though disappointed, we are not discouraged. 
We will continue unrelenting in our efforts to attain 
these goals. We will close no doors which might open a 
secure way to serve humanity. 

We shall entertain and seriously evaluate all proposals 
from any source which seem to have merit, and we shall 
constantly seek for ourselves formulations which might 
dependably remove the atomic menace. 

90. Currently, interdepartmental preparations 
are going forward, under direction of the Presi- 
dent, for further efforts to reach a sound agi'ee- 
ment for a thoroughly inspected system which will 
improve the prospects of a durable peace. This 
work is in specific preparation for renewed con- 
sideration of the subject in the U.N. Disarma- 
ment Subcommittee and in the next session of 
the General Assembly. 



Italian Demonstration 
of Aerial Photography 

White House press release dated October 23 

Following is a message from President Eisen- 
hower to President Giovanni Gronchi of Italy. 

October 22, 1956 

I have followed with close attention the Italian 
Government's demonstration last week of the 
practicability of using modem aircraft as senti- 
nels of peace. The lessons to be learned from 
your government's demonstration of aerial pho- 
tography over the City of Rome and other Italian 
centers will be studied with keen interest by all 
governments interested in achieving a lasting 
peace. 

I congratulate the Italian Government on this 
sigiiificant initiative directed toward the building 
of international confidence. It is a valuable con- 
tribution to public understanding of one essential 
element of a meaningful disarmament agreement. 

DwiGHT D. ElSENHOWEK 



November 5, T956 



715 



A Review of United States Foreign Policy 



hy Deputy Under Secretary Murphy ^ 



It is a great privilege to enjoy this opportunity 
to meet with the members of the Institute of Inter- 
national Affairs of Seattle this evening. At the 
time of my last visit here incident to the opening 
of the International Trade Fair Exposition ^ I 
learned something of the interest of your com- 
munity in matters relating to American foreign 
policy and I also obtained a good deal of inspira- 
tion from your knowledge of many of the prob- 
lems on which the Department of State is con- 
stantly engaged. We in the Department of State 
want to keep in the closest possible touch with the 
thinking of representative groups such as your- 
selves in a world situation which is fraught not 
only with anxieties and problems but with 
constructive opportunities as well. 

I would like to take this occasion to pay tribute 
to the initiative shown by this community in the 
field of international relations. I refer to the 
International Trade Fair, which was begun in 
1951 as a result of a trip to Japan of a group of 
Seattle businessmen. I think this has proved a 
significant contribution to the well-being of this 
area as well as to our relations with both Asian 
and Latin American nations. I know this has 
not been an easy task and that a number of people 
in this community have borne an extra-heavy 
burden in connection with it. Perhaps in the 
District of Columbia the future will see more 
support of a practical nature given to this demon- 
stration of an affirmative interest in better 
relations with our friends abroad. 

It should be recalled, of course, that the basic 
objective of U.S. foreign policy is the welfare and 



' Address made before the Institute of International 
Affairs at the University of Washington, Seattle, Wash., 
on Oct. 24 (press release TyrA dated Oct. 23). 

° Bulletin of Mar. 28, 1955, p. 521. 



security of the American people. Everything 
that we do in the Department of State is intended 
to work to that end. I might add that, as you 
know, one of the major features of this policy 
effort is the system of collective security which has 
been painstakingly constructed. We have now se- 
curity arrangements with 42 nations. This sys- 
tem of alliances is based on a forward strategy 
and incident to it we maintain bases in many parts 
of the world around an extended periphery. 

I would like to stress that we view these al- 
liances not as a design only for the selfish pur- 
poses of the United States but to serve the mutual 
needs of our country and the other countries in- 
volved. There is at times perhaps inevitably a 
tendency on the part of some of our friends abroad 
to believe that they are doing the United States 
a favor pure and simple in extending the facilities. 
This at times becomes the subject of aggressive 
bargaining in an effort to extract from the United 
States the maximum in the way of advantages. 
It is, of course, obvious that the foreign country 
where we might have base privileges gains a con- 
siderable advantage in the increased security and 
protection against aggression which the presence 
of our forces there offers. 

If you will permit a personal reference, when I 
was Ambassador to Japan in 1952 right after the 
Japanese peace treaty came into effect, I initialed 
on behalf of the United States the International 
Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the 
North Pacific Ocean. I became acquainted at that 
time with Seattle's active interest in a problem 
which concerned the United States, Canada, and 
Japan. As you know, the international fisheries 
relations of our country are now in a period of 
great ferment and, we believe, of constructive 
growth. This evening, with your permission, I 



716 



Department of State Bulletin 



would like to deal briefly with some aspects of the 
fishei'ies problem, and then perhaps we could make 
what the French like to call a tour (Thonson of 
situations relating to our foreign policy in the 
Far East, the Middle East, and Europe. 

International Fisheries Problem 

I need not tell you in Seattle how important to 
the Northwest, and to the whole United States, 
are the great Pacific fisheries from the Columbia 
Eiver northward to Alaska. They would be 
ruined by uncontrolled international competition, 
but fortunately there is a powerful trend in the 
world today toward conservation on a cooperative 
basis. That there is such a trend is in no small 
part owing to the examples of what are unques- 
tionably the two greatest experiments in interna- 
tional conservation treaties — our agreements with 
Canada on Pacific halibut and sockeye salmon. 
Many things are happening in fisheries at this 
moment. Today in Ottawa a United States dele- 
gation is negotiating with Canadian representa- 
tives on the conservation of the pink salmon of 
the Juan de Fuca-Georgia Strait area. If this 
conference is successful— and we believe it will 
be — pink salmon which are of joint interest to our 
fishermen and Canadian fishermen will be placed 
under a U. S.-Canadian regime similar to that 
which has for 20 years been so efi^ective in the sock- 
eye-salmon fishery. 

I am glad to say that at that conference table 
in Ottawa, sitting as membere of the United States 
delegation, are seven citizens of the State of Wash- 
ington. They include the Director of the Wash- 
ington State Department of Fisheries and hisi 
teclinical coordinator, the Dean of the School of 
Fisheries of the University of Washington, and 
four representatives of the salmon industry of this 
State. 

In Washington, D.C., the North Pacific Fur Seal 
Conference is now moving toward a successful 
close. Japan and the Soviet Union as well as the 
United States and Canada are all taking part. 
You will remember the four-power Fur Seal 
Treaty of 1911 was terminated in 1941. The pres- 
ent negotiations are seeking to reestablish a new 
four-power arrangement for the proper conserva- 
tion of this important resource. This negotia- 
tion has been a long one — it is almost a year old 
now. We have had a hard time trying to rec- 
oncile widely different positions and at the same 
time protecting our own interests. We think we 



have been able to do so. Fur seals raise many 
large questions for the four nations — not only 
scientific questions but questions of search and 
seizure of ships on the high seas, of the authority 
of an international commission over a resource of 
this kind, and the very large question of the rel- 
ative interests of nations in a marine creature such 
as the seal, which is bom on the land of one coun- 
try but spends most of its life — 9 months each 
year — at sea. 

I have, myself, had a limited part in the Fur 
Seal Conference. I talked on several occasions to 
both the Japanese and the Soviet representatives 
in an effort to work out a compromise. Perhaps 
the main tiling I learned from the conference was 
the following description of a fur seal which I 
quote: "Ampliibious is the fur seal, ubiquitous 
and carnivorous, imiparous, gregarious and withal 
polygamous." I might say that I had to look up 
"uniparous" in the dictionary, where I found that 
it means producing but one egg at a time. 

Your own city will, on November 12, i^lay host 
to the annual meeting of the International North 
Pacific Fisheries Commission. Tlie principal 
fisheries experts of the United States, Canada, and 
Japan will gather in Seattle, and I believe also 
that the Commission has extended an invitation 
to the Soviet Union to send observers to the 
meeting. 

U. S. Policies in the Pacific Area 

Since I was out here a year and a half ago dis- 
cussing the situation in the Far East, events in the 
Middle East and Africa have had a tendency to 
push the Far East out of the headlines. You may 
recall that at that time the situation in the Far 
East was extremely tense during the crises over 
the Taiwan Straits. I need not tell you who live 
on the west coast that developments in Asia have 
a vital bearing on our national security. During 
the interval since my last visit we feel that prog- 
ress has been made in tlie furtherance of our 
policies in the Pacific area. The lines of the free 
world-Communist struggle are more clearly 
dixiwn, and the concept of liberty is working its 
inevitable erosion within the rigid structure of 
communistic dictatorship. Communism in the 
Far East has reacted as it has elsewhere in other 
times and other places. Wlierever it has found 
a solid bedrock of determined resistance, it has 
turned away and sought instead for the soft spots 
more to its liking. It has abandoned methods of 



November 5, 7956 



717 



outright military aggression and lias resorted to 
classical nonmilitary methods intended to deceive 
the ingenuous. 

In Korea we have witnessed flagi-ant violation 
of the terms of the armistice by the Communist 
authorities in the North who, though they have 
reduced the Chinese Communist manpower in 
North Korea, have illegally modernized the force 
structure, created a new air force, and have 
brought in new weapons. The United States as 
part of the United Nations forces in Korea has 
scrupulously respected the terms of the armistice 
during the 3-year period which has elapsed since 
its signing. The armistice provisions were never 
designed to maintain the position in perpetuity 
but to provide for an interim period leading to a 
political conference. Due to Communist obstruc- 
tion, the political conference proved impracticable 
and the state of armistice continues. However, 
the Republic of Korea forces and those of the 
United Nations will not again be taken by sur- 
prise. They would not be denied means for ef- 
fective defense against future aggression. 

In Southeast Asia, the Republic of Viet-Nam 
has made remarkable strides in achieving politi- 
cal, economic, and military stability in the free 
area of a country which remains mihappily 
divided and occupied in the North by Communists. 
On Friday of this week President Diem will offi- 
ciate at the celebration of the first anniversary of 
the Republic, which has now drafted a new con- 
stitution as its basic charter. The United States 
continues to provide substantial support and en- 
couragement to the Republic of Viet-Nam in its 
struggle to promote the growth of democratic 
government in this important area. We are co- 
operating with the Republic of Viet-Nam in sev- 
eral fields and we believe that this policy, in addi- 
tion to promoting the best interests of the people 
of the Republic of Viet-Nam, also contributes to 
our national security. 

Conversations With Chinese Communists 

Conversations between American and Red 
Chinese representatives continue at Geneva, Swit- 
zerland. One product of these conversations has 
been the release of some of our citizens wrongfully 
detained in Red China, most of them jailed and 
mistreated. By this process the number has been 
reduced from 52 to 10, and we propose to continue 
our efforts until the last American held there has 
been released. For the rest, the Chinese Commu- 



nists have been unwilling to renounce the use of 
force in the Formosa area. In the Straits, al- 
though some shooting continues, large-scale hos- 
tilities have been averted, largely because the 
United States in concert with the Republic of 
China made its determination clear to resist overt 
aggression. 

The Chinese Communists continue to dangle be- 
fore some of the hard-pressed nations of Asia 
their offers of aid and trade. In some cases 
where these offers have been accepted already 
disillusionment has developed and the hard reali- 
ties of dealing with a Communist state are begin- 
ning to be better understood. Never was the old 
adage, "All is not gold that glitters," more appli- 
cable than in the case of Red Chinese specious 
offers of large-scale profitable trade. 

One of the techniques of the "new look" is to 
attempt the development of "cultural contacts," 
and in this endeavor the Chinese Reds have been 
having some success, particularly with some other 
Asian countries. Finding us unmoved by threats 
of force, the bombardment of the cultural offensive 
has been trained on the United States, which in 
the more austere days of the Communist hate 
campaign was supposed to have no culture. Now 
an effort is being made to induce our scholars, 
our musicians, our artists, and our writers to come 
to Communist China. They have even tried to 
make a Communist hero out of Benjamin Frank- 
lin as attractive sugar coating for Americans. 

We have taken the position that, so long as 
Americans are being held as political hostages, 
the United States cannot consider modifying its 
opposition to travel by Americans in Red China. 
To do so would be yielding to extortion. Thei-e 
would be no end to it. 

Naturally we have followed the conversations 
between our Japanese friends and the Soviet 
Union with active interest. These conversations 
liave resulted in the signature on October 19 by the 
Japanese Prime Minister Ichiro Hatoyama and 
Soviet Premier Nikolai A. Bulganin of two docu- 
ments: one a peace declaration and the other a 
trade protocol. According to these agreements 
the state of war between Japan and the Soviet 
Union is ended and diplomatic and cultural rela- 
tions are established. One significant feature of 
the peace declaration is that the Soviet Union will 
now support Japan's application for admission 
to membership to the United Nations, and both 
partners agree to be guided by the principles of the 



718 



Department of Slate Bulletin 



U.N. Charter. The only territorial decision taken 
is agreement by the Soviet Union to transfer to 
Japan the small islands of Habomai and Shikotan 
after the conclusion of a peace treat3\ The agree- 
ment brings into force the convention on fishing in 
the open seas in the northwest part of the Pacific 
between the Soviet Union and Japan and promises 
that measures will be taken to preserve and de- 
velop the fish reserves and to regulate and limit 
the catching of fish in the open sea. These agi-ee- 
ments, of course, leave many questions for future 
settlement, particularly in the field of trade be- 
tween the two countries. 

The steady quiet development of the Southeast 
Asia collective-defense treaty organization, known 
as Seato, is heartening evidence that other Asian 
nations are equally alert to the Communist peril. 
In this organization five nations in Asia — Aus- 
tralia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Thailand, and the 
Philipijines — have joined with England, France, 
and the United States in an agreement to oppose 
further aggression or subversion in Southeast 
Asia. How much this single fact may have in- 
fluenced the course of history in Asia may not be 
known for many years. This expression of com- 
mon determination is a vital and lasting contribu- 
tion to 23eace in the Pacific area. 

Your thoughts here in the Northwest turn natu- 
rally to the Orient, where ties of historic tradition, 
economic interest, and geographic location lead 
them. We bear tliis constantly in mind, but at the 
same time we try to see the whole picture in 
perspective. 

The Suez Crisis 

The attention of the whole world recently has 
focused on the Suez crisis. This situation came 
about, as you know, because Egypt undertook to 
control a waterway which for many years had been 
under international operation. This action was 
taken under circumstances which indicated that 
the purpose of the Egyptian Government was to 
exei'cise its control in such a way as to promote 
what Colonel Nasser repeatedly described as the 
"grandeur" of Egyjit rather than to operate the 
canal in the general interest. Your Secretary of 
State has been laboring round the clock since Au- 
gust skillfully and energetically seeking a peace- 
ful, effective, and just solution of an exceedingly 
complex problem. 

The United Nations Security Council on Octo- 
ber 13 unanimously adopted six principles 



which it is hoped may govern efforts to solve the 
problem.^ This steji reflected substantial progress 
toward a peaceful solution. A most significant 
principle is that the operation of the canal shall 
be insulated from the politics of any nation. This 
principle was opposed by the Soviet Union when 
we advanced it in London last August ; so its unan- 
imous adoption now is an indication that we are 
moving forward. The Security Council also 
agreed that there should be no discrimination, 
overt or covert, among users of the canal. 

This particular crisis, of course, must be viewed 
against the backdrop of the complex Arab-Israel 
relations and of impoi'tant American interests in 
the Middle East. Your Government has persist- 
ently made substantial etl'orts to bring about im- 
proved Arab-Israel relations, which continue in 
an uneasy state of armistice charged by emotion- 
alism. The United States has given strong sup- 
port to the Secretary-General of the U.N. in his 
repeated efforts to devise means to end the un- 
happily persisting series of incidents. All of our 
efforts, through every channel available to us, have 
been directed toward achieving a peaceful settle- 
ment of tliis troublesome issue. 

Throughout the world we are faced with vary- 
ing degrees and rates of change. As we concern 
ourselves with those things which have changed, 
we must bear in mind those things which remain 
unchanged. 

The Soviet Union Today 

Nowhere is this more true than in the Soviet 
Union of today. There is no doubt that important 
changes have occurred in its policies since Stalin's 
death in 1953, and there can be no question that 
we should recognize these changes and allow for 
them. But it would be as dangerous for us to 
ignore those things which have not changed as to 
fail to recognize things which have changed. 

In the first place the Soviet Union of today 
remains as devoted as was the Soviet Union of 
yesterday to the eventual destruction of our free- 
dom and way of life. The Communist leaders 
themselves have stated plainly that the change 
in their manners does not indicate a change in 
their purjDose. In fact the Russians publicly told 
us that pigs will fly before such a change occurs. 

In the second place the Soviets continue to sup- 
port their hostile and aggressive purpose with a 



" lUd., Oct. 22, 1956, p. 616. 



Novembet 5, 1956 



719 



continuing military buildup. It is true that they 
have announced a reduction of their ground 
force. But the evidence is abundant that they are 
continuing with the rapid improvement of all im- 
portant weapons, including the new weapons of 
mass destruction and the aircraft and missiles 
with which to deliver them. 

In the third place Soviet efforts are still largely 
devoted to the expansion of heavy industry. Thus 
popular welfare continues to have a low priority, 
while the economic power required to support 
their military buildup continues to receive pri- 
mary attention. 1 am told the division of invest- 
ment between heavy industries and consumer- 
goods industries remains at a 10 to 1 ratio, showing 
that the "creature comforts," except for a special 
few, are not objects of serious official concern. 

In the fourth place the Soviet Union continues 
to be a dictatorship. Only tyrannical and absolute 
rule could continue the present enforced military 
buildup, with all that it entails. The new leader- 
ship is collective and does not attempt to endow 
its members with the godlike attributes of Stalin- 
ist days. But in the Soviet Union there are still 
no checks against abuse by those who continue 
to hold unlimited power. 

Finally, the Soviet bloc of nations has been in 
the past a tightly organized group, with the 
U.S.S.R. the dominant and dominating member, 
and there is as yet no evidence of any thorough- 
going change. We must in prudence assume that, 
while the Soviet leaders are finding it expedient 
to modify their techniques of dominance, the domi- 
nance continues, with the military and economic 
resources this places at the Soviet command. 

These, then, are the things which remain un- 
changed in the Soviet Union: its purposes, its 
military power, its technique of maneuver — as in 
the A-bomb test issue — its industrial expansion, 
its dictatorial government, and its dominant con- 
trol over the populations and resources of the So- 
viet-bloc nations. 

Stalinist Methods Bringing Diminisiiing Returns 

It seems clear, however, that the changes have 
been changes of detail and approach rather than 
of fundamentals. Stalinist methods were bring- 
ing diminishing returns in terms of industrial out- 
put and loyalty to the state. Public resentment, 
unable to find expression otherwise, showed itself 
in sullen unresponsiveness. Therefore the leaders 



resorted to concessions, adjustments, and liberaliz- 
ing gestures in order to make the Communist sys- 
tem and the Soviet state more effective. 

In foreign affairs also it is clear that Stalinist 
policies of threat and force were bringing losses 
rather than gains; so here, too, the leadership 
made changes. As an alternative to bluster and 
brutality they are trying "peaceful coexistence." 
The first step in showing the world they could co- 
exist was to heal the breach with Yugoslavia, and 
this they did. Along the same lines was their os- 
tensible loosening of Soviet control over the satel- 
lites. Another step has been to bring out the old 
device of the "united front," by means of which 
Communist parties in other nations attempt to 
gain influence and respectability by forming al- 
liances with other left-wing gi'oups. The Soviets 
have also sought by all means to promote neu- 
tralism among free nations, apparently feeling 
that those nations who are not against them may 
someday join with them. They have turned the 
main focus of their efforts upon free Asia, Africa, 
and Latin America, although they have by no 
means abandoned their purpose of improving their 
position in Europe. 

Soviet policy toward the less-developed coun- 
tries stresses the exploiting of local disputes and 
economic problems and the use of trade and techni- 
cal assistance. Its short-term purpose is to dis- 
rupt cooperative arrangements among free na- 
tions, especially Nato, the Southeast Asia Treaty 
Organization, and the Baghdad Pact. In the 
longer run we may safely assume that they hope 
to find an opportunity to bring these nations under 
Communist domination and to use their resources 
to tip the balance of world power in their favor. 

There is little to be gained from idle debate as 
to whether the new Soviet look is more or less 
dangerous to the free world and to America than 
the Stalinist one. The answer depends chiefly 
upon how we conduct ourselves. 

There are certain general principles which must 
guide our actions, I believe, if we are successfully 
to deal with the problems posed by the new Soviet 
approach. I want to touch upon two of these 
principles. 

The postwar Soviet expansion was checked 
without another world war because resistance 
to it was organized among the free nations. 
America played an important role in organizing 
the mutual defense agreements upon which this 
resistance was built. We invested heavily in 



720 



Department of State Bulletin 



these arrangements, and it is now the evident 
purpose of the Soviets to destroy them. If they 
succeed in this purpose, the individual free nations 
which are party to tlie agreements will find their 
freedom and survival gravely threatened. 
Unless we continue to devote ourselves to main- 
taining these arrangements, the Soviet chances 
will be good. 

This is not to say that our military programs 
abroad cannot be improved. Studies now under 
way might well disclose the need for alterations. 
But the essential function — to join together our 
strength in order to guard our freedom — remains 
a first principle of our foreign policy. 

The other principle with which I want to deal 
has to do with the other great area of our mutual 
security effort, the economic. The underlying 
principle of our economic effort is not as obvious 
as the one which underlies our defense arrange- 
ments. The need for a military defense against 
a military threat is relatively easy to understand. 
That is why the Stalinist policy of threat finally 
became unproductive. The free nations became 
aroused and united. A program of economic 
penetration and cultural and scientific exchanges 
is far subtler than military threat. It is harder to 
identify and less easy to evaluate. It is more 
difficult, in terms of ideas, to devise a means of 
meeting it, and, once a means has been devised, it 
is more difficult to obtain broad public under- 
standing, interest, and support. 

Yet our opponents have turned some of their 
best efforts toward economic penetration ; so it is 
essential that we Americans understand how this 
new Soviet effort has been mounted and how this 
new threat, like the old one, can be dealt with. 

Communism and U.S. Foreign Economic Policy 

I think we must remember several things in 
connection with foreign economic policy: 

In the first place, we must realize that the pres- 
sure for economic development among the young 
nations, the less-developed countries of the Near 
East, Africa, and free Asia, is not going to abate 
in our time. This is a vast, historic tide, whose 
power no nation can long resist or ignore. The 
Soviets know this and seek to use this movement 
to their advantage. They hope that among the 
problems and needs that will arise as this tide of 
economic expansion moves along they will find 
opportunities for gaining influence within the 
young nations and ultimately control over them. 



Now, in the second place, we must recognize 
that America's basic aim in the world is consistent 
with the desire of other nations to be independent, 
while the Soviet aim is not. As a nation founded 
on liberty we can only be true to our heritage if 
we respect the right of other nations to achieve 
and maintain liberty. And in a world where 
other nations desire to be free, the key to our 
own security lies in the continued existence of a 
system of free and independent nations, unified 
toward the end of protecting their freedom. The 
Soviets, by contrast, are committed by doctrine, 
by political faith, to seek to extend their control 
over other states and to see in this control their 
only security. Freedom anywhere threatens 
tyranny everywhere; thus tyranny anywhere is 
hostile to freedom everywhere. 

Now, if we recognize the determination of the 
young nations to make freedom a going concern, 
through adding economic development to their 
political independence, and if we accept that the 
key to our own security lies in the continued exist- 
ence of a system of free nations, then the third 
point follows of necessity. It is not enough 
merely to offer our sympathy and good wishes to 
nations seeking to give their freedom permanent 
reality. We must help them. 

The details of our foreign economic policies 
are being examined and debated at this time, and 
it is neither proper nor necessary for me to enter 
that debate. But whatever changes, if any, are 
finally made, they must take into account the fact 
that the Soviet economic offensive cannot be met 
by a negative program of attempting to match 
whatever the other side does, nor by trying to 
outbid them in offers of assistance. Rather we 
must follow a positive program of seeing to it 
that our help is made available to those nations 
which need it in order to remain free. 

The effect of economic conditions upon commu- 
nism is rather graphically illustrated right here in 
our own land. William Z. Foster, who is at least 
nominally the head of the American Communist 
Party, recently explained publicly the reasons 
why communism has lost influence in America. 
Writing for the Communist newspaper. The Daily 
Worker, he said that the relatively good economic 
conditions which workers in this country have 
enjoyed in recent years have done more to restrict 
the growth of commimism in America than any 
other factor. 



November S, 1956 



721 



In many years of experience in many lands it 
has been my observation that men frequently em- 
brace tyranny where freedom has failed to offer 
them a decent life. 

Against this background perhaps the reasons 
behind the decision to continue economic aid to 
Marshal Tito begin to come into focus. In assist- 
ing Yugoslavia we do not endorse its fonn of 
government, nor the philosophy upon which its 
government is based. Our aid is offered rather 
because Yugoslavia continues to be independent 
of Soviet control and has needed assistance to con- 
tinue its independence. 

The value to the free world and to enslaved 
peoples of continued Yugoslav independence is 
clearly illustrated by recent events. Wlien the 
Soviet Union sought to achieve a more peaceful 
relationship with the rest of the free world, it 
had first to make its peace with Marshal Tito. 
But acknowledging the "respectability" of Tito 
in turn made Titoism in some measure respectable, 
and this has lent encouragement to the other satel- 
lites in seeking greater independence from Moscow. 
The recent events in Warsaw illuminate this 
point. The new trend appears to have come into 
conflict with the degree of authority which Mos- 
cow wishes to continue to exercise over the other 
satellites. It is reported that the Soviets have 
warned the other Communist parties against overly 
great fraternization with the Yugoslavs, who en- 
courage the trend toward independence. The Tito- 
Khrushchev talks appear to have been an effort on 
the part of Moscow to convince President Tito 
of the dangers of too liberal an interpretation of 
the new "equality" among all Communist parties. 

50 far there is no evidence that the Yugoslavs have 
retreated from their independent position. 

Thus our aid to Yugoslavia has helped to bring 
about some loosening of the bonds upon the once- 
free nations of Eastern Europe. It has helped 
create problems for the Communist leaders which 
they have not yet been able to resolve. 

United Nations Day 

Today we are celebrating United Nations Day. 
It is entirely fitting that we pause from our pre- 
occupation with the immediate problems facing 
us and speak for a moment about this important 
birthday. 

Eleven years ago today the U.N. Charter, 
drafted here on the Pacific coast and signed by 

51 nations, came into effect. There have been a 



lot of changes in the world since 1945. The U.N. 
has in many ways become something quite differ- 
ent from what its founders contemplated. But it 
remains a basic framework for international 
action that is as valid for 1956 as it was for 1945. 
It remains "a center," in the words of the char- 
ter, "for harmonizing the actions of nations" in 
the attainment of "common ends." The interests 
of nations are varied and rarely identical. But 
practically all nations share a real national inter- 
est in the existence of the U.N. In 11 years not a 
single nation has left the U.N. Its membership 
has, on the contrary, grown from 51 to 76, with 
more nations about to be added. 

I have already mentioned the work of the U.N. 
in trying to find a solution to the Suez and Pales- 
tine problems. I miglit also mention that the 
General Assembly of the U.N. will at the session 
beginning on November 12 in New York discuss 
the final report of the International Law Commis- 
sion on the regime of the high seas and the regime 
of territorial waters. And this, as you know, is 
a matter of great interest to our coastal States and 
brings us right back to the Pacific Northwest. 

I have circled the globe — from here to the Far 
East, to Suez, through the Soviet Union, and back 
to Seattle. I have tried to give you a glimpse of 
the world's problems as we see them in Washing- 
ton and of our efforts and hopes for their solution. 
Foreign relations place the responsibility on all 
of us to try to understand the problems and do 
what we can to meet them. I thank you for en- 
abling me this evening to share this important 
duty with you of the Institute of International 
Affairs. 

Air Transport Discussions Witli Korea 

Press release 552 dated October 24 

Arrangements have been made between the 
United States and the Republic of Korea for the 
commencement in Washington on October 29, 
1956, of discussions concerning an air transport 
agreement between the two countries. 

The United States delegation will be headed by 
Howard L. Parsons, Director, Office of Northeast 
Asian Affairs, Department of State. Minister 
Pyo Wook Han of the Embassy of Korea will be 
chief delegate of the Republic of Korea delega- 
tion. He will be assisted by Commercial Attache 
Myung Won Shim and by Capt. Yong Wook 
Sliinn, president of Korean National Airlines. 



722 



Deporfmenf of Slate Bullelin 



Foreign Aid Under the Microscope 



hy Thorsten V. Kalijarvi 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Affairs ^ 



My subject has to do with the foreign aid pro- 
gram of the United States. Foreign aid is a mat- 
ter with which we, as a nation, have had some ex- 
perience throughout our history. The founding 
fathers were deeply concerned with it — perhaps 
none of them more so than Benjamin Franklin. 

I suppose it is really a Philadelphia custom to 
bring in the name of Benjamin Franklin. I speak 
with some authority, because in a talk about inter- 
national trade in Philadelphia about a year and 
a half ago I could not resist telling a story in which 
Franklin, observing in London how three flies were 
revived by the sun's rays after being drowned in a 
bottle of wine, expressed a wish that he could be 
"immersed in a cask of Madeira wine, with a few 
friends," to be recalled to life a hundred years 
hence by the warm sunshine of his dear America. 

But after all, it is a pleasant custom — talking 
about Franklin, that is— and very apt for speech- 
makers on this side of the Delaware too, for Frank- 
lin was no stranger to New Jersey. Indeed, New 
Jersey has her claim to that great patriot. He 
has left us a graphic account of how he trudged 
across this State at the age of 17, rain-soaked, 
tired, hungry, thirsty, almost penniless, on his way 
from Boston to Philadelphia and camped along 
your river bank, perhaps where some big factory 
now covers the landscape. 

Later, one of his best-known humorous writings 
was his account of a "Witch Trial at Mount 
Holly," a place which I think must not be too far 
from here, judging by the signs on the Jersey 
Turnpike. Still later, he bought 300 acres near 
Burlington and performed some important agri- 



' Address made at the annual dinner of the Camden 
County Chamber of Commerce, Delaware Township, N. J., 
on Oct. 25 (press release 553 dated Oct. 24). 



cultural experiments there. He printed the paper 
money of the colony of New Jersey. In London 
he served as agent for the New Jersey Assembly. 

However, the picture of Franklin that is im- 
portant for our subject this evening does not spe- 
cifically concern New Jersey, nor Philadelphia, 
nor Boston. It is the picture of Franklin in 
France during our Revolutionary War, a Franklin 
in his seventies, plainly dressed, bespectacled, per- 
haps the most renowned man in the world at that 
time — scientist, statesman, patriot, man of letters, 
printer, publisher, merchant, diplomat. 

Having richly earned the right to retire, was 
this Titan satisfied to repair to his comfortable 
house in Philadelphia, resting on the honors that 
had been heaped upon him during his long and 
astonishing career, reminiscing and taking tender 
care of his gallstone and his gout? He was not. 
Having sailed past the guns of the British Navy on 
a dangerous voyage in which he faced an almost 
certain death on the gallows had he been captured, 
this indomitable old man was actively seeking help 
for his country in France. Surrounded by British 
spies and working amidst fearful aggravations 
and difficulties, he sought to obtain more and ever 
more French foreign aid for the newly established 
United States of America. Under pressure from 
the Continental Congress and from George Wash- 
ington himself in the darkest months of the war, 
Franklin had to apply for loan after loan, even 
when it was personally humiliating to do so, and 
finally with the help of this French "mutual secu- 
rity program" our national independence was 
accomplished. 

We also know that the Dutch and others were 
similarly approached at this time. But I have 
used this single episode as a forceful reminder 
that our country has known both ends of foreign 



November 5, 1956 



723 



aid. We know how it feels to be the aider and 
how it feels to be the aided. 

Let us now come to our own time and speak of 
1956. 

We have in this covmtry an intercollegiate sport 
that may not be as spectacular as football but, in 
its own way, is just as vigorously contested. I 
refer to intercollegiate debating. Every year the 
intercollegiate authorities, through some sort of 
machinery with which I am unfamiliar, grind 
out a subject- of -the-y ear which is debated on plat- 
forms throughout the entire Nation. And this 
year the subject they have chosen is as follows: 
"Kesolved: That the United States Should Dis- 
continue Direct Economic Aid to Foreign Coun- 
tries." 

At the very time when our college students are 
earnestly contending with one another over 
whether to do away with economic assistance, some 
of their elders, men of much experience in world 
affairs, are just as earnestly contending that his- 
torical events require us to alter our aid programs 
in order to place even greater emphasis on the 
economic and less on the military. 

Interest in foreign aid is by no means confined 
to these two viewpoints, but they do indicate the 
wide range of public concern. They also illus- 
trate the gaps that exist among current views 
about the various foreign operations which we 
sometimes refer to as the mutual security program 
and sometimes simply as "foreign aid" — a term 
which is often misleading but which is so firmly 
rooted in the language that it is difficult to avoid. 

Reexamination of Program 

We shall make no effort to reconcile these widely 
separated viewpoints here tonight. This is not 
the place to try. But we can perhaps agree, as 
I think most Americans do agree, that our country 
has reached a period when it must ask itself the 
hardest questions imaginable and then make a 
serious, concerted, nonpartisan effort to agree on 
the answers. Such an effort has in fact com- 
menced and will be going on for the next few 
months. This is a time of thought and reexam- 
ination, to me a stimulating time, when a great 
Nation puts a great program under the micro- 
scope for study. 

Governmental evaluations of major programs, 
of course, go on continually, and changes are made 
as necessary. In the present situation, however. 



something new has been added. Both the execu- | 
tive and legislative branches have commenced 
studies in which they have recruited the help of 
distinguished private citizens. Next year, when 
it comes time to decide what the mutual security 
program will be like in the fiscal year ending June 
30, 1958, these broad studies will be useful to the 
President and the Congress. Even if they result 
in no fundamental alterations in the program, at 
least the country and the world will know better 
what the national objectives are and how the Gov- 
ernment proposes to achieve them. 

Tonight it is my purpose to report to you about 
the principal studies that have been set in motion 
and to give you some of the questions they are 
striving to answer. But first it might be useful 
to look backward a few years and remind our- 
selves of the main events that have brought us 
to the present juncture. 

First, there was World War I. It changed the 
global balance of power. Europe, which for cen- 
turies had been the world power center, began a 
relative decline and contracted economic diseases 
which were to persist for decades. The United 
States emerged as a formidable world force. The 
Kussian revolution cast a shadow on world affairs, 
small at first, but threatening. 

One thing led to another until the civilized 
world was plunged into the nightmare that we call 
World War II. And, when the war finally ended, 
other nightmares followed — a hostile and aggres- 
sive Soviet Russia bent on fastening communism 
on the world; the monsters of "hunger, poverty, 
desperation, and chaos" stalking through Western 
Europe; and the ominous mushroom of nuclear 
fission. 

The United States, mightier than ever, its fac- 
tories and farms prolific, its homeland physically 
undamaged though many thousands of families 
had lost members in battle, found itself faced with 
a world responsibility that has seldom come to any 
nation in history. You remember how America 
responded with a great bipartisan program, the 
Marshall plan. We can best recapture the electric 
atmosphere of those days by recalling the historic 
speech of Arthur Vandenberg in the Senate of 
March 1, 1948, when he said : 

This legislation, Mr. President, seeks peace and stability 
for free men in a free world. It seeks them by economic 
rather than by military means. It proposes to help our 
friends to help themselves in the pursuit of sound and 
successful liberty in the democratic pattern. The quest 
can mean as much to us as it does to them. It aims to 



724 



DeparlmenI of State Bulletin 



preserve the victory against aggression and dictatorship 
which we thought we won in World War II. It strives to 
help stop World War III before it starts. It fights the 
economic chaos which would precipitate far-flung disin- 
tegration. It sustains western civilization. It means to 
take Western Europe completely off the American dole at 
the end of the adventure. It recognizes the grim truth — 
whether we like it or not — that American self-interest, 
national economy, and national security are inseverably 
linked with these objectives. 

So ends the quotation from Senator Vanden- 
berg. I was on the floor of the Senate when he 
made his famous address, and I clearly recall its 
insight, force, and effect. The Marshall plan per- 
formed its mission. And in those crowded years 
new developments altered the course of our foreign 
aid. One such development was the Communist 
invasion of Korea, which hastened a shift of em- 
phasis away from economic aid and toward mili- 
tary assistance for the free world. Another was 
a remarkable new force in world affairs, the emer- 
gence of nationalism and economic aspirations in 
the newly independent countries of Asia and 
Africa. As Europe rose again to her feet, our 
economic assistance shifted increasingly toward 
the so-called underdeveloped regions where popu- 
lations are pressing governments to attain higher 
standards of living. 

Tliere is no question that the military and eco- 
nomic strength of the free world has increased 
and that the mutual security program has made — - 
and is making — significant contributions to this 
increase. But the world situation does not stand 
still, and in the last year or two many interesting 
and complex problems have insistently demanded 
attention. 

There is a growing competition in many coun- 
tries between the heavy cost of a modem military 
establishment and the cost of economic growth. 
Many free-world governments are finding it diffi- 
cult to maintain the kind of security force they 
need and also to finance and carry forward pro- 
grams of economic development. The cessation 
of actual fighting on battlefronts in Asia has 
highlighted economic considerations and has 
shown the great and difficult choices that must be 
made, especially by the less-developed countries. 

The problem has been intensified by a number of 
changes in Soviet policy since the death of Stalin. 
The fundamental objectives of the Communists 
unfortunately remain the same. One of the signifi- 
cant Soviet changes has been toward more flexi- 



bility in international affairs. The Communists 
have begun extensive economic activities, includ- 
ing trade and aid, in those seething areas that I 
mentioned before — that is, the less-developed 
countries, especially in the Middle East and South 
and Southeast Asia. 

In an effort to deal with some of these problems, 
earlier this year the executive branch asked the 
Congress for greater flexibility in the administra- 
tion of our mutual security program, and espe- 
cially for authority to make long-term commit- 
ments. These requests were not fully granted. 
But they brought into sharper focus the fact that a 
certain amount of misunderstanding has developed 
over the last few years both in this country and 
abroad concerning the objectives of our programs. 

President's Citizen Advisers 

For these and other reasons the President last 
month enlisted a distinguished group of citizens 
to assist in a reexamination of our programs.^ 
This group is called the President's Citizen Ad- 
visers on the Mutual Security Program. They 
held their first meeting on September 27 and by 
now are deep in their assignment with the aim of 
making a progress report by December 1 and a 
final report by next March 1. 

As coordinator of the citizen advisers, the Presi- 
dent appointed Benjamin Fairless, former presi- 
dent and chairman of the board of the United 
States Steel Corporation. The six other advisers 
are: 

Colgate W. Darden, Jr., president of the University of 
Virginia 

Richard R. Deupree, chairman of the board of Proctor and 
Gamble Company 

John L. Lewis, president of the United Mine Workers of 
America 

Whitelaw Reid, chairman of the board of the New York 
Herald Tribune 

Walter Bedell Smith, former director of the Central In- 
telligence Agency, former Under Secretary of State, and 
now vice chairman of the American Machine and 
Foundry Company 

Jesse W. Tapp, vice chairman of the board of directors of 
the Bank of America 

The President gave these men a big order. He 
asked them to recommend concernuig: 

1. The purposes, scope, development, and oper- 
ation of the overseas assistance programs in rela- 



■ BxjLLETiN of Oct. 8, 1956, p. 551. 



Novembet 5, 1956 



725 



tion to our own foreign policy and national 
interests ; 

2. The possible magnitude and duration of the 
programs in the light of our own economic capa- 
bilities ; 

3. The geographic distribution and composition 
of the progi'ams; and 

4. Methods of developing and administering 
programs which will most effectively and eco- 
nomically achieve the agreed purposes. 

The President further requested the citizen 
advisers in studying those broad issues to give him 
their views on a number of specific questions. If 
I summarize these questions, we will have before 
us in capsule form some of the serious problems 
which our country now faces : 

Wliat should be the balance among militai*y, 
economic, financial, and teclmical assistance? 
"What are the best means of achieving flexibility 
and continuity? Under what terms and condi- 
tions should assistance be made available to for- 
eign coimtries ? Wliat is the relationship between 
the disposal of surplus agricultural products and 
our mutual security operations ? What is the role 
of private lending institutions and of private in- 
vestment? T^niaat are the relative advantages of 
providing assistance on a bilateral or multilateral 
basis? "Wliat are the relative advantages of pro- 
viding assistance on a loan or grant basis ? 

Studies by the Congress 

Meanwhile, the Congi'ess is already hard at work 
with microscopes of its own. Nonnally the com- 
mittee hearings on the aid program do not begin 
until Congress has convened in January and is 
well along in its session. Tills year the Foreign 
Affairs Committee of the House of Representa- 
tives, the chairman of which is Representative 
James P. Richards of South Carolina, has already 
held a series of preliminary hearings. "Witnesses 
from both inside and outside the Government 
have given their thoughtful views, and this com- 
mittee and its staff plan a vast amount of further 
work before recommending action to the House 
some time next spring. 

On the Senate side, a study is under way that is 
perhaps unique in the history of congressional in- 
quiries. If I devote more time to describing the 
Senate project, it is because the Senate project 
has some unusual ramifications. 

Last July 11, the Senate adopted a resolution — 

726 



Senate Resolution 285, to be exact — in which it 
created a Special Committee To Study the Foreign 
Aid Program. This group consists of the full '■ 
membership of the Foreign Relations Committee 
plus two leading members of the Appropriations 
Committee and two leading members of the Armed 
Sei'vices Committee. 

This special committee, by the terms of the res- 
olution, will "make exhaustive studies of the ex- 
tent to which foreign assistance by the United 
States Government serves, can be made to serve, 
or does not serve, the national interest" and will 
direct its attention to a series of matters including 
the proper objectives of United States aid pro- 
grams and the methods of accomplishing the 
objectives. 

The committee is authorized to spend up to 
$300,000 in jirobing into those matters. Senator 
"Walter F. George, who is cliairman of the com- 
mittee but who is presently in Europe in connec- 
tion with his new responsibiliti4s as Special Repre- 
sentative and Personal Ambassador of the Presi- 
dent, has appointed six Senators to serve as an 
executive committee during the adjournment of 
Congress. They are Senators Green, Russell, Ful- 
bright. Bridges, your own Alexander Smith of 
New Jersey, and Knowland. Senator Fulbriglit 
is acting chairman of the executive committee. 

Now, the most unusual feature of this study is 
that the committee has made commercial con- 
tracts with a number of outside institutions and 
private firms to look into various aspects and re- 
port their conclusions. Contracts have been 
signed with the following : 

The Brookings Institution, to study the administrative 
aspects. 

The Systems Analysis Corporation, to study certain 
aspects of military assistance. 

The Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia 
University, likewise to study military assistance. 

Louis J. Kroeger and Associates, to make a study of 
personnel for the assistance programs. 

American Enterprise Association, Inc., to study the role 
of private enterprise in foreign assistance. 

The National Planning Association, to study the impact 
of the programs on our domestic economy. 

The Research Center for Economic Development and 
Cultural Change, of the University of Chicago, to study 
the processes of economic development. 

The Center for International Studies of the Massachu- 
setts Institute of Technology, to study the objectives of 
economic assistance. 

Stuart Rice Associates, to study the aid activities of 
other free nations. 

The Council for Economic and Industry Research, 
Washington, D. C, to study foreign aissistance activities 

Deparfmenf of State Bulletin 



of the Communist bloc and their implications for the 
United States. 

Jerome Jacobson Associates, to study the use of private 
contractors in the foreign aid programs. 

The special committee is also engaging a num- 
ber of experienced citizens to visit different parts 
of the world and make on-the-spot observations. 
Last week seven names were announced in this 
connection. One is Dr. Lewis Webster Jones, 
president of New Jersey's great Kutgers Uni- 
A'ersity, who is already in South Asia observing 
the programs in India, Pakistan, Ceylon, and 
Afghanistan. The others are former Ambas- 
sador Norman Armour; former Ambassador 
James C. Dunn; William Randolph Hearst, Jr., 
the newspaper publisher; Dr. John A. Hamiah, 
president of Michigan State University; James 
Minotto, former Goverimient official ; and Clement 
D. Johnston, chairman of the executive committee 
of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. 

So much for the Senate study. The studies 
which I have described, plus the regular policy 
planning of the executive agencies such as the 
Department of State, the International Coopera- 
tion Administration, and the Department of 
Defense, plus the advice of already-existing advis- 
ory committees, plus regular work of other con- 
gressional conmaittees which I have not men- 
tioned, plus the inevitable articles and editorials 
in hundreds of newspapers and magazines, plus 
the thoughtful discussions and ideas of many 
Americans in private life — perhaps I should 
add, i^Ius the eloquence of the intercollegiate 
debaters— all add up to a pretty big microscope. 
But after all, the creature under observation is a 
pretty big specimen. 

You may have been struck by the fact that the 
President's Citizen Advisers and the Senate 
special committee are not merely examining 
techniques and methods. They are also directed 
to consider why we have a mutual security pro- 
gram in the first place. They are asking : "Wliat 
are our purposes? What are we seeking? In 
other words, the examiners are directed to get 
down to fundamentals, and it is devoutly to be 
hoped that they will put fundamentals ahead of 
operating details. 

Principle Behind Foreign Aid 

This leads me, in closing my talk, to- mention 
one of the most important fundamentals of all — 
the principle that when we help other countries 



we do it in our own interest as well as theirs. 

I know there are those who look upon foreign 
aid as a great give-away program. If I thought 
it to be such I would prefer to leave it to churches, 
missionaries, the private citizen, and institutions. 
But the broad concept underlying our loans, tech- 
nical assistance, and grants to other countries is 
that such efforts are in our own enlightened self- 
interest because, to the extent they foster the 
national strength and independence of others, 
they strengthen the prospects for peace and free- 
dom, and in the long run they promote our own 
continued economic growth. 

No country should look upon aid from the 
United States as something to which it can lay 
claim as a matter of right, regardless of whether 
or not it is in the interest of the United States. 

The so-called "recipient" country must of course 
accomplish the major part of the job through its 
own resources. The United States, in what it is 
able to do, is not seeking mere gratitude, but a 
healthier and more prosperous world to live in. 
The stronger our friends are, the more secure we 
are. As Senator Vandenberg said of the Mar- 
shall plan, "The quest can mean as much to us as 
it does to them." 

It should not be surprising to anyone that the 
fundamental concept of our foi'eign aid is our own 
national interest. We all know that nations do 
not put the interests of other nations above their 
own. The French adored Benjamin Franklin 
and they were filled with romantic ardor by our 
Declaration of Independence, but the decisive rea- 
son why the French crown aided the United States 
was the cold conviction that it would be in the 
national interest of France to do so. This fact 
did not make the aid any less beneficial to the 
United States. 

In like manner, the aid we provide to other coun- 
tries is in our national interest, but this fact does 
not make the aid any less beneficial to the 
recipients. 

The real question is not whether nations act in 
their self-interest. The real question is where a 
nation conceives its interest to be. The foreign 
operations' of the United States are tangible evi- 
dence that this country conceives its long-range 
interests to coincide with the well-being and inde- 
pendence of other peoples. 

Thus, what we call "foreign aid" is a matter of 
cooperation and partnership. 

In spite of this simple fact, it is phenomenal 



November 5, 7956 



727 



after all these years how many people still fail to 
grasp that principle. 

Perhaps the term itself, "foreign aid," is partly 
to blame. It is short enough to fit into a headline, 
but it does not always fit the true facts. To some 
in the United States, the word "aid" suggests 
cliarity. To some in other parts of the world, the 
word "aid" has the unfortunate connotation of 
"donor and recipient," "rich uncle and poor rela- 
tion," "successful — unsuccessful," "superior — 
inferior." 

Besides, "foreign aid," being a convenient sort 
of handle, is used indiscriminately for activities 
which differ widely from one another, such as 
loans of various kinds, the teaching of technical 
skills, gifts of food to help people in emergencies, 
grants of equipment to foster economic develop- 
ment, and the transfer of military weapons for 
the common defense of the free world. Surely 
"aid" is hardly a. precise term to describe each of 
these operations. 

We are, however, saddled with the term "for- 
eign aid" because it has become deeply implanted 
in the language. I do not suggest that we can 
cease using it altogether. But I do suggest that 
in the jiresent period of national reexamination it 
will be well for all of us — our Government officials 
and our private citizens, our molders of public 
opinion, and our intercollegiate debaters — to keep 
in mind that "foreign aid," whatever you call it, 
carries with it the built-in concept that our pro- 
grams aid others and aid us, too, because they 
and we have common interests. 



as the developments of the political campaign ^ 
indicate. 

Tlie Rumanian Government has informed the 
Government of the United States that its observ- 
ers will be Constantin Paraschivescu-Balaceanu, 
member of the Presidium of the Grand National 
Assembly and Riunanian member of The Hague 
Permanent Court of Arbitration; Gheorghe 
Macovescu, journalist and Director General of 
Cinematography in the Ministry of Culture ; and 
Ladislau Banyai, rector of the Bolyai University 
of Cluj and deputy of the Grand National 
Assemblj^ 

The Department of State has made arrange- 
ments with the Governmental Affairs Institute to 
handle the details of the visit. Durrin Allin of 
the Institute and an interpreter will travel with 
the Rumanian observers during their stay in the 
United States. The Rumanian observers will ar- 
rive at Idlewild, N.Y., on October 24 and will fly to 
Washington the same day. In Washington they 
will receive a briefing at the Governmental Af- 
fairs Institute on American politics and elections. 
They will also visit the Republican National 
Headquarters and the Democratic National 
Committee. 

On October 25 they will return to New York, 
where they will hear President Eisenhower speak 
at Madison Square Garden. On October 26, they 
will fly to San Francisco, Calif., and on October 
27 they will hear the Democratic candidate for 
President, Adlai Stevenson, at an open-air rally 
in Washington Square. 



Visit of Rumanian 
Election Observers 

Press release 554 dated October 24 

The Department of State announced on October 
20 ^ that the U.S.S.R. and Rumania had accepted 
the invitation to send representatives to tlie United 
States to view at first hand the free electoral 
processes in this country. The Russian observers 
arrived on October 22. 

Arrangements have been completed for the first 
half of the itinerary of the Rumanian observers. 
The second half of the itinerary is to be arranged 
after the observers have arrived in Washington 
to correspond with the request of the visitors and 



' Bulletin of Oct. 29, 1956, p. 665. 



Current U. N. Documents: 
A Selected Bibliography 

Economic and Social Council 

World Economic Situation. Report of the Economic 
Commission for Asia and the Far East. Communica- 
tions from the Government of the Mongolian People's 
Republic. E/2899, .Tune 15, 1956. 28 pp. mimeo. 

International Machinery for Trade Co-operation. Report 
submitted by the Secretary -General. E/2897, June IS, 
1956. 63 pp. mimeo. 

Financial Implications of Actions of the Council. Work 
programmes and costs of the economic and social activi- 
ties of the United Nations. Note by the Secretary- 
General. E/2900, June 18, 1956. 44 pp. mimeo. 

Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance. 
Adopted and opened for signature by the United Nations 
Conference on Maintenance Obligations on 20 June 1953 
at the headquarters of the United Nations. E/CONF. 
21/5, June 20, 1956. 10 pp. mimeo. 

United Nations Sugar Conference, 1956. Report on the 
worli of the First Session. Adopted by the Executive 
Committee at its seventh meeting on 20 June 1956. 
E/CONF. 22/EX/R. 3, June 25, 1956. 39 pp. mimeo. 



728 



Department of State Bulletin 



INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND CONFERENCES 



Calendar of Meetings' 

Adjourned During October 1956 

U.N. Committee To Review the Salary, Allowances and Benefits New York September 11-Oc- 

System: 2d Session. tober 1. 

3d ICAO Air Navigation Conference Montreal September 18-Oc- 

tober 23. 

ILO Tripartite Preparatory Technical Maritime Conference . . . London September 19-Oc- 

tober 2. 

FAO/WHO Regional Nutrition Committee for South and East Tokyo September 25-Oc- 

Asia: 4th Meeting. tober 2. 

UNESCO Regional Conference on Exchange of Publications . . . Habana t October 1-5 

Pan American Highway Congresses: 2d Meeting of Permanent Washington October 1-5 

Executive Committee. 

South Pacific Commission: Technical Meeting on Pastures and Melbourne October 1-5 

Livestock. 

ICEM Council: 5th Session Geneva October 1-6 

FAO Committee on Commodity Problems: Working Party on Rome October 1-7 

Dairy Products. 

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea: 44th Annual Copenhagen October 1-9 

Meeting. 

International Committee on Weights and Measures Paris October 1-10 

International Sugar Council: Statistical and Executive Com- Geneva October 2(1 day) 

mittees. 

International Sugar Council: 9th Meeting Geneva October 2-3 

Hague Conference on International Private Law: 8th Session . . The Hague October 3-24 

U.N. ECE Working Party on Arbitration: 3d Meeting Geneva October 8-12 

International Tin Study "Group and Management Committee: 8th London October 8-13 

Meeting. 

FAO Regional Conference for Asia and the Far East: 3d Session . Bandung, Indonesia .... October 8-19 

International Conference To Consider the Status of Tangier . . . Fedala, Morocco October 8-31* 

GATT Contracting Parties: Intersessional Committee Geneva October 10 (1 day) 

UNICEF Committee on the Administrative Budget New York October 10-12 

ILO Advisory Committee on Salaried Employees and Professional Geneva October 15-27 

Workers: 4th Session. 

U.N. ECE Committee on Development of Trade: 5th Session and Geneva October 15-27 

East- West Trade Consultations. 

Conference on German External Assets Lisbon October 15-29 

WMO Commission for Maritime Meteorology: 2d Session . . . Hamburg October 16-26* 

FAO World Eucalyptus Conference Rome October 17-29 

ICAO Panel on Future Requirements for Turbo-jet Aircraft: 1st Montreal October 17-31* 

Meeting. 

U.N. ECE Timber Committee Geneva October 22-25 

International Union of Official Travel Organizations: 11th Assem- Vienna October 22-27 

bly. 

In Session as of October 31, 1956 

North Pacific Fur Seal Conference Washington November28, 19 55- 
U.N. Sugar Conference: 2d Session Geneva October 4- 

U.N. Special Committee on Question of Defining Aggression . . . New York October 8- 

G ATT Contracting Parties: nth Session Geneva October 11- 

South Pacific Commission: 16th Session Noumea, New Caledonia . . October 18- 

Committee on Improvement of National Statistics: 4th Session . . Washington October 22- 

U.N. Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation: 2d New York October 22- 

Meeting. 

' Prepared in the Office^of International Conferences, Oct. 24, 1956. Asterisks indicate tentative dates and places. 

Following is a list of abbreviations: U.N., United Nations; ICAO, International Civil Aviation Organization; ILO, In- 
ternational Labor Organization; FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization; WHO, World Health Organization; UNESCO, 

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; ICEM, Intergovernmental Committee for European 
Migration; ECE, Economic Commission for Europe; GATT, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; UNICEF, United 
Nations Children's Fund; WMO, World Meteorological Organization; ECAFE, Economic Commission for Asia and the 
Far East; ECLA, E conomic Commission for Latin America; CCIT, formerly Comity consultatif international t^l^graph- 
ique, now Comity consultatif international t^l^graphique et t616phonique (CCIT and CCIF com bined) ; ECOSOC, Eco- 
nomic and Social Council; CCIF, Comity consultatif international t^l^phonique; NATO, North At lantic Treaty Organiza- 
tion; UPU, Universal Postal Union. 

November 5, 7956 729 



Calendar of Meetings — Continued 

In Session as of October 31, 1956 — Continued 

UNICEF Executive Board and Program Committee New York October 22- 

FAO Committee on Commodity Problems: 1st Meeting of Con- Rome October 29- 

sultative Subcommittee on Economic Aspects of Rice. 

U.N. ECAFE Subcommittee on Trade: 2d Session Tokyo October 29- 

UNESCO E.xecutive Board: 45th Session New Delhi October 31- 

Scheduled November 1, 1956-January 31, 1957 

Consultative Committee for Economic Development in South and Wellington, New Zealand . . November 5- 

Southeast Asia (Colombo Plan) : Preliminary Working Group. 

FAO International Ptice Commission: Ad Hoc Working Group on Calcutta November 5- 

Storage and Processing of Rice. 

U.N. ECE Electric Power Committee: Working Party on Rural Geneva November 5- 

Electrification. 

UNESCO General Conference: 9th Session New Delhi November 5- 

ICAO Special Meeting on Charges for Airports and Air Navigation Montreal November 6- 

FaciHties. 

7th International Grassland Congress Palmerston, New Zealand . November 6- 

U.N. ECE Electric Power Committee Geneva November 8- 

FAO Cocoa Study Group: 1st Meeting Brussels November 12- 

FAO International Rice Commission: 5th Session Calcutta November 12- 

International North Pacific Fisheries Commission: 4th Meeting . Seattle November 12- 

U.N. General Assembly: 11th Session New York November 12- 

U.N. ECE Timber Committee: Joint FAO/ECE Working Party Geneva November 12- 

on Forest and Forest Products Statistics. 

ICAO Special Limited Caribbean Regional Air Navigation Meet- Guatemala City November 13- 

ing. 

Caribbean Commission: Conference on Town and Country De- Trinidad November 14- 

velopment Planning. 

Inter- Parliamentary tjnion: 45th Conference Bangkok November 15- 

Consultative Committee for Economic Development in South and Wellington, New Zealand . . November 19- 

Southeast Asia (Colombo Plan) : Officials Meeting. 

ICAO Panel on Aircraft Rescue and Fire-fighting Equipment at Montreal November 19- 

Aerodromes. 

FAO Regional Conference for Latin America: 4th Session .... Santiago November 19- 

U.N. ECE Conference of European Statisticians: Working Group Geneva November 19- 

on Censuses of Population and Housing. 

U.N. ECLA Trade Committee Santiago November 19- 

ILO Governing Body: 133d Session Geneva November 20- 

ITU International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Com- Geneva November 22- 

mittee (CCIT) : Preliminary Study Group. 

Customs Cooperation Council : 9th Session Brussels November 26- 

Inter- American Technical Meeting on Housing and Planning . . . Bogota November 26- 

U.N. ECE Housing Committee: 13th Session and Working Parties . Geneva November 26- 

Inter- American Travel Congresses: Permanent Executive Com- Lima November 28- 

mittee. 

U.N. ECOSOC Commission on International Commodity Trade: Geneva November 28- 

4th Session. 

ITU International Telephone Consultative Committee (CCIF) : Geneva December 3- 

18th Plenary Assembly (Final Meeting). 

U.N. ECE Committee on Agricultural Problems: 8th Meeting . . Geneva December 3- 

U.N. ECE Steel Committee and Working Parties Geneva December 3- 

Consultative Committee for Economic Development in South and Wellington, New Zealand . . December 4- 

Southeast Asia (Colombo Plan) : Ministerial Meeting. 

UNESCO Middle East Conference on Vocational and Technical Cairo December 4r- 

Education (with FAO and ILO). 

International Wheat Council: 21st Session London December 4*- 

UNESCO Executive Board: 46th Session New Delhi December 6- 

American International Institute for the Protection of Childhood: Montevideo December 8- 

Semiannual Meeting of Directing Council. 

ITU International Telegraph Consultative Committee (CCIT) : Geneva December 8- 

8th Plenary Assembly (Final Meeting). 

Caribbean Commission": 23d Meeting Barbados, British West Indies December 10- 

Symposium on Tropical Cyclones Brisbane, Australia .... December 10- 

U.N. ECE Coal Committee Geneva . . .' December 10- 

U.N. ECE Inland Transport Committee Geneva December 10- 

U.N. ECAFE Railway Subcommittee: 5th Session of Working Bangkok December 13- 

Party on Railway Track Sleepers. 

ITU International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative Com- Geneva December 15- 

mittee (CCIT) : Plenary Assembly of New CCIT (former CCIT 

and CCIF combined). 

NATO Council: Ministerial Session Paris December 

730 Department of Sfofe Bulletin 



Calendar of Meetings — Continued 



Scheduled November 1, 1956-January 31, 19S7 — Continued 



U.N. Economic and Social Council: Resumed 22d Session .... 

U.N. ECOSOC Subcoramission on Prevention of Discrimination 
and Protection of Minorities. 

U.N. ECOSOC Transport and Communications Commission: 8th 
Session. 

WMO Working Group on Meteorological Communications of Re- 
gional Association I (Africa) : 3d Session. 

International Commission for the Celebration of the 200th Anni- 
versary of the Birth of Alexander Hamilton. 

WMO Commission on Climatology: 2d Session 

WMO Regional Association I (Africa) : 2d Session 

19th International Red Cross Conference 

I UPU Executive and Liaison Committee: Airmail Subcommittee . 

FAO Committee on Commodity Problems: Working Party on 
Coconut. 

International Congress of National Libraries (with UNESCO) . 

Inter-American Committee of Presidential Representatives . . . 

U.N. Refugee Fund: 4th Session of Executive Committee .... 
U.N. Refugee Fund Standing Program Subcommittee: 4th Session . 



New York December 

New York January 3- 

New York January 7- 

Las Palmas, Canary Islands . January 8- 

(undetermined) January 11- 

Washington January 14- 

Las Palmas, Canary Islands . January 21- 

New Delhi January 21- 

Luxor, Egypt January 29- 

Ceylon* January * 

Habana January 

Washington January or Febru- 
ary. 

Geneva January 

Geneva January 



The Question of Defining Aggression 

Statement by William Sanders ^ 



The present Committee of government repre- 
sentatives has met pursuant to the General As- 
sembly resolution of December 4, 1954, which 
created it [895 (IX)]. By its resolution, the As- 
sembly has requested that the Committee, having 
regard to the ideas expressed and drafts submitted 
at the ninth session of the Assembly, present to the 
eleventh session this year a detailed report fol- 
lowed by a draft definition of aggression. The 
General Assembly's resolution, in its preamble, 
recites the necessity of coordinating the views ex- 
pressed b}' members of the United Nations on this 
problem. 

The record of the repeated and repetitious dis- 
cussions of this matter within the United Nations 
gives evidence, it seems to me, of a gi'owing aware- 
ness of the difficulties and comf)lexities of the 
problem. The discussions have underscored the 
point that the supposed advantages of a definition 
of aggression are not as self-evident or as easily 
obtainable as had been supposed and that, more 
fundamentally, a definition could do more damage 
than good. Apart from the technical problems, 
which in themselves present unresolved difficulties 
of a far-reaching character, there has been a deep- 
ening cleavage on the problems of substance. 



In issue is the validity of the starting premise 
that a definition would strengthen the procedures 
and machinery for the maintenance of peace. This 
premise is countered by the view that a definition 



' Made on Oct. 17 in the 1956 Special Committee on the 
Question of Defining Aggression. Mr. Sanders is the 
U.S. representative on the Committee, which is meeting 
at U.N. Headquarters. Members of the Committee, 
named in a resolution passed by the General Assembly in 
1954, are: China, Czechoslovakia, the Dominican Repub- 
lic, France, Iraq, Israel, Mexico, the Netherlands, Nor- 
way, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, 
Syria, U.S.S.R., U.K., U.S., and Yugoslavia. 

At the opening meeting on Oct. S, Mr. Sanders made the 
following statement : "The Government of the United 
States has expressed its opposition to the seating of the 
representatives of the Chinese Communist regime in the 
United Nations on numerous occasions. Our reasons for 
this position, therefore, need not be repeated here. Since 
this Committee is elected by the General As.sembly and 
lacks the competence to determine its own composition, 
we had hoped there would be no need to have further dis- 
cussion of this subject here. However, since the matter 
has been raised, the United States would like to place 
on the record its continued opposition to the seating of 
the representatives of the Chinese Communist regime and 
its support for the continued seating of the representatives 
of the Government of the Republic of China in all United 
Nations and specialized agency bodies." 



November 5, 1956 



731 



would encourage dangerous illusions that the in- 
strumentalities of peace would thereby be strength- 
ened, and more, that in practice a definition would 
bring about results contrary to the objective pur- 
sued. One aspect of this fundamental issue is 
posed in terms of the opposing views concerning 
whether a definition would facilitate and expedite 
action by the United Nations organs in the event 
of aggression. It is argued that a definition of 
aggression would guarantee or promote agreement 
in advance of the exact occasion for automatic ac- 
tion by the United Nations ; the reply is made that 
a definition would, on the contraiy, confuse and 
restrict future discussion and action on the part 
of the appropriate organs. Another aspect of the 
basic problem relates to the deterrent effects of a 
definition, that is, whether it would or would not 
inhibit a potential aggressor. The proponents of 
definition argue firmly that it would have such an 
effect; the opponents claim equally firmly that a 
definition would instead become a vehicle for 
propaganda and "a trap for the innocent and a 
signpost for the guilty." 

These issues and differences are among the many 
that have prevented agreement in the General 
Assembly. They explain wliy this Committee was 
established. 

With this situation before us we are not ex- 
pected, I am sure, simply to report a result which 
expresses the lowest possible denominator of agree- 
ment. I said at our first meeting that ours is not 
a paper operation. By this I meant that we are 
not expected, surely, to submit as the end product 
of our labors the statistical distillation of a com- 
parative study of ideas, views, and drafts. Neither 
the creation of this Committee by the General As- 
sembly nor acceptance of membership in it by our 
governments carried any implication that the basic 
issues of substance and metliod had somehow been 
compromised or resolved. The General Assembly 
cannot be said to have finally settled, in adopting 
a resolution creating a committee to study the 
problem, a basic issue of principle involved in the 
problem. Tlie Committee is therefore not limited 
to a task of working out the details of decisions 
already taken on the principal substantive issues. 
It must itself consider these issues, and it is re- 
quested to report on them in detail and to follow 
its report with a draft definition. The perform- 
ance of this Committee, it would seem, is not to 
be judged simply on whether or not it succeeds in 



attaching a draft definition to its report. In such i 
an important matter, the Assembly will look to the : 
substance of the report, the thoroughness with ' 
which all problems have been considered, and the 
potentialities for good or bad inherent in any 
defuiition that might be appended. In short, we 
are neither compelled nor expected to avoid the 
problems inherent in the definition of aggression 
by ignoring them. 

The members of the Committee are representa- 
tives of governments, not persons serving in an 
individual or expert capacity. As such they will 
and must continue to represent the views of their 
governments. This does not argue for inflexibility 
of positions but for freedom to explore and debate 
the matter in its entirety. 

In this spirit and with this approach in mind, 
I should like with your permission, Mr. Chainnan 
[Enrique de Marchena, Dominican Eepublic], to 
review briefly the basic problems as my delegation 
sees them. 

Our first task, I suggest, is to explore and, if 
possible, to agree upon the criteria or tests which 
any defuiition must meet if it is to forward the 
ends which this second Special Committee has 
been created to serve. Without such exploration 
and without a wide area of solid agreement on the 
criteria to be used, we will in the end do a dis- 
service to the United Nations and to the cause of 
peace. 

Criteria To Guide tlie Task 

The first, or basic, criterion would appear to be 
almost self-evident and one on which agreement 
should be unanimous. It follows from a realiza- 
tion that this problem has been pursued because 
people in this world want peace and justice. To 
meet this want, we must understand, and should 
be prepared to state, whether and how a defini- 
tion of aggression, if recommended by this Com- 
mittee and embodied in a resolution of the General 
Assembly, would help in maintaining and restor- 
ing peace. 

To apply this basic criterion it is necessary to 
test any definition in light of the occasions when 
it i