Skip to main content

Full text of "Department of State bulletin"

See other formats




^^ 3 S3, > n 
ViL 5P 




1 ^ ^'S- 

/ Rec'd \ 


f JAN 15 W-'^ 

V B. P. Ly/ 




Number Date of Issue 



Jan. 6, 1958 

I- 44 


Jan. 13, 1958 

45- 80 


Jan. 20,1958 

81- 112 


Jan. 27,1958 

113- 156 


Feb. 3, 1958 

157- 200 


Feb. 10,1958 

201- 240 


Feb. 17, 1958 

241- 280 


Feb. 24,1958 

281- 320 


Mar. 3, 1958 

321- 364 


Mar. 10, 1958 

365- 408 


Mar. 17, 1958 

409- 448 


Mar. 24, 1958 

449- 496 


Mar. 31, 1958 

497- 540 


Apr. 7, 1958 

S41- 588 


Apr. 14,1958 

589- 636 


Apr. 21, 1958 

637- 676 


Apr. 28,1958 

677- 712 


May 5, 1958 

713- 752 


May 12, 1958 

753- 796 


May 19,1958 

797- 846 


May 26,1958 

847- 892 


June 2, 1958 

893- 936 


June 9, 1958 

937- 984 


June 16, 1958 


J 991 

June 23, 1958 


} 992 

June 30, 1958 



i ; PQBvJC 


1 ^ili^nAr^ 


Calendar of International Conferences and Meetings — Continued 

Scheduled April 1-June 30, 19S&— Continued 

Committee (CCIR) : U.S.S.: 

ITU International Radio Consultativ 

Study Group XI (Television). 
GATT Balance-of-Payments Consultations Geneva 


International Tonnage Measurements Experts: 6th Meeting 

UNREF Executive Committee: 8th Session 

UNREF Standing Program Subcommittee: 7th Session . . . . 

U.N. ECOSOC Technical Assistance Committee 

UNESCO Meeting on Standardization of Educational Statistics , 

Hamburg June 

Geneva June* 

Geneva June* 

Geneva June 

Paris June 

The Law of the Sea 

Statement hy Arthur H. Dean 

Ohairman, U.S. Delegation, U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea^ 

As the representative of the United States of 
America, it is my pleasure on behalf of my dele- 
gation, to extend my Government's congratula- 
tions to the chairman,^ vice chairman,^ and rap- 
porteur * on their election to their posts on this 
important committee and to express our pleasure 
at working with such distinguished colleagues. 

My delegation wishes also to express its feeling 
of appreciation to the able members of the 
International Law Commission and its special 
rapporteur,^ who have labored so well and 
intelligently over the yeare on the articles on 
the law of the sea which are now before us.* 

In addition, my delegation wishes to thank the 

' Made in Committee I on Mar. 11. For an announce- 
ment of the U.S. delegation, see Bulletin of Mar. 10, 
1958, p. 404 ; for text of U.N. resolution convoking the 
conference, see iliid., Jan. 14, 1957, p. 61. 

2K. H. Bailey (Australia). 

' Sergio Gutierrez Olivos (Chile). 

"Vladimir Koretsky (Ukrainian S.S.R.). 

" J. P. A. Frangois. 

' For text of "articles concerning the law of the sea" 
as adopted by the International Law Commission at its 
eighth session at Geneva, Switzerland, April 23-July 4, 
1956, see U.N. doc. A/3159. The three articles to which 
Mr. Dean specifically refers in this statement read as 
follows : 

Article S 

1. The Commission recognizes that international prac- 
tice is not uniform as regards the delimitation of the 
territorial sea. 

2. The Commission considers that international law 
does not permit an extension of the territorial sea be- 
yond twelve miles. 

3. The Commission, without taking any decision as to 
the breadth of the territorial sea up to that limit, notes, 
on the one hand, that many States have fixed a breadth 
greater than three miles and, on the other hand, that 


many States do not recognize such a breadth when that 
of their own territorial sea is less. 

4. The Commission considers that the breadth of the 
territorial sea should be fixed by an international 

Article 27 
The high seas being open to all nations, no State may 
validly purport to subject any part of them to its sover- 
eignty. Freedom of the high seas comprises, inter alia : 

(1) Freedom of navigation ; 

(2) Freedom of fishing ; 

(3) Freedom to lay submarine cables and pipel 

(4) Freedom to fly over the high seas. 

Article 66 

1. In a zone of the high seas contiguous to its terri- 
torial sea, the coastal State may exercise the control 
necessary to 

(a) Prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal or 
sanitary regulations within its territory or territorial sea 

(6) Punish infringement of the above regulations com- 
mitted within its territory or territorial sea. 

2. The contiguous zone may not extend beyond twelvf 
miles from the baseline from which the breadth of th( 
territorial sea is measured. 

It is, 
W ij ; 

^ple o: 

Btllls E 



members of the secretariat and other experts who 
have placed in our hands procedural and sub- 
stantive material necessary to a proper considera- 
tion of the problems posed by this Conference on 
the Law of the Sea. 

The world regrets the failure of the Hague 
conference of 1930. The United States of 
America considers that this conference affords 
the nations of the world, large and small, a new 
opportunity to bring order out of some of the 
chaotic conditions which exist with I'espect to the 
law of the sea, as well as to advance the develop- 
ment of international law. 

In view of the many complex and sometimes 
controversial subjects before us, these objectives 
can only be achieved by the greatest of good will 
and cooperation among all concerned. Indeed, 
the law of the sea is of vital concern to all states, 
large and small, maritime and noimiaritime, 
coastal and landlocked. 

It is the purpose of the United States delegation 
to do everything it can to assist in our task, and it 
welcomes consultation and discussion with other 
delegations on all matters of mutual interest. 

Mr. Chairman, my delegation considers that two 
matters before Committee I are of such impor- 
tance as to be the key to the general success of this 
conference. They are, first, the breadth of the ter- 
ritorial sea and, second, the contiguous zone. 

Solutions of the problems implicit in these ar- 
ticles 3 and 66 would make the work of this com- 
mittee a milestone in the development of interna- 
tional law. My delegation believes that with 
patience, understanding, and good nature such 
agi'eement can be reached. 

It is related that Queen Elizabeth of England 
said in 1580 : "The use of the sea is common to 
all ; neither can a title to the ocean belong to any 
people or private persons, forasmuch as neither 
nature nor public use permit any possession 
thereof." So we who "go down to the sea in ships" 
and do business in great waters and see the wonders 
.jj ifjri of the Lord in the deep are greatly concerned about 
e c»»it» these matters. 

For, and I state it merely as a fact, the coast- 
lines of the continental United States stretch for 
(onfsome 12,000 miles, and the coastlines of Alaska and 
he Aleutian Islands, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico 
idd many more miles to this figure. Our mer- 
hant fleets traverse the seven seas, and our mer- 


KptW 7, 7958 

chant-fleet tonnage of approximately 23,500,000 
tons is about 22 percent of the world figures set 
forth in Lloyd's Register as of July 1, 1957. Con- 
sequently, our interest in the law of the sea and in 
this conference is not a casual one. 

Our views are based on historic practice and 
experience with rules that have been tested by 
time. They have been reached, I hope, in good 
spirit, with the voice of reason and with due re- 
gard to the sometimes conflicting requirements 
of stability and change. They truly represent our 
best efforts to reach just and equitable solutions 
to common problems. 

But we are dealing in some respects with a 
mathematical equation. For whatever you add to 
an individual state's territorial waters you sub- 
tract inevitably from the high seas, the common 
property of all, large or small. The law of mathe- 
matics is, I am afraid, as binding on new nations 
as on old. 

Let us examine together a few of our common 

Now, for example, if you lump islands into an 
archipelago and utilize a straight baseline system 
connecting the outermost points of such islands 
and then draw a 12-mile area around the entire 
archipelago, you unilaterally attempt to convert 
into territorial waters or possibly even internal 
waters vast areas of the high seas formerly freely 
used for centuries by the ships of all countries. 
And, unhappily, you lend encouragement to others 
to go and do likewise. 

Thus the threat to the free and continued use 
of the high seas becomes enormous. And you 
can't disguise it by labeling what is essentially re- 
strictive, and detrimental to the general welfare, 
as being progressive ; or disguise the shackling of 
liberty for all by calling it "new thought" or 
"realistic development" or "progress" or tlie "new 
concepts of new states." 

By asking us to be generous and to accept such 
restrictions in the freedom of the seas, you ask us 
to be generous with other persons' property, held 
in common for the benefit of all peoples. 

But, just as my delegation is prepared to listen 
with understanding and sympathy to the expres- 
sion of views of the smallest countries, be tliey 
landlocked or nonmaritime, and to their prob- 
lems, so too my delegation expresses the hope that 
its views and those of other maritime powers 
with experience will be received fully and fairly 
in the light of their intrinsic merits. 


Breadth of the Territorial Sea 

The position of the United States of America 
concerning the breadth of the territorial sea is 
determined by its attitude toward the doctrine of 
the freedom of the seas. There is no doctrine of 
international law more universally recognized 
than the principle that the high seas are the com- 
mon property of all and that no part of them can 
be unilaterally appropriated by any state to its 
own use without the concurrence of other states. 

In this day of improved methods of transpor- 
tation and communication, which have served to 
bring countries ever closer together, it is vitally 
important that the international highways of the 
sea and of the superjacent air should not be 
brouglit under the restrictive domination or con- 
trol of individual states, however wortliy their 
motives. I repeat, any such proposals which 
would result in restricting the freedom of the seas 
would not be progress but rather retrogression. 

We sincerely believe tliat this doctrine, in its 
widest implication, is the principle fairest to all, 
large and small. Tlie doctrine of the freedom of 
the seas is not a mere historical relic of the so- 
called time when maritime law was developed by 
the great powers. 

There have been suggestions here that the in- 
terests of small and large states in these matters 
are different. 

The history of the United States and of the 
3-mile limit is a living refutation of such sug- 

Almost from the day of its emergence from 
colonial status into independent statehood, the 
United States of America has stood for freedom 
of the seas. In notes drafted by Thomas Jeffer- 
son in 1793 in his capacity as Secretary of State 
in the course of "friendly conferences and expla- 
nations with other powers," and basing his de- 
cisions in part on treaties already entered into, he 
announced that the United States was for a 3- 
mile limit of territorial sea. 

It was important to the United States as a 
newly emerged country of approximately 
3,900,000 people to be assured of freedom for its 
ships and its nationals on the high seas. And it 
has fought to maintain that freedom. Freedom 
is important to all, perhaps of even greater im- 
portance to the small state than to the large. This 
is no less true of freedom of the seas than of any 
other freedom. 

We are grateful to the distinguished delegate of 
Peru for noting my country's consistent advocacy 
of this principle through all stages of our histori- 
cal development. 

Of the many states which presently adhere to 
the 3-mile rule and have done so in the past, there 
are many small states. Indeed, the doctrine was 
born of the desire of a small state for equal rights 
on the high seas. 

Let us examine briefly some of the benefits which 
are our common heritage in the high seas, since 
our decisions here may affect these priceless 
benefits. For purposes of illustration only, this 
preliminary discussion is limited to but three of 
the freedoms of the high seas declared in article 27 
of the ILC draft. 


The freedom of navigation on the high seas 
means the essential liberty of maritime transpor- 
tation and communication unfettered by the re- 
quirement of consent by any foreign state. And 
the bridge of understanding which this creates be- 
tween us was eloquently noted here by the dis- 
tinguished delegate of Sweden. 

To this freedom, sturdy fishing communities 
owe their livelihood. To this freedom many of us 
owe our economic strength and our opportunity 
in other fields. 

The merchant fleets of the world represent not 
only profit to commercial interests but the only 
means by which the essentials of life can be trans- 
ported readily to countries where there is a mar- 
ket. For the most precious commodity is of little 
value if there is no market for it where it is 
found. It must be transported as cheaply as pos- 
sible to its buyer. Thus, freedom of the high seas 
is as important to the seller or producer as to the 

Ship bottoms have carried food, clothes, med- 
icine, and indeed the very means of national sur- 
vival to virtually every country here represented. 

Now the question before us is, which breadth 
gives the maximum fi'eedom of navigation of tlie 
high seas in keeping with the ever-increasing sea 
communications of the modern-day world^ — a 
3-mile-limit territorial sea or a wider breadth? 

It is idle to assert that because of the existence] 
of the right of innocent passage freedom of navi 
gation does not suffer by an extension of th( 
territorial sea. 


Department of Slate BuUet'ir, 

The United States of America attaches the 
utmost importance to this historic right and be- 
lieves that an unequivocal declaration should be 
made in our articles thereon. The right of inno- 
cent passage in territorial waters, however, is itself 
a recognition of the fact that freedom of naviga- 
tion is restricted by the existence of a territorial 
sea under state sovereignty. And the doctrine of 
innocent passage is an effort to alleviate that 

If, as some say, the peaceful passage of foreign 
vessels through their territorial waters is guaran- 
teed as long and insofar as it is not contrary to 
the sovereignty or harmful to the security of the 
coastal state, isn't there only a restricted right of 
innocent passage? 

I submit that this extension of territorial waters 
to greater limits with this qualification as to the 
right of innocent passage is not equivalent to the 
right previously existing on the high seas. 

Does this movement to wider breadth for the 
territorial sea, with consequent encroachment upon 
the high seas, represent progress? Isn't keeping 
the high seas as large an ai-ea as possible in the 
interests of all people — res communis, as Grotius 
termed it — just as desirable a goal as it was when 
Grotius first advocated it in 1609 ? 

For those vessels which seek to avoid contact 
with the territorial sea for reasons of their own 
or because such contact may be forbidden by the 
coastal state, the difficulties and uncertainties of 
navigation and piloting increase geometrically 
with extensions of the territorial sea beyond 3 

Let us pause to examine a few hard facts com- 
mon to us all that must be encountered if the 
territorial seas were extended to, say, 12 miles. 

Many landmarks, for instance, employed in vis- 
ual piloting still necessary for small craft of all 
states are just not visible at a range of 12 miles. 
Indeed, it is estimated that only 20 percent of the 
world's lighthouses have a range of 12 miles or 

We are greatly concerned that this conference 
sliould not impose this pall of darkness and its 
frightening possibilities on small craft. 

Moreover, radar navigation at 12 miles and be- 
yond is of only marginal utility in most instances. 
This is so because many objects normally used for 
radar navigation are unidentifiable at such dis- 

"'"' April 7, J 958 

tance. Further, it would be impossible for many 
small boats such as fishing boats to anchor at 
deptlis noi'mally found outside a 12-mile limit, as 
they could not carry sufficient cable or appropriate 

Tlius, safety of navigation is greatest witli a 
3-mile limit. 

Efforts by merchant ships to avoid violating the 
coastal states' regulations in extended territorial 
waters will inevitably lead to longer, less economi- 
cal runs and to increased shipping costs, less rev- 
enues to the producers of the products carried, and 
higher prices to the consumer. Economic dislo- 
cations and substitution of products are inevitable. 
These considerations are not to be lightly dis- 
missed. As such difficulties materialize, the in- 
creased shippers' costs will inevitably be borne by 
the countries dependent upon seaborne commerce 
for their economic existence. 

In addition, any extension of the breadth of the 
territorial sea would impose a burden on the coastal 
state to patrol effectively the larger area. This 
burden would carry with it an increase in the fiscal 
expenditures of tlie coastal state stemming from 
an increased workload, in both merchant-marine 
safety and law enforcement. 

For example, the United States estimates an ap- 
proximate initial capital outlay of $8,000,000 and 
an increase in annual operating cost of $1,500,000 
per each hundred miles of coast, in the case of an 
extension of the territorial sea from 3 to 12 miles, 
or an increase of annual expenditure of some $180,- 
000,000 for our continental coastlines alone. These 
figures to me are somewhat appalling. 

While on the matter of costs, I wonder how many 
other nations have made estimates of their own as 
to what it would cost to extend navigational aids 
such as buoys, gongs, whistles, fog signals, groan- 
ers, channel markers, and the like to 12 miles and 
to change the necessary charts and piloting man- 
uals which mariners must have on board when at 
sea. The figures would be very interesting. We 
would like to see them. 

I submit, any failure by a state to exercise effec- 
tive control over an area to which it has laid claim 
would risk the incurrence of international embar- 
rassment to the state asserting the claim. Sporadic 
attempts at enforcement would have only the un- 
desirable result of increasing international tension 
and perhaps in decisions unfavorable to the coastal 


Now I realize there are certain facile attractions 
for a state neutral in time of war in having the 
right to extend the territorial seas to a 12-mile 
limit. However, in the unhappy event of a future 
conflict, which God forbid, neutrality and the in- 
ternational law pertinent thereto will be matters 
which may have to be taken into account. 

Now, of course, if it could safely be assumed that 
all contending belligerents would respect the ter- 
ritorial sea of a neutral, the possibility of hostile 
incursions into neutral coastal areas would be ma- 
terially lessened. But I think, rather, the possi- 
bility, at least, cannot be excluded that certain bel- 
ligerents in any future war would be even less in- 
clined to accord complete respect to a 12-mile 
coastal belt of neutral waters than to a 3-mile 
zone — particularly in view of the probable inabil- 
ity of the neutral to control the broader belt. 

The problem of the neutral with a 12-mile ter- 
ritorial sea in maintaining its neutrality is fur- 
ther demonstrated by the greatly increased ocean 
areas which would have to be patrolled to insure 
the inviolability of its sovereignty. 

The possible attractiveness of neutral waters to 
a belligerent may be easily demonstrated. For 
reasons of its own safety a submarine will seldom 
attempt to operate within 3 miles of shore. The 
hazards to a submerged submarine are usually 
lessened materially as the distance from shore in- 

Thus, a belligerent submarine would look upon 
a neutral with a broad territorial sea as olfering a 
particularly attractive haven if she were hard 
pressed by antisubmarine aircraft or surface ves- 
sels of the enemy operating on the high seas which 
could not legally enter such ten-itorial sea. Fur- 
ther, other combatant types might be enticed to 
enter the territorial waters of a neutral hoping to 
find a safe refuge from pursuit by enemy forces. 

There is another factor which would seiwe to 
lure belligerent vessels within 12 miles of a neutral 
coast. For reasons already discussed, navigation 
at a distance of 12 miles from shore is less exact 
and almost impossible in case of fog. Captains 
and masters are accordingly strongly disposed to 
navigate at a distance less than 12 miles from 
charted navigational objects on shore. 

In view of all of these considerations, violation 
of the neutrality of a state with a 12-mile terri- 
torial sea in time of international conflict would 
appear to be increased rather than otherwise. 



I turn now to the second of the freedoms I shall 

Coastal states almost imiversally deny to na- 
tionals of other states the right to fish in their ter- 
ritorial sea. If that territorial sea is extended and 
the high seas thereby diminished, a great and in- 
expensive source of food in that area is thereby 
denied to other people in the world. And this 
would occur at a time when population figures 
are mounting at an ever-increasing rate. 

It is estimated that a general extension of the 
territorial sea by 1 mile reduces the area of the 
high seas, where freedom of fishing and other 
freedoms exist, by an estimated 280,000 square 
miles. Likewise, it is estimated that a general ex- 
tension of the territorial sea by an additional 9 
miles would reduce the area of the high seas by 
2,500,000 square miles, an area roughly equal to 
the size of the United States of America. 

I would suggest that expressing this reduction 
in terms of percentage is most misleading, as a 
mile near the coast both from a navigational and 
fishing standpoint is far more important relatively 
than a greater number of miles on the high seas. 
Further, a large percentage of the world's catch 
of fish is taken off or near coasts, reefs, shelves, 
shoals, or banks. For example, approximately 
56.7 percent of the fish caught off the United States 
coast are caught within a breadth of 3 miles. 

Now, unilateral extensions of the territorial sea 
in general or in specific areas violate the existing 
rights of all other states. Of this there can be no 

Only recently, an example of this was provided 
in the Far East, where by the drawing of an arbi- 
trary line 115 miles long enclosing thousands of 
square miles of sea and the assertion of a 12-mile 
territorial sea beyond that line, an area tradition- 
ally open to all states, large and small, was sud- 
denly claimed by unilateral act of the coastal state 
to be mare claiisum and off limits to all other] 
peoples, some of whom had traditionally sought! 
their means of living in the area. 

So far as I am informed no other country in thel 
world asserts exclusive right to a so-called bay! 
with a mouth of this size. 

My Government has filed formal protests to this 

JuiXETiN of Mar. 24, 1958, p. 461. 

Department of State Bulletin 

I have already adverted to the situation created 
by the Indonesian dechiration of December 1957. 

Obviously if in the name of progress we were 
to consider that the 3-mile limit is obsolete, just 
where would the matter stop if each state were free 
to suit its own economic or alleged security in- 
terests? The free seas would soon look like a 
patchwork quilt with "no trespassing" signs 
posted in all directions to bewilder the poor 

Air Navigation 

I now want to discuss the third freedom of the 

The freedom to fly over the high seas of the 
world, which belongs to all peoples and states 
alike, is denied entirely in the airspace over the 
territorial sea unless the coastal state gives its con- 
sent. The vital importance of the right of over- 
flight is spotlighted in the airspace over interna- 
tional straits in accordance with the Convention 
on International Civil Aviation of December 7, 
1944, which became effective as to 73 states on 
April 4, 1947. 

Let me point out — there is no right of innocent 
passage for aircraft over territorial seas as distinct 
from the right of innocent passage for vessels 
through such seas. Thus any extension of the 
territorial sea beyond 3 miles will result pro tanto 
in diminishing freedom of flight. 

The effect of this in straits and other narrow 
seas might well be pondered closely by looking at 
an atlas of the world. I suggest that you take a 
pair of dividers and measure the distance across 
the Straits of Gibraltar north and south. If you 
extend territorial waters to 6 miles each way, 
there is no area of high seas remaining. Or I sug- 
gest you try extending various coastlines all over 
the world in each direction by 6 or 12 miles and 
I .jjj|draw comparable lines accordingly around islands 
jujior, if you choose, archipelagos, and see what you 
,|j(Ihave done to the freedom of the high seas, the 
"'ght to overfly and the right to fish. 

As the distinguished delegate from Greece so 
learly pointed out, an extension of his counti-y's 
;erritorial sea to 12 miles would be equivalent to 
Josing the Aegean Sea. 

These are hard, cold facts which must be ex- 
imined by new states as well as the so-called great 

the V 
- Inght 


,„lle,i, Ipri/ 7, 7958 

Now, sir, and distinguished delegates of nations 
new and old, we are still governed by the physical 
facts of the universe. The number of feet in a 
nautical mile and the parallels of latitude and 
meridians of longitude are fixed. And as for the 
bi-eadth of 3 miles for territorial sea being obsolete 
because of the doctrine of hot pursuit, that doc- 
trine, I submit, is just as relevant to a 12-mile as 
to a 3-mile zone. It all depends on where the 
pursuit starts. 

I have mentioned but a few of the benefits which 
the freedom of the high seas bestows on all states. 
Let us consider carefully chart by chart, strait 
by strait, and island by island any proposal to set 
in motion or accelerate the erosion of these free- 
doms for some supposed temporary or local 

Let us also not lose sight of the fact that rights 
create obligations and an increase in territorial 
limitations is no exception. For there can be only 
loss of national prestige for a state which provides 
inadequately for the needs and safety of interna- 
tional navigation in its territorial waters or is 
unable to assert full sovereign control over a wide 
territorial sea. 

Finally, a word to those states advocating the 
permissibility of a state setting the breadth of its 
territorial sea from 3 to 12 miles according to 
its own opinion as to its own needs. 

This position in the opinion of my delegation is 
exactly equivalent to a vote for 12 miles. Indeed, 
it is, I think, a myth to say that the adoption of 
article 3, subdivision 2, of the ILC draft gives 
nations flexibility up to 12 miles, because it is 
i-eadily apparent, I believe, that the maximum in- 
evitably would tend to become the minimum. 

Because navigators must not only know where 
they are but where they have a right to go and 
what they can do, I submit it is not plausible to 
expect that states which respect the equal rights 
of others to the high seas up to 3 miles from their 
shores will long suffer being barred from a sea 
area adjacent to the shores of others four times 
that wide. Increase may breed increase and re- 
striction restriction, and the chain reaction thus 
set in motion will result in the maximum claim by 

Moreover, as there is neither logic nor tradition 
in a 12-mile limit, what reason is there to expect 
temiination there? Carried to its logical con- 
clusion such course of action will run its due 


course, and the freedom of the high seas, so valu- 
able to us all and especially to the small countries, 
will vanish — and be gone with the wind. 

In sucli a situation, isn't it at least possible to 
speculate that those with large economic re- 
sources may be able to fend for themselves better 
than the small ? 

Legal Case for the Three-Mile Limit 

The legal case for the S-mile or 1-marine- 
league limit has been cogently set forth here by 
the distinguished delegates of a number of other 
states, including the distinguished delegates of 
France, Great Britain, Greece, the Netherlands, 
and Jajjan, a number of whom have made refer- 
ence to the decision of the International Court of 
Justice in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case,^ 
to the effect that the validity of the delimitation 
of the territorial sea with respect to other states 
is determined by international law although inter- 
national law must, of course, be implemented by 
municipal legislation. It is the view of my 
Government, without elaboration or citation of 
authorities or making an extended legal argu- 
ment at this time, that the 3-mile rule is estab- 
lislied international law; that it is the only 
breadth of territorial watcre on which there 
has ever been anything like common agreement ; 
and that unilateral acts of states claiming greater 
territorial seas are not only not sanctioned by any 
principle of international law but are indeed in 
conflict with the universally accepted principle 
of the freedom of the seas. 

There is universal agreement that each state is 
entitled to a territorial sea of a breadth of 3 miles, 
or 1 marine league. But this cannot be said of any 
claim to a greater breadth, each of which claims 
has been protested by many states. This fact 
was recognized in the report of the International 
Law Commission covering the work of its seventh 
session wlien it stated that "international law does 
not require states to recognize a breadth [of terri- 
torial sea] beyond three miles." " 

The United States regards this to be the true 
legal situation. Further, it considers that there is 
no obligation on the part of states adhering to the 

I.C.J. Report, Dec. 18, 1951, pp. 116, 132. 
' U.N. doc. A/2934, p. 16. 

3-mile rule to recognize claims on the part of other 
states to a greater breadth of territorial sea. 

Since the right of states to a 3-mile territorial 
sea is imiversally recognized, and since in its view 
the greatest freedom of tlie seas is in the interest 
of all states, large and small, the delegation of the 
United States of America proposes that article 3 
of the ILC draft be changed to an unequivocal 
declaration of restraint tliat the breadth of the ter- 
ritorial sea shall not exceed 3 miles or 1 marine 

Other Articles Concerning the Limitation of the 
Territorial Sea and Innocent Passage 

The delegation of the United States of America 
is in substantial agreement with most of the other 
articles of the ILC draft relating to the delimita- 
tion of the ten-itorial sea and the riglit of iimocent 

We will have certain modifications, drafting 
changes, and amendments to suggest at the proper 
time in the interests of clarity and in consonance 
with achieving the greatest freedom of the seas 
for all of us. But we will submit them in the 
hope of being helpful and cooperative in our 
efforts here. 

"VVe shall make a further statement in Commit- 
tee II with respect to the articles of the ILC draft 
referred to that committee. 

Contiguous Zone 

I said at the start of this statement that the 
United States of America attached the utmost im- 
portance to article 66 relating to the contiguous 

My Government is not unmindful of and, in- 
deed, is highly sympathetic with the problems 
which concern a large number of the coastal states 
and which have led them in the past to certain 
unilateral actions in high-seas areas for the pri- 
mary purpose of conservation of tlie fish stocks off 
tlieir coasts. 

We submit that these needs, which have been so 
eloquently expressed by some of our friends from 
Latin America, may be fully and adequately met 
by means other than through extensions of the 
territorial sea, which extensions violate the rights 
and freedoms of all countries. We are prepared 
to be helpful in working out a constinictive 

Department of State Bulletin 



tiiiifd i 
i'oir tli 

^it add 

It is to take care of the legitimate needs of many 
countries that the United States attaches deep sig- 
nificance to article 66 and also to the articles on 
fisheiy conservation which are under the jurisdic- 
tion of the Third Committee. 

We also attach significance to the problem of 
the continental shelf, wliich is under the juris- 
diction of the Fourth Committee, and to the 
problems of landlocked countries, under the juris- 
diction of the Fifth Committee, and shall make 
appropriate statements in each of these several 

It is the belief of the United States tliat these 
rules set down by the International Law Com- 
mission may be molded to give full and sufficient 
remedy to the genuine needs and to make possible 
a more fruitful exploitation of the resources of the 
sea for the benefit of all mankind. 

We sincerely trust tliat this conference will not 
prove what Victor Hugo said about the sea in his 
famous novel Ninety-three^ book II, chapter 7 : 

The sea never tells what it means to do. There is 
everything in this abyss, even chicanery. One might al- 
most say that the sea had designs ; it advances and re- 
treats, it proposes and retracts, it prepares a squall and 
then gives up its plan, it promises destruction and does 
not keep its word. It threatens the North, and .striljes 
the South. 

No, indeed. 

Testing of Nuclear Weapons on High Seas 

tl)j Now let me turn for just a moment to another 
jjjj. problem. Since the problem of the testing of nu- 
slear weapons on tlie high seas has been raised 
in the debate in this committee, as well as in other 
lommittees, I should like vei-y briefly to clarify the 
United States position on this matter at this 

Now the real danger to the world lies in the 
)ossible use of nuclear weapons and not in some 
light addition to the natural forces of radio- 
ctivity. While the United States of America con- 
lucts its tests in a manner recognized as being con- 
onant with international law, it should also be 
bundantly clear to this conference that we have 
epeatedly offered to enter into arrangements em- 
odying meaningful and effective measures for the 
antrol of nuclear weajDons. 

Unfortunately no agreement has yet been 
jached which would make this possible. 

ely Bie' 

iri/ 7, 1958 

Because of its paramount importance to all 
mankind, this subject should continue to be dealt 
with in the established United Nations organs cre- 
ated specifically to deal with the problems of 
weapons control. 

We must all hope that further negotiations on 
disarmament, of which the nuclear testing prob- 
lem is but one element, will produce satisfactory 
results in the interests of humanity. But in line, 
I trust, with tlie position the distinguished repre- 
sentative of India tentatively indicated here the 
other day, I question whether we are a proper 
body to intervene in this negotiating process. 

We are experts assembled here to undertake a 
task which is great enough in its scope to tax all 
our resources. We should not, I submit, compli- 
cate the delicate work of other agencies in the field 
of disarmament by the intrusion of our pro- 
nouncements and in effect prejudice our work of 
attempting to codify the law of the sea by em- 
barking on an undertaking with such enormous 

So, in conclusion, permit me to say that we look 
forward to working with you, sir, and with you, 
the distinguished delegates of the conference, in 
a spirit of helpful and cooperative enterprise so 
that we may make a real and fruitful contribu- 
tion to the development of international law. 

Tliank you. 

U.S. Questions Continuing Prosecution 
of Hungarian Patriots 

FoUowing is an exchange of correspondence ie- 
tiveen the U.S. Mission to the United Nations and 
the Hungarian Mission to the United Nations, to- 
gether tvith a U.S. statement of March IS, con- 
cerning the continuing prosecution of persons who 
participated in the Hungarian up-rising of October 
and Novcmier 1956. 

U.S. Letter of February 11 

Dear Mr. Ambassador: It has no doubt been 
evident to your Mission from the debates and dis- 
cussions which have taken place during the Sec- 
ond Emergency Special Session and the Eleventh 
and Twelfth Sessions of the General Assembly 
that current developments in Hungary are being 
followed with deep concern throughout the world. 
Information which has been made known through 


oiScial Hungarian news media concerning the con- 
tinning prosecution of persons who participated 
in the popular uprising of October and November 
1956 has occasioned widespread anxiety. It had 
been hoped that the Hungarian authorities would 
heed the repeated calls by the United Nations for 
a cessation of repi'essive measures against the 
Hungarian people and implement an amnesty 
which would make normal life possible for those 
who are being held or who are threatened with 
possible arrest for having supported what was 
clearly a national manifestation. Such a hope 
now appeai-s illusory in the light of the unequivo- 
cal statement of Mr. [Premier Janos] Kadar be- 
fore the Hungarian Parliament on January 27, 
1958, rejecting any thouglit of sucli an amnesty. 
Under these circumstances persistent reports of 
further unannounced trials, imprisonments, and 
executions inevitably gain credence. 

On December 17, 1957, your Mission issued a 
press release in which it stated that if the United 
States Representative were "really interested in 
ascertaining what was happening in Hungary", he 
had "tlie opportunity to ask for authentic infor- 
mation through the proper channels". In view of 
the worldwide concern over the situation in Hun- 
gary—a concern whicli is shared by the Ameri- 
can people — I have decided to take advantage of 
this suggestion and ask you the following 

1. Wliat are the present circumstances of Major 
General Pal Maleter, Major General Istvan Ko- 
vacs and Colonel Miklos Szucs, all of whom were 
members of the Plungarian Delegation appointed 
by the Hungarian Government in November 1956 
to negotiate with a Soviet Delegation on the ques- 
tion of the withdrawal of Soviet troops from 
Hungai"y ? 

2. "What are the present circumstances of the 
following individuals and their families who, 
upon relinquishing asylum in the Yugoslav Em- 
bassy in Budapest, were apprehended by Soviet 
military authorities : Imre Nagy, Geza Losonczy, 
Zoltan Szanto, Ferenc Donath, I. [Gabor] Tanc- 
zos, Sandor Haraszti, Ferenc Janosi, Gyorgy 
Fazekas, Jozsef Szilagyi, Peter Erdos, Zoltan Vas, 
Julia Eajk, Ferenc Nador, Szilard Ujhelyi and 
Miklos Vasarhelyi ? 

3. "What are the present circumstances of San- 
dor Kopacsi, formerly chief of the Budapest 

4. "Wliat are the present circumstances of Dom- 
inik Kosary, a former professor of history at 
Budapest University who is well known in the 
United States through his history of Hungary 
which was published here ? 

5. What are the present circumstances of Istvan 
Bibo, Minister of State in the Hungarian Gov- 
ernment announced November 3, 1956 ? 

These questions pertain only to a small number 
of individuals whose fate is being followed with 
particular interest because of their prominence or 
the circumstances connected with their disappear- 
ance from public life. It is my sincere belief, 
however, that a forthright and full reply to these 
questions would help not only to clarify the cur- 
rent situation in Hungary but also to afford mil- 
lions of interested people throughout the world 
a clearer understanding of the present intentions 
of the Hungarian authorities. 
Sincerely yours, 

James J. Wadsworth 
Acting United States Representative 
to the United Nations 

Hungarian Letter of February 17 

Dear Mk. Ambassador : I have the honour to acknowl- 
edge the receipt of your letter of February 11, 1958. 
Please let me assure you that I will, at the earliest pos- 
sible date, forward it to the Hungarian authorities hav- 
ing competence in the matter. 
Sincerely yours, 

Peter Mod 
Permanent Representative 

U.S. Letter of March 6 

Dear ]\Ir. Ambassador : You will recall that on 
February 11, 1958, the Acting United States Eep- , 
resentative to the United Nations addressed a 
letter to you as Permanent Eepresentative of 
Hungary to the United Nations in which a number 
of questions were raised concerning the present 
circumstances of certain prominent Hungarians, 
and that you acknowledged receipt of this letter 
on February 17, 1958. The United States Mission 
has as yet received no reply to this inquiry. I 
would like therefore to take this occasion to ex- 
press again my earnest hope that a reply will be 
forthcoming in the near future. 
Sincerely yours, 

Henrt Cabot Lodge 

United States Representative 

to the United Nations 

Department of State Bulletin 

Hungarian Letter of March 13 

Dear Mr. Ambassador : With reference to the letters of 
February 11 and March G, 1958 of the United States 
Mission I should lllse to express to you the willingness 
of the Permanent Mission of the Hungarian People's 
Ifjj Republic to co-operate with your Mission in every ques- 
tion that might improve the relations between our coun- 
tries and advance the great cause of mankind. In your 
letter of February 11 I have recognized your endeavour 
correct the mistalje made in the statement of .your 
delegation at the XII session of the General Assembly 
of the United Nations, to which alludes the quotation 
in your letter from our press release of December 17, 
19."i7. It is to be regretted, however, that this Intention 
cannot reassert itself in your letter. 

Firstly, the letter contains such prejudiced statements, 
in presence of which no constructive exchange of views 
can be conducted with anyone. 

Secondly, yoii fail to take note of the fact that by mak- 
ing use in a distorted way of the questions involved, 
your Mission already tried to incite hostile public senti- 
ment against Hungary on the basis of rumours which 
t had not previously controlled. This mistake naturally 
cannot be considered as cancelled in view of subsequent 

Thirdly, the wording of your questions makes the 
appearance as if you and your Mission wanted to inter- 
fere in the domestic affairs of Hungary. My Mission can- 
not co-operate in confirming such an appearance. 

Let me assure you again that the Hungarian Mission 
will always be prepared to co-operate with the United 
States, with your Mission, in every question that leads 
us nearer to an easing of tension and strengthening of 

Sincerely yours, 

Peter Mod 
Permanent Representative 

U.S. Statement of March 15 

D.S./D.N. press release 2888 

This latest letter from the Hungarian repre- 
sentative is an obvious attempt to evade an answer 
to our specific questions. In our letter of Febru- 
ary 11 we asked about the present circumstances 
of prominent Hungarians who were named in our 
letter. We asked about tliem because they had 
disappeared from public view and this has caused 
widespread concern. 

Our inquiry was invited by the Hungarian Mis- 
sion itself. Yet the Hungarian authorities have 
refused to answer it. 

This refusal recalls earlier actions by tlie same 
regime: their refusal to permit the United Na- 
tions Special Committee to enter Hungary to 
carry out the mandate given to it by the General 
Assembly ; their refusal to cooperate with the As- 

April 7, 1958 

serably's Special Representative, Prince Wan of 
Thailand; and their refusal to accept the letter 
whicli the Special Committee addressed to tlieir 
United Nations Mission last December. In every 
case their i-ef usal has demonstrated that they have 
something to hide about the situation in Hungary. 
World opinion has recognized as just the as- 
pirations of the Hungarian people to regain their 
independence. This new reply by the Hungarian 
Mission to our letters will only increase the anx- 
iety of world opinion about what is going on in 

U.S.-Euratom Discussions 

Press release 135 dated March 19 

A joint U.S.-European Atomic Energy Com- 
munity (EUR ATOM) working party will con- 
vene at Luxembourg on March 20 with instruc- 
tions to pay special attention to the possibility of 
initiating at an early date a joint program for 
the development of full-scale prototype power re- 
actors. Tlie U.S. delegation includes Depart- 
ment of State and Atomic Energy Commission 
officials. This meeting, which will continue to 
April 3, is a prelude to the visit of Louis Armand, 
President of EURATOM, to the United States 
tliis spring^ to discuss the possibilities of close 
cooperation between tlie U.S. Government and the 
European Atomic Energy Community in the fields 
in which EURATOM will be engaged in order 
to develop the peaceful uses of atomic energy. 

Ambassador W. Walton Butterworth, U.S. 
Representative to the European Atomic Energy 
Community, will head the U.S. group, while Max 
Kohnstamm, Special Assistant to the EURATOM 
President, will head the European group. 

The Atomic Energy Commission representa- 
tives will include R. W. Cook, Deputy General 
Manager; A. J. Vander Weyden, Deputy Di- 
rector, Division of International Affairs; Paul C. 
Fine, Director, Office of Operations Analysis and 
Plaiming; Frank K. Pittman, Director, Office of 
Industrial Development; Louis Roddis, Deputy 
Director, Reactor Development; Nelson F. Siev- 
ering, Jr., Assistant to Director, Division of Re- 
actor Development ; Edwin E. Ferguson, Deputy 
General Counsel; Harold D. Bengelsdorf, Euro- 
pean Branch, Division of International Affairs; 

For background, see Bulletin of Mar. 17, 19.58, p. 

and Amasa Bishop, AEC Scientific Representa- 
tive in Paris. 

Eepresentatives from the Department of State 
will he J. Robert Schaetzel, Office of Special As- 
sistant to the Secretary for Atomic Energy ; Stan- 
ley D. Metzger, Deputy Legal Adviser; Stanley 
Cleveland, Office of European Regional Affairs; 
Mortimer J. Goldstein, Assistant Chief, Interna- 
tional Finance Division; and Louis Boochever, 
U.S. ISIission to the European Conmiunities. 

U.S. Proposes Broadening 
UNICEF Aid to Child Welfare 

Statement by Katherine Oettinger ' 

UNICEF aid is at the present time directed 
almost exclusively toward improving the health 
of mothers and children. This is so because of the 
enormous toll which disease and malnutrition take 
in lives of mothers and children in many parts of 
the world. There are, however, many social and 
environmental factors that adversely affect chil- 
dren and which contribute directly or indirectly 
to their physical and mental ill health. In its aid 
to commmiity development UNICEF has shown 
its understanding of the broad meaning of the 
term "child welfare." Might it not, however, be 
appropriate to consider ways in which UNICEF 
programs could be extended more directly in the 
area of social services for children ? 

One area for which aid is urgently needed and 
which seems highly appropriate for LTNICEF 
assistance is that of children living wholly or in 
part away from their own homes. I refer to 
children in residential institutions or who spend 
their days in day-care centers while their mothers 

Throughout the world at least several million 
children are deprived of normal home life and are 
living in institutions. Some are homeless children 
whose parents are dead, have deserted, or are 
unable to provide care. The most universal 
method of care for children outside their own 
home is in congregate or specialized residential 
institutions. Such institutions exist to some ex- 
tent in most countries. 

' Made before the Executive Board of the U.N. Chil- 
dren's Fund on Mar. 6 (U.S./U.N. press release 2879). 
Mrs. Oettinger is the U.S. Representative on the Execu- 
tive Board. 


Rapid urbanization is a worldwide phenomenon, 
and experience in many j^arts of the world, even 
the least advanced, indicates this usually results 
in significant increases in the numbers of children 
for whom some form of care outside their own 
family circles has to be provided. 

In the UNICEF-aided countries, in the im- 
mediate future, it can be anticipated that the need 
for such care will be increasing, and this type of 
care will be the only practical method of meeting 
such need. 

In addition, many infants and preschool chil 
dren of working mothers are being cared for in 
day-nursery and creche programs in countries ex- 
periencing industrialization or otherwise needing 
the labor of women. 

In crowded cities the growing employment of 
women increases the need for such services. The 
longstanding problem of care of children while 
mothers work in the fields remains. In some 
established maternal and child-welfare centers 
there is a begimiing use of day-care centers as an 
opportunity to train mothers and at the same time 
improve the environment by providing better nu- 
trition and other care for children. 

The kind of care these children get varies tre- 
mendously in both types of services. In some 
institutions children leceive excellent physical 
and emotional care, family ties are preserved for 
them, and they have opportunity to share in com- 
munity life. Others are housed and fed for many 
years without regard for their social and emo- 
tional needs, especially in preparing them to re- 
sume life in the community. And still others are 
confined in unhygienic quarters where they are 
subject to exposure to contagious diseases which 
take a heavy toll of life, or they are inadequately 
fed and cared for so that their growth and de- 
velopment are impeded. 

The dangers to physical and mental healtli are 
known to be veiy great for children living in 
institutions, particularly for long periods of time. 
In some countries an effort is made ta develop 
adoption and foster-family care for younger chil- 
dren, but in many countries institutional care will 
be the only means of providing for dependent and 
neglected children for many years. To quote* 
from the U.N. document The Institutional Care 
of Children:^ 

U.N. doc. ST/SOA/31 dated August 1956. 

Department of State Bulletin 


iflliOil 1 




life as; 

tempt I 

in piisl 
liti «! 

and p'ni 




hi I 

. . in many countries where poverty is still a major 
problem, and where rapid industrialization and urban- 
ization are altering the family structure, growing num- 
bers of children in need of care may come to the 
attention of the community. In these instances, where 
social services ou the whole are at an early stage of 
development, the establishment of institutional care pro- 
no- grammes for children is likely to increase in the near 
future as the most practical immediate method of action. 

while in 


There are many way;? institutional care can be 
modified and improved so that it provides more 
adequately for children's physical, mental, and 
emotional needs, so that some of the benefits of 
home life can be preserved, and so that the child 
can be better prepared to enter into community 
eediiig life as an adult. 

The report referred to above, prepared at tlie 
request of the Social Commission, provides ample 
evidence of the interest of a number of countries 
improving the quality of care cliildren receive 
in institutions. It points out the major and com- 
mon need for better trained staff and cites a 
umber of trends in programs, such as tlie at- 
tempt to care for children in small, family-like 

Would it not now be possible to consider imple- 
tre- menting some international action to give some 
assistance to countries wishing and needing help 
in pushing forward in this area? UNICEF 
might, in some cases, be in a position to assist 
with equipment, supplies, and training, but the 
ij teclmical skill for developing a program lies pri- 
marily in the Bureau of Social Affairs. The 
World Health Organization, through its maternal 
and child-health staffs, would also have technical 
advice to contribute. 

My suggestion is, thei-efore, that the Board 
authorize the administration to seek the help of 
the Bureau of Social Affairs and WHO in de- 
veloping a possible program of UNICEF aid 
for children in institutions and in day-care 
centers. Such a program should be started ou 
an experimental basis, using pilot projects to 
demonstrate the value of such aid and to try out 
ways of providing it effectively. By the March 
meeting of 1959, I would hope the Board could 
have before it a plan for consideration on a policy 

A program of aid in institutional and day care 
of children should be looked on as only a begin- 
ning phase in a broader program of child welfare 
or social services for children. Ultimately, I 

hope, UNICEF can develop a comprehensive 
policy of appropriate aid in this area. Tliis 
broader goal should be kept in mind during the 
study of ways for developing this segment for 
improving the conditions under which children 
live and grow. 

Mrs. Oettinger and Mrs. Taubman 
To Represent U.S. on UNICEF Board 

The Wliite House amiomiced on February 28 
that the President had on that day appointed 
Katherine Brownell Oettinger, Chief of the Chil- 
dren's Bureau, Department of Health, Education, 
and Welfare, to be representative of the United 
States on the Executive Board of the United Na- 
tions Children's Fund. 

On the same day the President appointed Eliza- 
beth Clare Taubman to be alternate representative 
of the United States on the Executive Board of 
the U.N. Children's Fund. 

Current U.N. Documents 
A Selected Bibliography^ 

Security Council 

Letter Dated 13 February 1958 from the Permanent 
Representative of Tunisia to the President of the 
Security Council. S/3952, February 13, 1958. 3 pp. 

Letter Dated 14 February 1958 from the Permanent 
Representative of France to the President of the Se- 
curity Council. S/3954, February 14, 1958. 3 pp. 

Letter Dated 14 February 1958 from the Representative 
of Israel Addressed to the President of the Security 
Council. S/3955, February 14, 1958. 1 p. mimeo. 

Letter Dated 17 February 1958 from the Permanent 
Representative of Tunisia Addressed to the Secretary- 
General of the United Nations for the Attention of 
the President of the Security Council. S/3957, Febru- 
ary 17, 1958. 2 pp. mimeo. 

Trusteeship Council 

Examination of the Annual Report on the Administration 
of the Trust Territory of Tanganyika. Supplementary 
information submitted by the Administering Authority. 
T/1349, January 21, 1958. 10 pp. mimeo. 

Examination of the Annual Report on the Administration 

Printed materials may be secured in the United States 
from the International Documents Service, Columbia Uni- 
versity Press, 2960 Broadway, New York 27, N. Y. Other 
materials (mimeographed or proce-ssed documents) may 
be consulted at certain designated libraries in the United 

April 7, 1958 

of the Trust Territory of the Cameroons Under British 
Administration. Supplementary Information submitted 
by the Administering Authority. T/1350, January 21, 
1958. 9 pp. mimeo. 

Examination of the Annual Report on the Trust Territory 
of Ruanda-Urundl for the Year 1956. Observations by 
the United Nations Educational, Scientlflc and Cultural 
Organization. T/1352, January 28, 1958. 13 pp. mimeo. 

Examination of the Annual Report on the Trust Territory 
of the Cameroons Under British Administration for the 
Year 1956. T/1353, January 30, 1958. 7 pp. mimeo. 

Examination of the Annual Report on the Trust Territory 
of the Cameroons Under French Administration, 1956. 
Observations of the United Nations Educational, Scien- 
tific and Cultural Organization. T/1354, January 30, 
1958. 14 pp. mimeo. 

Examination of the Annual Report on the Trust Territory 
of Tanganyika for the Year 1956. Observations of the 
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 
Organization. T/1355, January 30, 1958. 11 pp. mimeo. 

Conditions in the Trust Territory of the Cameroons Under 
French Administration. Working paper prepared by the 
Secretariat. T/L.813, February 4, 1958. 28 pp. mimeo. 

Economic and Social Council 

Economic Commission for Latin America. The Economic 
Development of Bolivia. (Summary and Extracts). 
E/CN.12/448, April 30, 1957. 156 pp. mimeo. 

Economic Commis.sion for Asia and the Far East. Com- 
mittee on Industry and Natural Resources. Report of 
the Third Session of the Sub-committee on Mineral Re- 
sources Development. E/CN.11/I&NR/5 (E/CN.ll/ 
I&NR/Sub.3/5), December 2, 1957. 43 pp. mimeo. 

Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East. Inland 
Transport Committee. Bituminous Construction Ter- 
minology. E/CN.ll/TRANS/Sub.2/28, December 4, 
1957. 35 pp. mimeo. 

Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East. Inland 
Transport Committee. Report of the Inland Waterway 
Sub-Committee (Fourth Session) to the Inland Trans- 
port Committee (Seventh Session). E/CN.ll/TRANS/- 
132, December 9, 1957. 34 pp. mimeo. 

Statistical Commission. International Programme of 
Social Statistics. Memorandum prepared by the Sec- 
retary-General, in collaboration with the Food and Agri- 
cultural Organization, International Labour Office, 
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 
Organization and World Health Organization. E/CN.- 
3/239, January 6, 1958. 46 pp. mimeo. 

Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East. 
UNESCO Activities in 1957 and Work Plans for 1958 of 
Interest to the Economic Commission for Asia and the 
Far East. Report by the United Nations Educational, 
Scientific and Cultural Organization. E/CN.11/467, 
January 10, 1958. 21 pp. mimeo. 

Statistical Commission. National Income Accounting in 
Countries at a Very Early Stage of Economic Develop- 
ment. Memorandum prepared by the Secretary-General. 
E/CN.3/256, January 14, 1958. 12 pp. mimeo. 

Commission on Human Rights. Periodic Reports on Hu- 
man Rights. Report submitted by UNESCO. 
E/CN.4/758/Add. 2, January 15, 1958. 74 pp. mimeo. 

Commission on Human Rights. Study of Discrimination 
In Education. Note by the Secretary-General. E/CN.- 
4/760, January 17, 1958. 5 pp. mimeo. 

Commission on Human Rights. Study of the Right of 
Everyone To Be Free from Arbitrary Arrest, Detention 
and Exile. E/CN.4/763, January 17, 1958. 19 pp. 

1960 World Population Census Programme. Progress Re- 
port. E/CN.3/237/Add. 1 ST/STAT/P/L.23/Rev. 1, 
January 20, 1958. 27 pp. mimeo. 

Commission on the Status of Women. Nationality of 
Married Women. Memorandum bv the Secretar.v-Gen- 
eral. E/CN.6/254/Add. 4, January 20, 1958. 10 pp. 


Current Actions 


Protocol amending the slavery convention signed at Ge- 
neva September 2.5, 1926 (46 Stat. 2183), and annex. 
Done at New York December 7, 1953. Entered Intt 
force for the United States March 7, 1956 (TIAS 
Acceptance deposited: Hungary, February 26, 1958. 


British Guiana 

Agreement for the exchange of international money or 
ders. Signed at Georgetown October 8 and at Washing- 
ton November 4, 1957. 
Entered into force: January 1, 1958. 


Agreement amending annex to air transport servicei 
agreement of February 3, 1945 (EAS 460). E£fecte< 
by exchange of notes at Dublin March 4, 1958. En 
tered into force March 4, 1958. 


Agreement amending the agricultural commodities agree 
meut of November 7, 1957 (TIAS 3945). EflEected b: 
exchange of notes at Washington January 29 am 
February 4, 1958. Entered Into force February 4, 1958 


Agreement concerning claims arising in connection witl 
SEATO maneuvers during February and March 195S 
Effected by exchange of aide memoire at Manila Febru 
ary 20, 1958. Entered into force February 20, 1958. 




The Senate on March 10 confirmed Raymond A. Bar 
to be Ambassador to the United Arab Republic. 

The Senate on March 10 confirmed Homer M. Bying; 
ton, Jr., Ambassador to the Federation of Malaya, t 
serve as the representative of the United States to thi 
14th session of the Economic Commission for Asia and 
Far East of the Economic and Social Council of thii 
United Nations. 



James Byrd Pilcher as Consul General at Hong Konti 
(For biographic details, see Department press release 13 
dated March 18.) 

Department of Slate Bullelii 

Views of 
tion C 




Ma ati 


lion.- f,Y 




April 7, 1958 

American Principles. India and the United States 
Worli for Peace (Lodge) 

Asia. Pitcher designated as consul general at 
Hong Kong 

Atomic Energy 

Atomic Policy in the Space Age (McKinney) . . 

U.S.-EURATOM discussions (delegation) .... 

Claims and Property. Deadline for Filing Claims 
Against Germany 

Congress, The 

Congressional Documents Relating to Foreign 

President Reports to Congress on Lend-Lease 

Views of the Department of State on Proposal To 
Establish an International Development Associa- 
tion (EHllon) 

Department and Foreign Service 

Confirmations (Byington, Hare) 

Designations (Pilcher) 

Disarmament. India and the United States Work 
for Peace (Lodge) 

Economic Affairs 

President Reports to Congress on Lend-Lease 

Views of the Department of State on Proposal To 
Establish an International Development Associa- 
tion (Dillon) 

Educational Exchange. U.S. Expands Exchange 
Program for Scientific Training 

Europe. U.S.-EURATOM Discussions (delegation) 


a?tee- Deadline for Filing Claims Against Germany . . . 
nfleil b.v|West Reaffirms Principle of Control of Soviet 
Flights Over West Germany (Bruce) 

Health, Education, and Welfare 

Mrs. Oettinger and Mrs. Taubman To Represent 
U.S. on UNICEF Board 

U.S. Proposes Broadening UNICEF Aid to Child 
Welfare (Oettinger) 

Hungary. U.S. Questions Continuing Prosecution 
of Hungarian Patriots (Lodge, Mod, Wadsworth). 

Immigration and Naturalization. Our Immigra- 
tion Policies and the International Scene (O'Con- 


India and the United States Worlj for Peace 


Vice President of India Visits United States . . . 
International Information. U.S.-Soviet Negotia- 
tions for Exchange of Films 

International Law. The Law of the Sea (Dean) . 
1 Hill International Organizations and Conferences 

Atomic Policy in the Space Age (McKinney). . . 
Byington confirmed as U.S. representative to 


:i\>?' " Calendar of International Conferences and Meet- 

fsto* ings 

Iijjdilii Confirmations (Byington) '. 

m Mrs. Oettinger and Mrs. Taubman To Represent 

' U.S. on UNICEF Board 

U.S.-EURATOM Discu.ssions (delegation) . '. '. '. 
U.S. Proposes Broadening UNICEF Aid to Child 

Welfare (Oettinger) 

Mutual Security. U.S. Expands Exchange Program 

jjlK for Scientific Training 

eleasel3 Presidential Documents. President Reports to 
Congress on Lend-Lease Operations 


Vol. XXXVIII, No. 980 









Science. U.S. Expands Exchange Program for Sci- 
entific Training 5(53 

Treaty Information. Current Actions 586 

United Arab Republic. Hare confirmed a.s am- 
bassador 586 

United Nations 

Current U.N. Documents 585 

India and the United States Worli for Peace 

(Lodge) 554 

The Law of the Sea (Dean) 574 

U.S. Questions Continuing Prosecution of Hungarian 

Patriots (Lodge, Mod, Wadsworth) 581 


U.S. Awaits Reply From U.S.S.R. on Summit Meet- 
ing (Department statement) 551 

U.S.-Soviet Negotiations for Exchange of Films . . 552 
West ReaflJrms Principle of Control of Soviet 

Flights Over West Germany (Bruce) .... 653 

Name Index 

Bruce, David K. E 5.53 

Byington, Homer M., Jr 586 

Dean, Arthur H 574 

Dillon, Douglas 564 

Eisenhower, President 57O 

Hare, Raymond A 586 

Lodge, Henry Cabot 554, 582 

McKinney, Robert M 543 

Mod, Peter 532 

O'Connor, Roderie L 560 

Oettinger, Katherine Brownell 584, 585 

Pilcher, James Byrd 586 

Radhakrishnan, Sarvapalli 559 

Taubman, Elizabeth Clare 585 

Wadsworth, James J 581 

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

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

Releases issued prior to March 17 which appear 
in this issue of the Bulletin are Nos. 123 of March 
13 and 126 and 127 of March 14. 
No. Date Sabject 

*130 3/17 Horace H. Smith nominated Ambassa- 
dor to Laos (biographic details). 
Pilcher designated Consul General at 

Hong Kong (rewrite). 
Dillon : International Development As- 
Educational exchange. 
Eleanor Dulles: "Labor Rejects Com- 
munism — East Germany." 
U.S.-EURATOM discussions. 
ICA scientific training program. 
Rubottom : U.S. relations with Latin 

Deadline for filing claims against Ger- 
Barnes sworn in as Special Assistant 
for Mutual Security Coordination 
(biographic details). 
U.S.-Soviet negotiations for film ex- 
Visit of President-elect of Costa Rica. 






135 3/19 

136 3/20 

tl37 3/20 

138 3/20 





*Not printed. 

tHeld for a later issue of the Bulletin. 

United States 
Government Printing Office 


Washington 25, D. C. 



American Foreign Policy, 1950-1955 
Basic Documents 





Order Form 

To: Supt. of Documents 
Govt. Printing Office 
Washington 25, D.C. 

(cash, check, or 
money order). 

The recent release of Volume II completes the publication of this 
two-volume compilation, which presents in convenient reference form 
the basic published documents regarding American foreign relations 
for the 6-year period of 1950 to 1955. 

Documents in the two volumes are arranged under 20 subject 
headings : 

I - Principles and objectives of American foreign policy 
II -The United Nations 

III - Postwar settlements 

IV - Armistice agreements: Near East, Korea, Indo-China 
V- Basic security treaties of the United States 

VI - European regional arrangements 
VII - Middle Eastern regional arrangements 
VIII - Western Hemisphere developments 
IX -Western Europe 

X- Germany, Austria, and European security 
XI -The Soviet Union 
XII - Eastern European Communist regimes and the Baltic states 
XIII -Near and Middle East, South Asia, and Africa 
XIV -The Far East and Southeast Asia 
XV - Korea 

XVI - Disarmament and the control of atomic energy 
XVII - Foreign economic policies — trade and tariffs 
XVIII - Foreign aid — economic, military, technological 
XIX - International information and educational exchange programs 
XX - Organization and special responsibilities of the Department of 
State and the Foreign Service 
This publication may be purchased from the Superintendent of 
Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfEce, Washington 25, D.C, 
for $10.50 a set, or $5.25 a volume. 

Publication 6446, 
in two volumes 

$10.50 per set; 
$5.25 per volume 

send me copies of American Foreign Policy, 1950-1955: Basic 

Documents, D Volume I; Q Volume II; Q Volumes I and II. 


Street Address: 

City, Zone, and State: 


Vol. XXXVIII, No. 981 

AprU 14, 1958 

RITY • Address by President Eisenhower and Remarks by 
Secretary Dulles and Deputy Under Secretary Dillon .... 591 

MENTS LEGISLATION • Statement by Deputy Under 
Secretary Dillon 626 


MARCH 25 602 


Secretary Dulles 622 


Secretary Rubottom 608 


by Eleanor Lansing Dulles 615 

For index see inside back cover 


Boston Public Library 
Superintrr.'leTit of Dooiimo 

APR 28 195^ 

Vol. XXXVIII, No. 981 • Pubucation 6627 
April 14, 1958 

For sale by the Superintendent ot Documents 

U.S. Qovemment Printing Office 

Wasblngton 25, D.O. 


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 20, 1958). 

Note: Contents of this publication are not 
copyrighted and items contahied herein may 
be reprinted. Citation of the Depaetment 
OF State BtrLLETiN as the source will be 

Tlie 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 tlie work of the 
Department of State and the Foreign 
Service. The BULLETIN includes se- 
lected press releases on foreign policy, 
issued by tlie White House and the 
Department, and statements and ad- 
dresses made by the President and by 
the Secretary of State and other 
officers of tlw Department, as tcell as 
special articles on various pluises 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 tlie Department, 
United Nations documents, and legis- 
lative material in the field of inter- 
national relations are listed currently. 

The Trade Agreements Program: Its Relation 
to National Well-Being and Security 

Following is the text of an address viade hy 
President Eisenhower at the National Conference 
of Organizations on International Trade Policy 
at Washington, D. C, on Mar. 27, together with 
reinarks made iy Secretary Dulles and Deputy 
Under Secretary Douglas Dillon at the same, 


White House press release dated March 27 

I am indeed honored to join tonight with this 
great gathering of citizens from all parts of the 
Nation. You have come here to demonstrate tlie 
strength of your support for an enlightened trade 
policy that promotes jobs at home and peace in 
tlie world. My gi'ateful thanks go to you for 
this magnificent bipartisan citizen effort to rouse 
Americans to the gi-eat stake all of us liave in 
widening and deepening the channels of world 

This cause that draws us together tonight does 
not readily command the headlines. Like so many 
other good things, the benefits of trade are some- 
how taken for granted and are assumed to be a 
normal part of life. On the other hand, the 
special domestic problems to which world trade 
sometimes gives rise, in terms of impact on par- 
ticular industries, are real and identifiable and 
demanding of action. But I think it is quite 
necessary for all of us to remember this one fact : 
No single, separate part or area of America can 
ever prosper, no matter what tariffs we miglit 
erect, unless the United States of America as a 
whole prospers. 

Now, you and I believe firmly that our reciprocal 
trade program is good for America, and so we have 
an obligation to our fellow citizens to set forth our 

kptW 14, 1958 

views fairly and so convincingly as we may. If 
we do so, I am confident that the countrywide sup- 
port of this program will be reflected in the Con- 
gress. And that is where fateful decisions about 
its whole future will shortly be taken. 

We know that the American people will always 
do what they think is important and necessary to 
do. Our task is to make sure the importance of 
expanding trade is miderstood by all of us. 

Now^, in searching for what is best for 173 mil- 
lion Americans, we must recognize that questions 
concerning reciprocal trade have been raised by 
conscientious Members of Congress and others 
deeply concerned with the economic welfare of 
their particular communities. On Capitol Hill the 
most potent arguments against trade legislation 
are likely to be its effect on the industries of 
specific States and districts. 

So, in the effort to dispel honest doubts about the 
reciprocal trade legislation's great value to the 
entire nation, we sliould first hammer home the 
fact that safeguards in the law are being 
strengthened to cope with the uneven impact of 
import competition. 

Next we should point out that the authority to 
make trade concessions to others in our national 
interest is permissive, not mandatory. It applies 
to individual products and will be used only on a 
case-by-case basis, after full review of all factors 

Likewise, we should present this commonsense 
arithmetic: The defeat of the trade agreements 
program would destroy far more jobs and more 
job opportunities in agriculture, in manufacturing, 
and in transportation than it could possibly ever 

We should make everyone aware of the deadly 
peril impending if, through blindness, America 
and the free world are robbed of adequate economic 


defense against Communist penetration. I doubt 
that anyone would favor tearing down our trade 
program were he to have on his conscience full 
knowledge of such grave hazards. 

We can be heartened because in districts, States, 
and Nation a growing majority is finding that far 
stronger reasons can be advanced for an effective 
extension of the trade agreements legislation than 
the excuses made for rejecting or crippling it. 

Both job security and national security demand 
an enlightened trade policy. So compelling and 
justifiable are these individual and collective 
reasons that even those who previously opposed 
reciprocal trade should see the need of changing 
from their former position and so measure up to 
this inescapable duty of our day. 

An informed and observant public would dis- 
approve of anyone who insisted on clinging to 
old, outmoded ideas which cannot solve crucial 
new problems. But that same public would wel- 
come and praise everyone in public or private life 
for changing his mind in the best interests of 173 
million Americans. 

Importance of U.S. Export Trade 

Now let me be specific. 

Our reciprocal trade program is good for Amer- 
ica. It strengthens our own economy, and it 
strengthens the economy of the free world and 
thus reinforces our security against external 

The United States is the greatest trading nation. 
Last year the world's export trade amounted to 
about $100 billion. We exported a fifth of that 
enormous total. This vast flow of commerce to 
and from our shores is vital to our economy. 

Consider these facts. 

World trade makes jobs for at least 4i/^ million 
American workers. At a time of slack in the 
economy like the present these jobs should not be 
placed in jeopardy by crippling our trade pro- 
gram. The presence here tonight of representa- 
tives of the great labor organizations of America 
underscores this point. 

Export trade, in the most recent year for which 
we have data, is big, important business. It was 
greater than all consumer purchases of furniture 
and household equipment. It was greater than 
all residential nonfarm building or as great as 
the sale of all steel-mill products in this country. 
Such sample facts as these indicate why the great 


business organizations of America are represented 
here tonight. 

We shipped abroad last year, for example, over 
a tenth of our machine-tool production, almost 
a fifth of our motor trucks and coaches, over a 
quarter of our construction and mining equip- 
ment. And that is why so many manufacturers, 
small and large, are represented here tonight. 

Foreign markets provide an indispensable out- 
let for our farm output. In the most recent mar- 
keting year, with the aid of special programs, 
over half of our wheat, cotton, and rice went 
abroad. So did over a third of our soybean pro- 
duction, a quarter of our tobacco, and a fifth of 
our lard output. Those and other farm exports 
benefited not only farmers. The movement re- 
quired financing, inland transportation, storage, 
and ocean transportation for 36 million tons of 
cargo. That was enough farm produce to fill 
800,000 freight cars and 3,600 cargo ships. Now, 
those activities mean jobs — lots of jobs. 

And for those who may wonder what the con- 
nection is between these farm exports and our 
reciprocal trade pi'ogram let me cite this fact: 
Nearly four-fifths of these record farm exports 
went to countries with which we have agreements 
under that program. Loss of income from over- 
seas markets would deal a hard blow to farm 
families. And such facts as these indicate why 
the gi-eat farm organizations of our country are 
represented here tonight. 

Now this brief review of our huge export busi- 
ness evidences an inescapable truth : Trade is good 
for all America — for its workers, its businessmen, 
and its farmers. 

Role of Imports 

Now, what of the other side of the trade — 
imports ? 

In discussion of trade problems some people 
seem to be for exports and against imports. They 
apparently assume that we can continue to sell 
even though we refuse to buy. But let me remind 
you, our farmers, our workers, and businessmen 
cannot use draclimas, rupees, lire, francs, or other 
foreign currencies for their purchases in this coim- 
try. Consequently they cannot accept those cur- 
rencies for the goods they ship abroad. They can 
accept only dollars. In the same way, if other na- 
tions are to buy our exports to them, they must get 

Department of Stale Bvlletin 

dollars earned by their exports to us. This means 
giving them an opportunity to sell in the Ameri- 
can market on a reasonable basis. 

Our import needs are great — $13 billion last 
year. We obtained from abroad most of our 
supplies of tin, mica, asbestos, platinum, nickel, 
and newsprint. Part of our requirements for iron 
ore, petroleum, copper, raw wool, bauxite, burlap, 
and other materials must be obtained outside this 
country. Such imports keep our factory wheels 
turning and assembly lines moving. 

We also import some foods and manufactured 
goods. They are not as essential to us as are in- 
dustrial materials. Nevertheless America wants 
them. Americans are entitled to a reasonable 
chance to buy them. Selling customers what they 
want is the way American stores keep in business. 
And that is why representatives of consumer 
groups are here tonight. 

Since imports of manufactured goods are the 
center of much of the trade controverey, we should 
keep one fact clearly in mind : Last year we im- 
ported $3% billion of manufactured goods; we 
exported $10i/^ billion — nearly four times as much. 
Now, of course, we want, under the law, to accord 
manufacturing industries relief from demon- 
strated injury or the threat of injury due to im- 
ports. But, if we seek to do this by ill-advised 
measures such as broad and rigid systems of quotas 
or unconscionable tariffs, we should consider the 
consequences upon our 4-to-l interest in exports 
of these goods. Now, other countries have their 
trade problems too. As we and they have learned 
to our mutual regret, everybody can play the 
costly game of trade restrictions. 

The choice is plain: It is reciprocity or re- 

Strengthening the Economy of the Free World 

Important as our trade program is to building 
a stronger nation here at home, it is equally impor- 
tant in building a strong neighborhood of nations 
where we can be secure. 

Our first line of defense against potential attack 
is an effective deterrent power widely based in the 
free world. The dispersal of this power is a key 
aspect of our defense. But dispersal requires co- 
operation among the free nations — not merely 
military cooperation but in all the ways which 
make our allies strong. 

April 14, 1958 

It may be trite to say that trade is a two-way 
street, but is it trite to say that cooperative se- 
curity is a two-way street ? By no means. Allies 
are needed, and we need them to be sturdy — relia- 
ble. Sturdy allies need progressive economies, not 
merely to bear the burden of defensive armament 
but also to satisfy the needs and aspirations of 
their people. 

This fact requires a clear understanding on our 
part that, for most of these nations, foreign trade 
is vital to their economies and therefore to our 
security. Some of these nations are limited in 
natural resources ; their markets at home are small. 
In many instances their economies are much less 
developed than is ours. Trade is truly their 
economic lifeblood. The United States must con- 
tinue to make it possible for them to trade with 
others and with us on a reasonable basis. 

The American people have long been keenly 
aware of the Communist military threat. Our 
people are determined to maintain ample retali- 
atory power to deter armed aggression. But we 
must make certain that our people clearly recog- 
nize the danger of the Communist economic drive 
among developing countries — offering the carrot 
and hiding the stick. 

That danger is real, and it is growing. The 
Communists are deterred from military adven- 
ture by the defensive forces we and our partners 
have built. They now seek, through economic 
penetration and subversion, their purposes of 
ceaseless expansion. 

The character of the Soviet economic offensive 
is clear: To the leaders of Communist imperial- 
ism economic relations are merely another way of 
gaining political control over nations that have 
become economically dependent upon the Com- 
munist bloc. 

It is the Communist system — the Communist 
system, rather than things— that the Kremlin is 
determined to export. 

It is the system of economic freedom that the 
Kremlin is determined to destroy. 

If, through utilizing trade and aid, the Com- 
munists can tempt free nations one by one into 
their spider web, they will have paved the way 
for political victory, for world domination. And 
they will have made progress toward their great 
goal of economic encirclement of the United 


Now, though Soviet resources do not by any 
means match our own, yet they are enabled by 
despotic rule to concentrate those resources effec- 
tively for special purposes. By forced investment, 
heavy industrialization, and the repression of 
consumer needs the Soviet bloc is producing on 
a growing scale the goods and capital equipment 
which many of the newer nations must have if 
they are to be increasingly effective allies of the 
United States. 

Now, the Soviet capacity to export is coupled 
by a willingness to import. The Soviets are offer- 
ing to receive raw materials and other products 
which free nations have to sell. Thus the Com- 
munist bloc is becoming an important supplier of 
capital and equipment, especially to the newer 
nations, but its principal export is still Com- 
munist imperialism. 

Now, communism, like all other forms of dicta- 
torship, is a reactionary movement. This we 
know. Yet reaction has more than once in the 
past enjoyed periods of marked success. Can we 
be sure that reactionary communism will not suc- 
ceed in tempting many nations to exchange free- 
dom for glittering — and sometimes realistic — op- 
portunities for material betterment ? 

We cannot at all be sure of this unless we see 
to it that economic freedom is allowed to operate 
effectively, that the benefits of economic advance 
in the free world are diffused and spread to others. 

And this means trade. 

If free and needy nations cannot find room and 
opportunity to trade within the free world, they 
will surely, inexorably turn to trade with the 
Communist world. 

For to live they must trade. It's as simple as 

Proposals for Extending Program 

This brings us directly to the proposals for the 
extension of the reciprocal trade progi-am. This 
program was inaugurated by a great American, 
Cordell Hull, almost a quarter of a century ago. 
It has been extended and strengthened no less than 
10 times. It has become a prime impetus to eco- 
nomic cooperation and to flourishing world trade. 
It strengthens freedom as against despotism. 

To move forward along the road on which we 
have thus far advanced, I have recommended to 
the Congress a 5-year extension of the Trade 

Agreements Act.^ I have requested authority to 
negotiate reductions in tariff's, on the basis of the 
"peril point" procedure, by 5 percent of existing 
rates a year, during this 5-year interval. I have 
further recommended strengthening the "escape 
clause" and "peril point" procedures to recognize 
more fully and promptly the need for relief in 
cases where injury to a domestic industry due to 
trade concessions is established under the law. 

Now, this program has been attacked as both 
too little and too much, depending on the side of 
the arginnent any individual has taken. But this 
fact may suggest that it is about right. 

In my opinion the authority requested in the 
bills introduced by Eepresentatives Mills and 
Kean,^ embodying these proposals, is necessary 
to the continued success of the program. So, too, 
is the 5-year extension period essential to the con- 
tinuity and stability of our trade relations. 

There is a mistaken belief spread among some 
people that the 5-year proposal was merely intro- 
duced as a bargaining position. I should like to 
set the record straight. It is a proposal dictated 
by the facts. 

Among these facts the greatest is a special one : 
A great Common Market is now being formed by 
six nations of Western Europe. The^e countri&s 
will in due course eliminate all barriers to trade 
among themselves and act toward all the rest of 
the world as a single economy. That means a com- 
mon tariff applying to imports from the rest of 
the world, including the United States. It is ex- 
pected that important steps toward this common 
tariff will become effective during 1962 — up to 41/^ 
years from the renewal date of our reciprocal 
trade legislation this summer. If we are to serve 
the interests of American buyere and sellers, the 
President must have from the Congress adequate 
authority and given a sufficient time to prepare 
and conduct negotiations with the Common 
Market authorities. I can conceive of no other 
single fact so important as this as a reason for ex- 
tending the act for 5 years. In the national in- 
terest this timetable dictates a minimum extension 
of the law for this period. 

The good of America will not be served by just 
any kind of extension bill. It must be a good bill. 

For text of the President's message recommending 
extension of the Trade Agreements Act, see Bdxletin of 
Feb. 17, 19.58, p. 263. 
' H. R. 10368 and 10369. 

Department of Stale Bulletin 

It must be an effective bill. Such a bill is before 
the Congress. 

Now, the issue before the Congress and the 
American people in this spring of 1958 is a mo- 
mentous one: Will we through apathy or igno- 
rance see our trade program killed outright or 
gutted by amendments? Will we weaken our- 
selves by returning to the law of the jungle in 
trade relations between nations ? 

Or will the program be extended and 
strengthened ? 

The choice is clear. 

I repeat : This program is good for America. 

It is good for America on straight XDOcketbook 
grounds. It is good today because it will help 
protect millions of jobs. It is good tomorrow be- 
cause more trade means more jobs. 

It is good for America, too, because it helps 
build the road to peace. 

Finally, this program is vital to our national se- 
curity. Eeti-eat on this program would make dan- 
gerously difficult the holding together of our 
alliances and our collective-security arrangements. 

Less trade means more trouble. 

We cannot find safety in economic isolationism 
at a time when the world is shrinking. For us to 
cower behind new trade walls of our own building 
would be to abandon a great destiny to those 
less blind to the events and tides now surging in 
the affaii-s of men. 

America will not choose that road, for it is a 
downward-leading road to a diminishing Amer- 
ica — isolated, encircled, and at bay in a world 
made over in the image of an alien philosophy. 

Rather, America will move forward strongly 
along the clear road to greater strength at home, 
expanding trade with other free nations, greater 
security and opportunity in a friendlier world for 
this and for succeeding generations. 

This is a great and continuing mission in which 
you and I and every American can have a part. 
I am proud that we can do so, because I believe 
in doing so we will be, in some partial way, worthy 
of the great traditions that have been given to us 
by our Founding Fathers and those who have fol- 
lowed them. We can serve this great nation to- 
day by keeping our country firmly on its chosen 
course of fostering lifegiving trade among the 
nations. And on that same course we shall move 
ever nearer to permanent security and to an endur- 
ing peace with right and with justice for all. 

April 14, 7958 


Press release 15G dated March 27 

I am glad to discuss with you the Reciprocal 
Trade Agreements Act. Its extension is, I believe, 
essential to our national security. For the act 
symbolizes throughout the woi-ld the pi-inciple that 
it is better for peoples to work together than for 
each to try to be self-sufficient. That principle of 
interdependence is the cornerstone of free-world 

Cooperation To Deter Aggression 

The United States is today confronted witli a 
possibility of physical assault heretofore unknown. 
Hydrogen bombs, with an explosive power suffi- 
cient to destroy whole populations, can be delivered 
across ocean-spanning distances within a matter 
of hours, if not minutes. American communities 
are now subject to major devastation from weap- 
ons launched from foreign soil. 

How is this danger to be held in check and peace 
maintained? It is by having such power to re- 
taliate against armed aggression that such aggres- 
sion obviously would not pay. But today power 
to retaliate is not adequate unless it is dispersed. 
If our retaliatory power were located only in the 
United States, it would not be a dependable deter- 
rent for it might be largely obliterated by a sudden 
blow. It takes cooperation all around the world 
to assure that Soviet armed aggression will b/e 

We have that kind of cooperation today. But 
military cooperation cannot be isolated from eco- 
nomic cooperation. The United States is at once 
the largest consumer and the largest producer of 
the goods that enter into the markets of the free 
world. The flow of trade across our borders is 
not only important to us ; it is the very lifeblood 
of the economies of our partners and allies. With- 
out it they cannot live or prosper. 

If we seem to ignore that fact or to be indifferent 
to its implications, we cannot expect the conse- 
quences to be purely economic. The consequences 
would be political and military and would dis- 
rupt the relationships upon which our national 
security depends. 

Political-Economic Threat 

To the physical danger of armed attack there 
l>as now been added another, and probably more 


imminent, danger. That is the danger created 
by the new political-economic offensives of inter- 
national communism. They seek to subvert one 
country after another until finally the United 
States is isolated and its economy so depressed 
that, to use Mr. Stalin's words of 1924, the United 
States "will consider it expedient 'voluntarily' to 
make substantial concessions to the proletariat." 
The Soviet rulers have been rapidly industrial- 
izing their country by forced draft methods which 
impose severe austerity on most of the Russian 
people. Today the Soviet Union and such an 
industrialized satellite as Czechoslovakia can 
supply the rest of the world with manufactured 
goods in increasing quantity and variety, import- 
ing in return the agricultural and mineral prod- 
ucts which many of the free nations have to sell. 
The glowing Soviet prospectus of assured markets 
and low interest rate credits attracts many nations 
toward a relationship which would give the Soviet 
Union at first economic and then political domi- 
nance. This attraction to the Soviet system will 
become irresistible if the United States does not 
afford a reasonable trade alternative. 

"A Noble Strategy of Victory" 

Some elements of United States industry seek 
to improve their competitive position by implying 
that any competition from abroad, merely because 
it is "foreign," should on that account be de- 
barred. We cannot accept that viewpoint with- 
out endangering our whole nation. There are, of 
course, cases where foreign competition should be 
restrained, and is restrained, by protective action. 
But a general disposition to exclude foreign goods 
whenever they are competitive would gravely dis- 
rupt economic, political, and spiritual relation- 
ships which are required for our own welfare and 
for the defense of our peace and freedom. 

It is neither un-American nor unpatriotic to 
have national policies designed to assure a con- 
genial and friendly world environment. Since 
our earliest days it has been, and now is, accepted 
United States doctrine that our own peace and 
security interlock with conditions elsewliere. We 
have, when needed, paid a great price in blood 
and treasure to prevent other lands from falling 
under the control of hostile despotisms. 

The United States has, by treaties or joint con- 
gressional resolutions, proclaimed, as regards 
nearly 50 nations, that the peace and security of 

the United States would be endangered if these 
other nations were to fall into the clutches of Com- 
munist imperialism. But the Communists are not 
going to keep "hands off" merely because of bold 
treaty words or resounding congressional procla- 
mations. The Russian and Chinese Commimists 
are tough. Our words will command respect only 
if we are seen to be ready to back them up. 

If we are to avoid the grim alternatives of 
war or surrender, we must have the national 
policies and actions represented by our mutual 
security progi-am and by the Trade Agreements 
Act. With these measures, the United States and 
its allies can peacefully win the cold war. Presi- 
dent Eisenhower said last December in Paris: 
"There is a noble strategy of victory — not victory 
over any peoples but victory for all peoples." ' 

However, this result will not be achieved unless 
the free-world nations stand firm on the policies 
that create a unity which nullifies both the mili- 
tary and the political-economic threats which now 
stem from Communist imperialism. 

The imperialist leaders have, or believe they 
have, one asset on their side — that is the tendency 
of the democracies to get tired and not to be willing 
to persist in the efforts that are required to sustain 
free- world unity and strength. If that unity ever 
collapses, then the Communists could feel that vic- 
tory was within their grasp. The essential is that 
we hold fast to policies which have demonstrated 
their worth and which, if persisted in, will assure 
that the ultimate victory will not be that of the 
despots but of the people. 

Four Illustrations 

To illustrate my point, let us consider our trade 
relations with four key countries within the free 
world — to the north, south, east, and west. 

To the north lies Canada, with which we are 
inescapably interdependent for the defense of the 
continent. Two-thirds of Canada's foreign trade 
is with the United States. Last year Canada 
bought almost $4 billion of American goods and 
sold to us almost $3 billion of goods. If the peo- 
ple and Government of Canada were to come to 
believe that it is our policy to make this trade bal- 
ance still more adverse to them, that would inevi- 
tably and adversely affect our joint defense of 
North America. 

' Bulletin of Jan. 6, 1958, p. 3. 


To the south there is Venezuela, with its supplies 
of petroleum. Venezuelan oil helped to win 
World War II. It sustained our efforts in the 
Korean war. Venezuela imported from the 
United States about a billion dollare' worth of 
goods in 1957. We imported from Venezuela some 
$900 million worth. Surely the national security 
would not be served if we were to give Venezuelans 
the impression that we intend drastically to reduce 
our purchases from them. 

In Europe I take the United Kingdom as an 
example. The British are our partners in NATO 
and in SEATO. We are joined with them in vital 
and varied cooperation throughout much of the 
world. The United Kingdom cannot live without 
large jiarticipation in international trade. If the 
United States were to set off a chain reaction, in 
terms of trade restrictions, the effect would be little 
short of disastrous — on them and on us. 

In the Far East there is Japan, an industrial na- 
tion of 90 million people compressed into a natu- 
rally poor area the size of California. Japan, too, 
must live by exchanging manufactured products 
for raw materials and foodstuffs. The Commu- 
nists strive to bring Japan's industrial power, the 
only such power in the Far East, within their own 
orbit of control. The Japanese have steadfastly 
refused to be drawn into this subservience. But 
we must help Japan meet its great need for a broad 
market, primarily within the free world, which 
will allow her to satisfy the economic wants of her 
people. In 1957 we sold Japan about $1.25 billion 
of goods and bought from her some $600 million. 
Surely it is clear that excessive restrictions against 
the trade of Japan could create in Japan condi- 
tions dangerous to our own security. 

Trade and National Security 

In the modern world it is not possible to con- 
sider trade apart from the whole complex of our 
international relations and our national security in 
a world that is fraught with danger. When we 
speak of the future of our trade agreements legis- 
lation, we are speaking of an instrument which is 
vital to the whole of our foreign relations. It is 
an instrument needed to prevent a "hot" war and 
to win the "cold" war. 

Surely a system that contributes so much to our 
political and military security, which, through 
"peril point" and "escape" procedures, realistically 

April 14, 7958 

takes account of the needs of our domestic indus- 
try, and which provides our farmers and indus- 
trial workers with vast markets, should be 
effectively continued. The Trade Agreements Act 
stands as a worldwide symbol of enlightened 
statesmanship. Failure to renew and strengthen 
that act as the President has requested would set 
back the clock and endanger our Republic and 
each and every person in it. 

I ask you to recall the period of the early thir- 
ties. It was a time of economic depression here 
at home, and we sought relief by raising our tariffs 
and devaluing our currency without regard to the 
serious impact of our acts upon others who were 
largely dependent on international trade. 

Wliat was the outcome? We did not get the 
domestic relief we expected. And our conduct 
and example seemed to otliers to justify, if not re- 
quire, the practice of "each for himself ; the devil 
take the hindmost." 

Nations like Germany and Japan fell under ex- 
treme nationalistic leadership that professed to 
believe that only by expanding their national do- 
mains at the expense of weaker neighbors could 
they assure their people a well-being no longer 
available by normal methods of peaceful trade. 

Finally, the devil caught up with us all in terms 
of world war. Humanity paid, in rivers of blood 
and moimtains of gold, for its follies. 

May we be spared the folly that would repeat 
that tragic past. 


Press release 153 dated March 27 

I have been asked to discuss two closely related 
subjects, first, the Soviet economic offensive and, 
second, the European Common Market. I think 
it will simplify matters if I discuss these topics 
separately, relating each to the reciprocal trade 
agreements program as I go along. 

Soviet Economic Offensive 

Let's begm with the economic offensive which 
the Soviet Union has launched. Today the main 
threat to the peace, security, and welfare of the 
American people is the threat of international 
communism. The threat has two barrels — both 

The first barrel is the military threat. We are 
all pretty well aware of Soviet military strength. 


We know that the Soviet bloc has at its 
the largest peacetime army in history. We know 
that the Soviet Union is maintaining a submarine 
fleet three times larger than ours. We know that 
the submarine fleet and the army are backed up 
by tactical and intermediate missiles with nuclear 
warheads. We know that the Soviet Union is 
racing to perfect an intercontinental ballistic 

But, in spite of all of this, I believe that the 
other barrel of this loaded gim is a greater threat 
to the security of the United States and the free 
world. I am talking about the Soviet economic 
offensive. This ofl'ensive is a new technique to 
gain domination of the world. 

Back in 1924 Lenin said: "First we will take 
Eastern Europe, next the masses of Asia, and 
finally we will encircle the last bastion of capi- 
talism — the United States. We shall not have to 
attack it ; it will fall like overripe fruit into our 

The Soviet Union has never changed its ad- 
mitted goal of world rule. 

The Soviet economic offensive coincided with 
tlie death of Stalin. The bluster, bullying, and 
bullets of the Stalin era have been put in a skele- 
ton closet. "Sweetness and light" is the new 
policy. The Soviet Union is now speaking softly 
and professing friendship. They want to be 
brothers with the less developed nations, particu- 
larly those which are strategically located. 

Let no one take lightly this new technique of try- 
ing to win countries by subversion and economic 
penetration instead of armed aggression. The 
Soviets are entering this economic cold war with 
the same drive and determination that they showed 
in forcing the countries of Eastern Europe be- 
liind the Iron Curtain. 

Starting from zero in 1954, Soviet-bloc economic 
assistance to the less developed nations had risen to 
$1.6 billion by the end of 1957. The package deal 
which the Soviet offers contains long-term loans at 
low interest rates. Almost without exception the 
development projects require Soviet-bloc indus- 
trial equipment and many Soviet-bloc technicians 
to help move the country in the general direction of 
the Soviet orbit. The loan provisions usually per- 
mit repayment in goods or raw materials which the 
debtor country has available, as an alternative to 
payment in convertible currencies. 


This economic offensive has increased Soviet- 
bloc trade with the less developed nations, both 
imports and exports, from $840 million in 1954 to 
probably double that figure — about $1.7 billion in 
1957; and the number of trade agreements signed 
has leaped from 49 to 147. Soviet-bloc trade with 
the whole of the free world has increased from $3.6 
billion in 1954 to about $6.1 billion in 1957. 

Let me make it clear that this Soviet economic 
offensive is no sudden spurt which we have a right 
to expect will fall off. The industrial growth of 
the Soviet Union is moving along at a pace more 
than twice that of the United States. Their rate 
of industrial growth is 9 or 10 percent a year com- 
pared to America's 4 percent. Five years from 
now Russia's industrial production may well reach 
a figure well over $100 billion. 

There is no secret about how the Soviet Union 
has become a world economic threat. They have 
accomplished it by the simple process of denying 
their own citizens everything but the basic necessi- 
ties of life. Automobiles, washing machines, re- 
frigerators, and television sets are things the aver- 
age Eussian scarcely dreams of possessing. His 
per capita income of $308 a year compared to our 
own of nearly $2,500 a year keeps the Russian's 
nose to the grindstone. The Soviet leaders are 
ruthlessly sacrificing the immediate welfare of 
their people to increase rapidly the physical assets 
of communism. 

Now we in the United States would not be jus- 
tified in viewing with alarm the Soviet economic 
offensive if its real purpose and intention was to 
help the less developed nations. But Khrushchev 
hiuLself has assured us that the Soviet Union is 
not guided by lofty motives or a desire for sound 
economic relations. In 1955 he told a group of 
Congressmen, "We [meaning Soviet Russia] value 
trade least for economic reasons and most for po- 
litical purposes." 

The goals of the Soviet trade offensive are not 
hidden behind the Iron Curtain. They are crystal 
clear. They are: 

To create economic dependence on the Soviet 

To spread Communist economic ideology ; 

To weaken and disrupt economic relations 
among free-world countries ; 

And, finally, to pave the way for ultimate Com- 
munist political domination. 

Deparfment of Sfate Bulletin 

Challenge to Free Enterprise 

The basic question to be answered is: How 
should the United States meet this Soviet economic 
offensive? What steps are in our national inter- 

Should we match barter deal with barter deal? 
Should we alter our concept of the interdependence 
of nations? Is free-enterprise buying and selling 
obsolete in international trade ? 

Tlie answer is clearly "No." The economic cold 
war that we are engaged in is not a battle for any 
given market or for the products of a particular 
country. We are in a war that pits the competi- 
tive free-enterprise system against Soviet statism. 
The fundamental concept of the role of govern- 
ment in society is at stake. 

The reciprocal trade program is much more 
than just a symbol of international cooperation 
among the nations of the free world. It is the 
cutting edge of the sword in this world economic 

Under the reciprocal trade program America's 
exports in 1957 rose to another all-time high. The 
figure was $19 billion. Face to face with that 
figure can anyone deny the importance of foreign 
trade to the United States ? 

But, in spite of that figure and in spite of the 
fact that we are the world's largest trading nation, 
trade is more important to many other nations 
than to us. Exports account for 16 percent of 
the total economic output of the United Kingdom, 
for instance. For Belgium and some other free- 
world countries exports are even more important. 
In the less developed nations the ability to export 
raw materials and foodstuffs to the markets of the 
free M'orld is the chief means by which they can 
got machinery and equipment. These newly de- 
veloping nations need these tools to beat back 
poverty, disease, and ignorance. 

The stakes were never higher. If the leaders 
of these young nations cannot satisfy the aspira- 
tions of tlieir peoples through trade with the free 
world, they will be forced to trade with the Soviet 
bloc. If we fail to extend our reciprocal trade 
agreements program, we will serve notice on the 
world that we lack confidence in ourselves and in 
our future. There is no lack of confidence in the 
Soviet camp. If we surrender the offensive to the 
Soviet bloc, it is not likely that they will give us 
an opportunity again to grab the ball and run 
with it. 

April 14, 1958 

Yesterday morning Secretary Dulles received a 
letter signed by 11 of our ambassadors stationed 
in the Far East. I would like to read to you 
some excerpts from this letter : 

We wish to express unanimous agreement that a serious 
threat to the position of the free world in the Far East 
lies in the subversive capabilities of the Communist move- 
ment. These capabilities feed upon poverty and despair, 
and we are witnessing in Asia the intensive and increas- 
ing efforts of the Sino-Soviet bloc at economic penetra- 
tion and subversion through loans at liberal terms, allur- 
ing promises of trade, and the ready willingness to supply 
Communist technicians to assist the less developed coun- 
tries with their economic problems. . . . We believe the 
extension of the Trade Agreements Act is ... of the ut- 
most importance. ... all of the countries in the region 
need to trade for their livelihood and for their further 
economic development. Most of them are heavily de- 
pendent upon trade with the United States, directly or 
indirectly. The United States is the largest exporter as 
well as the largest imiwrter in the world. It follows that 
the kind of trade policy followed by the United States will 
be a major determinant as to whether the free countries 
of the Far East will be able to achieve the level of eco- 
nomic development and human welfare prerequisite to 
durable political stability under free government in the 
region. . . . Without the instruments of foreign aid and 
trade, we shall be to a great extent defenseless in the eco- 
nomic warfare that has been declared against the people 
of the United States and the free world. 

We are confronted, then, with a dangerous and 
powerful economic offensive by the Soviet Union 
aimed at breaking up trading relationships among 
the free nations as a means of furthering the ob- 
jective of world domination by international 
communism. The issue is whether the nations 
of the free world will meet the Soviet trade threat 
in the only way it can be met. Will they, in other 
words, now move to strengthen the free-world 
trading community by further action to reduce 
the barriers which still impede the flow of goods 
among themselves ? 

Formation of European Common Market 

The answer to this question hangs in the bal- 
ance on both sid&s of the Atlantic — in the Euro- 
pean Economic Community, wliere a great new 
Common Market is being formed, and in the 
United States, where our Congress is debating 
the future of the trade agreements program. The 
decisions which we will make, and those which 
our European friends will make, are directly re- 
lated to each other. 

Let me explain. 


A year ago last Tuesday six nations of West- 
ern Europe — France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, 
the Netherlands, and Luxembourg— signed at 
Rome a treaty to merge their separate economic 
systems into one. That treaty has now been rati- 
fied by all of the legislatures of the six govern- 
ments, so that it is a binding commitment on their 

The Eome Treaty is not a mere statement of 
good intentions. It is an explicit document which 
sets forth precisely and in detail the steps that 
will be taken to create a fully integrated European 
Economic Community. We may be sure, there- 
fore, that this is no paper plan but a genuine 
undertaking to achieve the economic unity of the 
six member nations. 

In the field of tariffs and trade the European 
Economic Community will constitute a Common 
Market. There will be complete free trade within 
the Common Market, and a single uniform tariff 
will be applied to imports into the Common Mar- 
ket from the United States and other countries. 
In short, six nations will become as one nation so 
far as tariffs and trade are concerned. 

This truly revolutionary movement will not be 
completed all at once. Some 12 or 15 years will 
be required to transform the six countries into a 
single trading entity. But the process will begin 
soon. The next 4 or 5 years will be the formative 
years of the European Economic Community. 
It will be during these formative years that key 
decisions will be made affecting the future tariff 
and trade policy of a new trading nation on the 
world economic scene. 

The importance of the Common Market to the 
trade of the free world can hardly be exaggerated. 
The European Economic Community will combine 
nations now having a total population of some 
160 million people — among the most skilled, in- 
telligent, and hard-working people the world pos- 
sesses. These nations have a gross national prod- 
uct of over $140 billion. They are, moreover, 
great world trading nations, much more so in re- 
lation to their economic activity than is the United 
States. In 1957 the six countries together im- 
ported $14 billions of goods from the rest of the 
world, excluding their imports from each other. 
This was more than $1 billion larger than the 
total import trade of the United States in that 

We have been used to thinking of the United 
States as the most important of the world trad- 


ing nations. And so we are, as of today. We must 
now begin to realize, however, that with the forma- 
tion of the European Economic Community there 
will be a second great market whose influence on 
the currents of trade within the free world will 
compare with, and perhaps even exceed, our own. 

Importance of U.S.-Common Market Cooperation 

What is the meaning of these facts and statis- 
tics? Their meaning, surely, is this: If free- 
world trade is to be nourished and made to flow 
more freely, the United States and the European 
Economic Community must join hands to bring 
about that result. 

Now, the European Common Market holds great 
promise for the long-term development of world 
trade. Internal free trade within the six coun- 
tries, and the stimulus to productivity v.'hich in- 
tensified competition will bring, will create a 
strong upsurge in the production and income of 
the members of the European Economic Com- 
mmiity. And out of this will grow a greater 
capacity to import and to export. That is one 
of the reasons why the United States, since the 
early days of the Marshall plan, has consistently 
supported the goal of European economic 

Yet there are two important conditions which 
must be met if these beneficial results are to be 

One is that the tariff and trade policy of the 
Common Market should not be restrictive but 
should be directed to the lowering of world trade 
barriers in general. The other is that during the 
formative period of the Common Market the 
Common Market tariff' should be made as low as 
possible in order to ease the trade adjustments for 
other countries, including the United States, that 
will inevitably take place as industries located 
within the Common Market gain an increasing 
tariff advantage over imports from the outside. 

The members of the European Economic 
Community have declared themselves willing to 
do their part. 

First, they have agreed to adhere to the rules 
of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
which require that the Common Market tariff 
may not be higher or more restrictive, on tht 
whole, than the separate national tariff's previ- 
ously in effect. 

This is a valuable safeguard which prevents the 
Common Market tariff from moving up\varcl. It 
does nothing, however, to bring the Common 
Market tariff down, and that is what is now 
needed in the interests of the trade of the free 
world as a whole. Reductions in the Common 
Market tariff can be accomplished only through 
further reciprocal tariff negotiations between the 
members of the European Economic Community, 
the United States, and the other members of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. 

On this point the members of the European 
Economic Community have also given evidence 
of their willingness to cooperate. In article 18 
of the Rome Treaty they have stated that : 

Member States hereby declare their willingness to con- 
tribute to the development of international commerce 
and the reduction of barriers to trade by entering into 
reciprocal and mutually advantageous arrangements di- 
rected to the reduction of customs duties below the 
general level which they could claim as a result of the 
establishment of a customs union between themselves. 

And so we come back across the Atlantic to the 
reciprocal trade agreements legislation now before 
the Congress of the United States. For, if Con- 
approves the proposal of President Eisen- 
hower for a 5-year extension of the Trade Agree- 
ments Act, we will have the authority we need to 
negotiate with the Common Market during its 
formative years, thereby advancing the economic 
interests of the United States and of the rest of the 
world. I would like to emphasize that the usual 
3-year extension of the trade agreements legisla- 
tion will not be enough for this purpose. The 
timetable for formulating and implementing the 

?'™ Common Market tariff is such that, if the Trade 
Agreements Act were extended for only 3 years, 
it would expire before our negotiations with the 
Common Market countries could be completed. 

If the Trade Agreements Act is not extended for 
the necessary period, or with adequate authority 
to offer meaningful tariff concessions, we shall be 


condemned to a policy of standstill and drift. We 
shall have missed our main chance to move forward 
confidently and surely in strengthening the trading 
system of the free nations in the face of the eco- 
nomic challenge hurled at us by international 

The importance of the trade agreements pro- 
gram to our vital national interests is very great. 
Failure to extend the Trade Agreements Act as the 
President has proposed could be one of the most 
costly failures in our history. 

U.S. Nuclear Tests To Demonstrate 
Reduction in Radioactive Fallout 

Statement hy President Elsenhoioer 

White House press release dated March 26 

In line with what I said to the press on July 3, 
1957, the United States will demonstrate the 
progress our scientists are achieving in reducing 
radioactive fallout from nuclear explosions. 

To this end, for the first time at any test, we 
are planning to invite the United Nations to select 
a group of qualified scientific observers to witness 
at the Pacific Proving Groimd this summer a 
large nuclear explosion in which radioactive fall- 
out will be drastically reduced. 

"\Ye will also invite, as we have on occasions 
in the past, a representative group of United 
States and foreign news-media correspondents. 

The United States scientists have been making 
progress in reducing radioactive fallout from nu- 
clear explosions in the hope and belief that basic 
advances in both the peaceful and military uses 
of nuclear energy will thus be achieved. The 
advantages to mankind of continued progress in 
this field are obvious. 

The United States has always publicly an- 
nounced in advance its nuclear testing progi'ams. 
We trust that the forthcoming tests will provide 
valuable information to the world. 

,l,jli,Apri7 M, 1958 


Secretary Dulles' News Conference of March 25 

Press release 150 dated March 25 

Secretary Dulles: Questions, please? 

Q. Mr. Secretary, when you read the exchange 
of notes on the subject of a swrwiit conference 
over the last week or so, ifs difficult to find any- 
thing particularly new in this whole situation. 
How do you estimate %uhere we now stmtd on the 
frohl^m of a sumvmit conference? 

A. It has not yet been possible for me to study 
thoroughly and in detail the Soviet note, which I 
only received last night. But it does seem as 
though the Soviets were seeking to exact a ter- 
ribly higli political price as a condition to having 
a summit meeting. Now, as you know, President 
Eisenhower has made perfectly clear that he wants 
to have a summit meeting if there is any reason- 
able chance of reaching substantial agreements 
which will ease the international situation and 
make peace more likely. But it's more and more 
apparent, and has been revealed, I think, by this 
exchange of correspondence, that the Soviets are 
demanding a very high political jirice as a condi- 
tion to having such a meeting, and tlie question is 
whether there is enough hope out of such a meet- 
ing to justify paying the jjolitical price which the 
Soviets seem to be exacting. 

I have jotted down here, quite hurriedly, some 
of the price tags that they seem to be putting on 
it, and I would like to read tliose to you, if I may, 
to illustrate my points : ' 

1. The equating of certain Eastern European 
governments, such as Czechoslovakia and Ku- 
mania, with such Western governments as the 
United Kingdom, France, and Italy ; 

2. Acceptance of the legitimacy of the East 
German puppet regime and acquiescence in the 
continued division of Germany ; 

' The following five paragraphs were also released sep- 
arately as press release 149 dated Mar. 25. 


3. Ending the agreed joint responsibility of 
the four former occupying powers of Germany for 
the reunification of Germany, a responsibility that 
was reaffirmed at Geneva in 1955 ; 

4. Acceptance of the Soviet claim for numerical 
"parity" in bodies dealing with matters, such as 
disax-mament, within tlie competence of the United 
Nations General Assembly — a "parity" wliich, if 
conceded, would give the Soviets a veto power in 
many functions of the General Assembly, enabling 
them to evade the will of tlie great majority and 
thus further to weaken the United Nations by, in 
important respects, importing into the General 
Assembly the same weaknesses that have crippled 
the Security Council ; 

5. The acceptance of an agenda so formulated 
that virtually every item^ — 9 out of 11 — implies 
acceptance of a basic Soviet thesis that the West- 
ern powers reject. 

Now in making clear this price tag, I do not 
want to imply that I think that there will not be a 
summit conference. 

Q. Could we explore that a little further, Mr. 
Secretary? You and the President, as you have 
already indicated, have taken a firm and con- 
sistent line that there should not ie a sumtnit 
conference without, as you put it, meaningful 
preparation. Regardless of the height of these 
prices — the price tags that you have just enu- 
merated — the Soviets, if we can believe what we 
read, seem to have been making a good deal of 
progress in enlisting support in the neutrals and 
even among our allies for a summit meeting Tnore 
or less on their terms. Is the administration pre- 
pared to go on with its position indefinitely, or is 
there a danger tJiat you might have to cave in and 
accept some kind of a compromise arrangement 
for a summit conference that you do not now 

A.. I do not think there is any prospect of wluxt 
you refer to as a "cave-in." On the other hand, in 
36 matters there is always a field for legitimate 
give-and-take. Nobody should just lay down an 
ultimatum. And if the Soviets have laid down an 
ultimatum, then I think that the situation looks 
very dark indeed. I think it's fair still to assume 
that they are negotiating and that many of these 
things they talk about are negotiable. To explore 
that is the function of this i^reparatory work. We 
don't intend to take this last note as necessarily 
the last word. If it is the last word, then — I was 
going to say, "It is the last word." (Laughter) 

Q. Mr. Secretary, home there been through 
rivate diplomatic channels, such as the respective 
anibassadors, any indications of any loilUngness to 
negotiate? You say you think they are negotiable, 
'but the terms you list do not appear to indicate 

A. There have been no informal talks with the 
ambassadors on this matter. But in answering 
that question I don't want to set a precedent to in- 
dicate that I would always answer it. The great- 
hope m situations like this lies occasionally 
in having some talks which are not publicized and 
which may indicate a ground for hope that would 
disappear if it were exposed at an early and in- 
fantile condition to the harsh rays of the sun. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, could you tell us, sir, whether 
the Soviet conditions for a summit conference, as 
they noio stand, do constitute turning a su?nmit 
meeting into a ^^spectacle"? 

A. I would say that, if those terms were ac- 
;epted, it would turn the summit meeting into 
something much worse than a "spectacle." It 
would mean that on the way to the summit we 
ivoidd have lost our shirt. Perhaps that would 
•esult in a "spectacle." (Laughter) 

I Q. Mr. Secretary, Lester Pearson of Canada 
J has suggested that the NATO countries should 
,^ lecide among themselves on a firm pattern for 
, 'bargaining with the Soviet Union and let the 
., United States do the talking for them if there 
j thould be a summit conference. How do you feel 
,, ibout that idea? 

if, A. That would be primarily up to the allied 
countries to decide. It would be putting a very 

lin 4pri7 J 4, 7958 

heavy responsibility on the United States and 
one that we, I think, would be reluctant to assume, 
although in advance of the event I wonld not want 
to slam the door to .such a possibility. 

Agenda for Summit Meeting 

Q. Mr. Secretary, in the note from the Soviet 
Govei'nment of yesterday, they referred to the 
possibility of discussing a German peace treaty 
and also a pact between the Warsaw powers and 
the NATO powers. Now, as agenda items, do those 
two points not open the whole question of the re- 
unification of Germany and, also, the position of 
Eastern Europe, which you want to discuss? 

A. I would feel rather that they t«nd pretty 
much to close the door to the kind of thing that 
we want to discuss. The Soviet, at least, would 
interpret such an agenda item as luniting the dis- 
cussion to the particular matters ; namely, a peace 
treaty involving both Germanics and equating 
of the Warsaw Pact with the NATO group. I 
would be extremely concerned to see the agenda 
accepted in that form without at least making 
clear that we interpret the agenda as opening up 
the possibility of discussing these other items. 
You will recall that at the last summit conference 
at Geneva there was a very prolonged and rather 
sharp exchange of views at the restricted meet- 
ing with respect to the label and title to be given 
to these topics. And finally we compromised 
upon a title that was called "European Security 
and Germany," and that, we felt, was broad enough 
to open up the kind of subjects that you refer to." 

If we now accepted a narrowing of that agenda 
item, as the Soviets propose, certainly they would 
argue that we had agreed to forgo at this time any 
discussion of the reunification of Germany. In- 
deed, they are quite categorical, and have been 
in the whole series of notes that they have put out, 
that they do not consider that the reunification 
of Germany is discussable. If we accept such an 
agenda item with their interpretation on it, I 
would think that — while, of course, nobody is 
there physically to prevent the heads of Western 
governments from uttering words, and we could 
probably use those words "reunification of Ger- 

Por text of the Directive to Foreign Ministers, see 
Bulletin of Aug. 1, 1955, p. 176. 

many" — I am quite sure it would be contended 
on the other side that the terms of the conference 
have implicitly, or, indeed, explicitly, excluded 

Q. Mr. Secretary, your Manila press conference 
remarks gave the impression that you felt that 
one possibility for negotiation was in the disarma- 
ment field and that you might he prepared to 
discuss that as a single agenda ite^n, assuming the 
deadlock on the other items continues. Is that a 
correct impr'ession? 

And, secondly, on the question of outer space, 
lohich was initially advanced here — the control of 
outer space — are we prepared to have a U.N. 
agency control this, and are we prepared to put 
exploration of outer space under such a U.N. 
agency, with or without Soviet participation? 

A. Your first question calls for this answer: 
that it is not a correct interpretation of what I 
said at Manila that we would accept a summit 
conference with only one item on the agenda, 
that is, disarmament. We would feel that it would 
be quite important to resume the discussion of 
some of the — or, indeed, all of the items that 
constituted the last agenda at the summit meeting, 
and that, as I put it, to bury those items of the 
first summit meeting in a second summit meeting 
would be a very undesirable procedure. 

Now on the second question, about the control 
of outer space by the United Nations, you may 
recall that at my talk, and in answer to questions, 
at the Press Club here in "Washington, I advo- 
cated the control of outer space by an organiza- 
tion under, and created by, and responsible to, the 
United Nations.' 

Q. Mr. Secretary, a few questions hack you said 
that you felt thnt the Soviet position on the 
agenda was negotiahle. Is it your position that 
the agenda as you have now described it is also 

A. I indicated that all of these matters are, I 
think, subject to negotiation and that I was not 
in the position on behalf of the United States of 
laying down any ultimatum. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, could you tell us if our view 
will continue to be that lower-level discussions 
which make progress in easing some of the exist- 
ing disputes are indispensable in order to deter- 

mine whether a surrmiit conference will be worth 

A. We believe that preparatory talks through 
ambassadors and/or foreign ministers are an in- 
dispensable prerequisite to a summit meeting. I 
do not see how otherwise it is possible to meet the 
test which the Soviets themselves laid down, 
namely, that any new summit meeting should 
deal with matters which seemed to be susceptible 
of solution. In our aide memoire * we asked the 
Soviet Government to indicate the matters which 
they thought were susceptible of solution in the 
light of the known position of the United States 
and other allied powers. There was no particular 
response to that. They say — I think there is a 
statement there — that they regret that the United 
States has not made clear its position on some 
of these matters. One would think that they had 
not read the letters which President Eisenhower 
wrote to President Bulganin, which do make clear 
our position on these matters. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, would the United States ac- 
cept an agenda item using the same language as 
the previous summit meeting on European se- 
curity and Germany, and is it correct that it is 
^'■Germany'''' or '■''German reunification"? 

A. The label on the item was "European Se- 
curity and Germany." Under that label there 
appeared a rather full discussion of German re- 
unification. So it is quite apparent that that 
label carries with it the concept of German re- 
unification. Also, that is made clear in the pre- 
ceding sentence, the prelude which leads up to 
that, where the powers, it is said, recognize the 
close link between European security and the re- 
unification of Germany. 

Q. Would toe accept such an item for the agenda, 

A. I don't want to be absolutely categorical 
about any of these matters. I think that, when 
I have said that we thought that a second summit 
meeting should begin where the last one left off, it 
is fairly clear what our view is. But these matters 
are all subject to discussion with our allies. There 
is another meeting of the NATO Council on this 
general subject, I believe, tomorrow. I don't like 
to take unilaterally positions which ought in the 
first instance to be discussed with our allies. 

' lUd., Feb. 3, 1958, p. 159. 

' For text, see ibid.. Mar. 24, 1958, p. 457. 

Department of Stale Bulletin 

hil H 

Q. Mr. Secretain/, xcould you list one or two 
items which you think are the most negotiable? 

A. I would find it difficult to do that, I am 

Q. Mr. Secretary., could you cut through all this 
talk about agenda and explain to us whether you 
would accept the proposition that at the meeting 
in the preliminary phase anybody there could talk 
about anything he wanted to? 

A. At the summit meeting ? 

Q. No, the preliminary meeting. 

A. I think that, if the prelirainaiy meetings are 
exchanges of views through diplomatic channels 
or through meeting of foreign ministers, this 
whole area should be discussed without any prior 

Q. Would you accept that at the suminit itself? 

A. I think that that could not be answered in ad- 
vance. I think much would depend upon what 
came out of those preliminary talks. I think we 
have made quite clear on a number of occasions 
that, if it is apparent that a summit meeting could 
only lead to a sharpening of differences, then it is 
better not to have one. And if, indeed, at a sum- 
mit meeting the talk is going to be in the same tone 
and language of the last Soviet note, then it would 
seem to me to be a great mistake to have a summit 
meeting, because that would not allay tensions but 
only increase them. The tone of the Soviet notes 
has been increasingly harsh, and, if that is to be a 
preview of the summit, you better not have any 
summit. I think it must be made clear through 
preliminary talks that a summit meeting would 
serve a constructive purpose and not a destructive 
purpose; and, if the preliminary talks indicate 
that it would serve a destructive purpose, then it is 
better not to have it. 

Liaison Between NATO and OAS 

Q. Mr. Secretary, at the NATO meeting in De- 
cember you suggested a closer liaison among the 
free-world organizations,^ and since then there has 
been so?n.e correspondence betiveen NATO and the 
Organization of American States — between the 
Secretaries General — which some Latin Ameri- 
cans have termed as rather insipid because they 
merely propose an exchange of information which 
was already available through the libraries of the 

April 14, J 958 

460259—58 3 

tioo organizations, and there has been some com^- 
ment that you seemed to have launched the idea 
and then let it wither away. Are you prepared to 
see it through and develop into something con- 
structive, or are you just going to let it just stand 
on the books? What are your plans? 

A. I think all things start in a modest way and 
that that does not necessarily presage their wither- 
ing away. It depends upon how the idea develops. 
I have always thought and believed that this thing 
would have to start in a rather modest way. We 
have never wanted to try to bring about an organic 
unity of these different organizations. Informal 
contacts between the Secretaries General, for ex- 
ample, where they talk together, would indicate 
whether or not it would be useful to go forward 
and, if so, along what lines. I may say I am en- 
tirely satisfied with the progress that has been 
made to date and with the likelihood that there 
will be a beginning of contacts. 

You say that information has been in the li- 
braries. That is quite true. But it has been in 
the libraries outside of a context of some kind of 
association between the different organizations. 
The fact that this proposal even in its present 
modest form is evoking a great deal of attention 
and even discussion within the different organiza- 
tions shows that there is in it a significance far 
different from the fact that you can go into li- 
braries and read about some of these things. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, if we may climb back to the 
summit for a moment, do you believe that the 
price tag put up by the Soviets as it now stands is 
too high? 

A. I do. 

Q. Do you think that the latest note in effect 
has advanced or reversed prospects of the summit 

A. I think it has not advanced them any, and it 
seems to me to have made it apparent that a con- 
tinuation of this public note-writing is not going 
to advance matters. 


Q. Mr. Secretary, can you tell us what is going 
on out in Indonesia? Our Ambassador seems to 
have a riot on his hands, a sort of student demon- 

■Ibid., Jan. 6, 1958, p. 8. 

A. I understood there were some demonstra- 
tions there. 

Q. They grahled a Danish ship, and the Gov- 
ernment there seems to he intensifying its 
anti- American attitude. These demonstrations 
and riots are certainly not accidental. 

A. I don't think that such demonstrations neces- 
sarily reflect or in fact do reflect any governmental 
impetus. Rioting goes on in quit© a lot of places. 
There were even riots, you remember, in Taipei 
not so long ago, which I am sure did not reflect 
any anti-American feeling on the part of the Gov- 
ernment. It was due to a local incident. I was out 
in Taipei just 2 weeks ago, and certainly there 
was no vestige anywhere whatever of any anti- 
American feeling, I would say, among the people, 
as far as I could judge — certainly not among the 
Government. I wouldn't attach too much impor- 
tance to these student riots. I remember when I 
was a student at the Sorbonne in Paris I used to go 
out and riot occasionally. (Laughter) 

Q. On whose side., sir? 

A. I can't remember now which side it was on. 
That shows how students just like to riot for the 
fun of it. (Laughter) 

Q. Can you tell us something about the sub- 
stance and the purpose of your talks xoith the 
Minister of Economy of Germany, Mr. Erhardf " 

A. We welcomed here the visit of the Deputy 
Chancellor, and we talked veiy largely about eco- 
nomic problems, which is an area in which he is 
particularly familiar and where he is at least 
partly responsible, perhaps largely responsible, for 
policies which have brought about a very re- 
markable economic recovery in postwar Germany. 
There are quite a number of problems relating to 
the Common Market and the Free Trade Area 
which can have potential repercussions upon the 
United States and American business. Those were 
the things which we primarily discussed. 

Middle East 

Q. Mr. Secretary, tliere have been reports of 
some changes in administrative policy within 
Arabia — transfer of certain functions to 

' Ludwig Erhard, Minister of Economics of the Federal 
Republic of Germany, conferred with officials in Washing- 
ton Mar. 2't-26. 


Prince Faisal. Would you give us your appraisal 
of this situation as regards our relationship, or the 
relationship of the Westeim countries, to Saudi 
Arabia? Do you think this indicates any change 
or any imTuinent change in relationships between 
our country and Saudi Arabia? 

A. No. We do not consider that this involves 
any change in relations. It is not easy to evaluate 
what has happened, and there are a number of in- 
terpretations that are put upon it, all of them of a 
speculative character. I think it is to be borne in 
mind that Prince Faisal has in the past been 
Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs. 
He gave up those f mictions because of illness. He 
came to the United States, as you will recall, to 
have medical attention. While here, he met with 
the President and with me. We have no reason 
whatever to believe that he is animated by anti- 
American sentiments. He goes back there to re- 
sume functions wliich he had exercised before his 
illness required him to lay them down. So that, 
as far as that is concerned, what has happened is 
quite a normal development. 

Now, I would add this, that the whole situation 
in the Arab world is in a state of evolution and 
it is not easy to evaluate any event that occurs 
there because the situation is considerably in flux. 
The creation of the United Arab Republic and the 
Federation and matters of that sort all inject new 
elements, new forces, into the situation. And it re- 
quires close observation and attention. But we 
have no reason at the moment to put any unusual 
evaluation upon what has happened in Saudi 

Q. Would you relate this in any way to the 
announcement by the Saud Government at the 
international mantime law meeting that it con- 
siders its waters around Aqaba national rather 
than international? 

A. That has been the position of the Govern- 
ment of Saudi Arabia for a long time. And that 
proposition will be involved, not in terms of spe- 
cifics but in terms of the general propositions that 
are being discussed. As you know, the positioni 
of the United States historically has been, and 
is, that full territorial rights do not extend more 
than 3 miles. There is a strong movement to 
bring about acceptance of a change in that ruk 
of international law. The United States believes 

Department of State Bulletin 

that the 3-mile limit should be sustained and that 
is the position of our delegation at Geneva.^ 

Q. Mr. Secretary, this month it has been a year 
since the public expression of certain hopes and 
expectations that led to the withdrawal of Israeli 
forces from the Gaza Strip and Sharm-el-Sheikh. 
I want to say, can you tell us, in your view, if these 
hopes and expectations with regard to the specific 
issue involved at the time, you are satisfied toith 
what has happened since then? 

A. As far as the issues that were involved at 
the time of the withdrawal of Israeli forces and 
the deployment of United Nations Emergency 
Forces there, the results have fully fulfilled our 
maximum expectations. There has been peace 
and order in the area, and the United Nations 
forces there have played a very useful, indeed 
indispensable, role. I think it is now recognized 
that, while both sides — both Israel and Egypt — 
had great concei-n about that solution in the be- 
ginning and about the principles which we ad- 
vocated very strongly, there is now a realization 
on both sides that our position at that time was 
sound and that events have justified the position 
that we then took. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, can you tell us something at 
this time about Mr. Murphy'' s mission to Paris 
and Tunis; and, second, what is your position re- 
garding the project of the Mediterranean pact 
which has been suggested by Gaillard? 

A. Mr. Murphy and Mr. Beeley of the United 
Kingdom, after having spent some days in Tunis 
in talking with the Tunisian Government and with 
President Bourguiba, have returned to Paris with 
a formulation which has been agreed to by Presi- 
dent Bourguiba and which we think takes con- 
siderable account of the preoccupations of both 
sides on this situation. It has been presented to 
the French Cabinet and is being discussed and 
considered. We do not know yet what the final 

' For a statement made by U.S. Representative Arthur 
H. Dean on Mar. 11 at the D.N. Conference on the Law 
of the Sea at Geneva, Switzerland, see ibiA., Apr. 7, 
19.58, p. .574. 

official reaction of the French Government will 
be. Perhaps that will be forthcoming within a 
matter of hours or days. We hope that it will 
lead to a solution there of the immediate problem, 
although of course the major problems will take 
some time to resolve. 

I want to take this occasion to say that I think 
Deputy Under Secretary Murphy and his British 
colleague have done a very fine job to date. I 
don't know whether their mission will be crowned 
with success or not. But whether or not it is 
crowned with success, they have already dealt with 
many problems that looked as though they were 
totally insoluble and have brought them into a 
compass which at least offers some reasonable 
hope. They have done a superb diplomatic job. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, to follmo up that question, in 
your Manila conference you said that the Western 
Mediterranean defense and economic pact would 
be constructive if the development of that concept 
were in a manner which is compatible with the 
complete independence of all of the countries 
involved. Did you mean to include Algeria with- 
in tliat phrase of ^'■independence of all of the 
countries involved''''? 

A. No. I was speaking of the then independ- 
ent countries and that the Mediterranean pact 
should not in any way impinge upon the existing 
independence of the countries of the area. I think 
I also made reference to the fact that there has to 
be acceptance, within the concept of independence, 
of the concept also of interdependence. As I 
emphasized yesterday in my testimony before the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee,^ the concept 
of interdependence today is vital and anyone who 
pushes the doctrine of independence to such a 
point as to deny the practice of interdependence 
is in fact jeopardizing his own independence. 
But I did not intend by that statement to carry 
any implication, one way or another, about the 
future of Algeria. 

Q. Thank you, sir. 

' See p. 622. 

e)i« ^P"' »4, 1958 


Basic Principles Governing United States Relations With Latin America 

hy Roy R. Rubottom, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary for 1 7\ier- American Affairs ' 

Today I would like to state as simply as possible 
the policy which guides United States relations 
with Latin America. Our Government has con- 
sistently placed the highest priority on maintain- 
ing and further extending our excellent relations 
with this vast neighboring area. This is a bi- 
partisan policy and one which has broad public 
support throughout the United States. It is a 
policy which we strongly adhere to and which 
we keep under continuing study in order that we 
may be prepared to meet whatever exigency arises. 
It is one which has already stood the test of time. 
Yes, and also the vicissitudes of war and economic 

Those of us who are charged with the responsi- 
bility for the conduct of this policy strive to be 
as alert as possible to the political, social, and eco- 
nomic developments to which United States policy 
must respond. Recently there has been more than 
the usual amount of public attention paid to our 
relations with Latin America. This is heartening. 
Early in March the Committee on Foreign Rela- 
tions of the Senate, which is conducting a review 
of United States foreign policy, held open hear- 
ings to discuss our relations with Latin America. 
Governor Munoz Marin of Puerto Rico appeared 
before the committee, and I was also called to 
testify .= Now let me state the policy. 

The United States not only desires, but feels 
the need, to establish the closest and most friendly 
relations with the Latin American peoples and 
their governments. This need arises out of more 

Address made at Tyler Junior College, Tyler, Tex., 
on Mar. 21 (press release 137 dated Mar. 20). 

' For text of Mr. Rubottom's statement, see Bulletin of 
Mar. 31, 1958, p. 518. 

than self-interest. It is a need that springs from 
one and the same root and has been a long time 
growing. It is, in fact, as old as the earliest colo- 
nization of the Western Hemisphere. Sometimes 
we think so much about differences — in language, 
national origin, aspects of religion and customs — 
that we forget the identities. However, one of the 
most striking things about the Americas is how 
much they have in common. There is no other 
group of peoples so numerous, no other area of 
the globe so extensive, of which this could be truth- 
fully said. Here in a world which really was a 
New World for our forefathei-s, a tremendous 
experiment was undertaken with results decisive 
for human history. We began as groups of ex- 
plorers and settlers. We had a period of coloniza- 
tion. We felt the need of independence and won 
it. Because we believed in the dignity and free- 
dom of man, we established constitutional democ- 
racies. And "we" means all of the American 
Republics — the United States and the 20 sister 

In view of this parallel experience, our ma- 
chinery of inter- American cooperation developed 
naturally — indeed, almost inevitably. Wlien we 
speak of the American family of nations, we are 
voicing a fundamental truth. Since it is truth, it 
follows that our own cooperation with the other 
American Republics is based on genuine affec- 
tion for our friends, which we hope is reciprocated. 
This affection applies to each of the 20 countries 
whose considerable differences and distinctive 
characters we fully recognize while, at the same 
time, we greatly treasure, as each of them does, 
our common membership in the Organization of 
American States, which President Eisenhower has 


Department of Stale Bulletin 

called "the most successfully sustained adventure 
in international community living that the world 
has ever seen." 

We hold deeply to the belief that the people of 
the various countries in the hemisphere have the 
right to choose their own political destiny: The 
policy of nonintervention, which we strongly up- 
hold, is one of the cornerstones of the inter- Amer- 
ican system. Our commitment to this policy, how- 
ever, does not lessen our own dedication to democ- 
racy in its real and, I might add, American sense, 
and "we are in a position to feel — and we do feel — 
satisfaction and pleasure when the people of any 
countiy determinedly choose the road of democ- 
racy and freedom.'' ^ Here we should remind our- 
selves of the obligation we have to overcome our 
own shortcomings and improve upon the example 
which we are expected to set. We should also 
recognize that no two governments, any more than 
two individuals, can be exactly alike. Thus we 
should not be surprised when the emerging pat- 
terns of government differ from country to 
country . 

We acknowledge the high stakes for our neigh- 
bors as well as ourselves in maintaining tlue secu- 
rity of this hemisphere. We hope no aggressor 
will ever dare attack the nations of the free world, 
but we cannot rule out this possibility. In addi- 
tion to recognizing the right of each country to 
take the measures necessary for self-defense, all 21 
of the American Republics are joined together 
under the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal 
Assistance, known as the Rio Treaty, which is the 
first of the regional collective-security pacts of the 
free world. Under this treaty each of the Amer- 
ican Republics recognizes that an attack on any 
one constitutes an attack on all and accepts the 
obligation to assist in meeting the attack. 

Economic Interdependence 

In the realm of economic relationships we rec- 
ognize our interdependence with Latin America. 
Our own economic well-being, certainly if it is to 
be lasting, is inextricably intertwined with that of 
Latin America. This mutual well-being is, I am 
glad to say, based primarily on trade. This is a 
proud relationship. More than one-fifth of our 
exports now go to Latin America, a business worth 
approximately $4 billion to the United States in 

' Ibi'l., p. 520. 
April 14, 1958 

1957 and almost as much in 1956. On the other 
hand, almost 50 percent of all of Latin America's 
exports were to the United States last year, the 
total amount being nearly in balance with the 
above $4 billion figure. This is big business, and 
we want to keep it that way ; you can rest assured 
that Latin America feels the same way about it, 
and would like to see those figures increased. 
Right now Latin America is observing closely eco- 
nomic trends in the United States, and with ample 
justification, just as you are. Every Latin Amer- 
ican ambassador in Washington is anxiously 
watching our own efforts to overcome the present 
problem and is praying that we will be successful 
in turning business upward again. 

There has been a severe decline in prices in some 
of the goods sold us by Latin America, notably in 
nonfcrrous metals, although other products have 
been affected. Coffee is Latin America's main con- 
cern, if one considers that 15 countries produce 
coffee and that 6 of these are dependent on that 
product for most of their foreign exchange. How- 
ever, it makes no difference whether the affected 
product is coffee, copper, lead, zinc, tin, or some- 
thing else. ^Vlien prices drop sharply, people in 
every walk of life in the producing countries are 
adversely affected. We can and should be sympa- 
thetic to these serious problems in Latin America, 
just as we know they are to our own problems in 
the United States. It is in our common interest to 
find solutions to these common problems. 

One of our most im.portant tools in finding 
mutually beneficial solutions is the Trade Agree- 
ments Act. With the authority of this act, first 
enacted in 1934, behind us, we can negotiate agree- 
ments to reduce government-imposed barriers to 
trade. Without this authority we would find our- 
selves in an economic jungle in which the only 
remedy for each injury or fancied injury in the 
field of trade would be not negotiation but re- 
taliation. Latin America is watching with tre- 
mendous interest the debate which is now going 
on. The effects of the decision ultimately taken 
by Congress will have far-reaching repercussions 
in our foreign relations, both psychological and 

Private Economic Cooperation 

But obviously our entire economic relationsliip 
is not based on trade alone. United States firms 
have been investing their capital in Latin America 


on a constantly increasing scale. This kind of 
private economic cooperation is helping to speed 
the developnaent of Latin America, just as foreign 
investment, mostly European, participated in the 
growth of our own country. During the last few 
years United States investoi-s have been pouring 
approximately one-half billion dollars per year 
into Latin America, and the total is now more 
than $81/^ billion. Not only have these invest- 
ments been increasing rapidly, but they are going 
into diversified manufacturing and service in- 
dustries as well as the production of vitally 
needed raw materials. A recent study by the De- 
partment of Commerce,* using data compiled 
through 1955, revealed that in that year United 
States companies operating in Latin America paid 
salaries totaling $1 billion to 625,000 employees, 
of whom only 9,000 came from the United States. 
These companies in the same year paid slightly 
more than $1 billion in taxes to the host govern- 
ments in Latin America. Their sales abroad for 
dollars went over the $2-billion mai'k during that 

The United States, of course, believes in private 
enterprise because of its proven success. We also 
know that private investors are willing to com- 
mit large amounts of capital in almost any area 
where conditions promise mutually beneficial re- 
sults ; it is also self-evident that there is a limited 
amomit of public money available. Therefore, 
we have recognized, most recently at the Buenos 
Aires Economic Conference, that the additional 
great sums required for the development of Latin 
America can only be supplied through a com- 
bination of private and public funds. Thus we 
say that, if private capital is available in adequate 
amounts and on reasonable terms for a given 
project, it is our policy now, as it has been for 
years, not to have our public lending agencies 
compete with such capital. This policy is not 
pointed at any given industi-y but applies across 
the board. Notwithstanding our deeply held feel- 
ing regarding private enterprise, we recognize 
the absolute right of any other counti-y to pursue 
whatever means it deems best for developing its 

* U.S. Investments in the Latin American Economy, pub- 
lished by the OflBce of Business Economics, U.S. Depart- 
ment of Commerce, and available from the Superintendent 
of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash- 
ington 25, D. C. ; price $1.75. 

Other Sources of Capital 

In addition to the roles of trade and investment 
in Latin America, the United States acknowledges 
the importance of providing loans to our neigh- 
bors. During the past decade United States di- 
rect loans to Latin America, under the auspices 
of the Export-Import Bank, have amounted to 
more than $2 billion. At the same time additional 
United States public funds have been going to 
Latin America through our participation in the 
World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, 
the technical assistance programs of the United 
Nations and the Organization of American States, 
and through other organizations relying heavily 
upon the United States for financial support. 
But to speak expressly about the direct United 
States cooperation through the Export-Import 
Bank, it is the operating principle of that institu- 
tion that no economically sound development 
project in Latin America shall fail for lack of 
access to capital from other sources to cover its 
dollar needs. Between 1953 and 1957 the banlf 
authorized credits to governments and private 
companies in the amount of $1,354,000,000. Re- 
cent loans have been as little as $50,000 and as 
large as one to Brazil of $100 million for the 
modernization of its railroad system. Every one 
of our sister Eepublics shared in these credits 
during this period, and, I might add, their record 
of repayment is on the whole excellent. 

Anotlier newer source of capital is now provided 
through the sale for local currency of our surplus 
agricultural products. Under Public Law 480, 
adopted by Congress in 1954, the value of loan 
agreements with Latin American countries signed 
through 1957 totaled $222 million and the emer- 
gency grants of surplus agricultural products ag- 
gregated $31 million. An important feature of 
these loans is the provision that enables the pur- 
chasing country to borrow back for its economic 
development a large part of the money paid to the 
United States for the products received. Thus the 
recipient country receives a three-way advantage: 
(1) the surplus products themselves; (2) the dol- 
lar savings, since payments can be made in their 
own currency; and (3) the loan of a large portion 
of the sales proceeds over a long period of time 
and at a low interest rate. 

Stabilization credits provide another example 
of how public funds are used in our economic co- 
operation with Latin America. These credits, or 
standbys, as they are called, are made available to 


Dspartmenf of State Bulletin 

I <nmtries to help them ease the strain on their re- 
st rves and maintain the value of their currencies 
while they are attempting to achieve financial sta- 
bility. The standby credits are usually "package" 
arrangements, with participation by the United 
States Government, the International Monetary 
Fund, and, frequently, private United States 
banks. During 1953-1957 direct participation by 
the United States Government alone in standby 
credits aggregated $115% million. 

Another means of extending United States co- 
operation to Latin American countries has been 
that of providing emergency grant aid when they 
were unable to meet their needs with their own re- 
sources. These emergencies have arisen from 
natural disasters such as earthquakes or hurricanes 
or from unforeseen economic or political situa- 
tions. Since 1954 this aid, provided under our mu- 
tual security program, has totaled $75 million. In 
addition, easy-term loans were made under Sena- 
tor Smathers' amendment totaling $12.8 million 
to seven Latin American countries for certain de- 
velopment projects in the fields of health, sanita- 
tion, and education. 

Still another type of direct United States Gov- 
ernment cooperation is that offered by congres- 
sional appropriations for the United States 
share — which is two-thirds — in the cost of the In- 
ter-American Highway, extending from the Guate- 
malan border with Mexico down to the Panama 
Canal. Since 1953 appropriations have amounted 
to more than $81 million, and Congress is being 
asked this year to approve another $10 million. 

This year for the first time the United States 
has funds available under the Development Loan 
Fund. Several applications from Latin American 
countries are now being considered by the admin- 
istrators of this fund, and approval of some of 
those projects is expected shortly. The fund is 
designed primarily to extend loans for financing 
projects in the free world which contribute to eco- 
nomic development and which cannot otherwise be 
financed by existing international or private insti- 
tutions. These loans may be repaid in either local 
currency or dollars and are relatively long-term 
and at reasonable interest rates. 

Technical Cooperation 

In speaking of our economic policy toward 
Latin America I have purposely left until last the 
mention of our long record of technical coopera- 
tion in Latin America. This program, started in 

April 14, 7958 

1942, probably yields more human-intei-est epi- 
sodes than any of the othere, not to mention the 
long-teiTn practical contribution it is making in 
our relations with Latin America. In it, scientists, 
teclmicians, and other experts from the United 
States team up with their counterparts in Latin 
American countries to carry out cooperative pro- 
grams in agriculture, public health, education, 
transportation, housing, community development, 
public administration, and in other areas vital to 
a country's welfare. A remote tropical jungle can 
be the setting for one program and a high, arid 
plateau the location of another. In practically 
every instance the host government for these proj- 
ects contributes considerably more to their financ- 
ing than the United States Government; so you 
can visualize the constructive work going on 
when I tell you that in the past 5 years our 
share alone amounted to $125 million. However, 
even if we had before us complete figures from all 
countries, the total, though imposing, would be no 
index to the accomplishments of this program. 
The exchange of ideas and technical know-how 
cannot be reckoned in terms of dollars, and no one 
can foresee the value of the changes which will 
follow the improved health conditions, new agri- 
cultural techniques, increased productivity, and 
other positive results growing out of this type of 

Now, having stated the policy and the instru- 
ments at our disposal for executing it, I would like 
to describe briefly some typical problems. Under- 
lying our approach to these, of course, is the most 
fimdamental ingredient of all for constructive 
foreign relations — the desire to cooperate with our 
friends. This bears repeating again and again. 

Tiie Importance of Coffee 

I have already referred to coffee. Let us ex- 
amine it in more detail. 

As important as coffee is to those of us who love 
both the taste and the aroma of a cup in the 
morning — or any other time — coffee is even more 
important to our friends to the south. As I men- 
tioned earlier, 6 of the 15 coffee-producing coun- 
tries depend on coffee for most of their foreign 
exchange to buy what they need in the United 
States. The United States is the principal con- 
sumer of coffee. 

Except for a period of 6 years, beginning in 
April 1941, when quotas on imports were first im- 

posed, and continuing througli the removal of 
price controls in 1947, coffee has been subject to the 
normal laws of supply and demand. There was 
a time in 1954 when coffee prices in tlie United 
States to the consumer rose to such a point as to 
encounter rather severe resistance. Nobody, cer- 
tainly not the countries which depend on coffee 
for their foreigia exchange and the livelihood of 
their people, wants to see coffee priced out of the 
market. On the other hand, I do not think that 
the American housewife, any more than the Gov- 
ernment of the United States, wants to see a dis- 
astrous price decline which would have even more 
disastrous effects on the countries where coffee is 
produced and, ultimately, on the quality and quan- 
tity of the product that we have come to depend 
upon to help us get started on our day's work. 

Given the importance of coffee, what is going 
on in this industry ? The price of mild coffee fell 
almost 20 cents a pound between January and 
October last year, when the new crop came in. 
Sales were being made at less tlian 50 cents a 
pound, which was below tlie support prices guar- 
anteed producers by their governments and lower 
than the average prices for any year since 1949. 
With a large crop coming to market this year and 
a still larger one forecast for next year, tliey were 
understandably worried, and the principal Latin 
American producing countries met in Mexico City 
in October of last year to consider what they 
should do. Tlie chief i-esult of that meeting was 
a coordinated effort on their part to stabilize 
coffee prices. This they did by establishing ex- 
port quotas and agreeing to place on the market 
only as much as could be sold at what producers 
regarded as a reasonable price. The plan has 
been in operation now for about 5 months, and 
prices are currently about 53 to 54 cents a pound — 
about what they averaged in 1951 and 1952. 

Later, at Rio de Janeiro in January of this 
year, the American coffee-producing coinitries met 
with the African coffee producers to discuss the 
problem on a worldwide basis. The principal 
consuming countries of Europe were represented, 
and the United States sent an official observer. 
The leading buyers of coffee in the United States, 
members of the National Coffee Association, were 
also represented by an observer. The result of 
that meeting was the establishment of a world 
coffee organization, the main purposes of which 
are to promote the increased consumption of 
coffee, as one method of attacking the problem 

of overproduction, and to pi-ovide a place where 
the supply-and-demand situation can be kept con- 
stantly imder review. 

Now the United States is searching for the 
most useful means of cooperating with its Latin 
American friends on the problem of coffee. In 
some respects our approach to the problem is dif- 
ferent from theirs ; in fact, we have quite frankly 
disagreed witli some of their efforts to maintain 
prices at levels which might operate to reduce 
consumption. But tliese disagreements have been 
in the context of a deep and abiding friendship, 
and we are searching for means of agreement 
rather than concentrating on the disagreements. 
The problem is under urgent and continuing study 
in the Department of State, and I am confident 
that we will find a means to work with Latin 
America on this problem of transcendental im- 

The Problem of Oil 

While in Texas, I should not overlook the prob- 
lem of oil. This, my home State, along with 
other oil-producing regions of the world, is faced 
with the problem of reestablishing the petroleum 
production and marketing relationships which 
were seriously disrupted when we in the Western 
Hemisphere expanded to meet the supply deficit 
created by the Suez crisis. The problem was fur- 
ther complicated by the decline experienced in the 
United States domestic demand following the 
Suez crisis and which still continues. We cer- 
tainly hope that the problem will not be one of 
long duration. 

Meanwhile our Government, with the coopera- 
tion of an overwhelming majority of crude-oil 
importers, instituted a new program of voluntary 
import limitations last July which has worked 
very well indeed, even acknowledging the two or 
three exceptions where cooperation has not been 
forthcoming. This program, of course, magnifies 
the fact that the oil problem is not confined to 
the United States. It is of great significance to 
two of our Western Hemisphere partners and 
friends, Venezuela and Canada, on whom we rely 
for part of our needs for oil and other vital prod- 
ucts, both in normal and emergency periods. 

Now what do good friends do wlien they find 
a common problem? They sit down together to 
seek a mutually satisfactory solution. 

I visited Venezuela about 3 weeks ago and ex- 
plored this problem with the Provisional Gov- 


Department of Slate Bulletin 

ernment, certain political and business leaders in 
tlie country, and others. I found a disposition on 
the part of our Venezuelan friends to engage in 
the kind of frank discussion which should help us 
find a solution to the problem. The same attitude 
has been shown by our Canadian friends. I am 
happy to report tliat consultations on the teclinical 
level have I'ecently been held in Caracas and in 
Washington in which my outstanding friend and 
fellow-Texan, General Ernest O. Thompson, took 
part. Tliis is the essence of tlie approach that we 
people of the Americas take to find solutions to 
problems, and I am sure that this effort will not 

Now let us take up another type of problem. 
Let us assume there is a Latin American country 
whose exports consist of 50 percent in coffee and 
50 percent in nonferrous metals. It finds that 
because of the decline in prices of one or both of 
these commodities, and also because of lessening 
demand abroad, there is a sharp reduction in its 
income from exports. Its foreign-exchange defi- 
cit for the coming year is estimated at about 
$50 million. Let us also assume that this country 
has drawn down its reserves in the previous year 
and that it has only $20 million left with which to 
meet the anticipated deficit. 

In all likelihood a senior official would be sent 
to Washington to lay tliis problem before the In- 
ternational Monetary Fund and tlie United States 
financial authorities. He would describe his 
country's situation and work out a program 
jointly witli the IMF staff for dealing with it, 
subject to the concurrence of his Government and 
the Board of Directors of the IMF. In general 
this country would strive for austerity in its im- 
ports and would seek to maintain a balanced budg- 
et and a tight rein on credit. In some instances 
wliere the applicant country's currency has been 
kept at an artificially low rate of exchange, it may 
offer to let the rate fluctuate and find its own level, 
thus reducing some of the drain on foreign ex- 

The measures I just mentioned may sliow, on 
examination, that policies to reduce imports and 
promote exports will only reduce the deficit $25 
million instead of $50 million. The International 
Monetary Fund, having concluded that the pro- 
gram adopted by the country is adequate and that 
the deficit is temporary in nature, is willing to put 
up $15 million to help cover that gap. Another 
$10 million might be obtained from private bank- 

April 14, 1958 

ing sources in the United States. If so, that 
makes a package which covers a $25 million 

In some cases, however, the country may not be 
able to raise an additional $10 million in New 
York and it may be necessary to turn to other 
sources to make up tliis package. The country, 
for example, because of a local shortage may need 
wheat and other farm products and be eligible 
under United States Public Law 480 to obtain 
$10 million wortli of these from our surplus stocks 
on very long credit terms. In some cases it might 
even be necessary to ask the Export-Import Bank 
to make available the last component of the total 
deficit in order to finance the flow of essential 
United States imports into that country. 

Generally the agencies contributing toward the 
$25-million gap desire that the IMF contribution 
come first, since the fund was set up precisely for 
the purpose of helping countries wliich have tem- 
porary balance-of-payments problems. At times 
these agencies work out arrangements whereby 
drawings on them are made in some agreed-upon 
relationship to the drawings on the IMF and the 
private banks. 

The foregoing represents how the United States 
Government, in cooperation with international 
and private financial institutions, assists a country 
which might otherwise have to reduce imports to 
such an extent that the economic development of 
the country would suffer. 

I wish to stress that there is deep concern and 
good will inherent in the United States approach 
to economic cooperation with Latin America. 

Soviet-Bloc Efforts in Latin America 

Now to refer briefly to a subject which has re- 
ceived some public notice : 

There is evidence that the Soviet Union is in- 
tensifying its economic and political offensive in 
many parts of tlie world, including Latin Amer- 
ica. The Kremlin's propaganda professes sincere 
interest in trade expansion. Yet, in actual fact, 
Soviet-bloc trade with Latin America has been de- 
clining in recent years, primarily because of the 
failure of the Soviets to deliver acceptable, com- 
petitively priced goods as a counterpart to those 
raw materials received by them from Latin 

Although there have been numerous reports of 
Soviet-bloc "offers" of trade, capital, and teclinical 


assistance, it remains to be seen whether these will 
meet with general acceptance or whether they will 
actually materialize as serious propositions. This 
is said because of the vague and illusive character 
of the offers, as well as because of Latin American 
governmental prudence based on past experience 
with Soviet promises. 

Nevertheless, I do not wish to minimize the 
gravity of the challenge for the United States 
posed by the Soviet-bloc efforts in Latin America 
or its capacity to choose selected targets for an 
economic offensive. This will require sustained 
vigilance and care on the part of the countries 
approached, and I am confident that our hemi- 
sphere partners will not be found lacking. 

I have tried today to convey to you a concise 
idea of the basic principles governing our rela- 
tions with Latin America. I have endeavored to 
make clear the needs and situations — the types of 
problems— to which United States policy must re- 
spond. I have spoken of the friendly spirit in 
which all the American Republics work together 
to solve our mutual problems. We in Washington 
are resolved to dedicate our best efforts to insuring 
that this spirit of inter- American solidarity is fur- 
ther strengthened, and we humbly ask the guid- 
ance of Almighty God in our task. 

President-Elect of Costa Rica 
Visits United States 

The Department of State announced on March 
24 (press release 146) the following members of 
the party accompanying Mario Echandi Jimenez, 
President-elect of the Republic of Costa Rica, 
during his visit to Washington, D. C, March 
26-29 : 

Seuora de Echandi 
Gonzalo J. Pacio, Ambassador of Costa Rica, and Senora 

de Facio 
Alfredo Hernandez Velio and Seiiora de Hernandez 
.Torge Borbon Castro and Senora de Castro 
Joaquin Vargas Gene and Seiiora de Vargas 
Tomas Federico Guardia Herrero and Senora de Guardia 
Wiley T. Buchanan, Jr., Chief of Protocol of the United 


U.S. Economic Aid to Spain 
Increased by $15 Million 

Press release 148 dated March 25 

The American Ambassador at Madrid, John 
Davis Lodge, informed the Spanish Government 
on March 25 that the United States has made avail- 
able to Spain an additional $15 million in economic 
assistance. Ambassador Lodge told Foreign 
Minister Fernando Maria Castiella that the Em- 
bassy had received official announcement of the 
increase approved by President Eisenhower. 

The new funds, made available under the terms 
of the Mutual Security Act, bring the total of the 
defense support program for Spain to $56 million 
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1958. The $15 
million increase for this year brings the total 
economic aid to Spain under the mutual security 
program to $356 million since the signing of the 
1953 Spanish- American defense agreements.* 

The entire program is designed to bolster the 
Spanish economy in the interests of mutual de- 
fense. The economic program has emphasized 
railroad rehabilitation, electric power develop- 
ment, agriculture, and technical assistance. 

More recently, in order to help maintain a high 
level of industrial production and to insure the 
adequacy of domestic supply, this jjrogram has 
supported Spain's economy by providing indus- 
trial raw materials and essential agricultural com- 
modities. In accordance with the desire of the 
Government of Spain, the additional $15 million 
granted to Spain will be used primarily to finance 
the imports of industrial raw materials. 

Ambassador Lodge also informed Foreign Min- 
ister Castiella that he was authorized to negotiate 
an amendment to the January 17 agreement for 
the sale of U.S. surplus products which will per- 
mit Spain to buy for pesetas 23,800 additional 
bales of short-staple cotton valued at approxi- 
mately $4 million. 

For text, see Bulletin of Oct. 5, 1953, p. 

Department of Stale Bulletin 

Labor Rejects Communism— East Germany 

by Eleanor Lansing Dulles 
Special Assistant to the Director, 

Ice of German Affairs ' 

Labor Knows the Price of Communism 

Labor does not like communism. There was a 
ime when it would not have been easy to prove 
this statement. Those were the days when it 
eemed possible that the organized economic sys- 
:em which raised the peasant and serf of Eastern 
Europe and put them in a factory or woi-kshop 
would substantially improve their lot. 

There has been, at least in statistics and to some 
Bxtent in i-eal values, an improvement in the living 
standards of many thousands in Russia. Because 
londitions before the revolution were primitive, 
;he economic changes were defended by some as 
worth the price of dictatorehip. 

Later, in 1947 and 1948, when the Communists 
tried to apply their methods to more highly in- 
dustrialized countries, such as Czechoslovakia and 
Germany, the real meaning of the system of con- 
trols became evident to the workers in the oc- 
3upied countries and they came to fear both for 
;heir welfare and, more important, for the free- 
doms won over the centuries. 

This basic attitude of labor has been evident in 
many places but nowhere more clearly than in the 
part of Germany occupied by the Communist 
troops. Here, more than elsewhere, the flaws in 
the Communist system can be analyzed. Because 
conditions are in so many respects comparable, the 
glaring differences between the two parts of Ger- 
many in productivity, in consumption, in worker- 
management relations, and in civil rights are of 
striking significance. 

' Address made before the International Relations Coun- 
11 at St. Mary's College, South Bend, Ind., on Mar. 21 
press release 134 dated Mar. 19) . 

t(pn\ 14, 7958 

Here, in 1958, one finds on two sides of the 
artificial and temporary frontier workers of the 
same tradition, skills, and habits of life. Here 
are millions of Germans differing in no essential 
respect from each other except the political re- 
gimes and the economic consequences created by 
these regimes. 

The facts of economic repression under com- 
munism become evident in the statistics of con- 
sumption and production, in rationing, and now 
have been brought into the open in the recent de- 
bates between the rulers. The workers speak for 
themselves, whenever possible, at times in active 
revolt or when they escape as refugees. 

The Russians learned to fear the free choice of 
the people, either voting as individuals or acting 
through union groups, shop committees, or other 
forms of voluntary cooperation. In 1945 they 
tried the experiment of permitting elections in 
Hungary and in Austria. These votes were an 
overwhelming repudiation of communism, and the 
experiment has not been tried again by the Com- 
munists. Now they even try to prevent the travel 
or communication of East Germans with the out- 
side world, and they visit penalties on the friends 
and families of those who flee from their tyranny. 

Today, after decisions last August to press to- 
ward complete socialization of industry and agri- 
culture, there is a split in the Communist leader- 
ship on policy. There are some in the ruling 
group who argue that the Germans will not submit 
to tyrannical restrictions and slavelike conditions 
in mine and factory. Others, in spite of warnings 
of danger of revolt, insist upon more discipline 
and more severe penalties. 


One worker in East Germany, endeavoring to 
sum up the present situation, said recently, "The 
Soviets can warp an economy, but they cannot win 
the support of the people or make their part of 
the world a decent place to live in without basi- 
cally altering their system." The question now, 
of vital importance to all of us, is whether they 
can or will modify their system in Germany or 

Why the Germans Reject Communism 

The workei-s in Germany reject the restrictions 
and oppression of communism, as does labor in 
all the industrialized countries who have experi- 
enced the benefits of an advanced economic and 
political society. Whatever accomplishments 
labor may have expected several decades ago from 
a government which promised the worker-state, 
experience has now demonstrated the losses in 
position and in opportunity which they have al- 
ready suffered, and they are fearful for the future. 

The reasons why communism has not been able 
to win popular support can be grouped under 
three main headings. While these are more ap- 
plicable to the Western democracies, at the present 
time, they become increasingly significant for all 
countries as the world potential for production 
and consumption continues to rise. The problems 
which the Soviets are now facing in their zone of 
occupation in Germany cast a shadow which will 
fall on many Communist lands in the coming 

Because of their broad significance, it is worth 
analyzing the areas of main grievance of labor in 
Germany today: the failure to have responsible 
and democratic relations with management, the 
deterioration of working conditions, and the de- 
plorable living standards. These three concerns, 
if considered as a framework for more specific 
issues, may be said to be the major causes of unrest, 
defiance, and continuing hatred of the Eussians 
and their agents in Germany. These represent the 
flaws inherent in the Communist systeni which 
will now, and in the future, prevent its forward 
progress. Only recently have they begun to dis- 
turb the Kremlin in Russia, itself, in a manner 
apparent to the outside world. Before the im- 
provement in wages and the extension of educa- 
tion to large groups, considerations of this sort 
were unimportant. Now they can be left out of 
account nowhere. 


It is not only occupied Germany and the outer 
fringes of the bloc that are in a state of suppressed 
revolt. Throughout the satellite countries there 
are stirrings and questionings as to the incentives 
to produce, the right to share the fruits of modern 
industry and science, and the desire to participate 
in decisions. These are ideas that cannot be kept 
within national borders. 

In the denial of these rights and responsibilities 
to those who have known good living conditions 
and in the contrast between the East and West 
portions of Germany, a nation with unified tradi- 
tions and purposes, there can be no permanence. 
In this ferment are found the ingredients of ulti- 
mate Communist destruction. Here, in Germany, 
one can see the difference between the two systems. 
Here, incontrovertibly, the cost of the Communist 
system in terms of human values is evident. 

The Lack of Worker Representation 

The original Soviet concept of worker relation 
to industry and to the state location of authority 
was so different from that of the Western World 
that it was largely misunderstood outside of Rus- 
sia. The Soviet constitution of 1936 indicates that 
the workers are the state and the workers' state 
governs all. There are no dependable provisions 
for dealing with questions of wages, hours, or 
methods of work. One of the rare constructive 
welfare functions they perform in Russia — and 
this applies to the East Zone of Germany also — 
is to administer worker vacations. 

In general, plans affecting the lives of individ- 
uals and occupational groups, and conditions in 
factories or mines or workshops, are settled in the 
authoritarian hierarchy of the Council of National 
Economy. Such workers' unions as are permitted 
to exist are more a formal recognition of the exist- 
ence of the working force than instrmnents for 
improving conditions. 

In their occupied zone the Russians began toltopi 
realize in 1946 and 1947 that the tradition of reall Hh 
bargaining was strong. They were dealing withi 
dedicated and experienced labor leaders, particu- 
larly in Berlin. At that time they considered per- 
mitting unions to function on a limited basis, 
They developed and actually put into effect in a 
few cases a special system of Works Councils, and! 
then, in a matter of months, they recognized the 
danger of establishing organs of potential resist- 
ance and decided to allow the plan to lapse. The adtaj, 

Department of State Builetir- 

hi : 

vorkers' groups for the past 10 years have had to 
naintain their existence in an inconspicuous and 
mrecognized manner. 

Now, in 1958, after 12 years of Soviet occupation, 
t is not possible for workers to meet in free as- 
embly. Plans to improve the lot of the man and 
voman in industry, discussed from time to time, 
ive been as often abandoned by the Soviets. 
The Soviets have never dared to permit open 
ilections in trade unions or in other groups. Those 
vho continue to advise and lead the workers, in 
lefiance of the totalitarian state, do what they can 
ft mobserved — without scheduled meetings, without 
isible financial support, and without any means 
o speak for the riglits and needs of the craftsmen 
nd laborers who are their fellows. At present 
list here is much evidence of unrest in the zone. 

The controlled labor organization, the so-called 

^'ree German Federation of Trade Unions, in the 

5ast Zone is not able to influence elections or work- 

ng conditions or develop an active leadership. It 

lioi s a Communist showpiece with no substance; it 

ritj las little meaning to workers brought up in the 

)rl( jerman tradition. Its spokesmen merely parrot 

ins he words of the sinister and powerful leader of 

hal he party, Ulbricht. 

tati The unwillingness of the Berliners to accept 

bus Communist domination was evident even in 1946 

01 md 1947. Observers of postwar Berlin testify 

hat the lessons of 1933 had been well learned. The 

truggle of the union leader against Kremlin rep- 

•esentatives in 1946 was brought to a climax in 

^larch with the openly expressed opposition to the 

]i lingle voting list. This list would have merged 

sii Socialist and Communist Parties, but, supported 

)y the Western Allies, the city rejected the pro- 

)osal. This expression of independence and op- 

rt )osition to the new dictatorship was possible in 

Berlin because of the position there of the three 

fo! Western powers— the United States, the United 

kingdom, and France. They were in a position 

o protect free speech and prevent a reign of terror 

al vith the threat of arrest and kidnaping. 

The decision of the Soviets not to risk genuine 

slections after 1945 is a basic element of their pol- 

cy and relates to their stand on reunification. 

It is reasonable to assume that only an awareness 

in 1 ;hat the tide of opinion is rumiing strongly against 

i hem can lead the Soviets to a change in method 

li( md policy. This they are beginning to discover 

n the East Zone. Thus the superficial short-run 

T!ie idvantages they think they gained in repressing 

kitXpril 14, 1958 

free expression and representation may lead to un- 
manageable conditions. Those same workers who 
helped stem the further advance of communism in 
1946 and 1947 may help to demonstrate the need 
for freedom by their unwillingness to yield in 
spirit in the decade that lies ahead. 

Working Conditions Unacceptable 

The conditions in the workshops themselves are 
a genuine cause of frustration and bitterness to 
the German workman. This is a major cause for 
his lack of tolerance of the Soviets and their 
system. Even Sputnik has been regarded with 
cynicism in view of the Soviets' inability to pro- 
vide the households with the simj^ler necessities or 
to set up high-grade machinery. 

There are, of course, a number of exceptions. 
The favored industries are well equipped. Work 
of high quality is being carried on in a number of 
places. In general, however, there are signs of 
breakdowns in agriculture and in many industries. 
Construction and transportation are of poor qual- 
ity. The manpower shortage, accentuated by the 
flow of refugees, compounds the difficulties. 

The Communist nilers of East Germany have 
recently shown some awareness of the unsatis- 
factory working conditions. In fact, the purges 
and upheavals of 1958 directly related to con- 
troversy over working conditions and labor re- 
quirements. The workers were promised shorter 
hours. Within the party and outside there has 
been heated discussion of norms, which are the 
standards set for output per worker. The regime 
has made minor upward adjustments in money 
wages, but any real gain in purchasing power 
has been, for the most part, illusory because of 
the shortage of consumer goods. 

The net improvement for the worker in in- 
dustry has been negligible. The theoretical nor- 
mal hours of 45 per week are stretched by ad- 
ditional hours and production requirements to 
meet the norms. 

Meanwhile, the productivity standards, subject 
to continuing resistance on the part of the 
workers, have been increased while the actual 
productivity fails to gain. Tools and machinery 
in many industries, and generally in agriculture, 
have deteriorated rather than improved in the 
past 5 years. The worker under these pressures 
is forced to increase his exertion to keep wages up 


and keep hours down and still is 30 or 40 percent 
less well off than his fellow worker in West 

The Communists are now facing this problem. 
For almost the first time they are givhig thought 
to the question of incentives in their handling 
of Grerman problems. It would be unwise to as- 
sume that the present low level of production 
will continue. As the result of present conflicts 
of views and criticisms of conditions, concessions 
will probably be made of necessity. The main 
point to observe, which will be watched by the 
world at large, is whether there will be a loosen- 
ing of restrictions and a significant reduction of 
oppressive measures. 

Recent reports of the economic administrators 
and politicians conferring on these economic 
questions show a recognition of the continuing 
dilemma. There are complaints of failure to im- 
prove economic conditions leading in January and 
February to purges of some half dozen leading 
officials. Meanwhile, labor shortages are serious 
and are likely to keep productivity well below 
standards. Indifference or flight are continuing 

Genuine improvement of wages and hours has 
been postponed from year to year. Even accord- 
ing to Communist claims output per worker is 
increasing slowly in most industries and overall 
production remains low, except in certain seg- 
ments, and equipment and raw materials inade- 
quate. Some of the Communist central officials 
say that there may be a complete breakdown be- 
cause of the lack of balance between equipment, 
raw materials, and labor. 

The Communist rulers of East Germany, by 
any standards, have a real problem on their hands 
in attempting to check the flight of able-bodied 
workers, as thousands a month take refuge in 
the Federal Republic and Berlin. ■ The first flood 
of migration reached a peak when an average of 
5,000 a week left the zone in 1953. At that time 
it was considered that the refugees were motivated 
mainly by the fact that their political independ- 
ence had been drastically curtailed and that their 
lives as upstanding and freethinking Germans 
would bring reprisals and perhaps political cap- 
tivity. Now, in 1958, the continuing steady stream 
of refugees from Soviet-occupied territory ap- 
pears to be more largely caused by the intolerable 
economic and labor conditions which prevail. 
Thus, workers in factories and in mines, on rail- 


roads and construction jobs find themselves unable 
to hold their own as craftsmen, as heads of fam- 
ilies, and as free men in a difficult struggle with 
inadequate equipment, low-grade materials, and 
unfavorable working and living conditions. They 
have compared prewar, wartime, and postwar 
factory standards both in the East Zone and, 
through their friends and associates, with those 
in the Federal Republic. 

Above all, they are impressed by the striking 
difference between the two parts of Germany. 
Those who become hopeless with regard to main- 
taining their individual position as groups are 
likely to go West. For this reason, in the large 
numbers of the refugees probably more than 30 
percent are able-bodied young men, at the peak of 
their working potential, who are seeking not only 
a more favorable political climate but also decent 
trade-union activities and reasonable working 
conditions. As the numbers continue to add to the 
labor supply of the Federal Republic, the authori- 
ties in the Soviet-occupied territory find them- 
selves short of both skilled and unskilled labor 
and are becoming more restive. 

It is largely this drain of manpower and lack 
of incentive which disturbs the balance and limits 
economic capacity. There are combined with 
these a political and prestige factor in the large 
refugee stream, making it a source of humiliation 
to the regime. In the past 6 months the Commu- 
nists have endeavored to limit travel within the 
zone and between the zones. This has lessened in- 
cidental travel but has not changed the numbers 
leaving the zone permanently. The Soviets are 
aware of the fact that the mere permission to 
leave home is a privilege; denying it increases the 
feeling of bitterness — granting it might increase 
the ease with which the workers can slip from 
their grasp. No matter what action they take, 
many visit Berlin or ci'oss the zonal boundaries to 
make their homes in the West. The fact that the 
restrictions have not greatly diminished the flow of 
refugees but have led to serious resentment on the 
part of the entire population increases the need 
for police controls. 

In agriculture the situation is even worse than 
in industry. Equipment is at the point of break- 
down. Seed is poor, fertilizer scarce. Yields in 
most crops are far below prewar. Tliousands of 
acres are abandoned each year, and, by 1958, the 
stream of refugees to the West has seriously 
handicapped agriculture. 

Department of State Bulletin 

Conditions such as these in industry and agri- 
culture led to the widespread revolt of June-July 
1953. At that time scores of towns and cities wei-e 
involved. Thousands of workers attempted to ex- 
press their demands for decent working condi- 
tions. The first spark of revolt was struck among 
the masons on the scaffolds of Stalinallee in East 
Berlin. The regime had announced a few days 
pi"eviously an increase in the norms, the output 
required per worker. This arbitrary act led to the 
spontaneous formation of a committee which went 
from their place of work in Stalinallee to the Min- 
istry to request an adjustment to meet reasonable 
requirements of the workers. 

The chosen representatives of the masons and 
allied building workers marched to the head- 
quarters of the German Democratic Republic with 
their grievance. They were summarily denied a 
hearing. Refused admittance to the labor offices, 
they were then joined by thousands, demonstrated 
in the streets, burned the posters with pictures of 
Commimists and misleading posters and slogans. 
The thousands of Germans had their hour of pro- 
test and their days of rebellion in Berlin and 
elsewhere throughout the zone in more than 250 
towns and villages. 

Throughout the zone, in Berlin and in the 
smaller cities, they were run down by tanks, shot 
by machine guns, dispersed by force, and in many 
cases imprisoned. From that time, with no respite, 
labor relations in the zone then and now have been 
at gunpoint and in the shadow of the political 

Living Conditions 

The miserable living conditions of the majority 
of the workers in the Soviet-occupied zone 
constitute the third source of resentment against 

In a country where family ties are still of prime 
importance and where tradition has set high 
standards of home life, the privations of today in 
East Germany are particularly painful. The 
pride in house and garden, in church and school, 
is gone. In many respects the worker is in a strait- 
jacket. He cannot choose freely where to live, 
where to work, his occupation, or his recreation. 
If he, in a rare case, has a motorcycle and takes 
his girl out on a Sunday ride, he must watch 
carefully that he follows a permissible route and 
does not cross the zonal border. His athletics and 
recreation are under supervision; his education 

and his religious activities are restricted and 
closely watched. 

Rationing, of course, continues in the Soviet 
Zone. Meat, fats, cheese, and sugar are in short 
supply. Clothing is expensive and of poor quality. 
Many East Germans come to Berlin to buy shoes 
and suits, overcoats and other key articles of wear- 
ing apparel. 

The difference in material standards for the av- 
erage man in the East Zone has been estimated as 
approximately 30 percent below that in the Fed- 
eral Republic and perhaps 60 percent below that 
of average workers in the United States. If lux- 
uries like butter, coffee, woolens, high-grade meat 
are taken into account, prices converted on the 
basis of hours of work are approximately four 
times as high. For example, woolen material costs 
approximately 9 hours of work per meter in the 
Federal Republic and 40 hours in the Soviet Zone. 
Many other examples could be given. For 
instance, coffee in the Federal Republic costs the 
equivalent of 4 hours of work a pound and 15 to 
30 hours in the East Zone. 

The nonmaterial standards are even more dis- 
tressing than lack of goods and services. The 
church and school are perhaps the most seriously 
blighted by the Communist rule. Efforts are made 
to keep the young people out of the Sunday 
schools and to force them to take an atheist oath. 
The selection of teachers is said to be more and 
more on the basis of party membership, with 
teaching warped to the party line. 

These are the repressions of communism which 
have made the worker look on the system with 
bitterness. These are the human deprivations 
which will, in the long iim, be the undoing of the 
tyranny wherever men see any hope of freedom. 

The Meaning of Labor's Attitude Toward Commu- 

The comparison of the regime's slavery and 
freedom, in the East and in the West of Germany, 
which reveals the basic differences in the working 
and living of the people under two systems, does 
not lead to any easy optimism. Unfortunately, 
the outlook for an improvement in conditions in 
the East Zone to bring them up to levels in the 
West is extremely remote. There is no immediate 
prospect of a relief for those under Communist 
control from the oppressive conditions they must 

April 14, 7958 


The fact of their continued resistance to both 
form and substance of the tyrannical regime under 
which they are living is, however, a bright and 
shining sign of hmnan faith that their resistance 
has meaning for the future. The kind of strength 
which is required to face the risks and hardships 
of the present with only a distant prospect of 
better days is impressive not only to their relatives 
and friends in West Germany but also to all of 
us who can help shape our own destinies. The 
workers in East Germany have not weakened in 
any substantial degree even though the organiza- 
tions which are permitted to them are meaningless 
and even though their voices cannot now be heard 
in tlie planning of their economy or in the deci- 
sions which determine their welfare. 

The testimony of those who visit the East Zone 
and of the refugees who have fled in search of 
the opportunities which are the heritage of free 
men and the very complaints of the Communist 
press all demonstrate the continued vitality of the 
spirit of the anti-Communist majority. The re- 
sistance of these men and women will always be 
considered as one more chapter in the history of 
men's struggle for civil and human rights. While 
some individuals may not live to realize the hopes 
for which they are now fighting, human beings 
everywhere should be strengthened in their fight 
for a better world by the firm purpose and the 
amazing courage of those who have stood out 
against the Communist regime in East Germany. 
The workers, who had most to gain, some thought, 
from changes in an economic system of the 19th 
century, now know that the foundation on which 
their future welfare must be built is a genuine 
system of representation with the opportunity for 
each individual to act according to his conscience 
and speak according to his belief. 

Requirements Eased on Exports 
of Technical Data 

Simplification of regulations covering unclassi- 
fied technical data exportable under general 
license, including scientific and educational infor- 
mation and published material, was announced on 
March 7 by the Bureau of Foreign Commerce, 
U.S. Department of Commerce. The amended 
regulations now permit this type of material to be 
exported by mail or otherwise without indicating 
on the letter or parcel the general license authori- 
zation under which the export is made. 

In announcing removal of this requirement, the 
Bureau indicated that the amendment was one as- 
pect of the Department's broader program to pro- 
mote the collection and dissemination of scientific 
and educational information within the United 
States and between the United States and foreign 

Letters of Credence 


The newly appointed Ambassador of Australia, 
Howard Beale, presented his credentials to Presi- 
dent Eisenhower on March 27. For texts of the 
Ambassador's remarks and the President's reply, 
see Department of State press release 154. 


The newly appointed Ambassador of Norway, 
Paul Gruda Koht, presented his credentials to 
President Eisenhower on March 27. For texts of 
the Ambassador's remarks and the President's 
reply, see Department of State press release 155. 


The newly appointed Ambassador of Venezuela, 
Hector Santaella, presented his credentials to 
President Eisenhower on March 26. For texts of 
the Ambassador's remarks and the President's re- 
ply, see Department of State press release 151. 

President Postpones Tariff Action 
on Stainless-Steel Flatware 

White House press release dated March 7 
White House Announcement 

The President on March 7 announced that in 
the escape-clause case involving stainless-steel 
table flatware he had decided that a full evalu- 
ation of Japan's voluntary limitation of shipments 
to the United States was necessary since this 
voluntary limitation signifies an important reduc- 
tion of the volume of imports and thus holds con- 
siderable promise of relieving the situation of 
domestic producers. The President, tlierefore, 
requested the Tariff Commission to keep this 
matter under review and to report to him as soon 
as practicable after December 31 with particular 
reference to the experience of the domestic in- 
dustry in 1958, during which the Japanese limita- 


tion on exports to the United States will have been 
in effect. 

The President set forth his action and the rea- 
sons for it in identical lettei-s to the chairmen of 
the House Ways and Means Committee and the 
Senate Finance Committee. 

Letter to Chairmen of Congressional Committees * 

March 7, 1958 

Dear ]\Ir. Chairman: Under Section 7 of the 
Trade Agi-eements Extension Act of 1951, as 
amended, the United States Tai-iff Commission 
reported to me on January 10, 1958 its finding 
that the domestic producers of stainless steel table 
flatware were experiencing serious injury as a re- 
sult of increased imports. 

I have carefully studied the facts of this case, 
and I have had the benefit of the advice of the 
Trade Policy Committee and various departments 
and agencies of the Executive Branch. 

Although entirely satisfactory information is 
not available, especially for the year 1957, the 
Tariff Commission's report demonstrates a strik- 
ing upward trend in impoils with important 
consequences for domestic producers. Bearing on 
this situation, however, are two significant de- 
velopments that the Commission has not had an 
opportmiity to appraise fully. Japan, which 
accounted for more than ninety per cent of our 
imports in 1956, has limited its flatware exports 
to the United States. The first action in this re- 
gard set a limit of 5.9 million dozen for the year 
beginning last October first. The Government of 
Japan has now informed this Government that it 
has decided to limit Japanese shipments to the 
United States to 5.5 million dozen for the current 
calendar year. 

These developments signify an important re- 
duction in the volume of imports and thus hold 
considerable promise of relieving the situation of 
domestic producers. Because of this, I have con- 

" Addressed to Sen. Harry Flood Byrd, chairman of the 
Senate Committee on Finance, and Rep. Wilbur D. Mills, 
chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. 

eluded, after a thorough examination of the facts 
of this case, that a full evaluation of these devel- 
opments is required and that action at this time 
on the Commission's recommendations is inad- 

In order that the necessai-y evaluation might be 
as precise as possible, I have asked the Secretary 
of Commerce to see that appropriate information 
on flatware imports is officially collected and tab- 

I am, moreover, requesting the Tariff Commis- 
sion to keep this matter under review and to re- 
port to me as soon as practicable after December 
thirty -first with particular reference to the exper- 
ience of the domestic industry in 1958 during 
which the Japanese limitation on exports to the 
United States will have been in effect. In the 
event that unusual circumstances require, I shall 
call upon the Commission for a report at an ear- 
lier date. 


DwiGHT D. Eisenhower 

Letter to Edgar B. Brossard, Chairman, U.S. Tariff 

March 7, 1958 
Dear Mr. Chairman : For the reasons set forth 
in the enclosed copy of my letter of today to the 
Chainnan of the Senate Finance and the House 
Ways and Means Committees, I have concluded 
that action at this time is inadvisable on the Tariff 
Commission's recommendation of January 10, 
1958 concerning stainless steel table flatware. 

I request the Commission, however, to keep this 
matter under review and to report to me as soon 
as practicable after December thirty-first with 
particular reference to the experience of the do- 
mestic industry in 1958 during which the Jap- 
anese limitations on exports to the United States 
will have been in effect. 

In the event that unusual circumstances require, 
I shall call upon the Commission for a report on 
an earlier date. 

DwiGiiT D. Eisenhower 

April 14, 1958 



Interdependence, Basic Concept of the Mutual Security Program 

Statement hy Secretary Dulles ' 

I appear on behalf of the mutual security pro- 
gram as recommended by the Pi-esident for tlie 
fiscal year 1959.^ 

I. General Considerations 

This program is a continuation of tested security 
measures that have had their birth and growth 
during the postwar years. It has provided peace 
and the opportunity which flows from a world 
enviroimient of healthy societies of free men. 
Without this program our peace would be gravely 
endangered and opportunity would disappear as 
hostile communism more and moi'e closely en- 
circled us until we became a beleaguered garrison 

The basic concept of our mutual security pro- 
gram is the concept of interdependence. The free 
nations, assaulted by Communist imperialism, 
must help each other if they are not to succumb, 
one by one. 

We automatically accept that concept of inter- 
dependence in the case of open war. During the 
First World War there were 27 Allied and Asso- 
ciated Powers. We helped each other, militarily 
and economically, to win victory. During the 
Second World War 47 nations united their full 
resources, military and economic, in the cause of 

Now we are engaged in a cold war. We shall 

' Made before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
on Mar. 24 ( release 144). 

' For President Eisenhower's message to Congress, see 
Bulletin of Mar. 10, 1958, p. 367. For statements made 
before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs by Secre- 
tary Dulles and ICA Director James H. Smith, Jr., see 
ihid., Mar. 17, 195S, p. 427, and Mar. 31, 19.58, p. 527. 

not emerge victorious unless, in this type of war 
also, we apply the concept of interdependence. 

The soundness of mutual security is no longer a 
theory. It is a proven fact. Until its principles 
began to be ai^plied, international communism took 
over nation after nation. Since the postwar 
collective-defense system began to be forged, inter- 
national communism has neither taken over, nor 
subjected to armed attack, any nation which par- 
ticipated in that system. All members have con- 
tributed to security, and all have received security. 

II. The Soviet Economic-Political Offensive 

Until a few years ago Communist imperialism 
relied primarily on a policy of threats, bluster, 
or armed action. Now the Communist leaders 
follow a new technique. Where they formerly 
treated all free nations as enemies, they now pro- 
fess the greatest friendship toward them — par- 
ticularly toward those which seek economic 

In pureuing this course, backed with capital 
and skilled manpower, they have made offers of 
economic help to nations in all parts of the globe.^ 
They and other bloc nations have already entered 
into agreements with 16 nonbloc nations for lines 
of credit or grants totaling nearly $1.G billion in 
economic assistance and an additional $400 mil- 
lion for military assistance. They are also en- 
gaged in vigorous efforts to increase their trade 
with nations in all parts of the free world. 

' For a statement on economic activities of the Soviet 
bloc in less developed countries made before the committee 
on Mar. 3 by Deputy Under Secretary Dillon, see ibid.. 
Mar. 24, 1958, p. 469. 


Department of Slate Bulletin 

Mr. Khrushchev has recently said: 

We declare \var ui)on you — excuse me for using such 
an expression — in the peaceful field of trade. We de- 
clare a war we will win over the United States. The 
threat to the United States is not the ICBM, but in the 
field of i)eaceful production. We are relentless in this, 
and it will prove the superiority of our system. 

That is a warning to be heeded. It means that, 
while we must, of course, deter war — whether 
general nuclear war or limited war — we must also 
prevent Communist absorption or envelopment 
of free nations by the more subtle means of eco- 
nomic penetration and political subversion. 

III. Deterring War 

First let us consider the problem of deterring 
war. We have treaties with over 40 natioiis which 
pledge aid to be given and received if armed at- 
tack occurs. These promises are important. But 
there is need also of military strength-in-being. 
Our program of mutual security has that as one 
of its principal purposes. 

By this program our allies have vastly in- 
creased the effectiveness and numbers of their 
forces. We have contributed primarily weapons 
and material up to about $20 billion, while na- 
tions associated with us in the collective-defense 
effort have made defense expenditures totaling 
$122 billion. 

We have gained great reinforcement of the most 
powerful deterrent to aggression, that is, our 
strategic air force and our naval might. This 
great power is heavily dependent on dispersed 
bases around the world. These are supplied by 
many of our allies and friends as part of their 
contribution to our mutual security effort. 

Great as this mobile strategic power is, we can- 
not be sure that it alone will deter all aggression. 
The free world must also have local forces to 
resist local aggression and give mobile power the 
opportunity for deployment. Our associates in 
mutual security are willing to provide the great 
bulk of the needed conventional forces if we will 
provide some of the necessary arms and. in cer- 
tain countries, some of the economic strength 
needed to support their military establishments. 

The peace of our country and the peace of evei-y 
free nation in the world today rests in the most 
literal sense on the combining of the forces of the 
United States with the forces of the rest of the 

April 14, 1958 

free world. Together they create an arch on 
which rests the safety of our homes and loved 
ones. The military-assistance and defense-sup- 
port aspects of the mutual security program are 
the keystones in this security arch. 

IV. The Development Need 

It is not sufficient, as I indicated earlier, for us 
to rely solely on military defensive power. To 
achieve peace and security we must also counter 
the Communist efforts to manipulate for their own 
ends the intense economic aspirations of peoples in 
newly independent and less developed nations. 

I have heard it said that we must not enter into 
a competition with the Soviet bloc in this field. 
My reply is that we are not entering into a com- 
petition with them. They are entering into com- 
petition with us. They are attempting to take 
over and pervert for their own uses the normal 
processes whereby, historically, nations that are 
not yet developed borrow abroad to get their own 
capital development under way. For example, in 
our own country's early history we borrowed great 
sums from foreign private investors with which we 
started our own transportation and industrial de- 

We favor today the greatest possible partici- 
pation by private capital in the development of 
the less developed areas of the world. However, 
the political risks in many of these countries are 
greater than private persons will assume. Un- 
less there is to be a lapse in what have been the 
normal and historic means of developing less de- 
velopetl countries, our governmental fimds must 
play a part. Failure to provide these funds would 
place great victories within the Commimist grasp. 

V. The Mutual Security Program in Fiscal Year 19S9 

If these are the challenges which confront us, 
what then must we do to sunnount them and go 
forward ? 

An essential part of the answer is in the Presi- 
dent's proposals now before you. 

First, to maintain the peace we must maintain 
the military strength of the free world as a deter- 
rent to Communist armed aggression. 

The President has asked $1.8 billion for mili- 
tary assistance. Of this amoimt the great bulk 
will go to our NATO allies, essentially for mod- 
ernization and missiles, and to Asian countries, 


such as Korea, Pakistan, Taiwan, and Iran, which 
are separated from the full power of the Soviet 
bloc only by a border gate or a narrow strait. 

The details of this military assistance program 
and its essential role in support of our own de- 
fense effort were presented to this committee last 
week by representatives of the Department of 
Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

Closely related to our military assistance is our 
defense support program, for which the President 
has requested $835 million. 

Defense support is proposed for 12 nations, 70 
percent intended for 4 countries : Korea, Taiwan, 
Viet- Nam, and Turkey. 

These 12 nations are collectively providing 3 
million armed men in ground, air, and naval units 
located at strategic points around the perimeter 
of the Commimist bloc. None of the 12 has the 
economic strength to support forces of the size we 
believe important to our common defense without 
the proposed economic assistance from us. 

The second great purpose of our mutual se- 
curity program is to deal realistically with the 
need of the peoples of the newly developing na- 
tions to make economic progress. We have the 
instruments for this in our well-established tech- 
nical cooperation program and our newly created 
Development Loan Fund. 

This year we propose a moderate expansion in 
our technical cooperation, primarily to increase ac- 
tivity in a few countries where we now have pro- 
grams and to undertake new programs in nations 
which have recently gained independence. The 
total requested for this program for 1959 is $142 

In addition we are requesting an increased au- 
thorization for the United Nations Technical 
Assistance Program, to include participation in 
the important new special projects fund ap- 
proved by the last General Assembly * and a con- 
tinuation of our regular program through the 
Organization of American States. 

Our other vital instrument for promoting eco- 
nomic development is the Development Loan 
Fund. It was recommended to the Congress last 
year, upon the basis of numerous public and pri- 
vate studies — particularly the excellent study and 
report by the Senate Special Committee on 
Foreign Aid — that a loan agency be established 

* lUa., Jan. 13, 1958, p. 57. 

which would make it possible for the United 
States to help friendly nations develop their econ- 
omies on a basis of self-help and mutual 

The Congress appropriated $300 million for the 
fund last year and authorized the appropriation 
of $625 million for the coming fiscal year. Since 
the appropriation of the funds for fiscal year 1959 
is already authorized, your committee will not be 
called upon to act on the authorization. Never- 
theless, I would like to take advantage of this 
occasion to make clear my belief that it is im- 
mensely important that the full amount of these 
funds be made available as part of the capital of 
the Development Loan Fund. They are as im- 
portant for the future safety of our country as 
any dollars appropriated for weapons. 

The committee of conference on the authoriz- 
ing bill last year recommended that the fund 
should in the future be established as a corpora- 
tion. This is in accord with the views of the 
executive branch, and we recommend to the Con- 
gi-ess that this be done, in a form that will assure 
that lending by the fund will be fully coordinated 
with the foreign-policy interests of the Depart- 
ment of State, the mutual security activities of 
the ICA [International Cooperation Administra- 
tion], and the lending of the Export-Import Bank 
and the International Bank. 

For the special assistance program we are re- 
questing $212 million. This aid is designed to 
meet certain important needs which cannot be met 
out of the other categories of aid. These needs 
include help to maintain political and economic 
stability in certain nations where we do not sup- 
port substantial military forces and which are not 
therefore eligible for assistance under defense 
support. Special assistance is also designed to 
support such activities as assistance to West 
Berlin, to continue the worldwide malaria-eradi- 
cation program, and for other important uses. 

Perhaps one of our most important needs is the 
ability to respond to new situations and new re- 
quirements which may arise in the course of the 
coming fiscal year. The President has asked a 
$200-million contingency fund for needs of this 
nature. It would be reckless, in the light of con- 
ditions existing in the world today and the virtual 
certainty of Communist cold-war initiatives that 
we cannot now foresee, to leave the President with- 
out an emergency fund of at least this size. 

Department of State Bulletin 

Other programs, for which the President re- 
quests in the aggregate $106.6 million, will be 
dealt with in detail by subsequent witi 

VI. The U. S. Economic Recession 

I know that many people — Members of this 
Congress and their constituents — are concerned 
about the cost of our mutual security program and 
about what is often referred to as a "foreign give- 
away." This is even more true when there is an 
employment and business recession here in the 
United States and when there is much that needs 
to be done here at home. 

I think we might all bear in mind three things : 

First, this is no "giveaway" program but an 
absolutely essential part of our great national 
effort to maintain peace and opportunity for our 
country. Not to have this program would be a 
"giveaway." We would then indeed "give away" 
to communism the control of a dozen or so nations 
with their hundreds of millions of people. We 
would indeed "give away" bases essential to our 
national peace and security. We would indeed 
"give away" the access which we and other nations 
have to essential resources and to trade upon which 
our own well-being depends. 

Second, unquestionably we all wish for addi- 
tional roads, schools, reclamation projects, and 
other facilities here at home. But we will gain 
little and lose much if, in our drive for them, we 
recklessly tear down the very structure of the 
free world which makes it possible for us to en- 
joy in peace and freedom the material blessings 
we now have. 

Third, although the fundamental purpose of 
this program is to provide for the security of our 
nation, our families, and ourselves, it has added 
value of special significance now : Its effect is to 
counter economic recession. The great bulk of 
our mutual security funds — over three-fourths — 
are spent in the United States in the first instance. 
As one of the studies made for you last year 
showed, in 1955 some 600,000 jobs were provided 
by the program for American farmers and work- 
ers. The remainder, after aiding the economy of 
one of our allies, returns sooner or later, and 
mostly sooner, to be spent in the United States for 
the products of United States industries and ag- 
riculture. To cut these funds would be to cut 
employment here at home, as well as to endanger 
our security. 

Apri/ 74, 1958 

VII. Duration of Program 

In conclusion let us consider a question often 
asked : "Will this jirogram have to go on forever?" 
The answer, I suggest, is this : 

I hope and believe that the concept of collective 
security is here to stay. Every civilized com- 
munity applies that concept domestically. No 
longer does each family stand as the sole protector 
of their own home. There is a common contribu- 
tion to a collective police force, fire department, 
sanitary department, and the like. Only the 
society of nations has been so backward and primi- 
tive as to go on practicing the obsolete security 
conception of each nation standing alone. And 
the result has been a harvest of recurring wars. 

We had hoped that the United Nations would 
provide the needed collective security on a uni- 
versal basis. In time it may do so. But the 
Soviets with their veto power now block that. 
And Chairman Bulganin recently told President 
Eisenhower that the Soviet Union would not yield 
an inch on the matter of veto power.^ 

But the practice of collective security must and 
will go on. Otherwise wars are inevitable and 
freedom is in constant jeopardy. 

But even though the concept of collective secu- 
rity is permanent, that does not mean that the 
sums spent on security, be it national or collective, 
have to be permanently at the present level. We 
are striving to achieve a limitation of armaments 
and to find solutions for the basic political prob- 
lems that give rise to tensions. If the Com- 
munists will negotiate in good faith toward these 
ends, we believe that progress can be made wliich 
will make it safe to spend far less on armaments 
than is now the case. 

As far as economic cooperation is concerned, we 
can expect that, as political stability increases, 
private capital will play a steadily increasing role. 
Private capital from the moi-e industrialized comi- 
tries has in the past flowed in substantial quan- 
tities to the less developed areas and can be ex- 
pected to do so again. 

Vlil. Conclusion 

We are living today in an historic era of great 

^ For texts of the Soviet letter of Feb. 1, 1958, and the 
President's reply of Feb. 15, see iUi., Mar. 10, 1958, p. 373. 


(1) There is the march toward independence of 
colonial peoples. Since World War II, 20 nations 
with a population of about 750 million people have 
achieved their independence. These people, as 
well as the people of other less developed nations, 
are determined that they must and will have eco- 
nomic progress. 

(2) There has been the revolutionary, and re- 
aetionaiy, threat of international communism. It 
has within little more than a generation subjected 
all or major parts of 17 nations and nearly 1 billion 
people to a new type of dictatorship, the dictator- 
ship of a hai-sh, materialistic creed. The outward 
thrust of that movement has been somewhat 
stayed. But the Communist dictators, exploiting 
the vast human and material resources they con- 
trol, still seek to extend their conquests around 
the globe. 

(3) Within the Sino-Soviet world there are 
growing and, in the long run, irresistible demands 
wliich are incompatible with the creed and prac- 
tice of orthodox communism. The subject nations 
increasingly demand more national independence ; 
and a steadily increasing number of individuals 
seek greater personal security, increased freedom 
of choice, and more independence of thought. 
This mounting tide has already altered somewhat 
the complexion of Communist rule in Soviet Rus- 
sia, and it has openly challenged that rule in such 

captive countries as Hungary, Poland, and East 

(4) To these three forces must be added a 
fourth — the force of the enlightened conduct and 
example of the United States. 

We must cooperate with the healtliy evolution 
toward independence of colonial peoples and as- 
sist in the achievement of economic progress and 
of freedom that will be sustained ; 

We must continue to hold in check the still ag- 
gressive and predatory ambitions of international 
communism; and 

We must encourage by peaceful means the adap- 
tation of Sino-Soviet govermnent to the aspira- 
tions of the people. The rate of such adaptation 
will largely depend on whether the present type 
of rule gains, or is denied, enhanced prestige 
through external conquests. 

Without the policies represented by the mutual 
security program and without adequate funds to 
carry out these policies, we camiot do these things. 
World trends hostile or imf avorable to us would 
gain the supremacy. There could be a new and 
prolonged "dark age." 

This mutual security program is our response to 
a challenge which threatens our survival as a na- 
tion and the survival in the world of the ideals 
for which our nation was founded. It is, there- 
fore, a progi-am which cannot be allowed to fail. 

Extending the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Legislation 

Statement iy Douglas Dillon . 

Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Affairs ' 

I welcome this opportunity to appear before the 
Committee on Ways and Means. I am here to 
present, on behalf of the Department of State, 
additional information in sujjport of the Presi- 
dent's proposals for the extension of the reciprocal 

trade agreements legislation.^ I intend to deal 
with certain questions which have arisen in the 

' Made before the House Committee on Ways and Means 
on Mar. 24 (press release 143). 


" For text of the President's message to Congress on 
continuation of the trade agreements program, see 
Bulletin of Feb. 17, 19.58, p. 263 ; for statements made 
before the committee by Secretary of Commerce Sinclair 
Weeks on Feb. 17 and by Secretary Dulles on Feb. 24, see 
ibid.. Alar. 17, 1958, p. 432. 

Department of State Bulletin 

cmuse of tlie committee's hearings and which are 
of vital importance to our international economic 

First, it has been asked: Of what use is the 
trade agreements legislation in countering the 
threat of international communism ? 

Second, it has been asked : "UHiat relationship is 
there between the creation of the new Economic 
Community in Westeni Europe and the trade 
agreements legislation that makes it necessary for 
us to extend the legislation for a period of as long 
as 5 years, thus departing from past practice? 

The answers to these questions lie at the heart 
of the legislative proposals you are now consider- 
ing. I would like to take them up in order. 


It is evident that the safety, freedom, and wel- 
fare of the American people will depend upon 
their ability to meet and overcome the threat pre- 
sented by international communism. This threat 
exists not merely because the Soviet leaders have 
stated over and over again their determination to 
install the Soviet Communist system throughout 
the world. Such a declaration of purpose could be 
ignored or treated lightly if there were no visible 
means to carry it into effect. But the threat is real 
because the Soviet leaders now possess a large res- 
ervoir of physical power with which to implement 
their objectives. 

International communism now has nearly a bil- 
lion people under its domination. The gi'oss na- 
tional product of the Soviet bloc, including Com- 
munist China, is of the order of $280 billion a 
year. About $175 billion of this annual amount 
is produced in the Soviet Union. The rate of eco- 
nomic growth of the Soviet Union is now about 
7 percent a year, which compares with a growth 
rate of about 4 percent a year for the United 

The industrial growth of the Soviet Union is 
especially noteworthy. It is growing at a rate of 
about 10 percent a year, Avhich compares with a 
rate of about 4 percent a year for the United 
States. Industrial output in the Soviet Union is 
now about $68 billion a year, which makes the 
Soviet Union the second gx-eatest industrial power 
in the world. By 1963— that is to say, 5 years 
i from now — its industrial production may reach a 

April 14, 1958 

figure of over $100 billion. The Soviet Union 
achieves these growth rates by depriving the Rus- 
sian people of the consumers goods and the better 
living standards that would otherwise be theii-s. 
The Soviet leaders are ruthlessly sacrificing the 
immediate welfare of their people so as to increase 
the physical assets under their control. 

Since World War II the United States and its 
allies have been chiefly concerned over the Soviet 
military threat, which arises from the existence of 
large Communist military forces and the will- 
ingness to use them wherever the defenses of the 
free world are weak or uncertain. This threat 
continues, but it has now been broadened to in- 
clude an economic threat as well. Within the last 
4 years the Soviet bloc has launched a large-scale 
offensive directed at the countries of the free 

Communist Trade-and-Aid Drive 

Soviet-bloc economic assistance to less developed 
countries outside the bloc has risen from zero in 
1954 to a total of $1.6 billion by the end of 1957. 
This assistance is being extended in the form of 
long-term loans, bearing low rates of interest, 
which are tied to the use of Soviet-bloc industrial 
equipment and technical personnel in develop- 
ment projects within the less developed countries. 
The repayment provisions of these loan agree- 
ments usually permit the debtor countries to make 
repayment in the goods which they have available 
for export as an alternative to payment in con- 
vertible currencies. 

Soviet-bloc trade with countries outside the bloc 
has also risen rapidly in this period. The exports 
of the bloc to the free world as a whole in- 
creased from $1.8 billion in 1954 to about $3.2 bil- 
lion in 1957, a gain of 80 percent, and bloc im- 
ports from the free world increased in about the 
same degree. 

The pattern of the Soviet trade offensive in the 
less developed countries stands out even more 
clearly. The total trade of the Soviet bloc with 
the less developed countries of the free world 
amounted to $840 million in 1954. In 1957 it was 
probably double that figure — an estimated $1.7 
billion. There were 49 trade and payment agree- 
ments between the bloc and these countries at 
the end of 1953. By the end of 1957 there were 
147 such agreements, an increase of 98 over the 4- 
year period. 


The economic-assistance activities of the Soviet 
bloc clearly contribute to an expanding bloc trade 
program. As Soviet loans and credits are drawn 
down by the recipient comitries, imports into 
these countries from the bloc will tend to mcrease 
further. And as these countries begin to pay off 
their financial obligations to the bloc, which they 
are usually allowed to do in goods, their exports 
to the bloc will also tend to increase. 

The economic basis of the Communist trade- 
and-aid drive lies in the fact that the bloc's indus- 
trial growth is enabling it to supply in increasing 
quantities the capital equipment and manufac- 
tured goods which many free-world countries 
must import, and in the fact that the bloc is able 
and willing to accept in return many kinds of raw 
materials and foodstuffs which free-world coun- 
tries Iiave for sale and for which they sometimes 
have difficulty in finding markets. 

Now there is nothing wrong with trade or aid 
as such. The question is rather the purpose to 
which the Soviet trade-and-aid programs are 
likely to be put. The Soviet leaders have made it 
abundantly clear that the purpose is political. 
^Vllat they are aiming for is to create economic 
dependence upon the Soviet bloc, to spread Com- 
munist economic ideology, to weaken and disrupt 
economic relations among free-world countries, 
and to pave the way for ultimate Communist po- 
litical domination. In 1955 Mr. Khrushchev told 
a group of visiting United States Congressmen, 
"We value trade least for economic reasons and 
most for political purposes." 

A few weeks ago I made a detailed statement 
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
on the Soviet economic offensive in the less devel- 
oped countries.^ This statement was based on a 
detailed study of this subject which is now in 
preparation in the Department of State and 
which should be available shortly. If the com- 
mittee so desires, my statement can be made avail- 
able for the record of these hearings. 

Meeting the Economic Challenge 

How should the United States defend its na- 
tional interests in the face of this Soviet economic 
offensive? Should it attempt to match Soviet 
trade deals by itself engaging in selective barter 
an-angeraents, state trading, and other forms of 

' Ibid., Mar. 24, 1958, p. 469. 

economic warfare aimed specifically at frustrat- 
ing Soviet economic moves ? 

The answer to that question is clearly "no." 
The economic challenge presented by the Soviet 
bloc is not one of this deal or that deal. Fimda- 
mentally it is not a question of whether the So- 
viets or ourselves gain in one market or another. 
On the contrary, the Soviet economic challenge 
runs to the whole of the basic economic philoso- 
phy of the United States on which our foreign 
economic policy rests. It is, in short, a challenge 
whicli asserts that the economic system based on 
free, competitive enterprise which we espouse will 
not succeed in commanding the continuing sup- 
port of the people of the free world and that the 
Commimist economic system will prove its 

There is only one way to meet the Soviet eco- 
nomic challenge which is compatible with the 
preservation of our political institutions and our 
national ideals. That way is to make sure that 
our system, based on concepts of economic free- 
dom and competitive enterprise, is given the 
chance to work. If we will do this, there can be 
no doubt as to which system will win out in the 
long run. It will be ours. 

Now it is often said that the trade agreements 
progi'am is a symbol of international trade co- 
operation among the free-world countries. It is 
much more than that. It is a working instrument 
through which a large number of the most im- 
portant trading countries outside the Communist 
bloc have achieved great progress in reducing j 
barriers to trade within the free world. When 
the free world is menaced as never before by an j 
overall economic, political, and military threat ^ 
from international communism, it is essential that j 
this process of opening up the channels of trade 
which link the economies of the free world 
should not grind to a halt. 

Trade is economically important to the United 
States. It is vital to most of the other countries 
of the free world. Exports account for 16 per- 
cent of the total economic output of the United 
Kingdom. For Belgium and some other coun- 
tries of Western Europe the percentage is even 
higher. For the people of Japan trade makes 
the difference between well-being and starvation. 
For the less developed countries, exports of raw 
materials and foodstuffs to the markets of the 
free world are the primary means by which they 
can obtain the machinery and equipment which 

Department of State Bulletin ,1^, 

they must have for their economic development. 
If the governments of the free countries cannot 
satisfy the basic economic needs and aspirations 
of their people through growing trade within the 
free world, they will be compelled to turn more 
and more to trade with the Soviet bloc. 

It may be asked whether we have not already 
done enough. But the Soviet challenge is a 
dynamic one. It will not be met by a standstill 
policy on our part. Our gi-eat strength lies in the 
productivity and vitality of the competitive enter- 
prise system which today prevails throughout 
most of the free world. Unless we permit our 
free-enterprise system to work fully and freely, 
we will be shackling ourselves in the face of the 
dangerous and powerful economic offensive of the 
Soviet Union. This explains why the President's 
proposals are so vital to our foreign policy in the 
continuing contest with Soviet imperialism. 

This brings me to my second question, namely, 
the European Common Market and its relation- 
ship to the legislation before you. 


The United States, Western Europe, and Ja- 
pan are the three great industrial centers of the 
free world. A complex network of trade relation- 
ships connects these areas with one another and 
each of them with the less industrially advanced 
countries of Latin America, Asia, the Middle 
East, and Africa. Following 1929 this trading 
system broke down under the combined impact 
of the depression and the emergence of extreme 
economic nationalism. Since those days the sys- 
tem has been gi-adually rebuilt. Once again we 
have a significant degree of integration among the 
free-world economies so that developments within 
one of the three industrial centers can seriously 
affect the rest of the structure. 

The creation in Western Europe of a European 
Economic Community, which will merge the 
economies of Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, 
the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, is therefore of 
great significance to international trade as a whole 
and to the economies of the many countries which 
depend upon such trade. The European Eco- 
nomic Community, which was established by the 
Rome Treaty of March 1957, embraces a popula- 
tion of 160 million people. The total gross na- 
tional product of the six member countries 

April 14, J 958 

amounted to $140 billion in 195G. The imports 
of the six countries from the rest of the world, 
excluding trade among themselves, amounted to 
$14 billion in 1957, which was over $1 billion 
larger than the total import trade of the United 
States. The 1957 imports of the six from the 
United States alone amounted to $3.1 billion dur- 
ing 1957. Taken together the Common Market 
countries are a close second to Canada as a market 
for our exports, and they account for approxi- 
mately one dollar in every six of our total export 

The European Economic Community, when 
fully established, will have completely free trade 
within the Community and a single uniform tariff 
on imports into the Community from other 

It is the height of this tariff that is of concern 
to other countries, including the LTnited States. 
I believe that other witnesses have already testi- 
fied that we have assurances through our partici- 
pation in GATT that the Common Market tariff 
will not be higher on the whole than the average 
of the separate national tariffs previously in effect 
and that increases in national tariffs necessary to 
arrive at a Community tariff will be matched 
by decreases. These are valuable safeguards 
which will help to assure satisfactory trade re- 
lationships between the European Economic 
Community and other GATT countries. 

Yet what is often lost sight of is the impact of 
the elimination of all tariff barriers within the 
Community. By creating a single market roughly 
comparable in size to the American market, Eu- 
ropean manufacturei-s will be able to expand pro- 
duction and so to cut their costs. This will 
inevitably lead to trade adjustments which will 
affect, with more or less severity, the exports of 
other countries to the Common Market area, de- 
pending on the height of the common tariff. The 
only way to ease these adjustments is to reduce 
the level of the external tariff of the Common 
Market below the average of present rates pro- 
vided for by GATT. To take a single illustra- 
tion: It will be a great deal easier for an 
American exporter of sewing machines to France 
to face the new competition created by duty-free 
entry into France of Italian sewing machines if 
the tariff which the American exporter has to 
pay is only 6 percent instead of 12 percent. 

The United States and other exporting coun- 
tries therefore have a direct and important eco- 



Department of State Bulletii 

lomic interest in obtaining reductions in the rates 
af the proposed Common Market tariff which are 
of particular concern to their export trade. Such 
I -eductions can, of course, be obtained only 
;hrough reciprocal tariff negotiations. 

There is a further important consideration. 
W^hatever the level of the Common Market tariff 

to be, its general nature will be settled within 
the next 4 to 5 years. Any reductions which the 
United States and other countries may see, even 
an a reciprocal basis, will be much harder to obtain 
f the Common Market area has already become 
accustomed to the operation of a higher tariff. 
The best chance we will have to achieve the re- 
ductions that are important to our export trade 
will be to negotiate them before the new tariff has 
become solidly established. 

It is primarily for this reason that the Presi- 
dent has requested a 5-year extension of the Trade 
A-greements Act. In order that there should be 
no doubt as to the relationship between these ne- 
gotiations and the request for a 5-year extension, 

should like to explain it in some detail. 

Common Market Timetable 

First let me describe the procedure and time- 
table for the establishment of the Common Mar- 
Then I will explain how United States ne- 
gotiations would fit into these procedures and 
this timetable during each of the 5 years for which 
the trade agreements authority is being requested. 

The procedure to be followed in forming the 
European Common Market may be envisaged as 
two separate but substantially simultaneous series 
of tariff adjustments, one internal and the other 

With respect to the internal tariffs, that is, the 
duties which the six countries now apply on their 
imports from each other, these are to be gradu- 
ally reduced until they are entirely eliminated 
and complete free trade exists within the Com- 
mon Market. The first step in reducing these in- 
ternal tariffs will be taken next January 1, when 
internal duties are to be reduced by 10 percent 
from their present height. On July 1, 1960, 
there will be a second 10 percent reduction, and 
by the end of 1961 the reduction of internal tar- 
iffs will reach 30 percent. By the end of 1965 
it will reach 60 percent, and reductions will con- 
tinue in stages with the complete elimination of 

,,|efii April 14, 7958 

internal tariffs being scheduled for the end of 
1972 at the latest. 

After the first of next year, therefore, goods 
produced within any Common Market country 
will have a steadily increasing advantage within 
the rest of the Common Market over American 
and other free- world goods. 

With respect to external tariffs, that is to say, 
the second of the two series of tariff adjustments, 
the plan is as follows : 

Step one will be to establish a proposed. — and 
I underline the word proposed — external tariff 
for the Common Market as a whole. This 
would be a single uniform set of tariff rates ap- 
plying to imports into any of the six countries 
just as the United States tariff applies to imports 
into all customs districts of the continental 
United States. For purposes of simplicity I will 
call this the target common tariff. 

The rates of duty to be provided for in the tar- 
get common tariff are to be determined partly by 
a formula established in the Rome Treaty, partly 
by schedules specifically provided for in the Rome 
Treaty itself, and partly by negotiations among 
the six countries. 

For those rates to be established by formula, 
the method used is that of a simple arithmetic 
average. To take an example: There are now 
separate tariffs for ball bearings in the Common 
Market — a rate of 6 percent in Benelux, one of 
28 percent in France, one of 15 percent in Ger- 
many, and one of 25 percent in Italy. These four 
rates are added together, and the sum total is di- 
vided by four, yielding a Common Market rate 
of 18 percent. 

The negotiations for the target common tariff 
will take some time to complete. The European 
Economic Community has informed us that they 
expect to have the entire target tariff available 
for examination sometime during the latter part 
of 1959. 

The second step in the procedure for establish- 
ing the external tariff of the Common Market will 
be to test the target tariff which I have just de- 
scribed against the rules and criteria provided for 
in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 
taking into consideration the views of other coun- 
tries, including the United States, toward whom 
the Common Market countries have assumed 
GATT obligations. 



Deparfment of Stafe Bullefh 

In examining the target tariff proposed by the 
Common Market countries, the other GATT 
ountries will want to be satisfied on the two main 
»oints : 

They will want to assure themselves that the 
arget tariff is not on the whole higher or more 
estrictive than the separate tariff schedules pre- 
iously in effect. 

They will also want to be sure that, wherever 

Common Market country, in order to arrive at 
de new single tariff, intends to increase the duty 
in a product on which it has granted a tariff con- 
ession, there is adequate compensation in the 
orm of a duty reduction elsewhere in the tariffs 
if the countries forming the Common Market, 
ither on the same product or on a product of 
'.quivalent interest to them. 

I wish to reemphasize at this point that neither 
he United States nor any other GATT country 
las the right to insist that the Common Market 
iountries reduce the general level of the Common 
Harket tariff. They can only insist that the gen- 
ral level not be higher or more restrictive than 
,he present average level and that increases on con- 
;ession items be matched by equivalent decreases. 

We come now to the third step, during which 
;he external tariff of the Common Market begins 
io be applied and begins to have an effect on the 
ictual flow of trade. 

This third step is to be taken on January 1, 
1962, when the Rome Treaty requires that the first 
concrete measures to put the Common Market 
tariff into eft'ect must take place. On that date 
member countries will be required to eliminate 30 
percent of the difference between their national 
tariff rate and the new Common Market rate, 
rhei'eafter, over succeeding years, similar adjust- 
ments will be periodically made, some upwards 
and some downwards in the different countries, 
that by June 1, 1973, at the latest, a single 
uniform tariff around the whole of the Common 
Market will be achieved. 

The timetable which I have described means 
that the customary 3-year extension of the Trade 
Agreements Act would not enable the United 
States to participate in reciprocal tariff negotia- 
tions with the Common Market during its forma- 
tive period. If the act were to be extended for 
only 3 years, it would expire before negotiations 
could be completed. Under such circumstances 
it would be unwise to enter into them at all. 

April 14, 7958 

Steps in U.S. Negotiations 

It may be useful to an understanding of this 
point to outline the negotiating steps that would 
be followed by the United States during each of 
the 5 years for which the authority is being re- 
quested. I have here a chart on which the mem- 
bers of the committee can observe the various nego- 
tiating steps for each of the 5 years 1958-1963. If 
the committee so desires, we will be glad to have 
this chart reproduced in a form suitable for in- 
clusion in the printed record of the hearings. 

During the first year, from June 1958 to June 
1959, we would seek the agreement of the Com- 
mon Market countries and of other GATT coun- 
tries to hold a general round of tariff negotiations 
which would include reciprocal tariff' concessions 
by the Common Market comitries below the level 
of the common tariff which would otherwise pre- 
vail. It would not be possible to reach interna- 
tional agreement to hold such negotiations unless 
the other governments concerned were sure that 
the United States possessed adequate bargaining 
power for the full period required for negotiation. 

During the second year, we would receive the 
completed proposed common tariff, that is to say, 
the target tariff to which I have already referred, 
and undertake our analysis of it so as to be sure 
that it met the requirements of the GATT and so 
as to determine what concessions we would want 
to request in order to best preserve our export 
markets. During the latter part of this period, 
that is to say, during the fii-st half of 1960, we 
would begin our final preparations for negotia- 
tions, including the issuance of a public notice of 
intention to negotiate and the holding of public 
hearings on the items on which we might be pre- 
pared to grant concessions. 

During the first part of the third year, that is, 
between June 1960 and January 1961, we would 
complete our own preparations, and lists of re- 
quests for concessions would be exchanged among 
all participating countries with a view toward 
starting active negotiations by January 1961, if at 
all possible. This would be a very tight schedule 
to meet, but eveiy effort must be made to complete 
negotiations prior to the entry into force of the 
first tariff adjustments toward the new Common 
Market tariff on January 1, 1962. Previous gen- 
eral tariff negotiations at Geneva in 1947 and at 
Torquay in 1951 took 7 montlis to complete. In 
view of the complexity of the negotiations with 

the Common Market, in which eveiy concession 
granted by the Common Market will require prior 
agreement among the six governments concerned, 
we must count on at least 1 full year of negotia- 

Thus, allowing no time whatsoever for slippage, 
the earliest possible date for completion of these 
negotiations will be January 1, 1962, a full 3i/^ 
years from the expiration of the present act. A 
far more realistic date would be June 30, 1962. 
We are asking for a fifth year to June 30, 1963, in 
order to provide a safe margin for the delays 
that will inevitably arise during the course of the 

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, it is the firm 
conviction of the Department of State that an ex- 
tension of this legislation for a full 5 years is 
necessary if tariff negotiations are to be conducted 
with the European Economic Community, there- 
by advancing American economic interests and 
those of the free world as a whole. 


Current Actions 


Automotive Traffic 

Convention concerning customs facilities for touring. 
Done at New York June 4, 1954. Entered into force 
September 11, 19.57. TIAS 3879. 

Ratiflcation deposited: Netherlands (for Realm in 
Europe, Surinam, Netherlands Antilles, and Nether- 
lands New Guinea), March 7, 1958. 
Customs convention on temporary importation of private 
road vehicles. Done at New York June 4, 19.>1. En- 
tered into force December 15, 1957. TIAS 3943. 
Ratiflcation deposited: Netherlands (for Realm in 
Europe, Surinam, Netherlands Antilles, and Nether- 
lands New Guinea ) , March 7, 1958. 

Trade and Commerce 

International convention to facilitate the importation of 
commercial samples and advertising material. Dated 
at Geneva November 7, 19.52. Entered into force No- 
vember 20, 1955 ; for the United States October 17, 1957. 
TIAS 3920. 
Accession deposited: Italy, February 20, 19.58. 


Interim arrangement permitting the exploitation of min 
eral resources within the Fort Stotsenberg MUitarj 
Reservation. Effected by exchange of notes at Manila 
April 8, 1957. Entered into force April 8, 1957. 



26 confirmed the following : 

to be Ambassador to the Republl 


The Senate on Marc 
James S. Moose, Jr. 

of the Sudan. 
Robert Newbegln to he Ambassador to Honduras. 
Horace II. Smith to be Ambassador to the Kingdom o 

Robert P. Woodward to be Ambassador to Uruguay. 



to Si 




pit Tri 

Recent Releases 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Gov 
ernment Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C. Addres 
requests direct to the Superintendent of Documents, ex in the case of free publications, which may be ob 
tained from the Department of State. 

Participation of the United States Government in Inter 
national Conferences— July 1, 1955-June 30, 1956. Put 
6.548. International Organization and Conference Seriei 
I, 34. xi, 205 pp. 55<;. 

A record of the official participation of the U.S. Govern 
ment in multilateral international conferences and meet 
ings of international organizations during the perioc 
July 1, 1955-June 20, 1956. 

Employment Information — United States Department o 
State. Pub. 6564. Department and Foreign Service Se 
ries 71. 31 pp. Limited distribution. 

A pamphlet outlining the requirements for employmen 
in the Department of State, both at home and abroad 
and the manner in which appointments are made to thi 
Departmental Service and to the Foreign Service. 

Career Opportunities in the U.S. Foreign Service. Pub 
6566. Department and Foreign Service Series 72. 22 pp 

A pamphlet outlining the opportunities that exist foi 
young men and women to become career officers in the 
Foreign Service of the United States. 

Deporfmenf of %tate Bullef'ir 


ki : 


SlIOjI ' 


il 14, 1958 

'i.fMfmerican Republics. Basic Principles Governing 
United States Relations With Latin America 

tomic Energy. U.S. Nuclear Tests to Demonstrate 
Reduction in Radioactive Fallout (Eisen- 

ustralia. Letters of Credence (Beale) .... 

ommunism. Labor Rejects Communism — East 
Germany (Eleanor Dulles) 

ongress, The 

xtending the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Leg- 
islation (Dillon) 

aterdependence, Basic Concept of the Mutual Se- 
curity Program (Dulles) 

osta Rica. President-Elect of Costa Rica Visits 
United States 

lepartment and Foreign Service. Confirmations 
(Moose, Newbegin, Smith, Woodward) . . . 

isarmament. Secretary Dulles' News Conference 
of March 25 

'Conomic Affairs 

asic Principles Governing United States Rela- 
tions With Latin America (Rubottom) . . . 

^tending the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Leg- 
islation (Dillon) 

resident Postpones Tariff Action on Stainless- 
Steel Flatware 

requirements Eased on Exports of Technical Data . 

'he Trade Agreements Program : Its Relation to 
National Weil-Being and Security (Eisen- 
hower, Dulles, Dillon) 

Europe. The Trade Agreements Program : Its Re- 
lation to National Well-Being and Security 
(Eisenhower, Dulles, Dillon) 



jabor Rejects Communism — East Germany 

(Eleanor Dulles) 

Secretary Dulles' News Conference of March 25 . 
Serief londuras. Newbegin confirmed as ambassador . 
ndonesia. Secretary Dulles' News Conference of 
March 25 

an. President Postpones Tariff Action on Stain- 
less-Steel Flatware 



Aos. Smith confirmed as ambas.sador 
nenl o|IiddIe East. Secretary Dulles' News Conference 

of March 25 

futual Security 
iiKnlpasic Principles Governing United States Relations 

With Latin America (Rubottom) 

nterdependence, Basic Concept of the Mutual Se- 
curity Progi-am (Dulles) 

Pi)*|j.S. Economic Aid to Spain Increased by $15 
'lorway. Letters of Credence (Koht) 
jlsl ft' 'residential Documents 
"' "president Postpcmes Tariff Action on 
Steel Flatware 
The Trade Agreements Program : Its Relation to 

National Well-Being and Security 

J.S. Nuclear Tests to Demonstrate Reduction in 

Radioactive Fallout 









e X Vol. XXXVIII, No. 981 

Publications. Recent Releases 634 

Science. U.S. Nuclear Tests to Demonstrate Reduc- 
tion in Radioactive Fallout (Eisenhower) . . 601 
Spain. U.S. Economic Aid to Spain Increased by 

.$15 Million 614 

Sudan. Moose confirmed as ambassador .... 634 

Treaty Information. Current Actions 634 

Tunisia. Secretary Dulles' News Conference of 

Jlarch 25 602 


Extending the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Leg- 
islation (Dillon) 626 

Secretary Dulles' News Conference of March 25 . 602 

Uruguay. Woodward confirmed as ambassador . 634 

Venezuela. Letters of Credence (Santaella) . . 620 

Name Index 

Beale, Howard 620 

Dillon, Douglas 597,626 

Dulles, Eleanor Lansing 615 

Dulles, Secretary 595,602,622 

Behandi Jimenez, Mario 614 

Eisenhower, President 591,601,620 

Koht, Paul Gruda 620 

Moose, James S., Jr 634 

Newbegin, Robert 634 

Rubottom, Roy R., Jr 608 

Santaella, Hector 620 

Smith, Horace H 634 

Woodward, Robert F 634 

Check List of Department of State 
Press Releases: March 24-30 

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

Releases issued prior to March 24 which appear 
in this issue of the Bulletin are Nos. 134 of March 
1!) and 137 of March 20. 

No. Date 

*142 3/24 

143 3/24 

144 3/24 
tl45 3/24 

140 3/24 

tl47 3/25 

148 3/25 

149 3/25 

150 3/25 

151 3/26 
*152 3/26 

154 3/27 

155 3/27 

156 3/27 


Educational exchange. 

Dillon: House Ways and Means Com- 

Dulles : Senate Foreign Relations 

Wilcox: "The United Nations: Chal- 
lenges of a New Age." 

Visit of President-elect of Co.sta Rica 

Rubottom : "The American Discovery 
of America." 

U.S. grants .$15 million to Spain. 

Dulles : Soviet conditions for summit 
meeting (combined with No. 150). 

Dulles : news conference. 

Venezuela credentials (rewrite). 

Nominations to rank of career minis- 

Dillon : national conference on inter- 
national trade policy. 

Australia credentials (rewrite). 

Norway credentials (rewrite). 

Dulles : national conference on inter- 
national trade policy. 

Plan for payment of U.S. claims 
against Germany. 

*Not printed. 

fHeld for a later issue of the Bitlletin. 





Order Form 

United States 
Government Printing Office 


Washington 25, D. C. 


North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
Meeting of Heads of Government 

Paris, December 1957 

The Heads of Government of the North Atlantic Treaty Organ- 
ization met in Paris from December 16 to 19, 1957, for the first top-level 
meeting of the North Atlantic Comicil since the founding of the 
Alliance more than 8 years before. They came together because they 
desired to increase the effectiveness of NATO in relation to current 
international political, military, and economic problems arising out of 
the policies of the Soviet Union. 

This new Department of State publication contains statements 
made by President Eisenhower and Secretary of State Dulles before 
and after the meeting; the addresses delivered by Prime Minister 
Bech, Premier Gaillard, and President Eisenhower at the opening 
public session ; the statements made by Secretary General Spaak and 
the Heads of Government at the first business session ; and the Dec- 
laration and Communique issued on the final day. 

Copies of the publication may be purchased from the Superin- 
tendent of Dociunents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington 
25, D.C., for 50 cents each. 

Publication 6606 

50 cents 

): Supt. of Documents 

Govt. Printing Office 

» • * Please send me copies of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Meet- 

ing of Heads of Government, Paris, December 1957. 

. ^ . Name: 

Enclosed find: 

% _. _. Street Address: 

(cash, check, or 
money order). City, Zone, and State: 


Vol. XXXVIII, No. 982 


APR 28 1958 

B. P. L. 

Apra 21, 1958 


APRIL 1 639 

SATION OF BOMB TESTS • Department Statement 
and Text of Soviet Decree 646 


Department Announcement and Text of Three-Power Decla- 
ration 648 

Letterof Premier Bulganin to President Eisenhower, March 3 . 648 
Soviet Aide Memoire, March 24 652 


ant Secretary Rubottom 656 


AGE • by Assistant Secretary Wilcox 664 

For index see inside back cover 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Qovemment Printing Office 

Washington 26, D.O. 


62 Issues, domestic $7.50, 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 20, 1958). 

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 

Vol. XXXVIII, No. 982 • Pubucation 6630 
April 21, 1958 

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 otlier 
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 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. 

Secretary Dulles' News Conference of April 1 

Press release 164 dated April 1 

Secretary Dulles : I am ready for questions. 

Q. Mr. Secretary^ yesterday \oas the Soviet an- 
nouncement about suspending nuclear tests. ^ A 
lot of the practical aspects of this seem to he miss- 
ing. For example., do you have any information 
through diplomatic channels as to when the sus- 
pension would become effective and how long it 
would last, under what circumstances it might he 
tei^mAnatedf If you don't have such information, 
which would hear up details of it, are we correct 
in reading into yesterday''s statement the implica- 
tion that in your view this whole announcement 
is just phony? 

A. The last part is easier to answer than the 
first. We do not think that there is anything new 
of substance in the statement made yesterday by 
Mr. [Andrei A.] Gromyko [Soviet Foreign 
Minister] . 

To go to the earlier part of your question, we 
have no information through diplomatic channels 
or any other channels as to the details of the pro- 
posed suspension. The Soviets have just con- 
cluded their most intensive series of tests, and it 
would be normal, almost inevitable, that there 
would be a considerable lapse between that series 
of tests and the inauguration of a new series of 
tests. We have always found that that was in- 
evitable in our own practice. We have not had 
any tests for some little time. We are resuming 
some the latter part of this month, I believe. So 
that some periodic suspensions of testing are, from 
a teclmical standpoint, a necessity. 

Now the Soviets say tliat they will suspend test- 
ing but that, if we resume testing, they reserve the 
right to resume it. Now, of course, they know 

^ For a Department statement on the Soviet announce- 
ment, see p. 646. 

April 21, 1958 

that we have this series of tests which has been 
planned and announced for many months and 
which will start in the very near future. There- 
fore, as far as the language of the pronouncement 
is concerned, they would be free to resume tests 
at any time in the light of the fact that we expect 
to begin testing within the next few weeks. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, what is the United States 
policy on the nuclear testing? For example, have 
any of the studies been concluded within the ad- 
ministration on the possibility of our halting such 


A. We have always been willing to halt tests as 
part of a program which would lead to the effec- 
tive elimination of nuclear weapons from the 
arsenals of the nations. Now, the problem has been 
whether or not to suspend testing without any 
such elimination. That raises some very serious 
problems which have been known and discussed 
for some time. 

The actual situation today is that the Soviet 
Union has, as we have, enough large thermonuclear 
weapons to destroy the other and perhaps a large 
part of humanity. The Soviet Union is willing 
apparently to let it go at that. We are not willing 
to let it go at that. We want to do either of two 
things : either to cut down on tliis and to eliminate 
nuclear weapons effectively from the international 
arsenals, or, if that is not going to be done, to de- 
velop the weapons so that they can be effectively 
used as a defensive weapon without a mass destruc- 
tion of humanity. Either course seems to us to be 
one which we could choose. We prefer the first 
choice — have always preferred the first choice. 

The Baruch plan, offered some 10 years ago, 
would have prevented any thermonuclear atomic 
weapons. The Eisenhower proposals for atoms- 
for-peace, followed by the more detailed proposals 


made in the Disarmament Subcommittee,^ would 
have led to the gradual elimination under effective 
controls of nuclear weapons through the transfer 
from war stocks to peace stocks of the existing 
stockpiles. That is what we want; that is what 
we are going to try to get; but that, so far, the 
Soviet Union has rejected. 

Now if that rejection is final and we have to go 
along with this situation, then, as a country which 
is governed by humane considerations, which do 
not always apply to some other coimtries and gov- 
ernments, we want to get away, if we can, from 
having these weapons inevitably involve a vast 
destruction of humanity and turn them into 
smaller, tactical, cleaner weapons which can be 
used effectively for defensive purposes without this 
great possible danger to humanity. Also, I may 
say, develop their uses for peaceful purposes. 

Our first preference, of course, is the original 
preference indicated by the Baruch plan and by 
our more recent plans to have an effective way of 
getting rid of them. If you can't do that, then the 
question is, do you keep them only in such shape 
that they then threaten the existence of humanity 
or do you refine them, develop them into distinc- 
tive, discriminating weapons which can be used 
defensively for military purposes ? 

Q. Mr. Sec7-etary, it was reported on the Moscoiv 
proposal in an Italian neiospaper that Mr. Khru- 
shchev stated, ''''United States atomic hoses under- 
mine Italy^s security iecause they might hecome 
a means for attacking other countries without 
Italian knowledge.'''' I wonder, Mr. Secretary, 
whether you care to say anything about such 

A. The reference, I suppose, is to the possible 
establishment of intermediate-missiles bases in 

Q. Yes. 

A. I may say, if that is the case, first, there is 
no such agreement at the present time. And the 
pattern for any such agreements has been set by 
our arrangement with the United Kingdom,^ 
where it is expressly stipulated that there cannot 
be any use of those bases except with the consent 
and participation of the Government of the 
United Kingdom, and the same would presumably 
apply to Italy. 

'■ Bui-LETIN of Sept. 16, 1957, p. 451. 
' Ihid., Mar. 17, 1958, p. 418. 


Development of Smaller, Cleaner Weapons 

Q. Mr. Secretary, what is your understanding 
from the scientific advice you have as to how long 
it would take, in terms of testing, for the United 
States to develop a weapon, a smaller, cleaner, 
tactical weapon, if that is the choice that has to 
he made? 

A. I don't recall that any date has been put on 
this by our advisers. I think we will know a great 
deal more about it after the conclusion of the now 
projected series of tests. It is never possible in 
advance of testing to know just what the tests will 
show. But we would hope, at least, that much 
of the information that we want will be obtained 
from tlie present series of tests. 

Now there is another aspect of the matter, which 
probably will not be resolved by the present series 
of tests, and that is the possible use of nuclear 
power to create a defense against intercontinental 
or intermediate missiles. That is a phase of the 
matter which has not yet developed to a point 
where we would, I think, expect to get any defini- 
tive results out of the present series. But, as far 
as it relates to the making of smaller, cleaner 
weapons, it could very well be that that area 
would be pretty well exhausted by the present 
series of tests or perhaps supplementary tests that 
might be conducted entirely in a sealed compart- 
ment underground so that there would be no dan 
ger at all of any fallout or effect on human life. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, do we have any evidence of 
the nature of this recent series of Soviet tests, 
specifically whether or not they may have tested 
the smaller, cleaner, defensive type of tueapons 
you are talking about? 

A. Well, our knowledge, of course, depends 
upon what we pick up. And, for instance, we 
know what we know, but we don't know what we 
don't know. Now we cannot know whether or not 
there have been tests of which we have not gained 
any knowledge by the instruments that we have 
outside for detection purposes. The information 
that we have indicates that the tests have covered 
a considerable range from the smaller type meas- 
ured in kilotons to the larger type measured in 
megatons. But it is entirely possible that there 
have been tests of still smaller weapons — that we 
haven't, perhaps, picked up yet. That we don't 

Department of State Bulletin 

Q. Have any of these tests been announced 
within the Soviet Union — / inean, since Fehruary 

A. I think, in fact I am quite certain, that there 
has been no announcement made within the Soviet 
Union. There was one announcement made some 
months ago in the Soviet Union of a single test. 
But in the main these tests have been conducted 
in an atmosphere of complete secrecy, insofar as 
the Soviet Union could impose complete secrecy, 
and that has been total insofar as its own people 
have been concerned, with the one exception which, 
I think, occurred last fall. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, when you say there was no 
substance — / think that was the phrase you 
used — in this announcement of yesterday, what do 
you mean by that? 

A. What I mean by that is that it has added 
nothing to what has been known for quite a long 
time — that is, that the Soviet Union would like 
to bring about a cessation of testing on the part 
of the United States and itself and the United 
Kingdom and any third countries. They want to 
do that, however, quite apart from and unrelated 
to any program for doing away with the weapons 
themselves. Now they talk about banning the 
bomb and so forth, but they have neither proposed 
nor have they been willing to accept any program 
which would effectively bring about any diminu- 
tion in the accumulation of weapons stockpiles. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, didn't they make such a pro- 
posal last August 29? 

A. No, not that I am aware of. We jjroposed 
a cutoff in the use of fissionable material. We also 
proposed that weapons stocks be diminished in 
some proportion to be agreed upon. We didn't 
say on a basis of equality. We pointed out that 
probably we have larger stocks of fissionable ma- 
terial than the Soviets had and therefore that we 
would assume that their contribution fi-om war 
stocks to peace stocks should be proportionately 
less than our own. But they have never accepted 
either of those proposals. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, in one of your previous com- 
ments I believe you said — you referred to the now 
projected series of tests. Is any thought being 
given to calling off these tests? 

A. No, no thought has been given to calling 
them off. 

April 27, 7958 

The Three-Power Declaration 

Q. Mr. Secretary, on another point: The word- 
ing of the three-power declaration, which was sent 
to Moscow yesterday,* has given rise to some 
puzzlement as to whether the difference in lan- 
guage used indicates that the United States Gov- 
ernment has agreed to soften its position some- 
lohat on the kind of lower level talks that we 
envision. Could I ask, sir, whether it is still our 
position that lower level diplomatic discussions, 
either on an ambassadorial or a foreign-miiiisters 
level, which succeed in narroioing the differences 
on substantive foreign-policy questions, are neces- 
sary before we decide to go to a summit meeting? 

A. Yes, that is still our position, and I thought 
that that was made reasonably clear by the an- 
nouncement yesterday. It said, in effect, as I 
recall, that there was a need to try to reduce inter- 
national tensions and to settle some of the great 
problems of the world, and that, if a suixmiit 
meeting would promote that result, it would be 
desirable. But before we could tell whether or 
not a summit meeting would produce that result, 
it would be necessary to have these exploratory 
talks at the level, first and primarily, of the am- 
bassadors — the diplomatic level — and then a meet- 
ing of foreign ministers shortly preceding a 
summit conference, if there was to be one. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, on the meeting of foreign 
ministers, that statement seemed to indicate that 
the foreign ministers would, if they met, merely 
set a place and a time and determine the composi- 
tion of the conference. Do you contemplate that 
the foreign ministers would meet to examine the 
issues, as it also states, in addition to doing these 
things which seem to be the same conditions as 
the Soviets have set doiim for a foreign ministers' 

A. We would expect that the exploration of the 
issues would be primarily conducted at diplomatic 
levels. That position of ours was made clear, I 
think, in our aide memoire of March 6th.= At 
that time we referred to the Soviet suggestion that 
the meeting of foreign ministers would be limited 
to this, and we said we did not object to that as 
long as this work was done through diplomatic 
channels. And as a matter of fact I think I have 

' For text, see p. 648. 
■ BuiXETiN of Mar. 24, 


made clear a good many times that a prolonged 
meeting of foreign ministers, which would have 
to discuss tlie pros and cons of all these issues, is 
the last thing in the world that I personally would 
want to get into. 

Propaganda Advantages Weighed 

Q. Mr. Secretary.^ regardless of the validity, or 
lack of it, of Mr. Gromyho''s announeeTnent yes- 
terday, do you not agree that it is a fact that it 
has put us sharply — "ms" meaning the West — 
sharply on the defensive, from a propaganda point 
of vieio? And is it not necessary for us to re- 
spond in a way beyond the initial apparent impact 
of calling it little more than an April FooVs 'joke? 

A. I think that it has given them a certain 
propaganda victory, or at least a success, and I 
may say that in that respect we are not surprised. 

"We had a meeting recently of the principal top 
oiBcials involved in this situation with President 
Eisenhower. And we discussed very seriously this 
prospect and the question of whether it would be 
wise and prudent and in the best interests of the 
United States to try to steal a march on the Soviets 
by ourselves announcing a suspension of testing, 
at least for a time. We weighed very carefully all 
the pros and cons, and particularly some of these 
things that I have alluded to — the fact that miless 
there can be a program which goes to the heart 
of this problem, namely, the existence of nuclear 
weapons, we really ouglit to try to make these 
weapons into something that could be usable with- 
out vast human destruction and which could make 
progress toward their utility as more of a tactical 

Now I don't say that they ever wUl be a very 
nice thing to be hit by. But it wasn't very nice 
to be hit by all the bombing that hit Berlin or by 
the fire bombs that were dropped on Tokyo. But 
there is a difference between a weapon which will 
destroy on impact a very considerable area and a 
weapon which through fallout will destroy or im- 
pair human life through areas of a tliousand miles 
or more of diameter. We considered this prob- 
lem, and we decided that we could not, in fairness 
to our responsibilities and our duties to the Ameri- 
can people, perhaps to humanity, desist in a pro- 
gram which we believe to be sound, merely for 
propaganda advantages. We deliberately ac- 
cepted this propaganda thrust, knowing we were 


going to have to take it, rather than do something 
which we felt was basically imsound. 

Now we operate, I think, imder some disad- 
vantages from a propaganda standpoint. We op- 
erate under conditions that are totally different 
from those which surromid the Soviet Union. 

We operate, as is visible right here, in terms 
of a free and independent and highly intelligent 
press. If I came before you with something that 
was a phony, you would recognize it in a minute 
and tear it apart publicly. 

We operate in terms of an opposition political 
party, which is alert and prepared to expose, here 
at home and for reporting abroad, anything wliich 
does not seem to be thoroughly sound. 

We o^jerate in terms of an American public 
opinion which is higUy intelligent and properly 
critical of its Government — when I say "critical," 
I don't mean necessarily antagonistic but which 
holds government up to liigh standards. 

And we operate with allies who have to be con- 
sidted; they are not just dummies that we can 
lay down the law to, like the Soviet satellites 

Now all of those conditions make it very diffi- 
cult for us to carry on a type of propaganda 
such as the Soviets carry on. I don't say that we 
are doing the best job that we can do — I know 
we are not; we ought to do it better. But I do 
say that we face conditions which are totally dif- 
ferent from those of the Soviet Union, and 1 
thank God that we do. I woidchi't for a minute 
give up, in order to get a propaganda advantage 
in the world, any of these things I have talked 
about. I wouldn't give up our free press; I 
wouldn't give up our intelligent political opposi 
tion; I wouldn't give up the dedication of the 
American people to high principles; and I 
wouldn't give up our allies' being free people that 
we have to work with, pei-suade, consult with, 
and we just can't shoot from the hip without re- 
gard to their views. 

Now I think these things which we cherish so 
much, which are an inherent part of our free 
world, have to be retained and not sacrificed in an 
effort to get propaganda advantage. And, in- 
deed, I don't think we could get a pure propa- 
ganda advantage in the face of those conditions 
of our free society, which we honor and cherish 
and which we would never forgo merely to get 
conditions for a more effective propaganda. 

Deparfment of Stafe Bullefin 

I recall back in tlie United Nations in '49, I 
think it was, when Mr. Vyshinsky made a great 
speech. He said, "We are not using atomic en- 
ergy for war purposes ; we are only using atomic 
energy to move mountains, to shift rivers, for 
irrigation purposes," and so forth and so on. 
Wliy, it was just a wonderful speech. There 
wasn't a single word of truth in it, and it was 
never printed, of course, in the Soviet Union. 

Well, do we want to have conditions where we 
can pull off jjropaganda stunts of that sort? 
Surely we do not. 

Here you had yesterday the Head of the Gov- 
ernment of the Soviet Union quietly removed— 
not a word of praise, not a word of blame, not 
a word of explanation. He just goes back to 
being a teller in a bank. (Laughter) Well, we 
don't want conditions like that in this country. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, could you tell us lohether 
this meeting of which you spoke was last week? 

A. Well now, when you fix me on the date, I 
can't say. It was withm 10 days or 2 weeks. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, returning to those alterna- 
tives that you outlined at the beginning, are toe 
to understand you to mean that, xohen we have 
achieved a smaller, cleaner, tactical bomb, we will 
then be prepared to eliminate from our atomic 
arsenal the megaton bombs and the kiloton bombs? 

A. Well, this operation that I refer to involves 
a considerable making over of existing weapons 
into smaller or cleaner weapons. In other words, 
it is a process of transformation. You don't 
throw them away; the material is too valuable. 

Q. But will loe not retain any of the megaton 
bombs and kiloton bombs in the arsenal? 

A. I just don't know what the program is in 
that respect, and it is quite a long ways off be- 
fore we coidd get to that, and I think that is a 
rather academic question at the moment. I as- 
siune we might retain some, but tliat will be a 
military decision, probably to be made maybe 5 
or 10 years from now. 

Question of Sharing Nuclear Information 

Q. Mr. Secretary, there is considerable doubt 
on the Hill about the administration's proposal 
to share nuclear military infonnation with allied 
governments.'^ The chief point of opposition ap- 

April 27, 7958 

pears to be a fear that this will encourage the 
development of fourth-country nuclear powers. 
Can you give any assurance that it is not this 
Gov eminent'' s intention to do anything that would 
help fourth nuclear powers, beginning with 

A. The program which we have, which per- 
mits of sharing some of our nuclear knowledge 
with our allies, is not designed to, nor would it 
be used primarily to, expand the number of coun- 
tries which have nuclear weapons. However, the 
idea that we can stop that expansion by trying 
to keep our information secret is illusoiy. To- 
day, with atomic material increasingly being used 
for power purposes around the world, with in- 
creasing knowledge about the art, it is no gi-eat 
trick. It takes some money, but almost anybody 
who has enough money and some reasonably ed- 
ucated scientists can make at least a crude atomic 
or nuclear weapon, and the crude ones are the 
worst from the standpoint of their damaging ef- 
fect on vast masses of people. 

I believe myself that a program which enables 
the United States with discrimination to share its 
knowledge is more apt to keej) the development of 
nuclear weajjons under control than a very futile 
effort, thinking that we can stop this movement 
by not sharing our knowledge. And, of course, 
not sharing our knowledge with some countries — 
like the United Kingdom, which has already got 
a program of this sort — strikes me as a complete 
folly. All that it does is it calls for a vast du- 
plication of expense. It is very silly for the 
United Kingdom, which is cooperating with us 
in this type of program, to have to spend hun- 
dreds of millions of jDomids to learn something 
which we can give it for nothing, and then we 
may have to help them out economically in order 
to make up for the minecessary financial burden 
that we imposed upon them for nuclear weapons. 

Inter-American Relations 

Q. Mr. Secretary, on the subject of inter- 
American relations, the current opinion of Presi- 
dents of Latin America is that they want more 
vigorous aid as ivell as private investment from the 
U7iited States, and also there is a great preoccupa- 

' For a statement by Deputy Under Secretary Murphy, 
see ibid., Feb. 24, 1958, p. 312. 


tion with the present slump in raw-materials prices 
and with the threats of duties on some of their ex- 
ports in the United States. Would you care to 
comment on this and to tell us perhaps lohat you're 
thinking in terms of meeting these prohlems? 

A. We are quite aware of this concern, and in- 
deed we share it. This decline in the prices for 
raw materials hits not only them but it also hits 
us in many respects. And the problem of how to 
deal with it is a difficult one which is being studied 
actively by Mr. Dillon, our Deputy for Economic 
Affairs, by the Secretary of the Treasury, by the 
Export-Import Bank, and by other agencies of the 
Government. Wlienever a recession occurs which 
carries with it a decline in the price of raw ma- 
terials, that is particularly injurious to countries 
which do not have a diversified economy and which 
depend primarily upon a one- or two-crop export. 
We are very sympathetic with the problems that 
arise there. The situation has happened before. 
But I think that we will be alert to do what we can 
to take care of the need by trying to minimize re- 
strictions on their exports to the United States and 
by trying to take care of their needs to import from 
the United States, perhaps through the Export- 
Import Bank, which is designed partly for that 

Q. Mr. Secretary, can I go hack to a previous 
question that you answered, referring to the meet- 
ing with the President, at which you discussed the 
possibility of suspending tests. Was that occasion 
the first time that the administration seriously dis- 
cussed the matter, or was the administration, as it 
was reported, discussing it at the time during the 
campaign in ''56 when Adlai Stevenson made his 
proposal to suspend tests? 

A. I would say that this possibility of suspend- 
ing tests has been almost under constant review 
for the last 2 or 3 years and that' this particular 
meeting was nothing unique or unusual. This 
particular meeting was a review of the situation 
occasioned by our foreknowledge that probably the 
Soviets, as soon as they completed their tests, 
would make some kind of a gesture which would 
have propaganda effect but would not, in fact, 
have any practical effect, as far as we can judge, 
upon what they would be doing. 

As I said, they would naturally suspend tests 
upon the completion of one series until they were 
ready for another. And to say that they will re- 

sume, if we go on with our tests, is virtually to say 
that they are going to resume. Therefore there 
was nothing in it but propaganda. But we recog- 
nized that it was a propaganda move which could 
have, probably would have, considerable effect. 
The question was whether we should try to meet it. 
For the reason that I have given, we couldn't meet 
it the way they meet it. They met it by saying 
things that don't have any substance. We can't 
and wouldn't want to meet it by saying things that 
don't have any real substance. Under our form 
of society we can't do it, I may say. 

I referred to some of the elements which are 
permanent in our society, I hope, which prevent 
that kind of thing. I want to say also that never 
have I known a man who was so dedicated to truth 
and sincerity and faith in the goodness of man as 
President Eisenhower. Wlien he deals with these 
things, you get a standard of judgment which is 
just so remote from any consideration of pure 
propaganda or phoniness that it just can't exist in 
the same room with him. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, there is a widespread feeling 
that the United States is more than just a little 
favorable toward the rebels on Sumatra. Would 
you say, please, what our feeling is toward the rebel 
movement on Sumatra and if there is any further 
thought being given to the blockade which exists 
on both sides of Sumatra? 

A. The United States views this trouble in Su- 
matra as an internal matter. We try to be ab- 
solutely correct in our international proceedings 
and attitude toward it. And I would not want to 
say anything which might be looked upon as a 
departure from that liigh standard. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, do we have any information 
that the Indonesian Central Government has re- 
ceived aid from the Soviets? 

A. Yes, we do have. 

Israel-United Arab Republic Border Dispute 

Q. Mr. Secretary, in view of the recent fiareups 
along the border between Israel and the Syrian 
part of the United Arab Republic, are you coru- 
sidering the advisability of proposing to station 
the United Nations Emergency Forces along that 
border too? 

A. I don't know of any consideration being 
given to that proposal at the present time. I would 

Department of Sfafe Bulletin 

hope, and we have considerable reason to hope, that 
this matter can be settled through the United Na- 
tions machinery that is already there. You see, the 
problem arises primarily from the fact that there 
is this work being done. An irrigation project is 
under way. The question is, does it or does it not 
impinge upon the demilitarized zone? 

Now, the precise limits of the demilitarized zone 
are not altogether clear. And what you're talking 
about is a question of, as I understand it, a few 
hundred yards. There is a plan to have a survey 
made which would permit of delimiting with 
greater accuracy just exactly what are the boun- 
daries of the neutralized zone, and there is an in- 
dication of the willingness of the Israeli Govern- 
ment to comply with whatever is the result of that 
survey. So I would hope that the matter could be 
worked out in an amicable way and without such a 
rather major operation that would be required to 
establish new units of the UNEF in that area. 

Q . Mr. Secretary, could we follow up an earlier 
question? You replied "yes" when the question 
was ashed if you had any information as to Soviet 
shipments of arms to the Central Government of 

A. Wait a minute, I don't think it was a question 
of shipments of arms. 

Q. Shipment of aid. 

A. Aid, yes. 

Q. Well, sir, could you then ansiver the question, 
will you explain what information you have about 
this aid, what type it is, and the extent of it? 

A. Well, there was a credit of $100 million which 
was opened in favor of the Government of In- 
donesia by the Soviet Union some months ago. 
That credit is now being drawn upon in terms of 
various supplies, first of which, as far as I am 
aware, are certain ships which have recently ar- 
rived in Djakarta. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, it was announced yesterday, 
I believe, that large areas of the Soviet Union, in- 
cluding the Ukraine and the Caucasus and South- 
(west Asian area, have been banned to travel by 
foreigners. Have we any information as to why 
or whafs going on? That is apparently a large 

A. No, I have not heard from our intelligence 
people any analysis of that. 

'" April 27, 7958 

Effect of Canadian Elections 

Q. Mr. Secretary, what effect do you see the 
Canadian election results having upon United 
States-Canadian relations? 

A. I think that, whatever the outcome of the 
elections might have been, there would have been 
a continuance of the good relations which we have 
been having with the Government of Canada and 
which we expect to have. In saying that, I don't 
deny the fact that there are between us problems ; 
there always have been problems between us. I 
mentioned them here before in some detail. The 
working out of those problems is something to 
which we must dedicate ourselves, and will. But 
we know from recent experiences with the Con- 
servative Government since it has been in power 
that their Government is composed of men of good 
will — we know that ours is too. And we are con- 
fident that any problems there are will be worked 
out because we are all, both sides, dedicated to the 
proposition that we must get along together. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, in the event of a shift of mega- 
ton bombs to smaller bombs, what then happens to 
the policy of massive retaliation when the United 
States moves on the offensive and deals out wide- 
spread destruction? 

A. Well, I don't know what you mean by the 
United States moving to the offensive. We never 
intend to initiate any attack, and the question is, if 
we are attacked, what do we do ? Wlien I say "we 
are attacked," that includes our allies, to whose 
defense we are committed. Now, obviously, I 
would say that, if there is an attack upon us which 
involves a massive use of nuclear weapons, we 
would respond in kind. If the attack is of a kind 
which could be dealt with by smaller weapons and 
if we have them — and that is one of the things that 
we are exploring through these tests — then it 
could be dealt with in that way and would not in- 
volve this mterchange of nuclear weapons so 
dangerous to such vast segments of humanity. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, Mr. Khrushchev, in an inter 
view with the Italian newspaper II Tempo on Fri 
day, made this comment about a summit. He said 
'■'■The Government of the Soviet Union has been 
blamed for not having lived up to its promises, but 
it must be noted that the Soviet Union at no time 
promised reunification of Germany through free 


elections as Secretary Dvlles and others imagine!''' 
Could you coimnent on that, sir? 

A. Well, I can only comment by reciting, I tliink 
with substantial accuracy, the exact words which 
Mr. Khrushchev agreed on, and those were : they 
agreed — that means the participants at the summit 
conference — that Germany should be reunified by 
free elections in conformity with the national in- 
terests of the German people and of European se- 
curity.'' Now, there was certainly some agreement 
there because the very word "agreed" is used in 
that particular statement. And it is also demon- 
strable that nothing has happened as a result of 
that agreement. Therefore, it seems to me that the 
conclusion from those two facts is that somebody 
has welshed on an agreement. 

Q. Thank ymi, sir. 

Ninth Anniversary of NATO 

Message of Secretary Dulles 

us together. We must maintain our defensive 
strength. We must continue, with patience and 
determination, our search for a just and lasting 

There can be no doubt that the strength and 
unity achieved through NATO has already 
greatly lessened the danger of war. But the peace 
we seek means more than the mere absence of war. 
It should be a positive condition of justice and 

As we have shown we are willing to seize every 
reasonable opportunity of advancing the cause of 
a just jDcace through genuine negotiations. While 
we continue oiu- search for the reality of peace, 
I am confident that we will steadfastly refuse to 
be satisfied with the mere mirage. 

NATO's past record gives us every reason for 
confidence that our Alliance will prove successful 
in meeting the challenges of the future. As we 
enter this tenth year, I reaffirm the dedication of 
the United States to the principles and purposes 
of NATO. I would also like to send our special 
thanks to you and to the entire International 
Staff for the devoted work done in the past year. 

Press release 170 dated April 4 

Following is the text of a message from Secre- 
tary Dulles to the Secretary General of NATO, 
Paul-Henri Spook, on the occasion of the ninth 
anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty. 

I send you and your colleagues on the North 
Atlantic Coimcil warmest good wishes on the 
ninth aimiversary of the signing of the North 
Atlantic Treaty. 

At this time it is, I believe, particularly im- 
portant to recall the great progress made by 
NATO during the past nine years. It is doubtful 
that human history records any instance in which 
a group of independent states, through collective 
action, have accomplished so much in so brief a 

Wliile recalling the achievements of the past we 
look to the promises and the challenges of the fu- 
ture. We must constantly seek to strengthen the 
bonds of understanding and cooperation that hold 

' For text of the directive issued to the Big Four Foreign 
Ministers at the conclusion of the Heads of Government 
Meeting at Geneva, July 18-23, 1955, see ibid.. Aug. 1, 
1955, p. 176. 

U.S. Views on Soviet Announcement 
of Cessation of Bomb Tests 

Following is a Dejyartment statement of March 
31 regarding an announcement hy the Union of 
Soviet Socialist Republics that it would terminate 
tests in the Soviet Union of all types of atomic 
and nuclear loeapons. 


Press release 158 dated March 31 

The Soviet statement about nuclear testing will, 
of course, be studied in detail. But some general 
observations can be made at once. 

The Soviet statement comes on the heels of an 
intensive series of secret Soviet tests. They 
should arouse world opinion to the need to deal 
in an orderly and dependable way with the test- 
ing and related aspects of the disarmament prob- 

Soviet official propaganda incessantly seeks to 
create abroad the image of a peace-loving Soviet 


Department of State Bulletin 

Government. But that same Government openly 
defies the United Nations with respect to both the 
substance and the procedure of disarmament. 

The charter of the United Nations gives that 
organization broad authority with reference to 
principles of disarmament and the regulation of 
armaments. In the exercise of that authority the 
United Nations General Assembly has, by an 
overwhelming vote, approved a comprehensive 
first-stage disarmament proposal and called on 
the nations concerned to begin at once technical 
studies as to how these proposals might be car- 
ried out.^ These studies included the studies 
needed for a supervised suspension of nuclear 
testing. The United States stands ready in- 
stantly to respond to that resolution. But the 
Soviet Union refuses to comply. 

The same General Assembly reconstituted and 
Bnlarged its Disarmament Commission. The 
United States wants that Commission to carry 
Dut its mandate. But the Soviet Union boycotts 
the Commission. 

The charter makes the Security Council re- 
sponsible for formulating plans for the establish- 
ment of a system for the regulation of armaments. 
The United States has recently proposed to the 
Soviet Union that this responsibility be dis- 
charged.^ But the Soviet Union refuses to co- 

The Soviet Government declines to deal with 
the subject of armament in any of the several 
ways prescribed by the United Nations Charter. 
It prefers elusive formulations of its own. 

It is elemental that free nations which want to 
remain free will not, and should not, forgo their 
indispensable collective capacity to deter and de- 
fend against aggression merely in reliance on a 
Soviet statement of intentions for which there is 
no system of verification, which can be evaded in 
secrecy and altered at will. 

The United States again calls on the Soviet 
Union to deal with the vital problem of disarma- 
ment in an orderly way, in accordance with the 
United Nations Charter, to which the signature 
of the Soviet Union is affixed. That charter con- 
stitutes a solemn agreement. If it is nullified by 
the Soviet Union, why should the world place con- 
fidence in new Soviet engagements ? 


The question of the cessation of atomic and hydrogen 
weapon tests gains a greater significance for the cause of 
peace and the welfare of the people with every year and 
with every month. At the present moment the cessa- 
tion of tests is demanded by the overwhelming majority 
of the world's population. 

Despite the fact that for many years now people have 
persisted in their demands for the termination of these 
tests, the tests continue to be held, a circumstance which 
leads to the creation of new types of lethal nuclear 
weapons, increases the concentration of radioactive ele- 
ments in air and soil, poisons human organisms, and 
threatens the normal development of further generations. 

The Soviet Union has made persistent and consistent 
efforts aimed at reaching agreement with the powers in 
possession of atomic and hydrogen weapons, on the sub- 
ject of immediate and unconditional termination of 
nuclear tests. For this purpose the U.S.S.R. Supreme 
Soviet and the Soviet Government reiterated over the 
past few years concrete proposals for terminating the 
tests, on the basis of which an accord on this matter 
could have been achieved a long time ago. 

In the appeal to the U.S. Congress and the British Par- 
liament of May 10, lOST," the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet 
called upon the U.S. Congress and the British Parliament 
to cooperate in concluding an agreement between the 
governments of the U.S.S.R., the United States, and Great 
Britain on an immediate termination of the experimental 
explosion of atomic and hydrogen bombs. At its last 
session, in December 1957, the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet, 
expressing the striving of the Soviet people toward 
peace, proposed that the U.S.S.R., Great Britain, and the 
United States take upon themselves the obligation to ter- 
minate, from Jan. 1, 1958, all tests of atomic and hy- 
drogen weapons. 

However, the United States and Great Britain did not 
respond to these proposals of the U.S.S.R. Consequently, 
experimental explosions of atomic and hydrogen bombs 
are continuing in various parts of the globe as before, a 
fact which bears witness to the further intensification in 
the field of production of ever more dangerous types of 
mass destruction weapons. 

Guided by the endeavor to make a practical beginning 
to a universal termination of atomic and hydrogen 
weapon tests, and thus to make the first step in the di- 
rection of the final salvation of mankind from the threat 
of destructive atomic war, the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet 
decides : 

1. To terminate tests in the Soviet Union of all tyiies 
of atomic and nuclear weapons. The U.S.S.R. Supreme 
Soviet expects that the parliaments of other states in 
possession of atomic and hydrogen weapons will, on their 

' Bulletin of Dec. 16, 1957, p. 961. 
' Ibid., Mar. 31, 1958, p. 516. 

April 21, 1958 

^ Passed by the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. on Mar. 
31 following an address by the Soviet Foreign Minister, 
Andrei A. Gromyko. 

' Not printed. 


part, do everything in their power in order that experi- 
mental explosions of these types of weapons will be termi- 
nated also in those countries. 

2. To charge the U.S.S.R. Council of Ministers with 
undertaking the necessary measures aimed at the imple- 
mentation of the first point of this decision and with 
making an approach to the governments of other states 
possessing atomic and hydrogen weapons with an appeal 
for the adoption of analogous measures so as to secure 
the termination of atomic and hydrogen tests everywhere 
and forever. 

Should the other powers that possess atomic and hydro- 
gen weapons continue to test these weapons, then the Gov- 
ernment of the Soviet Union will, understandably, act 
freely in the question of the testing of atomic and hydro- 
gen weapons in the Soviet Union, in conformity with the 
above mentioned circumstances, and bearing the interests 
of the security of the Soviet Union in mind. 

The U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet sincerely hopes that the 
Initiative of the Soviet Union for the cessation of nuclear 
weapons tests will receive due support from the parlia- 
ments of other states and is profoundly convinced that 
if, in response to the decision of the Soviet Union, other 
states possessing nuclear weapons should in their turn 
cease testing these weapons, then by this very act an im- 
portant practical stride will have been taken on the road 
to the consolidation of peace and the strengthening of 
the security of all peoples. 

Such a step would undoubtedly have great significance 
as regards the restoring of the whole of the international 
situation to health and would be conducive to the libera- 
tion of mankind from oppressive alarm for the fate of 
the world, for the fate of future generations. 
The Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. Moscow, the Kremlin, 
Mar. 31, 1958. 

Western Powers Issue Declaration 
on Summit Meeting 

Following is a Department announcement with 
the text of a three-power declaration regarding a 
summit meeting {press release 159) , together with 
a letter of March 3 from Soviet Premier Bulganin 
to President Eisenhower and a Soviet aide mem- 
oire of March 2^.. 


Tlie following is the text of an identical declara- 
tion presented to the Soviet Government at noon 
today, e.s.t., by the British, French, and United 
States Ambassadors in Moscow. 

The declaration has received the unanimous 
approval of the Council of the North Atlantic Al- 
liance. It expresses the common position of the 

member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty 


The present international situation requires that 
a serious attempt be made to reach agreement on 
the main problems affecting attainment of peace 
and stability in the world. In the circumstances 
a summit meeting is desirable if it would provide 
opportunity for conducting serious discussions of 
major problems and would be an effective means 
of reaching agreement on significant subjects. 

It is clear that, before a summit meeting can 
meet in these conditions, preparatory work is 

This preparatory work could best be performed 
by exchanges through diplomatic channels lead- 
ing to a meeting between foreign ministers. 

The main purpose of this preparatory work 
should be to examine the position of the various 
governments on the major questions at issue be- 
tween them and to establish what subjects should 
be submitted for examination by heads of govern- 
ment. It would not be the purpose of these pre- 
paratory talks to reach decisions but to bring out, 
by general discussion, the possibilities of 

The foreign ministers, assuming they have con- 
cluded the preparatory work to their satisfac- 
tion, would reach agreement on the date and place 
of the summit meeting and decide on its 

If this procedure is acceptable to the Soviet 
Government, it is suggested that diplomatic ex- 
changes should start in Moscow in the second 
half of April. 


Official translation 

Dear Mr. Pbesident : I have received your message of 
February 15,^ and I deem it necessary to express some 
views regarding the questions touched upon in your 

It has been almost three months since the Soviet Gov- 
ernment, concerned about the development of the inter- 
national situation, which development is dangerous to the 
cause of peace, made a proposal to convene a conference 
of top government ofiicials to solve a number of problems 
of immediate urgency and to determine through joint 

For text, see Bulletin of Mar. 10, 

p. 373. 


Deparfmenf of State Bulletin <pril 

efforts effective methods of easing international tension 
and of ending tlie "cold war" situation. 

It is obvious even now that the idea of conducting 
negotiations at the highest level has met with approval 
and support on the part of governments and wide public 
circles in many countries. This is all the more under- 
standable because the supreme interests of all peoples — • 
the interests of the preservation and strengthening of 
peace — insistently demand that an end be put to a fur- 
ther drift toward war, that the atmosphere of suspicion, 
threats, and military preparations be dispelled, and that 
a path of peaceful coexistence and businesslilie coopera- 
tion of all states be embarked upon. 

In our letters to each other during recent months we 
have exchanged views in regard to the holding of a sum- 
mit conference, and I consider that this exchange of views 
has had a positive significanee and has played a definite 
role in the preparation of such a meeting. Above all, our 
correspondence has shown that the governments of our 
two countries hold the general opinion that a conference 
of top government officials is desirable and that its suc- 
cessful outcome can exert a favorable influence on the 
entire international situation. Furthermore, we have had 
an opportunity to present in a preliminary way our views 
with regard to a number of specific problems, which is 
useful in itself, since it facilitates the search for a mu- 
tually acceptable basis of negotiations. 

In your message of February 15 you state, Mr. Presi- 
dent, that the Soviet Government insists that only its 
own proposals be discussed by the participants in the 
conference and that it refuses to consider the questions 
proposed for discussion by the Government of the United 
States. This is, however, an altogether erroneous inter- 
pretation of the position of the Soviet Government. Ac- 
tually, the presentation of problems which we propose for 
discussion at a summit meeting has by no means been 
dictated by any special interests of the Soviet Union. 
They are international problems which have not arisen 
just today, problems the solution of which has been long 
awaited and demanded by the peoples. 

Are the American people less interested than the people 
of the Soviet Union or of other countries, for example, in 
a renunciation by states of the use of atomic and hydrogen 
bombs, in having nuclear weapons tests terminated at long 
last or in having the states take coordinated measures 
toward preventing a surprise attack? Are the British 
and French, the inhabitants of West Germany, or the Bel- 
gians less interested than the Russians, Poles, Czechs, or 
the inhabitants of East Germany in the conclusion of a 
nonaggression pact between NATO member states and 
the parties to the Warsaw Treaty, or in the initiation by 
both sides, by mutual agreement, of a reduction in the 
number of foreign troops in Germany, or in creating in 
the center of Europe a wide zone which would be free of 
nuclear weapons and excluded from the sphere of the 
use of atomic, hydrogen, and rocket weapons? Can one 
believe that only the Soviet Union of all the states is in- 
terested in the creation of a healthier international politi- 
cal atmosphere, to which end it is necessary to stop the 
war propaganda which is poisoning the minds of the 
people in a number of countries? It is also quite obvious 

April 27, 1958 

that it would be in the interest of all states to have a free 
development of international trade based on the principle 
of mutual advantage without any artificial barriers, and 
to stabilize the situation in the Near and Middle East 
through a renunciation by the great powers of any inter- 
ference in the internal affairs of the countries in that 
area, which more than once has already been a hotbed 
of dangerous conflicts. 

We believe it is the duty of aU statesmen who are really 
concerned over the fate of the world to contribute in 
every possible way toward achieving an agreement on 
these pressing problems. There are no insurmountable 
obstacles to the solution of all these problems. Only one 
thing is required — a willingness of the participants in 
the negotiations to display realism and a desire actually 
to achieve a relaxation of international tension, which 
things are so necessary under present conditions. 

The only factor that motivates the Soviet Government 
in its proposal for consideration of these problems is 
the conviction that under present conditions it would be 
best to begin a general lessening of international tension 
by solving the most immediate problems, which could be 
completely solved even now without harm to the interests 
of any individual state. We see a confirmation of the 
correctness of this viewpoint in the fact that the Soviet 
Union's proposals have found a sympathetic response 
and support on the part of governments and wide public 
circles in many countries, both in the East and in the 

Furthermore, we by no means believe, nor have we ever 
stated, that only the topics proposed for discussion by 
the Soviet Union can be considered at a summit meeting. 
I should like to remind you that in our proposals of Janu- 
ary 8 ^ there was a direct statement concerning the willing- 
ness of the Soviet Government also to discuss, by mutual 
agreement, such additional constructive proposals con- 
tributing to a termination of the '-cold war" as might be 
presented by the other participants in the meeting. 

However, this does not mean that we can agree to dis- 
cuss matters that are in the sphere of internal affairs of 
other states, the consideration of which could have no 
results other than a still further aggravation of the rela- 
tions between states. Precisely in this category belong 
such matters as the situation in the countries of Eastern 
Europe and the unification into a single state of the 
German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of 
Germany. You, Mr. President, are familiar with the 
viewpoint of the Soviet Government in this respect, and it 
is hardly necessary to speak of this again in detail. A 
discussion of such questions would mean inadmissible 
interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states, 
to which the Soviet Union will never in any case agree. 
The legitimate question arises as to why proposals are 
directed to the Soviet Government to discuss the internal 
affairs of third countries that are sovereign states and 
with which both the United States of America and the 
Soviet Union have normal diplomatic relations. In fact, 
if the Government of the U.S.A. has any uncertainties 
with regard to the internal structure of this or that coun- 
try of Eastern Europe, there exists, as you are aware, a 

'Not printed. 


practice, developed through the centuries, of clarifying 
such questions not by interfering in the internal affairs 
of other countries but by making use of ordinary diplo- 
matic channels. We do not consider it possible to assume 
the role of judges and decide questions pertaining to the 
internal structure of other countries. We are likewise 
unable to recognize such a right for any other state, and 
we consider inadmissible not only the discussion hut even 
the mere presentation of such questions. 

We have no doubt that if someone were to propose an 
international conference for the discussion of the internal 
political situation in France, Italy, Turkey, Canada, or in 
the United States itself, for example, such a proposal 
would meet with the most emphatic objection on your part. 
To include questions of this kind in the agenda of a summit 
conference would certainly mean foredooming this con- 
ference to failure, and this we do not desire at all. 

I should like to add that, if we, for our part, put forward 
a number of questions which in the opinion of the Soviet 
Government should be considered at the conference, we do 
not at all consider the list of these questions definitive. 
As I have already communicated to you, Mr. President, 
the Soviet Government has always been prepared to dis- 
cuss also at a summit conference, by common consent, any 
other constructive proposals for ending the "cold war" 
that might be submitted by other participants at the 

My colleagues and I have closely studied the considera- 
tions contained in your messages. The Soviet Government 
agrees to discuss the following questions as well at a 
summit conference : 

We are prepared to discuss the questions of prohibiting 
the use of outer space for military purposes and the liqui- 
dation of alien military bases on foreign territories. I 
think you will agree that the reaching of an agreement on 
this important question would greatly reduce the danger 
of a sudden outbreak of war and would be an important 
step toward ensuring conditions for a tranquil and peace- 
ful life among nations. 

The Soviet Government also considers it possible to dis- 
cuss the matter of concluding a German peace treaty. 
We propose that the governments of the German Demo- 
cratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany be 
invited to participate in the discussion of this problem. 
Of, the problem of uniting the G.D.R. and the F.R.G. 
in a single state, which falls completely within the compe- 
tence of these two German states, cannot, as the Soviet 
Government has already stated repeatedly, be the subject 
of discussion at the forthcoming summit conference. 

We agree that at a summit conference there should also 
be a discussion of the questions of developing ties and 
contacts among countries. The Soviet Government has 
Invariably been in favor of every possible development of 
such contacts. It shares the views expressed in your 
message of February 15 concerning the importance of such 
contacts. I should like to emphasize that for its part the 
Soviet Government attaches great significance to the 
maintenance of systematic personal contacts between top 
government officials for the exchange of views concerning 
current international problems in the interests of improv- 
ing relations between states and of strengthening mutual 
trust and consolidating universal peace. 


Likewise, ^^'e are not opposed to having an exchange of 
views regarding ways of strengthening the U.N. ; we have 
merely expressed certain considerations of principle which 
we have in this respect. 

I have already had occasion to explain why we consider 
unacceptable the proposal that our two governments re- 
nounce the principle of unanimity of the permanent mem- 
bers of the U.N. Security Council in deciding certain 
questions in that body. We cannot agree at all with the 
claim that the only thing in question is the procedural 
aspect of the matter, although, as is well known, this 
aspect also has important significance in settling great 
political problems. We are firmly convinced that the 
implementation of measures proposed by you would in 
practice lead to the use of the Security Council in the 
interests of one or several powers to the detriment of the 
interests of other states, to undermining the various prin- 
ciples of unanimity of the great powers which have the 
basic responsibility for maintaining international peace, 
that principle on which the U.N. is founded and which 
represents the basic guarantee for the normal activity and 
the very existence of the U.N. It is a well-known fact 
that in the development of this principle the Government 
of the U.S.A. itself played an active role. One cannot 
fail to see that at the present time the preservation of 
this principle is still more necessary than it was thirteen 
years ago, when the U.N. was created. 

The Soviet Government has set forth its viewpoint, not 
only concerning problems subject to discussion but also 
regarding the participants, the time of convening, and 
certain other problems. Unfortunately, we do not yet 
know the viewpoint of the Government of the U.S.A. con- 
cerning these matters ; there is no mention of this even 
in your message of February 1.5. 

As to the method of preparation for the conference, the 
necessity for which has now been expressed by the heads 
of the governments of all the largest states, the Soviet 
government feels that all ways and means should be used 
that might expedite such preparations. It i 
that an agreement can be reached through diplomatic 
channels on certain questions relating thereto, and these 
opportunities should, of course, be utilized. At the same 
time we take into account the fact that the Government 
of the United States and certain other governments have 
declared themselves in favor of calling a Foreign M 
isters' conference as one of the preparatory measures for 
a summit conference. If you consider that a Foreign 
Jlinisters' conference would serve and would help to ex- 
pedite the convening of a conference of top government 
officials with the participation of the heads of govern- 
ment, then we are prepared to comply with such a desire. 
We are proceeding on the premise that the convening ofl 
a siimmit conference as soon as possible fulfills the hopes 
of all peoples. 

Since the parties agree on the desirability of expedit 
ing the preparation of a summit conference, we propose 
to call a Foreign Ministers' meeting in April, and we 
consider that it should prepare the agenda for a summit 
conference, determine who should participate in it, and 
decide when and where it should be held. It would be 
advisable to decide all these questions as soon as 

Department of State Bulletin 

I must say, Mr. President, that the present state of 
preparation of the summit conference causes us deflnlte 
concern. The lack of a reply from the Government of 
the United States to a number of concrete proposals from 
the Soviet Government concerning preparations for the 
conference, and also the fact that the Government of the 
United States continues knowingly to submit unaccept- 
able questions, all of this obviously delays the convening 
of the conference. 

We are all the more alarmed since, in addition to de- 
laying a decision on the question of convening the con- 
ference, the governments of the United States and of cer- 
tain other NATO member states are stepping up the 
tempo of practical measures in the sphere of military 
preparations, which cannot but aggravate international 
tension. I have in mind particularly a recently signed 
agreement between the United States and Great Britain 
on the establishment of bases in the territory of the lat- 
ter for launching American medium-range rockets,^ and 
also the announcement of the convening in Paris, in April 
of this year, of a conference of Defense Ministers of the 
NATO nations for the purpose of studying such questions 
as setting up rocket bases in the territories of NATO 
member countries, stockpiling atomic weapons in those 
countries, and the transfer of atomic weapons to NATO 

We note that the press of certain Western powers has 
recently stated openly that the United States will not 
consent to a summit conference until agreements have 
been reached concerning the establishment of American 
rocket bases in the territory of the West European NATO 
member countries. 

All of this results in a very strange situation : on the 
one hand, assertions are being made regarding readiness 
to make efforts toward relaxing international tension and 
lessening the danger of war; on the other hand, military 
preparations are being made with feverish haste, which 
can only increase international tension and the danger of 

How should we, Mr. President, under these conditions, 
evaluate the situation which has been created? Should 
we judge the true intentions of the Government of the 
United States and of certain other NATO nations by their 
words or by their deeds? It seems to us that if we are 
all agreed that it is necessary to hold a summit con- 
ference to study urgent international questions, then at 
least measures should not be taken that might only im- 
pede the convening of such a conference and render more 
complicated the solution of the problems facing it. 

I cannot, Mr. President, overlook certain statements, 
chiefly concerning questions of Soviet-American relations, 
contained in your communication of February 15. I do 
not wish to dwell on the tone in which certain passages 
of that communication were written, since a contest in 
sharp words cannot be useful in finding ways to relax 
international tension. 

First of all, I must say that the statements concerning 
the Socialist order of society, the domestic and foreign 
policy of the Socialist states, and the mutual relations 

= Bulletin of Mar. 17, 1958, p. 418. 
April 21, 1958 

between them as contained in your communication are 
not in conformity with actual reality. 

We are, of course, aware that you are opposed to the 
ideas of communism and the principles underlying the 
social system in the Soviet Union and other Socialist coun- 
tries. We do not expect our views on questions of social 
development to coincide. However, while you maintain 
that the proponents of the ideology which you also support 
have the right to criticize the Socialist system in every 
way, you construe the criticism of capitalist social orders 
made by Communists in the Soviet Union as proof that 
the Soviet Government is not endeavoring to improve re- 
lations with the United States of America. 

This question deserves special consideration. We have 
more than once emphasized how dangerous it would be 
to the cause of peace to bring ideological disagreements 
into the sphere of relations between states. We cannot 
come into agreement in the ideological sphere. You pre- 
fer the capitalistic system while we have never concealed 
our negative attitude toward capitalism, and we are 
firmly convinced that only socialism can ensure true free- 
dom and equality for all men and the most complete 
development of society, both materially and morally. The 
polemics between the adherents of the two ideologies is 
perfectly natural. But does that mean that between the 
Soviet Union and the United States of America there 
cannot exist normal or even good and friendly relations? 
Of course it does not. Otherwise, the prospects of pre- 
serving peace would be dark indeed. The experience of 
the Soviet Union, which maintains good relations with 
many states, based on mutual respect and trust, which 
states have a different social order from that of the Soviet 
Union, is suflScient proof that a difference in social systems 
is not an obstacle in such matters. 

As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, we not only 
consider an improvement in our relations with the U.S.A. 
possible and desirable, despite the difference in the social 
systems of our two countries, but on more than one oc- 
casion we have put forward concrete proposals to that end. 
We fully share your opinion on the desirability of taking 
steps to enable our peoples to become better acquainted. 

We can only welcome your proposal that influential 
citizens of the Soviet Union visit the United States of 
America for the purpose of becoming familiar with the 
life of the American people. For our part, we shall be 
glad if prominent Americans come to the Soviet Union 
to see how the Soviet people live. This can only be re- 
garded as useful. It is well known, for example, that 
many Americans, including prominent public figures of 
the U.S.A., after a visit to the Soviet Union, have ad- 
mitted publicly how erroneous was their previous opin- 
ion concerning the life of the Soviet people. 

I shall recall in this connection that the Supreme Soviet 
of the U.S.S.R. proposed to the Congress of the U.S.A. 
two years ago an exchange of their parliamentary delega- 
tions. It can hardly be denied that such an exchange 
would contribute to a mutual understanding of life in our 
two countries. Unfortunately, Mr. President, this pro- 
posal has not yet received any reply. The question arises 
as to how this can be reconciled with the desires expressed 
in your message regarding a development of mutual con- 


tacts. If the position of the American side in regard to 
this question has now changed, such a change can only 
be welcomed. 

We also welcome your statement that the recently con- 
cluded Soviet-American agreement on exchanges in the 
fields of culture, technology, and education* should be 
fully utilized to improve the relations between our coun- 
tries. As you know, we on our part are ready to go even 
further in this respect; it is precisely this desire that 
dictated our proposal to conclude a treaty of friendship 
and cooperation between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. 

There is no doubt that the development of Soviet- 
American contacts and ties will facilitate a strengthening 
of mutual understanding between our two countries, in 
the interests of peace and international cooperation. On 
the other hand, it is obvious that any attempts deliberately 
to sow distrust and kindle animosity between the peoples 
of the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., as well as any endeavor 
to consign to oblivion the historical traditions of friend- 
ship between our peoples, may lead to consequences that 
would be dangerous, and not only for our two countries 
alone. It is precisely for that reason that we cannot fail 
to react when voices are heard in the United States 
preaching the idea of a "preventive war," an armed at- 
tack on the Soviet Union. You write that you know of 
no one in the United States that comes forth with such 
appeals. Unfortunately, there are such people, and such 
appeals are heard in the U.S.A. 

For example, the idea of a "preventive war" against the 
U.S.S.R. has been discussed in the American press for 
several weeks, an idea which, as attested by such well- 
known American commentators as Hanson Baldwin, 
Arthur Krock, and Drew Pearson, is contained in a secret 
report presented to the National Security Council of the 
U.S.A. by the so-called "Gaither Committee." Comment- 
ing on this report, Baldwin, military commentator of the 
"New York Times," writes that "since the launching of 
the Soviet sputniks one hears again in Washington, 
though in muted tones, the old talk about a preventive 
war, made easier to swallow by the new term of 'pre- 
ventive retaliation', — that is to say, attacking the Soviet 
Union first." 

How can all this be evaluated, Mr. President? We do 
not know what precise recommendations are contained in 
the report of the "Gaither Committee," but one thing is 
clear : this report provoked a public discussion in the 
U.S.A. of the idea of a "preventive war." Such persons 
as Lawrence, editor of the widely circulated magazine 
"United States News and World Report," and Puleston, 
former Director of American Naval Intelligence of the 
U.S.A., and others came forth with open propaganda for 
aggression against the Soviet Union. 

Of course, we do not confuse the statements of such 
persons with the official policy of the U.S.A. But the 
security of the Soviet Union does not allow us to ignore 
completely statements of this kind, especially since the 
Government of the U.S.A. did not condemn the statements 
in question. In our opinion there is danger and harm in 
the very fact that such ideas are suggested to the Ameri- 
can people on the printed page, read by millions of Ameri- 
cans. It is hardly necessary to emphasize the fact that 

propaganda of this kind runs counter to any improvement 
in the relations between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. 

Lastly, I cannot fail to reject the unfounded assertions 
contained in your message of February 15 to the effect 
that responsibility for the fact that nuclear energy is 
being used at present primarily for military rather than 
for peaceful purposes rests with the Soviet Union. In 
reality it was not the Soviet Union that was the first to 
begin the production of atomic weapons and it was not 
the Soviet Union that used this weapon of mass destruc- 
tion. From the very beginning the Soviet Union has de- 
manded that the manufacture and use of nuclear weapons 
be prohibited and that existing stocks be destroyed. As 
early as June 19, 1946 the Soviet Government presented 
to the U.N. for consideration a draft international con- 
vention which provided for these measures. We have in- 
sisted on this for 12 years. However, the Government of 
the United States refuses even to this very day to agree 
to the prohibition of nuclear weapons. 

I solemnly declare, Mr. President, that the Soviet Union 
is prepared to sign even tomorrow an agreement on the 
total prohibition of all types of nuclear weapons, on the 
cessation of their manufacture, their elimination from 
armaments, and the destruction of all available stocks of 
such weapons under appropriate international control. 

The peoples expect of their leaders, who are responsible 
for the destiny of their countries, concrete action to avert 
the threat of atomic war and to strengthen peace. Millions 
of people ardently hope that our two countries will make 
a definite contribution to the establishment of a healthier 
international situation, and that they will decisively turn 
from the "cold war" and the armaments race toward peace- 
ful cooperation on the part of all states. We consider that 
a conference of top government officials, with participa- 
tion of heads of government, can and must be an important 
step in that very direction. Now, when there is agreement 
in principle between states on such a meeting, it is espe- 
cially necessary to concentrate our joint efforts on the prac- 
tical preparations for it, with a view to making such a 
meeting possible in the very near future. 

We hope, Mr. President, that the considerations of the 
Soviet Government concerning the preparation and the 
holding of a summit meeting will meet with a favorable 
attitude on the part of the Government of the U.S.A. 

n. bulganin 

March 3, 1958 


The Soviet Government has attentively examined the 
considerations set forth by the U.S. Government in its 
aide memoire of March 6, 1958," which is a reply to the 
aide memoire of the Soviet Government of February 28 ' on 
the question of preparing a meeting at the highest level. 

' Ihid., Feb. 17, 1958, p. 243. 

^Handed to U.S. Ambassador Llewellyn E. Thompson 
at Moscow on Mar. 24 by Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei 
A. Gromyko. 

° Bulletin of Mar. 24, 1958, p. 457. 

' md., p. 459. 

Department of Stale Bulletin 

As is known, the Soviet Government, concerned as it 
is over International developments which have taken a 
turn dangerous to the cause of peace, proposed at the 
close of 1957 to call a meeting of leading statesmen to 
solve a number of urgent problems and to define through 
joint efforts effective ways to reduce international ten- 
sion and to end the state of "cold war." 

The Soviet Government notes that the U.S. Govern- 
ment, referring In its aide memoire to the purpose of 
a summit meeting, also proclaims that it desires this 
meeting to take meaningful decisions which would initiate 
the settlement of at least some important political prob- 
lems and lead to the establishment of international cli- 
mate of cooperation and good will. 

However, one must admit that while the Soviet Gov- 
ernment, after proposing to call a meeting of leading 
statesmen, has taken several concrete steps to meet the 
wishes of the U.S. Government and of other Western 
powers, both with regard to the questions which should 
be examined at a summit meeting and with regard to 
the procedure of preparing this meeting, the U.S. Gov- 
ernment, as evident from its aide memoire, is trying in 
fact to bring the entire question of a summit meeting 
back to the initial position. 

The Soviet Government has proposed that the summit 
meeting should discuss such pressing international prob- 
lems, agreement on which seems feasible at this meeting 
and the settlement of which could lay the foundations 
for better mutual understanding among states and for 
the settlement of other international problems. 

It Is the deep conviction of the Soviet Government that 
the following are the questions of great international 
significance which must be given priority : immediate end- 
ing of tests of atomic and hydrogen weapons ; renuncia- 
tion of the use of nuclear weapons by the U.9.S.E., the 
United States and Great Britain ; establishment of a zone 
free from nuclear and rocket weapons in Central Europe ; 
signing of a nonaggression agreement between states 
belonging to the North Atlantic alliance and the Warsaw 
treaty member states ; reduction of the numerical strength 
of foreign troops stationed on the territory of Germany 
and In other European states; drafting of an agreement 
on questions involved in the prevention of surprise at- 
tack ; measures for extending international trade ; ending 
of war propaganda ; ways to reduce tension in the area of 
the Near and Middle East. 

Are there any grounds to claim that only the Soviet 
Union is interested in a positive solution of the above 
questions and that for the peoples of other countries, in- 
cluding the United States, these questions are of a lesser 
importance? The questions listed above have been posed 
by life itself, by the entire trend of development of Inter- 
national relations in the past few years. If we are to be 
guided by the interests of consolidating peace, there can be 
no other opinion but that it would be equally to the benefit 
of the U.S.S.R., the United States, Great Britain, France, 
and other countries if agreed measures were adopted to 
lessen the danger of rocket-nuclear war, to end the arma- 
ment race, to abolish tension in international relations 
caused by the "cold war," and to diminish the danger of 
conflicts in those areas of the world where, in view of the 

tension existing there, such conflicts are especially liable 
to break out. 

The Soviet Government gave full consideration to the 
wishes of the U.S. Government and the governments of 
other Western powers regarding the questions they would 
like to propose for discussion at a summit meeting. 

Guided by the desire to pave the way for a meeting at 
the highest level and taking note of the considerations of 
the Western powers, the Soviet Government announced 
its consent to discuss at a summit meeting the problem of 
forbidding the use of outer space for warlike purposes 
and of scrapping foreign military bases on the territories 
of other countries. Moreover, the Soviet Government de- 
clared that it was prepared to discuss the problem of con- 
cluding a German peace treaty and of the development of 
ties and contacts among countries. 

Thus, the problems which the Soviet Government pro- 
poses for discussion at the summit meeting also take into 
account those proposals of the U.S. Government on which 
useful negotiations could be conducted for the purpose of 
reducing the tension in the international climate. There- 
fore, one cannot agree with the contention made in the aide 
memoire of the U.S. Government that the Soviet Govern- 
ment claims a veto power in determining the range of prob- 
lems to be examined at the summit meeting or special 
privilege and powers at the conference itself. Such an 
arbitrary interpretation of the Soviet Union's position 
with regard to the preparation of the international meeting 
has nothing to do with the actual state of affairs. 

In its aide memoire the U.S. Government declares that 
it is guided by serious intentions in considering questions 
pertaining to preparations for a summit meeting. It goes 
without saying that such an intention is only commendable. 

It is surprising, however, that the U.S. Government 
admits the possibility of the summit meeting being turned 
into a kind of theatrical show, a spectacle. It should be 
noted that such pronouncements about a summit confer- 
ence, on which the i)eoples pin so much ho|)e, are strange, 
to say the least. Even if some Western circles do have an 
intention to smear the idea of a meeting at the highest 
level, it is to be hoped that this doe.s not reflect the position 
of the U.S. Government. 

As to the Soviet Government, it has stated more than 
once that it attaches exceptionally great importance to the 
salutary effect on the entire international climate and to 
the important contribution to the cause of peace which 
a meeting with the participation of the heads of govern- 
ment would have. 

Further, what constructive approach to a summit meet- 
ing on the part of the U.S. Government can we talk about 
if it continues insisting on the discu.ssion of the so-called 
problem of the situation in East European countries. It 
is difficult to believe that the U.S. Government does not 
realize that such a proposal cannot but be resolutely con- 
demned by the Soviet Union and those countries, the situa- 
tion in which it would like to make the subject of 
discussion at an international conference. The very fact 
that this question is being posed is in.sultlng to these states 
and impermissible in international relations. 

No one has given the United States or any other 
country the power to appear in the role of judges who 
decide whether a given country should or should not 

April 21, 7958 

46117B — 58 S 


have its social and state system chosen by its people. 
He who today, guided by his hostility to socialism, poses 
the question of changing the social system In East Eu- 
roi>eau countries, pushes the world into the road of 
kindling enmity among peoples, the road of war. But 
then it is pertinent to ask: What do international ne- 
gotiations and a summit meeting for reducing interna- 
tional tension have to do with that? 

The Soviet Government has already more than once 
pointed out how dangerous to the cause of peace it would 
be to carry ideological differences into the sphere of 
international relations. This viewpoint finds ever wider 
international recognition and was reflected in particular 
in the unanimous decision of the I2th session of the U.N. 
General Assembly on the problem of peaceful coexistence 
of states. Nevertheless, the aide memoire of the U.S. 
Government lays stress on differences of an ideological 
nature and at the same time alleges that "international 
communism" is the main cause of tension. 

Were we to discuss the irreconcilable, fundamental 
differences existing between social systems, the differ- 
ences between capitalism and socialism, where would 
this lead us and what would be the chances of rap- 
prochement between states? Unquestionably, in that 
case, the gap between the states of East and West would 
become even deeper, and the winners would be those who 
are sowing enmity and di-scord in international relations. 

As to the real cause of tension in present-day inter- 
national relations, it is an open secret that this cause is 
the policy of "cold war" conducted by the Western powers, 
the forming of aggressive military alignments and the 
continually increasing armament race which daily leads 
to an ever greater build-up in the armament of states 
and which has already created an enormous machinery 
of extermination. Who would deny today that were 
this machinery brought into action, it would spell untold 
disasters for mankind. 

Neither can the problem of unifying the G.D.R. and 
the Federal German Republic into a single state be the 
subject of a summit discussi(m, because this matter i.s 
entirely within the competence of the two German states 
themselves. If an aggravation of relations between states 
were the aim, the proposal to discuss the question of an 
international conference would be understandable. How- 
ever, the Soviet Government believes that the participants 
of the conference should proceed from the interests of its 
success and refrain from suggesting questions which 
would jeopardize the convocation of such a conference. 

The Soviet Government considers it of great importance 
that an agreement on practical questions of preparing 
for a summit conference be reached in the nearest future. 
In his message of January 12, 1958,' President Eisen- 
hower said that he was also prepared to meet Soviet 
leaders to discuss proposals which were introduced by 
the Soviet Government for summit discussion. As has 
been noted above, the Soviet Government has also ex- 
pressed its readiness to discuss at a top-level conference 
a number of questions advanced by the American 

Unfortunately, the American aide memoire does not 

reply to the Soviet Government's proposal of February 28 
concerning the summit agenda. The American Govern- 
ment confines itself to the statement that any new 
conference of the heads of government should not ignore 
the previous conference, that a new summit conference 
should begin where the Geneva Conference of the heads 
of government left off. 

But it becomes obvious that such an approach com- 
pletely ignores the fact that considerable time has elapsed 
since the Geneva Conference and the international situ- 
ation has changed substantially. That is why the Soviet 
Government has proposed that, in line with the current 
world situation, a new approach should be made to the 
solution of pressing international problems. 

The Soviet Government takes into account that under 
the present circumstances a summit conference would find 
it difficult to reach agreement on all pressing international 
problems. We have projwsed that the conference focus 
its attention first and foremost on the most urgent 
problems solution would initiate an improve- 
ment of the international situation as a whole. The 
e.xamlnation of other problems could be postponed until 
a subsequent stage of talks between the states. Thus, 
taking into account the lessons of the past and desirous 
of preventing the thwarting of the important cause of 
relaxing international tensions, we proposed that a new 
approach be made to the solution of unsettled interna- 
tional problems and that the method of gradual solution 
of these problems be adopted as the most realistic and 

The Soviet Government believes that the settlement 
of the question it has proposed for summit discussion 
would be in complete accord with the desires of the 
peoples and would be an important start in radically 
changing the Intel-national situation and terminating the 
cold war. 

Inasmuch as the aide memoire of the U.S. Government 
fails to give an impartial account of the state of affairs 
in connection with the discussion of the disarmament 
problem In the United Nations," it must be recalled that 
it was the Western powers which, at the 12th session of 
the U.N. General Assembly, rejected the proposal for such 
a composition of the U.N. Disarmament Commission as 
would allow due consideration for the views of U.N. 
member countries. 

Instead of patiently searching for mutually acceptable 
decisions, the session, under manifest pressure, adopted 
a resolution envisaging a composition of the Disarmament 
Commission in which the absolute majority belongs to 
proponents of the military alignments of the Western 

Thus, the Western powers made use of their majority 
for obviously unreasonable purposes and have actually 
vetoed disarmament talks and made the achievement of 
fruitful results Impossible. 

Is It possible in fact to make progress in the disarma- 
ment problem by imposing decisions which are advan- 

' Ihi/i.. .Ian. 27, 1958, p. 12 

° For statements by U.S. Representative Henry Cabot 
Lodge at the 12th session of the U.N. General Assembly, 
together with texts of three U.N. resolutions on disarma- 
ment, see ibid., Dec. 16, 1957, p. 961. 

Department of State Bulletin 

tageous to one of the sides, to one alignment of iwwers, 
and infringe on the lawful interests of the other side? 
It is clear that no state can allow the infringement of its 
national interests, regardless of the number of unaccept- 
able decisions the participants of the Western military 
alignment could wish to impose on it by using their 

Today, with the existence of two social systems, there 
can be no other policy but a reasonable policy of search- 
ing for mutually acceptable decisions which neither place 
anyone at an advantage nor infringe on the security inter- 
ests of the others. There is no need in this case to dwell 
in detail on the disarmament problem, because the Soviet 
Government has already set forth its position with suffi- 
cient clarity in its messages to the U.S. Government. 

The aide memoire of the U.S. Government cannot but 
disappoint anyone who regards summit talks as a de- 
pendable means of relaxing international tensions and 
terminating the cold war which the peoples have come tu 
hate. The Soviet Government, proceeding from the need 
for the earliest completion of preparations for a summit 
conference, would like to have the U.S. Government set 
forth its views on the questions which the Soviet Union 
has proposed for discussion at the forthcoming summit 
conference, as the Soviet Government has done with 
respect to the American proposals. 

The Soviet Government believes it equally necessary 
that the question of the composition of the summit con- 
ference, its date and place be agi-eed upon in the nearest 

Guided by its desire to speed up the preparations for a 
summit conference and proceeding from the fact that all 
means and ways to bring about the earliest agreement 
should be used for this purpose, the Soviet Government 
has consented to a foreign ministers conference to prepare 
a top-level meeting of the heads of government and has 
suggested that the ministers conference be held in April 

At the same time, it has proceeded from the fact that the 
range of issues subject to discussion by the ministers 
should be limited to problems relating to the organiza- 
tional side of preparations for a summit meeting — agenda, 
composition of the summit meeting, time, and place. 

A discussion of the substance of the questions advanced, 
in the opinion of the Soviet Government, should be left 
to the summit meeting with the participation of the heads 
of government. It can hardly be doubted that a meeting 
of the heads of government invested with the broadest 
powers and much less hindered by the instructions usual 
in such cases, has better chances of success, particularly 
when its aim is to change the general trend in international 
relations and to turn them toward liquidation of existing 

On the other hand, if the foreign ministers conference 
is entrusted with examination of the substance of the 
issues there is every reason to fear that this, far from 
facilitating, may on the contrary retard the convocation 
of a summit meeting and complicate the achievement of 
an agreement on the questions discussed. It is contrary 
to logic to recognize the need and usefulness of a summit 
conference and at the same time do everything to retard 

April 21, 1958 

such a conference further and further or to make its very 
convocation doubtful on the pretext that at the preliminary 
stage the conference of foreign ministers came up against 
contradictions which can hardly be overcome. 

The Soviet Government hoiies that the U.S. Government 
will study with due attention the considerations set forth 
above concerning the need to start without further pro- 
crastination a concrete discussion of questions of prepar- 
ing and convening both a ministers conference and a 
summit conference. 

White House Lists Some Proposals 
Rejected or Ignored by U.S.S.R. 

Wlilte House jjicss release dated April 2 

A Partial Listing of Some of the United States 
Proposals Which Have Been Kejected or Ig- 
nored by the Soviet Union 

1. Baruch Plan for Inteimational Control of the 

Presented to the U.N. Atomic Energy Com- 
mission June 14, 1946.^ 

2. Preparation of ReaJlstic Measures for Inspec- 
tion and Control 

Proposal for the inauguration of technical stud- 
ies on inspection related to nuclear weapons tests, 
cessation of production of fissionable materials for 
weapons purposes, and peaceful use of outer space. 
All were included in August 29, 1957, proposals 
made in London during the meeting of the U.N. 
Disarmament Subcommittee.^ 

3. Open-Skies Proposal 

Open-skies proposal, presented at Geneva Sum- 
mit Conference, July 21, 1955.' Three variants of 
aerial and groimd inspection zones related to the 
open-skies proposal were included in proposals on 
August 29, 1957. 

4. Peaceful Use of Outer Space 

Proposal for peaceful use of outer space, pre- 
sented in speech by Ambassador Lodge to General 
Assembly on January 14, 1957,^ and by the Presi- 
dent in his letter of January 12, 1958, to Premier 

Bulletin of June 23, 1946, p. 1057. 
■■ Ibid., Sept. 16, 1957, p. 451. 
' Ibid., Aug. 1, 1955, p. 173. 
' Ibid., Feb. 11, 1957, p. 225. 
' Ibid., Jan. 27, 1958, p. 122. 


5. Transfer of Nucleau Weapon Stocks to Peace- 
ful Uses 

Proposal foi- cutting off production of fission- 
able materials for weapons purposes and for the 
transfer of fissionable materials from weapons to 
nonweapons purposes, included in August 29, 
1957, proposals. 

6. Freedom of Travel 

Proposal for the abolition of closed zones for 

foreigners, made in note to the Soviet Union on 

November 11, 1957,^ 

7. Limitation of U.N. Veto 

Proposal to refrain from using the veto power 
to prevent the Security Council from proposing 
methods for tlie pacific settlement of disputes pur- 
suant to chapter VI of the U.N. Charter, made in 
the President's letter to Premier Bulganin, Jan- 
uary 12, 1958. 

' Ibid., Dec. 9, 1957, p. 934. 

The American Discovery of America 

by Roy R. Rubottom, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary for Inter-American A/fain 

If the place for our inter- American discussion 
this evening is appropriate, the time is even more 
so. We are already within a new age — the atomic 
era — undertaking explorations of scientific fron- 
tiers even more vast than the geographical 
frontiers of 1492. America then was the gateway 
to a new knowledge of the earth. Our present 
gateway opens on the sheer abyss of space. 

The American discovery of America, with all 
that it connotes of solidarity and stability and 
cooperation in the Western Hemisphere, is a 
steadying element for the rest of the world, as well 
as for ourselves, in this greatest adventure of the 
human mind and body. 

The subject we have posed naturally brings up 
the questions : When did America begin ? When 
Columbus glimpsed San Salvador on an October 
dawn in 1492? With the aborigines who had 
lived and roamed these lands for centuries before 
his coming? With the first settlements, the first 
explorations ? 

In the cultural sense — and I am not using the 
word as a technical term of anthropology but with 
the concept that culture is "acquainting ourselves 
with the best that has been known and said in the 
world" — America certainly did not begin with the 

'Address made at Baylor University, Waco, Tex., 
Mar. 26 (press release 147 dated Mar. 25). 

Indians. The splendid Indian civilizations were 
not yet "American" cultui-e, although, even when 
fragmented, they were eventually to become a part 
of it. Until that time, they were still aboriginal. 
Nor did America begin with the discovery and 
those first small, insecure settlements clinging to 
the coast and looking back to the homelands in 
Spain or England or France. Those settlers were 
still European. 

Someone has suggested that the first real Ameri- 
can was the Inca, Garcilasso de la Vega in Peru, 
whose parents were an Inca princess and a Spanish 
conquistador, and who wrote in Spanish of his 
mother's people. He was perhaps the first 
American writer ; but there were Americans before 
him. It seems to me that America became a real- 
ity in the second generation of those settlers — 
whatever their ancestry and wherever they were — 
who, instead of gazing back toward Europe with 
the idea of someday returning there, faced the New 
World wilderness and realized that in it lay their 
own future and the home of their children's 
children's children. 

The first Americans were frontiersmen; they 
had to be. That was true on both sides of the Rio 
Grande, whether the ancestor had come over in 
the Santa Maria, the Nina, the Hercules, the May- 
flower, or a later vessel. It is an important factor, 
because the frontier attitude — enterprising, inde- 

Deparfmenf of Sfafe Bulletin 

pendent, and persistent — and the frontier charac- 
teristics — energy, fortitude, cooperation — have 
become hemisphere determinants. We should 
add to the list faith in one's self, faith in one's 
neighbors, and faith in God. Without that triple 
strength the dream of America could never liave 
been transformed into the American reality. 

These are all fundamental qualities. However 
they may have varied proportionally from time 
to time and from area to area, they have been in- 
strumental in shaping the destiny of the American 
peoples. They motivated the conquest of the 
wilderness : the deep forests, the immense prairies, 
the agonizing heights of those mountain ranges 
that must have seemed invincible. Thi'oughout 
the hemisphere those qualities were basic in our 
declarations of independence, our wars for free- 
dom, our development into constitutional de- 
mocracies. They underlie our hemispherewide 
objective of peace with liberty. They are the ex- 
planation, because they have given us a fun- 
damental unity, of our successful inter- American 
system, which is the method of the international 
conference table, where free nations meet freely, 
as equals, to resolve their mutual problems. 

Inter-American Solidarity 

It is a remarkable thing that one immensely im- 
portant national policy is traditional and con- 
stant in all the American Eepublics. This is the 
policy of inter-American solidarity as a guaranty 
of mutual security. A concomitant is the belief 
in inter- American cultural relations as a means 
of bringing about that understanding among our 
peoples which is essential to their continuing 

There is no other comparable group of peo- 
ples with such a mutual policy upheld through 
generations, although, fortunately, other nations 
are taking heed and striving to follow the inter- 
American example. The inter- American system, 
one of the major consequences of the American 
discovery of America, has afforded the rest of the 
world not only a working model for the United 
Nations but a long series of established, well- 
tested precedents. In this hemisphere all our Re- 
publics uphold the dual policies of inter- American 
solidarity and the cultural cooperation that is our 
instrumentality for mutual discovery. In none of 
our countries have these policies ever been merely 
partisan or even merely national. Together they 

form one traditional hemisphere policy, tena- 
ciously adhered to by all our governments because 
it embodies a deeply held conviction of all our 

The proofs of this are written into our 21 na- 
tional histories. They are so many that it is im- 
possible to advance them all here today, even on the 
part of just one country — our own. But we 
could call the roll of our Presidents, beginning 
with George Washington, and hear them speak to 
this thesis one by one. Washington's admonition 
in his Farewell Address against entangling alli- 
ances is frequently cited. Let us remember also 
that in that same address he assured his fellow 
citizens that "harmony, liberal intercourse with all 
nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and 
interest." Thomas Jefferson pointed to "the ad- 
vantages of a cordial fraternization among all the 
American nations."' John Quincy Adams said of 
United States participation in the Congress of 
Panama convoked by Bolivar: "It may be that, 
with the lapse of centuries, no other opportunity 
so favorable will be presented to the Goverimient 
of the United States to subserve the benevolent 
purposes of Divine Providence, to dispense the 
promised blessings of the Redeemer of mankind, to 
promote the prevalence in future ages of peace on 
earth and good will to man, as will now be placed 
in their power by participating in the delibera- 
tions of this Congress." Abraham Lincoln advo- 
cated "strengthening our ties of good will and 
good neighborliness with Latin America." Her- 
bert Hoover said that "cultural currents not only 
contribute to better luiderstanding but also em- 
phasize the essential unity of interest of the Ameri- 
can Republics." Franklin D. Roosevelt declared 
in his First Inaugural Address that he "would 
dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neigh- 
bor." President Eisenhower has energetically and 
consistently furthered the concept that in the 
Western Hemisphere the bonds which unite us 
as sovereign equals who are working side by side 
for the betterment of all of us — nations and citi- 
zens — have elevated this neighborly relationship to 
one of genuine partnership. 

It would be easy to cite parallel statements in 
support of inter- American cultural as well as po- 
litical cooperation made by our Secretaries of State 
in illustrious succession from Thomas Jefferson 
to John Foster Dulles. Instead of quoting ex- 
hortations, however, no matter how apt and inspir- 

Aprll 2T, 1958 


iag, let us take a quick look at the record. What 
have we done and what are we doing to bring about 
and extend the mutual discovery of America which 
gives rise to this productive partnership of good 

From our own standpoint, that of the United 
States, I would say that we have done a great deal, 
though still not nearly enough, to increase under- 
standing and good will through cultural relation- 
ships — which is to say, to make and follow road- 
maps of mutual discovery. There are three angles 
of approach in estimating the accomplisliment. 
First, there is our official United States program 
of cultural relations with the other American Ke- 
publics. Second, there is our participation in the 
cultural programs of the Organization of Ameri- 
can States, our multilateral inter-American sys- 
tem. Third is the important cumulative contri- 
bution toward discovery, toward understanding, 
made on a people-to-people basis through private 
institutions — such as Baylor University — and pri- 
vate citizens — such as yourselves. 

Precedent for U.S. Technical Cooperation Programs 

It is an interesting, but not surprising, fact that 
our Government's present large worldwide pro- 
grams of educational exchange and information 
began, like so many others, within our American 
family of nations. The first such official United 
States program was established in 1938, a year 
dark with global threats of war. In order to 
strengthen the hemisphere solidarity which was 
the safeguard of the American peoples, the United 
States Government at that time set up an Inter- 
departmental Committee on Scientific and Cul- 
tural Cooperation with the other American Re- 
publics and created in the Department of State 
a Division of Cultural Relations, likewise focused 
at first on Latin America. Both agencies, from 
the beginning, invited and encouraged the cooper- 
ation of private citizens and institutions. 

At first the State Department's cultural pro- 
gram concentrated largely on what, in official 
language, we term the "exchange of persons." 
This interchange included visits to and from Latin 
America of students and teachers, leaders of 
thought and opinion, specialists in fields ranging 
from medicine to music, from journalism to an- 
thropology. It was all part of the discovery on 
our part of how Latin Americans think and feel 

and act, and of their similar discovery of us. And 
it all added up in the same colimm : solidarity — 
with, let us be frank, an occasional minor erasure 
or correction here and there. 

The Office of the Coordinator of Inter- American 
Affairs was created in 1941 to coordinate, further 
stimulate, and activate inter- American activities. 
Two of its early accomplishments were establish- 
ment of the Inter- American Educational Founda- 
tion and the Inter- American Trade Scholarship 
Program. The Coordinator's office, and later the 
Institute of Inter- American Affairs, served among 
other things as precedent and seedbed for our Gov- 
ernment's present worldwide technical coopera- 
tion programs. 

It is beside the point of our brief presentation 
to go into details of post- World War II reorgani- 
zations which brought the Coordinator's office into 
the State Department framework, later developed 
the global International Cooperation Adminis- 
tration, and established the United States Infor- 
mation Agency as a massive independent entity, 
also worldwide in scope. However, I think it is 
important to note that all these programs, whether 
short-range in scope because of pressing wartime 
urgencies, or long-range, looking toward the 
eventual years of peace, employed the informa- 
tional media constantly — press, radio, motion 
pictures, and, lately, television. At the present 
time worldwide programs in these media, as well 
as supervision of United States libraries and bi- 
national centers abroad, and related activities, are 
under the direction of USIA, the United States 
Information Agency, which works in close cooper- 
ation with the Department of State. The Depart- 
ment continues to further bilateral programs of 
exchange of persons in educational, scientific, and 
cultural fields under the Fulbright and Smith- 
Mundt Acts and related legislation, while tech- 
nical-training exchanges are an important part of 
the International Cooperation Administration. 

The binational centers to which I refer are 
highly important groups. They afford a meeting 
place for citizens of the host country who wish 
to learn more about the United States and for 
resident United States citizens who wish to learn 
more about the host country. In this enterprise 
of mutual American discoveiy, English classes 
are an amazingly important factor. It would 
surprise you to see the thousands — and I mean 
thousands, literally — of all ages and from every 


Deparlment of State Bulletin 

walk of life, who line up to pay a fee and enroll 
for courses in the English language. Last year — 
1957 — a grand total of 75,204 students were en- 
rolled in the other American Eepublics at these 
binational centers for the study of English. 
Everybody in Latin America seems to want to 
learn it. I wish we had as many persons in our 
country clamoring to learn Spanish or Portu- 
guese. Here in Texas we make a pretty good 
showing in that respect. But it is still not enough. 

Other important factors are the United States 
schools in Latin America — organized and operated 
by private citizens, usually not for profit — which 
are helping a large number of young people and 
their parents really to discover America. Future 
leaders in political and many other fields will 
come from those schools. Just one such privately 
operated United States school, at La Paz, Bolivia, 
has graduated the present President of that coun- 
try, his Foreign Minister, another Cabinet mem- 
ber, and the Bolivian Ambassador to the United 

Our cultural relations programs, in addition to 
the interchanges which I have noted, have many 
other aspects. They encourage two-way art and 
scientific exhibits, for example, and the transla- 
tion and publication of books. In several Latin 
American countries enlargement of the programs 
has been facilitated by the extension to this hem- 
isphere of the Fulbright Act. As you probably 
know, this measure provides for educational ex- 
change on funds made available in foreign cur- 
rencies obtained from the sale abroad of surplus 
agricultural commodities under terms of Public 
Law 480. 

Furthermore, and very especially and very em- 
phatically, our Government is furthering an en- 
tirely new phase of the American discovery of 
America: the mutual investigation and utiliza- 
tion of every means by which nuclear energy may 
be employed for the peace and benefit of this 
hemisphere and all the rest of the world. 

If this governmental program of cultural re- 
lations seems somewhat stark and dry in a quick 
rundown like this, let me assure you that, if we 
had the time, I could give you a dozen vivid 
human-interest stories to illustrate every phase. 
A good many of them would be from my own 
firsthand observations in Colombia, Venezuela, 
Mexico, and elsewhere. 

April 21, 1958 

OAS Cultural Activities 

So far we have been looking at our official bi- 
lateral cultural relations with the other American 
Kepublics. Those are the programs which the 
United States carries on with each of the other 
American Republics separately, through goveni- 
ment-to-government agreement. At the same time, 
of course, we are also engaged in the multi- 
lateral imdertakings of the Organization of 
American States, agreed upon and carried out by 
the American Eepublics working together. Our 
own bilateral programs are correlated with, but 
do not duplicate, them. 

The Organization of American States is, as you 
know, a voluntaiy association of the 21 American 
Republics. Its seat is the Pan American Union, 
which is the name both of the permanent secre- 
tariat and of the beautiful building that houses 
it at Washington. The pui-poses of the OAS, as 
set forth in its charter, are : 

To strengthen the peace and security of the 
continent ; 

To prevent possible causes of difficulties and to 
ensure the pacific settlement of disputes that may 
arise among the Member States ; 

To provide for common action on the part of 
those States in the event of aggression ; 

To seek the solution of political, juridical and 
economic problems that may arise among them; 

To promote, by cooperative action, their eco- 
nomic, social and cultural development. 

The OAS cultural relationships are worked out 
through the Cultural Affairs Department of the 
Pan American Union and through the Inter- 
American Cultural Council. This Council has 21 
members, one for each of the American Republics, 
appointed by the respective governments. The 
first United States representative on this Inter- 
American Cultural Council, which was created by 
the Ninth Inter- American Conference at Bogota 
in 1948, was the eminent historian. Dr. Lewis 
Hanke, now director of the Institute of Latin 
American Affairs at the University of Texas. Our 
present representative is a distinguished educator, 
Dr. Mary P. Holleran. The Cultural Council 
meets every 3 years, and its subsidiary five-mem- 
ber Committee for Cultural Action functions 
during the interim. 


Just as the Presidents of the United States and 
their Secretaries of State have successively at- 
tested their faith in inter- American underetand- 
ing and friendship as measures of foreign policy, 
so have successive inter-American conferences 
voiced the same conviction. This is no fair- 
weather attitude, pleasant words when the skies 
are clear. The impressive fact is that, when inter- 
national clouds are darkest, the American Re- 
publics show themselves to be more than ever 
convinced of the immense, immediate — I should 
like to use a good emphatic Spanish term here — 
imprescindible importance of their cultural rela- 
tionships. Here again, although we have not time 
for a complete rollcall, let me cite some significant 
instances : 

The first meeting of the Foreign Ministers of 
the American Republics at Panama in 1939 pref- 
aced its General Declaration of Neutrality in the 
European conflict by reaffirming "the spiritual 
unity" of the peoples of America. The Declara- 
tion of Mexico adopted by the Inter- American 
Conference on Problems of War and Peace at 
Mexico City in 1945 declared that "education 
and material well-being are indispensable to the 
development of democracy" and that "the inter- 
American community is dedicated to the ideals of 
universal cooperation." The Inter-American 
Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (model for the 
NATO and SEATO agreements), adopted in 1947 
by the Inter- American Conference for the Main- 
tenance of Continental Peace and Security, is 
predicated on the desire of the American peoples 
and their governments for "consolidating and 
strengthening their relations of friendship and 
good neighborliness." 

As regards specific OAS cultural relations ac- 
tivities, I think we may say that the multilateral 
cultural program began effectively 22 years ago 
with the Convention for the Promotion of Inter- 
American Cultural Relations adopted by the 
Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance 
of Peace at Buenos Aires. It provided for in- 
terchange of students and teachers, since hemi- 
sphere peace would be fortified by greater mutual 
knowledge of the people and institutions of the 
countries represented, and a more consistent edu- 
cational solidarity on the American continent. 
The United States delegation presented to that 
conference a declaration of principles which 
stressed the fact that the American Republics 

"have a common likeness in their democratic form 
of government and . . . common ideals of peace 
and justice" and that they share the objective 
of "harmonious development of their commerce 
and their cultural aspirations in the various fields 
of political, economic, social, scientific and artistic 

This emphasis on education underlies the whole 
of the OAS cultural program. Fundamental 
education and libraries were the main themes of 
the first meeting of the Inter- American Cultural 
Council, and educational problems likewise domi- 
nated its second meeting in 1956. 

The Committee of Presidential Representatives, 
which was created at President Eisenhower's sug- 
gestion to explore ways of extending the influence 
and effectiveness of the Organization of American 
States, related most of its recommendations to 
education. Two major items were proposals for 
a sizable system of OAS scholarships and for ex- 
ploration of the peacetime uses of atomic energy. 

With regard to both proposals, much recent 
progress has been made. In our own country the 
United States Atomic Energy Commission, while 
expanding and augmenting its training programs 
to increase the supply of United States scientists 
and engineers, is also providing training assist- 
ance to friendly nations. Latin American stu- 
dents ai"e among those who have received such 
training at the International School of Nuclear 
Science and Engineering at Argonne, near Chi- 
cago, and the Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear 
Studies in Tennessee. Furthermore, the United 
States Atomic Energy Commission has inaugu- 
rated with the University of Puerto Ric« a special 
progi-am of assistance and collaboration. This is 
expected to become a nuclear research and train- 
ing center helpful to many countries of the hemi- 
sphere. The American peoples are united in their 
great purpose of advancing by every means within 
their power the development of atomic energy 
for the purposes of peace. 

The recommendation of the Presidential Repre- 
sentatives for a multilateral scholarship program 
has already been agreed upon by the Organization 
of American States. It is expected to be in oper- 
ation by September of this year. Beginning with 
170 fellowships, the number will be increased as 
rapidly as possible to 500 a year. Their purpose 
is to contribute to the economic, social, scientific, 
and cultural development of our 21 Republics. 


DepaTtmenf of State Bulletin 

Fellowships will be granted for study only in edu- 
cational and training centers outside tlie appli- 
cant's country of permanent residence. It is all 
part of our great adventure of mutual discovery. 
In the areas of natural resources, agricultural 
and industrial development, and improved living 
standards the Organization of American States 
carries on economic, social, and cultural projects 
through its several subordinate councils and spe- 
cialized organizations. They deal with problems 
of housing and city planning, cooperatives, social 
work, labor, social security, and migration. They 
are all means toward our mutual hemispherewide 
American discovery of America. 

People-to-People Program 

When we look into nongovernmental pro- 
grams — the contributions of private individuals, 
groups, institutions — we find that the American 
discovery of America began as a people-to-people 
enterprise long before it was officially sanctioned 
as government-to-government policy. 

We have noted that in the Organization of 
American States the cultural relations program 
was inaugurated by the Convention for the Pro- 
motion of Inter-American Cultural Eelations in 
1936 and that the United States own official cul- 
tural relations program was launched 2 years 
later. But as a people-to-people activity our in- 
ter-American cultural program is as old as the 
United States. 

In the first period of our national life Benja- 
min Franklin, to take one example, was an inter- 
American person-to-person program in himself. 
He not only studied Spanish assiduously but en- 
couraged the teaching of the Spanish language 
and the translation and publication of books 
about other areas of this hemisphere. He also 
favored building up library collections dealing 
with Spain and Latin America. At his instance 
the American Philosophical Society, of which he 
was the guiding spirit, invited Alejandro Ram- 
irez, a Hispanic botanist who had done consider- 
able work in the Caribbean ai-ea, to become a cor- 
responding member. Reciprocally, the Spanish 
Academy of History in 1784 elected Franklin as 
its first member in the young United States. 
Years later a member of the Spanish Cortes was 
a guest in Franklin's home in Philadelphia, 
where he had an exceptional opportunity to meet 
leaders in national life and to see for himself how 

April 2?, 7958 

our new Republic was functioning. Wlien he re- 
turned to Madrid in May 1816, he described his 
visit eloquently and paid admiring tribute to our 
way of life in a long speech before his fellow 

And in this connection I should like to specu- 
late on some exchanges of persons which never 
occurred but which, if they had taken place, might 
have altered the attitude of thousands of Latin 
Americans toward the United States during the 
initial years of the present century. During that 
period we were often criticized as being crass 
money-grubbers whose motivations were material- 
ism and utilitarianism. And which of our repre- 
sentative great men was often mentioned as the 
uninspired and uninspiring prophet of that un- 
enlightened code? Well, the name that came up 
most frequently as the typical materialist was 
none other than that of Benjamin Franklin ! I 
hope such delusions have long since been clcnred 
up. I am sure that any of our Latin American 
neighbors who might still have any misconceptions 
of the kind would be helped toward a real dis- 
covery of our America if they came to visit us. 
They could find here for themselves the living 
heritage bequeathed us by that wise, witty, and 
genial founding father, Benjamin Franklin, who 
had the newspaperman's inquiring mind, the in- 
ventor's imaginative dexterity, the statesman's 
patient sagacity, and the patriot's indomitable 
faith. We conceive Franklin to have been dedi- 
cated, upright — hardheaded, yes — but also a great- 
hearted idealist, who, against all odds, in a hostile 
England and a reluctant France, proclaimed the 
doctrine of American freedom because "Our cause 
is the cause of mankind !" 

We citizens of the United States, especially 
those of us who have not had the good fortune to 
visit our southern neighbors, also hold certain 
misconceptions sometimes about them. Many of 
these can be overcome by study and reading as 
well as personal contact with Latin Americans 
who visit us. If I may cite a personal experience, 
I recall that despite several years of study of 
Spanish in high school and university I had only 
a vague notion of what was Latin America until 
1937 when, as Assistant Dean of Student Life at 
the University of Texas, I began to have direct 
dealings with Latin American students at the 
University of Texas. Some of them were visitors 
in our land, as in the case of the Farmer Fellows, 


who were studying there while a group of Texas 
students were studying at the University of 
Mexico in exchange. Others were my fellow 
Texans, born in this country but of direct Latin 
American descent. Kegardless of their land of 
birth, they were uniformly attractive and quick 
to make friends. I am happy to recite this per- 
sonal testimonial of the results in one instance of 
a people-to-i^eople program carried out right in 
this State. 

Our fellow citizens are rapidly overcoming their 
lack of knowledge about Latin America. They 
are traveling to Mexico especially and to many 
other countries in ever-increasing numbers. The 
coin which they leave behind, to the tune of about 
$375 million per year, certainly has two sides. 
There is the economic side, which, we hope, helps 
to overcome the chronic dollar scarcity in tlie 
area — dollars which are usually respent in the 
United States. There is also the cultural and 
spiritual side growing out of the thousands of 
daily human contacts which are involved in this 
travel. Over the long run this may be even more 
important tlian the financial side of the coin. 

There is one particular kind of travel, by a 
necessarily limited group of people, which I would 
like to cite as having umisual value. It is that 
being carried out by our respective parliamen- 
tarians. We in the State Department derive con- 
structive ideas from the travels undertaken by our 
own Senators and Congressmen to Latin America. 
Conversely, in the last few years we have had an 
increasing number of their colleagues visit us 
from Latin America, most of them as our State 
Department's special guests under the official ex- 
change program. For example, I can recall sev- 
eral profitable discussions in the past 2 years with 
visiting parliamentarians from Brazil, Chile, 
Peru, and Uruguay. 

Wliat we have begun to call the people-to- 
people program — as we have seen, it had been go- 
ing on spontaneously without a name since co- 
lonial times — is a channeling and coordination, 
insofar as possible, of unofficial and often infor- 
mal international relations. In September 1956 
President Eisenhower called for "the active sup- 
port of thousands of independent private groups 
and institutions, and millions of individual Amer- 
icans acting through person-to-person communi- 
cations." In this program every citizen can take 
part and, in fact, must take part at some time 

and in some way, whetlier or not he realizes that 
he is doing so. It is a very important aspect of 
America. The impression left in Guadalajara by 
a visitor from "Waco ; the hospitality shown to or 
withheld from a Peruvian student; inter- Ameri- 
can exhibitions of paintings or of livestock; the 
Garden Clubs of Texas cooperating with the 
Garden Club of Chile ; the picture albums sent to 
and received from Latin America by Camp Fire 
Girls; the meeting of the Inter- American Bar 
Association at Dallas; the working out together 
of recipes for a regional dish or of blueprints for 
an atomic reactor — all such things are fragments, 
large and small, of a whole which, when put to- 
gether entire, is the hemisphere itself. 

A Real-Life Story 

Perhaps a little story from real life will sum 
this up better than statistics would. It is a true 
story. It happened a year or so ago, and it hap- 
pened to Texans. To my mind this incident which 
really occurred symbolizes the friendship that ce- 
ments inter-American solidarity. It demon- 
strates the generosity and good will of people 
in another neighboring Republic^ — in this case, 
Colombia — not by interchanges on a high official 
level but by what is often far more revealing : an 
instantaneous response from the heart,. 

The scene was the Colombian Andes, the month, 
January. An SA-16 unit of our Air Reserve 
Group at Albrook Field, Panama, crashed during 
a search for a privately owned United States 
plane from Texas which had been reported miss- 
ing in the area. Two members of the SA-16 crew 
were killed outright, and a third was mortally in- 
jured. The nearest town, a small agricultural 
community called Jardin, had fewer than a thou- 
sand inliabitants. 

The authorities at Jardin immediately tele- 
phoned the news of the disaster to the nearest city, 
which communicated with Albrook so that a sec- 
ond air rescue plane could be sent at once. How- 
ever, Jardin itself is not accessible by air except 
by helicopters. Ambulances had to be sent in 
from 5 hours away by a difficult mountain road,, 
and other help was dispatched by automobile 
from the United States consulate at Medellin. 
Before any of our own people could arrive, how- 
ever, practically the whole town of Jai-din had 
dropped every other employment for the time 
being in order to assist in the rescue. The two 

Department of State Bulletin 

physicians at tlie small local hospital, which had 
been built by the townspeoiDle themselves, worked 
imceasingly for 48 hours or more. The women of 
the town, in a noble spirit of compassion and 
Christian tenderness, collected red and white and 
blue cloth and sewed together American flags to 
cover our dead. ^Vlien the limited hospital sup- 
ply of drugs, bandages, and the like was ex- 
hausted, volunteer workers slipped out quietly 
and bought supplies with their own scanty funds 
and without any idea of comjDensation. In fact, 
from first to last, all efforts on the part of a 
United States citizen, whether in official or pri- 
vate capacity, to reimburse these good Samaritans 
for the services so generously given were unavail- 
ing. Instead, the Mayor of Jardin, the two doc- 
tors, and the people m general spoke proudly of 
the high estimate which they placed on spiritual 
values. "It is our sincere pleasure to be able to 
do something for the great North American na- 
tion," they said. The Mayor added that the citi- 
zens of Jardin would like, however, to make one 
request, and one only, of the United States. The 
one thing which they wanted from us, in symbol 
of the vuidying friendship between our coimtries, 
to fly over their little hospital alongside the flags 
of their own country, Colombia, and the Red 
Cross, was a United States flag ! 

Dr. Milton Eisenhower 
To Visit Central America 

WhUe House press release dated March 29 

The President announced on March 29 that Dr. 
Milton S. Eisenhower is planning to make a good- 
will visit in June, as personal representative of the 
President, to Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, 
Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. 

Exact dates and details for the arrangements 
will be announced later. This will be the third 
good-will visit to our neighbor nations to the south 
by Dr. Eisenhower. In 1953 he toured the 10 coun- 
tries of South America, and in 1957 he visited 


U.S. Operations Mission 
To Be Opened in Sudan 

The Department of State announced on April 3 
(press release 167) that under a new agreement 
between the Government of the United States and 
the Government of the Sudan a U.S. economic as- 
sistance mission, headed by Robert W. Kitchen, Jr., 
is scheduled to arrive at Khartoum April 13 or 14 
to open an International Cooperation Administra- 
tion operations office there. 

The bilateral agreement, signed March 31 at 
Khartoum by representatives of the two Govern- 
ments, provides a framework for U.S. economic 
and teclmical assistance to the Sudan in the fields 
of agriculture, vocational education, road develop- 
ment, and communication. 

Ghana Requests Establishment 
of U.S. Operations Mission 

Press release 175 dated April 4 

Agreement has been reached with the Govern- 
ment of Ghana for the establislunent of a United 
States Operations Mission in that country, the De- 
partment of State announced on April 4. 

The mission will conduct a technical cooperation 
program in the year-old African republic, with 
primary emphasis in the field of agriculture. Pro- 
jects are being initiated to help expand Ghana's 
cattle industry, to develop an agricultural exten- 
sion service, to establish a veterinarian school and 
farmers' training institutes, and to conduct fur- 
ther surveys of the country's agricultural and live- 
stock potential. The program also includes 
training in the United States for officials from the 
agriculture, labor, and geological departments of 
the Government. 

Details of the program were worked out follow- 
ing a study undertaken at the request of the Gov- 
ernment of Ghana by a survey team from the 
International Cooperation Administration. In a 
meeting on April 1 the Ghana Cabinet gave formal 
approval of the projects and requested the estab- 
lishment of a mission. 

April 27, 1958 


The United Nations: Clialienges of a New Age 

hy Francis 0. Wilcox 

Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs ' 

I am particularly pleased to meet with you to- 
night. It is encouraging to me that groups of 
responsible citizens such as the New Hampshire 
Council on World Affairs are taking a keen and 
active interest in international relations and their 
grave implications for both the present and the 

The New Age 

Today we live in a world which is in every sense 
on the threshold of a new age — the space age. It 
is an era which holds implications and challenges 
for man far greater than those of the 15th and 
16th century age of discovery and exploration. 
We all recognize today what a significant age that 
was although very few people at the time were 
aware of it. It was an era of tremendous scien- 
tific achievement and expansion of horizons of 
man's knowledge. Whole continents were settled. 
New states and empires came into being. The re- 
sults of all this — and some of the problems which 
arose in that period — are still with us today. 

There is, however, a fundamental difference be- 
tween the new age which we are entering and the 
age of exploration and discovery.' The signifi- 
cance of improved navigation and commerce in 
that period was apparent only to a privileged few. 
In sharp contrast, millions of people throughout 
the world today are keenly aware of the fact that 
we are on the eve of a new age in history. 

This was particularly evident to me during a 
trip abroad from which I have just returned. 
Everywhere I traveled — to the Near East, South- 
east Asia, and elsewhere in the Far East — people 

' Address made before the New Hampshire Council on 
World Affairs at Manchester, N. H., on Mar. 24 (press 
release 14.5). 

appeared to recognize that recent scientific and 
technological advancements of the new age de- 
mand, to use the words of President Eisenhower, 
that a way be found "by which the miraculous in- 
ventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his 
death, but consecrated to his life." ^ 

I would like to discuss with you some of the 
major challenges which confront both the United 
States and the United Nations in this new era. 
There is no doubt that the United Nations today 
is man's best hope for meeting many of these 
challenges. The United States regards the United 
Nations as a cornerstone in its development of a 
sound and imaginative foreign policy to cope with 
the impact of these challenges. 

Technological Challenges 

In the technological field man is on the verge 
of conquering outer space. At this moment, aa 
you know, three artificial satellites — Sputnik, Ex- 
plorer, and Vanguard — are circling the earth. 
Men put them there. These, together with the 
ICBM and other missiles, are only the beginning 
of a new era of scientific and technological ad- 
vances which until recently have been relegated 
to the realm of the Sunday supplements and comic 
books. Developments in the field of outer space 
will inevitably shrink the universe of which we 
here on earth are but an infinitesimal part. The 
mysteries of other planets will gradually be 

In addition, man soon will become the master of 
matter and energy. Research on the atom al- 
ready has opened up new limitless vistas in many 
areas of human endeavoi-. Progress in atomic 

' Bulletin of Dec. 21, 1953, p. 851. 

Department of State Bulletin 

energy will affect almost every facet of our daily 
lives — the power which runs our factories, the 
wares which they produce, the homes we live in, 
even the food we eat. A promising start is under 
way in the international development and control 
of this fabulous resource through the establish- 
ment of the International Atomic Energy Agency. 
These technological and scientific developments 
serve to reemphasize the increasing interdepend- 
ence of man, his institutions, and his international 
organizations. They bring into sharper relief 
than ever before the absolute necessity for a com- 
mon international approach to meet common 

Political Challenges 

This new age, along with its technological and 
scientific developments, has produced equally far- 
reaching political challenges. They are not as ap- 
parent nor as spectacular, but they are certainly 
as real and as urgent. 

Unfortunately we are accustomed to thinking 
of the world as being divided into power blocs. 
As a result we have tended to overlook a fact of 
vital importance. While it is true that the world 
is divided into power blocs, militarily, it is at the 
same time developing politically into a multi- 
national society with new challenges and new 
problems which demand the same common ap- 
proach by the nations of the world as do those in 
the scientific and technological field. 

These challenges stem from the steadily in- 
creasing number of newly independent countries ; 
they consist of the many new issues which arise 
from conflicting aspirations of these nations. We 
have only to look around us to see daily evidence 
of the disputes associated with the crumbling of 
ancient empires and the vigorous nationalism and 
intense anticolonialism of newly emerging states. 
Nor is the new nationalism the only seedbed for 
new issues in the political field. 

In many new nations the population in one 
generation has been undergoing almost overnight 
a social and economic transformation which re- 
quired centuries in Western Europe. Africa is 
a case in point. In this vast territory peoples are 
eagerly seeking recognition of their national 
identities. You can be certain that what happens 
in Africa in the next decade will influence pro- 
foundly the future course of events of this world 
in which we live. 

April 27, 7958 

The Soviet Challenge 

Finally, there is an even more formidable 
challenge of constant and increasing concern to 
all free men. I refer, of course, to the increased 
power of the Soviet Union as it crosses the thresh- 
old of the new age. 

This new Soviet power confronts us with many 
far-reaching problems. Sputniks I and II have 
provided a striking demonstration of tlie Soviet 
Union's capabilities in the scientific and techno- 
logical fields. But these capabilities, according 
to our best scientific information, have been ac- 
companied by the development of certain types 
of missiles, notably the ICBM. The Soviets have 
given top priority to training more scientists 
and more engineers in their schools and univer- 
sities. Their efforts in this respect, when com- 
pared with our own, are a source of serious con- 
cern. Certainly our own free democratic society 
is far better equipped to explore scientific truth 
and thus provide the necessary capabilities for 
the advancement of mankind. Yet the Soviet 
Union — dictatorship that it is — has demonstrated 
to the world that it can mobilize both its man- 
power and resources for the education of highly 
qualified scientists and engineers and encourage 
their scientific and teclinological achievements, 
although it may be at the expense of a broad edu- 
cation for all the people. 

The Soviets are posing a serious challenge on 
still another front through the misuse for im- 
perialistic purposes of their rapidly growing 
economy. In four decades, and at great sacrifice 
to the material well-being of its people, the Soviet 
Union has developed an industrial base that is 
second only to that of the United States. And 
today it is still expanding. The Soviet gross na- 
tional product, for example, is increasing approx- 
imately 6 to 7 percent aimually. During the past 
decade its output of electric power rose from 56.5 
billion to 210 billion kilowatt hours and oil pro- 
duction from 26 million to 98 million metric tons. 

Now, of course, the Soviet Union is fully aware 
of the aspirations of newly developing nations 
for economic and social progi-ess. With this in 
mind it has utilized its economic strength and 
has embarked on a campaign of economic pene- 
tration and political subversion of these countries, 
particularly in the Near East and Asia. In the 
past 21/2 years, according to Department of State 
estimates, the Sino-Soviet bloc has committed the 


equivalent of $1,900,000,000 in economic and 
military assistance to these new states. Energetic 
efforts by the Communist bloc to negotiate trade 
and payments agreements have more than 
doubled its trade with these coimtries since 1954. 
With a gi'eat deal of fanfare the Soviets have 
bought agricultural products from coimtries 
which have had temporary difficulties in disposing 
of their surpluses in free-world markets. 

This Communist economic offensive has made 
American trade and assistance programs more 
important than ever before. The Mutual Security 
and Trade Agi-eements Acts, which President 
Eisenhower called "the iron imperatives of peace" 
and which are now under study by Congress, pro- 
vide potent weapons in meeting this new economic 

I know that some of our jjeople vigorously at- 
tack our foreign aid program. They have con- 
demned it as a "giveaway" program, and they have 
deplored the fact that we continue, over a period 
of years, to send our aid abroad. 

This is to seriously miscalculate the nature of 
the challenge we face. We must never underesti- 
mate the determination of the Soviet Union to 
convert the uncommitted nations to the Commu- 
nist system. Without an adequate foreign aid 
program we would be faced with an impossible 
task in our attempt to help keep the free world 

My point is that the Soviet Union is moving into 
the new age aggi"essively on all fronts. Backed 
with enhanced power, it has injected into its for- 
eign policy on the one hand a new demanding and 
threatening tone and, on the other hand, blandish- 
ments of good will and peaceful intent. This re- 
quires bold mitiative on our part as well as swift 
countermoves. Otherwise the free world will be 
faced with the grim prospect of a vei-y serious 
reversal in the balance of power. 

The U. N. and Technological Challenges 

The miplications of man's ultimate mastery of 
the atom and conquest of outer space are awe- 
some in magnitude. There is no doubt the 
United Nations provides tlie most effective instru- 
ment to insure that these conquests will be de- 
voted to peacefid purposes. The peacefid uses of 
outer space must be assured, and its use for mili- 
tary purposes must be prevented. Immediate ex- 
ploratory work is necessary to establish the 
competence of the United Nations in this field. 

Secretai-y of State Dulles, in advocating that 
outer space should be dedicated to peace, ^ has said 

. . . there is an opportunity here which is almost stag- 
gering in its possible implications — its implications if we 
do it, and its tragic implications if we do not do it. 

In this connection you will recall our efforts 
which began over a decade ago to insure the peace- 
ful uses of atomic energy when we had a monopoly 
on atomic weapons. As early as 1946, when the 
atomic age was in its infancy, the United States 
took the unprecedented step of offering to relin- 
quish that monopoly and vest it in an international 
authority with complete control over the manu- 
facture and use of dangerous atomic energy ma- 
terials. As you know, the Soviets turned that 
offer down. Consequently it is now impossible, 
owing to the passage of time and the refinement 
of scientific techniques, to account for past produc- 
tion of fissionable materials. Thus a great hu- 
manitarian opportunity slipped by. The world 
cannot afford to let a mistake like that happen 

Once again we have made a new proposal, this 
time relating to cooperation in the use of outer 
space. President Eisenhower in his letter of Jan- 
uary 12 to Soviet Premier Bulganin " stated the 
United States position when he declared : 

Should not outer space be dedicated to the peaceful 
uses of mankind and denied to the purposes of war? 
That is my proposal. 

Once again the choice lies with the Soviets. 

It is my firm conviction that, given assurance 
of peaceful uses of outer-space development, the 
possibilities for the advancement of mankind are 
enormous. It is, of course, impossible at present 
to assess the full impact on our lives of the ex- 
ploration and exploitation of outer space. But 
there are a number of significant possibilities 
which already are becoming apparent and, in 
fact, in certain instances are predicted as certain- 
ties by our scientists. 

We are told, for example, that artificial satel- 
lites, reporting back to earth, will enable us to 
study the mysteries of the universe for the first 
time unimpeded by the distortions of the earth's 
atmosphere. New knowledge of the behavior of 
the sun and of radiations which interfere with 

V6i(/., Feb. 3, 1958, p. 166. 
' Ibid., Jan. 27, 1958, p. 122. 

Department of Stale Bulletin 

-adio communications will be acquired. This will 
nean eventual improvements in means of com- 
nunication, with satellites being used as radio 
:elay points. For the first time reliable radio 
communication, unhampered by disturbances in 
;he atmosphere and ionosphere, may be possible 
between the most distant points on earth. A 
worldwide system of television will be feasible. 
Navigational and air-safety aids beyond anything 
now conceived will become realities. Weather 
forecasting will be immeasurably improved 
hrough the study of cloud patterns on a plane- 
ary scale. Even weather control through the use 
jf space platforms may be a possibility. 

AYe are also told that the impact of new knowl- 
3dge gained from studies conducted from such 
s^antage points may have a revolutionary effect 
an medicine, nutrition, agriculture, food preserva- 
tion, and other fields intimately connected with 
man's welfare. 

These are but a few of the breathtaking pros- 
pects which this age may open up. Do they not 
represent a prize worth attaining — for all man- 
kind ? This prize is within the reach of man, pro- 
vided international agreement can be achieved on 
the peaceful exploitation of outer space as pro- 
posed by the President and Secretary Dulles. 
The question now is how best to achieve such 
agreement. Naturally a prime requisite is Soviet 
willingness to cooperate. 

We hope that the announcement made by the 
Soviet Union last week presages a somewhat more 
positive attitude toward the repeated efforts of 
the United States over the past 14 months to move 
toward agreement on the peaceful uses of outer 
space. The fact that the Soviets have tied in un- 
related conditions with their proposals on outer 
space, however, is not encouraging. Nevertheless, 
their proposals on space will reqviire and will re- 
ceive the most careful study by the United States. 

Unfortunately sovereign states cannot always 
counted upon to do the logical thing. It would 
seem logical, however, to try to agree upon cer- 
tain fundamentals now while our activities in 
outer space are just beginning. Once the great 
powers have moved further into outer space, their 
positions may become hardened and it may be 
far more difficult to secure agreement. We can 
see the danger ahead ; now is the time to avert it. 

One thing we will need to do is to develop some 
simple rules of conduct for the use of outer space. 

Apr/7 27, 7958 

We have such rules for the use of the high seas 
and for the air space above us. But the creation 
of rules for the use of outer space is a far more 
complex matter. One has only to consider the 
terrific speed by which a satellite circles about the 
earth, passing over many countries in its flight. 
What rights do the states launching such missiles 
have to use outer space ? And what rights, if any, 
do the states have over which the satellites pass? 
Is it feasible to claim jurisdiction over space that 
never stands still over any nation? One has only 
to raise these questions to realize their complexity. 
It would be tragic indeed if outer space were 
used in such a way as to intensify the arms race 
and magnify even further the danger that could 
come to mankind from the uncontrolled use of 
missiles and nuclear weapons in outer space. 
Achievement of the possibilities inherent in the 
conquering of outer space would have a tremen- 
dous effect on the relations between nations. The 
scientific and material advantages would benefit 
all mankind. The demonstration of good faith 
and good will provided by cooperation on both 
sides of the Iron Curtain would materially assist in 
the relaxation of tensions which now grip the 

The Challenge of Disarmament 

In this connection one logically thinks of the 
problem of disarmament. The quest for agree- 
ment on this most complex of man's problems be- 
comes increasingly a race between time and catas- 
trophe — and time may be running out. The 
United States record in this quest is one of earnest 
endeavor. The record spreads over more than a 
decade and has been punctuated by such United 
States initiatives as the offer we made in 1946 to 
internationalize atomic energy and President 
Eisenhower's "open skies" proposal made at the 
Geneva Summit Conference in 1955. This same 
record consists of months, in fact years, of patient 
negotiation in the United Nations to arrive at 
some reasonable accommodation which will pro- 
vide an effective system of limitation and control 
of all types of armaments, conventional as well as 

The subcommittee of the United Nations Dis- 
armament Commission met last year in London 
71 times over a period of 5I/2 months, the longest 
session in its history. During these months of 
difficult negotiations apparent progress was being 


made in narrowing the areas of disagreement be- 
tween the Soviet Union and the West. There ap- 
peared to be some reason for hope that a limited 
first-stage agreement could be arrived at which 
would eliminate the danger of surprise attack and 
lessen the threat of nuclear war. New and prac- 
tical proposals to this end were advanced by the 
United States, the United Kingdom, France, and 

Then came an abrupt hardening of the Soviet 
attitude. When the Western proposals were in- 
troduced, the Soviets refused to discuss them in 
the subcommittee. Nevertheless, the proposals 
were overwhelmingly endorsed by the General 
Assembly last November.^ As a conciliatory 
gesture and as an expression of its earnest desires 
to have disarmament talks resumed, the Assembly 
agreed to expand the Disarmament Commission 
from 12 to 25 members. The Soviet response was 
to serve notice that it would boycott any future 
meetings of the Disarmament Commission and its 

The Soviet Union has sought to make consider- 
able propaganda of its easy slogan of "ban the 
bomb." We, however, are not interested in 
slogans. We seek an effective disarmament pro- 
gram. To us, this means control and control 
means inspection. To us, the manufacture of 
nuclear weapons — not merely the cessation of nu- 
clear tests — is the heart of the problem. 

However, in spite of Soviet intransigence, we 
shall persist in concert with our NATO allies and 
other members of the United Nations in our ef- 
forts to arrive at a reasonable solution which will 
give to man everywhere freedom from anxiety 
and an opportunity to pursue the arts of peace. 
We hope to persuade even the Soviets that this 
would be in their own interests as well. For that, 
in the last analysis, is what we seek — security for 

The immediate problem is to get serious dis- 
armament talks under way once again. This is 
our objective. With this in mind the United 
States earlier this month, and after consultations 
with other United Nations members, suggested 
informally to the Soviet representatives at the 
United Nations steps which could lead to an early 
resumption of the discussions and also insure the 
continuing responsibility of the United Nations 

in this field. We suggested to the U.S.S.R. that 
the enlarged Disarmament Commission hold dis- 
cussions in line with the resolution adopted by an 
overwhelming majority of the Assembly in 1957. 
We believe that the Disarmament Commission 
should meet in spite of the Soviet Government's 
announced intention to boycott such a meeting. 

In addition, the United States also proposed to 
the U.S.S.R. that, if the Disarmament Commis- 
sion discussions were unproductive, a procedural 
meeting of the Security Council should be con- 
vened in order to insure a proper link between 
the United Nations and any disarmament ne- 
gotiations which might be held later. As you 
may recall, the Security Council, under the terms 
of the charter, is charged with the responsibility 
of achieving a regulation of armaments. Con- 
sideration of the problem by the Council would 
enable it to adopt appropriate procedural steps 
which could lead to an early resumption of the 
talks in other channels. These steps, rather than 
blocking the way to resuming the discussions, 
actually would pave the way and increase the 
possibility for serious negotiations. 

The opposition of the Soviet Union to the re- 
sumption of discussions in the Disarmament Com- 
mission constitutes a continued defiance of the 
General Assembly's resolution. The U.S.S.R. in 
refusing to consider disarmament, even on a pro- 
cedural basis, appears to no longer regard the 
United Nations as the responsible channel for 
dealing with the problem. We, for our part, are 
not willing to abandon the United Nations in its 
quest to find means to resume the disarmament 

The Summit Meeting 

The Soviet Government ostensibly desires a 
heads-of-government meeting for a discussion of 
a number of pressing international issues, includ- 
ing the disarmament question. I can assure you 
that the United States is ready to take part in 
such a meeting if advance preparations provide 
evidence that high-level talks would lead to agi'ee- 
ment. The agreements we seek are those which 
would actually resolve issues, lessen international 
tensions, and respond to the hopes of men 

' IMd., Dee. 16, 1957, p. 961. 

" For text of a U.S. statement on resumption of disarma- 
ment talks, see ibid.. Mar. 31, 1958, p. 516. 

Department of State Bulletin 


I do not need to point out that recent Soviet 
declarations relating to the disarmament problem 
are hardly calculated to attain these goals. How- 
ever, I can assure you that the United States will 
continue its efforts by every reasonable means to 
bring about a resumption of serious disarmament 

One can, of course, understand the basic reasons 
Soviet leaders are so attached to the idea of a 
summit meeting. Mr. Khrushchev, in particular, 
has persistently sought to identify himself with 
the world's quest for peace. A summit meeting 
would provide him with the most solemn and in- 
fluential forum for him to repeat his pronounce- 
ments about world peace. Even if no agreement 
were reached, this exercise would be of consider- 
able value to the Soviet cause. 

We and our allies, on our part, recognize the 
dangers as well as the possible advantages that 
might flow from holding a summit conference. 
We do not want such a meeting to increase ten- 
sions rather than reduce them. We do not want 
it to spread disillusionment and misunderstand- 
ing. We have made it unmistakably clear, there- 
fore, that we would be willing to participate in a 
summit conference provided there is good evidence 
that fruitful results can be obtained. 

It would seem to me that there are at least two 
prerequisites for such a meeting : First of all, there 
must, of course, be some agreement upon the items 
to be discussed. Secondly, there should be suffi- 
cient exploration of these items in advance of the 
conference to indicate that positive results can be 

The U.N. and Political Challenges 

If it is true that the United Nations is essential 
in meeting the technological challenges of the new 
age, it is more vital than ever as a forum in which 
political challenges can be placed in their proper 
perspective and adjusted on the basis of reasonable 

The society of nations, as I said earlier, is still 
characterized by the existence of sovereign, inde- 
pendent states, the principal new factor being that 
there are more of them. More than 20 new na- 
■>' itions have achieved their sovereignty since the end 
' 3f World War II. The United Nations, as you 
(mow, was established in 1945 with 51 member 
states. Its roster had risen to 60 by 1955 and by 
last year to a total of 82 members. The recent 

merger of Egypt and Syria has, of course, reduced 
this number by one, that is, to 81 members at pres- 
ent. Accordingly, the political problems arising 
from the conflicts of national interests of these new 
sovereign states have increased proportionately. 
The United Nations has played a fundamental role 
in dealing with these new issues. 

Consider, for example, how the United Nations 
has been dealing with the Tunisian crisis. Here 
is a really serious situation containing all the 
political characteristics of the new era in which we 
live — nationalism, anticolonialism, and Soviet im- 
perialism seeking fertile ground to extend its 
harmful influence. Tensions were running ex- 
tremely high. The incident which touched off the 
crisis occurred on February 8th. The Security 
Council met on February 18th.'' The conflict was 
channelized into the United Nations, and quiet 
and effective diplomacy persuaded Tunisia and 
France to accept the good offices of the United 
States and the United Kingdom to assist the par- 
ties to resume peaceful negotiations. 

The significance of the United Nations role in 
the crisis was aptly described by Ambassador 
James J. Wadsworth, who declared that 

It is ... a good augury for the future that the parties 
to the proceedings now before this Council are endeavor- 
ing, as suggested by article 33, to settle peacefully the 
differences noted in their cross-submissions to the Coun- 
cil and the other outstanding problems between them by 
means of their own choice. 

I agree; it is indeed a "good augury," not only 
in the Tunisian crisis but in a larger sense for the 
future. The Security Council and article 33 of 
the charter have proved invaluable instruments 
in dealing with situations which are likely to en- 
danger the maintenance of peace and security. 

The vital role of the Security Council also was 
clearly demonstrated in the case of the Egyptian- 
Sudanese border dispute. Wliile the elements of 
this issue were quite obscure and were different 
from those in the Tunisian crisis, the fact is that 
the Security Council dealt effectively with a dan- 
gerous situation threatening the peace in the area. 

Here was a complicated border dispute which 
suddenly erupted between a newly sovereign na- 
tion and an old one. On January 29 Egypt re- 
quested that the Sudan Government hand over 
certain border territories. The Arab Union 

' lUd., Mar. 10, 1958, p. 372. 

\pnl 21, J 958 


plebiscite was to take place on February 20, and 
the Sudan parliamentary elections were to take 
place on February 28. Acrimonious charges in- 
volving alleged troop movements and seizures were 
leveled from both sides. Tension rose. On 
February 20 the Sudanese Eepresentative at the 
United Nations lodged a complaint with the Secre- 
tary-General. The Security Council met on 
February 21, only 24 hours later.^ 

In the meantime the Egyptian Government had 
indicated that it did not intend to conduct the 
plebiscite in the disputed area. Moreover, after 
a short debate in the Council, the Egyptian Eepre- 
sentative announced Egypt's willingness to nego- 
tiate with the Sudan in the spirit of article 33 
after the Sudanese elections. Council action, 
therefore, had a moderating influence, and peace- 
ful conditions prevail at the moment. 

These two recent issues demonstrate the ver- 
satility of the United Nations macliinery in deal- 
ing quickly and effectively with the political 
stresses and strains inherent in the new age. In 
both instances jiassion gave way to moderation 
and potential violence to peaceful discussion. Op- 
portunity for reasonable accommodation was af- 
forded in the one case through use of "good offices" 
and in the other through negotiation between the 
parties themselves. The existence of the United 
Nations and its machinery had a significant in- 
fluence on the situation. What is even more im- 
portant is the fact that in both cases the Security 
Council still remains seized of the question and 
can bring further useful influence to bear, if need 
be, for peaceful settlement. 

I am convinced that the versatility of the 
United Nations demonstrated in these two crises 
can be exploited further and the utility of the 
United Nations proportionately increased pro- 
vided there is a willmgness among its members 
to resort to its machinery instead of to the trust 
of force. 

The Changing Role of the United Nations 

If the machinery of the United Nations is to be 
fully utilized, we first must recognize that it has 
changed in responding to new political conditions. 
In this way we can better assess how it may be 
adapted to fulfill its purpose, namely "to save 
succeeding generations from the scourge of war." 

' Ibid., Mar. 24, 1958, p. 491. 

As you may recall, the role of the United Na- 
tions, as originally envisaged, was enforcement of 
the peace. The Security Council was designed as 
the action arm of the United Nations for this pur- 
pose. However, the cleavages between the Soviet 
orbit and the free world over a 10-year period and 
an endless use of the veto by the U.S.S.E. seriously 
crippled the effectiveness of the Security Council. 
The Assembly gradually assumed greater impor- 
tance in this field, particularly in view of its in- 
creased membership. 

For example, it was the General Assembly which 
created the United Nations Emergency' Force, 
which has been so effective as an influence for peace 
in the Gaza Strip and Sharm-el-Sheikh area. The 
charter wisely provided that the General Assem- 
bly could "discuss any questions or any matters 
within the scope of the present Charter or relating 
to the powers and functions of any organs pro- 
vided for in the present Charter. ..." This has 
enabled the Assembly, backed up by its increased 
membership, to assimie a role far more potent than 
that originally foreseen. Tliis development is an 
example of the vitality and adaptability of th& 
United Nations in responding to the changing po- 
litical facts of life. 

But the increased importance of the Assembly 
need not detract from the continued need to re- 
vitalize the Security Council. This prompted' 
President Eisenhower in his letter of January 12 
to Premier Bulganin to propose that ' 
should make it the policy of our two governments 
at least not to use veto power to prevent the Se- 
curity Council from proposing methods for the 
pacific settlement of disputes pursuant to Chapter 
VI." By such action the United Nations would 
be strengthened and would become, as the Presi 
dent suggested, "the effective instrument of 
and justice that was the original design." 

In this connection I might recall that the United 
States as early as 1948 submitted to the Interim 
Committee of the General Assembly concrete and 
detailed proposals designed to improve the func- 
tioning of the Security Council. Unfortunately, 
however, the Soviets were unwilling to consider 
any categories of questions on which they would 
agree not to use the veto. We hope that in the 
months ahead the Soviets will see the wisdom oi 
strengthening the United Nations by agreeing to 
restriction of the veto with respect to the peaceful 

DepaMment of State Bulletin 


pi't element of disputes. The cause of world peace 
would profit immensely if the Soviet Union would 
permit the Security Council to play the elTective 
role which the framers of the charter intended. 

Concluding Comments 

It is clear to me that the United Nations has 
served the interests of the United States and world 
peace. As an instrument of collective security it 
repelled Communist aggression successfully in 
Korea. In the field of pacific settlement it has 
alleviated many disputes containing the seeds of 
war. It has provided us with a powerful forum 
to present our viewpoint and refute Soviet propa- 
ganda. It has channeled national aspirations to- 
ward independence or self-government through 
evolutionary processes. It has made modest but 
constructive attacks on the root causes of war — 
economic, social, and cultural — through the Eco- 
nomic and Social Council, the Human Rights 
Commission, and the specialized agencies and the 
technical assistance program. 

It is equally clear that the United Nations has 
shown a remarkable capacity to adjust to rapidly 
changing political and economic conditions. It 
has demonstrated that it is a flexible organization 
that can be adapted to the new age that is upon us. 
It is not too much to say that it can, with intelli- 
gent leadership, do a great deal to help give shape 
and order to the political landscape of tlus new 
era upon which we are entering. 

But the United Nations is, after all, an organi- 
zation of sovereign states. It can do no more than 
its member states are willing to have it do. We 
must, therefore, look ahead with the wisdom and 
the imagination which the times require. We 
must give to the United Nations the vitality it 
needs to nurture and encourage peace in a world 
in which change is both fi'equent and profound. 

In this respect we would do well to recall the 
words of Abraham Lincoln in another era of 
great challenge : 

We shall uobly save or meanly lose the last best hope 
of earth. 

The United Nations, with all its imperfections, 
remains the best hope of earth for the achievement 
of world peace. It is up to us, and the other 
members of the United Nations, to bring that 
hope to its full fruition. 

April 21, 7958 

Germany Extends Deadline 
for Restitution Claims 

Press release 171 dated April 4 

The American Embassy at Bonn has reported 
that the deadline for filing claims under the Fed- 
eral Law for the Settlement of Monetary Restitu- 
tion Claims against the German Reich has been 
extended to December 31, 1958.^ 

The law which has now been extended modi- 
fied the German Federal Restitution Law and 
opened the way for the filing of certain categories 
of monetary restitution claims by former Nazi 
persecutees who have been unable to obtain com- 
pensation under previous legislation. The modi- 
fications relate to claims arising from unlawful 
taking by certain German entities of tangible or 
intangible property which at the time of the tak- 
ing was "identifiable" within the meaning of resti- 
tution legislation but which cannot be restituted 
because of loss, damage, or deterioration. The 
modifications are believed to be of particular in- 
terest to individuals who sustained losses due to 
confiscation of identifiable property outside West 
Germany which property was subsequently sent 
into West Germany or Berlin. The development 
is considered of significance in cases where special 
levies or discriminatory taxes were collected 
through seizure of such property. Knowledge of 
the final location of the property is not required.^ 

President Determines Tariff Quota 
on Wool-Fabric Imports for 1958 

White House Announcement 

White House press release dated March 7 

The President has determined the application 
for 1958 of the tariff quota on imports of most 
woolen and worsted fabrics established by his 
proclamation of Sef)tember 28, 1956,^ which in- 
voked the so-called Geneva wool-fabric reserva- 
tion. At the same time, the President noted the 
many problems involved in the wool -fabric tariff 

" For background, see Bihxetin of Oct. 7, 1957, p. 581. 

' The Department of State has available an Information 
sheet giving further details of the German legislation 
which will be furnished upon request. 

' For text, see Bulletin of Oct. 8, 1956, p. 556. 


quota for the domestic woolen industry, for Amer- 
ican clothing manufacturers, and for imijorters, 
and requested the Trade Policy Committee, 
through its chairman, the Secretary of Commerce, 
to undertake a special review of the alternatives 
to the present arrangements under which wool- 
fabric tarifl's are applied. 

Pursuant to his 1956 proclamation the Presi- 
dent notified the Secretary of the Treasury of his 
decision that the "breakpoint" of the tariff quota 
is to be 14.2 million pounds for 1958. 

Until 1958 imports reach the breakpoint, the 
rates of duty remain at 300 or 371/^0 per pound 
(depending upon the nature of the fabric) plus 
20 percent or 25 percent ad valorem (again de- 
pending upon the nature of the fabric) . Imports 
during 1958 in excess of the breakpoint will be 
subject to an ad valorem duty of the full 45 per- 
cent allowed by the Geneva reservation. The spe- 
cific duty (cents per pound) is not affected. The 
President amended the 1956 proclamation to pro- 
vide that the overquota rate shall be 30 percent 
for imports of handwoven fabrics less than 30 
inches wide and for imports of "religious" fabrics. 

If imports during 1958 exceed 14.2 million 
pounds, the higher rates of duty will go into ef- 
fect for the remainder of 1958, terminating at the 
end of 1958. 

The Geneva wool-fabric reservation is a right 
that was reserved by the United States in a 1947 
multilateral trade agreement at Geneva. Under 
that reservation the ad valorem rates of duty ap- 
plicable to most woolen and worsted fabrics en- 
tering the country may be increased 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 United States produc- 
tion of similar fabrics for the three preceding cal- 
endar years. The 1947 tariff concession and the 
reservation apply to woolen and worsted fabrics 
dutiable under 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 Presi- 
dent's action applies only to imports of such 

In considering this matter the President had 
the advice of the Trade Policy Committee and 
other departments and agencies of the executive 

Letter to the Secretary of Commerce 

March 7, 1958 

Dear Mk. Secretary: Under the so-called 
Geneva Wool Fabric Reservation, I have deter- 
mined the 1958 breakpoint for the tarifl' quota 
established by Proclamation 3160 of September 
28, 1956. I have also modified tliat Proclamation 
with respect to certain special fabrics. 

In considering this matter, I am impressed once 
more with the many problems involved in the ap- 
plication of the wool fabric tariff quota. I am 
also mindful of the various proposals for meeting 
these problems that have been advanced by the 
domestic woolen industry, American clothing 
manufacturers, and importers. As you know, 
these proposals have included suggestions for 
varying the duty, applying the tariff' quota, or 
computing separate breakpoints on a fabric cate- 
gory or periodic basis. 

I am aware of the difficulties that have con- 
fronted the Trade Policy Committee in consider- 
ing these proposals, such as the fact that the appli- 
cation of the tariff quota on a fabric basis wouki 
be contrary to the Reservation. Clearly, more 
work is needed on these questions. Accordingly, 
I approve the recommendation of the Trade Pol- 
icy Committee in this respect and request a special 
review and early report to me of the alternatives 
to the present arrangements under which wool 
fabric tariffs are applied. 

DwiGHT D. Eisenhower 
The Honorable Sinclair Weeks 

Secretary of Commerce 
Washington, D. C. 

Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury 

March 7, 1958 
Dear Mr. Secretary: Proclamation No. 3160 
of September 28, 1956, as amended by the procla- 
mation of March 7, 1958, provides for tlie increase 
of the ad valorem part of the duty in the case of 
any of the fabrics described in item 1108 or item 
1109 (a) in Part I of Schedule XX to the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Geneva — 1947) 
or in item 1109 (a) in Part I of that Schedule 
(Torquay— 1951) entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consimiption in any calendar year 

Department of State Bulletin 

following December 31, 1957, in excess of a quan- 
tity to be notified by the President to the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury. 

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of that proclamation, 
as amended, I hereby notify you that for the calen- 
dar year 1958 the quantity of such fabrics on 
imports in excess of which the ad valorem part 
of the rate will be increased as provided for in the 
seventh recital of that proclamation, as amended, 
si Kill be 14,200,000 pounds. 

On the basis of presently available information, 
I find this quantity to be not less than 5 per 
centum of the average annual ijroduction in the 
United States during the three immediately pre- 
ceding calendar years of fabrics similar to such 
fabrics. Although it is believed that the final 
statistics will not alter this finding, in the event 
tliat they do, I shall notify you as to the revised 
quantity figure. 

DwiGHT D. Eisenhower 

The Honorable Robekt B. Anderson 

Secretary of the Treasury 
Washington, D. C. 

Proclamation 3225 < 

Amendment op Proclamation No. 3160 Relating to 
Certain Woolen Textiles 

1. Whereas, by Proclamation No. 3160 of September 28, 
1956 (3 CFR, 19.56 Siipp., p. 44), the President announced 
the invocation by the Government of the United States of 
America of the reservation contained in the note to item 

1108 In Part I of Schedule XX annexed to the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (61 Stat. (pt. 5) A 11, 
A 1274), and proclaimed that the ad valorem part of the 
rate applicable to fabrics described in item 1108 or Item 

1109 (a) in Part I of Schedule XX to the General Agree- 
ment on Tariffs and Trade (61 Stat. (pt. 5) A 1274), or 
in item 1109 (a) in Part I of Schedule XX to the Torquay 
Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
(3 UST (pt. 1) 615, 1186), entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption in excess of certain quantities 
would be 45 per centum ; and 

2. Whereas I find that, effective January 1, 1958, it 
will be appropriate to carry out the said General Agree- 
ment on Tariffs and Trade that the ad valorem part of 
the rate be 30 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 said General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade which are described in paragraph 

* 23 Fed. Reg. 1687. 

(a) of the seventh recital of the said proclamation of 
September 28, 1956, as amended by paragraph 2 of this 
proclamation : 

Now, therefore, I, DwiQHT D. Eisenhower, President 
of the United States of America, acting under and by vir- 
tue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and 
the Statutes, including section 350 of the Tariff Act of 19.30, 
as amended (ch. 474, 49 Stat. 943; ch. 209, 59 Stat. 410; 
ch. 169, 69 Stat. 162; 19 U. S. C. 1351) do proclaim that 
the said proclamation of September 28, 1956, is hereby 
amended as follows : 

1. The sixth recital is deleted. 

2. The seventh recital is amended to read as follows : 

"7. Whereas I find that following December 31, 1957, 
until otherwise proclaimed by the President, it will be ap- 
propriate to carry out the trade agreements specified in 
the first and third recitals of this proclamation that 
"(a) the ad valorem part of the rate be 30 per centum 
ad valorem in the case of any of the fabrics de- 
scribed in the said item 1108 or item 1109 (a) in 
Part I of Schedule XX to the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade set forth in the second recital 
of this proclamation which are 
"(i) hand-woven fabrics with a loom width of less 

than 30 inches, or 
"(ii) serges, weighing not over 6 ounces per square 
yard, and nuns' veilings and other woven fab- 
rics, weighing not over 4 ounces per square 
yard ; all of the foregoing described in this 
clause (ii) wholly or in chief value of wool of 
the sheep, valued at over $4 per pound, in solid 
colors, imported to be used in the manufacture 
of apparel for members of religious orders, and 
"(b) that the ad valorem part of the rate be 45 per 
centum ad valorem in the case of any other of 
the fabrics described in the said item 1108 or 
item 1109 (a), or in the case of any of the fabrics 
described 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 each case articles dutiable at rates applicable 
to such fabrics by virtue of any provision of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended, other than paragraph 1108 or 1109 
(a) if any of the foregoing fabrics described in this 
recital are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption in any calendar year after that total aggre- 
gate quantity by weight of such fabrics which .shall have 
been notified by the President 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 preced- 
ing calendar years of fabrics similar to such fabrics ; and" 

3. Paragraph 1 is amended to read as follows : 

"1. In order to carry out the said trade agreements 
specified 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 

AptW 27, 7958 


said fabrics described in the seventh recital of this proc- 
lamation entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
eonsumi)tion in excess of a quantity notified to the Sec- 
retary of the Treasury pursuant to that recital shall be 
the percentage ad valorem specified for such fabrics in the 
recital ;" 

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

Done at the City of Washington this seventh day of 

March in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred 

[sEAi] and fifty-eight, and of the Independence of the 

United States of America the one hundred and 


/O U^J»-yLi~ZjU-<u^ /Cto^ 

By the President : 

Chbistian a. Heeteb 

Acting Secretary of State 


Current Actions 



Articles of agreement of the International Finance Cor- 
poration. Done at Washington May 25, 1955. Entered 
into force July 20, 1956. TIAS 3620. 
Signature and acceptance: Federation of Malaya, March 
20, 1958. 



Agricultural commodities agreement under title I of the 
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 
19.54, as amended (68 Stat. 455; 7 U. S. C. 1701-1709), 
with memorandum of understanding and exchange of 
notes. Signed at BogotA March 14, 1958. Entered into 
force March 14, 1958. 


Agreement amending the agreement of July 10 and Sep- 
tember 24, 1956 (TIAS 3663) relating to an investment 
guaranty program, and providing war risk guaranties 
under section 413 (b) (4) of the Mutual Security Act 
of 1054, as amended (68 Stat. 832, 847; 22 U. S. C. 
1933). Effected by exchange of notes at Amman No- 
vember 20, 1957, and February 22, 1958. Entered into 
force February 22, 1958. 


Agreement concerning claims arising in connection with 
SEATO maneuvers during March and April 1957. 
Effected by exchange of aide meinoire at Manila Feb- 
ruary 6, 1957. Entered into force February 6, 1957. 




Aaron S. Brown as Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Personnel, effective April 3. 

Leon L. Cowles as Deputy Director of Personnel, ef- 
fective April 3. 

Donald Edgar as Deputy Director of the International 
Educational Exchange Service, effective April 7. 

Henry S. Villard as U.S. Representative to Interna- 
tional Organizations and U.S. Consul General at Geneva, 
Switzerland. (For biographic details, see press release 
173 dated April 4.) 


Recent Releases 

For sale ly 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, which may be 
obtained from the Department of State. 

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. TIAS 3930. 
95 pp. 30(f. 

Protocol amending the preamble and parts II and III of 
the agreement of October 30, 1947, between the United 
States of America and Other Governments — Done at 
Geneva March 10, 1955. Entered into force in part Oc- 
tober 7, 1957. 

International Sugar Protocol. TIAS 3937. 79 pp. 30^. 

Between the United States of America and Other Gov- 
ernments, amending agreement of October 1, 1953 — Dated 
at London December 1, 1956. Entered into force with 
respect to the United States of America September 25, 

Customs Convention on the Temporary Importation of 
Private Road Vehicles. TIAS 3943. 106 pp. 35(J. 

Between the United States of America and Other Govern- 
ments—Opened for signature at the Headquarters of the 
United Nations, New York, June 4, 1954. Entered into 
force December 15, 1957. 

Friendship, Commerce and Navigation. TIAS 3947. 65 

pp. 25«(. 

Treaty and protocol between the United States of America 
and the Republic of Korea — Signed at Seoul November 
28, 1956. Entered into force November 7, 1957. 

Surplus Agricultural Commodities. TIAS 3959. 7 pp. 

Agreement, with memorandum of understanding and note, 
between the United States of America and Greece — 
Signed at Athens December 18, 1957. Entered into force 
December 18, 1957. 

Department of State Bulletin 

April 21, 1958 


e X 

Vol. XXXVIII, No. 982 

American Republics 

The American Discovery of America (Rubottom) . 656 

Dr. Milton Eisenhower To Visit Central America . 663 

Atomic Energy 

Secretary Dulles' News Conference of April 1 . . 639 

U.S. Views on Soviet Announcement of Cessation 
of Bomb Tests (Department statement, text of 
Soviet decree) 646 

White House Lists Some Proposals Rejected or 

Ignored by U.S.S.R 655 

Claims and Property. Germany Extends Deadline 
for Restitution Claims 671 

Department and Foreign Service. Designations 

(Brown, Cowles, Edgar, Villard) 674 


Secretary Dulles' News Conference of April 1 . . 639 

The United Nations : Challenges of a New Age 

(Wilcox) 664 

White -House Lists Some Proposals Rejected or 

Ignored by U.S.S.R 655 

Economic Affairs. President Determines Tariff 
Quota on Wool-Fabric Imports for 1958 (texts 
of letters, proclamation) 671 

Educational Exchange. The American Discovery of 

America (Rubottom) 656 

France. Western Powers Issue Declaration on 
Summit Meeting (3-power declaration, Bulganin 
letter, Soviet aide memoire) 648 

Germany. Germany Extends Deadline or Resti- 
tution Claims 671 

Ghana. Ghana Requests Establishment of U.S. 

Operations Mission 663 

International Organizations and Conferences. 
Villard designated U.S. Representative to Inter- 
national Organizations 674 

Mutual Security 

Ghana Requests Establishment of U.S. Operations 
Mission 663 

The United Nations: Challenges of a New Age 

(Wilcox) 664 

U.S. Operations Mission To Be Opened In Sudan . 663 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Ninth Anni- 
versary of NATO 646 

Presidential Documents. President Determines 

Tariff Quota on Wool-Fabric Imports for 1958 . 671 

Publications. Recent Releases 674 

Science. The United Nations : Challenges of a New 
Age (Wilcox) 664 

Sudan. U.S. Operations Mission To Be Opened in 
Sudan 663 

Switzerland. Villard designated U.S. Consul Gen- 
eral at Geneva 674 

Treaty Information. Current Actions 674 


Secretary Dulles' News Conference of April 1 . . 639 

The United Nations: Challenges of a New Age 

(Wilcox) gg. 

U.S. Views on Soviet Announcement of Cessation 
of Bomb Tests (Department statement, text of 
Soviet decree) 646 

Western Powers Issue Declaration on Summit Meet- 
ing (3-power declaration, Bulganin letter, Soviet 
aide memoire) 648 

White House Lists Some Proposals Rejected or 
Ignored by U.S.S.R 655 

United Kingdom. Western Powers Issue Declara- 
tion on Summit Meeting (3-power declaration, 
Bulganin letter, Soviet aide memoire) .... 648 

United Nations. The United Nations: Challenges 

of a New Age (Wilcox) 664 

Name Index 

Brown, Aaron S 674 

Bulganin, Nikolai 648 

Cowles, Leon L 674 

Dulles, Secretary 639,646 

Edgar, Donald 674 

Eisenhower, Milton 663 

Ei-senhower, President 671 

Rubottom, Roy R., Jr 656 

Villard, Henry S 674 

Wilcox, Francis O 664 

Check List of Department of State 
Press Releases: March 31-April 6 

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

Releases issued prior to March 31 which appear 
in this issue of the Bulletin are Nos. 145 of March 
24 and 147 of March 25. 


Department statement on nuclear 

Three-power declaration on simamit 

Educational exchange. 

Educational exchange. 

Howe nominated Ambassador to Chile 
(biographic details). 

Mann : "The Trade Agreements Pro- 
gram and American Prosperity." 

Dulles : news conference. 

Manley appointment (rewrite). 

7th annual awards ceremony. 

Economic assistance agreement with 
Sudan (rewrite). 

ICA insures investment of U.S. firm in 

Joint U.S.-EURATOM statement. 

Dulles : 9th anniversary of NATO. 

Germans extend date for filing restitu- 
tion claims. 

Delegation to ECE (rewrite). 

Villard designation (rewrite). 

Evans named Civil Servant of the 

U.S. technical cooperation mission to 






3/31 ' 



3/31 1 













4/3 . 











Order Form 







United States 
Government Printing Office 

Washington 25, D. C. 


North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
Meeting of Heads of Government 

Paris, December 1957 

The Heads of Government of the North Atlantic Treaty Organ- 
ization met in Paris from December 16 to 19, 1957, for the first top-level 
meeting of the Nortli Atlantic Council since the founding of the 
Alliance more than 8 years before. They came together because they 
desired to increase the effectiveness of NATO in relation to current 
international political, military, and economic problems arising out of 
the policies of the Soviet Union. 

This new Department of State publication contains statements 
made by President Eisenhower and Secretary of State Dulles before 
and after the meeting; the addresses delivered by Prime Minister 
Bech, Premier Gaillard, and President Eisenhower at the opening 
public session ; the statements made by Secretary General Spaak and 
the Heads of Government at the first business session ; and the Dec- 
laration and Commmiique issued on the final day. 

Copies of the publication may be purchased from the Superin- 
tendent of Docimients, U.S. Government Printing OfEce, Washington 
25, D.C., for 50 cents each. 

Publication 6606 

50 cents 

To: Supt. of Documents 

Govt. Printing Office 

Washington 25, D.C. Please send me copies of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Meet- 

ing of Heads of Government, Paris, December 1957. 


Enclosed And: 

Street Address: 

(cash, cheek, or 
money order). City, Zone, and State: 




Vol. XXXVIII, No. 983 

AprU 28, 1958 



MEASURES • Exchange of Correspondence Between 
President Eisenhower and Premier Khrushchev 679 


APRIL 8 682 


AVIATION • Address by Secretary Dulles 689 

ICAN PROSPERITY • by Assistant Secretary Mann . . 692 


EAST • Statement by Assistant Secretary Robertson . . . 698 


For index see inside back cover 

Vol. XXXVIII, No. 983 • Publication 6635 
April 28, 1958 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington 25, D.C. 


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 20, 1958). 
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 

The Department of State BULLETIN, 
a tceekly 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 BVLLETIN 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 plmses of 
interruitional affairs and the func- 
tions of the Department. Informa- 
tion is included concerning treaties 
and interruitional 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- 
natioruil relations are listed currently. 

President Asks U.S.S.R. To Agree To Begin Study 
of Specific Disarmament Control IVIeasures 

Following is an exchange of correspondence be- 
tween President Eisenhower and Nikita Khrush- 
chev, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the 
Union of Soviet Socialist Repuhlics. 


iWhlte House press release dated April 8 

April 8, 1958 

Dear Mr. Chairman : I have your communica- 
tion of April 4 repeating, in substance, the 
already widely publicized statement of the Soviet 
Government with reference to the suspension of 
nuclear testing.^ 

It seems peculiar that the Soviet Union, having 
just concluded a series of tests of unprecedented 
intensity, should now, in bold headlines, say that it 
will not test again, but add, in small type, that it 
may test again if the United States carries out its 
already long announced and now imminent series 
of tests. 

The timing, wording, and manner of the Soviet 
declaration cannot but raise questions as to its real 

The position of the United States on this matter 
of testing is well-known. For several years we 
have been seeking a dependable ending to the ac- 
ciunulation of nuclear weapons and a dependable 
beginning of the steady reduction of existing 
weapons stockpiles. This was my "Atoms for 
Peace" proposal, made in 1953 before the United 
Nations. Surely, the heart of the nuclear problem 
is not the mere testing of weapons, but the weap- 

' For text of a decree passed by the Supreme Soviet of 
the U.S.S.K. on Mar. 31, see Bulletin of Apr. 21, 195S, 
p. 647. 

(Apr// 28, 7958 

ons themselves. If weapons are dependably dealt 
with, then it is natural to suspend their testing. 
However, the Soviet Union continues to reject the 
concept of an internationally supervised program 
to end weapons production and to reduce weapons 
stocks. Under those circumstances of the Soviets' 
making, the United States seeks to develop the 
defensive rather than the offensive capabilities of 
nuclear power and to learn how to minimize the 
fissionable fallout. 

It goes without saying that these experiments, 
so far as the United States is concerned, are so 
conducted that they cannot appreciably affect 
human health. 

Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, you recall the Joint 
Declaration made by the Governments of the 
United Kingdom and the United States at Ber- 
muda on March 24, 1957.^ We then declared that 
we would conduct nuclear tests only in such a 
manner as would keep world radiation from ris- 
ing to more than a small fraction of the levels 
that might be hazardous. We went on to say that 
we would continue publicly announcing our test 
series well in advance of their occurrence with in- 
formation as to their location and general timing. 

We further said that we would be willing to 
register with the United Nations advance notice 
of our intention to conduct future nuclear tests 
and to permit limited international observation 
of such tests if the Soviet Union would do the 

The Soviet Union has never responded to that 
invitation. Its latest series of tests was conducted 
behind a cloak of secrecy, so far as the Soviet 
Union could make it so. Nevertheless, as I re- 

' For text, see iUd., Apr. 8, 1957, p. 561. 


cently stated,' it is the intention of the United 
States to invite observation by the United Nations 
of certain of our forthcoming tests. 

Not only did the Soviet Union ignore our Ber- 
muda proposal on testing, but it has persistently 
rejected the substance of my "Atoms for Peace" 
proposal. It refuses to agree to an internationally 
supervised cut-off of the use of new fissionable 
material for weapons purposes and the reduction 
of existing weapons stocks by tranfers to peaceful 
purposes. During the five years since I first pro- 
posed "Atoms for Peace", the destructive power 
in our nuclear arsenals has steadily mounted, and 
a dependably controlled reduction of that power 
becomes ever more difficult. 

Mr. Chairman, now that you have become head 
of the Soviet Government, will you not reconsider 
your Government's position and accept my pro- 
posal that fissionable materials henceforth be man- 
ufactured only for peaceful purposes ? 

If the Soviet Union is as peace-loving as it pro- 
fesses, surely it would want to bring about an 
internationally supervised diversion of fissionable 
material from weapons purposes to peace pur- 

If the Soviet Union is unwilling to accept 
"Atoms for Peace", there are other outstanding 
proposals by which the Soviet Union can advance 
the cause of peace. You will recall, Mr. Chair- 
man, my "Open Skies" proposal made to you and 
Chairman Bulganin in Geneva in 1955.* You will 
also recall my proposals for the international use 
of outer space for peaceful purposes emphasized 
in my recent correspondence with Chairman 
Bulganin.' These proposals await Soviet 

The United States is also prepared, in advance 
of agTeement upon any one or more of the out- 
standing "disarmament" propositions, to work 
with the Soviet Union, and others as appropriate, 
on the technical problems involved in interna- 
tional controls. We both recognize that inter- 
national control would be necessary. Indeed, your 
present letter to me speaks of "the establishment 
of the necessary international control for the dis- 
continuance of tests". 

■ What is "necessary"? The question raises 
problems of considerable complexity, given the 

' Ibid., Apr. 14, 1958, p. 601. 
* IMd., Aug, 1, 1955, p. 173. 
' IMd., Mar. 10, 1958, p. 373. 

present possibility of conducting some types o: 
tests imder conditions of secrecy. 

If there is ever to be an agreed limitation or sus- 
pension of testing, and the United States hopes 
and believes that this will in due course come 
about as part of a broad disarmament agreement, 
plans for international control should be in in- 
stant readiness. Why should we not at once put 
our technicians to work to study together and ad- 
vise as to what specific control measures are neces- 
sary if there is to be a dependable and agi-eed 
disarmament program ? 

The United Nations General Assembly has 
called for technical disarmament studies, in rela- 
tion both to nuclear and conventional armaments 
The United States says "yes". I urge, Mr. Chair- 
man, that the Soviet Union should also say "yes" 
Then we can at once begin the preliminaries neces- 
sary to larger things. 

DwiGHT D. Eisenhower 






Official translation 

Dear Mr. President : One of the most urgent problems 
in present international relations which very deeply agi 
tates millions of people in all countries of the world is 
that of the necessity of the immediate discontinuance ol 
tests of atomic and hydrogen weapons of various kinds ifsfe-. 
It is easy to understand the deep alarm which the con 
tinuing experimental explosions of nuclear weapons arousi 
among all strata of society, from political personages 
scientists, and specialists to ordinary people, the ranii 
and-file workers of city and village, to mothers of families 
These tests stimulate the armaments race and promoti 
the development of new and ever more destructive am 
deadly kinds of nuclear weapons, and thereby still fur 
ther intensify the threat of atomic war which hangs 

Moreover, systematic explosions of atomic and hydro 
gen weapons for experimental purposes even now, ii 
peacetime, are causing damage to the health of peaceful 
unsuspecting, and entirely innocent inhabitants of varioui 
countries. In the petition signed by 9235 scientists of 4' 
countries, including many prominent scientists of th( 
United States of America and of the Soviet Union, an( 
delivered in January of this year to the Secretary Genera 
of the United Nations, it is stated that each test of a nu 
clear bomb increases the quantity of radioactive fallout 
thereby causing harm to the health of people throughon 
the entire world and threatening the normal developmen 
of coming generations. 

Taking all this into account, the Soviet government ha; 
come to the conclusion that it is impossible to postpont 

Department of State Bulletin 


any longer the solution of the question concerning the dis- 
continuance of nuclear weapon tests because it is impos- 
sible to allow the health of the people to be irreparably 

Today only three powers so far — the U.S.S.R., the 
U.S.A., and Great Britain — possess nuclear weapons, and 
therefore an agreement on the discontinuance of nuclear 
weapon tests is comparatively easy to reach. However, 
if the tests are not now discontinued, then after some time 
other countries may become possessors of nuclear weapons 
and under such conditions it will of course be a more com- 
plicated matter to reach an agreement on the discontinu- 
ance of the tests. 

During the last three years the Soviet government has 
repeatedly approached the governments of the United 
States of America and of Great Britain with proposals to 
discontinue tests of atomic and hydrogen weapons. In 
as much as both the Government of the United States and 
the Government of Great Britain have not wished to agree 
to discontinue nuclear tests without specifying a time 
limit, the Soviet Union advanced a proposal of its own, 
that is, to discontinue these tests, at first even for a limited 
time, for two or three years, for example. The proposals 
of the U.S.S.R. on this question provide for the establish- 
ment of the necessary international control for the dis- 
continuance of tests. 

Despite all this, it has unfortunately been impossible 
up to now to come to an agreement for settling the ques- 
tion concerning an unconditioual and immediate discon- 
tinuance of nuclear tests, or even concerning a temporary 

Guided by the desire to make a practical beginning to 
the discontinuance of tests of atomic and hydrogen weap- 
ons everywhere and thereby take the first step in the 
direction of a final liberation of mankind from the threat 
of a destructive atomic war, the Supreme Soviet of the 
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has decreed the dis- 
continuance in the Soviet Union of tests of all kinds of 
atomic and hydrogen weapons. 

The Soviet Government, implementing this decree of 
the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., decided to discon- 
tinue unilaterally, as of March SI, 1958, tests of any kind 
of atomic and hydrogen weapons. 

The Soviet Government addresses to the Government 
of the United States of America, and also to the Govern- 
ment of Great Britain, a proposal to join in these 

If the governments of the countries which now have 
nuclear weapons at their disposal support this proposal 
of the U.S.S.R. and in their turn adopt a decision to re- 

nounce further tests, then the question which so deeply 
agitates the peoples of the whole world will finally be re- 
solved and a great step will thereby be taken toward the 
establishment of genuine trust among states and toward 
the strengthening of peace. 

However, if the governments of the countries with the 
nuclear weapons at their disposal do not wish to respond 
to this decision of the Soviet Government and prefer to 
leave things as they were before and continue experiments 
with atomic and hydrogen weapons, then in such case the 
Soviet Union, in the interests of ensuring its own safety, 
will of course have no alternative other than that of con- 
sidering itself freed from any obligation undertaken by 
it in regard to the discontinuance of nuclear tests. The 
Soviet Government would not like to see matters take 
such a course. 

The Government of the U.S.S.R. expresses the sincere 
hope that the Government of the United States of America 
will join in the initiative of the Soviet Union and will 
thereby make possible the discontinuance forever of nu- 
clear weapon tests everywhere. 

In the opinion of the Soviet Government it would be 
appropriate if our two countries — the U.S.S.R. and the 
U.S.A., which were the first to create atomic and hydro- 
gen weapons and to possess considerable stocks of these 
weapons— would come forth as leaders in the noble cause 
of the immediate cessation of nuclear tests. 

This first practical step on the path toward the protec- 
tion of mankind against the calamities with which It is 
threatened by modern nuclear weapons would enormously 
facilitate the advance toward a solution of the problem, 
that is, the complete liberation of peoples from the threat 
of an atomic war. Hardly anyone will deny that the dis- 
continuance of experiments with atomic and hydrogen 
weapons would greatly improve the international political 
atmosphere as a whole and would create more favorable 
conditions for the settlement of other unsolved 
international problems. 

Permit me, Mr. President, to express the hope that the 
proposals of the Soviet Government stated above will 
meet with a favorable attitude on the part of the 
Government of the United States of America. 

With sincere esteem, 

N. Khrushchev 

April !,, i958 

His Excellency 

DwiGHT D. Eisenhower, 

President of the United States of America, 
Washington, B.C. 

April 28, 1958 

Secretary Dulles' News Conference of April 8 

Press release 179 dated April 8 

Secretary Dulles: You will, I think, have in your 
hands by now the text of President Eisenhower's 
reply to his first communication from Chair- 
man Khrushchev in the place of Chairman 

The heart of that lies in the last paragraph 
which again presses the Soviet Union at least to 
begin some of the technical studies about super- 
vision and control which we both agree are the 
necessary prelude to any agreement on control or 
limitation of armaments or inspection against sur- 
prise attack. We see no reason at all why, if 
there is really good faith on the part of the Soviet 
Union — and we trust there is — at least the techni- 
cal studies should not now be gotten under way. 

We will await a reply on that, as we also await 
a reply to the three-power note or memorandum 
communicated to the Soviet Government now 
about 10 days ago ^ inviting the beginning of 
diplomatic talks to see whether or not a summit 
conference can usefully be held. 

Now for your questions. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, do you have any idea xohat is 
meant hy Premier Khrushchev'' s public references 
to the possibility of international supervision over 
the suspeiision of atomic-energy tests? 

A. No, we don't know, and that is one of the 
reasons why it would be useful to have these techni- 
cal studies to find out whether we. are thinking at 
all in the same terms. We have conducted here 
in our own Government intensive technical studies 
to ascertain what would be necessary to have a de- 
pendable agreement on, let's say, the suspension of 
testing, and we have that work now pretty well 

A recent report was made by a group which had 

' See p. 679. 

' For text, see Bulletin of Apr. 21, 1958, p. 648. 
'James R. Killian, Jr., Special Assistant to the Presi- 
dent for Science and Teclinology. 


been set up by Dr. Killian ^ to study that very sub- 
ject. We don't know whether we are thinking 
along the same lines at all as the Soviet Union. 
When we talk about international supervision, I 
notice, for example, the press reported yesterday 
the intention of the Soviet Union to use nuclear 
power for explosion in tunnels and various under- 
ground areas ostensibly for civil purposes. 

You cannot tell from a distance of several thou- 
sand miles whetlier an explosion of that character 
is actually for civil purposes or whether it is for 
military jiurposes. So that there would have to 
be, we think, a considerable degree of inspection. 
The teams would have to have some mobility to 
establish a supervision of a cessation of testing 
that was effective. But whether or not the Soviet 
Union is thinking along those lines we don't know. 
That is the reason why we think it would be useful 
to get started at least on some of the technical 
studies while the other problems are being de- 
bated — the questions of principle. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, in the Presidents letter he 
asked Chah'man Khrushchev to reconsider his 
Governments position and accept a proposal that 
fissionable material can be manufactured only for 
peaceful purposes. Do you anticipate the Rus- 
sians might unilaterally announce a reduction or 
cutoff of this fissionable material, and would that 
satisfy his request? 

A. No, it would not satisfy. You asked 
whether the Soviets might announce it. I would 
not attempt myself to put any limits on what 
they miglit announce. The question of wliat they 
might allow to be supervised, controlled, and 
checked is a totally different matter. An an- 
nouncement which assures no element of super- 
vision or control must, I think, be judged, in the 
absence of further evidence, as primarily propa- 
ganda material rather than a move which is de- 
signed actually to allay concern or to assure others 
that a new situation has been created. 

Deparfment of Sfa/e Bvlletin 


Probability of Detection 

Q. Mr. Secretary, you mentioned the Killian 
study. Is it the conclusion of that study, and 
therefore the adinini-stratiori's, that inspection and 
control is possible to eliminate the degree of risk 
to a point lohich this Government would accept? 

A. Very definitely they come to the conchisiou 
that a fairly complex system is required to elim- 
inate totally the risk — I don't think they believe 
that any system of supervision would be proof 
against all possible evasions. But I think there 
is one factor that we can properly take into ac- 
count; namely, that if there is an agreement to 
suspend, an international agreement coupled with 
sufficient supervision so that there would be a high 
degree of probability that evasion would be de- 
tected, then that of itself creates a considerable 
likeliliood that evasion will not be attempted. 
That is because the consequences of an evasion 
that gets caught might be so serious as to more 
than balance out the advantages of the surrepti- 
tious testing. 

Q. In fact you are rejecting the contention that 
the Russians could cheat on any inspection sys- 
tem. Is that correct? 

A. No, I think I said that the report indicates 
that there cannot be absolutely 100 percent as- 
surance of detection of everything. But I also 
suggested, I think, that that is perhaps not neces- 
sary if you create a high probability that an 
evasion would be detected. We doubt whether 
the advantage to be gained from such an at- 
tempted secret test would more than balance out 
the risk that would be involved if you get caught. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, would such a system require 
an exemption for civil purposes or the develop- 
ment of atomic explosions for use in petroleum 
exploitation and digging up harhors and canals, 
et cetera? 

A. I tliink there would have to be a sufficient 
supervision to determine whether a nuclear ex- 
plosion was in fact for civil purposes or wliether 
it was an explosion of weapons under the guise of 
being for civil purposes. 

Q. What I mean, there would have to he an 
exemption to allow continuance of this benign — 
or do we propose to forgo those? 

A. No, I don't think they should be forgone. 
I think the advantages would be so great there 

should remain the possibility of the use of nuclear 
power for civilian purposes of that sort. But, 
if there is to be an agreement that they will not 
explode for weapons purposes, then there must 
be some way of deciding which the particular 
explosion is. 

Detection Stations 

Q. Mr. Secretary, when you talk of the high 
degree of probability that such tests could be de- 
tected, are you talking in terms of having in- 
spection within the territory of the Soviet Union 
and the United States and not a ring of stations 
around the border states? 

A. That is correct. There would have to be a 
number of stations within the areas of possible 
explosion with a degree of mobility to permit 
them to go to an area where there was a suspicious 
development to ascertain whether or not it was 
an earthquake or an explosion and, if it was an 
explosion, whether it is for civil purposes or for 
military ^Durposes. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, can you tell us if this report 
indicates that no hydrogen megaton-range ex- 
plosion can be detected from, outside countries 
loithout inspection or whether this is referring 
to atomic tests? 

A. I do not think we yet know the degree of 
detectability from a distance of explosions at a 
very high altitude. I don't think there is enough 
knowledge about that so that I can give a positive 
answer to the question. 

Q. What about supervision against the cutoff? 
What about inspection to make sure the fissionable 
material is cut off from production? Do we have 
any knowledge yet there is a feasible inspection 
to get cutoff of fissionable material? 

A. Yes, we have made studies on that subject 
and are of the opinion there can be a reasonably 
effective protection there. I would say that, as 
the use of nuclear power grows for civilian pur- 
poses — for nonmilitary purjDoses — the degree of 
risk that must be taken is even greater than in 
the case of supervising against the test explosions. 
To get anything approaching complete protection, 
it would require a degree of inspection into fac- 
tories, plants, and power plants, and the like, 
which probably would not be veiy practical. But 
we do believe again that it is possible to have a 

AptW 28, J 958 


degree of inspection which gives a sufficient de- 
gree of exposure so that cutoff would be ac- 

I think, in this whole area, we have to recognize 
that certain risks must be taken. There are risks 
if you do, and there are risks if you don't. Cer- 
tainly to allow this whole atomic-nuclear develop- 
ment to go ahead without any control, without any 
supervision at all, that involves very great risks 
too. So one has to balance the risks on one side 
and the other and strike something that would 
be acceptable. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, to pursue tlmt question of 
nonmilitary explosion — in a speech last week Sen- 
ator Humphrey said tluzt testimony before his 
disarmament subcoTnmittee had disclosed the same 
technology which might make nuclear explosives 
usable in peaceful pursuits might also be applied 
to making weapons with vast dimensions of radio- 
active fallout. Therefore it would not be neces- 
sary to allow Tuitions to continue tests of so-called 
clean weapons but only to allow an international 
agency or an agency under international control 
to develop nuclear explosives for peaceful pur- 
poses. Could you comment on that? 

A. I am afraid that I might make some mis- 
take if I commented on that. This whole field is so 
highly technical that really I think questions of 
that sort should probably be addressed to the 
Atomic Energy Commission. I don't have the 
technical knowledge which would enable me to 
judge the accuracy of that statement. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, will the Killian report be 
made public and, if not, why not? 

A. I just don't know whether it is going to be 
made public or not. If not, I am sure there will 
be good reasons for it. (Laughter) 

Q. Mr. Secretary, what order or number of sta- 
tions within the area inside tKe Soviet Union 
would be required to give a sufficient degree of 
protection on testing? 

A. You are wanting to prejudge the answer to 
the last question. That is in the Killian report. 
If I understand correctly, you ask the estimate of 
the number, the character of the stations that 
would be required in various countries. Is that 
your question? 

Q. Well, specifically in the case of the Soviet 
Union, Mr. Stassen, while he was, I believe, still 

in an official position in the Government, used a 
figure of the order of 20 or ^4- of something like 
that. It is a question which comes up so much 
that any specific information which we could rely 
on would be useful. 

A. I would say this, that the estimates have 
gone up since the time that the study was made 
that was reflected in Mr. Stassen's report that you 
refer to. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, in regard to U.S. policy i% 
the Middle East the view has been expressea 
rather xoidely of late that the United States haa 
a choice of two courses toward Nasser, either tc 
try to block the further spread of his influence ir 
that part of the world or to try to get along with 
him, and that we aren't doing one or the other 
Could you comment on that, sir? 

A. I think we are getting along with him, as f ai 
as I am aware. 

Policy on Arms Shipments to Indonesia 

Q. Mr. Secretary, the Foreign Minister of Indo 
nesia this morning called in your Ambassador 
Howard Jones, to take exception to a statemen, 
that Mr. [Lincoln] White [Chief of the Newi 
Division] made yesterday in the course of whicl 
he said that the U.S. regretted Indonesia's buyint. 
Communist arms for possible use in killing Indo 
nesians who openly opposed the growing influeno 
of communism in Indonesia. The Foreign Min 
ister ashed Mr. Jones for clarification of that 
which he interprets as United States Governmen 
siding with the rebels to some extent. I realist 
you havenH had Mr. Jones'' relay from the Foreigi 
Minister yet, probably, but I wonder if ym 
could clarify the U.S. attitude on this arm, 
deal particularly. Is that accurate, as statei 

A. The United States has a broad policy witl 
respect to arms, which, I am sorry to say, seem; 
not to be shared by the Soviet-bloc countries. Wi 
believe that arms should be supplied to a countr 
from without only in accordance with certaii 
fairly well-defined principles. One of these i 
the need of a country to have defense against pos 
sible aggression from without. The other is Xa 
have small arms which would be required for i 
normal police force and the forces required t( 
maintam internal order against subversive activi 

Department of State Bulleth 

ties and the like which would not be of great pro- 
portions and not stimulated from abroad. But 
we do not believe that the promiscuous sjjreading 
of large amounts of major armaments around the 
world is a sound or a healthy practice. We try 
not to indulge in that ourselves. And we would 
be glad if others followed the same practice. That 
is the principle that has guided us in general in 
different parts of the world. I would not say that 
there is any principle that I can define here with 
sufficient elaboration to cover every possible con- 
tingency, and perhaps every rule has its exception. 
But, broadly speaking, those are our principles. 
A spreading of arms, which may be primarily de- 
signed for offensive operations, is not something 
that we approve of. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, does this mean that the 
United States would turn down a new request from 
the Indonesian Government for arms? 

A. Turn down a new request ? 

Q. Yes. 

A. Tliere is, I think, [a report of a new request, 
but that has not yet been actually received] . We 
got a request back last July, as I recall, for a very 
large amount of arms indeed. We asked the Indo- 
nesian Government for certain clarifications about 
that request. It turned out that what they were 
requesting was an amount of arms of the value 
between $600 million and $700 million. Shortly 
after that there were statements made about the 
West New Guinea or West Irian situation, which- 
ever you call it, which came with the failure of 
Indonesia to get a two-thirds vote for a United 
Nations resolution which they wanted. These 
statements indicated that they might want to use 
force to produce the result which they had failed 
to get through the peaceful processes of the 
United Nations. In the light of those indications 
which came from Indonesia it did not seem that 
it would fit in with the United States policy to 
allow the export of any such vast quantity of arms 
as the Indonesian Government has referred to, nor 
did it seem to be any likelihood at all that there 
was in any quarter a threat of aggression against 
Indonesia which would require any such quantity 
of arms. That was the situation which continued 
until later on when the revolt broke out, and it did 
not seem wise to the United States to be in the 
position of supplying arms to either side of 

April 28, ?958 

that civil revolution. That conforms, generally 
speaking, to our policy. 

Q. Mr. Secretary., last weeh you told us that the 
Indonesian crisis was an internal matter and that 
the United States attitude had to he absolutely 
correct. Does yesterday^s statement indicate a 
change in this attitude? 

A. No; I am sure it is still our view that the 
situation there is primarily an internal one, and 
we intend to conform scrupulously to the prin- 
ciples of international law that apply to such a 
situation. It is quite true that the Soviet bloc is 
now supplying large amounts of arms under con- 
ditions which we hardly think is good interna- 
tional practice. But I use "good" in the sense of 
standards of judgment which are beyond those of 
accepted international law at the present time. 
We do not question that what is going on is within 
the compass of accepted principles of interna- 
tional law. They do not conform to what would 
be and has been United States policy with respect 
to the disposal of arms around the world. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, have we received a request for 
arms from the Indonesian rehels in Sumatra? 

A. No, we have not. 

Psychological Warfare 

Q. Mr. Secretary, President Eisenhower sug- 
gested at his la^t press conference we might have 
a fsychological warfare expert in the Department. 
Are there any plans along that line? 

A. No, there are no plans along that line. The 
problem is a very difficult one because I don't think 
that you can separate psychological warfare from 
the substantive work that we are doing. That can 
be done perhaps in the Soviet Union, where they 
can conduct psychological warfare as a separate 
compartment and isolate it from what they are 
doing in terms of their own policy, foreign or 
domestic. They conduct psychological warfare 
on that basis. As I pointed out before, they say 
one thing in France about their attitude toward 
Algeria; they say another thing in Algeria and 
North Africa as to their attitude toward Algeria, 
They put their psychological warfare in compart- 
ments, and they conduct it purely from a propa- 
ganda standpoint as to what they think will win 
favor in different parts of the world. They do 
that almost irrespective of what, in fact, they are 


doing as a matter of policy, both international and 
domestic. Now we can't operate on that basis. 
We can't have propaganda which is any better 
than, or any different from, what we actually are 
doing as a matter of policy and a matter of 
practice. So that, while I think we can present 
our case moi-e effectively than we have been doing, 
I don't think we can do it by trying to put propa- 
ganda in a totally separate compartment from 
policymaking and operations. 

Q. On that point, propaganda and policy are 
so closely connected, is there any plan to revitalize 
your own policy-planning hoard? 

A. We are thinking of what we can do to try to 
operate more effectively in this field. I think 
that we are registering some improvement. Now 
you take the President's reply in this letter to 
Khrushchev. We got the Soviet note in a Russian 
text late Friday afternoon. We got it translated 
by Saturday morning. We got a reply completed 
by Monday noon and on its way to Moscow, the 
intervening days being tlie Saturday before Easter 
and Easter Sunday itself. And in the course of 
that time we consulted with the United Kingdom, 
which had received a similar note, and we also 
informed our NATO allies. Now I think that is 
a fairly good record, at least as far as making 
a quick reply is concerned. We are trying to do 
things like that, to speed up. 

Now I would add this, when you speed up, par- 
ticularly when you do it over an Easter weekend, 
you don't have as good an opportunity to consult 
with everybody as you like. You might have to 
sacrifice a little bit of perfection in getting out a 
quick reply. But I think, on the whole, that it is 
important to deal with these things quickly, and I 
think that what we did over this Easter weekend 
is a demonstration that at least in one respect we 
are trying to speed up our operations so as not to 
give the Soviet propaganda line a free run for as 
long a time as has often been the case in the past. 

We had a statement ready, ^ in anticipation of 
Mr. Gromyko's speech, which was released in- 
stantly, as soon as we got the substance of what 
he was saying, and we emphasized the fact that 
the Soviets, although they talk a lot about want- 
ing to have disarmament and so forth, are in effect 
defying at almost every level the United Nations, 

• Bulletin of Apr. 21, 1958, p. 

which is the agreed forum for dealing with these 

I do believe that as a result of experience we 
are improving our tecliniques somewhat, not in 
terms of trying to match them in kind, because we 
can't and don't want to match them in kind, but in 
terms of trying to get our viewpoint out more 
quickly and more effectively. We are studying 
the whole area with a view to trying to improve 
our techniques. 

Free- World Propaganda Initiative 

Q. Mr. Secretary, these are replies. Is it pos- 
sible in a free world or in a democracy to tahe the 

A. Well, it is in a sense a reply, but it is also an 
initiative. The series of exchanges that have been 
taking place here go back now to such a remote 
date that it is almost impossible to know which is 
the chicken and which is the egg from that stand- 
point. (Laughter) 

Q. Mr. Secretary, in vieio of the proMem thai 
you outline, why would it not ie wise to appoint 
one or two or several people full time to the joh oj 
psychological warfare ? I think most of us realize 
that a good propaganda, so-called, is based mainly 
on a good policy. But do you thinh enough at- 
tention has been paid to articulating this policy f 
Do you think enough attention has been paid, for 
example, to making sure that the sentences in the 
various Government announcements and letters 
that we put out are clearly written so that people 
can understand them? I was just wondering lohai 
view you have on that. (Laughter) 

A. Well, I don't know whether a professor oJ 
English would be a great addition to our propa 
ganda effort. I think, you know, when you trj 
to get linguistic perfection, you lose something 
of the thrust that comes when people express 
themselves more or less spontaneously, ever 
though the English isn't always perfect. Perhaps 
that is not exactly what you meant. Perhaps yoi 
think that some expert in writing could enabh 
us to express ourselves moi-e effectively than w( 

Q. Mr. Secretary, as a case in point, what Mr 
[John] Scali [of the Associated Press] said, dc 
loe understand by the statement of the Presideni 
this morning that we xoould consider, on these 

Department of Stale Bulletin 

technical group studies, meeting with them on just 
the technical group concerned with suspension of 
tests, or do we want several study groups set up? 

A. I think that almost any testing or supervis- 
ing system requires, at least at the beginning, a 
number of studies which would be applicable to 
all. You have got questions as to who conducts 
them, the nationals of what comitry, the means 
of commimication, et cetera. There ai-e a number 
of problems of that sort which are common to all. 
So that I think we could make a useful start with- 
out seeming to give a priority or exclusiveness to 
one as against another. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, are you saying that the Presi- 
dent, in the reply before this last note or the note 
before that,^ said to Mr. Bulganin that perhaps 
we should stop this dialogue, this letter-writing 
debate, and that since they have not stopped it, 
toe are changing our policy and are going to out- 
write them; we are going to say, okay, if you want 
it that way, we toill do better? Is that what 
you're saying, in effect, has happened within the 
last few weeks? 

A. I don't think that there is any change in our 
view that, if there is a sincere desire to get into 
agreement on some of these matters and get started 
on something, the way to do it is not by writing 
public letters which purport to be signed by the 
head of the Soviet Government and directed to 
the head of another. We believe that that is an 
effort to put the thing on a propaganda plane 
rather than upon a plane of sincere effort. Never- 
theless, if they persist in doing this, I think we 
have to reply somewhat in kind, although we 
would very much prefer to have these matters 
dealt with on a level where we could really ex- 
pect to make some progress rather than on a level 
which is primarily a propaganda level. 

I would point out that there is a slight gain, 
perhaps, in that, I think, the last letter from Mr. 
Khrushchev is approximately one-third of the 
length of the last letter from Bulganin. 


Q. Mr. Secretary, in this letter today, is it a fair 
reading that the United States is now prepared 
to accept or to limit its disarmament package to 

the matters discussed here — that is, test stis- 
pension, production off cut, and stockpile reduc- 
tion, all with inspection? That is also unclear 
in the semantics as to whether we would be pre- 
pared to accept those things separate from all the 
other issues that were in the London package. 

A. No, I think you will find a reference made 
in one place to being as part of "a broad disarma- 
ment agreement" and in another place a refei-ence 
to "nuclear and conventional armaments." We 
are not prepared to abandon the position that the 
program upon which we are embarked ought to 
cover as many aspects of disarmament as is pos- 
sible, including the conventional, which are, as 
I pointed out here before, of very great impor- 
tance to some of our European allies, and they 
would be very reluctant to see the nuclear prob- 
lem dealt with apart from the conventional. 

Now that doesn't mean that we are not pre- 
pared to take up technical studies would 
deal Just with the nuclear problem. Also, I have 
already indicated we would be prepared to deal 
with technical studies dealing with the problem 
of outer space quite apart from anything else. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, what information do you 
have on the arrest of seven American newsmen in 
Ouba, and what is your reaction to this report? 

A. Well, the only information I have is that I 
heard it over a radio this morning just before I 
left my house to come to the office. 

Q. Are any steps being taken, do you know, on 
the behalf of these people? 

A. I couldn't tell you that. It's too recent. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, in connection with this busi- 
ness of speeding up in the American Governments 
responses and initiatives in the propaganda, psy- 
chological-warfare field, is there any thought 
being given to not only responding quickly but 
anticipating possible Soviet moves, and putting 
out some sort of statement which might take all 
the sting out of the possible effect of what the 
Soviets might do? 

A. Yes. I pointed out at my last press con- 
ference " that we gave quite a lot of study to the 
possibility of giving out a statement designed to 
anticipate Mr. Gromyko's statement. In view of 
the uncertainty as to just what his statement 

5 ma.. Mar. 10, 1958, p. 373. 

April 28, 1958 

'/6i(i., Apr. 21, 1958, p. 

would be and the difficulty of establishing a posi- 
tion which would effectively counteract that, par- 
ticularly in view of our allied relationships, we 
had decided not to do that particular thing. 
But that doesn't mean that we would not do it 
wherever we have a clear field in which to do it. 

Q. Mr. Secretary^ as you indicate, there has 
been no change in the American disarmament po- 
sition so far as breaking up the package and so 
on; would not these talks he a continuation of 
the London talks which broke down in deadlock? 

A. No, because the London talks that broke 
down in deadlock broke down because of disagree- 
ment on the basic principles that were involved. 
Now we have always felt it would be useful, and 
might perhaps be helpful in reaching an agree- 
ment on principles, if we started at it from the 
other end, that is, see what we would actually do 
to carry out any agreement. I think, if we could 
find an area of agreement there and a climate of 
good will, that that would help us very much 
perhaps to reach an agreement on principles. 

U.S. Position on Suspension of Tests 

Q. Mr. Secretary, it isn't yet clear, at least to 
me, whether the Russians will maintain their uni- 
lateral suspension of nuclear tests after our forth- 
coming tests. But I take it, from the discussion 
of the package and discussion of the continuing 
necessity for impection, that that would make no 
difference as far as we are concerned, that toe 
would still not be ready to join in any unilateral 
suspension of tests ivithout inspection. Is my im- 
pression correct? 

A. Well, as far as your doubt about the mean- 
ing of the Soviet statement, I think that is a doubt 
which all reasonable men can share. They have 
certainly left that open, by what President Eisen- 
hower refers to as the "small type," to go on test- 
ing after what would be a normal interval of sus- 
pension. We all of us, who are doing these 
things, have a period of preparation and then a 
period of activation. There has to be an interval 
of about 6 months in between. They have had 
roughly a period of 6 months or so of very in- 
tensive testing which is now drawing to an end. 
In the normal course of events they would not 
have any more testing until next fall. We have 
had a period of suspension of about 6 months. 
We will now have a period of testing which will 

end in the late summer. So that, if they want to, 
they can pick up again quite in the normal course, 
without breaking their stride at all, on the ground 
that we have not responded to their suggestion 
that we should stop the present tests. Now that 
answers the first question that you put. I have 
forgotten by now what the second half was. 

Q. The second was, should they maintain their 
suspension of tests even after we complete our 
series, would we then be ready to join them in 
that, or, as I conclude from tohat has been said 
today, toe would still not be ready to join them? 

A. We would not suspend testing merely on 
the basis of their declaration, without supervision 
and control, unless and until we came to the con- 
clusion that we had gained from the testing sub- 
stantially all of the information that we needed in 
order to make cleaner weapons and smaller weap- 
ons and the like. Now whether or not that may 
be tlie case, following the next series of tests, I 
just can't tell. Nobody can tell, because we don't 
know what the tests are going to disclose. 

Q. Is it a hope that, if these tests are completed 
successfully, they may provide enough informa- 
tion so that loithout any great risk we could go 
ahead and suspend testing for some time to come. 

A. I think that we all hope that. I would say 
that, on the basis of what I learned, there is a 
likelihood that there will be a need for some fur- 
ther testing in some of the areas which probably 
will not be fully explored by the next series of 
t«sts. So you have to make a difference between 
hope and expectation. I think that we would be 
happily surprised if we got all the information 
we needed out of this series of tests, but we may 
get most of it. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, in connection with the ship- 
ment of arms, the Department, I think, suspended 
a shipment of arms to Cuba recently which the 
Cuban Government wanted somewhat for the pur- 
poses you outlined a mom,ent ago. Can you tell 
me whether the Department has completed its 
study of the need for those arms by the Govern- 
ment of Cuba and what its decision is? 

A. No. I don't know that the study has been 
completed. As you point out, the action was 
taken in accord with the broad policy I have in- 
dicated, that we allow arms to go to other coun- 
tries primarily to meet international defense re- 

Department of State Bullel'm 

quirements — in this case, the needs of hemispheric 
defense, where Cuba has a very definite role as- 
signed to it. But we don't like to have large 
shipments of arms, particularly of a large caliber, 
as distinguished from just small arms that might 
bo required by normal police force — we don't like 
to liave those go where the purpose is to conduct 
a civil war. 

Q. Thank you, sir. 

International Cooperation 
Through Aviation 

Address by Secretary Dulles ^ 

The central theme of your conference is "The 
Humanities of Aviation." That is a most ap- 
propriate subject for exploration at this time. 
Too frequently the humanitarian role of aviation 
is lost sight of because of emphasis on the destruc- 
tive potentiality of aircraft. Your discussions 
here can help to counteract the misconception that 
aviation developments are primarily of military 
significance. Such groups as yours prove that 
modern aviation has given the peoples of the world 
an unparalleled opportunity to learn to cooperate 
instead of to fight. 

The United States attaches the greatest impor- 
tance to international cooperation through avia- 
tion. But it should be clear to all of us that that 
cooperation can only be effective if firmly based on 
sound principles. Cooperation cannot long last 
in a climate of arbitrary government decisions. 
The way to real cooperation lies in acceptance of 
the proposition that civil aviation should be de- 
signed to permit maximum contact and under- 
standing among the peoples of the world. 

The United States seeks to respond to this 
fundamental concept. President Eisenhower has 
frequently expressed his strong conviction that all 
the world benefits from international travel by 
people in all walks of life. No better formula for 
arousing mutual interest and creating mutual un- 
derstanding has been found than physical and 
spiritual contact among the peoples of the world. 

'Made before the Aero Club of Washington and the 
delegates to the 51st annual conference of the FM^ration 
Aironautiqve Internationale at Washington, D. C, on 
Apr. 9 (press release 184). 

It makes little difference whether international 
travel is motivated by business, cultural, scien- 
tific, or purely recreational interests. The fact is 
that the international contact resulting from such 
travel, in each instance, dispels prejudices and 
narrows the gulf between people of different na- 
tionalities. The speed, convenience, and economy 
of aviation have now brought international travel 
within the reach of many people to whom it was 
previously denied. Thus we progress toward a 
truly international world. 

As the complexities of world politics multiply, 
the importance of air communications in intergov- 
ernmental relations increases proportionately. 
My own experience as an air passenger offers evi- 
dence on this point. Those who have kept track 
of my whereabouts estimate that since my appoint- 
ment as Secretary of State in 1953 I have traveled 
nearly 500,000 miles by air, almost 90 percent of 
that internationally. And despite some impres- 
sions to the contrary I am not the only high gov- 
ernment ofiicial who travels. 

Aviation interests have recognized their broad 
responsibilities to facilitate and encourage the in- 
ternational interchange of passengers, mail, and 
cargo in every way at their command. They 
have thereby made a great contribution to the 
development of broader perspectives in the people 
of the world. 

It is significant to note that the Federation 
Aeronautique Internationale charter, written over 
half a century ago, foresaw that aeronautics 
should be developed 

By making evident the essentially international spirit 
of aeronautics as a powerful instrument for uniting the 
peoples of the world ; 


By encouraging and developing solidarity and mutual 
assistance in the field of aeronautics among the nations 
of the world. 

The farsighted drafters of your charter merit 
praise for the goals they set for us. 

Today aviation is able to defy natural barriers 
between nations. But it cannot ignore modem- 
day principles of airspace sovereignty. Inter- 
national aviation, despite its ability to surmount 
the physical limitations of earlier days, cannot 
exist without international cooperation. Such co- 
operation is not limited purely to the interchange 
of air privileges and the reduction of entry for- 
malities but must also include mutual exchanges 

AprW 28, J 958 


of knowledge and techniques in the field of avia- 
tion. Aviation cannot survive in a world where 
skills are the exclusive asset of a few. Skills and 
equipment to meet the ancillary requirements of 
telecommunications, navigational facilities and 
services, and operational practices must be avail- 
able all about the globe on a relatively uniform 

Technical Cooperation in Aviation 

Nations less advanced in the art of modern 
aviation desire to meet accepted standards and 
practices. Also the more advanced nations de- 
sire to see those standards established everywhere. 
There results a broad use of technical assistance 
projects which seek to achieve mutual benefit by 
equalizing proficiency at the most highly de- 
veloped level. 

The United Stat«s seeks to contribute in this 
respect. As of today we are maintaining civil- 
aviation assistance groups assigned to 26 countries 
and offering cooperative services to a total of 46 
countries. In addition it has been made possible 
for aviation specialists from 44 foreign lands to 
come to the United States to observe and learn 
our way of doing things in all phases of aviation 
activities. At the same time we have also learned 
from them. 

Technical cooperation in the aviation world has 
not been limited to bilateral arrangements. The 
remarkable postwar development of civil avia- 
tion can, in substantial part, be attributed to mul- 
tilateral enterprise and foresight. Tlie efforts of 
the International Civil Aviation Organization in 
setting standards to meet international aviation 
requirements have proven indispensable. Fur- 
thermore, its contribution to the accomplishment 
of those standards is glowing evidence of what 
can be achieved through united effort toward mu- 
tually advantageous objectives. . The Interna- 
tional Air Transport Association, too, has proven 
that even the highly competitive international 
airline industry has much to gain through co- 
operation. Only through pooling of the world's 
skills have we achieved the aeronautical knowledge 
we have today. 

The modern turbojet engine is a good example 
of what international cooperation can produce. 
The aeronautical scientists and engineers of many 
countries have contributed to the international 
development of the original invention. Although 


born in wartime and originally limited in use tu 
military aircraft, this type of propulsion was 
perfected through mutual exchanges of technical 
data and cooperation of objectives. It is destined 
in the near future to revolutionize civil aviation 
as we know it today. 

In many other respects do we see the interrela- 
tion of military and civil aviation. The military 
provision of supplementary air-navigation facili- 
ties and services, of communications and meteor- 
ological services, and of other aids to civil air 
operations materially benefits the orderly expan- 
sion of these operations. And where do we look 
for search-and-rescue support ? Military aviation 
offers unstinting assistance in the protection of 
life. Too little note is given to the wide range 
of military mercy missions in the international 
fields of disaster relief, agricultural crises, re- 
gional emergencies, and the like, except by the 
immediate beneficiaries. These activities certainly 
come under the heading of international coopera- 
tion of the highest degree. They demonstrate the 
basic unity of spirit in the field of aviation. 

Military aviation's contributions to the civilian 
population, however, do not stop at the purely 
tangible acts of cooperation and assistance. Avia- 
tion is a dynamic field in which each experience, 
each bit of knowledge or information, each devel- 
opment has an overall significance. Advances in 
the aeronautical sciences mean improvement in 
the reliability and performance of aircraft opera- 
tion whether they be designed for military or 
civil uses. 

Guidelines of U.S. Policy 

Wliat the future holds in this vast and challeng- 
ing area of human endeavor is as yet unknown. 
But the guidelines of United States policy have 
been clearlj^ laid down. In a very deep sense they 
stem from President Eisenhower's statement at 
the time he made his proposals at the United 
Nations General Assembly concerning the peace- 
ful uses of atomic power : ^ 

. . . the United States pledges before you — and there- 
fore before the world ... to devote its entire heart and 
mind to find the way by which the miraculous inventive- 
ness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but con- 
secrated to his life. 

The spirit of American policy in matters that 
more especially concern this gathering is the 

• Bulletin of Dec. 21, 1953, p. 847. 

Department of State Bulletin 

same : President Eisenhower's open-skies proposals 
at Geneva in 1955 opened np a new role for aviation 
in the maintenance of world peace. Aerial photo- 
graphy by unarmed, peaceful planes was urged, 
in this Geneva statement, as the start of a broader 
system of inspection which could well be the foun- 
dation of effective disarmament. The Soviet 
Union has, for nearly 3 years, evaded a clear re- 
sponse. But we have not given up hope or deter- 
mination that aviation shall make its distinctive 
contribution to peace. Indeed we see no other 
way by which so much security against surprise 
attack can be achieved and a solid basis thus pro- 
vided for reduction of armaments. President 
Eisenhower again yesterday urged Chairman 
Khrushchev to accept the open-skies proposal.^ 
We earnestly hope that in this way aviation will 
be permitted to make the immense contribution 
to peace of which it is capable. 

The governments of the free world are inspired 
by concepts that are markedly similar to those 
which underlie the charter of the Federation Aero- 
nautique Internationale : the desire to be of service 
and a sense of comradeship in such service ; belief 
in the inherent goodness of man and his deep wish 
for true peace ; belief in the unity and partnei'ship 
of the free nations as defenders of the peace ; and 
belief that aviation can indispensably serve all of 
the world in the search for the peace and security 
and community that all men want. 

Anniversary of Fall of Bataan 

Following is the text of a message sent on April 
8 hy President Eisenhower to President Carlos P. 
Garcia of the Philippines on the occasion of Ba- 
taan Day, April 9. 

White House press release dated April 8 

Dear Mk. President : On this 16th Anniversary 
of the Fall of Bataan, an event which we commem- 
orate with sadness, but with pride, I extend best 
wishes to you and to the people of the Philippines 
on behalf of the people of the United States. 

The symbol of Bataan, the offering of the ulti- 
mate sacrifice by friends for one another, is an 
ideal so rarely witnessed that it will inspire f ree- 

' See p. 679. 
April 28, ?958 

dom-loving men always. That togetlier we have 
carried on our struggle for the preservation of 
liberty with justice does honor to the memory of 
our fallen sons and comrades. 

Our mutual friendship has been nourished by 
the spirit of Bataan. May it continue to grow. 

Davight D. Eisenhower 

U.S. Grants Wheat to Tunisia 

Press release 186 dated April 10 

A grant of up to 20,000 tons of U.S. wheat to 
help relieve the critical unemployment situation 
in Tunisia was announced on April 10 by the De- 
partment of State. About one-third of the work 
force in Tunisia is presently unemployed. 

The grain will be made available to the North 
African country by the International Coopera- 
tion Administration under provisions of title II of 
the Agricultural Trade Development and Assist- 
ance Act (Public Law 480). This provision, 
which ICA administers, authorizes the use of sur- 
plus U.S. agricultural commodities for emergency 

The wheat will be used by the Government of 
Tunisia as payment in kind to persons given em- 
ployment on the governmental development pro- 
jects now being launched to relieve unemployment 
in the country. The Govei-nment of Tunisia it- 
self has earmarked the equivalent of $2.4 million of 
its own resources to support the employment pro- 
gram in which the grain will be used. 

It is estimated that the proposed joint Tunisian- 
U.S. employment program will give jobs to an 
average of 40,000 Tunisians, or approximately 10 
percent of those now out of work, for a period of 
5 months. Since the average Tunisian worker 
has four to five dependents, this will mean that 
more than 200,000 people will benefit directly. 

The ICA document formally making the wheat 
available to the Tunisian Government was signed 
on April 9 by the Tunisian Ambassador to the 
United States, Mongi Slim. 

The wheat will be shipped in two vessels, each 
carrying 10,000 tons. Arrangements are now be- 
ing made to start moving the grain from the 
United States to Tunisia as soon as possible, prob- 
ably within 2 or 3 weeks. 


The Trade Agreements Program and American Prosperity 

ly Thomas C. Mann 

Assistant Secretary for Economic Affairs ^ 

Tlie subject I want to talk about with you, the 
trade agreements program, is as important to 
Texas as to any other State in the Nation.- In 
October 1957 the vahie of the commercial exports 
and imports, excluding military shipments, 
handled by the seaports of Texas totaled, just in 
that one month, $165 million. The magnificent 
Houston ship channel has made that city the Na- 
tion's second largest port in tonnage of cargo 
handled. Texas farms and industries are depend- 
ent on foreign trade both for markets and for 
sources of supply. 

And as it is with Texas, so it is with the Nation. 
It was in recognition of the importance of foreign 
trade to our national prosperity that Congress 
first passed the Trade Agreements Act in 1934. 
Then the executive branch and Congress were 
seeking ways to end the disastrous decline in our 
foreign trade which had resulted from the high, 
rigid tariffs of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and 
from the restrictive measures which other nations 
had taken in retaliation. Foreign trade was 
rightly regarded as a means of hastening the end 
of the great depression. 

Today, 24 years later, we are in another eco- 
nomic decline. Surely we must not repeat the 
errors of the past. If we do, we can expect to see 
again a decline not only in the foreign trade of the 
United States but in world trade, and this will 

'Address made before the Owens Foundation Confer- 
ence on International Trade and Economic Development 
at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Tex., on Apr. 2 
(press release 163 dated Apr. 1). 

' For an address made by President Eisenhower at the 
National Conference of Organizations on International 
Trade Policy, together with remarks made by Secretary 
Dulles and Deputy Under Secretary Dillon at the same 
meeting, see Bulletin of Apr. 14, 1958, p. 591. 


seriously deepen the recession at home and extend 
its effects over the entire free world. 

As a result of our liberal trade policy, our 
exports climbed from $2.1 billion in 1934 to a 
record $19.5 billion in 1957. This means that ex- 
ports now form a larger share of our national 
product than the building of nonfarm homes, the 
production of automobiles, the production of fur- 
niture and other household equipment, or the pro- 
duction for sale of all farm crops. Exports in 
1956 equaled in value our output of crude or pre- 
pared minerals and approached the value of con- 
sumer purchases of clothing and shoes. We are 
familiar with what a small decline in automobile 
production can mean to our economy; we need to 
be more familiar with the equally serious effects 
of a drop in U.S. exports. 

Imports have also increased since 1934 — from 
$1.7 billion then to $13.0 billion in 1957. Their 
contribution to American prosperity lies in the 
fact that we are dependent on imports for many 
materials essential to American industry, from 
tin to industrial diamonds, and many commodities 
highly desired by the American palate, from cof- 
fee to bananas. And, of course, imports are the 
primary means by which other coimtries earn the 
dollars with which to buy our exports. Without 
a high level of imports, a high level of exports 
would be impossible. 

How Foreign Trade Affects Individual Interests 

But my experience has been that many people 
who are willing to concede the importance of 
foreign trade to that vast abstraction, the Ameri- 
can economy, still fail to see the importance of 
trade to their own lives, as businessmen, farmers, 
workers, or consumers. The contribution of for- 

Deparfment of Stafe Bullefin 



oir out] 

Ml, 19 


tar sol 


sold atr 





iential t 
Kse, til 

Ikat is ( 
trade, i 
laral m 
fte tran 




eign trade to American industry, for example, is 
far greater tlian the business it provides to those 
engaged directly in the handling of exjiorts and 
imports. Almost every important industry ex- 
jxirts part of its production. Eleven percent of 
our output of machine tools, 14 percent of our 
coal, 19 percent of our trucks, 26 percent of our 
construction and mining equipment, 29 percent of 
our sulphur — much of that, of course, from 
Texas — and 33 percent of our civilian aircraft are 
sold abroad. 

These industries, and others with a lesser stake 
in export markets, could not continue to operate 
without imports. We now obtain from abroad 
one-quarter of our iron ore, one-third of our cop- 
per and rubber, and most of our newsprint and 
aluminum. Still other materials, most of them 
unfamiliar to the general public but no less es- 
sential to the industries which require them, are 
entirely or almost entirely imported. In this 
category are such minerals as tin, nickel, manga- 
nese, chrome, antimony, cobalt, tungsten, cad- 
mium, mica, and asbestos. 

And, of course, for every business and industry 
that is dependent on exports and imports there 
are the employees of that business, whose jobs 
depend wholly or partly on a high level of foreign 
trade. Government statisticians have estimated 
that in 1952 some 976,000 farmers and other agri- 
cultural workers and about 2,150,000 nonagricul- 
tural employees were engaged in production for 
export. Another 450,000 people were engaged in 
the transportation and distribution of imports, 
and about 800,000 were employed in the first proc- 
essing of imported materials, that is, in working 
up imports which came into this country either as 
raw materials or as semifinished goods. A total 
of 4,376,000 were thus estimated to be directly or 
indirectly dependent on foreign trade for their 
livelihood. This figure is estimated to stand today 
at about 414 million persons, or about 7 percent of 
the labor force. Deprive these people of their jobs 
and you would double the number of unemployed, 
even in this recession period. 

The number of workers dependent upon exports 
in specific industries can, of course, range far 
above the national average. A 1947 study indi- 
cated that 13 percent of the employees of the 
chemical industry, 13 percent of those employed 
in the coal and petroleum-products industry, 15 
percent of the textile-mill workers, 17 percent of 

April 28, 1958 

462029—58 3 

those in the iron and steel industry, and 20 per- 
cent of those employed in manufacturing agricul- 
tural, mining, and construction machinery owed 
their jobs to exports. 

I have mentioned the farmer in passing, but his 
interest in world trade deserves particular men- 
tion, if for no other reason than that his stake in 
foreigii trade has been one of long standing. Un- 
fortunately, the American farmer has been 
threatened in recent years by the loss of many of 
his traditional foreign markets, due to a combina- 
tion of domestic prices which were above the 
world market level and increased agricultural 
production in other countries. Special programs 
have been found necessary to enable the farmer to 
hold his place in world trade. In the 1956-57 
crop year these programs were particularly suc- 
cessful, and more than 85 percent of our rice pro- 
duction, almost 54 percent of our wheat, 26 per- 
cent of our tobacco, and 61 percent of our cotton 
were exported. But no amount of special pro- 
grams to assist agricultural exports will avail if 
the produce of other countries is excluded from 
our markets. Japan, for instance, cannot remain 
the biggest single purchaser of American cotton 
if every Japanese product which begins to sell well 
in this country is suddenly barred. With farm 
exports, as with industrial products, we must buy 
if we want to sell. 

Businessmen, workers, farmers — all have an in- 
terest in foreign trade. But one major group, 
the biggest and most important group of all, has 
not been mentioned : the American consumer. He 
benefits from the lower prices and greater variety 
of goods which imports make available to him. 
Anything made out of sugar would be much more 
expensive if imports of sugar were cut off. The 
price of an American automobile would be 
sharply increased if imported iron ore were un- 
available, and both price and quality would be 
affected if some of the rarer metals and minerals 
could not be obtained. 

The Case for Renewal of the Trade Agreements Act 

A high and rising level of foreign trade is 
therefore important not only to the American 
economy as a whole but to our individual interests 
as businessmen, employees, farmers, consumers. 
The President's authority to promote an expand- 
ing foreign trade by means of agreements with 
other nations for the reciprocal reduction of tar- 


iffs and other barriers to trade expires, as you 
know, on June 30 of this year. Even if no case 
for renewal of the Trade Agreements Act could 
be made except on the basis of its direct contribu- 
tion to the American economy and American 
prosperity, renewal would be clearly justified. 

But, in the circumstances in which the United 
States finds itself today, there are few pieces of 
legislation which we can afford to consider purely 
from the domestic point of view, without regard 
for their effect on the rest of the free world. For 
the prosperity of the United States depends, in 
the long run, on the prosperity of the rest of the 
world. We cannot be an island of wealth in a 
sea of poverty ; we cannot be an oasis of peace and 
stability in a desert of chaos and conflict. This is 
no longer a matter of serious public debate in the 
United States. But what does need wider recog- 
nition in this country is the degree to which sound 
trade policies contribute to the economic well- 
being of the free world and therefore to the 
strength and unity of the Western alliances. For 
we may be sure that in the long term cohesion be- 
tween allies and friends rests on mutuality of in- 
terests and that it cannot survive on sentiment 
and words alone. 

Most other countries are smaller and less di- 
versified economically than the United States. 
They must import a much larger share of what 
they need. They can do this only if their exports 
are correspondingly large in relation to their out- 

For the major industrial countries, such as the 
United Kingdom, West Germany, and France, the 
ratio of exports to gross national production is 
two to four times as great as for the United 
States. For smaller advanced nations, such as 
Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzer- 
land, it is five to nine times as great. For many 
of the less developed countries expoi"ts are the 
largest single component of the market part of 
their economy. Ceylon must sell its natural rub- 
ber, Iceland must sell its fish, Burma must sell its 
rice, and Uruguay its wool. 

The United States is the world's largest market 
and principal trading nation. To any nation, 
therefore, for which trade is important, trade 
with the United States is almost automatically 
important as well. Trade with the United States 
means the difference between prosperity or de- 
pression to many countries. Over two-thirds of 
the total exports of Colombia, Mexico, and Cuba 


go to the United States. For Canada the ratio 
amounts to 60 percent, while for Brazil and the 
Philippines it is at least 50 percent. 

For many particular commodities the United 
States is the dominant market. For example, 
Chile sends two-thirds of her total copper produc- 
tion to the United States; Cuba sells us half of 
her sugar ; Indonesia sells one-quarter of her rub- 
ber; Bolivia, one-third of her tin; Brazil, over 
one-half of her coffee production. 

This is why the Trade Agreements Act is the 
cornerstone of American foreign economic policy 
and is looked upon all over the world as the sym- 
bol of American determination to maintain its 
leadership. In the eyes of foreign countries pas- 
sage or hamstringing of this act is our choice be- 
tween cooperation and isolationism. 

European Economic Integration 

There is still another reason why a continua- 
tion of two-way trade is vital to us. Six of our 
Western European allies — France, the Federal 
Republic of Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Neth- 
erlands, and Luxembourg — have recently made 
their choice in favor of greater cooperation. On 
January 1 they joined together in a customs 
union, or Common Market. Over a period of 12 
to 15 years the six countries will eliminate all bar- 
riers to internal trade and establish a common tar- 
iff against outside countries. Clearly this will 
give some advantage to producers inside the Com- 
mon Market over their competitors outside; but 
the extent of this advantage depends in large part 
upon the height of the common tariff. And the 
height of the common tariff will depend on our 
authority to negotiate reductions on a reciprocal 
basis. This is one of the reasons why the Presi- 
dent has asked Congress to extend the Trade 
Agreements Act for 5 years and to permit him to 
reduce tariffs, in return for equivalent concessions 
from other nations, by a maximum of 5 percent 
each year.^ 

Tariff negotiations on a scale in keeping with 
our expoi'ts to the six, which reached $2.9 billion 
in 1956, require time to prepare and time to carry 

' For text of the President's message to Congress, see 
ibid., Feb. 17, 1958, p. 263; for statements made before 
the House Committee on Ways and Means by Secretary 
Dulles and Secretary of Commerce Sinclair Weeks, see 
ibid., Mar. 17, 19.58, p. 432; for a statement by Deputy 
Under Secretary Dillon before the same committee, see 
ibid., Apr. 14, 1958, p. 626. 

Department of State Bulletin 

out. Therefore, not only the authority to negotiate 
but also sufficient time for effective negotiation is 
essential. A 5-year extension of the Trade Agree- 
ments Act will provide that necessary time and 
will enable the United States to exercise a liberal 
influence throughout the first and most formative 
stage of the Common Market's development. 

The movement toward European economic inte- 
gration is continuing. The 17 nations which be- 
long to the Organization for European Economic 
Cooperation, including the six Common Market 
countries, are now negotiating a free-trade area. 
The creation of so large an area in which goods 
could be freely traded will surely have significant 
repercussions upon United States interests. As in 
the case of the Common Market, we want to make 
sure that the free-trade area will increase rather 
than decrease its members' trade with the outside 
world. And as with the Common Market, the 
strength of our position in dealing with the free- 
trade area will depend on how strong a Trade 
Agreements Act we are given by Congress. 

It would be an act of sheer folly, with unalter- 
able consequences, if we, at a time when vast new 
trading areas are being created, were to shut our- 
selves off from the rest of the world by a protec- 
tionist policy. No responsible and informed per- 
son that I know proposes that we do so. But a 
danger exists that we shall drift into a practice of 
"isolationism by exceptions" — liberal trade in 
theory and word but protectionist in practice. Ex- 
ceptions are, of course, necessary, and I can assure 
you that the administration is not only conscious 
of its responsibilities to American industry but, in 
the 6 months that I have had an opportunity to ob- 
serve the problem at close hand, it has taken 
prompt action to protect American business from 
injury in numerous ways that seldom are known 
to the general public. But we must take care to 
prevent a situation where the exceptions cease to 
frove the rule and instead iecome the rule. 

Striking a Balance 

I would be less than candid if I spoke to a Texas 
audience on foreign trade and did not mention oil. 
Our national interest requires that we maintain 
adequate domestic petroleimi reserves and a 
healthy domestic industry which has the resources 
to exploit those reserves and the incentive to con- 
tinue the constant process of exploration and de- 
velopment. Our national defense also requires 

that our friends and allies not be deprived of the 
essential income which they derive from their oil 
exports to the United States and that we not de- 
prive ourselves of access to their oil. In spite of the 
great reserves in this State and others, the Nation 
will in the future be increasingly dependent on 
foreign supplies. The President has therefore 
had to consider not only the need of the Nation 
in this temporary period of oversupply but the 
long-term needs of the Nation as well. I know 
you will join with me in hoping that the experience 
of the next few months will prove that the formula 
which has been announced is fair and effective, 
just as I know you will share my conviction that, 
if new remedies are needed, they will be found. 
We must seek to strike some rational balance be- 
tween complete dependence on domestic produc- 
tion and what might be an overdependence on 
foreign sources of supply. I think the President's 
Cabinet Committee on Oil Imports, headed by 
Secretary of Commerce Weeks, has struck such a 
balance for the present period. 
To simi up, two-way trade: 

(a) combats economic recession and promotes 
the economic process of the American economy ; 

(b) strengthens and unites the free world and 
thereby promotes our security ; and 

(c) can, if we allow it to do so, guarantee our 
access to the markets of the new trading 
communities being formed in Western Europe. 

May we have the vision and the courage to 
serve our country by doing our part to defend the 
trade agreements program against the attacks 
which are being made on it from every side 

WorBd Trade Week, 1958 


Whereas world trade is vital to the economic growth 
and national security of the United States; and 

Whereas the export trade of the United States pro- 
vides employment for millions of Americans and is an 
indispensable outlet for the products of our farms and 
factories ; and 

Whereas imports into the United States help to keep 
factory wheels turning and assembly lines moving for 
our national defense, and are essential to the domestic 
economy of our Nation ; and 

' No. 32.30 ; 23 Fed. Reg. 2319. 

April 28, ?958 

Whereas world trade contributes to the economic 
strength and development of the free nations of the 
world, and is therefore a pjwerful force for the advance- 
ment of peace; 

of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim the 
week beginning May 18, 1958, as World Trade Week ; 
and I request the appropriate officials of the Federal 
Government and of the several States, Territories, posses- 
sions, and municipalities of the United States to cooperate 
in the observance of that week. 

I also urge business, labor, agricultural, educational, 
and civic groups, as well as the people of the United 
States generally, to observe World Trade Week with 
gatherings, discussions, exhibits, ceremonies, and other 
appropriate activities designed to promote continuing 
awareness of the importance of world trade to our econ- 
omy and our relations with other nations. 

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

Done at the City of Washington this 7th day of April 
in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and 

[seal] fifty-eight, and of the Independence of the 

United States of America the one hundred 

and eighty-second. 

XJ <.JL>y-/'^XJO~iC.u^A/u..y^ 

the President: 
John Foster Dulles 
Secretary of State 

United States World Trade Fair 


Whereas the Second Annual United States World 
Trade Fair is to be held at New York, New York, from 
May 7 to May 17, 1958, inclusive, for the purposes of ex- 
hibiting and promoting the sale of foreign and domestic 
products to the American trade and to the public ; and 

Whereas the Congress, by a joint resolution approved 
March 28, 1958 (72 Stat. 70), has authorized the Presi- 
dent, by proclamation or in such other manner as he 
may deem proper, to invite the States of the Union and 
foreign countries to participate in the Second Annual 
United States World Trade Fair ; and 

Whereas this exhibition and trade gathering will tend 
to encourage further development of international trade 
and to foster friendly relations among participating 
nations : 

of the United States of America, do hereby invite the 
States of the Union and foreign countries to participate 
in the Second Annual United States World Trade Fair 
to be held in the Coliseum in New York, New York, from 
May 7 to May 17, 1958, inclusive. 

In WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and 

caused the Seal of the United States of America to be 


Done at the City of Washington this 9th day of April 

in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and 

[SEAL] fifty-eight, and of the Independence of the 

United States of America the one hundred 

and eighty-second. 

XJ C«- fy L'i'ZjG-iuu^ /Cio.^ 

the President : 
John Foster Dulles 
Secretary of State 

President Asl<s Furtlier Report 
on Umbrella-Frame Tariff 

White Honse press release dated March 12 
White House Announcement 

The President, on March 12 requested the Tariff 
Commission to submit a supplemental report in 
the escape-clause case involving umbrella frames. 

The Tariff Commission had reported to the 
President on January 14, 1958, that three mem- 
bers of the Commission found that escape-clause 
relief was warranted, that two members reached 
a contrary conclusion, and that one commissioner 
did not participate. 

In identical letters to the chairmen of the House 
Ways and Means Committee and the Senate 
Finance Committee, the President noted some of 
the salient facts of the case and said that, although 
some clear interpretations could be drawn from 
the present record, the domestic producers and 
other parties should be given the opportunity to 
present further information before he made his 
final decision in this case. 

Letter to Chairmen of Congressional Committees > 

Dear Mr. Chairman: Under Section 7 of the 
Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1951, as 
amended, the United States Tariff Commission 
submitted to me on January 14, 1958 its report on 
umbrella frames. Three members of the Commis- 
sion found that the domestic producers were 

' No. 3232 ; 23 Fed. Reg. 2397. 

' Identical letters were sent to Senator Harry F. Byrd, 
chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance, and Repre- 
sentative Wilbur D. Mills, chairman of the House Com- 
mittee on Ways a 

Department of State Bulletin 

experiencing serious injury; two Commission 
members reached a contrary conclusion ; and one 
Commissioner did not participate in this case. 

I have carefully considered the Tariff Commis- 
sion report and have had the advice of the Trade 
Policy Committee and other departments and 
agencies of the Executive Branch. 

The tariff concession on umbrella frames and 
their components came into effect in 1951. In late 
1955, domestic producers announced prices for 
1956 that ranged up to 30 percent above 1955 
prices. In late 1955, imports began to increase 
and continued sharply upward in 1956, totaling 
344 thousand dozen for 1956. In May of that year, 
the domestic industry adjusted its prices down- 
ward from the higher levels that it had recently 
set. The level of imports dropped markedly dur- 
ing the last two months of 1956, and total imports 
in 1957 were less than half as much as those of 1956. 
The industry's profits reflect this pattern. The 
Commission's report shows that the industry's net 
profits for 1955 amounted to 7.6 percent of net 
sales. With the substantial rise in both domestic 
prices and imports in 1956, losses were experi- 
enced by two of the four domestic firms that re- 
ported. During the most recent financial period 
covered by the Commission's report, the first five 
months of 1957 when imports were at a much 
lower level than in the preceding year, the in- 
dustry as a whole showed a moderate profit. Two 
of the Commissionei's suggested that the reported 
profits for early 1957 understate the position of 
the industry on two grounds: First, one of the 
companies included in the industry average was 
undergoing operational reorganization and its fi- 
nancial experience was quite out-of-line with the 
other companies ; second, the industry usually does 
better in the latter part of the year, and this, of 
course, is not taken into account by early figures. 
Although some clear interpretations can be 
drawn from the present record, I have concluded 
that before my final decision is made the domestic 
producers and other parties should be given the 
opportunity to present further information on the 
industry's experience in recent months. Addi- 
tional data on the industry's financial experience 
and the import pattern through the first quarter 
of 1958 should clarify the situation and enable a 
better resolution of the points of difference set 
forth in the minority and majority opinions of the 
Tariff Commission report. 

April 28, 1958 

I am, therefore, requesting the Commission to 
submit a supplemental report including data on 
the period ending March thirty-first and also in- 
cluding such other material as the Commissioners 
deem appropriate in view of the above. 

DwiGHT D. Eisenhower 

Letter to Edgar B. Brossard, Chairman, U.S. Tariff 

Dear Mr. Chairman : I have carefully studied 
the Tariff Commission's report of January 14, 
1958 concerning umbrella frames. 

As set forth in the enclosed copy of my letter 
of today to the Chairmen of the Senate Finance 
and House Ways and Means Committees, I have 
concluded that it woidd be useful to have addi- 
tional data on the industry's financial experience 
and the import pattern during recent months. 

I request the Commission, tlierefore, to submit 
a supplemental report including data on the 
period ending March thirty-first and also includ- 
ing such other material as the Commissioners deem 


DwiGHT D. Eisenhower 

Great Lakes Fishery Commission 
Meets at Washington 

The Department of State announced on April 
9 (press release 181) that the Great Lakes Fishery 
Commission, established by treaty between the 
United States and Canada, will meet at Wash- 
ington April 9 and 10. The principal function 
of the Commission is the eradication of the sea 
lamprey predator which has so effectively de- 
stroyed most of the valuable food fishes of the 
ujiper Great Lakes. 

Chairman of the Commission is L. P. Voigt, 
Conservation Director of the State of Wisconsin. 
Other U.S. members are Claude Ver Duin, Mayor 
of Grand Haven, Mich., and Donald L. McKernan, 
Director of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries 
of the Department of the Interior. 

The Canadian Commissioners are A. L. Prit- 
chard. Director of the Conservation and Develop- 
ment Service of the Department of Fisheries, Ot- 

tawa ; A. O. Blackhurst, Manager of the Ontario 
Council of Commercial Fisheries, Port Dover, 
Ontario; and W. J. K. Harkness, Cliief of the Di- 
vision of Fish and Wildlife of the Ontario De- 
partment of Lands and Forests, Toronto. 

On hand to report progress and plans on behalf 
of the two government agencies which are con- 
ducting tlie Commission's program will be W. A. 
Kennedy of Canada and J. W. Moflett of the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Sei'vice. They will be accom- 
panied by top members of their scientific staffs. 
State conservation agencies will be represented by 
Albert Hazzard of Pennsylvania, Mason Law- 
rence of New York, and Lee Roach of Ohio. 

The principal method used to control the lam- 
prey is the blocking of streams tributary to the 
lakes. The lampreys are killed by electrical weirs 
on their upstream migration to spawning grounds. 
Another method has been the subject of experi- 
mentation, and very liopeful results are being ob- 
tained. This is the introduction into the streams 
of selective toxicants which kill the lampreys and 
their larvae but do not harm fish or leave a poison- 
ous residue dangerous to human or animal life. 
Perfecting of this system will speed the work of 
lamprey control and bring nearer the time of re- 
liabilitation of the lake trout and other com- 
mercial and sports fisheries. 


ppiej i 
pile l» 

(Hit, 1/ 

iioD pt 
d &n 


Im are 
bdam i 
ID rfsot: 
Wfist f 

Japan i 
lonj tie 


itM depf 



The IVIutual Security Program in the Far East 

Statement iy Walter S. Robertson 

Assistant Secretary for Far Eastern Affairs ^ 

I am glad of the opportunity to appear before 
you in support of the mutual security program on 
a scale which will not cripple its objectives. This 
committee is acutely aware of the importance to 
the security of the United States and the free 
world of the continued freedom and independence 
of the non-Communist countries of the Far East. 
In our judgment the mutual security program is a 
bulwark of their freedom and is vital to our own 

I shall address my remarks to the foreign- 
policy considerations which govern our activities 
in the Far East under the Mutual Security Act. 
As program operations are conducted by the De- 
partment of Defense and the International Co- 
operation Administration, the specific programs 
will be covered by the statements of Capt. Berton 
A. Bobbins, Jr., United States Navy, Far East 

Regional Director for International Security 
Affairs, Department of Defense, and by Dr. Ray- 
mond T. Moyer, ICA Regional Director for the 
Far East. 

The Secretary of State recently said that we live 
in an historic era of change. He drew attention 
to two great forces at work : Communist imperial- 
ism and the "drive for progress" on the part of the 
ex-colonial peoples and those of the less developed 
countries.- These forces are conspicuously pres- 
ent in the Far East. 

Communism rose to immense power in the area 
when mainland China fell in 1949. Today Com- 
munist China with its 600 million people, large 
army, and modern air force regards its neighbors 
as potential satellites or provinces. It plans to 
make them so. The 12 million relatively unassimi- 
lated overseas Chinese in the countries of South- 

^ Made before the Senate Committee 
tions on Mar. 28. 

Foreign Rela- 

° For a statement made by Secretary Dulles before the 
House Committee on Foreign Affairs, see Bui-letin of 
Mar. 17, 1958, p. 427. 

Department of Sfate Bulletin 


cast Asia offer a potential fiftli column which 
Communist China is vigorously attempting to 

Eight of the 11 Asian countries of the Far East- 
ern area have achieved their independence since 
the Second World War. They are determined to 
remain free. They are sensitive to any conceiv- 
able impingement upon their sovereignty. Their 
peoples demand of their governments economic 
progress, and their conservative leaders are under 
great pressure to show evidence of it quickly. De- 
spite the ever-present military threat, a new 
emphasis has been placed upon economic develop- 
ment. Leaders of these countries must be able to 
answer the Communist assertion that only com- 
munism can provide them economic progress 

More than a third of the earth's population — 900 
million people — dwell in the land and ocean area 
stretching from Japan, China, and Korea south- 
ward through Southeast Asia to Australia and 
New Zealand. Here there are great contrasts in de- 
velopment — Japan, Australia, and New Zealand 
on the one hand and some of the least economically 
developed countries in the world on the other. 
Here exists the greatest variety of cultures, creeds, 
and backgrounds of any of the major world areas. 
Here are areas of the greatest and of the least 
population pressure. Here are countries with 
abundant natural resources and others where hu- 
man resources constitute the only significant pro- 
duction factor. In free Asia are some of the most 
steadfast friends of the United States. In Com- 
mimist Asia are some of its most unyielding foes. 
Japan is the only great industrial complex 
among the Asian countries and one of the four 
greatest industrial areas of the world. Its people 
are energetic and resourceful. They are pursuing 
a democratic way of life. Japan is a bastion of 
the free world. Upon its alinement with the free 
world depends much of the security position of 
the free world in Asia. Southeast Asia is rich in 
agricultural products and the raw materials of 
industry. Taiwan and the Philippines are in- 
dispensable to the island defense chain upon 
which we rely. The Republic of Cliina is a major 
obstacle to the consolidation of Communist power 
in mainland China and to the extension of Com- 
nnuiist domination over the important commu- 
niiies of overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia. 

April 28, J 958 

The position of the Republic of China in the 
United Nations has remained firm. It would be 
well to remember, when people speak of our 
isolated position with regard to Red China, that 
43 nations of the world recognize the Republic of 
China as the lawful government of China. Only 
17 non-Communist nations so recognize the 
Peiping regime. During the year the Republic 
of China established diplomatic relations with 
five additional countries. There were about 6,000 
overseas Chinese students studying in Taiwan, 
while the numbers going to Communist China de- 
clined, and hundreds of disillusioned students 
have made their way out of mainland China. 

The Republic of Korea stands as a symbol of 
determined military resistance to Communist ag- 
gression. I need not add that the prestige, honor, 
and safety of the free world are heavily engaged 
in Korea. 

The free nations of the Far East have more 
than one and three-fourths million men under 
arms, who, together with our own forces, con- 
stitute the free-world defense against Communist 
overt aggression in that area. These countries 
cannot support these forces unaided. Hence, the 
mutual security program provides substantial 
military aid and economic assistance within the 
defense-support category. Seventy-one percent 
of the fiscal year 1959 global defense-support re- 
quest is proposed for Far Eastern countries. 
Three countries, Korea, Taiwan, Viet-Nam, ac- 
count for 60 percent. 

The Communist Tactical Shift 

In considering what I might report to the com- 
mittee as the outstanding developments in the 
Far East during this last year, I concluded that 
there had been no real changes in the basic situa- 
tion. There are, of course, important events 
which tend to reveal and emphasize the nature of 
the basic situation. This is another way of say- 
ing that our grave problems in the Far East are 
still with us. Perhaps the most significant trend 
was the increasing emphasis placed upon eco- 
nomic development by countries of this area, ac- 
companied by the stepped-up activity of the 
U.S.S.R. and other Communist countries in the 
field of foreign economic assistance and trade. In 
their Manila communique of March 13^ the 
SEATO powers drew attention to this Com- 

'Ibid., Mar. 31, 195S. p. 504. 

munist tactical shift away from direct military 
measures to enlarged economic, political, and cul- 
tural activities. 

I wish I could say that the Communist threat 
had receded in the Far East and that the posi- 
tion of the free countries with our help had cor- 
respondingly unproved. I am obliged to say, 
however, that tlie situation will permit of no 
complacency. It requires and will require tire- 
less effort and constant vigilance. Communist 
imperialism has no timetable. It has time. It 
conceives of its expansion in terms of decades and 
generations. It believes it can wear us out — that 
we will tire of the struggle and the cost and let 
down our guard until too late to raise it again. 

I am sure that you will agree that, however dif- 
ficult the road may be, the United States must be 
prepared to persist indefinitely in whatever 
measures are necessary to meet the challenge we 
face today. I am confident that the American 
people will make whatever sacrifices are necessary 
once the issues are clarified and made known to 
them. To make sure that they are informed im- 
poses a grave responsibility upon those in whom 
they have placed their trust. 

Highlights of the Existing Situation 

Permit me to liighlight the existing situation in 
the Far East : 

1. There is still no evidence of any weakening 
of Moscow-Peiping solidarity. On the contrary, 
Mao Tse-tung ringingly reaffirmed the close bonds 
between the two countries at the 40th anniversary 
of the Soviet Revolution, where he publicly ac- 
claimed Moscow's undisputed leadership of the 
Communist world. 

2. No country's boundary has been changed in 
this year by Communist aggression. No country 
has fallen prey to Communist subversion. 

3. The Communists remain strong in north 
Korea with approximately 650,000 troops and 
some 600 to 700 modern airplanes. Even if the 
Chinese Communists do withdraw from north 
Korea following their recent propaganda an- 
nouncement of intention to do so, their with- 
drawal would be only to a point behind the Yalu 
from which their return could be made with great 
speed. The Communists remain strong in Viet- 
Nam, with a puppet army in north Viet-Nam of 
from 350,000 to 400,000 men. On the Chinese 
mainland the Chinese Communists have an army 


of some 3 million men and hundreds of modern 
airplanes. They are steadily building up their 
military capabilities across the strait from Tai- 
wan, where they have prepared jet airfields, rail- 
roads, and troop dispositions. In all our discus- 
sions with the Communist Chinese authorities in 
Geneva in an effort to arrange the repatriation of 
imprisoned Americans, including an accounting 
for some 450 missing military personnel, those 
authorities have for more than 2 years refused to 
renounce their intention to take Taiwan by force 
of arms if need 

4. Subversive efforts are continuous in all free 
Asian countries. A softening process is being ap- 
plied on the political, economic, and social front 
in anticipation of the day when large, sudden 
gains may be possible by military, revolutionary, 
or other means. In south Korea, in south Viet 
Nam, in Laos, in Cambodia, in Thailand, in 
Burma, in Malaya, in Indonesia, the machinery 
of subversion is employed conspicuously by the 
Communists for whatever gain it may bring. The 
increased strength of the Communists in Indo- 
nesia highlights the serious position there just at 
a time when lack of unity in the Government has 
led to potentially widespread civil strife, with 
communism and Communist participation in gov- 
ernment among the main issues. 

5. On the economic front international com- 
munism bids for the favor of the aspiring, under- 
developed countries with offers of aid and prom- 
ises of economic progress.* 

The Soviet Union has now begim to back u; 
its propaganda line with genuine economic de- ippronii 
velopment assistance in some areas. It has made [W 
offers of assistance to many individual countries, liiaf 
At the recent Communist-dominated Afro-Asian 
meeting in Cairo the Soviet Union offered im- ttlietri 
limited "aid without strings" to all coimtries inaPoc, It 
Asia and Africa 

At the meeting in Kuala Lumpur this month "iitu 
of the U.N. Economic Commission for Asia and ^^ 
the Far East, the Soviet Union stressed Soviet 
readiness to expand trade-and-aid relations with fmn 
the countries of the region. It urged the more JUntiyii 
extensive use of Soviet teclmicians in the de- 
velopment of these coimtries. And it offered ^ki<i 



'For a statement made by Deputy Under Secretarj 
Dillon before the committee regarding the economic ae 
tivities of the Soviet bloc in less developed countries, see 
iUd., Mar. 24, 1958, p. 469. 

Department of State Bulletin 



technical training in the Soviet Union to a sub- 
stantial number of students from the region. 
The Soviet Union also indicated its readiness to 
consider long-term purchase contracts for pri- 
.mary commodities. This latter suggestion probes 
a sensitive economic wound of the moment, as the 
Asian countries that are exporters of primary 
commodities are increasingly concerned over the 
recently declining value of such exports. 

The objective of the Communist economic of- 
fensive is to gain prestige and influence in the 
underdeveloped countries, to identify national- 
ism and economic progress with adherence to 
communism, and to open the door to subversive 
agents operating under the guise of technicians. 
Kespect for Soviet science and technology was 
greatly augmented in the Far East by the recent 
Soviet demonstrations of competence in space 

Only three countries, Burma, Indonesia, and 
Cambodia, have so far accepted aid offers from 
Communist-bloc countries. Since 1955 Burma has 
accepted $38 million in proffered credit aid from 
the Soviet Union and $4 million from Communist 
China. Indonesia, after protracted deliberation 
and in view of its deteriorating economic position, 
finally in February 1958 accepted with parlia- 
mentary approval a loan of $100 million from the 
Soviet Union negotiated in September 1956, of 
which about one-half will finance the purchase of 
ships from the U.S.S.E. Indonesia has also re- 
ceived a total of $9.4 million in credits from East 
Germany and Czechoslovakia and a recent offer 
approximating $35 million from Communist 
China. Cambodia has received a grant of $22 
million from Communist China. 

Communist China is playing an increasing role 
in the trade-and-aid offensive of the Communist 
bloc. It is expected to furnish 15 percent of the 
aid promised by the bloc to Far East countries, 
and it accounts for a high proportion of bloc 
trade with free Asian countries. 

6. A delicate situation exists in Laos. The 1954 
Geneva accords ^ provided for unification of the 
coiuitry rnider the central government. The Com- 
munist-dominated Pathet Lao, however, refused 
to turn over to the Royal Government the two 
provinces under their armed control, using their 
defiance of this international agreement to nego- 
tiate successfully in November 1957 a coalition 

' Ibid., Aug. 2, 1954, p. 164. 
April 28, 1958 

government which netted them two cabinet posi- 
tions, other administrative participation, and 
legal status as a political party. This may extend 
Communist influence dangerously in Laos. 

7. Cambodia's foreign policy continues to be 
based on neutrality, and that country continues 
to show a determination to remain free and inde- 
pendent. In a speech to Cambodian students in 
Paris last October, Prince Sihanouk made this 
significant statement : 

Without American aid . . . inmunerable consequences 
would be in store for us. . . . At least for the present 
no replacement is possible except to become a satellite. 
Have we the means to be free once communized? . . . 
It is a question of the existence of our very race. 

8. In our defense-support and teclinical-coop- 
eration programs throughout the Far East we 
have made necessary, if unspectacular, contribu- 
tions to economic and political stability, to the 
defense posture, or to the economic development 
of the countries according to the nature of their 
problems and the specific applications of assist- 
ance. Our technical-cooperation programs in the 
several countries of the Far East are generating 
benefits which will be realized gradually and will 
remain indefinitely. 

There are many factors affecting political sta- 
bility in the underdeveloped countries besides the 
economic. However, over a period of years — 
a decade or more — the popular test of the success 
of national leadership may well be the adequacy 
of the rate of economic progress. If conserva- 
tive or middle-of-the-road leadership does not 
produce the popularly desired result, the peoples 
of these countries may be expected to listen atten- 
tively to the glowing, if illusory, promises of the 
extreme left. International communism takes 
full advantage of any opportunity to lend credi- 
bility to the loud claims of leftist contestants for 
populai- political support. 

Meeting the Threats of Communist Imperialism 

In the current struggle the shifting of emphasis 
to the economic front does not exclude the possi- 
bility of a return to direct military action where 
lassitude on the part of the free world invites such 
an action. We cannot afford fatigue, and, if we 
understand our problem, we will never let fatigue 
influciice our judgment. 

To meet the array of threats which Commmiist 
imperialism presents to the United States and to 


the free world in the Far East, it remains our 

1. to deter, and where necessary to repel. Com- 
munist military expansion and infiltration by 
maintaining an adequately strong free- world mil- 
itary posture. It is in furtherance of this policy 
that we have negotiated security treaties with 
Japan and the Eepublics of the Philippines, 
Korea, and China, that we joined with seven other 
nations in the SEATO treaty of alliance against 
aggression in Southeast Asia and with Australia 
and New Zealand in the ANZUS defensive 

2. to assist the free nations of the Far East to 
achieve internal security and political stability 
and to promote improved conditions of life for 
their people. 

Without tlie mutual security program our pres- 
ent free- world posture in the Far East could not 
be maintained. This program is in three prin- 
cipal phases. These are military aid, defense sup- 
port, and economic aid. Economic aid in this 
sense includes both technical cooperation and eco- 
nomic development assistance from the Develop- 
ment Loan Fund. 

In order that the peaceful life of a country 
may flourish and economic progress be realized, 
there must be political stability, freedom from 
the threat of military attack or insurrection, and 
sufficient resources available to finance economic 
development. If domestic resources — financial, 
human, and material — are drained away by de- 
fense expenditures, little or nothing may remain 
for long-term growth and development. And yet, 
in the presence of the Communist threat, the de- 
fense posture is a prerequisite of an independent 
national life. 

The defense posture of any country is a complex 
of political, military, economic, and human fac- 
tors. Weakness of one aspect ma.y be fatal to the 
whole. United States military aid provides equip- 
ment and training for the armed forces of the 
recipient countries which comprise the first line 
of defense of their national security and independ- 
ence. Defense support adds current strength to 
bolster and maintain the continuity of their eco- 
nomic life so that they can support tliese necessary 
defense establishments without economic de- 

Without the security provided by such assist- 
ance, neither political stability nor economic prog- 


ress would be possible. In some countries, even 
with tliis assistance, private capital, both domestic 
and foreign, is impeded by the danger of aggres- 
sion from making its essential contribution to eco- 
nomic development. In such cases the lending 
authority of the Development Loan Fund provides 
necessary long-term financing otherwise unobtain- 
able from free-world sources. I cannot emphasize 
too strongly the importance of this fund having 
ample resources to assist in so helping under- 
developed countries. 

The mutual security program is a direct response 
to the Communist challenge. The only alternative 
to American aid in the Far East today is Commu- 
nist aid. And we can be certain that, wherever or 
whenever we step out, the Communists stand 
eager and ready to step in. If we should eliminate 
ourselves, we should be removing for the Commu- 
nists the last obstacle blocking their road to the 
complete domination of Asia. The mutual secu- 
rity program in the Far East remains one of thei 
great imperatives of our foreign policy. 

Congressional Documents 
Relating to Foreign Policy 

85th Congress, 1st Session 

Message from the President of the United States trans- 
mitting the 38th Report to Congress on Lend-Lease Op- 
erations for the year ending December 31, 1958. 
H. Doe. 199, March 10, 1958. 39 pp. 

SSth Congress, 2d Session 

Review of Foreign Policy, 1958. Hearings before the Sen- 
ate Committee on Foreign Relations. Part I, February 
3-March 10, 1958. 417 pp. 

Increase Lending Authority of Export-Import Bank. 
Hearings before the House Committee on Banking and 
Currency on H.R. 10459. February 25 and 26, 1958. 

Extension of Export Control Act of 1949. Hearing before 
the House Committee on Banking and Currency on 
H.R. 10127. March 4, 1958. 39 pp. 

Mutual Security Act of 1958. Hearings before the House 
Committee on Foreign Affairs on draft legislation to 
amend further the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as 
amended, and for otlier purposes. Part V, March 7 
and 11, 1958. 103 pp. 

Export Control Act Extension. Hearing before the Sen- 
ate Committee on Banking and Currency on S. 3093, a 
bill to extend for an additional period of 2 years the 
authority to regulate exports contained in the Export 
Control Act of 1949. March 13, 1958. 38 pp. 

Export Control Act Extension. Report to accompany S. 
3093. S. Rept. 1427, March 26, 1958. 3 pp. 

Department of State Bulletin 

The I 
to the 
lire b 
tested ( 
BK ar; 
mate h 
mj ai 
former 0' 

The [11 


2. Are 
to natim 
^3, The 
an (iaui 
Warn to 


tetion , 



Plan Submitted to Congress for Payment of U. S. Claims 
Against Germany and Return of Vested German Assets 


Press release 157 datea March 29 

The Department of State has delivered to the 
cliairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and 
to the chairman of the House Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce Committee a letter dated 
March 28, 1958, submitting on behalf of the execu- 
tive branch an outline of a proposal designed to 
provide the basis for a solution to the problems of 
vested German assets and the unsatisfied war- 
damage claims of American nationals against Ger- 
many arising out of World War II. The plan is 
designed to provide for the payment of all legiti- 
mate American war-damage claims against Ger- 
many and an equitable monetary return to the 
former owners of vested German assets. 

The program, as outlined in the letter to the 
Congress, would authorize: 

1. The earmarking of $100 million for the pay- 
ment of such legitimate American claims ; 

2. A return of up to $10,000, as a matter of grace, 
to natural persons who were former owners of 
vested German property ; 

3. The use of any remaining funds from vested 
German assets to complete the payment of Ameri- 
can damage claims, and thereafter for pro rata 
return to the former owners of vested German 
properties, including those owners ineligible for 
the $10,000 return, such as corporations. 

This program would be financed from the pro- 
ceeds of vested assets supplemented by an appro- 
priation of $100 million. This appropriation 
would restore in the assets account a substantial 
part of the proceeds from former German assets 
used to pay American claims vs. Japan. American 
claims against Germany which prove to be in ex- 
cess would also be made available for the pro rata 

April 28, J 958 

return to the former owners of vested German 


March 28, 1958 

Dear Senatok Eastland : ^ There is submitted 
herewith an Administration proposal designed to 
provide the basis for a solution to the long un- 
resolved problems of vested German assets and of 
the war damage claims of American nationals 
against Germany arising out of World War II. 

Proposals offering a solution to these problems 
were submitted on behalf of the Executive Branch 
to the 84th Congress and to the First Session of the 
85th Congress. These have received consideration 
in your committee and in the House Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce Committee, but no legislation 
regarding them has as yet been enacted. 

Although provision has been made for dealing^ 
with war claims of American nationals against 
other former enemy states, no provision has been 
made by the United States Government for war 
claims of American nationals against Germany 
except those of prisoners of war, and merchant sea- 
men. In addition, the vesting program has im- 
250sed hardships on numerous German nationals 
who had small pi'operties in this country prior to 
World War II and it appears desirable, in the in- 
terests of our relations with Germany, to take 
action to alleviate these hardships. 

The German Federal Government has on a num- 
ber of occasions indicated to this Government its 
hope that legislation could be enacted on the sub- 

' A similar letter was sent to Representative Oren Harris, 
chairman of the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce 

ject of the return of vested assets. It has welcomed 
the $10,000 return program heretofore proposed by 
the Executive Branch. At the same time, it has 
expressed the hope that it would prove possible to 
go beyond the limited return contemplated in the 
Administration's previous proposals. Tlie subject 
was last raised with the President by Chancellor 
Adenauer on the occasion of his visit to Washing- 
ton in May of last year, as a result of which a new 
study of tlie problem was undertaken by the Ad- 
ministiation. An announcement was made by the 
Wliite House in July of 1957 ^ that supplementary 
proposals regarding these matters would be sub- 
mitted at the next session of Congress. The objec- 
tive to be sought was the payment of all legitimate 
American war claims against Germany and an 
equitable monetary return to former owners of 
vested German assets. 

It would obviously be desirable to arrange a 
final settlement of the unsatisfied claims of Ameri- 
can nationals against Germany for World War II 
losses. It would also be in the interest of our re- 
lations with the Federal Eepublic of Germany to 
achieve a final and mutually satisfactory solution 
to the problem of vested German assets. Wliat can 
be done in both instances depends essentially on the 
determination of what funds can be made avail- 

Pursuant to various agreements which the 
United States has entered into over a period of 
time (the Paris Eeparation Agi-eement of 1946,^ 
the London Debt Settlement of 1953,^ and the Paris 
Agreements of 1954 ^), the proceeds of vested Ger- 
man assets constitute the only presently existing 
fmids available for payment of American war 
claims against Germany. Under the terms of the 
agreements to which I have referred, the United 
States Government has agreed not to seek com- 
pensation for such claims from the German Fed- 
eral Government. These latter two agreements 
followed the policy expressed in the War Claims 
Act of 1948 under which the proceeds of vested 
assets were to be devoted to the settlement of 
American war claims. 

Wliile it is difficult to give any firm figure either 
of the amount of claims which might be filed or 
the amount which after due examination would be 

= Bulletin of Aug. 19, 1957, p. 300. 

' For text, see ibid., Jan. 27, 1946, p. 114. 

' Treaties and Other International Acts Series 2792. 

° For text, see S. Doc. 11, 84th Cong., 1st sess. 

actually allowed, the Foreign Claims Settlement 
Commission has recently estimated that a reason- 
ably adequate program for the payment of the 
war damage claims of American nationals against 
Germany could be carried out within the limits 
of $100 million. The cost of a return of up to 
$10,000 to natural persons who were former own- 
ers of vested German properties would be approx- 
imately $50 million. Thus at least $150 million 
would be necessary to implement a program for 
the payment of legitimate American war damage 
claims and for a $10,000 return. Sums beyond 
this total would be required to complete an Amer- 
ican claims program, should $100 million prove 
inadequate for this purpose, and to provide an 
equitable monetary return to all former owners 
of vested German assets not receiving a full re- 
turn under the $10,000 program, including cor- 

Proceeds from vested assets are presently avail- 
able in the amount of approximately $83 million 
according to the Office of Alien Property. This 
is manifestly not enough to cover an American 
claims program and the $10,000 return program. 
Ultimately some further funds might become 
available from reserves totalling $179 million now 
maintained by the Office of Alien Property for 
litigation and claims payable out of vested assets 
under existing legislation. The most substantial 
reserve is that of $100 million for the General 
Aniline and Film litigation. 

As a result of the pooling of vested German 
and Japanese assets for the purpose of paying 
those claims provided for in the War Claims Act 
of 1948, a sum of approximately $125 million de- 
riving from German assets was in effect used to 
pay claims against Japan. In order to secure a 
final and equitable settlement of the claims and 
assets problems the Administration is prepared to 
seek from the Congress an appropriation of $100 
million for a claims and assets program, as a res- 
toration of a substantial part of the former Ger- 
man assets used to pay American claims against 
Japan. The Administration would not be pre- 
pared to seek an appropriation beyond this 
amount for this pui-pose. 

The presently available proceeds from vested 
assets ($83 million) together with the restoration 
of a substantial part ($100 million) of the former 
German assets used to pay claims against Japan 
would make $183 million immediately available 
for a program for the payment of the claims of 

Department of State Bulletin 



American nationals against Gennany and for an 
equitable monetary return of vested German as- 
sets to their former owners. The total estimated 
cost of an initial American claims program and a 
$10,000 return to former individual owners would 
be approximately $150 million leaving about $33 
million for the settlement of any unpaid awards 
to American claimants, and to the extent not re- 
quired for those awards, for fro rata distribution 
among the former owners of German properties, 
with the prospects that some further funds might 
eventually become available from vested assets as 
reserves are liquidated. If the payment of legit- 
imate American claims in full required less than 
$100 million, a further sum would then become 
available for distribution among the former own- 
ers of German properties. It is believed that if 
funds are made available in this order of magni- 
tude a final settlement can be reached which will 
take into account, and provide a fair and equi- 
table treatment of the interests of, both the Amer- 
ican claimants and the former owners of German 

It is not intended that this recommendation in- 
clude vested Japanese assets with respect to which 
the existing circumstances are substantially dif- 
ferent. It appears that the value of vested Ger- 
man assets exceeds the amount of American war 
claims against Germany which have already been 
paid or which should appropriately be paid out of 
the proceeds from such assets. On the other hand, 
the amount of American war claims against Japan 
which have already been paid by the United 
States Government exceeds by far the value of the 
vested Japanese assets. 

In accordance with the above, it is recom- 
mended on behalf of the Administration that the 
Congress give favorable consideration to a solu- 
tion of the problem of vested German assets and 
the World War II damage claims of American 
nationals against Germany which would: (1) au- 
thorize the setting aside of $100 million for the 
payment of such legitimate American claims; (2) 
authorize a return of up to $10,000, as a matter of 
grace, to natural persons who were former owners 
of vested German properties ; (3) provide that the 
remaining funds from vested German assets, and 
any sums realized in the future from vested Ger- 
man assets, which are available after the require- 
ments of the $10,000 program are met, be used first 
to complete the compensation of American war 

AptW 28, 7958 

damage claimants in full in the event tlie initial 
fund of $100 million proves insufficient and, sec- 
ond, to efi'ect a fro rata return, as a matter of 
grace, to the former owners of vested German 
properties not receiving a full return under the 
$10,000 program; (4) provide that if the $100 
million fund is more than sufficient for the satis- 
faction of American war damage claimants in 
full, the remaining balance be included with the 
funds from vested German assets devoted to the 
fro rata return. It is further proposed that this 
program be financed from the proceeds of vested 
German assets, including presently reserved assets 
which may in the future become free of claims, 
litigation, or other present obligations, supple- 
mented by an appropriation of $100 million, 
representing a substantial part of the proceeds 
from German assets used for the payment of 
American claims against Japan. This program 
contemplates the expeditious liquidation of vested 

In connection with the proposed return, it may 
be noted that the Federal Republic of Germany 
has been informed of the United States view that 
such a return should not be regarded as a prec- 
edent with respect to other allied countries. 

The legislation should give the Administration 
discretionary authority to work out with the Ger- 
man Government arrangements with regard to the 
return of vested assets which would, to the maxi- 
mum extent possible, relieve the United States 
Government of the burden of acbiiinistration. 
The returns of up to $10,000 would be made by the 
United States Government, with maximum Ger- 
man assistance. The fro rata returns in excess of 
$10,000 might be dealt with on a lump sum basis, 
depending upon what arrangements could be made 
with the German Government. Returns to former 
owners who are now American nationals in all 
instances should be made directly by the United 
States Government. In other respects, such as the 
provisions relating to copyrights, trademarks, 
property subject to agreement with other coun- 
tries, war criminals, and the coverage of the claims 
program, the legislation should follow the lines 
of previous Administration proposals. In addi- 
tion, provision should be made for the divesting 
of unliquidated interests which the United States 
still holds in estates and trusts so that there can 
be terminated the continuing participation of the 
United States for an indefinite period in the ad- 
ministration of these estates and trusts. 


Almost thirteen years have passed since the end 
of the war. It is essential that action be taken 
promptly if many of the original American claim- 
ants, and the original owners of German vested 
properties, are to derive during their lifetimes any 
of the benefits which a solution of these problems 
would afford. The program outlined above would 
provide, at long last, compensation to American 
citizens for losses and damages suffered during 
World War II and attributable to Germany. In 
addition it would resolve a troublesome problem 
in the field of our foreign relations and would 
strengthen our ties of friendship with the Federal 
Kepublic of Germany. 

I respectfully request that early consideration 
be given to the enactment of legislation embodying 
the program outlined above. A similar letter is 
being sent to the Chairman of tlie House Inter- 
state and Foreign Commerce Committee. 

There is enclosed a statement of the events and 
legislative background leading to the recommenda- 
tion of this program. 

The Bureau of the Budget advises that the 
above proposals are in accord with the program of 
the President. 

Sincerely yours, 

For the Secretary of State: 

William B. Macojiber, Jr. 
Assistant Secretary 
The Honorable 

James O. Eastland, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 
United States Senate. 

Background Statement 

March 17, 1958 
Vested German Assets and Payment of American Wab 
Damage Claims Against Germany 

By the first War Powers Act of December 18, 1941, 
Congress amended the Trading With the Enemy Act of 
1917 to grant the President extensive powers to vest as- 
sets in the United States owned by foreign countries or 
their nationals. The 1917 Act already contained pro- 
visions for the return of such of the property to be vested 
as might ultimately prove to be owned by non-enemies. 
However, neither the 1917 Act nor the 1941 Act provided 
for the disposition of World War II vested assets finally 
determined to be owned by enemy governments or their 
nationals. That matter was left open. 

Early in 1942 the President created the Office of Alien 
Property Custodian as an independent agency and dele- 
gated to the Alien Property Custodian the power to vest 


property other than securities, cash and credits. In June 
194.5, the Custodian's vesting power was expanded to in- 
clude German and Japanese-owned securities, cash and 
credits. As a result, substantially all the German and 
Japanese assets known to be in the United States as of 
December 7, 1941, were vested by the Custodian or by his 
successor, the Attorney General. 

In January 1946 the United States and 17 allied nations 
other than the Soviet Union and Poland executed the 
Paris Reparation Agreement whereby they agreed upon 
the division of the limited German assets in kind avail- 
able to them as reparation from Germany, including Ger- 
man external assets located within the respective signa- 
tory countries. The 18 Allies agreed to hold or dispose 
of these external assets in such a way as to preclude 
their return to German ownership or control. This pro- 
gram was formulated in light of the allied experience 

after World War I when the attempt in effect to exact teital 

He 6; 
to Kei 


UiiDSt it- 
k Paris 
Ob Mr 


Fte pp.'i 

little CDiif 
l!rritorie< t 
iiioi! m 

reparation from Germany's current production failed and: 
led to Germany's default on its obligations. Moreover, it 
was clear after the end of World War II that the United! 
States would have to provide major assistance to Germany 
to prevent disease and unrest. This country, therefore, 
favored measures which would limit Germany's Worldl lid itlieriii 
War II reparation to its external assets and other assets- 
in kind, thus relieving Germany of reparation payments! 
from current production and avoiding the indirect 
financing of reparation by the United States. The Parisi 
Reparation Agreement met this objective. 

In 1946 Congress enacted section 32 of the Trading? 
With the Enemy Act authorizing returns of vested prop- 
erty to persons having merely technical enemy status and) Watlir 
to enemy nationals who were persecuted by their own 
governments. In the same year, Congress added section 
34 to the Act, providing for the payment of pre-vesting 
debt claims of Americans again-st enemy nationals whose 
property was vested. 

By the War Claims Act of 1948 Congress added section 
39 to the Trading With the Enemy Act, providing that 
German and Japanese assets not returnable under section ''estedsj 
32 should, after the payment of debt claims therefrom, 
be retained by the United States without compensation to 
the former owners. In addition, the War Claims Act of 
1948 gave jiriority to the use of the net proceeds of liqui- 
dation of this retained property for the payment of com- 
pensation to American civilian internees of the Japanese 
to American servicemen captured by the forces of Ger- 

many, Japan and other governments which failed to pro- i., 
vide adequate subsistence as required by the Geneva (^ 
Convention and to certain Philippine religious organiza- 
tions which had rendered aid to American personnelt te„ij^^ 
This Act did not provide for the payment of war claims WsiCt-^ 
of Americans arising out of war-caused property damage Hiclaia,, 
but authorized a study of the problem. The Attornej 
General has advanced a total of $22-5,000,000 from the 
proceeds of vested assets for purposes Df the War Claims 
Act of 1948. Thus that Act constituted a Congressional 
disposition of the German and Japanese assets vested un- 
der the Trading With the Enemy Act during World Wai 
II. Furthermore, that Act, in effect, gave confirmation tc 
the reparation program set forth in the Paris Reparation 

Its wfre i 


Department of State 6u//ef/nft(p,jjj 

Agreement by devoting German external assets to the sat- 
isfaction of certain American war claims. 

The Bonn Convention of 19;')2 for the Settlement of 
Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation, be- 
tween the Federal Republic of Germany and the United 
States, Britain and France also afiSrmed the policy of the 
Paris Reparation Agreement. In that Convention the 
Federal Republic of Germany agreed to compensate its 
own nationals for their loss of external assets by the vest- 
ing and other action of the Allied Powers. For their 
part, these countries gave the Federal Republic a commit- 
ment that they would not assert any claims for reparation 
against its current production. These provisions of the 
Bonn Convention were carried forward and approved in 
the Paris Protocol of 19.54 which was approved by the 
Senate April 1, 195.5, and came into force on May 5, 1955. 

On July 17, 1954, Chancellor Adenauer wrote to the 
President to enlist his support for legislation which 
had been introduced in Congress for the general return 
of vested German assets." The Chancellor referred to the 
hardships suffered by many of the German individuals 
whose property had been vested. He mentioned old 
people, pensioners and beneficiaries of Insurance policies 
and inheritances in particular and urged that alleviation 
of these hardship cases would make a considerable con- 
tribution to furthering the friendship between the peoples 
of the United States and Germany. The President's reply 
of August 7, 1954, referred to the fact that the Allied 
Governments decided to look to German assets in their 
territories as a principal source for the payment of their 
claims against Germany. The President expressed 
sympathy with individuals in straitened circumstances 
in Germany for whom the operation of the vesting pro- 
gram in the United States had created particular hard- 
ship. He pointed out that American nationals who had 
suffered losses arising out of the war had received no 
compensation, also with resultant hardship in many cases. 
Finally, the President stated that although none of the 
bills then pending in Congress with regard to the return 
of vested assets had the approval of his Administration, 
the problem was receiving earnest consideration and he 
hoped that a fair, equitable and satisfactory solution 
could be achieved. The matter was also raised by 
Chancellor Adenauer with the President during the 
former's visit to Washington in October, 1954,' and con- 
versations between representatives of the two Govern- 
ments were agreed on. 

As a result, the Executive Branch formulated a plan 
wliicb was subsequently incorporated in a draft bill sub- 
mitted to the 84th Congress.' Prior to the submission of liill, representatives of the United States and the 
Fciliral Republic of Germany discussed the matter of 
vested German assets and the related problem of American 
w;ir claims against Germany.' During these discussions 

" For texts of Mr. Adenauer's letter and the President's 
; reply, see Bulletin of Aug. 23, 1954, p. 269. 
si^ ' Ihid., Nov. 8, 1954, p. 680. 

Wl 'For a statement made on Nov. 29, 1955, before the 
iif|] Senate Judiciary Committee by Deputy Under Secretary 
V ' Murphy, see ihid., Dec. 12, 1955, p. 971. 

° For text of a joint statement is-sued following the 
U.S. ^German discussions, see ihid., Mar. 14, 1955, p. 437. 

representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany were 
informed that the Executive Branch would recommend a 
limited return of vested assets to natural persons up to 
a maximum of $10,000 as a matter of grace for the pur- 
pose of alleviating the cases of hardship caused by vest- 
ing. The United States representatives pointed out that 
this action would result in a full return to approximately 
90 per cent of the former owners whose property had been 
vested and would achieve the equitable solution sought 
by the President. The United States representatives ex- 
pres.sed the hope that in addition to relieving hardships 
of an appreciable number of German people, this action 
would serve to make even more secure the ties between the 
United States and Germany. The representatives of the 
German Federal Government expressed the hope that the 
proposed return would subsequently be followed by a 
wider program. They were informed, however, that the 
Administration did not envisage a broader return than 
was contained in the proposed recommendation. 

At the time of the submi.ssion of the Administration pro- 
posal in 1955, it appeared that between $50 and $60 million 
might be realized from the liquidation of German and 
Japanese assets, over and above the amounts which had 
already been paid into the War Claims Fund pursuant to 
the War Claims Act of 1948, as amended, and the amounts 
required to pay claims which might be asserted under the 
Trading With the Enemy Act. It was then calculated that 
a return of up to $10,000 to former individual owners of 
vested German and Japanese assets would require ap- 
proximately $60 million. There was therefore need for 
finding some arrangement for financing the payment of 
claims of American nationals against Germany if any 
measures of partial return of vested assets were to be 

As a result of the pooling of vested German and 
Japanese assets for the purpose of paying those claims 
provided for in the War Claims Act of 1948, it was then 
estimated that the sum of approximately $100 million 
deriving from German assets had in effect been used to pay 
claims against Japan. This use of German as.sets to pay 
claims against Japan thus drastically reduced the funds 
which would otherwise have been available at the discre- 
tion of Congress to pay American property damage claims 
against Germany. It was therefore proposed that the sum 
of $100 million be restored from governmental funds to 
pay war claims against Germany. 

The subject of the disposition to be made of the vested 
assets and of American claims against Germany was again 
considered by the Administration in the early part of 1957. 
At that time it appeared that larger sums would be avail- 
able from the liquidation of assets than had previously 
been estimated. It was calculated that the sum of $108 
million was immediately available and that a substantial 
additional amount might become available out of funds 
held in reserve against unresolved claims, litigation and 
other obligations. It was therefore recommended by 
the Administration, in letters sent to the Vice President 
and the Speaker of the House from the Chairman of the 
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission under date of 
April 3, 1957, that returns be made up to $10,000 to the 
former individual owners of German and Japanese prop- 
erties, as previously recommended, and that the remainder 

April 28, 7958 


of the proceeds of vested assets be used to meet the war 
damage claims of American nationals against Germany. 

Thereafter, a new study of the problem was made by the 
Administration. On July 31, 1957, the White House an- 
nounced the intention of the Administration to submit to 

the next session of Congress a supplementary plan which 
would provide for the payment in full of all legitimate 
war claims of Americans against Germany and would 
permit, as an act of grace, an equitable monetary return 
to former owners of vested assets. 

He w 
iy mf 

sseiitial i' 



ititititf : 
fa m I 
DD April : 
istensive ( 
Heads of I 
Heir m: 
[olicies X 
i mem'tti 
Bjton at!i 
lie M-:' 


U.S. and Canada Advocate Principle 
of Abstention in Fishing 

Press release ISO dated April 11 

2'he following statement was released at Geneva 
on April 11 by the U.S. delegation to the U.N. 
Conference on the Law of the Sea.^ 

The United States and Canada have introduced 
a proposal for a new article in the proposed codi- 
fied law of the sea, as well as certain clianges in 
one section of the draft proposal drawn up by the 
International Law Commission. The proposal is 
aimed specifically at filling a gap in the ILC draft 
and through it increasing the world's supply of a 
major food — fish. 

The joint U.S.-Canadian proposal would make 
the principle of abstention an essential conserva- 
tion procedure in certain fishing situations. It 
would provide an incentive for all states to restore, 
maintain, and further develop fisliery production. 
It would give meaning to a concept that is neces- 
sai-y if the world is to obtain full utilization of the 
resources of the sea. 

In advancing the procedure, the sponsors have 
emphasized three basic considerations : 

1. The states fishing the resource must have 
added to the productivity of the resource by con- 
structive conservation measures. 

2. The states fishing the resource must utilize 
the resource fully, so that the introduction of 
more fishing effort will not produce more fish. 

3. Any question as to the fulfillment of these 
prerequisite conditions would be subject to test- 

' For a statement by Arthur H. Dean, chairman of the 
U.S. delegation, see Bxilletin of Apr. 7, 1958, p. 574. 

ing by any interested state, and disputes regard- 
ing their existence would be settled in an objective,, 
expeditious manner. 

The concept and practice of abstention in fishing' 
has grown out of the experience, sometimes in- 
dividually, often jointly, of the United States and 
Canada. Since 1923 both these nations have 
through major expenditures and severe restraints 
on their own fishermen saved from disastrous de- 
pletion and, in fact, made major advances m the 
quantitative catch of several major fish crops. By 
research, scientific management, construction of 
costly fishways, and forgoing of water-power proj- 
ects, the United States and Canada have jointly 
built up the salmon, halibut, and fur-seal resources 
of the Northeast Pacific. 

Of equal importance is the fact that abstention 
would apply only to specific stocks of fish, not to 
areas of the sea. It would not touch upon gen- 
eral fishing activities in an area but would affect 
only the harvesting of the particular stock of 
which qualifies for abstention procedures. Nor 
would it limit a coastal state adjacent to a high 
seas area where the abstention procedure is being 
carried out, even though nationals of that coastal 
state had not previously participated in the fish 
ery. The doctrine could not prevent but rather 
would promote the fuU utilization of a fishery ^p^<^' 


Abstention is a highly beneficial conservation 
concept which encourages countries to make th( 
investment in talent, time, money, and self-denial 
necessary to develop the productivity of the re- 
sources of the sea. Lacking this or some equiva^ 
lent procedure, nations will have little or no pro- 
tection and resultingly little or no incentive to 

Department of State Bulletin j|p,j. 





WUf to 


Iment o: 

'tie »oi 

"UOffiic I 

undertake expensive programs for developing, re- 
storing, and maintaining such resources. 

The world as a whole has a great deal to gain 
by accepting abstention as a general rule. The 
United States Government considers the concept 
essential to any complete set of articles on high- 
seas fisheries conservation. 

Ambassador Burgess Concludes 
Consultations in Washington 

Press release 1S5 dated AprL 11 

Ambassador W. Kandolph Burgess, U.S. Kepre- 
sentative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organiza- 
tion and European Eegional Organizations, left 
on April 11 to return to his post in Paris after 
extensive consultations in Washington. 

In tlie interest of improvement in political con- 
sultation in NATO, the communique issued by the 
Heads of Government of the NATO countries at 
their meeting in Paris last December ^ expressed 
their intention to keep their permanent representa- 
tives in Paris fully informed of all government 
policies which materially affect the alliance and 
its members. 

Ambassador Burgess during his stay in Wash- 
ington attended meetings of the Cabinet and of 
the National Security Council. He also met on 
several occasions with Secretary Dulles, Secretary 
of the Treasury Robert B. Anderson, Secretary of 
Defense Neil H. McElroy, and numerous other 
officials of the State Department, the Defense De- 
partment, and other Government agencies. His 
discussions with Government officials covered 
major subjects of current interest to the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization, including prepara- 
tions for the conference of NATO defense minis- 
ters which will be held at Paris April 15-17, 
preparations for the NATO foreign ministers' 
meeting to be held at Copenhagen May 5-7, and 
consultations now in progress in NATO regard- 
ing possible discussions with the Soviets. 

Ambassador Burgess also discussed with Gov- 
ernment officials and representatives of business 
and finance current economic problems relating 
to the work of the Organization for European 
Economic Cooperation (OEEC), with which the 
United States is closely associated. 

U.S.-Euratom Working Party 
Concludes Discussions 

Following is the text of a joint statement re- 
leased at Washington and Luxembourg on April 
3 at the conclusion of meetings of a joint U.S.- 
Europeaii Atomic Energy Commission working 
party, which convened at Luxembourg on March 

Press release 169 dated April 3 

A joint working party composed of representa- 
tives of the Commission of the European Atomic 
Energy Community (EUEATOM) and the Gov- 
ernment of the United States has today concluded 
a series of meetings in Luxembourg.^ 

This group has been studying the means whereby 
a joint EURATOM-United States nuclear power 
program might be developed. The objective would 
be to initiate promptly a program aimed at bring- 
ing into operation by 1963 a number of large-scale 
nuclear power plants to be built within the com- 
munity, primarily of the pressurized and boiling 
water types, and having a total installed capacity 
of approximately one million kilowatts of elec- 

The group also has been examining the principal 
aspects of a supporting joint research and develop- 
ment program which would be centered on these 

The program would be designed to encourage 
maximum participation by the industries of the 
Community and of the United States. 

Substantial progress has been made toward 
these objectives and it is planned that there will 
be further discussion of the proposed joint pro- 
gram in Washington later in April. 

Dr. Manley Named Senior Adviser 
to U.S. Representative to IAEA 

The Department of State announced on April 
2 (press release 165) the appointment of John 
Henry Manley, formerly research adviser at the 
University of California's Los Alamos Scientific 
Laboratory, to be senior technical adviser to Rob- 

' For text, see Bulletin of Jan. 6, 1958, p. 12. 
Apttl 28, J 958 

' For a Department announcement and names of mem- 
bers of the U.S. delegation, see Bulletin of Apr. 7, 1958, 


ert M. McKinney, U.S. Representative to the 
International Atomic Energy Agency and U.S. 
member of the Agency's 23-nation Board of 

The International Atomic Energy Agency 
(IAEA) came into being in 1957 as an outgrowth 
of President Eisenhower's atoms-for-i:)eace pro- 
posal. United States participation in the IAEA 
is coordinated by a permanent mission located at 
Vienna, Austria, headquarters of the Agency. 

Dr. Manley will join the mission in time to 
attend tlie meeting of the Board of Governors of 
tlie IAEA scheduled to convene at Vienna, April 
24, 1958. 

U. S. Delegations to 
International Conferences 

13th Session, Economic Commission for Europe 

The Department of State announced on April 4 
(press release 172) that Henry J. Heinz II, presi- 
dent of H. J. Heinz Company, was sworn in as 
the U.S. Rejiresentative to the 13th session of the 
U.N. Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), 
scheduled to be held at Geneva, Switzerland, April 
9-25, 1958.^ I\Ir. Heinz served as a public member 
of the U.S. delegation to the 12th session of the 
Contracting Parties of the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and^Trade (GATT), which met at Geneva 
in October 1957. In 1954 he headed the U.S. 
Special Economic Mission to Pakistan. 

The Department also announced that Mr. Heinz' 
principal advisers will be John W. Evans of the 
American Embassy, London, and George Tesoro, 
Senior Economic Officer, U.S. Resident Delega- 
tion to International Organizations, Geneva. 

The ECE is one of the three regional commis- 
sions established by the United Nations to deal 
with the special economic problems of its area and 
to contribute to better living standards in the world 
as a whole. 

At its 13th session the Commission will review 
the activities of its committees, which cover the 
fields of agriculture, coal, electric power, housing, 
industry and materials, inland transport, man- 
power, steel, timber, and trade. The Annual Sur- 
vey of Europe, as prepared by the secretariat on 
its own responsibility, will also be reviewed. 

Mr. Heinz was confirmed by the Senate on Apr. 2. 


Current Actions 


Atomic Energy 

Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency. 
Done at New York October 26, 1956. Entered into force 
July 29, 19.57. TIAS 3873. 

Ratifications deposited: Ecuador, March 3, 1958; Mex- 
ico, April 7, 1958. 


Convention on international civil aviation. Done at Chi- 
cago December 7, 1944. Entered into force April 4, 
1947. TIAS 1591. 

Adherence deposited: Federation of Malaya, April 7, 


Articles of agreement of the International Finance Cor- 
poration. Done at Washington May 25, 1955. Entered 
into force July 20, 1956. TIAS 3620. 
Signature and acceptance: Ghana, April 3, 1958. 


Convention on the prevention and punishment of the 
crime of genocide. Done at Paris December 9, 1948. 
Entered into force January 12, 1951.' 
Accession deposited: Austria, March 19, 1958. 


Convention for the protection of industrial property. 
Signed at London June 2, 1934. Entered into force 
August 1, 1938. 53 Stat. 1748. 
Adherence effective: Haiti, July 1, 1958. 


Convention on the Intergovernmental Maritime Consult- 
ative Organization. Signed at Geneva March 6, 1948.* 
Acceptance deposited: Japan, March 17, 1958. 


Slavery convention signed at Geneva September ; 
(46 Stat. 2183), as amended by the protocol of 
ber7, 1953 (TIAS 3532). 
Accession deposited: Ceylon, March 21, 1958. 


Agreement providing for economic, technical, and related 
assistance to the Sudan. Effected by exchange of notes 
at Khartoum March 31, 1958. Entered into force March 
31, 1958. 

Union of South Africa 

Agreement supplementing the passport visa agreement of 
March 28 and April 3, 1956 (TIAS 3544). Effected by 
exchange of notes at Pretoria March 31, 1958. Entered 
into force April 1, 1958. 

' Not i 
'Not : 

force for the United States. 
I force. 

Department of State Bulletin 




lot . 

,S. and Csi 


bins aid F 

for Pa.vBf 

ud Eei:.': 



the Far t 






Taril . 
iW Stale 
tioai . 


tm lit \ 


Ipril \ 




April 28, 1958 


Vol. XXXVIII, No. 98^ 

Asia. The Mutual Security Program in the Far 
East (Robertson) 

> Atomic Enerpry 

Dr. Manley Named Senior Adviser to U.S. Repre- 
sentative to IAEA 

President Asks U.S.S.R. To Agree To Begin Study 
of Specific Disarmament Control Measures (Eis- 
enhower, Khrushchev, text of letters) .... 

Secretary Dulles' News Conference of April 8 . . 

U.S.-EURATOM Working Party Concludes Discus- 
sions (text of joint statement) 

Aviation. International Cooperation Through Avi- 
ation (Dulles) 


reat Lakes Fishery Commission Meets at Wash- 

J.S. and Canada Advocate Principle of Abstention 

in Fishing 

laims and Property. Plan Submitted to Congress 
for Payment of U.S. Claim.s Against Germany 
and Return of Vested German Assets (text of 
letter and background statement) 

Communism. The Mutual Security Program in 
the Far J^ast (Robertson) 

IJongress, The 

Jongressional Documents Relating to Foreign 


he Mutual Security Program in the Far East 


Ian Submitted to Congress for Payment of U.S. 
Claims Against Germany and Return of Vested 
German Assets (text of letter and background 


resident Asks U.S.S.R. To Agree To Begin Study of 
Specific Disarmament Control Measures (Eisen- 
hower, Khrushchev, text of letters) 

Secretary Dulles' News Conference of April 8 . . 

Economic Affairs 

President Asks Further Report on Umbrella-Frame 

Che Trade Agreements Program and American 
Prosperity (Mann) 

Dnited States World Trade Fair (text of proclama- 

World Trade Week, 1958 (text of proclamation) . 


L3th Session, Economic Commission for Europe 
(U.S. delegation) 

D.S.-EURATOM Working Party Concludes Discu.s- 

sions (text of joint statement) 

ermany. Plan Submitted to Congress for Pay- 
ment of U.S. Claims Against Germany and Re- 
turn of Vested Germany Assets (text of letter 
and background statement) 

Indonesia. Secretary Dulles' News Conference of 
April 8 

International Law. U.S. and Canada Advocate 
Principle of Abstention in Fishing 

[nternational Organizations and Conferences 

Dr. Manley Named Senior Adviser to U. S. Rep- 
resentative to IAEA 

reat Lakes Fishery Commission Meets at Wash- 

I3th Session, Economic Commission for Europe 
(U.S. delegation) 

U.S.-EURATOM Working Party Concludes Discus- 
sions (text of joint statement) 

Mutual Security 

The Mutual Security Program in the Far East 

D.S. Grants Wheat to Tunisia 





North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Ambassa- 
dor Burgess Concludes Consultations in Wash- 
ington 709' 

Philippines. Anniversary of Fall of Bataan (Eis- 
enhower) 691 

Presidential Documents 

Anniversary of Fall of Bataan 691 

President Asks Further Report on Umbrella-Frame 

Tariff 696 

President Asks U.S.S.R. To Agree To Begin Study 

of Specific Disarmament Control Measures . . 679 

United States World Trade Fair 696 

World Trade Week, 1958 695 

Treaty Information. Current Actions 710 

Tunisia. U.S. Grants Wheat to Tunisia .... 691 

President Asks U.S.S.R. To Agree To Begin Study 
of Specific Disarmament Control Measures (Eis- 
enhower, Khrushchev, text of letters) .... 679- 
Secretary Dulles' News Conference of April 8 . . 682 
United Nations. U.S. and Canada Advocate Prin- 
ciple of Abstention in Fishing 708 

Name Index 

Burgess, W. Randolph 709 

Dulles, Secretary 682,689 

Eisenhower, President 679,691,695,696 

Khrushchev, Nikita 680 

Maeomber, William B., Jr 70a 

Manley, John Henry 709 

Mann, Thomas C 692 

Robertson, Walter S 698 

Check List of Department of State 
Press Releases: April 7-13 

Press releases may be obtained from the News 

Division, Department of State, Washington 25, 

D. C. 
Releases issued prior to April 7 which appear in 

this issue of the BtnxExiN are Nos. 157 of March 

29, 163 of April 1, 165 of April 2, 169 of April 3, and 

172 of April 4. 

No. Date Subject 

tl76 4/7 Reduction of life sentences of 10 Jap- 

tl77 4/7 SEATO research fellowships. 

tl78 4/7 Seattle to be site for Colombo Plan 

179 4/8 Dulles : news conference. 

tlSO 4/9 Dillon: "Impact of Mutual Security 
Program on the U.S. Economy." 
181 4/9 Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 

tl82 4/9 Reply of "Sixteen" to Chinese Commu- 
nist statement on Korea. 

tl83 4/9 Herter : "International Trade and Our 
National Security." 

184 4/9 Dulles: "International Cooperation 

Through Aviation." 

185 4/11 Burgess concludes consultations in 


186 4/10 U.S. grants wheat to Tunisia. 

tl87 4/11 U.S. Consulate at Nicosia raised to 
Consulate General (rewrite). 

*188 4/11 Educational exchange. 
189 4/11 Explanation of abstention in fishing. 

*190 4/12 Secretary Dulles to speak at Minne- 
.sota Statehood Day. 

* Not printed. 

t Held for a later issue of the Bctlletin. 



Order Form 






United States 
Government Printing Office 


Washington 25, D. C. 




The Organization of American States is an association of 21 
American Kepublics, which have a combined population of about 
348 millions and which represent the greatest variety and individ- 
uality in their geography and history, their economic life and 
cultural interests. 

A new Department of State publication, Organization of Amer- 
ican States, tells how these 21 nations joined to form the OAS, 
which President Eisenhower has called "the most successfully 
sustained adventure in international community living that the 
world has seen," and how it works to achieve its ends. 

The 20-page pamphlet, in question-and-answer format, dis- 
cusses the development, functions, organization, and achievements 
of the OAS. The booklet is illustrated with photographs and an 
organizational chart. 

Copies of Organization of American States may be purchased 
from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Print- 
ing Office, for 15 cents each. 

Publication 6625 

15 cents 

Supt. of Documents 

Govt. Printing Office 

Washington 25, D.C. 

Please send me copies of Organization of American States. 

Enclosed And: 



(cash, check, or Street Address: 

money order). 

City, Zone, and State: 




Vol. XXXVIII, No. 984 ^. May 5, 1958 


Address by Secretary Dulles 715 


APRIL 15 719 


SECURITY • by Under Secretary Herter 731 


Secretary Dillon 736 


ALLIES • Statement by Secretary Dulles 740 

For index see inside back cover 


Vol. XXXVIII, No. 984 • Pcbucation 6639 
May 5, 1958 

For sale by the Superintendent o( Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Offlce 

Washington 25, D.O. 


62 Issues, domestic $7.50, foreign $10.25 

The printing of this publication has been 
approved by the Director of the Bureau of 
the Budget (January 20, 1958). 
Note; Contents of this publication are not 
copyrighted and Items contained hereto may 
be reprinted. Citation of the Department 
OF State Bulletin as the source will be 

The Department of State BULLETIN, 
a tceekly 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 IThite House and the 
Department, and statements and ad- 
dresses made by the President and by 
the Secretary of State and other 
officers of tlie 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 tlie Department, 
United Nations documents, and legis- 
lative material in the field of inter- 
national relations are listed currently. 

The Interdependence of Independence 

Address hy Secretary Dulles '■ 

It is for me a high privilege to greet you in this 
House of the Americas. Here we are each among 
friends and at home. Words can scarcely express 
iow fortunate we are in this hemisphere, how 
greatly blessed, to have this kind of association, 
which has no counterpart in all the world and in- 
ieed in all history. 

It was 50 years ago when the cornerstone of 
this our home building was laid on May 11, 1908. 
The late Ambassador Joaquim Nabuco of Brazil 
said that day that the United States, by virtue 
of b-eing made the host of the permanent seat of 
the Pan American Union, had received the highest 
tribute ever paid to this Kepublic. We are still 
deeply conscious of that high honor and shall strive 
constantly to merit it. 

This day, April 14, is being observed in our 
American Republics as Pan American Day. It 
is an annual festival of freedom, friendship, and 
good will which has acquired unique significance 
for the American peoples. 

The United States gives striking proof of this. 
President Hoover first proclaimed Pan American 
Day in 1931, and since then its observance has 
grown year by year. It has become a people's 
festival, not merely a celebration by the govern- 
ment. One day has proved to be not enough for 
all of the ceremonies prepared in the name of 
hemisphere friendship throughout our land. Con- 
sequently, 3 years ago President Eisenhower made 
the now traditional proclamation of Pan American 
Day a proclamation of Pan American Week as 

' Made at Pan American Day ceremonies at the Pan 
American Union, Washington, D. C, on Apr. 14 (press 
release 101). 

May 5, 7958 

well.- And let me call your attention to the geo- 
graphic range of our United States commemora- 
tion. In addition to the President's proclamation, 
we now have governors' proclamations as well 
from Alaska to Florida and from Guam to the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

Our present commemoration of Pan American 
Day takes on a special significance. For this 
year is the 10th anniversary of the Charter of the 
Organization of American States. Through that 
organization the inter-American system finds the 
framework for its constructive international de- 
liberation and cooperation. It thus becomes a 
great contemporary force for the extension and 
maintenance of peace, not in this hemisphere alone 
but throughout the world. And it is not for our 
present troubled era only but for the future of 
the human race as well. 

The Organization of American States is unique 
because of the degree to which it combines the inde- 
pendence of our countries with recognition of their 
interdependence. We have learned that inter- 
dependence must be practiced if worthwhile inde- 
pendence is to be preserved. 

At the beginning of our history as separate na- 
tional entities, our wills and our energies were 
directed primarily toward securing our independ- 
ence. The right of men in the New World to live 
in freedom, subject only to the dictates of moral 
law and not the whims of overseas rulers, inspired 
our forefathers to epic struggles. This burning 
desire for freedom enabled the troops of Bolivar 

' For President Eisenhower's proclamation of Pan Amer- 
ican Day and Pan American Weelc, 1958, see Bulletin of 
Feb. 10, 1958, p. 217. 

and San Martin to endure incredible hardships 
in scaling the wmdswept passes of the Andes. 
The same determination held together the small 
band of devoted soldiers under the leadership of 
George Washington through the bitter winter at 
Valley Forge. The forces of tyranny could not 
match the valor, resourcefulness, and steadfast- 
ness of the patriots. Through their struggles 
throughout this hemisphere the independence of 
the New World was achieved. 

Monroe Doctrine 

But just as the individual, however independ- 
ent, cannot live wholly alone but shares the life 
of a society, so the newly created nations of the 
Western Hemisphere found that they could not 
maintain their independence in isolation from each 
other. The Holy Alliance, imder the leadership 
of the Russian Czar, threatened to reconquer the 
liberated colonies in Latin America and to en- 
croach upon the northwest of the North American 
Continent. It was that situation which led Presi- 
dent James Monroe, the 200th anniversary of 
whose birth is celebrated this month, to enunciate 
the first major statement of United States foreign 
policy. He declared that the peace and safety of 
the United States would be endangered if the 
European despots attempted to extend their sys- 
tems to any part of this hemisphere. 

That was the first great proclamation of inter- 
dependence. It was, at its inception, a unilateral 
proclamation. But it stated a concept of broad 
applicability. Thus it became, by a logical his- 
torical evolution, multilateral and mutual in ac- 
ceptance throughout the American Republics. 
That evolution has been speeded by the recur- 
rence of external dangers. During the First 
World War we drew together in substantial unity. 
Then, in the 1930's and 1940's, when human free- 
dom was again menaced by an aggressive totali- 
tarian power, the American states rapidly closed 
ranks to present a unified front. At Buenos 
Aires in 1936, at Lima in 1938, at Panama in 1939, 
at Habana in 1940, and at Chapultepec in 1945 the 
principles of American solidarity against foreign 
aggression were laid down. The natural cul- 
mination was the Inter- American Treaty of Re- 
ciprocal Assistance— the Rio Treaty of 1947 — 
providing that an attack against any American 
state would be considered as an attack against all. 


Collective-Defense Structure 

Despite victory in World War II the need for 
maintaining our collective-defense structure is as 
great as ever. A new menace grew as interna- 
tional communism pursued its goal of world 
conquest. It manifestly has predatory designs 
against this hemisphere, and it views the existence 
of inter-American solidarity as an insuperable 
barrier to its aggressive plans. Through agents, 
overt and secret, communism strives incessantly 
to open a breach in our bastion. 

In the face of this serious threat the Tenth 
Inter- American Conference at Caracas, in 1954, 
made its memorable Declaration of Solidarity of 
the American States.^ It declared that the domi- 
nation or control by the international Communist 
movement of the political institutions of any 
American state would threaten us all and en- 
danger the peace of America. Thus again the' 
American Republics marshaled the political andl 
moral force of America against the efforts of an 
alien despotism to extend its system to this hemi- 
sphere and to intervene in our affairs. 

Nowhere in the world has a group of nations 
so proudly won and preserved its independi 
Also, nowhere in the world have nations so fully 
developed the concepts of interdependence. In^ 
terdependence is not only made explicit, as by the 
declarations mentioned, but it is implicit in those 
portions of our charter which call for consulta- 
tion and cooperation in the solution of political. 

juridical, and economic problems and for the 1^.^^,, 


peaceful settlement of international controversies. 
The Organization of American States does, 
moreover, aid in the achievement of the basic prin- 
ciples of the American states even when it 
not have direct responsibility as an organization i ,°! 

for putting them into effect. In the basic docu- 
ments of the Organization of American States 
and in the deliberations of its conferences, the 
fundamental ideals and common objectives havt 
been set forth and clarified. Progress toward 
their realization depends not only on collective 
action but on the individual action of the 
ber countries in the exercise of their responsibilitj 
for national development. 

Take, for example, the ideal of representative 
government based upon respect for human rights, 


nil a; 


in tils 
m a 
k t!i 
Kits o: 
tai pre 
start. 1 




'Ibid., Apr. 26, 1954, p. 638. 

Depa.-fmenf of State Bulletin loys 

That concept has commanded the allegiance of 
the peoples of all our countries. It has been 
proclaimed on numerous occasions and is in- 
scribed in the charter. 

Yet the statesmen of the American community 
have learned that democracy because of its very 
nature cannot be imposed from without but must 
be nourished from witliin each country. The 
principle of nonintervention is, therefore, entirely 
consistent with the principle of encouraging rep- 
resentative government and respect for human 

Interdependence has cultural and economic as 
well as political and security aspects. The In- 
ter-American Committee of Presidential Repre- 
sentatives, resulting from the 1956 Panama 
meeting of the Presidents, has worked fruitfully 
in this field. The Committee concluded its ses- 
sions with a meeting in this very hall about one 
year ago.'' Since that time the task of convert- 
ing the Committee's recommendations into 
realities has been going forward. The Govern- 
ments of the American Republics have expressed 
agreement in principle with the recommendations, 
and provision has been made for a substantial 
start. I understand that the Council has laid the 
foundations for a greatly expanded program of 
fellowships under OAS auspices. It is also set- 
ting up an Inter- American Nuclear Energy Com- 
mission, ^ which should play a significant role in 
assisting the American Governments to develop 
the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. 

These and the other worthwhile projects cur- 
rently being worked out have excellent prospects 
of succeeding in "making our Organization of 
American States a more effective instrument in 
se fields of cooperative effort that affect the 
welfare of our peoples."^ The United States 
rejoices that so promising a start has been made, 
and we take this occasion to express to the mem- 
bers of the Council, as well as to the Secretary 
General and his able assistants, our appreciation of 
their conscientious and fruitful labors. 

For a statement by President Eisenhower and a 
Committee announcement made at the conclusion of the 
meeting, see Hid., June 24, 1957, p. 1014. 

" lUd., Dec. 16, 1957, p. 976. 

'For an address by President Eisenhower at PanamA, 
Tuly 22, 1956, see iUd., Aug. 6, 1956, p. 219. 

May 5, 1958 

Economic Aspects of Interdependence 

Now I should like also to refer to the economic 
aspects of our interdependence. This, too, is very 
much of a reality— a reality not yet adequately 
organized. Today conditions vary considerably 
among the 21 Republics of the Western Hemi- 
sphere. America as a whole continues to move for- 
ward — irresistibly. In some countries the pace 
of growth has hardly diminished in spite of less 
hospitable world conditions, so powerfid have 
been the vital internal forces of progress. In 
otliers, including the United States, the rate of 
growth has perceptibly slowed down. A few 
countries are experiencing serious financial 

A major cause of these difficulties is the severe 
contraction of demand for certain basic commod- 
ities which has led, in turn, to lower prices. This 
has cut sharply into the foreign-exchange earn- 
ings of some countries. They have had to reduce 
imports or accumulate commercial arrearages — 
or both. Nearly all have had to utilize reserves 

Certain of the factors bearing on the economic 
difficulties are beyond the power of governments 
to change. Consumer habits cannot be coerced — 
at least in our Republics— and artificial stimulants 
often make the patient sicker. However, the 
United States Government realizes the potential 
consequences of violent fluctuations in the prices 
of Latin America's exports, and we are daily 
searching for ways and means to contribute to- 
ward a solution of economic problems. 

One problem involves petroleum, a commodity 
of greatest importance in the economies of all our 
countries, whether as producers or as consumers. 
The world is faced with a readjustment of market- 
ing relationships, distorted at the time of the 
Suez crisis and complicated by a decline in de- 
mand. In view of this situation the United States 
Government, with the cooperation of the import- 
ing companies, has inaugurated a program of 
voluntary limitations on the amount of crude pe- 
troleum to be imported into the United States. 
I would like to make two points in this connection : 
We have consulted regarding this program with 
our friends in Venezuela, who are our principal 
foreign suppliers, and we have also kept the Cana- 
dian Government informed of these developments. 
My second point is this : Despite drastic cutbacks 


in our domestic production we endeavor to insure 
to foreign petroleum the same percentage of our 
domestic market it normally occupies. 

This is the spirit in which we try to meet the 
difficult problems of the present economic situa- 
tion. When consumption declines, we strive not 
to shift all of the burden onto weaker nations. 
We seek to share it fairly, believing that this is 
in our enlightened self-interest. 

I can assure you that we are truly anxious to 
help within the limits of what is sound and within 
our governmental capabilities. And we are al- 
ways ready to discuss with our neighbors these 
mutual problems in an effort to find practical and 
acceptable solutions. Our great stimulus in this 
quest is our desire to promote a better way of life 
for all our peoples, on whom the future of Ameri- 
ca depends. 

Rio Treaty, the Model for NATO 

Our inter-American system has a significance 
which surpasses the bounds of this hemisphere. 
It is well known, for example, that the Rio Treaty 
served as the model for the North Atlantic Treaty, 
which created the North Atlantic Treaty Organi- 
zation. Quite understandably, NATO was at first 
compelled to concentrate largely on combating the 
threat of military aggression. But recently, de- 
spite the persistence of this danger, increased at- 
tention has been given to developing the scope of 
that orgamzation. President Eisenhower, speak- 
ing in Paris last December at the NATO meeting,^ 
said this : 

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created 
in response to a military threat. Yet NATO should not 
for all time be primarily a collective-defense organization. 
We hope and believe that the time will come when its 
defense aspect will be minor and perhaps even unneces- 
sary. . . . We should so shape this association, and our 
respective parts in it, that it permanently serves to pro- 
mote harmony not only between us but also between our- 
selves and other people and areas of the world. 

It requires no great gift of detection to deter- 
mine the origin of that concept. Its origin is 
right here, in the Organization of American 

' Ibid., Jan. 6, 1958, p. 6. 

Our organization, too, has its collective- defense 
aspects. But they are minor. We have devel- 
oped our association along many other lines. In- 
deed, never before in history has a group of 
nations of comparable number enjoyed, in organ- 
ized form, so high a measure of fellowship and 
harmony. Thus we set an example from which 
others can profitably learn. I believe that the 
inter- American system for the peaceful solution 
of disputes has in it elements which could 
adapted to solve some of the thorny problems 
which too often emerge elsewhere, with conse 
quences that might even affect this hemisphere. 

I am glad, therefore, that Dr. [Jose] Mora, the 
Secretary General of our organization, has replied; 
in an affirmative vein to NATO's suggestion for 
an interchange of information. As we help* 
others, we may help ourselves. 

If there be any who believe that inter- Ameri- 
can solidarity is something at which we toss bou- 
quets of words every April 14 and forget for the 
rest of the year, it would be well for them to look 
at the record. It is a continuous advancing rec- 
ord of positive accomplishment resulting fromi 
day-by-day efforts. It shows our united deter- 
mination to make America a happier, better home 
for Americans. 

In our endeavors may we never lose sight of the 
basic truth that cannot be too often stated: The 
independence of the American Republics is safe 
guarded by their recognition of their interde- 
pendence. Solidarity could not exist if our ; 
pies had not consciously determined to achieve it 
In our time solidarity is built on many interde- 
pendent factors — political, cultural, economic. In 
the beginning, however, there was but one power- 
ful factor: the stubborn will for self-determina 
tion. That was a positive element at our very 
roots as free peoples. It was inherent in our na- 
ture as pioneers, peoples of the ever-advancing 
frontiers toward ever-enlarging horizons. It was 
a moral force in each American nation. It was 
also a unifying bond of kinship. The founders^ 
of our Republics renewed their faith in their own 
purpose of freedom by witnessing the dedication 
of others to that purpose. May the American Re- 
publics never forget that dedication, nor ever 
waver in that faith. 

Depar'ment of State Bulletin 

I spoil 


tain: b 







'!«(! ! 

Secretary Dulles' News Conference of April 15 

Press release 193 dated April 15 

Secretary Dulles : I recall that 2 or 3 weeks ago 
I spoke of the able diplomacy with which Mr. 
IMurphy and Mr. Beeley were carrying on their 
good-offices mission as between France and Tu- 
nisia.^ I want to repeat that expression of high 
approval today when happily there is a greater 
prospect than when I spoke of the success of their 
mission. The outcome, of course, is still uncer- 
tain; but as far as the good-offices mission can 
function at the governmental level, they have suc- 
ceeded in reaching an agreement which is in the 
great interest, we believe, of the governments con- 
cerned and, indeed, of all the world. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, there has heen some criticism 
in France that the arrangements which they are 
proposing are hostile to the interests of France — 
that tlie United States is talcing a hostile line. 

A. I am aware of the fact that there are rumors 
that circulate in France and have various origins 
which suggest that the United States has some 
devious purpose of trying to take over the French 
position in North Africa. When the President 
and I were in Paris at the NATO meeting last 
December, we were aware of those rumors and 
the President rejected them with indignation, I 
may say, and I am prepared to reject them with 
the same degree of indignation. 

The fact is that there are economic and cultural 
ties of a long historic background between France 
and North Africa which we believe to be a basis 
for fruitful cooperation between Western Europe 
and North Africa, and the last thing in the world 
we would want to do is disrupt those relationships. 

I recall that the NATO meeting I referred to 
took cognizance of those relationships and re- 
ferred to them as a useful basis for friendly 
cooperation between Western Europe and North 

Africa.^ The United States fully subscribes to 
that view, and never for one instant do any other 
influences operate to make our policy as regards 
that area. The idea that we are operating there 
in some devious way to take over North Africa 
in the interests of American corporations is just 
about as far from the truth as any statement could 

Prospects for Meeting With U.S.S.R. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, the reports from the Paris 
NATO meeting seem to indicate that the 'West- 
ern countries have agreed to meet the Russians 
on the diplomatic level provided the Russians will 
not have any prior conditions and in fact that we 
are not ashing prior conditions with that level. 
Is that correct? 

A. Well, it is partially correct but only par- 
tially correct. You say we are willing to meet 
the Russians at the diplomatic level. You may 
recall it is we who have been urging the Russians 
to meet at the diplomatic level. I recall that at 
my meeting before the Press Club last January ^ 
I urged that this preparatory work should be got- 
ten away from the business of public exchanges 
between heads of government — gotten down to a 
lower level — and I said preferably the diplomatic 
level. It was our proposal, made some 2 weeks 
ago to the Soviet Union,* that we should carry 
on these talks at the diplomatic level. 

The Soviet Union indicated they were prepared 
to accept that, but they attached conditions which 
are unacceptable to the Western powers. Now I 
think it is likely — I hope it is likely — that talks 
will now be conducted at the diplomatic level, and 

' Bulletin of Apr. 14, 1958, p. 607. 
May 5, 1958 

-Ibid., Jan. 6, 1958, p. 13. 
V6id., Feb. 3, 1958, p. 159. 

' For text of three-power declaration of Mar. 31, see 
ibid., Apr. 21, 1958, p. 648. 


I suppose the first thing they may talk about is 
what they are going to talk about. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, does that mean the issue of 
whether or not you will talk about substantive 
matters is not now resolved and that you will go 
to this meeting to see if you can resolve them? 

A. The latest Soviet memorandum/ while 
agreeing to our proposal to talk at the diplomatic 
level, indicated they were not willing to talk at 
the diplomatic level, or indeed at any other meet- 
ing short of the summit meeting itself, about mat- 
ters of substance. So that issue is not resolved. 

Q. What is our position as of today on that 
point as to the talks at the diplomatic level? 

A. Our position is precisely what was set out 
in the three-power declaration handed in in Mos- 
cow 2 weeks ago. 

Q. In other words, we are still saying that at 
this diplomatic level there nmst be talks as to sub- 
stance or we will not meet at this level? 

A. Well, I wouldn't put it quite that way. We 
are proposing to conduct the preparatory talks 
now at the diplomatic level. The Soviets agree 
they will talk at the diplomatic level, and we are 
not yet in agreement as to what we will talk about. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, if the Soviets 7'efuse to enter 
into substantive talks at a lower level or at the am- 
bassador level or foreign-minister level, will we 
decline to attend a summit meeting? 

A. Well, I am not prepared to give a categorical 
answer to that question at this time. U.S. views 
have been fully set forth by the President. After 
all, it is a "summit" meeting. That means it is 
his meeting. He would be going to it, and I cannot 
say on his behalf just what he will do. He has 
spoken for himself on that subject, and that is 
for all the world to know. 

Q. Will the diplomatic talks start in Moscow on 
Thursday of this week? 

A. I do not know, and that has not been decided 
yet. The terms of our next communication to the 
Soviet Union have not yet been fully concerted. 
We are working on them at the present time. I do 
not know whether they will be ready in time to 
permit of the diplomats to start talking this week 
or not. 

Q. Is it clear, Mr. Secretary, the diplomatic 
talks at the diplomatic level, when, as, and if they 
occur, will be fou/r-power talks? 

A. That is what we proposed, and, as far as that 
aspect of the matter is concerned, it is apparently 
what the Soviets accept. 

Question of Agenda 

Q. Mr. Secretary, in practical terms what has 
been your experience about the ability to stick to 
any agenda set in the first place with the Russians? 
Is this a realistic p-rocedure to believe that it can 
be kept to an agenda? 

A. Well, I don't think that we would ourselves 
want to have an agenda so rigid that we were pre- 
cluded from talking about some of the matters 
which we believe are of vital importance for the 
peace of the world. Even though these were not 
accepted as a topic for agreed discussion in the 
sense there was preliminary agreement that they 
could be fruitfully discussed with a good prospect 
of agreement, we might still want to be able to 
talk about them. 

You will recall at the last summit meeting there 
were opening statements of a general character 
which were made. In his opening statement Presi- 
dent Eisenhower, among other things, spoke of 
the problem created by the situation in Eastern 
Europe and the inability of those nations there 
to have governments of their own choosing.'* Now, 
Mr. Bulganin came back and said they were not 
willing to discuss it. But the President had made 
his point in his opening address. I would suppose 
that, following that pattern, if there were a sum- 
mit meeting there would be an opportunity for the 
Heads of Governments there to open up, at least, 
by saying the things that were on their minds. 
But then the question is, are you going to get on 
to anything at all where there is a prospect of 
agreement ? 

You will recall that Mr. Bulganin, when head 
of the Soviet state, said that the conference should 
concentrate on matters as to which the known posi- 
tions of the states indicated a likelihood of agree- 
ment. There isn't yet a sufficient exploration to 
indicate what, if any, matters might lend them- 
selves to agreement, given the "known position" 
of the states. I think there needs to be a further 

° See p. 728. 

• Bulletin of Aug. 1, 1955, p. 171. 

Department of State Bulletin 

exploration of that matter before agreeing on 
those items of the agenda where we would pre- 
sumably try to reach at least a framework of an 

I doubt whether it is possible at a summit meet- 
ing to reach a detailed agreement about many of 
these matters. They are tremendously compli- 
cated, particularly the subjects of armaments and 
the like. But the outline of agreement — the basic 
positions — could perhaps be agreed to in some 
areas. I think that is a possibility which we need 
to explore because, as President Eisenhower said, 
if all that is going to happen at the summit meet- 
ing is that they sit around the table and glare at 
each other, that would not be a profitable 

Q. Mr. Secretary, isn't what you are descrihing 
the same kind of summit tneeting toe had the last 
time with the icehreaking meeting at the summit 
followed 6y, / 'presume, the foreign ministers'' 
meeting to fill in this outline you describe? 

A. Well, that would involve a considerable 
change in what now seems to be the agreed con- 
cept of such a meeting. The last summit meeting 
started out with an invitation from the three 
Western powers to meet, and they said it would 
not be expected that at that meeting any agree- 
ments would be reached but that they might agree 
upon topics as to which they would instruct their 
foreign ministers to try to reach an agreement. 

Now, the Soviet proposal for a summit meet- 
ing is that the meeting should concentrate on mat- 
ters as to which the known positions of the states 
indicate a likelihood of agreement at the summit 
meeting. In other words, whereas the first sum- 
mit meeting did not purport to be a meeting to 
reach any agreement at all, but only to agi'ee on 
areas which might be usefully explored, now the 
matter has been reversed making necessary some 
preparatory work. And, indeed, you have been 
having a measure of preparatory work in the ex- 
changes of diplomatic notes that have been taking 
place and the exchange of letters between the 
Heads of Governments. But in further prepara- 
tory work we should try to discover whether or 
not there are important matters as to which the 
known positions of the states indicate a likelihood 
of agreement at the summit meeting. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, if you had to make hook on 
this summit meeting now, with the iasehall season 

and the racing season on us, what would you say 
are the chances of its taking place? 

A. Well, I wouldn't want to publicly admit 
that I am a gambler. (Laughter) 

Q. Mr. Secretary, in very real terms donH your 
remarks add up more or less to the following as 
being our position: that we do not want and don't 
thi7ik that toe should have a summit meeting with- 
out proper preparation, hut that we donH see any 
real way to stop having it on terms that we donH 

A. No, I don't think that what I have said adds 
up to that. I hope not. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, are you satisfied with this 
question of the summit conference and other as- 
pects of foreign policy — are you satisfied with the 
degree of understanding and support you are get- 
ting from the Senate today? 

A. It seems to me that there is a very under- 
standing attitude on the part of Congress with 
respect to this summit meeting. We have tried 
to keep in touch with each other. I am having a 
meeting this afternoon with the chairman and a 
subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee 
to discuss this matter further. But I think that 
there is a very considerable degree of under- 
standing of, agreement with, and support for the 
position that we have been taking on this matter. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, earlier you were asked, if the 
Soviets refused to enter into substantive discus- 
sions at a lower level, would the United States de- 
cline to go into a summit meeting, and you said 
you couldn't answer categorically. Now, sir, do 
you think it is possible to have lower-level meet- 
ings vihich do not go into substance and yet make 
an adequate preparation for a summit meeting? 

A. Well, I think that it is possible to have ex- 
ploratory talks which would throw light at least 
upon whether or not it is likely that an agreement 
could be reached on some aspects of the so-called 
question. That could be done without necessarily 
getting into the details of such an agreement. A 
good deal in these matters depends upon the at- 
titude, the approach, the temper of the Soviet 
Union. Clues can be obtained as to its probable 
attitude without necessarily probing into all as- 
pects and having the i's dotted and the t's crossed. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, would it be necessary to ob- 
tain a reply from Russia to the note which will go 

May 5, J 958 

forward later this week 'before the 'Western diplo- 
mats sit down to any talks in Moscow? 

A. Not as far as we are concerned. We have 
been ready, are ready, and will remain ready to 
talk at the diplomatic level. That is what we 
have been trying to do. You might say we have 
been ti-ying as far as this preparatory work is 
concerned to get down from the summit and get 
down to rock bottom where perhaps we can do 
something more effective. This preparatory work 
for the summit meeting started in exchanges of 
letters between the Heads of Government. Then 
it was carried on by the exchanges of notes be- 
tween the foreign ministries. Now it may be get- 
ting down to the diplomatic level, which is what I 
have always argued for. And as we get down 
from the summit, as far as the preparatory work 
is concerned, I think that there is more chance of 
doing some useful preparatory work. So we 
stand ready at all times to talk about this business 
at the diplomatic level. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, are not the Russians likely to 
point to the hogging down of this preparatory 
work and say that this proves the futility of talk- 
ing on a lower level and that these matters can 
therefore he solved only at the summit? 

A. Well, we haven't started talking on this level 
yet; so it is a little premature to say that it is 

Q. Mr. Secretary, on what topic is Amhassador 
Thompson and his two colleagues in Moscow— 
on what topics are they prepared to discuss in a 
preparatory nature? Are you thinking of dis- 
armament, Germany, Eastern Europe, the Middle 
East, or what? 

A. The President in his January letter to Chair- 
man Bulganin ^ indicated a number of topics which 
the President put forward as possible topics for 
discussion. That letter had been submitted to and 
approved by NATO before it was sent. So tliat 
that probably constitutes at least a preliminary 
indication of the position we would take so far 
as the preparation of an agenda is concerned. 

Middle East 

Q. Mr. Secretary, how do you view the growing 
unrest in the Middle East? I am refernng pai^- 

' ma., Jan. 27, 1958, p. 122. 


ticuZarly to the reports of threat of civil war in 
Lehanon, demonstrations in Gaza against King 
Hussein, and what I consider intensified name- 
calling from. Cairo against those nations not join- 
ing in the United Arab Republic? 

A. Well, it is difficult to evaluate those particu- 
lar instances you refer to, and indeed I have no 
evaluation of them. They only happened within 
the last 24 hours. But when you speak about grow- 
ing unrest, I am afraid that is a little of an 
exaggeration, because there has been quite a con- 
siderable amount of unrest in that area for some 
little time now. 

Q. I said '■'■intensified.'''' 

A. I am not sure it is intensified over what it 
has been. 

Latin America 

Q. Mr. Secretary, a number of Latin Ameri- 
can diplomats have expressed disappointment that 
you did not take advantage of your speech at the 
Pan American Union yesterday * to make a ma- 
jor pronouncement of our intentions toioard that 
area. In fact, they believe that it would have 
given us a decided psychological advantage in 
the Tnounting contest to win Latin America's 
friendship by the Soviet Union. I wonder if you 
would care to comment on tlmt? 

A. I think that in my speech yesterday I broke 
a considerable amount of new ground in relation 
to the handling of economic problems which con- 
cern this hemisphere — the United States and the 
other American Republics. I think that that 
speech deserves to be rather carefully evaluated 
in that respect, because it does mark a consider- 
able advance over what has been our position in 
many of these respects heretofore. Now you can- 
not come out unilaterally with some detailed pro- 
gram which involves other countries. Undoubt- 
edly there has got to be quite a lot of work to be 
done if it is to be possible to implement the gen- 
eral concepts that I referred to. I talked about 
consultation, which is something that we have 
been rather hesitant to do in the past. I am not 
just referring to the recent past, indeed, to the 
long past. I referred to a desire to share the 
burdens of any recession fairly and not tiy to 
impose them just upon weaker countries. The 

For text, see p. 715. 

Department of State Bulletin 

general principles that I enunciated there are of 
extreme importance and I think will bear fruit. 
All the fruit isn't borne when the tree is planted. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, do you have any information 
hearing on Soviet efforts, if any, to launch a third 
earth satellite and lohy no such satellite has been 
launched up to now? 

A. No. I have no firm information about that, 
only speculation. I think it is fair to conclude 
that they have had some difSculties, perhaps, or 
else they would have launched another satellite 
before now. But that is largely in the area of 
speculation — perhaps you might say, an educated 
guess. But it is not supported by any firm evi- 
dence that we have. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, in your remarks on Latin 
American economy, are they to he interpreted as 
meaning that the United States has changed its 
long-time position of allowing xoorld prices on 
primary products to seek their own level in a free 
market and that we are going to agree to some 
form of world support not only for coffee hut for 
tin, ruhher, and all the other products that are 
depressed at this period? 

A. I think that the action that we have taken 
with respect to petroleum, which I spoke con- 
cretely about yesterday, indicates a willingness 
to have this problem handled in some kind of a 
cooperative way, mutually acceptable to the pro- 
ducers in this country, I hope, and also to pro- 
ducers abroad. 

Now each one of these situations has to be dealt 
with on its own merits. You can deal with pe- 
troleum in one way because there are a relatively 
small number of importing companies to be 
brought into a so-called "volimtary" program — 
a voluntary program with a certain amount of 
teeth in it. But each situation stands on its own 
footing. We have, of course, an arrangement 
about sugar. Well, that is possible because of 
certain conditions which prevail in the sugar in- 
dustry. I wouldn't say that there is any one pat- 
tern which is applicable to all industries. Each 
has to be studied by itself. But the general ap- 
proach of trying to find a program which is fair 
to all and which mitigates the grievous conse- 
quences of a decline, that is something which we 
are prepared to do. That perhaps is an advance 
somewhat over our past policy. 

May 5, J 958 

Q. Mr. Secretary, can you say a review of the 
United States policy toward the acquisition of 
land on Okinawa is under way and, if so, how 
far that may go? It has heen a suhject of great 
concern to the Okinawans. 

A. The High Commissioner announced, I think, 
in his address of a few days ago that a review 
was under way, and I confirm that such a review 
is under way. It would be premature to indicate 
what the result of that review will be, but the fact 
that it is under review does indicate that we have 
taken note of the fact that the present policy did 
not seem to win complete favor among the 

Q. Mr. Secretary, on another point, there have 
heen reports that one of the reasons that the Rus- 
sians announced their nuclear han was because of 
a nuclear accident or miscalculation. Do we have 
any reason or any evidence ichatever which might 
suggest that this is true? 

A. I would doubt if that is the explanation. 

U.S. Relations With Egypt 

Q. Mr. Secretary, hack in the Middle East, sir, 
there is a feeling in some diplomatic quarters that 
we are seeing a few faint signs that perhaps our 
relations toward Egypt are hack on the road to- 
ward improvement. Do you detect any signs of 
that, sir, and, if so, what are they? 

A. I am told that there has been some modera- 
tion of the tone of the press and radio of the 
U. A. R. as regards the United States. That 
would be a favorable sign, I would think. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, on that point, it has heen 
reported that this Government is seriously con- 
sidering unfreezing the funds of the Egyptian 
Government. Is that true? 

A. No, it is not correct. On that particular 
item, as you will recall, the reason for the freez- 
ing was to have a fund which would protect Amer- 
ican shipping companies from double jeopardy if 
it should be held in the courts of this country that 
they had improperly paid the Egyptian Canal 
Authority whereas they should have paid the 
Universal Suez Canal Company. There are law- 
suits, I think, pending or in prospect, which raise 
that issue. Therefore we took the position that to 
protect our people against double jeopardy we 


would want to keep a fund here available to pro- 
tect them, unless and until it seemed that there 
would be a direct settlement between the Uni- 
versal Canal Company and the Egyptian 

Now, a first meeting was held to try to bring 
about such a settlement. The parties found them- 
selves quite apart. A second meeting is to be held, 
I think, in the quite near future. We hope, and 
indeed have some reason to believe, that the posi- 
tion of the parties will have by that time come 
somewhat closer together. If it should seem that 
an agreement is likely, we would then reconsider 
our policy. 

Q. Mr. Secretary., if you do not believe that we 
are going to he pushed into a summit conference 
against your will, could you not he more specific 
in explaining what our minimum terms are? This 
phrase ^''proper preparation''' covers an awful lot 
of things. 

A. I understand that. But I also ask you to 
understand that in this matter we are not just 
operating on our own. If we were operating on 
our own, we would be able to make our position 
quite clear, I think. But I believe and think that 
almost everybody believes that it is worth while 
to maintain our alliances, particularly, in this 
matter, our NATO alliance. You cannot have an 
alliance as between free nations if one nation is 
just attempting to go on its own and dictate to 
the others. Therefore, in this matter, which is of 
deep concern to the governments of our allies in 
Europe, we take some account of their views. We 
do not attempt just to impose our views upon 
them. And if I were to attempt here unilaterally, 
just for the United States, to lay down a firm line 
which we were going to take without regard to 
what their views were, I think I would not be 
faithful to the alliance and to the principles which 
we agreed upon last December. 

Last December we had this summit meeting 
in NATO and we agreed there among ourselves 
we would seek to avoid making statements or 
taking public jjositions which were of concern to 
others without prior consultation. We are trying 
faithfully to live up to that, and I think we have 
lived up to it faithfully. But, if I were here to 
make the statement that you call for, that would 
be a repudiation of what we agreed to last 


Ambassador Thompson's Instructions 

Q. Mr. Secretary, in connection with the possi- 
bility of an a7nbassadorial meeting looking toward 
the ^''summit'''' in Moscow, is it desirable or neces- 
sary to have Ambassador Thompson come home 
for consultations with you before starting out? 

A. I don't think it's necessary for him to come 
back before starting out. I would think it would 
probably be desirable, if the meetings get under 
way and do get down to a discussion of some of 
these matters which may come up for an agenda 
proposal. At some stage it might be useful for 
him to come back. But we don't think it would 
be necessary for him to come back at least before 
we take the initial step. 

Q. I wonder, Mr. Secretary, if you could in- 
dicate when the Western reply may go forward 
to Moscow? 

A. No, I can't indicate that with any definite- 
ness. It's being worked on today. I can't fore- 
see whether there will be agreement today, or 
maybe tomorrow. I don't think that the obstacles, 
the differences, between us are of any major char- 
acter at all. We are all agreed as to the substance 
of it. Indeed, the position is essentially a restate- 
ment of what we said in the three-power declara- 
tion made at Moscow previously. Each of the 
governments has suggested a text. There are 
naturally slight variations between those texts. 
They are not matters of substance. They are 
being ironed out. We may reach an agreement 



hs m 
tht di 


today, maybe tomorrow, maybe the day after, 
don't anticipate any long delay. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, I hope you will forgive me 
if I say Vm still not clear in my mind as to what 
likely to happen in Moscow this week or nea 
when the Ambassadors sit down luith Foreign 
Minister Gromyko; and without wishing to go 
into matters which have not yet been agreed upon 
with our allies, I just wish to ask about some- 
thing which we have presumably agreed in sub- 
stance with our allies. I put this specific que8~ 
tion: When the Ambassadors meet in Moscow 
with the Soviet Foreign Minister, if, as could be 
assumed, Gromyko first raises the question of date 
and preparations for a foreign ministers^ con- 
ference and then for a summit conference, would 
our Ambassador be authorized to discuss the prep- 
arations for the sumvmit meeting before and unless 

Department of State Bulletin 

to, of. 
really 3 
Ikt pn 
into pii 





thirc has been some discussion of tlie matters of 
substance tohich we wish to raise regarding an 


A. He has no present authority to do that and 
would probably seek further instructions if the 
matter should develop in that way. 

Soviet Misuse of Diplomatic Machinery 

(J. Mr. Secretary, there has been a great deal 
of talk, and especially in the newspapers, that we 
are not anywhere near keeping up xoith the power 
and influence of Russian propaganda. The in- 
ference of so-called nuclear testing, xoith people 
trembling on the edge — do you think that would 
presumably indicate that we should seek to im- 
prove our own propaganda? 

A. I think that we are becoming more effective 
in this respect. I think it's important to bear in 
mind that up until recent days the United States 
has never thought, nor indeed have any of the 
so-called civilized nations of the world thought, 
that diplomatic commmiications were designed, 
or should be designed, primarily for propaganda 
purposes. We have always considered that these 
exchanges, and indeed most conspicuously ex- 
changes between heads of government, were de- 
signed, generally on a highly confidential basis, 
sincerely to achieve some practical result. So 
you have a long tradition, not only of this coun- 
try but of all of the countries which have shared 
in the development of diplomacy and international 
law, of carrying on diplomatic discussions not for 
purposes of propaganda but for the purposes of 
really achieving agreements. 

For the first time that I know of in all history 
that process has been debauched and prostituted 
into purely an organ of propaganda. There 
seems to be no desire whatever to use this ma- 
chinery really to get to an agreement but merely 
to use it for propaganda purposes. Now it takes 
a little while to adjust our processes to meet that. 
Whether we should meet it fully or not, I am not 
entirely convinced. For I do believe that there 
should be honesty and integrity in terms of these 
diplomatic notes and exchanges if the nations of 
the world are ever going to get along together. I 
think that what has been going on here is most 
dangerous from the standpoint of peace. It's 
done, I know, in the name of peace. But when, 

May 5, 1958 

for the sake of a temporary propaganda advan- 
tage, a nation uses the only way which nations 
have of really exchanging views and getting to- 
gether — uses that not for the purpose of really 
getting together but only for propaganda pur- 
poses, you're destroying one of the frail reeds 
upon which the peace of the world often rests. 

How far should we pursue that course? I'm 
not entirely clear. I am clear on the fact that in 
some way and in some manner we should find a 
more effective way to meet this propaganda. And 
I believe that we are going to be able to do it. 
And I believe that in the long run the nations of 
the world, including the neutrals, will listen more, 
and pay more heed, to what we do and a little 
less attention to just what is said. 

I was talking here yesterday in this room to 
this meeting of an international group of editors 
[International Press Institute], and I recalled the 
fact that Hitler in the thirties used to make the 
most impassioned speeches about "peace." And 
he persuaded many people in the world of his ded- 
ication to peace. Now there are a good many 
people, particularly in the newly developing coun- 
tries, the newly independent countries, who are 
just for the first time getting into the stream of 
international affairs, who haven't had tlie oppor- 
tunity to become mature in these matters, and 
Soviet propaganda initially is having a kind of 
a field day in those areas. 

I don't think that this is anything permanent. 
I think we can deal with it. But I don't know 
whether we should deal with it by matching them 
in terms of debauching, debasing, the means 
whereby nations which have differences of a criti- 
cal nature may perhaps resolve those differences. 
If we destroy that process, we will have destroyed 
something which is very vital to the world. And 
I say that nations which profess to want peace, 
and which in the process of making these profes- 
sions destroy the mechanics by which peace is 
historically preserved, may have to pay a heavy 
price for what they are doing. 

Q...Mr. Secretary, did you read Mr. Khru- 
shchev^s 9,000-word letter to Lord Russell? 

A. Yes, I read it. 

Q. Did you read in it the fact that ifs filled 
with more falsity and more nonsense and aimed 
at infltiencing less developed nations than any- 
thing that has come out in a long time? 


A. Well, I would have been glad to say that 
except I thought the publication probably would 
not have published it if I had said it. But let 
me say this : As I read that letter, the heart of it 
was this: that there is no difference between 
nations which have no moral standards and those 
who have moral standards, because sometimes those 
nations don't completely live up to their moral 
standards. I say there is the biggest gulf that 
you could think of between people who have stand- 
ards, even though they deviate from them, and 
those who do not even profess to have them. 

Question of Spending for Propaganda Purposes 

Q. Mr. Secretary, in testimony lefore Congress 
recently — recent testimony before Congress — yoxi, 
said tliat it was doubtful whether it was worth 
while to investigate or put too much money and 
time in getting to the moon second. Does that in- 
clude that you imply the Russians would get to the 
moon soon, first? 

A. I believe that again there is a question of how 
much you spend on what essentially has a propa- 
ganda value or is done for propaganda purposes. 
The money that it takes to do these things comes 
out of the sweat and labor of people, and broadly 
speaking we think people who sweat and labor 
are entitled to get something back for it in terms 
of a little better economic livelihood. To have 
them do this merely for propaganda purposes is 
a matter of some question. 

I have referred here several times to the monu- 
ments that were built in the past by the great 
despots, the Pyramids of Egypt, the Colosseum 
of Rome, the palaces of the French kings in France. 
Those all had an impressive propaganda value. 
But all of them were made of the sweat and labor 
of people who were compelled to do this in order 
to glorify their rulers. Now we don't want to get 
into that kind of business. If and as it develops 
that there may be scientific value in doing this 
thing, I suppose we will do it — although this is 
not primarily in my area, I may say. But I do 
not think that, just because the Russians may be 
doing it, we necessarily ought to do it. AVe must 
not allow ourselves to be made over into the pat- 
tern of the thing that we hate. There is always a 
tendency to do that. There is always a danger 
that you make yourselves over into the image of 
the thing that you are fighting in order to fight it 

better. We have to fight it some other way. But 
that does not mean I'm against going to the moon. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, in your earlier statement on 
propaganda and peacemaking, you use the words 
'•'■debauched and prostituted'''' with respect to the 
meaning of peaceful processes. And at a later point 
you referred to Soviet propaganda. Are you say- 
ing in this statement that it is the Soviet propa- 
ganda techniques which have debauched and 
prostituted the peacemaking processes? 

A. I meant to say that, when you use what his- 
torically had been the established means whereby 
people communicate with each other for vital 
purposes of trying to reach agreement and main- 
taining a condition of peace, when you turn 
those processes into instruments of propaganda, I 
think you're doing a great harm to the real ma- 
chinery whereby the world has historically en- 
deavored, inadequately, to keep the peace. Time 
after time those processes have served a very im- 
portant, indeed a vital, purpose. And I hate to 
see them converted just into instruments of propa- 
ganda. Does that answer your question ? 

Q. Well, Fm trying to get at what agency is 
so converting them. 
A. The Soviet Union is. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, how do you explain the fact 
that lue give aid to so many countries and in these 
countries — /'m thinking now in terms of Lebanon, 
which has always indicated friendship for the 
West — that even there it appears that we are criti- 
cized for actions that we take. Isn't there some- 
thing in us and the way that we give aid that brings 
forth these criticisms, or does the fault lie else- 

A. I think that the fault is found probably in 
many causes. The fact that assistance is received 
does not provide any immunity against criticism. 
Indeed, sometimes perhaps it promotes criticism. 
We don't give aid, as I have often said, merely as 
a means of buying gratitude. Gratitude is not 
obtained in that way. Nor is that our purpose. 
We give assistance and provide aid to enable coun- 
tries to maintain their independence. If they 
maintain their independence, that is what we want. 
If they use their independence to criticize us, that 
is their right. 

Q. Thank you, sir. 

Department of Sfafe Bulletin 

U.S., U.K., and France Ready 
To Begin Talks at Moscow 


Press release 195 dated April 16 

Following is the text of an identical statement 
presented to the Soviet Gover-nment on April 16 
by the British, French, and United States Ain- 
hassadors at Moscoxo, in reply to the Soviet aide 
memoir e of April 11, 1958. 

The United States, British and French Gov- 
ernments have studied the Aide Memoire com- 
municated to their Ambassadors in Moscow on 
April 11. They note that the Soviet Government 
has accepted their proposal that the preparatory 
work for a Summit meeting could best be per- 
formed by exchanges through diplomatic chan- 
nels leading to a meeting between Foreign Minis- 
ters. They also note that the Soviet Government 
agi'ees that these exchanges should begin in Mos- 
cow as soon as possible. The "Western Powers 
for their part will be ready to begin on April 17. 

It is clear from the Soviet Government's Aide 
Memoire that there are still substantial differ- 
ences of opinion between the Soviet Government 
and the Western Governments as to the precise 
character and scope of the preparatory work. 

In the first place, our Foreign Ministers can- 
not absent themselves from their countries for a 
prolonged period. Thus, it is essential that the 
diplomatic talks in Moscow should be concerned 
not only with plans for a meeting of Foreign Min- 
isters but with examining the positions of the vari- 
ous governments on the major questions at issue 
between them and with carrying on discussions de- 
signed to bring out the possibilities of agreement 
on them. Even if such diplomatic talks do not 
result in complete agreement they would greatly 
facilitate the task of the Foreign Ministers. 

As regards a Summit meeting the Western Gov- 
ernments hold the view that such a meeting will 
not be fruitful unless the ground has been thor- 
oughly prepared in advance and it is clear from 
this preparatory work that there is broad agree- 
ment on the nature and order of the agenda, and 
a real desire among all who participate in the 
meeting to make practical progress towards a 
settlement of the differences between us. There 

must be reasonable prospect of achieving concrete 
results on specific issues. Satisfactory completion 
of the preparatory work must therefore precede 
arrangements for such a meeting. 

Tliis approach is in consonance with the state- 
ment made by the Head of the Soviet Govern- 
ment on February 1, 1958 ^ that a Summit meeting 
should be "concentrated on the most urgent prob- 
lems, with regard to which the known positions 
of states provide a certain degree of assurance as 
to their positive solution at this time." Up to 
the present, the exchange of views on this matter 
has been conducted solely through published cor- 
respondence and has not yet established any de- 
gree of assurance that agreement on urgent prob- 
lems could be reached. Thus, there is plainly need 
for preparatory work beyond mere matters of 

It is the view of the Western Governments that 
the differences of opinion mentioned above should 
be the first subject of discussion between the 
Soviet Government and the Western Ambassa- 
dors in Moscow. Such discussion may be more 
likely to lead to agreement than a furtlier ex- 
change of public commmiications. That is our 

The Western Ambassadors will, for this pur- 
pose, make themselves available to the Soviet 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs on April 17. 


White House press release dated April 11 

The United States has received at Moscow a 
reply to the declaration which the United States 
made on March 31st ^ in conjunction with the Gov- 
ernments of France and the United Kingdom with 
reference to preparatory work through diplomatic 
channels to determine whether a summit meeting 
would serve a useful purpose. 

The Soviet reply is manifestly not an acce^jtance 
to this Western proposal. It proposes that the dip- 
lomatic preparatory work shall not deal at all with 
a summit meeting but only with the time, place, 
and composition of a subsequent meeting of for- 
eign ministers. 

The implications of the note will of course be 
carefully studied. 

Bulletin of Mar. 10, 1958, p. 376. 
IMd., Apr. 21, 1958, p. 648. 

Moy 5, 7958 


The Government of the Soviet Union has examined 
with all attention the joint statement of the Governments 
of the United States of America, Great Britain, and 
France of Mar. 31, made in connection with the Soviet 
Government's proposal regarding the speeding up of 
preparations for a summit conference, contained in the 
Soviet Government's aide memoire of Mar. 24, 1958." 

The Soviet Government notes that although the gov- 
ernments of the three powers also state that the present 
day international situation demands the making of serious 
efforts with a view to reaching agreement on the funda- 
mental international problems and the consolidation of 
general peace, and that it renders desirable the convoca- 
tion of a high level conference, they, in essence, avoid 
replying to the Soviet Union's concrete proposals about 
the convocation of such a conference made as far back as 
December 1957.' 

As was pointed out in the Soviet Government's aide 
memoires of Feb. 28^ and Mar. 24, 1958, the main task 
at present is the speediest completion of preparatory work 
for a summit conference. The Soviet Government deems 
it necessary to organize a meeting of ministers of foreign 
affairs in April in order to carry out this work. 

It is with regret that one is forced to admit that the 
governments of the three powers are causing delays over 
the talks to prepare a high level conference. 

With a view to the speediest completion of preparatory 
work regarding the convocation of the summit conference 
the Soviet Government deems it necessary at present to 
reach agreement on, first of all, the question of holding 
the meeting of ministers of foreign affairs not later than 
the end of April or the middle of May 1958. In this con- 
nection it is borne in mind that all preparatory work 
through diplomatic channels must be completed by that 
time. For this reason, the Soviet Government deems it 
expedient to restrict the exchange of views through diplo- 
matic channels to a minimum of questions relating di- 
rectly to the organization of a meeting of ministers of 
foreign affairs, that is, questions of the date and place 
of the ministers meeting and the composition of its 

Striving for a most rapid completion of preparatory 
work for the summit conference, the Soviet Union, as is 
known, long ago submitted for consideration by the 
Governments of the United States, Great Britain, and 
Prance, its proposals on the question of a summit con- 
ference agenda, the composition of its participants, and 
the place and date of holding it. The Soviet Government 
expects that the Governments of the United States, Great 
Britain, and France will give in the near future a definite 
reply to these concrete proposals. 

As regards the meeting of ministers of foreign affairs, 
these ministers — in the opinion of the Soviet Govern- 
ment — must reach agreement on the question of date, 
venue, and composition of a high level conference, and 

'Ibid., p. 652. 

' Ibid., Jan. 27, 1958, p. 127. 

■/6i(?., Mar. 24, 1958, p. 459. 

determining the range of questions which will be con- 
sidered at the conference. 

In this connection it is not excluded that while attend- 
ing to preparations for the high level conference, the 
ministers may if necessary and if generally agreed, ex- 
change opinions on certain of the problems proposed by 
the parties for inclusion in the agenda of the summit con- 
ference, for the purpose of determining whether it is 
expedient to include a given question in the summit con- 
ference agenda. 

It is self-evident that the question of the convocation 
of a high level conference cannot be linked with the re- 
sults of the meeting of ministers of foreign affairs. The 
Soviet Government bases itself on the argument that all 
parties to the meeting will strive to achieve positive re- 
sults. The Soviet Government, on its part, will do every- 
thing possible for this aim to be achieved. However, if 
the ministers are unable to reach the necessary agreement 
on questions of preparations for a summit conference, this 
would not signify in any way that the necessity of having 
such a conference has become less pressing. 

The present tense international situation demands the 
speedy settlement of ripe international problems ; in these 
conditions it would be incorrect to make the convocation 
of a high level conference depend on the results of a 
meeting of ministers of foreign affairs. It is perfectly 
obvious that difficulties which may appear during the 
ministers conference can and must be overcome at a con- 
ference of statesmen invested with wider powers. 

Guided by the aforesaid, the Soviet Government ex- 
presses readiness to begin in Moscow on Apr. 17 the ex- 
change of views about preparations for a meeting of minis- 
ters of foreign affairs. 

U.S. Denies Soviet Charge 

of Provocative Flights in Polar Region 

On April 18 Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei 
A. Gromyko charged in a nexos conference that 
U.S. nuclear-armed bombers had made ^'■provoca- 
tive'^ flights across the Arctic toward the Soviet 
Union. Following is the text of a Department 
statement read to news correspondents on the same 
day by Joseph W. Reap., acting chief of the News 

It is categorically denied that the U.S. Air 
Force is conducting provocative flights over the 
Polar regions or in the vicinity of the U.S.S.R. 
Mr. Gromyko's charges appear to be an attempt 
to raise fears of mankind in tlie nuclear age. 
"WHiat we do is public knowledge; what happens 
behind the Iron Curtain menacing to the free 
world is carefully hidden by the Soviets. We will 
be glad to discuss this question in the United 
Nations, as we are always willing to discuss there 

Department of State Bulletin 

any charge made against us. The United States 
is ready and willing to work with all nations of 
the world to reduce tensions and particularly the 
fear of sudden surprise attacli. The U.S. pro- 
posals for increasing protection against surprise 
attack have had as their aim not merely protec- 
tion of one side against the other, but also have 
been designed to give each side knowledge of the 
activity of the other so as to reduce fears and 
misjudgments. Until these fears are banished, 
the United States must take all steps necessary to 
protect the free world from being overwhelmed by 
a surprise attack. 

The Strategic Air Command is the mainstay of 
the free world's deterrent position. It has been 
successful in accomplishing this mission for the 
past decade. It can only accomplish its mission 
of deterrence in the future if it is well known that 
it is so trained, so equipped, and so situated that 
it cannot be surprised and destroyed on the ground 
by an enemy. Therefore, it has in the past, and 
will continue in the future, to maintain its high 
state of efficiency through constant practice. All 
these training exercises, however, are designed to 
maintain the force within areas which by no 
stretch of the unagination could be considered 
provocative to the U.S.S.K. So far the SAC force 
has never been launched except in carefully 
planned and controlled exercises and practices. 
Should there be a real alert, based on a warning 
of a possible attack, the force would be launched 
under a procedure which makes certain that no 
SAC airplane can pass beyond proper bounds 
far from the Soviet Union or its satellites without 
additional unequivocal orders which can come 
only from the President of the United States. 
The procedures are in no sense provocative and 
could not possibly be the accidental cause of war. 

U.S. Policy Regarding Algeria 
Remains Unchanged 

FoUovnng is n Defartrmemt statement read to 
nev's eorrespondents on April 18 by Stuart Lillico, 
■press officer. 

In view of the fact that the status of the good- 
offices mission ' i? now in suspense, it would be 

inappropriate for the United States to make any 
comments with regard to the French-Tunisian 
dispute at this time. 

The Acting Secretary [Mr. Herter] informed 
the French Ambassador [Herve Alphand] this 
morning that press speculation to the effect that 
there has been a basic change of United States 
policy with respect to Algeria is without founda- 
tion. As the United States Government has long 
made it known, the United States is greatly con- 
cerned by the Algerian conflict and attaches the 
highest importance to the need for a peaceful, 
democratic, and just solution. It has always been 
the hope of the United States Government, and 
still is, that France itself will be able to work 
out such a solution, which is of great interest to 
all of the countries of the free world. 

NATO Defense Ministers 
Conclude Discussions 

Following is the text of a final commimique re- 
leased at Paris on April 17 at the conclusion of the 
NATO Defense Ministers^ conference 

In accordance with the decision taken at the 
Ministerial Meeting of the North Atlantic Council 
held at the level of Heads of Government on 19th 
December last,^ the Defense Ministers of the 
NATO member countries met at the Palais de 
Chaillot, under the Chairmanship of the Secre- 
tary General, Monsieur P. H. Spaak, on 15th, 16th 
and 17th April, 1958. 

2. The Ministers heard full and valuable reports 
by the Military Committee, the Standing Group 
and the Supreme Allied Commanders on the 
present state of the forces of the Alliance, on the 
progressive introduction of the most modern 
weapons and equipment and on the forces needed 
for NATO defense in the years ahead. They also 
heard progress reports on projects initiated by the 
Heads of Government in December. On the basis 
of these reports a most useful discussion took place 
between the Ministers and the NATO military 

3. In order to meet the continuing efforts made by 
the Soviet leaders to equip their large forces with 

For h.Tfkeround, see Bulletin of Mar. 10. 1958, p. 372. 

Bulletin of Jan. 6, 1958, p. 3. 

Aloy 5, r958 

462884—58 3 


the most modern weapons the Ministers discussed 
ways and means of making the best of the resources 
of the Alliance and of achieving greater effective- 
ness for its forces. They confirmed their support 
of the basic NATO strategy for the preservation 
of peace and for the defense of member countries. 
This defensive strategy continues to be founded 
on the concept of a strong deterrent, comprising 
the shield, with its conventional and nuclear ele- 
ments, and the nuclear retaliatory forces. 

4. The JNIinisters also were in agreement on certain 
measures to achieve greater co-ordination and to 
widen co-operation among member countries, both 
with respect to defense research, development and 
production and to the organization of forces. 

5. The Ministers are confident after these discus- 
sions, which confirmed their unity and common 
purpose, that the progressive modernization of 
NATO forces, on the basis of the agreed strategic 
plans, will enable the Alliance to maintain its de- 
fensive strength while efforts continue to be made 
to re-establish international confidence through ef- 
fective, controlled disarmament. 

Secretary Dulles To Visit Berlin 
After NATO Ministerial Meeting 

Press release 197 dated April 16 

The Department of State announced on April 
16 that the Secretary of State will visit Berlin 
briefly at the conclusion of the NATO Ministerial 
Meeting at Copenhagen. 

The Secretary expects to arrive at Berlin in 
the late morning of May 8. He will be the guest 
of honor at a lunch given by the Governing Mayor 
of Berlin, Willy Brandt. Late in the afternoon 
of May 8 he expects to leave Berlin for Paris, where 
he will attend a meeting of the U.S. ambassadors 
in Europe. 

Senator Case To Represent U.S. 
at Berlin Congress Hall Ceremonies 

The Department of State announced on April 19 
(press release 203 dated April 18) that Senator 
Clifford Case will represent the United States at 
Berlin on April 26 at the ceremonies passing title 


to the Berlin Senat of the Benjamin Franklin Con- 
gress Hall, built for the 1957 International Build- 
ing Exposition. 

At the ceremonies President Heuss will deliver 
the principal speech for the Federal Republic of 
Germany. Presiding over the ceremonies will be 
Ralph Walker, chairman of the Benjamin Frank- 
lin Foundation and former president of the Ameri- 
can Institute of Architects, who was named in 1957 
by the AIA as "Architect of the Century." Mr. 
Walker will present the key to the Congress Hall 
to Mayor Willy Brandt to conclude the ceremonies. 

The Benjamin Franklin Foundation was created 
in 1955 in Berlin to act as the agent for the U.S. 
Government, the Federal Republic of Germany, 
and the Berlin Senat to design and construct a 
Congress Hall dedicated to the freedom of speech. 
The building was opened in September 1957 dur- 
ing the International Building Exposition and was 
especially dedicated to Benjamin Franklin with 
his quotation : 

. . . God grant that not only the love of liberty, but a 
thorough knowledge of the rights of men, may pervade 
all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may 
set his foot anywhere on its surface, and say. This is 
my country. 

The building itself, designed by American archi- 
tect Hugh Stubbins, has already become one of 
the landmarks of Berlin. Characterized by its 
soaring roof, it includes an auditorium seating 
1,200 people, a modern theater, indoor and outdoor 
restaurants, and multilingual facilities for simul- 
taneous translation. 

Letters of Credence 


The newly appointed Ambassador of Austria, 
Wilfried Platzer, presented his credentials to 
President Eisenliower on April 18. For texts of 
the Ambassador's remarks and the President's 
reply, see Department of State press release 201. 


The newly appointed Ambassador of Cuba, 
Nicolas Arroyo y Marquez, presented his creden- 
tials to President Eisenhower on April 16. For 
texts of the Ambassador's remarks and the Presi- 
dent's reply, see Department of State press release 

Department of State Bulletin 

International Trade and Our National Security 

hy Under Secretary Eerter ' 

President Eisenhower and Mr. Dulles asked me 
to tell you of their keen interest in this great civic 
enterprise. The benefits of a fair such as this ex- 
tend throughout the United States. In the most 
practical way possible, you are demonstrating the 
interdependence of nations. Our foreign policy 
is based on the belief that no nation is an island 
unto itself and, in bringing nations and peoples 
and goods closer together, you are furthering the 
aims of this Government. 

Trade fairs hark back to ancient days. There 
is a Biblical reference in the Book of Esther to a 
fair lasting 180 days conducted by Xerxes, King of 
the Persians, for the purpose of displaying "the 
riches of his kingdom." This was 500 B.C. 
Through the ages, trade fairs played an important 
role in establishing many of the important trading 
centers of Europe — Frankfort, Leipzig, Lyon, 
Brussels. They became crossroads of traffic in the 
very same sense that this great city of Seattle is 
a "gateway to the Orient." 

We can trace the history of fairs from medieval 
times through the Middle Ages down to the pres- 
ent — from stalls and booths and bazaars and shows 
to the great industrial exhibitions of today. But 
there is an essential difference between fail's today 
and in olden times. 

This is a geographical difference. In Europe 
distances between countries like Belgium or Hol- 
land or, for that matter, almost any country in 
western or central Europe are comparatively 
short. Because of the difficulties of transportation 
and the small area and population of each coun- 
try, the producers of goods a few hundred 

1 Address made before the Seventh Annual Washington 
State International Trade Fair at Seattle, Wash., on Apr. 
11 (press release 183 dated Apr. 9). 

May 5, 7958 

years ago had to rely on outlets in neighboring 

The mid-20th century has changed aU this. The 
world is the market for the man with the better 
mousetrap. You can fly that mousetrap from 
Bangkok to Seattle in 44 hours. 

This is a mixed blessing. In less than 44 hours 
a military plane carrying an atomic or hydrogen 
bomb can also deliver its cargo to any city in the 
world. This, together with the threat of ballistic 
missiles, makes it all too evident that the United 
States is no longer protected by its Atlantic and 
Pacific Oceans. From a space-age viewpoint, 
Moscow is just about as close as your nearest 
shopping center. 

Now, the foreign policy of the United States 
reflects this fundamental fact — and that is that 
the security and prosperity of this Nation cannot 
be separated from that of other nations. 

Communist Strategy 

We live in a troubled world, but we have no 
trouble in locating the threat to our peace and 
security. The threat is international commimism. 
The threat is not new. It is as old as communism 
itself. Thirty-five years ago, Lenin said : 

First we will take Eastern Europe, next the masses of 
Asia, and finally we will encircle the last bastion of 
capitalism— the United States. We shall not have to 
attack it; it will fall like overripe fruit Into our hands. 

Now that is very specific and very direct; and I 
don't think I need to point out to this audience 
that communism has accomplished the first step. 
What the mapmakers called Eastern Europe 20 
years ago is behind the Iron Curtain. 

This Lenin statement is Communist doctrine. 
It charts the strategy, and it has been like a polar 


star to the succession of rulers in the Kremlin. 
World domination was and is the goal. 

While attempting to lull the free world into a 
sense of false security, the Sino-Soviet bloc has 
developed the largest standing army in the liis- 
tory of the world. They have built a submarine 
fleet more than three times larger than our own. 
And they back up this army and navy with an 
array of tactical and intermediate missiles. Wliile 
protesting their peaceful intentions, they work 
night and day to develop the so-called ultimate 
weapon— the intercontinental ballistic missile. 

This is the military threat of communism. It 
is not dreamed up by any alarmist. It exists to- 
day — now — and it is very, very formidable. 

In view of the record of international com- 
munism, a record filled with treacliery and broken 
promises, simple prudence would dictate that the 
United States and the rest of the free world 
counter this threat. This we have done and will 
continue to do. Briefly, I would like to tell you 

First, we have strengthened, modernized, and 
streamlined our own military establishment. The 
more than 2,600,000 men and women in the Army, 
Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force are equipped 
with the latest nuclear weapons, atomic subma- 
rines, guided-missile ships, fighters, bombers, and 
ballistic missiles. This combined force, dis- 
persed, ready for action, and capable of instant re- 
taliation, is a mighty deterrent to any would-be 

The Mutual Security Program, a Shield of Additional 

But we have not stopped here. Under the mu- 
tual security program we have built a shield of 
additional strength to protect the free nations of 
the world. 

Using our basic theory of the interdependence 
of nations, we have established military alliances 
with 42 nations of the free world. We have bi- 
lateral treaties with Korea, free China, Japan, and 
the Philippines and multilateral agreements 
through the Organization of American States, the 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the 
Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, and the 
Australia-New Zealand-United States treaty 
called ANZUS. 

During the past 7 years we have contributed 
$20 billion in mutual defense assistance to our 

free-world allies. But during this same period of 
time our partners in these defensive alliances have 
contributed $122 billion to develop the strength 
of the free world. In addition to helping us with 
manpower problems tiiat would greatly weaken 
our economy if we had to go it alone, our allies 
have provided more than 250 major overseas bases. 
This massive defensive strength has brought to 
a halt outright armed aggression by the forces of 
international communism. The weapons of bully- 
ing and bullets have been put in the skeleton 
closet — probably the largest skeleton closet in all 

Soviet Economic Offensive 

Communism is now probing in another di- 
rection with new weapons. I am talking about 
the new Soviet economic offensive.^ Instead of 
bombast and bluster, the Communists now talk 
softly. They coax and use blandishments. Listen 
to this statement by a Eussian delegate at the re- 
cent Afro-Asian Peoples' Solidarity Conference 
in Cairo : 

We do not seek to get any advantages We are ready 

to help you as brother helps brother, without any Interest 
whatever, for we know from our own experience how 
difficult it is to get rid of need. 

I think the martyrs of Hungary and Poland 
and Czechoslovakia and Rumania and Latvia and 
Estonia and Lithuania and Bulgaria bear silent 
witness to the tragedy of believing that "brother 
act." Getting rid of the Communists is harder 
than getting rid of need. 

The sometimes voluble Khrushchev let slip the 
real intention of the economic offensive of the 
Soviet Union when he told a group of Congress- 
men who interviewed him : "We value trade least 
for economic reasons and most for political pur- 

But, unbelievable as it may seem, nations which 
have waited centuries for independence are edg- 
ing perilously close to the spider's web. With 
long-term loans at low interest rates, the Soviet 
bloc has doubled its trade with the less developed 
nations in 3 years from $840 million in 1954 to 
about $1.7 billion in 1957; and the number of 
trade agreements in this 3-year period has leaped 

-For a statement by Deputy Under Secretary Dillon 
on Soviet-bloc economic activities in less developed coun- 
tries, see BuixETiN of Mar. 24, 1958, p. 469. 


Department of State Bulletin 

from 49 to 147. The ink is scarcely dry on these 
agreements before the first planeload of Soviet 
technicians arrives to begin the job of veering the 
country toward communism. 

President Eisenhower, in a message to Con- 
gress,' made it clear how we as Americans must 
regard this new threat. This is what the Presi- 
dent said : 

If the purpose of Soviet aid to any country were simply 
to help it overcome economic difficulties without Infring- 
ing its freedom, such aid could be welcomed as forwarding 
the free world purpose of economic growth. But there 
is nothing in the history of international communism to 
indicate this can be the case. Until such evidence is 
forthcoming, we and other free nations must assume that 
Soviet bloc aid is a new, subtle, and long-runge Instrument 
directed toward the same old purpose of drawing its re- 
cipient away from the community of free nations and ulti- 
mately into the Communist orbit. 

Now, the greatest mistake we could make would 
be to assume that this Soviet economic offensive is 
something that will pass in the night, that it is a 
"flash in the pan," that it will peter out. It is 
being pursued with the same determination, the 
same ruthlessness, the same disregard for the truth, 
and with the same tenacity that the Soviet Union 
has demonstrated in its military buildup. 

The mutual security program is a counter to this 
threat, too. We are working with the less de- 
veloped nations to help them find their "place in 
the sun." Most of these nations need higher levels 
of health, education, and sanitation. They need to 
learn new methods of agriculture, of irrigation, 
of conservation. They need nurses, doctors, 
teachers, engineers, administrators. Through our 
teclmical cooperation program we are helping in 
all of these areas. 

Development Loan Fund 

We are not trying to prime the pump of these 
underdeveloped countries. We are helping them 
to get the basic industry — the pump itself — for 
them to prime. Most of tlaese developing coun- 
tries do not yet have the basic facilities to attract 
private risk capital. They lack good harbors, 
port facilities, roads, communications, power, rail- 
ways. To help fill the vacuum we established late 
last year the Development Loan Fund as a part of 
the mutual security program. 

The Development Loan Fund lends money for 
specific, economically sound, and teclinically fea- 
sible projects. It does not extend credit when 
other financing is available on reasonable terms. 
It concentrates on long-range, economic-growth 
projects. Applications for nearly $2 billion in 
such projects are now being carefully screened. 
Only $300 million was appropriated last year, and 
$625 million has been requested for this year. 

There are strong moral and humanitarian rea- 
sons for this effort to help hundreds of millions 
of people rid themselves of dirt, disease, and des- 
pair, but there are strong reasons from an eco- 
nomic, self-interest standpoint too. This one-third 
of the world's population constitutes a tremendous 
potential market for the goods of America, the 
world's largest trading nation. 

Let me say a few words about world trade and 
America's relation to it. I am a Yankee from 
Massachusetts. From my State about a century 
ago, clipper ships set sail on voyages round the 
world. Those beautiful clipper ships helped to 
build not only Massachusetts but the entire United 
States of America. Today America is the world's 
largest exporter and the world's largest importer. 
Our two-way trade in 1957 reached the staggering 
total of $32 billion, an all-time high in any 
nation's history. 

Reciprocal Trade Agreements Program 

This world record was accomplished within the 
framework of the reciprocal trade agreements 
program. Twenty-five years ago, Cordell Hull, 
a great American, established this program. It 
has become Imown as a symbol of international 
trade cooperation. The reciprocal trade agree- 
ments program has been renewed by Congress 10 
times, and it is before Congress for renewal now. 
The President of the United States has requested 
that it be renewed again, this time for 5 years.* 

Strong voices are being raised against the pro- 
gram by those who think, rightly or wrongly, that 
the trade agreements program is injurious to their 
particular industry. Less than a month ago about 
1,300 leaders from all walks of life and from all 
sections of the country gathered. in Washington 

^Ihid., Mar. 10, 1958, p. 367. 
May 5, 1958 

'Ibid., Feb. 17, 1958, p. 263; for statements by Secre- 
tary of Commerce Sinclair Weeks, Secretary Dulles, and 
Deputy Under Secretary Dillon, see ibid.. Mar. 17, 1958, 
p. 432, and Apr. 14, 1958, p. 626. 


to voice their support of the reciprocal trade 
agreements program.^ Theirs was the "grass 
roots" voice of America, but whetlier it will con- 
tinue to be heard over the daily cries of the self- 
interest groups remains to be seen. 

Here is an example of the situation we face. 
In the month of February 114 textile concerns in 
Japan went bankrupt. Now, my own State of 
Massachusetts is one of the leading textile States 
in the Nation. We have unemployment in the 
textile industry in Massachusetts at the present 
time, and all of us naturally have a greater con- 
cern for the problems of our own citizens than for 
those of our friends overseas. 

But let's just consider this fact : Japan is Amer- 
ica's second best customer for the products of 
our farms and factories. Last year it was better 
than a billion-dollar customer, but its trade deficit 
with the United States was $624 million. The 
effect of Japan's purchases is felt in every corner 
of the U.S.A. And when you have a billion- 
dollar-a-year customer who shows signs of ailing, 
it's time to call the doctor and get a good diag- 

^Vliat's wrong is obvious. Japan needs desper- 
ately gi-eater access to the American market. 
Japan is the most industrialized nation in Asia. 
They are a dependable ally. Faced with 90 mil- 
lion people to support in an area smaller than 
California, and with few natural resources of her 
own, Japan must trade to live. If the West closes 
the trade door in Japan's face, Japan must turn 
to the Communist bloc. 

Tliis situation illustrates vividly the interre- 
lationship between international trade and secu- 
rity. We cannot have strong partners in our 
free-world alliance unless we give them a chance 
to build strong economies through trade. 

This is the problem — how to safeguard the Na- 
tion's defense through effective alliances while 
adequately protecting American business interests. 
There is no perfect way to accomplish both ob- 
jectives. However, I believe that the reciprocal 
trade agreements program, with its built-in pro- 
tections, is the most practical way. 

If we do not make it possible for the nations of 
the free world to trade with us, they have no 

' For an address made at the conference b.v President 
Eisenhower and remarks by Secretary Dulles and Mr. 
Dillon, see ibid., Apr. 14, 1958, p. 591. 

alternative but to trade with the Soviet Union. 
As a supporter of this program has so aptly said, 
"This is the cold algebra of sense and reason." 
Klirushchev is confident that our democratic sys- 
tem will force the nations of the free world into 
his hands. Last November he said : 

The threat to the United States is not the ICBM, but 
in the field of peaceful production. We are relentless in 
this, and it will prove the superiority of our system. 

Tliis is a warning to be heeded. What could 
be greater folly than to push the nations of the 
free world into the crushing embrace of the Rus- 
sian bear? 

This economic cold war will be won in the field 
of trade. It will be won by dedicated men and 
women like yourselves, working toward the com- 
mon goal of national freedom and trade freedom. 
I have unbounded faith in the outcome of this 

Reply of "Sixteen" to Chinese 
Communist Statement on Korea 

Following is a DeparPnient anTWuncement re- 
garding a note transmitted to Chinese Communist 
authorities on April 9 hy the United Kingdom 
Government on behalf of the Governments of the 
countries which have contributed forces to the 
U.N. Command in Korea, together with a letter 
of transmittal of April 10 from U.S. Representa- 
tive Henry Cabot Lodge to the Secretary-General 
of the United Nations and the text of the note. 


Press release 182 dated April 9 

The LTnited States Government, in consultation 
with other governments which contributed forces 
to the United Nations Command in Korea, has 
given careful consideration to the Chinese Com- 
munist statement of February 7^ transmitted 
through the British Charge d'Affaires in Peiping. 
This statement reiterated a north Korean state- 
ment of February 5,^ concerning Korean tmifica- 
tion, and made reference to the holding of elections 
for that purpose. 

Scalion i 

In tie 

lie estib 
raited J 
be ofo 

stated til 

' Not printed. 

Department of Sfafe Bulletin 

Upon concluding their consultations, the gov- 
ernments concerned requested the British Govern- 
ment to inform the Chinese Communist authorities 
of their views, and of their interest in having clari- 
fication of certain points in the Communists' 

In their consultations the governments con- 
cerned reaffirmed that their aim in Korea is to see 
the establishment of a unified, independent, and 
democratic Korea, in accordance with relevant 
United Nations resolutions.^ To this end, as they 
have often stated, they wish to see free elections 
held under United Nations supervision for the 
constitution of a National Assembly. They were 
glad to note that the Communist authorities have 
stated that they also favor free elections, and they 
■welcomed the announcement that Chinese Com- 
munist forces are to be withdrawn from north 

There appears to the governments concerned, 
however, to be some doubt as to the precise inter- 
pretations to be placed on the Communist pro- 
posals. A variety of statements is reported to 
have been made, for example, by north Korean 
representatives in Peiping and Moscow, to the 
effect that the "purpose of supervision by a neutral 
nations organization was to see that all political 
parties and public figures in both north and south 
Korea would have freedom of action, speech, pub- 
lication, assembly, and association," but that "such 
supervision should not intervene in the elections." 
Since these interpretations appear to call for some 
clarification, the governments concerned believe 
that it would be useful to know whether, when the 
north Koreans speak of a "neutral nations organi- 
zation" to supervise the elections, they accept that 
these should be held under United Nations aus- 
pices and that there should be adequate supervision 
not only of the preliminaries but also of the elec- 
tions themselves. They would also be glad to 
know whether it is accepted that representation 
in the new National Assembly shall be in propor- 
tion to the indigenous population. 

The govermnents concerned have asked the 
British Government, in informing the Chinese 
Communist authorities of their views, to state that 

'For statements made in the 12th session of the Gen- 
eral Assembly by Representative Walter H. Judd and the 
test of a U.N. resolution of Nov. 29, 1957, see Bulletin 
of Dec. 16, 1957, p. 966. 

if the Communists will provide clarification of the 
points mentioned with such other details of the 
proposals as may be relevant, they will be given 
careful consideration. 

A copy of the British Government's communi- 
cation is being transmitted to the United Nations. 


U.S. /U.N. press release 2894 dated April 10 

Ambassador Lodge's Letter 

The Representative of the United States to the 
United Nations presents his compliments to the 
Secretary General of the United Nations and has 
the honor to transmit on behalf of the United 
States Government, in its capacity as the Unified 
Command, a copy of the note which the United 
Kingdom Government transmitted to the Chinese 
Communist authorities, on April 9, 1958, on be- 
half of the governments of the countries which 
have contributed forces to the United Nations 
Conunand in Korea. The note of the United 
Kingdom Government was in reply to the Chinese 
Communist statement issued in Peiping on Febru- 
ary 7, 1968, which had been communicated to 
these governments. 

It is requested that this communication and 
the attached copy of the note be circulated to all 
members of the United Nations as a General As- 
sembly document. 

Text of Note 

Her Majesty's Charg6 d'Affaires presents his compli- 
ments to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, on instruc- 
tions from Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for 
Foreign Affairs, has the honour to state that, as requested 
by the Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs on February 7, 
the statement on Korea made on that date by the Govern- 
ment of the People's Republic of China has been com- 
municated to the Governments of the countries which 
have contributed forces for the United Nations force in 
Korea, who, after consultation, have requested Her 
Majesty's Government to reply on their behalf. 

The Governments of the countries which have con- 
tributed forces for the United Nations force in Korea 
have noted the statement made by the North Korean 
authorities on February 5 and that made by the People's 
Republic of China and communicated to Her Britannic 
Majesty's Charge d'Affaires In Peking on February 7. 
They have given careful study to these statements and 
to the proposals made therein. 

The Governments concerned reaflBrm that their aim in 
Korea is to see the establishment of a unified. Independent 

May 5, 7958 


and democratic Korea, in accordance with relevant United 
Nations resolutions. To this end, as they have often 
stated, they wish to see free elections held under United 
Nations supervision for the constitution of a National As- 
sembly. They are glad to note that the North Korean 
authorities and the People's Republic of China also favour 
free elections and they welcome the announcement that 
Chinese forces are to be withdrawn from North Korea. 

There appears, however, to be some doubt as to the 
precise interpretation to be placed on the North Korean 
proposals. A variety of statements is reported to have 
been made, for example, by North Korean representatives 
in Peking and Moscow, to the effect that the "purpose of 
supervision by a neutral nations organization was to see 
that all political parties and public figures in both North 
and South Korea would have freedom of action, speech, 
publication, assembly and association" but that "such 
supervision should not intervene in the elections". These 
interpretations appear to call for some clarification and 
the Governments of the countries concerned would be 
glad to know whether, when the North Korean authori- 
ties speak of a "neutral nations organization" to supervise 
the elections, they accept that these should be held under 
United Nations auspices and that there should be adequate 
supervision not only of the preliminaries but also of the 
elections them-selves. They would also be glad to know 
whether it is accepte<l that representation in the new 
National Assembly shall be in proportion to the indigenous 

If the People's Republic of China will seek from the 
North Korean authorities clarification of the points men- 
tioned above with such other details of the Korean 
proposals as may be relevant, they will be given careful 

A copy of this reply is being transmitted to the United 

Sentences of Japanese Parolees 
Reduced to Time Served 

Press release 176 dated April 7 

The U.S. Government and other governments 
concerned, having considered recommendations of 
the Japanese Government on a case-by-case basis 
and in consultation with each other, have in- 
formed the Japanese Government of their decision 
to reduce to the time served as of April 7, 1958, 
the life sentences imposed by the International 
Military Tribunal for the Far East upon Sadao 
Araki, Shunroku Plata, Naoki Hoshino, Okinori 
Kaya, Koichi Kido, Takasumi Oka, Hiroshi 
Oahima, Kenryo Sato, Shigetaro Shimada, and 
Teiichi Suzuki. All of them had previously been 
released from prison on parole. 

The Japanese Government had made recom- 
mendations, in accordance with the provisions of 

article 11 of the treaty of peace with Japan signed 
at San Francisco on September 8, 1951,^ based on 
the good behavior of the parolees during their 
confinement and while on parole, and based also 
on the fact that all of them are now of advanced ^ ! 

Impact of Mutual Security Program 
on the United States Economy 

hy Deputy Under Secretary Dillon ^ 

It was suggested that I speak on the mutual 
security program, a subject as timely as it is 
important. In the time at my disposal I doubt 
if I could cover the many aspects of this program 
and do justice to any of them. I would prefer 
to discuss certain of our objectives and give you 
some idea of the impact of the mutual security 
progi-am on the economy of the United States. 

This is a subject that falls rather directly into 
my bailiwick. Under a recent reorganization at 
the Department of State I was assigned responsi- 
bility for coordinating the mutual security pro- 
gram with other related foreign policies and pro- 
grams. This coordinating responsibility includes 
the activities of the International Cooperation Ad- 
ministration and the military assistance program 
of the Department of Defense. 

The objective of this newly assigned responsi- 
bility is to insure that our foreign economic policy 
travels in the same direction as our foreign policy. 
As I am sure you gentlemen know, both policies 
have the same goal and that goal is to advance 
the security and well-being of the United States 
and its people. 

In my travels and talks in various parts of the 
country— and in Washington, too — I frequently 
get the impression that people think there is noth- 
ing "mutual" in the mutual security program. 
They seem to feel that we take our national budget, 
decide somewhat arbitrarily that 5 percent of it 
should be allotted to this thing called "foreign 
aid," and that we then hand over this sum of 


' For text, .see BrrrxETiN of Aug. 27, 1S51, p. 349. 

' Address made before the National Security Industrial 
Association at Washington, D. C, on Apr. 10 (press re- 
lease 180 dated Apr. 9). 

Department of State Bulletin 

money for the nations of the free world to spend 
as they see fit— with perhaps a modest amount of 

The exact opposite is the truth of the matter. 
This year we are asking the Congress for $3,942 
billion.^ Of this amount, $2,635 billion is for 
military assistance and defense support. 

The estimates of the needs of the free-world 
nations in building up their defensive strength are 
not supplied by the recipient countries. The 
military estimates are drawn up by the Depart- 
ment of Defense acting through military assist- 
ance advisory groups assigned to the country or 
area. The United States makes the final decision 
of who gets how much in every instance. And we 
control the purse strings and continue to control 
them every step of the way. 

The estimates for teclmical cooperation and the 
other forms of grant assistance are made by 
specialists within the International Cooperation 
Administration, with the help of area and coun- 
try specialists from the Department of State. 
And again let me say — we control the spending. 

The purpose of the mutual security program 
can be simply stated. We seek peaceful progress 
among the entire community of nations. There 
is nothing altruistic about this. Peace is in our 
national self-interest. 

Two Challenges to Peaceful Progress 

We face two challenges to peaceful progress in 
the world we live in. The first of these is the 
military challenge of the Soviet bloc. To meet 
this challenge we have entered into a system of 
defensive alliances with 42 nations of the free 
world. And, as the strongest link in this de- 
fensive chain, we are playing the dominant role 
in building total strength to deter further Com- 
munist expansion. We do not play the dominant 
role from a money or manpower standpoint- 
only in materiel. Since 1950 we have spent ap- 
proximately $20 billion to build the military 
strength of our free-world allies. During this 
same time these allies have spent more than $122 
billion, or better than $6 for every dollar we have 

' For President Eisenhower's message to Congress re- 
questing continuation of the mutual security program, 
see Bulletin of Mar. 10, 1958, p. 367 ; for statements by 
Secretary Dulles and ICA Director James H. Smith, Jr., 
before congressional committees, see ibid., Mar. 17, 1958, 
p. 427 ; Mar. 31, 1958, p. 527 ; and Apr. 14, 1958, p. 622. 

May 5, J 958 

spent. Their contribution in manpower comes 
to more than 3i/^ million men under arms, a total 
considerably larger than the entire armed forces 
of the United States. 

The second challenge we face in striving for 
peaceful progress is an economic one. Since 
World War II, 20 new nations have come into 
being. These 20 nations have about 750 million 
people. They total nearly one-third of the 
world's population. Each of these nations has 
emerged from years, sometimes centuries, of 
colonial status. Each has had a close, intimate, 
personal relationship with disease, ignorance, and 

The United States has been trying to help the 
peoples of the less developed nations since the 
end of World War II. During Joseph Stalin's 
lifetime Russia showed not the slightest interest 
in the hopes and aspirations of these peoples. 
But since Stalin's death in 1953 the Soviet Union 
has "discovered" the existence of the 750 million 
people in these 20 nations. Instead of bluster, 
bullying, and bullets the Communists have turned 
to blandishments in an effort to win the newly 
independent countries. In some places they have 
made considerable headway. 

The Communists are mounting this offensive 
with tlie same zeal, the same determination, and 
the same disregard for truth that seem to char- 
acterize their actions. They tell the less developed 
nations that our democracy is a "freak," a "phony." 
They don't tell them that 6 percent of the world's 
peoples living under this democracy produce 40 
percent of the world's goods. As Winston 
Churchill might say, "Some freak, some phony !" 
This economic cold war between the Soviet Un- 
ion and the United States is waxing warm. They 
have wooed the less developed nations with $1.6 
billion in loans and grants during the past 3 years 
with the obvious purpose of leading them away 
from the free world and into the Soviet camp.* 
We cannot lose this cold war without gravely en- 
dangering our national security. The challenge is 
fully as important as the military challenge. If 
these new nations slip one by one into the Soviet 
orbit, we will become beleaguered, encircled, and 
finally strangled. It is certain that our standard 
of living will change radically if the immense raw- 

' For a statement by Mr. Dillon on Soviet-bloc economic 
activities, see iMd., Mar. 24, 1958, p. 469. 


material resources of the Middle East and Far 
East are denied us. It is certain, too, that the 
Soviet Union does not intend to figlit this eco- 
nomic war according to any Marquis of Queens- 
berry rules. 

Our chief reliance in this economic competition 
is on the Development Loan Fund, through which 
we can lend mutual security funds to the newly 
developing countries for projects that will help 
them along on the road toward industrial de- 
velopment. These loans can be made on an attrac- 
tive basis, often repayable in local currency, and 
they fill a need which cannot be met by other loan- 
ing agencies such as the Export-Import Bank and 
the World Bank. We are asking $625 million for 
this project. Without these funds we would be 
entering the ring against the Soviets with one hand 
tied behind our backs. 

Most people in America today appear to have 
given up on the 19th-century concept that the At- 
lantic and Pacific Oceans constitute a heaven-sent 
protection from attack. In the world we live in, 
Chicago is 6i^ hours from Moscow by bomber, 
and Washington, D. C, may well be 6i/^ minutes 
from a missile fired by submarine. 

Today we understand that tliere is an interde- 
pendence of nations. Space weapons make dis- 
tant peoples our neighbors. The theory of dis- 
persal of men and bases and the need for strong 
allies seem readily apparent. And these are the 
goals of the mutual security program. 

Now some of you may feel that the mutual se- 
curity program is well worth while but hardly 
the kind of activity we should be indulging in 
when 5.2 million Americans are reported to be 
looking for work. 

This program involves the security of the 
United States, directly and indirectly, now and 
for the future. We are not now and must never 
be in the position of being unable to afford our 
own security. The entire mutual security pro- 
gram costs each of us the equivalent of an airmail 
stamp a day; and I might point out that the 
$3.9 billion for this year's program is about one- 
fourth of what we spend each year for liquor and 

If anybody thinks the mutual security program 
is a "do good" charitable proposition, they might 
be interested in what General Nathan Twining, 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has to say 
about it : 


The cold facts of the matter are that the security of the 
United States depends upon our collective security sys- 
tem, which, in turn, depends upon our military assistance 
program. There may be some alternative to collective 
security and military assistance. Alaybe those who make 
the broad charge that all money spent in this area goes 
down the rathole know what the alternative is, but so far 
no responsible military man has been able to think of it. 

A Plank in the Antirecession Drive 

But, aside from the security aspects of the mat- 
ter, the mutual security program can be considered 
a very strong plank in the antirecession drive. 
According to Mr. [Mansfield D.] Sprague, As- 
sistant Secretary of Defense, approximately 85 
cents of every dollar spent under the military as- 
sistance program will be spent right here in the 
United States. We estimate that between 75 and 
80 cents of every dollar of mutual security funds 
will be used to buy the products of American farms 
and factories. And practically all the rest of the 
money will sooner or later return to bolster our 

I would like to use a few dollars-and-cents fig- 
vtres to give you an idea of just what this program 
means to the industry of the United States and to 
our entire economy. Here are some of our pur- 
chases in 1 year in the United States. 

Machinery and equipment 

Iron and steel 

Bread grains 




Motor vehicles 

$70 million 
$35 million 
$94 million 
$84 million 
$25 million 
$35 million 
$20 million 
$20 million 

— and listen to this one — 

Military equipment $1,443 billion 

Now, I don't need to point out to this group that 
this $1,443 billion for military equipment fans out 
to hundreds of subcontractors and suppliers in 
every walk of American life. A recent non-Gov- 
ernment witness before Congress stated that, in 
his opinion, 1 million jobs were directly or indi- 
rectly due to the mutual security program. Those 
of us directly connected with this program have 
never used a figure higher than 600,000 jobs. But 
whichever figure you prefer is very sizable; and 
this hardly seems to be the time to put any of 
these workers into the job pool. 

In addition to the direct purchases which I 
have mentioned is the tidy simi of $58 million 
which was paid last year to U.S. flag exporters to 

Department of State Bulletin 

( any the goods of the mutual security program to 
tlie nations of the free world. 

Let me make it clear that we are not trying to 
buy friends luider the mutual security program. 
We are not trying to give everyone our American 
standard of living. We are trying to build 
strong allies, allies whose strength combined with 
ours will deter aggression in any part of the 
world. We are trying to help the peoples of Asia, 
Africa, and Latin America to achieve a decent 
standard of living. 

It is in our own national self-interest to get 
these hundreds of millions of people into the mar- 
ket place of the world, where they can buy the 
goods of the world's largest trader — America. 
This program to improve the buying power of 
one-third of the world's population should appeal 
to every businessman. 

A Tough Foe and a Tough Battle 

This economic war with Eussia is a challenge 
to you as businessmen. We are the world's larg- 
est exporter and the world's largest importer. 
We have the highest standard of living in the his- 
tory of the world, and we are unquestionably the 
world's most privileged people. 

We are being challenged in a field where we are 
the defending champion. We are being chal- 
lenged by a nation whose own standard of living 
is lower than that of some of the countries she 
rules. We are being challenged by a nation 
whose per capita income is $308 as compared to 
our per capita income of nearly $2,500. 

But we are also being challenged by the nation 
with the second highest gross national product in 
the world. And Soviet industrial strength is 
growing at a rate of 10 percent a year versus our 
own growth of 4 percent. We are being chal- 
lenged by the nation with the largest standing 
peacetime army and the largest fleet of subma- 
rines in the history of the world. We are being 
challenged by a godless nation that has never dis- 
avowed its objective of world domination. 

In 1924 Lenin said: "First we will take East- 
ern Europe, next the masses of Asia, and finally 
we will encircle the last bastion of capitalism — 
the United States. We shall not have to attack 
it; it will fall like overripe fruit into our hands." 

There is the blueprint, and the Soviets have ac- 
complished the first objective — the seizure of 

Eastern Europe. We face a tough foe and a 
tough battle. 

AVe cannot afford to be complacent about our 
own security. And we cannot afford to be indif- 
ferent to the needs of our allies. We must wage 
this economic war with all our resources, both hu- 
man and material. We must fight with all the 
ingenuity that our inventors and scientists and 
businessmen can command. As President Eisen- 
hower has said, we must "wage total peace" to 
beat the Soviets at their game of "total cold war." 

I urge you to join and support this Nation's 
effort to achieve peaceful progress through the 
mutual security program. 

President Approves Duty-Free Entry 
of Automobiles for Sliow Purposes 

Statement hy President Eisenhower 

White House press release dated April 16 

I have today [April IGJ approved H.E. 776, 
"To permit temjiorary free importation of auto- 
mobiles and parts of automobiles when intended 
solely for show purposes," in the interest of mak- 
ing the privileges it grants available at the earliest 
date and because I believe that increasing the op- 
portmiities for the display of foreign products 
would be of benefit to the United States. 

I wish, however, to call attention to the fact 
that the measure makes the allowance of reciprocal 
privileges by a foreign nation a condition to the 
granting of the benefits of the bill to that nation 
by the United States. In this respect it is incon- 
sistent with our obligation to accord miconditional 
most-favored-nation treatment with respect to 
customs duties to a great many countries of the 
world. This obligation is contained in most of 
our treaties of friendship, conamerce and naviga- 
tion and trade agreements. If we grant the 
privilege of temporary duty-free importation to 
automobiles from any country, we are, therefore, 
obligated to grant identical treatment to many 
other countries, whether or not they permit tem- 
porary duty-free importation of automobiles from 
the United States. 

I therefore urge that the Congress give con- 
sideration to the early enactment of legislation 
amending H.E. 776 to eliminate the reciprocal 
privilege requirement. 

May 5, J 958 



Sharing Nuclear Knowledge With Our NATO Allies 

Statement hy Secretary Dulles ^ 

I welcome the opportunity to testify here to the 
importance of the proposed amendments of the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954. These amendments 
are indispensable, both to our collective security 
policies and to our disarmament policies. 

I shall direct myself primarily to these two 
aspects of the matter. 


United States defensive policy is one of col- 
lective defense. This is authorized by the United 
Nations Charter, and it is, indeed, necessary to 
our national safety. We have collective defense 
arrangements with many nations. The most 
highly developed military organization is under 
the North Atlantic Treaty. Its protection of the 
vital European area depends upon two compo- 
nents. One is the deterrent of our strategic strik- 
ing power. The other is the "shield" of NATO 
forces in the area. 

During recent years primai-y stress has been 
placed upon the deterrent of retaliatory striking 
power, with less emphasis accorded the shield. 
There were two reasons for this. The decisive 
superiority of the United States in the field of 
nuclear weapons made our strategic deterrent 
highly effective. Also a "shield" of conventional 
forces could not indefinitely match the much 
greater conventional forces that could be amassed 
by the Sino-Soviet bloc. 

However, that situation is now changing. The 
Soviet Union itself possesses a large nuclear strik- 

Made before the Subcommittee on Agreements for 
Cooperation of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy 
on Apr. 17 (press release 199) in connection with S. 3474 
and H. R. 11426 (amendments to the Atomic Energy Act 
of 1954). For a statement by Deputy Under Secretary 
Murphy before the subcommittee on Jan. 31, see Bul- 
letin of Feb. 24, 1958, p. 312. 

ing power. Also, new ways are being found by 
our scientists whereby nuclear power can increas- 
ingly be used in smaller tactical weapons. 
Through such weapons we and our allies can 
obtain an additional direct deterrent to Soviet 
attack upon European territory. This latter de- 
velopment was expounded by the President and 
myself at the NATO meeting of last December ^ 
as opening up new possibilities of strengthening 
the "shield" component of our military efforts. 

However, as nuclear weapons acquire more and 
more tactical significance and can enhance the 
capabilities of the "shield," there is increasing 
need for a broader sharing of nuclear knowledge 
with our allies. Only thus will it be possible for 
them to participate, to a significant degree, in 
the development of defensive planning and their 
own defense should they be attacked. 

In our opinion it is not necessary for the United 
States, in peacetime, to deliver to the national 
control of our NATO allies complete nuclear 
weapons or the nuclear components of these weap- 
ons, and we are not proposing that course. We 
do believe that it is necessary for the United States 
to maintain in Europe nuclear warheads deployed 
under United States custody in accordance with 
NATO defensive planning and subject to release, 
under Presidential authority, and use by the ap- 
propriate NATO Supreme Allied Commander in 
the event of hostilities. This assumes the existence 
of nuclear-capable NATO forces. NATO has 
been doing its part toward building up such forces. 
Our part is to give them knowledge so that these 
forces could, in war, be operational. 

As the President and I pointed out in Paris, 
there cannot be these nuclear-capable NATO 
forces or the necessary military planning without 
supplying our NATO allies with more nuclear 

- IhUl., Jan. 6, 

p. 3. 


Department of Sfate Bulletin 

know-how than is possible under the present law. 
So we said in Paris : 

Another ingredient of an effective NATO nuclear force 
she mid be a common body of knowledge about nuclear 
weapons and military doctrine for their employment to 
permit their confident and responsible use. 

We believe that our NATO allies should share more 
information as to military nuclear matters. Broader 
understanding is needed as to the weapons themselves, 
their effects, and the present and prospective state of 
this still new military science. The legislative changes 
we are proposing to the United States Congress would 
permit the exchanges of information needed to accom- 
plish this. 

The NATO Heads of Government unanimously 
agreed with our "stockpile" proposal and decided 
to proceed with NATO defense planning and 
training on this basis. 

Let me point out that, unless our Government is 
able to share its nuclear knowledge more fully 
with our allies, grave consequences may result. 
Our NATO allies may either intensively seek to 
develop nuclear weapons capacity for themselves 
or move toward neutrality, or at least nonpar- 
ticipation, in what should be a common military 
effort. The first alternative would divert the ef- 
forts of our allies into a needless and costly dupli- 
cation of what we have already achieved. The 
second alternative of neutrality or nonparticipa- 
tion would place a far greater burden on the 
United States and radically alter the power 
balance with serious damage to our vital security 

Let me repeat. United States policy does not 
seek to spread nuclear weapons around the world 
beyond United States control. 

"What United States policy seeks, and what these 
amendments would permit, are : 

Common defense planning in NATO, which can 
take place only if the Allied Commanders know 
the effective use of nuclear weapons and the ca- 
pabilities of the Soviet Union which may have 
to be met ; 

Adequate training of NATO allied forces so 
that in the event of hostilities those forces could 
effectively use nuclear weapons ; 

The making available to our allies of nuclear 
reactors which can be used for the propulsion of 
naval craft ; and 

In the case of an ally which already has a nu- 
clear weapons capability, the exchange of nuclear- 
weapons information and the provision of 
materials for the making of nuclear weapons. 

May 5, 7958 


A special element of our collective security 
policy is our relationship with the United King- 
dom. Great Britain now has a considerable nu- 
clear weapons capability, and it is just common 
sense for us to be able to exchange weapons in- 
fomiation and provide materials where it is to 
the mutual advantage. We can thus avoid waste- 
ful duplication and make the most efficient use of 
the conunon resources of the alliance. This co- 
operation with the United Kingdom in military 
technology would not be a one-way street. The 
scientists and engineers of the United Kingdom 
have made outstanding contributions to the weap- 
ons used by the forces of the United States and 
the free world in such fields as jet engines, radar, 
and aircraft-carrier design. Even though their 
nuclear weapons program is of smaller dimensions 
than our own, we can be confident that their scien- 
tists will make important contributions to a co- 
operative effort. 

The Soviet Union now knows the secrets of 
nuclear weapons design. Nevertheless, for years 
the United Kingdom has been forced to follow the 
sterile course of reworking ground already covered 
by the United States and known to the Soviet 
Union. It is time to reinstate a more fruitful 
United States-United Kingdom nuclear weapons 
collaboration within the framework of expanding 
nuclear cooperation with other NATO allies wliich 
can create nuclear-capable forces and can help- 
fully participate in planning a modern defense of 
their territories. 


I now turn to the bearing of the pre 
amendments upon our disarmament or, to be more 
accurate, "limitations of armaments" policies. 

I understand that concern has been expressed lest 
these amendments would promote the spread of 
nuclear weapons throughout the world, thus mak- 
ing it more difficult to set up international controls 
and perhaps bringing nuclear weapons into the 
hands of those who might perhaps use them ir- 

I have in the past expressed emphatically our 
deep concern that there should not be a promiscu- 
ous spread of nuclear weapons. We do not want 
such weapons to get into the hands of irresponsible 
dictators and become possible instruments of inter- 
national blackmail. An ever-present threat of 


that character would make the world a grim place 
in which to live. 

We would delude ourselves, however, if we con- 
cluded that this somber development could be pre- 
vented, or even retarded, by rejecting these amend- 
ments of the Atomic Energy Act. Materials 
needed to make nuclear weapons are becoming in- 
creasingly available as nuclear power plants are 
built. The knowledge needed to turn these ma- 
terials into weapons has been independently at- 
tained by three countries, and the scientists of 
many other countries have the skills to enable them 
to do the same. The only effective preventive is 
that the development of nuclear weapons should 
be brought under international control. 

There is today understandable resistance on the 
part of otlier free-world countries to an inter- 
national agreement which would have the effect, 
if not the purpose, of perpetuating for all time 
their present nuclear-weapons inferiority without 
the mitigation which would be made possible by 
these amendments. Other free nations would un- 
derstandably find it difficult to accept that result, 
and the United States does not want to seem to be 
seeking to impose it. 

The situation is altered if the United States can 
and will deploy nuclear weapons for common de- 
fensive use in case of armed aggression and share 
knowledge which will make our allies partners in 
this endeavor. Failure to do this will create re- 
sistance, perhaps insuperable resistance, to the 
international control needed to prevent, over com- 
ing yeai-s, the promiscuous spreading and possible 
irresponsible use of nuclear weapons. 

There is another thought which I would like to 
express in this connection. The Soviet Union is 
making extreme efforts to bring it about that the 
free-world nations of the Eurasian continent will 
be limited to conventional weapons as against the 
nuclear weapons capability of the Soviet Union. 
If it can succeed in this effort, it will have already 
achieved a one-sided disarmament which involves 
no controls or limitations whatever on the Soviet 
Union but only limitation upon the neighboring 
nations of the Eurasian continent. Under these 
circumstances there will be much less incentive for 
the Soviet Union to seek a balanced limitation of 

On this point the NATO communique of last 
December ^ had this to say : 

'Ibid., p. 12. 

The Soviet leaders, while preventing a general dis- 
armament agreement, have made it clear that the most 
modern and destructive weapons, including missiles of 
all kinds, are being introduced in the Soviet armed forces. 
In the Soviet view, all European nations except the 
U.S.S.R. should, without waiting for general disarmament, 
renounce nuclear weapons and missiles and rely on arms 
of the pre-atomic age. 

As long as the Soviet Union persists in this attitude, 
we have no alternative but to remain vigilant and to look 
to our defences. We are therefore resolved to achieve 
the most effective pattern of NATO military defensive 
strength, taking into account the most recent develop- 
ments in weapons and techniques. 

To this end, NATO has decided to establish stocks of 
nuclear warheads, which will be readily available for 
the defence of the Alliance in case of need. 

To realize this concept requires the amendments 
now proposed to this act. Not thus to amend the 
act would in effect make the United States a part- 
ner with the Soviet Union in imposing on our 
NATO allies such an incapacity to use nuclear tac- 
tical weapons that Soviet dominance over Western 
Europe would be largely achieved and little in- 
centive would be left for the Soviet Union to limit 
its own armament. And our NATO allies will not 
feel the strength and confidence needed to pursue 
vigorous anti-Communist policies if they feel that 
they are dominated by a Soviet nuclear weapons 
capability and that we will not share our nuclear 
capability with them, even to the modest extent 
required to enable them to share in the planning 
of a nuclear defense and make them capable 
of using nuclear weapons received from us if 
hostilities should occur. 

On the other hand, if these amendments are 
enacted, we will not have disarmed our allies and 
the Soviet Union will have an incentive, otherwise 
lacking, to achieve balanced and multilateral limi- 
tation of armament. 


In conclusion, I urge most strongly that this 
committee should recommend to the Congress the 
adoption of the proposed amendments to the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954. 

It will enable us to build up what otherwise may 
become a disintegrating collective-defense effort. 

It will make our allies more willing to accejit 
and the Soviet Union more willing to grant a 
balanced program of disarmament with control of 
nuclear-weapons testing and nuclear-weapons 

Departmsnt of Sfate Bulletin 


Calendar of International Conferences and Meetings 

Adjourned During April 1958 

U.N. ECOSOC Commission on Human Rights: 14th Session .... 

U.N. Preparatory Committee on the Special Fund 

U.N. ECOSOC Commission on the Status of Women: 12th Session . . 
U.N. ECAFE/FAO Working Party on Food and Agricultural Price 

UNESCO Intergovernmental Advisory Committee for the Major 

Project on the Extension of Primary Education in Latin America: 

2d Meeting. 

U.N. ECLA Committee of the Whole: 6th Session 

WMORegional Association V (Southwest Pacific): 2d Session . . . . 

U.N. Economic Commission for Europe: 13th Session 

2d Conference on Home Economics in the Countries Served by the 

Caribbean Commission. 

2d FAO Technical Meeting on Control of Sunn Pest 

ILO Textiles Committee: 6th Session 

GATT Intersessional Committee 

FAO European Commission on Foot and Mouth Disease 

International Sugar Council: Executive Committee 

FAO Joint Subcommission on Mediterranean Forestry Problems . . . 

International Sugar Council: Statistical Committee 

International Sugar Council: 15th Session 

InlSession as ofSApril 30, 1958 

GATT Tariff Negotiations With Brazil 

U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea 

U.N. Committee on Information from Non-Self-Governing Terri- 
tories: 9th Session. 

U.N. Economic and Social Council: 25th Session 

Brussels Universal and International Exhibition of 1958 

ITU Administrative Council: 13th Session 

UNESCO Executive Board: 50th Session 

4th FAO Conference on Mechanical Wood Technology 

IAEA Board of Governors 

Pan American Highway Congresses: 3d Meeting of Permanent 
Executive Committee. 

U.N. ECOSOC Statistical Commission: 10th Session 

U.N. ECOSOC Commission on Narcotic Drugs: 13th Session . . . 

ILO International Labor Conference: 41st (Maritime) Session . . . 

WMO Executive Committee: 10th Session 

Scheduled May 1-July 31, 1958 

11th International Cannes Film Festival 

NATO: Ministerial Session of the Council 

U.N. Trusteeship Council: Standing Committee on Petitions . . . 

New York Mar. 10-Apr. 4 

New York Mar. 11- Apr. 4 

Geneva Mar. 17- Apr. 4 

New Delhi Mar. 21-Apr. 3 

Panamd Mar. 2&-Apr. 2 

Santiago Apr. 7-9 

Manila Apr. 7-19 

Geneva Apr. 9-25 

Trinidad, B. W. I Apr. 10-18 

Tehran Apr. 14-23 

Geneva Apr. 14-25 

Geneva Apr. 14-28 

Rome Apr. 17-18 

London Apr. 17 (1 day) 

Madrid Apr. 17-21 

London Apr. 21 (1 day) 

London Apr. 22-25 

Geneva Feb. 14- 

Geneva Feb. 24- 

New York Apr. 14- 

New York Apr. 15- 

Brussels Apr. 17- 

Geneva Apr. 21- 

Paris Apr. 21- 

Madrid Apr. 22- 

Vienna Apr. 24- 

Washington Apr. 25- 

New York Apr. 28- 

Geneva Apr. 28- 

Geneva Apr. 29- 

Geneva Apr. 29- 

Cannes May 2- 

Copenhagen May 5- 

New York May 6- 

1 Prepared in the OflSce of International Conferences, Apr. 16, 1958. Asterisks indicate tentative dates. Following 
is a list of abbreviations: CCEP, Commission consultative des etudes postales; CCIR, Comity consultatif international 
des radiocommunications; CCITT, Comity consultatif international t616graphique et t616phonique; ECAFE, Economic 
Commission for Asia and the Far East; ECE, Economic Commission for Europe; ECLA, Economic Commission for Latin 
America; ECOSOC, Economic and Social Council; FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization; GATT, General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade; IAEA, International Atomic Energy Agency; IBE, International Bureau of Education; ICAO, 
International Civil Aviation Organization; ICEM, Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration; ILO, Inter- 
national Labor Organization; ITU, International Telecommunication Union; NATO, North Atlantic Treaty Organiza- 
tion; U. N., United Nations; UNESCO, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; UNREF, 
United Nations Refugee Fund; UPU, Univer.sal Postal Union; WHO, World Health Organization; WMO, World Mete- 
orological Organization. 

May 5, 7958 

Calendar of International Conferences and Meetings — Continued 

Scheduled May 1-July 31, 1958— Continued 

U.N. Advisory Committee on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy . . . 

ICEM Council: 8th Session 

FAO Cocoa Group: 3d Session 

ITU International Telephone and Telegraph Consultative Committee 
(CCITT) : Study Group VIII Working Party. 

UPU Consultative Commission on Postal Matters (CCEP) : 1st Meet- 
ing of Administrative Council. 

U.N. ECE Electric Power Committee 

ICAO Assembly: 11th (Limited) Session 

U.N. Conference on International Commercial Arbitration 

nth World Health Assembly 

U.N. ECE Ad Hoc Working Party on Gas Problems: 4th Session . 

ITU International Radio Consultative Committee (CCIR): Study 
Group XI (Television). 

UNES(50 Special Intergovernmental Committee on the Preparation 
of a New Convention for the International Exchange of Publications. 

International Cotton Advisory Committee: 17th Plenary Meeting . . 

FAO Group on Grains: 3d Session 

Inter-American Juridical Committee 

International Labor Conference: 42d Session 

12th International Ornithological Congress 

U.N. ECE Steel Committee and Working Parties 

International Commission for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries: 8th 

International Rubber Study Group: 14th Meeting 

U.N. Trusteeship Council: 22d Session 

U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation: 5th 

FAO Desert Locust Control Committee: 5th Session 

IAEA Board of Governors 

5th International Electronic Nuclear Energy Exhibition and Con- 

FAO Desert Locust Control Technical Advisory Committee: 8th 

WHO Executive Board: 22d Session 

U.N. ECE Housing Committee: 16th Session 

6th Inter- American Seminar on Overall Planning for Education . . . 

U.N. ECE Coal Trade Subcommittee 

International Whaling Commission: 10th Meeting 

International Wheat Council: 24th Session 

ILO Governing Body: 139th Session 

8th Berlin Film Festival 

GATT Balance-of-Payments Consultations 

U.N. ECOSOC Technical Assistance Committee 

UNREF Executive Committee: 8th Session 

UNREF Standing Program Subcommittee: 7th Session 

International Tonnage Measurements Experts: 6th Meeting .... 

U.N. Committee on South-West Africa: 6th Session 

U.N. Economic and Social Council: 26th Session 

ICAO Airworthiness Committee: 2d Meeting 

Joint UNESCO/IBE International Conference on Public Education: 
21st Session. 

U.N. ECAFE Working Party on Coordination of Transport 

Inter- American Technical Committee on Cacao: 7th Meeting 

15th International Congress of Zoology 

International Union of Architects: 5th Congress 

South Pacific Commission: Technical Conference on Cooperatives 

4th FAO Inter-American Meeting on •Livestock Production 

Interparliamentary Union: 47th Conference 

Baghdad Pact Ministerial Council: 5th Meeting 

U.N. ECAFE Seminar on Regional Planning in Relationship t( 
Urbanization and Industrialization. 

Ad Hoc Committee for the Revision of the Agreement for Establish 
ment of the Caribbean Commission. 

Inter-American Child Institute: Directing Council 

International Union of Biological Sciences: 13th General Assembly . 

Geneva May 7- 

Geneva May 7- 

Hamburg May 16- 

Warsaw May 19- 

Brussels May 19- 

Geneva May 19- 

Montreal May 20- 

New York May 20- 

Minneapolis May 26- 

Geneva May 28- 

Moscow May 28- 

Brussels May 28- 

London June 2- 

Rome June 2- 

Rio de Janeiro June 2- 

Geneva June 4- 

Helsinki June 5- 

Geneva June 9- 

Halifax, Nova Scotia .... June 9- 

Hamburg June 9- 

New York June 9- 

New York June 9- 

Rome June 10- 

Vienna June 16- 

Rome June 16- 

Rome June 16- 

Minneapolis June 16- 

Geneva June 16- 

Washington June 23- 

Geneva June 23- 

The Hague June 23- 

London June 25- 

Geneva June 26- 

Berlin June 27- 

Geneva June 

Geneva June 

Geneva June* 

Geneva June 

Hamburg June* 

New York July 1- 

Geneva July 1- 

Montreal July 3- 

Geneva July 7- 

Bangkok July 8- 

Palmira, Colombia .... July 13- 

London July 16- 

Moscow July 20- 

Port Moresby, New Guinea . July 21- 

Jamaica July 22- 

Rio de Janeiro July 24- 

London July 28- 

Tokyo July 28- 

Trinidad, B. W. I July 

Montevideo July 

London July* 


Department of State Bulletin "ti 

U.S. Supports Special Fund 
for Economic Development 

Statement hy Chnsto-pher H. Phillips ^ 

I should like to take this occasion briefly to em- 
phasize one or two points which are basic to my 
delegation's approach to the task before this com- 
.nittee. Let me make it clear that this is not in- 
tciided to be an exposition of our detailed views 
on the organization and operation of the Special 
Fund. I shall discuss our thinking in these re- 
spects during our reading of the views and sug- 
gestions presented by the Secretary-General.^ 

At the General Assembly my Government was 
convinced that the United Nations had before it 
a realistic opportunity to embark on new impor- 
tant action to assist the less developed countries by 
making available technical aid of a kind not pos- 
sible under the Expanded Program of Technical 
Assistance. To this end the United States delega- 
tion proposed, and the General Assembly voted 
unanimously for, the establishment of a Special 
Fund.^ My Government continues to be firmly 
convinced that, with the full support of all mem- 
bers of the United Nations, the Special Fund can 
and will make a significant contribution to the 
economic development of the less developed 

In order to do so, however, it must be able to de- 
vote its resources to projects of considerable scope 
or depth, perhaps involving financial commit- 
ments by the fund over rather long periods of time 
and perhaps involving relatively large amounts 
of supplies and equipment. One of the important 
results of such concentrated effort by the Special 
Fund would be, we are convinced, to facilitate 
new capital investment of all types — private and 
public, national and international^ — by creating 
conditions in the underdeveloped countries which 
would make such investment either feasible or 
more effective, thereby helping to increase the flow 
of capital resources to the underdeveloped coun- 
tries, the basic need for which we all recognize. 

' Made in the U.N. Committee for the Special Fund on 
Mar. 12 (U.S./U.N. press release 2884). Mr. Phillips is 
U.S. Representative on the committee. 

" According to a committee decision, remarlss other 
than the opening statements will not be made public. 

" Bulletin of Jan. 13, 1958, p. 71. 

Aloy 5, J 958 

If we are to avoid scattering the Special Fund's 
resources over a multitude of small projects, it will 
be necessary to avoid such procedures, which have 
become integral aspects of the Expanded Program 
of Technical Assistance, as country programing 
and allocations to participating agencies. This 
is why the United States agreed at the General 
Assembly that the Special Fund, though an ex- 
tension of present United Nations activities, 
should be separate and distinct from the Expanded 
Technical Assistance Program. This continues 
to be the position of my delegation, and, as I have 
indicated, I shall discuss how we feel this might 
be accomplished when the committee gets into 
detailed discussion of the organization and opera- 
tions of the Special Fund. 

General Assembly Resolution 1219 spoke of the 
possibility of having available for total United 
Nations technical assistance activities the sum of 
$100 million. This is the target which my Gov- 
ernment has utilized in taking steps to assure 
that the United States will be in a position to con- 
tribute its share of this intensified effort to spur 
economic development. My Government sin- 
cerely hopes that the figure of $100 million will 
quickly be converted from a target figure into re- 
sources actually available to assist the underde- 
veloped countries. It has, therefore, requested the 
Congress for an authorization of $38 million as a 
United States contribution toward a combined 
1959 program of $100 million. Such a contribu- 
tion is, of course, subject to congressional approval, 
and any United States contribution will be subject 
to the percentage limitation provided for by law. 

Speaking to the press on December 16 on the 
accomplishment of the last General Assembly, the 
Secretary-General stated : 

I would highlight, first of all, the Special Projects Fund 
decision which opens new possibilities for the development 
of economic assistance. ... I, of course, regard this as 
a major achievement. I may remind you of the fact that 
the United States representative, in commenting upon it, 
used the word "milestone," which is a very strong word, 
and I for one would agree with him. 

Mr. Chairman, my delegation will do its best 
in cooperation with other members of this com- 
mittee to help translate the General Assembly 
resolution into the kind of concrete action which 
we believe will pay great dividends in terms 
of the economic development of underdeveloped 


Developments in Trust Territory 
of Tanganyil<a 

Statement hy Mason Sears 

U.S. Representative on the Trusteeship Council ' 

Because of Great Britain's outstanding success 
in transforming its former empire into a common- 
wealth of free and independent nations, it is hard 
to understand how there could be any doubt in 
Tanganyika about its own political future. But 
apparently there is. 

The Visiting Mission reports that among polit- 
ically conscious Africans there is still an expression 
of fear about the future. Obviously they do not 
like the present multiracial system in the Legisla- 
tive Council because it gives the small immigrant 
minorities, representing less than 2 percent of the 
population, 66 percent of the elected members. 
According to the Visiting Mission there are some 
Africans who fear this may become a permanent 
feature of the constitution. Under the Trusteeship 
Agreement, however, it would be absolutely im- 
possible. No final constitution can be proposed for 
Tanganyika by Great Britain without consulting 
the freely expressed wishes of the people, and this 
must be done in a manner which can be approved 
by the United Nations itself. 

The United States delegation appreciates that 
the Administering Authority has made many 
helpful declarations on this subject. Nevertheless 
it is to be hoped that the Government will make 
further and continuous efforts to correct this un- 
necessary misimderstanding and promote political 

Can anyone doubt that Tanganyika is and al- 
ways will be overwhelmingly African and under 
international agreement must be developed along 
democratic lines — which means primarily as an 
African state? 

It is true that the forthcoming elections for the 
Legislative Council will be held on the present 
multiracial basis. But this is only a transitional 
stage in progress toward the kind of one-man, one- 
vote system which is found in Great Britain and 
in many other independent nations. 

In any case, the Administering Authority has 
announced that a committee to recommend revi- 

sions of the constitution will be appointed in IQSS' 
and will review the parity system. It is hoped that 

^Made before the Trusteeship Council on Mar. 11 
(U.S./U.N. press release 2882). 


this committee will propose such adjustments in worli 

the voting procedure as will provide the African 
population with a more proportionate representa- 

In addition, the United States delegation hopes 
that it will recommend steps which will lead to- 
ward the goal of universal suffrage with the leastl 
possible delay. 

We have also been much interested in the worki 
which has been done to promote the organization 
of town and district councils. It was encouragingi pjtiw 
to learn that the administration desires to se& 
these local councils established as rapidly as pos- 
sible in all districts of Tanganyika. Now that 
the process has begun, it may well have a snow- 
balling effect upon the way it spreads throughout 
the Territory. 

Considering the Territory as a whole the United! 
States delegation does not wish to emphasize the 
speed or direction of the political growth ofl 
Tanganyika so much as the smootliness of its 
progress. The direction, of course, is toward 
self-government, as is mandatory under the 
charter. The speed of progress, however, will, ini 
the last analysis, be inci'easingly subjected to con- 
tinental as well as territorial influences. But th« 
smoothness of the operation will depend on racial 
good will and upon the ability of all sides to fore- 
see and prepare for the human adjustments whichi 
must be made if the trusteeship is to end ini 

Mr. Lennox-Boyd, the Colonial Secretary fori 
Great Britain, put his finger on this problem last 
June in the House of Commons. He stated that 

the » 

Btnt ii 
learn ol 

a Mil 

ices liai 

store fi 
cans an 
tlieir ii 

tions tc 
of \k 


refer tc 

. . . just as the Africans are faced with tremendous T 
problems of mental and spiritual adjustment when- 
plunged into western education and the modern world 
simultaneously, so the members of the more advanced ■ 
races in Africa are also faced with tremendous problemsl jias sa 
of adjustment as more and more educated Africans begin! „f j 
to emerge. There is very real danger that not enough! 
members of the advanced races will make this adjust- 
ment quickly enough, and that the resentments that this 
will cause will encourage a growing tendency toward 
racialism from the other side. This is a very real danger 
which we should be imprudent to ignore. 

If the necessary adjustments cannot be effec- 
tively made, all communities in Tanganyika will 
be the losers. The advancement of living stand- 
ards and the place of Tanganyika m a free so- 

Deparfmenf of State Bulletin 


ciety would be seriously endangered without 
financial and technical support from the outside 
world. On the other hand, the contribution of 
the outside world to the development of Tan- 
ganyika would be rapidly destroyed without 
African support. 

Obviously the progress of economic develop- 
ment in the Territory is essential to its ultimate 
political freedom. It is therefore encouraging to 
learn of the many satisfactory developments dur- 
ing the past year. 

More and more Africans appear to be partici- 
pating in the marketing of primary produce and 
in retail trade. African cooperatives have shown 
a remarkable increase and continue to be success- 
fully managed. Expenditures for economic serv- 
ices have been increasing for a number of years. 
The Administering Authority and the African 
population should be commended for all of these 
things. They are laying the basis for an ever 
stronger and more educated Tanganyika. 

Mr. President, tremendous developments are in 
store for Africa during the period immediately 
ahead. In this period perhaps 60 million Afri- 
cans are likely to become citizens of free and inde- 
pendent countries. These developments will have 
their inevitable impact on Tanganyika. 

But, considering the skill which the British 
Government has shown in helping so many na- 
tions to become independent, there should not be 
the slightest doubt about the ability and the desire 
of the Administering Authority to meet every 
new situation in a realistic way and to put it to 
the best advantage of Tanganyika. 

Mr. President, before closing I would like to 
refer to the outgoing and incoming governors of 

When the present governor. Sir Edward Twin- 
ing, retires from the governorship next spring, he 
should have the satisfaction of knowing that he 
has made a lasting contribution to the building 
of a Tanganyikan nation. He will be followed 
in office by another distinguished British admin- 
istrator. Sir Richard Turnbull, who has spent 
much of his active life in promoting the interests 
of the African people. He has made intensive 
studies of African affairs and has come to be 
recognized as an outstanding authority on some 
of their customs and ambitions. The United 
States delegation wishes him success in the work 
of helping Tanganyika prepare for independence. 

We also hope that he will have the continued 
advice and assistance of Mr. Fletcher-Cooke, who, 
together with Sir Andrew Cohen, the distin- 
guished representative of the United Kingdom, 
has discharged his duties before this Council 
with marked ability. 

Seattle Selected as Site 
for Colombo Plan Meeting 

Press release 178 dated April 7 

The Department of State announced on April 
7 that Seattle, Wash., has been selected as the site 
for the tenth meeting of the Colombo Plan in 
the fall of 1958. The ninth meeting of the 18- 
nation Consultative Committee on Cooperative 
Economic Development in South and Southeast 
Asia (Colomjjo Plan), held at Saigon, Viet-Nam, 
in October 1957, unanimously accepted the United 
States proposal that the Committee next meet in 
the United States.^ 

The purpose of the meeting at Seattle will be to 
review the progress, consider the problem of de- 
velopment, and survey the economic position of 
the member countries of South and Southeast 
Asia. The amiual meeting of the Consultative 
Committee provides an opportunity for exchang- 
ing views on development problems of mutual 
interest and provides a framework within which 
an international cooperative effort can be pro- 
moted to assist the countries of the area to accel- 
erate their development. 

The higlilight of the Seattle conference will be 
the Ministerial Meeting. This meeting, of about 
5 days' duration, will be preceded by a 2-week 
meeting of officials to prepare material for minis- 
terial consideration. 

The United States became a member of the Con- 
sultative Committee in 1951 and has since that 
time participated in the annual meetings. The 
other member govermnents of the Colombo Plan 
are Australia, Burma, Canada, Cambodia, Cey- 
lon, India, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaya, Ne- 
pal, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, 
Thailand, the United Kingdom (together with 
Singapore and British Borneo), and Viet-Nam. 

' Bulletin of Nov. 11, 1057, p. 755, and Dec. 2, 1957, p. 

May 5, 1958 

SEATO Announces New Series 
of Research Fellowships 

PresB release 177 dated April 7 

The Department of State on April 7 released 
information received from the SEATO headquar- 
ters at Bangkok, Thailand, concerning the new 
series of research fellowships to be awarded under 
the cultural program of the Southeast Asia Treaty 
Organization for 1958-59. The object of the fel- 
lowship program is to sponsor research into social, 
economic, political, cultural, scientific, and edu- 
cational problems as a means of giving an insight 
into the present needs and future development of 
the area. Ten to fifteen fellowships will be 
awarded to nationals of the SEATO member 

The fellowships will include a monthly allow- 
ance of $400 and tourist-class air travel to and 
from the countries in which the research is con- 
ducted. Candidates must possess high academic 
qualifications, preferably of the doctoral level or 
equivalent, and must have had several years of 
professional experience. Published material will 
also be taken into consideration in making the 
awards. Applications must be submitted not 
later than August 1, 1958, to the SEATO na- 
tional office in the candidates' country of citizen- 
ship. The Department of State has designated 
the Comjnittee on International Exchange of 
Persons, Conference Board of Associated Re- 
search Councils, 2101 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, D.C., to receive and screen the ap- 
plications of United States citizens. This com- 
mittee will recommend candidates to the Depart- 
ment and the President's Board of Foreign 
Scholarships. The Board will then nominate a 
panel to be forwarded to the SEATO headquar- 
ters in Bangkok, where final selections will be 
made. The awards will be announced in No- 
vember 1958. 

Eleven fellowships were awarded by SEATO 
in January of this year as part of its 1957-58 pro- 
gram of cultural relations. A number of the fel- 
lows have already started work on their research 

The Council of Ministers of the Southeast Asia 
Treaty Organization at its fourth annual meeting 
held at Manila in March agreed to continue and 

expand the program of cultural activities.^ 
Among the new projects to be initiated is the ap- I 
pointment of professors at imiversities of the 
Asian member states and of traveling lecturers. 

Current U.N. Documents: 
A Selected Bibliography^ 

Economic and Social Council 

Commission on the Status of Women. Consent to Mar- 
riage and Age of Marriage. Report by the Secretary- 
General. E/CN.6/317, January 20, 1958. 27 pp. mimeo. 

Statistical Commission. Draft Revised International 
Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Ac- 
tivities. E/CN.3/243, January 22, 1958. 73 pp. mimeo. 

Commission on the Status of Women. Information Con- 
cerning the Status of Women in Non-Self-Governing 
Territories. Report by the Secretary-General. E/CN.- 
6/318, January 22, 1958. 11 pp. mimeo. 

Commission on the Status of Women. Equal Remunera- 
tion for Men and Women Workers for Work of Equal 
Value. E/CN.6/322, January 22, 1958. 38 pp. mimeo. 

Statistical Commission. Basic Industrial Statistics — A 
Progress Report. A memorandum by the Secretary- 
General. E/CN.3/242, January 23, 1958. 11 pp. mimeo. 

Commission on the Status of Women. Age of Retirement 
and Right to Pension. Report by the Secretary -General. 
E/CN.6/321. January 23, 19.58. 12 pp. mimeo 

Commission on the Status of Women. Technical As- 
sistance Programmes in Relation to the Status of 
Women. Report by the Secretary-General. E/CN.6/326, 
January 23, 1958. 14 pp. mimeo. 

Commission on Human Rights. Periodic Reports on Hu- 
man Rights. Reports by the Specialized Agencies. 
E/CN.4/758, January 24, 1958. 3 pp. mimeo. 

Commission on the Status of Women. Access of Women 
to Education. UNESCO activities in 1957 of special 
interest to women. Report prepared by the United 
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organiza- 
tion. E/CN.6/320, January 24, 1958. 19 pp. mimeo. 

Commission on the Status of Women. Information Con- 
cerning the Status of Women in Trust Territories. Re- 
port by the Secretary-General. E/CN.6/319, January 
28,1958. 38 pp. mimeo. 

Commission on the Status of Women. Working Women, 
Including Working Mothers With Family Responsibili- 
ties. Report by the Secretary-General. E/CN.6/324, 
January 28, 1958. 41 pp. mimeo. 

Commission on the Status of Women. Access of Women to 
Higher Education. Report prepared by the United Na- 
tions Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 
in collaboration with the International Federation of 
University Women. E/CN.6/327, January 28, 1958. 66 
pp. mimeo. 

Statistical Commission. Draft Revisions to the Inter- 
national Standards in Basic Industrial Statistics. 
E/CN.3/242/ Add. 1, January 29, 1958. 43 pp. mimeo. 

' For text of final communique, see Bui.letin of Mar. 31, 
1958, p. 504. 

- Printed materials may be secured in the United States 
from the International Documents Service, Columbia Uni- 
versity Press, 2960 Broadway, New York 27, N. Y. Other 
materials (mimeographed or processed documents) may 
be consulted at certain designated libraries in the United 

Department of State Bulletin 


Current Actions 


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 Inter- 
national Civil Aviation Organization shall be held not 
less than once in 3 years instead of annually. Done at 
Montreal June 14, 1954. Entered into force December 
12, 1956. TIAS 3756. 

Ratifications deposited: Viet-Nam, December 30, 1957; 
Italy, March 24, 1958. 

Duties and Rights of States 

Protocol to the convention on duties and rights of states 
in event of civil strife, signed at Habana February 20, 
1928 (46 Stat. 2749). Opened for signature at the Pan 
American Union May 1, 1957.' 
Signature: El Salvador, March 27, 1958. 


Articles of agreement of the International Monetary 
Fund. Opened for signature at Washington December 
27, 1945. Entered into force December 27, 1945. TIAS 
Signature and acceptance: Tunisia, April 14, 1958. 

Articles of agreement of the International Bank for Re- 
construction and Development. Opened for signature at 
Washington December 27, 1945. Entered into force 
December 27, 1945. TIAS 1502. 
Signature and acceptance : Tunisia, April 14, 1958. 


Protocol terminating the convention of May 31, 1865 (14 
Stat. 679) concerning the Cape Spartel lighthouse, 
and transferring the control, operation, and administra- 
tion of the lighthouse to the Government of Morocco. 
Signed at Tangier March 31, 1958. Entered into force 
March 31, 1958. 

Signatures: Belgium, France, Italy, Morocco, Nether- 
lands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden. United Kingdom, 
United States. 

Narcotic Drugs 

Protocol for limiting and regulating the cultivation of the 
poppy plant, the production of, international and whole- 
sale trade in, and use of opium. Dated at New Yorli 
June 23, 1953.' 
Accession deposited: Argentina, March 24, 1958. 


Convention on the Intergovernmental Maritime Consulta- 
tive Organization. Signed at Geneva March 6, 1948. 
Entered into force March 11, 1958, for: Argentina, 
Australia, Belgium (metropolitan territories only), 
Burma, Canada, Dominican Republic, Ecuador (with 

Not in force for the United States. 
Not in force. 

declaration), France, Haiti, Honduras, Iran, Ireland, 
Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico (with reservation), Neth- 
erlands (including Surinam, Netherlands Antilles, and 
Netherlands New Guinea), Switzerland (with reser- 
vation). United Arab Republic, United Kingdom, and 
United States (with reservation). 


I'rotocol amending the international whaling convention of 
1946 (TIAS 1849). Done at Washington November 19, 
Ratification deposited: France, April 14, 1958. 

Technical Cooperation Agreements 
Signed for West Indies Islands 

The Department of State on April 18 (press 
release 202) announced the signing of two tech- 
nical cooperation agreements relating to the 
British West Indies, one with Trinidad and 
Tobago, and another with the other eastern West 
Indian territory islands including the Leewards, 
Windwards, and Barbados. The ceremony took 
place at the International Cooperation Adminis- 
tration with Rollin S. Atwood, President of the 
Institute of Inter- American Affairs, acting for 
the U.S. Government and R. W. Jackling, Coun- 
selor, Head of Chancery of the British Embassy, 
signing on behalf of the West Indian Governments 

The technical cooperation programs in Trinidad 
and the eastern Caribbean are expected to include 
such activities as housing, agriculture, health, nat- 
ural resources, communications, public adminis- 
tration, and technical education. Donald R. 
Laidig has been designated as ICA field represent- 
ative, for the purpose of implementing these new 
programs, with headquarters in Trinidad, which 
is also the seat of the new Federal Government. 

In connection with signature of the agreements, 
it was noted that these are the first technical coop- 
eration assistance agreements concluded respect- 
ing member territories of the new Federation of 
The West Indies since the Federation came into 
being on January 3, 1958, and held its first parlia- 
mentary election on March 25. The agreements 
represent another concrete example of United 
States readiness to assist the Federation. With the 
technical assistance program already in effect with 
Jamaica, these agreements now extend technical 
assistance to all of the Federation. 

May 5, 7958 



Consulate at Nicosia Elevated 
to Consulate General 

The Department of State aniiounced on AprU 11 (press 
release 187) the elevation of the American Consulate at 
Nicosia, Cyprus, to the rank of Consulate General, effec- 
tive April 13, 1058. Taylor G. Belcher will continue as 
principal oflBcer. 


Recent Releases 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, V. S. Gov- 
ernment Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C. Address 
requests direct to the Superintendent of Documents, ex- 
cept in the case of free puWcations, which may he ob- 
tained from the Department of State. 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Meeting of Heads 
of Government, Paris, December 1957. Pub. 6606. Inter- 
national Organization and Conference Series I, 35. xx, 
117 pp. 50!f. 

A volume containing the texts of statements, addresses, 
etc., made by Heads of Government at the meeting of the 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization held in Paris from 
December 16 to 19, 1957. 

Surplus Agricultural Commodities. TIAS 3961. 16 pp. 

Agreement, with memorandum of understanding and ex- 
changes of notes, between the United States of America 
and Pakistan — Signed at Karachi November 15, 19.57. 
Entered into force November 15, 1957. 

Financial Agreement. TIAS 3962. 2 pp. 5^. 

Between the United States of America and the United 
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, amend- 
ing agreement of December 6, 19-15— Signed at Washing- 
ton March 6, 1957. Entered into force April 25, 1957. 

Surplus Agricultural Commodities. TIAS 3963. 2 pp. 

Agreement between the United States of America and 
Italy, amending agreement of May 23, 1955. Exchange 
of notes — Dated at Rome December 2 and 11, 1957. En- 
tered into force December 11, 1957. 

Uranium Reconnaissance. TIAS 3964. 9 pp. 10^. 

Agreement between the United States of America and 
Brazil, replacing agreement of August 3, 1955. Exchange 
of notes — Signed at Washington December 26, 1957. En- 
tered into force December 26, 1957. 


Claims— Damages Arising From SEATO Maneuvers and 
Ground Field Training Exercises. TIAS 3965. 7 pp. 

Agreement between the United States of America and 
the Republic of the Philippines. Exchange of aide 
memoire — Dated at Manila November 1, 1957. Entered 
into force November 1, 1957. 

Mutual Defense Assistance — Disposition of Equipment 
and Materials. TIAS 3966. 6 pp. 50. 

Agreement between the United States of America and 
Guatemala. Exchange of notes — Signed at Guatemala 
December 16, 1957. Entered into force December 16, 

Foreign Service Personnel — Free Entry Privileges. TIAS 
3967. 6 pp. 50. 

Agreement between the United States of America and 
Ecuador. Exchange of notes — Signed at Quito October 
22 and November 6, 1957, with related note — Signed No- 
vember 11, 1957. Entered into force November 6, 1957. 

Check List of Department of State 
Press Releases: April 14-20 

Press releases may be obtained from the News 
Division, Washington 25, D. C. 

Releases issued prior to April 14 which appear 
in this issue of the Bulletin are Nos. 176, 177, and 
178 of April 7, 180, 182, and 183 of April 9, and 187 
of April 11. 
No. Date Subject 

191 4/14 Dulles : Pan American Day. 
*192 4/14 President of Chile to visit U.S. 

193 4/15 Dulles : news conference. 

194 4/16 Cuba credentials (rewrite). 

195 4/16 D.S.-U.K.-French reply to Soviet aide 


tl96 4/16 McKinney : "Atoms for Power : Inter- 
national Status." 
197 4/16 Dulles to visit Berlin. 

tl98 4/17 Holmes : "The United States and Mid- 
dle Africa." 
199 4/17 Dulles : statement on revising Atomic 
Energy Act. 

t200 4/17 Dulles : message to Prime Minister 

201 4/18 Austria credentials (rewrite). 

202 4/18 Technical cooperation agreements with 

West Indies islands. 

203 4/18 Senator Case to represent U.S. at 

Berlin ceremony (rewrite). 

* Not printed. 

t Held for a later issue of the Bulletin. 


Bulletin of March 24, 1958, p. 470 : The reference 
to Ethiopia as a recipient of Sino-Soviet bloc eco- 
nomic assistance should be deleted from Table I. 
The totals in that table should be adjusted accord- 

Department of State Bulletin 

lav 5, 1958 I n d 

.frioa. Developments in Trust Territory of 
Tanganyika (Sears) 746 

Jgeria. U.S. Policy Regarding Algeria Kemains 
Unchanged (Department statement) 729 

imerlcan Republics 

'he Interdependence of Independence (Dulles) . . 715 

ecretary Dulles' News Conference of April 15 . . 719 

isia. Seattle Selected as Site for Colombo Plan 
Meeting 747 

Ltomic Energy. Sharing Nuclear Knowledge With 
Our NATO Allies (Dulles) 740 

Lustria. Letters of Credence (Platzer) .... 730 

'hina, Communist. Reply of "Sixteen" to Chinese 
Communist Statement on Korea 734 

Congress, The 

'resident Approves Duty-Free Entry of Automo- 
biles for Show Purposes 739 

Sharing Nuclear Knowledge With Our NATO 
Allies (Dulles) 740 

;;uba. Letters of Credence (Arroyo y Marquez) . 730 

;;yprus. Consulate at Nicosia Elevated to Con- 
sulate General 750 

Department and Foreign Service. Consulate at 
Nicosia Elevated to Consulate General .... 750 

Economic Affairs 

mpact of Mutual Security Program on the United 
States Economy (Dillon) 736 

International Trade and Our National Security 
(Herter) 731 

President Approves Duty-Free Entry of Automo- 
biles for Show Purposes 739 

U.S. Supports Special Fund for Economic Develop- 
ment (Phillips) 745 

Educational Exchange. SEATO Announces New 

Series of Research Fellowships 748 

Egypt. Secretary Dulles' News Conference of April 
15 719 


Secretary Dulles' News Conference of April 15 . . 719 

U.S. Policy Regarding Algeria Remains Unchanged 

(Department statement) 729 

U.S., U.K., and France Ready To Begin Talks at 
Moscow (three-power statement and Soviet aide 
memoire) 727 


Secretary Dulles To Visit Berlin After NATO Min- 
isterial Meeting 730 

Senator Case To Represent U.S. at Berlin Congress 
Hall Ceremonies 730 

International Organizations and Conferences 

Calendar of International Conferences and Meet- 
ings 743 

Seattle Selected as Site for Colombo Plan Meeting . 747 

Japan. Sentences of Japanese Parolees Reduced to 
Time Served 736 

Korea. Reply of "Sixteen" to Chinese Communist 
Statement on Korea 734 

Military Affairs. U.S. Denies Soviet Charge of Pro- 
vocative Plights in Polar Region (Department 
statement) 728 

e X Vol. XXXVIII, No. 984 

Mutual Security 

Impact of Mutual Security Program on the United 

States Economy (Dillon) 736 

International Trade and Our National Security 

(Herter) 731 

Technical Cooperation Agreements Signed for West 

Indies Islands 749 

Non-Self -Governing Territories. Developments in 

Trust Territory of Tanganyika (Sears) . . . 746 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

NATO Defense Ministers Conclude Discussions 

(Text of final communique) 729 

Sharing Nuclear Knowledge With Our NATO Allies 

(Dulles) 740 

Presidential Documents. President Approves 
Duty-Free Entry of Automobiles for Show Pur- 
poses 739 

Publications. Recent Releases 750 

Southeast Asia Treaty Organization. SEATO An- 
nounces New Series of Research Fellowships . . 748 

Treaty Information 

Current Actions 749 

Technical Cooperation Agreements Signed for West 

Indies Islands 749 


Impact of Mutual Security Program on the United 

States Economy (Dillon) 736 

Secretary Dulles' News Conference of April 15 . . 719 

U.S. Denies Soviet Charge of Provocative Flights in 

Polar Region (Department statement) .... 728 

U.S., U.K., and France Ready To Begin Talks at 
Moscow (three-power statement and Soviet aide 
memoire) 727 

United Kingdom 

Consulate at Nicosia Elevated to Consulate General . 750 
Development in Trust Territory of Tanganyika 

(Sears) 746 

U.S., U.K., and France Ready To Begin Talks at 
Moscow (three-power statement and Soviet aide 
memoire) 727 

United Nations 

Current U.N. Documents 748 

Developments in Trust Territory of Tanganyika 

(Sears) 746 

Reply of "Sixteen" to Chinese Communist State- 
ment on Korea 734 

U.S. Supports Special Fund for Economic Develop- 
ment (Phillips) 745 

West Indies, Federation of. Technical Cooperation 

Agreements Signed for West Indies Islands . . 749 

Name Index 

Arroyo y Marquez, Nicolas 730 

Case, Senator Clifford 730 

Dillon, Douglas 736 

Dulles, Secretary 715, 719, 730, 740 

Eisenhower, President 7.39 

Herter, Christian A 731 

Lodge, Henry Cabot 735 

Phillips, Christopher H 745 

Platzer, Wilfried 730 

Sears, Mason 746 








Order Form 




United States 
Government Printing Office 


Washington 25, D. C. 




The Organization of American States is an association of 21 
American Kepublics, which have a combined population of about 
348 millions and which represent the greatest variety and individ- 
uality in their geography and liistory, their economic life and 
cultural interests. 

A new Dejjartment of State publication, Organization of Amer- 
ican States, tells how these 21 nations joined to form the OAS, 
which President Eisenhower has called "the most successfully 
sustained adventure in international community living that the 
world has seen," and how it works to achieve its ends. 

The 20-page pamphlet, in question-and-answer format, dis- 
cusses the development, functions, organization, and achievements 
of the OAS. The booklet is illustrated with photographs and an 
organizational chart. 

Copies of Organization of American States may be purchased 
from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Print- 
ing Office, for 15 cents each. 

Publication 6625 

15 cents 

Supt. of Documents 

Govt. Printing Office — 

Washington 25. D.C. 

Please send me copies of Organization of American States. 

Enclosed find: 


$ ; 

(cash, check, or Street Address: 

money order). 

City, Zone, and State: 



Vol. XXXVIII, No. 985 May 12, 1958 


by Secretary Dulles 755 

Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge 760 


Secretary Herter 789 


Julius C. Holmes 764 

"FREEDOM FROM FEAR" • by Assistant Secretary 

Robertson 770 

of the History and Mission of the Foreign Service by 
Assistant Secretary Rubottom 772 

For index see inside back cover 


Boston Pu'.)lic Library 
Superint'^"'^ nt of Oocumc 

JUN 9 - 1958 

Vol. XXXVIII, No. 985 • Publication 6641 
May 12, 1958 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington 25, D.O. 


62 Issues, domestic $7.60, foreign $10.25 

Stogie copy, 20 cents 

The printing of this publication has been 
approved by the Director of the Bureau of 
the Budget (January 20, 1958). 
Note: Contents of this pubUcatlon are not 
copyrighted and Items contatoed herein may 
be reprinted. Citation of the Depabtment 
o? State Bulletin as the source will be 

The Department of State BULLETIN, 
a weekly publication issued by the 
Public Services Division, provides the 
public and interested agencies of 
the Government with inforrrmtion 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 
interruitional 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. 

Our Experiment in Human Liberty 

Address hy Secretary Dulles ' 

I am here first of all to express my deep re- 
spect for the military chaplains of the United 
States. You sustain the faith of those upon whom 
patriotism and duty place the heaviest demands. 
They must, in time of war, sacrifice their lives. 
And in time of peace they accept discipline and 
danger in order to maintain the forces needed to 
deter aggression and to preserve the peace. 

You yourselves, the chaplains, sacrifice much 
and often risk much to perform your high mis- 
sion. Your dedication is a noble one. You serve 
the spiritual life of the individual. Also you cul- 
tivate the spiritual values which collectively are 
the distinctive characteristic of our Nation and 
of the civilization of which we form part. 

Material Things Not a Primary Goal 

Jesus pointed out that, in his time, the nations 
of the world were giving priority to material 
things. He called upon men to seek first the 
Kingdom of God. Material things would then 
be added unto them. But such things would be 
a byproduct, not a primary goal. 

It is of the greatest importance to bear that dis- 
tinction in mind as we face the challenge of an 
atheistic society which avowedly puts first the 
search for material things. 

The American people are naturally competitive, 
and that is a good thing. During recent decades 
we have scored so many "firsts" in so many fields 
of endeavor that we feel chagrined if in any 
field we are outdone. We react even more strongly 
when we are outdone by those who are hostile to 
us, who challenge us and who gloat when they 

' Made before the Military Chaplains' Association of the 
U.S.A. at New York, N. Y., on Apr. 22 (press release 
210 dated Apr. 23). 

May J 2, 1958 

outdo us. There is little doubt, for example, that 
Sputnik I made it apparent that we had become 
too complacent. We need at times to be jolted 
into realization of the fact that our leadership in 
any field is not automatic. It requires effort and 
sacrifice. We have need today for greater en- 
deavor and greater sacrifice. But also there is 
need to be careful lest, in a purely competitive 
spirit, we be swept away from our basic spiritual 
moorings. We must not put first such material 
successes as are avowedly the goals of Soviet 

"Communism" in the Soviet Union 

I should like to interpolate here a comment 
about the word "Communist." In relation to the 
Soviet rulers and their practices we are using the 
title that the ruling party within the Soviet Union 
applies itself. However, "communism" is not 
actually practiced within the Soviet Union, and 
the challenge we face does not come from those 
who follow the lofty maxim "from each according 
to his abilities, to each according to his needs." 
When the Soviet constitution was last amended, 
there was a discussion on whether to introduce 
that maxim into the constitution. That proposal 
was rejected on the ground that Soviet society 
was not yet ready for that high standard, and I 
fear indeed that it is not. 

The humanitarian concepts of "mercy" and of 
"need" and of "justice" have little place in the So- 
viet system. Material productivity— "work" — is 
the oiBcial goal. There is, of course, a small privi- 
leged class. But the people generally are provided 
for only to the extent needed to make them com- 
petent physical workers for the state. They are 
bound under severe penalties to labor, as directed 


by their rulers, in order to achieve the material 
levels set for them not by their needs but by the 

One of the goals of Soviet communism, probably 
its primary goal, is to achieve the world's greatest 
military establishment and then be able to frighten 
others into a mood of subservience. The Soviet 
Union devotes more than 15 percent of its gross 
national product to military purposes. Soviet 
propaganda seeks, for the most part, to divert at- 
tention from the magnitude of that military eilort. 
It talks about "peace" and about "disarmament." 
But it also makes crude military threats whenever 
that seems likely to serve its ambitions. 

The Soviet Government has not made one sin- 
gle serious proposal to limit modern armament. 
It has rejected or evaded many such proposals 
made to it. The Soviet Government now boasts 
that it has the world's greatest capacity for long- 
range massive destruction. We question the ac- 
curacy of that boast. But we do not question that 
the Soviet Union has in its power to create and 
indeed has already created a very great militai-y 

A second Soviet goal is to excel in the field of 
science and scientific applications. Here again 
they boast that they are already supreme in terms 
of numbers of their scientists and in terms of spec- 
tacular scientific accomplishments, such as the first 
manmade earth satellite. Some aspects of their 
claims are questionable. But we cannot question 
that, when a despotism makes mass education a 
matter of science and directs its most qualified 
youth into that channel, it can obtain very great 
scientific results indeed. 

Throughout the ages despots have achieved the 
spectacular. The Pharaohs had their pyramids, 
the Roman emperors had their colosseums for their 
gladiator battles, the kings of France had their 
palaces. No doubt the rulers of Russia can pro- 
duce the equivalent, in modern terms. 

I turn now to a third Soviet goal. Their rulers 
say that the Soviet Union will become the world's 
greatest producer of consumers goods. Stalin 
said that the Soviet Union should be a country 
"fully saturated with consumers goods." Khrush- 
chev repeats the same theme and boasts that the 
Soviet Union in this field too will outdo the United 
States. He admits that to achieve that goal will 
take time. But who can say that a purely ma- 
terialistic society may not, perhaps, produce 

ill for" 
be iii«' 
leliiiid ' 
lirilv. ^ 
only u«' 
(tnta?* ' 
Soviet [• 
if fttnri 

greatly, perhaps most greatly, in purely material 
things ? 

U.S. Rejects Goal of Military Supremacy 

Faced by such materialistic challenges, the es- 
sential is that our society should not accept the' 
premises of these challenges. We should not com- 
pete under the rules that that challenger lays down 
We should not make ourselves over into the imaget 
of the very thing we hate. We find the atheistic, 
militaristic, and materialistic creed of Soviet com- 
munism to be repugnant to us. Let us be sure that 
we do not copy it. 

We must not accept an armaments race, as if to 
be the greatest military power were a worthy or 
even acceptable goal. 

We must not seek that scientific education and 
scientific applications monopolize the minds of our 
youth, as though other values did not matter. 

We must not accept the quantity of consumers 
goods — automobiles, washing machines, refrigera- 
tors, radios, and the like — to be the decisive meas- 
ure of our society, as though its spiritual content 
were unimportant. 

Sometimes it is indispensable for a nation, as 
for an individual, to say "no." And those are 
some of the "no's" which our Nation should em- 
phatically and, indeed, proudly utter. 

We say "no" to making it our goal to be the 
world's greatest military jjower and to be able 
militarily to dominate the world. Twice within 
this century war effort has made us incomparably 
the greatest military power. And each time, when 
peace came, we quickly abandoned that role. We 
do not seek it now. Today our military establish- 
ment, in terms of deterrents, is probably supreme. 
We hope so. But our military goal is, as put by 
George Washington and repeatedly reaffirmed by 
Dwight D. Eisenhower, to have a "respectable 
military posture" — that is, a military establish- 
ment that others will treat with respect. 

Too often we have not had that — with tragic 
results. Militaristic despots have treated us with 
contempt, as a military cipher that they did not 
need to take into account in their calculations. 
As a result there have been wars that might per- 
haps have been avoided. 

Today we have, and I trust will continue to 
have, a military posture that others do respect. 
It safeguards the peace not merely for our 

Department of Sfafe Bulletin n,. .. 

bur for others who join with us to establish col- 
lei-tivo security against aggression. In this sense 
our strength is a sacred trust for the benefit of 
fill' men who band together to create a shield 
lii'hind which they can carry on their peaceful 

If today we wanted to dominate the world mili- 
tarily, we have it within our power. We need 
only take, for military purposes, the same per- 
centage of our national production that is taken 
by the Soviet Union of its national production. 
We need only impose on our people some small 
fraction of the austerity that is imposed on the 
Soviet peoples. I do not doubt that the Ameri- 
can people would readily accept greater sacrifice 
if future developments made that needed to en- 
able our nation to maintain a respectable military 
posture. But God forbid that the day should ever 
come when the American people became a mili- 
taristic people, seeking military might as an end 
in itself. 

We can rejoice that we reject, for ourselves, 
the military goals that the Soviet rulers set for 

Educational Goals 

Let us turn to the matter of education. 

We say "no" to education being nationalized 
with a view to producing the greatest possible 
number of scientists. We do not look upon edu- 
cation as a process whereby the minds of our 
youth are manipulated by government so that 
they can better serve to glorify the state. Our 
primary goal in the field of education is to train 
minds so that the individual can more surely and 
more fully achieve his God-given potentialities. 

No doubt our educational system has deficien- 
cies. These ought to be remedied. Also, no 
doubt, we need more scientists, and we shall have 
them. This is an era of scientific breakthroughs. 
It challenges the imagination and effort of men. 
We would be far gone in decadence if our youth 
were not stimulated by what today opens up for 
exploration. But we do not forget that our edu- 
cational system should also produce those who 
are well versed in the humanities. I certainly 
do not need to remind this gathering that our 
Nation needs more and better theological semi- 
naries and more and better students in them. For 
religion is the foundation of our society. 

The Soviet Union, obsessed by its material- 
istic dogma and seeking exhibits to glorify its 
despotisms, is creating a society of educational 
unbalance. Probably in that way it will achieve 
some spectacular results, designed to promote its 
expansionist ambitions. But such unbalance is 
unnatural and fraught with unpredictable con- 

For our part it can, I think, be said with con- 
fidence that our educational system will continue 
to be a balanced one, that it will not concentrate 
wholly on the sciences, and that it will not be 
operated by the Federal Government in order to 
enable that Government to produce mere servants 
to aid it in scientific and military exploits. 

We can rejoice that we reject, for ourselves, the 
goal that the Soviet rulers have set themselves, 
that is, to make all education primarily a matter 
of scientific specialization in the interest of state 
glorification and militarization. 

Productivity of Free Labor 

Let us turn now to the matter of producing 
consumers goods. It is tempting for us to accept 
the Soviet challenge to make the material pro- 
ductivity of our respective systems the test by 
which we shall be judged. Today we produce 
many times as much consumers goods as does the 
Soviet Union, and we expect that it will continue 
to be that way. But I know of no inlierent 
reason why a materialistic despotism miglit not 
produce as much as does a spiritual society of 

Our own rate of production could perhaps be 
increased if it were not that labor is free and 
authorized, and indeed encouraged, to organize 
and bargain for hours and conditions of labor. We 
have long since abolished slave labor and have 
ceased to treat labor as a commodity. 

We believe that free labor, using the constantly 
perfected machinery that free enterprise supplies, 
will always achieve unrivaled productivity. But 
that, if it happens, is a byproduct. We do not 
want labor to be free merely because thereby it is 
more productive. We want labor to be free be- 
cause freedom is its right. 

We can rejoice that we do not give material 
productivity the priority given it by Soviet des- 
potism. We have demonstrated that free men, 
working at tasks of their choice imder conditions 

May 72, 1958 

largely of their making, have achieved the great- 
est measure of productivity yet known. All the 
world can see that adequate, indeed ample, pro- 
ductivity can be achieved without enslavement 
and without the surrender of freedom. It is pos- 
sible to have both productivity and freedom. 

The Positive Ciiallenge 

It is, of course, not enough to be negative and 
to refuse to accept the militaristic and materialis- 
tic goals of Communist imperialism. We also 
have a positive challenge of our own. 

Tlie American people have always had qualities 
of the spirit that could be, and were, projected 
far and wide. Our Nation was founded as an 
experiment in human liberty. Its institutions 
reflected the belief of our founders that men had 
their origin and destiny in God; that they were 
endowed by Him with certain inalienable rights 
and had duties prescribed by moral law ; and that 
human institutions ought .primarily to help men 
develop their God-given possibilities. We be- 
lieved that, if we built on that spiritual founda- 
tion, we would be showing men everywhere the 
way to a better and more abundant life. 

We realized that vision. There developed here 
an area of spiritual, intellectual, and economic 
vigor the like of which the world had never seen. 
It was no exclusive preserve; indeed, world mis- 
sion was a central theme. Millions were wel- 
comed from other lands, to share equally the op- 
portunities of the founders and their heirs. 
Through missionary activities, the establishment 
of schools and colleges, and through travel, Amer- 
ican ideals were carried throughout the world. 
We gave aid and comfort to those elsewhere who 
sought to follow in our way and to develop so- 
cieties of greater freedom. 

Material things were added unto us. Our po- 
litical institutions worked. That was because 
they rested upon what George Washington said 
were the "indispensable supports" of representa- 
tive government, that is, morality and religion. 
And, he added, it could not be assumed that 
morality would long prevail without religion. 

Our people enjoyed an extraordinary degi-ee of 
personal liberty. That was because the individ- 
uals making up our society generally accepted 
voluntarily the moral law and the self-discipline, 
self-restraint, and duty to fellow man that the 
moral law enjoins. 


I recall a debate that I had with Mr. Vyshinsky 
in the United Nations in 1946. He said, "It is 
indispensable to bring a limitation to the will and 
to the action of men." Therefore, he argued, 
some men must have power to rule others. If one 
denies the existence of moral law, as do the Com- 
munists, then dictatorship is the only logical form 
of society. But a society that accepts moral law 
need not be ruled by men. It can make govern- 
ment its servant, not its master ; it can make gov- 
ernment the means of doing collectively what 
needs to be done, and what cannot will be done 
individually. That is what the American people 
have done, and that is their great challenge to 
the world of despots. 

I hear it asserted today that the qualities that 
made America honored and judged great through- 
out the world no longer have an adequate appeal 
and that we must invent something new in order 
to compete with Soviet dictatorship and its 

My first reaction is that faith is not something 
put on, taken off, or changed merely to please 

My second reaction is to challenge the correct- 
ness of the assertion. It may be that, partly 
through our own faults and partly through Com- 
munist publicizing of our faults, the image of 
America has become distorted in much of the 
world. Our individual freedom is made to ap- 
pear as individual license and a casting aside of 
those restraints that moral law enjoins and that 
every society needs. 

Sales talk based on the number of automobiles, 
radios, and telephones o-wned by our people fails 
to win converts, for that is the language of the 
materialists. Our capitalistic form of society is 
made to appear as one devoid of social 

I do not believe that hiunan nature throughout 
the world has greatly changed from what it was 
when "the great American experiment" in free- 
dom caught the imagination of men everywhere. 
I am afraid that the fault, if any, may be here at 
home in that we ourselves have lost track of the 
close connection between our faith and our works 
and that we attempt to justify our society and 
to make it appealing without regard to the spirit- 
ual concepts which underlie it and make it work. 
So many material things have been added unto 
us that what originally were secondary byprod- 

Department of State Bulletin 

l^cal to 

uds now seem to rank as j^rimary. And if mate- 
rial things are to be made primary, then it is 
loizical to have a materialistic creed that justifies 
this primacy. 

A\'oodrow Wilson, shortly before he died, wrote 
of the challenge of the doctrines and practices of 
communism. He concluded : 

The sum of the whole matter is this, that our civiliza- 
tion cannot survive materially unless it be redeemed 
spiritually. . . . Here is the final challenge to our 
churches, to our political organizations, and to our cap- 
italists—to everyone who fears God or loves his country. 

Making Freedom Dynamic 

The response of our free and spiritual society 
to this challenge of a materialistic despotism must 
above all come from individuals rather than from 
government. That must be so because what is 
being tested is the merit of a free, spiritual so- 
ciety as against a materialistic despotism. There 
is, of course, a role for government. But the pres- 
ent test can never be won by freedom if, to win it, 
freedom has more and more to abdicate and to 
speak and act only through government. Only 
individuals, by their conduct and example, can 
make freedom a dynamic, persuasive, and wanted 
thing. And individuals will do that only if they 
are under the influence of moral principles and 
great religious concepts such as those represented 
by the faith of you, the military chaplains of the 
United States, and to you we pay all honor. 

U.S., U.K., and France Suggest 
Joint Meetings at Moscow 

Press release 21C dated April 24 

Following is the text of an identical statement 
presented to the Soviet Government on April S4- 
by the British, French, and United States Ambas- 
sadors at Moscow. 

In their joint communication of March 31 ^ the 
United States, French and United Kingdom Gov- 
ernments proposed to the Soviet Government, in 
connection with arrangements for a summit meet- 
ing, that the preparatory work could best be per- 
formed by exchanges through diplomatic channels, 
leading to a meeting between Foreign Ministers. 

The Soviet Government's reply, dated April 1 1,^ 
refers to the joint communication of the three 
powers and expresses readiness to begin an ex- 
change of views in Moscow on the preparations 
for the Foreign Ministers' meeting. There is 
nothing in this reply which suggests that the 
Soviet Government had any other plan in view 
than dealing with the three powers jointly in mak- 
ing the necessary arrangements for the Foreign 
Ministers' meeting. 

The three Governments were therefore surprised 
when, in his interviews with their respective 
Ambassadors, the Soviet Foreign Minister made 
it clear that he was not prepared to hold joint 
discussions with the three Ambassadors. 

As the three powers have already stated, their 
view is that the main purpose of the preparatory 
work should be to examine the position of the 
various Governments on the major questions at 
issue between them and to establish what subjects 
should be submitted for examination by Heads of 
Government. It would not be the purpose of these 
preparatory talks to reach decisions, but to bring 
out by general discussion the possibilities of 

The three powers consider that, as a matter of 
practical procedure, the necessary preparations 
can be advanced more rapidly by joint meetings 
rather than by a series of separate interviews. In 
this way unnecessary complications and delay 
would be avoided. They wish therefore to suggest 
to the Soviet Government that joint meetings be- 
tween the three Ambassadors and the Soviet For- 
eign Minister should begin immediately in order 
to make the necessary preparations for the For- 
eign Ministers' meeting. 

The three Governments think that such joint 
meetings should first discuss the agenda for a 
summit meeting for the purposes described in the 
fourth paragraph of this message, and then, at 
the appropriate time, discuss the date and place 
of a Foreign Ministers' meeting and what coun- 
tries should be invited to be represented at this 

In conclusion, the three Governments wish to 
express their hope that the Soviet Government 
will feel able to give favorable consideration to 
the above proposal as offering a prospect of early 
progress by means of a simple and straight-for- 
ward procedure. 

' Bulletin of Apr. 21, 1958, p. 64S 
May 12, 7958 

■ Ibid., May 5, 1958, p. 728. 


Security Council Hears Soviet Complaint on U.S. Military Flights; 
U.S.S.R. Withdraws Draft Resolution 

The U.N. Security Council met on April 21 at the request of the U.S.S.R. 
to consider a question submitted hy the Soviet Union concerning '■'■Urgent 
measures to put an end to fights iy United States military aircraft armed 
with atomic and hydrogen tombs in the direction of the frontiers of the 
Soviet Union.'''' The representative of the U.S.S.R. introduced a draft 
resolution {U.N. doc. S/3993) calling upon the United States '■'■to refrain 
from sending its military aircraft carrying atomic and hydrogen bomhs 
towards the frontiers of other States for the purpose of creating a threat to 
their security or staging military demonstrations.'''' At the close of the 
debate the Soviet representative withdrew his draft resolution. Following 
is the text of the statement made at the meeting by U.S. Representative 
Henry Cabot Lodge {U.S./U.N. press release 

Gentlemen of the Council, it scarcely needs to 
be said that the pendmg Soviet charge is untrue. 
We have done nothing which is in any way dan- 
gerous to peace. The Soviet Kepresentative has 
not adduced one single fact. We have done 
nothing that is not wholly consistent with the 
so-called "peaceful coexistence resolution." ^ We 
trust that the Soviet resolution will not be 

Indeed, nothing that the United States has 
done can be regarded by men who are honest witli 
themselves and with others as anything except 
the inescapable requirements of legitimate self- 
defense. This self-defense was undertaken in the 
face of continued resistance to countless efforts on 
our part over a period of more than 10 years to 
negotiate and througli negotiation to settle the 
differences which divide us. We have tried again 
and again and have failed each time to discover 
any willingness on the part of the Soviet Union 
to take positive steps toward easing tension, elim- 
inating fear, and freeing all of our resources for 
constructive, peaceful purposes. Our concern is 
that we see once more, although we will never lose 

Bulletin of Jan. 20, 1958, p. 104. 

hope, the somber pattern of the last decade in the 
events of the last weeks. 

In recent months the Soviet Union, turning its 
back on the United Nations, on the Disarmament 
Commission, on the Security Council, on the deci- 
sion of the General Assembly, on the normal uses 
of diplomacy, on all the machinery available for 
consultation and negotiation, has demanded that 
there be a meeting of heads of government for the 
professed purpose of easing tension and solving 
the 25roblems that divide us. We are engaged at 
the highest levels in diplomatic exchanges with 
the Soviet Government to find possibilities of 
agreement by which the cause of peace can be 
achieved. As President Eisenhower's published 
statements on this make clear, the United States 
in all these exchanges has had a single end in 
view: to make possible significant discussions in 
the interest of world peace. The fact that 
charges of an alleged United States threat to the 
peace should be made at the moment when our 
representatives are once more trying to resume 
serious discussions with the Soviet Union is 
deeply ijerplexing. 

The United States Government wholeheartedly 
regrets that the Soviet Union at a moment when 

Department of Sfafe Bulletin 

its liniders are proclaiming theii" desire for a meet- 
iiii;- of heads of government should have taken 
this action. 

It is against this background that I would ask 
till' members of this Council to view the issue pre- 
si'utt'd by the Soviet complaint. 

Guarding Against Surprise Attack 

A cardinal aspect of our defense is to guard 
ai:ainst the possibility of a surprise attack. The 
iiiiiuense destructive jjower of modern weapons 
jiiakos it at least theoretically possible to wipe out 
the military capacity of a country in a single co- 
(jiilinated strike against all its defense installa- 
tions. The United States has only one conceiv- 
able course in such circumstances. Until all fears 
of surprise attack are banished by effective inter- 
national arrangements, we are compelled to take 
all steps necessary to protect ourselves from being 
overwhelmed. In order to deter aggression all 
nations which wish to retain their freedom must 
maintain strong and alert forces incapable of 
being destroyed by a surprise attack however 
skillfully delivered. 

Now, the Strategic Air Command is the main- 
stay of all nations who wish to maintain their in- 
dependent existence. It has successfully carried 
out its mission for the past 10 years. It can only 
accomplish its mission of deterrence if it is known 
that the Command is so trained, so equipped, and 
so situated that it cannot be surprised and de- 
stroyed on the gi'ound. Tlie awesome power of 
modeni weapons makes a surj^rise attack abso- 
lutely unthinkable. Yet today we are confronted 
by a totalitarian state which has the capacity to 
strike without warning, without the knowledge of 
its people, by the decision of a few men who are 
unaccountable to the Soviet people. 

It is precisely these circumstances which make 
it mandatory for us to maintain our Strategic 
Air Command in its high state of efficiency 
through constant practice. All of these training 
exercises, however, are designed to maintain the 
force within areas which by no stretch of the 
imagination could be considered provocative to 
the Soviet Union. Aircraft of the Strategic Air 
Command have never been launched except in a 
carefully planned and controlled way. A pro- 
cedure is followed which insures that no Strategic 
Air Command airplane can pass beyond its proper 
bounds, far from the Soviet Union or its satel- 

May 12, 1958 

lites, without additional unequivocal orders, and 
these orders, gentlemen, can only come personally 
from the President of the United States. The 
routes which are flown and the procedures which 
are followed are not only in no sense provocative ; 
they could not possibly be the accidental causes 
of war. 

Aggressive Policies of Soviet Union 

Xow why has it been necessary for the United 
States, which has the greatest possible interest in 
peace, to erect at tremendous expense this system 
of defense by means of military aircraft? The 
American people are reluctant to spend money 
for military purposes. After each war in the 
past we have relapsed into virtually total un- 
preparedness. What caused us, reluctantly, to 
build our present defense system was the aggres- 
sive policies of the Soviet Union. This defense 
system is maintained because the policies of the 
Soviet Union are still aggressive. 

Recent examples of this are: that the Soviet 
Union proclaims its intention to communize the 
world; that in 1957 it threatened atomic devasta- 
tion against 22 nations; and that it has brutally 
suppressed freedom in Hungary and continues to 
enslave most of Eastern Europe. In the face of 
this conduct and of the continued refusal of the 
Soviet Union to negotiate seriously on disarma- 
ment, of course we cannot be defenseless. 

The United States has no aggressive intention 
against any country. Our open system of gov- 
ernment and our collective-security arrangements 
make it impossible. President Eisenhower has 
repeatedly emphasized that the United States will 
never attack another country. The United States 
fully accepts the obligations set forth in the 
charter of the United Nations. Our words and 
our deeds speak for themselves. Time and again 
we have demonstrated our good faith and our 
steadfast desire to build and to maintain peace. 
We have kept trying— even though the Soviet 
Union has repeatedly rejected our efforts, often 
out of hand. We have never hesitated to expose 
any aspect of our foreign policy to public dis- 
cussion in the United Nations or elsewhere. 
Frankly, gentlemen, I wish as much could be said 
of the Soviet Union. 

Now as long as it is necessary for our safety 
that we maintain a Strategic Air Command, we 


intend to keep it at all times in a state of effi- 
ciency. We shall also keep it under the strict 
control which I have described. Numerous in- 
dividuals and groups, including representatives 
of foreign governments, have had an opportunity 
to visit and to see at first hand the operation of 
the Strategic Air Command. They have seen 
and recognize the effective controls under which 
this force operates. These things are matters of 
public knowledge. What we do is known 
throughout the world. What the Soviet Union 
does is carefully veiled in secrecy. 

U.S. Proposal for Aerial Inspection 

The American people, and the Government 
which they have freely chosen, have been seeking 
for the last 12 years a way to be rid of these 
elaborate and burdensome defense preparations 
and to do so in safety. That is why President 
Eisenhower at Geneva in 1955 proposed that the 
Soviet Union agree with us to mutual inspection 
of each other's territory by aerial sentinels in an 
open sky. This proposal was designed to guard 
against surprise attack. 

Now note this : that if such a mutual inspection 
system could be put into effect, no massive air 
attack could be launched in secret. The fear of 
war would decrease, and a gi-eat step forward 
would be taken toward the reduction of expen- 
sive and deadly armaments. But the Soviet 
Union has refused to join hands with us in set- 
ting up a true inspection system. 

Since President Eisenhower made this pro- 
posal, we have suggested to the Soviet Union a 
wide range of choices on how and where to be- 
gin. During the meetings of the Disarmament 
Subcommittee in London a year ago, we proposed 
an inspection system covering all the continental 
United States, Alaska, Canada, and the Soviet 
Union. AVe also proposed an alternative in case 
the Soviet Union wished to start on a smaller 
basis — namely, that we start the open-sky system 
in the Arctic region. 

Now one might have thought that the Soviet 
Union would have welcomed the proposal concern- 
ing the Arctic. But far from welcoming it, they 
treated it with scorn. In June 1957 in Helsinki 
Mr. Khrushchev said, "Much has been made of 
photographing the Arctic from the air as a be- 
ginning, but this sounds totally comical." In 


August of that same year Mr. Mikoyan was 
even more derisive when he said, "What can one 
control from the air beyond the Arctic Circle other 
than the number of polar bears who, as is known, 
for the time being do not intend to attack anyone?" 
That was the Soviet attitude toward an inspection 
system which would have made it virtually im- 
possible to launch a surprise attack over the polar 

Other Proposals to Which Soviets Could Respond 

Now I stress the open-sky plan because it is 
so directly relevant to the pending charge. But 
this is not the only proposal to which the Soviet 
Union has failed to give a constructive response. 
Thus if the Soviets are seeking a means to con- 
tribute to peace and particularly to disarmament, 
there is much that they can do. 

They can say "yes" to President Eisenhower's 
proposal made as recently as April 8th of this 
month,^ which, incidentally, has been withheld 
from the Soviet people, to join in technical dis- 
armament studies by which, as the President said, 
"we can at once begin the preliminaries necessary 
to larger things." 

The Soviet statement of April 18 ^ says that the 
Soviet people are indignant at the activities of 
the United States Air Force. If this indeed is 
true, this indignation can only be based on the 
partial and often distorted information which the 
Soviet Government permits them to have because, 
as I have just said, the Soviet Government denied 
publication to the Russian people of the Presi- 
dent's proposal of April 8. The Soviet Union 
could, in fact, change their negative attitude to- 
ward the five-point disarmament plan which was 
overwhelmingly endorsed by the 12th General As- 
sembly last December^ — and which the Soviet 
Union and its satellites were the only nations here 
to oppose. 

The Soviet Union could agree to a meeting of 
the Disarmament Commission, which was enlarged 
by the last General Assembly for the expressed 
purpose of meeting their views, and in the reason- 
able belief that it would do so, and which they have 
nonetheless spurned. 

'For text, see ibid., Apr. 28, 1958, p. 679. 
' For text of a statement of Apr. 18 by Soviet Foreign 
Minister Andrei A. Gromyljo, see U.N. doc. S/3991. 
' Bulletin of Dec. 16, 1957, p. 961. 

Department of Sfafe Bulletin 

And they can carry on true diplomatic discus- 
sion in Moscow in the serious vein which the world 
situation requires. 

This Soviet move reminds one of the trumped- 
up charges of the past. It continues the policy of 
constantly singling out the United States for vili- 
fication. It leads to the conclusion that what the 
Soviet Union is after is to weaken and to tear down 
the United States and, with it, all countries, large 
and small, which value their freedom. 

How often in all these speeches which we have 
heard here has the United States been condemned 
for adhering to so-called "positions of strength" ! 
And how clear this makes it to the whole world 
that what the Soviet Union actually wants is to 
put the United States in a position of weakness ! 

Against all these assaults we have done much 
more than simply to remain militarily strong. 
Year after year we have made new proposals and 
started fresh approaches to the profound issues 
which have plagued our relations with the Soviet 
Union. The Baruch plan, the atoms-for-peace 
plan, the open-sky plan, the proposals on the unifi- 
cation of Germany and of Korea, the proposals 
for free exchange of information and ideas, the 
proposals which led to the liberation of Austria — 
these are a few of our initiatives. And, let me say, 
we will never stop trying for peace. 

I suggest that the representatives of the Soviet 
Union ask themselves what they gain by tactics 
such as they are employing here. Think for a 
moment of the billions of rubles which they have 
spent on propaganda, money which could have 
gone to constructive purposes for the Russian 

What have they got to show as a result of this 
great propaganda effort? At no time has the 
Soviet Union ever been able to get the support of 
the United Nations for any of its major propa- 
ganda themes. Future historians will record that 
the Soviet Union has not gained by the course 
which they have pursued. Their interest in a 
peaceful world is just as great as ours. Some day, 
I am sure, they will give up their dream of world 
revolution and help man's natural evolution to take 
place. Some day they will see that it would be 
better for them, as well as for the rest of the world, 
if they were to cease these tactics and if they were 
to come around the table and try to help solve the 
world's problems. 

May 72, 7958 

Over this weekend I have come to sense some 
of the heartache that exists among representa- 
tives of governments here at the United Nations — 
many of them being governments which are not 
allies of ours — because of the effect of this latest 
move on the outlook for peaceful, significant 
negotiations. But we will never get discouraged 
and we will never stop trying. And we say to you 
that to calumniate the United States, as you are 
doing today, is not the action of someone who 
wants a summit conference to succeed — not the 
action of someone who wants peace.'^ 

News-Media Representatives 
Invited To Observe Detonation 

Press release 220 dated April 25 

The Department of State announced on April 
25 that each of the other 14 countries ^ represented 
on the United Nations Scientific Committee on 
the Effects of Atomic Radiation which accepts the 
invitation to send a scientific observer to one of 
the detonations of the Hardtack series is being 
invited to designate one news-media representative 
to observe the same detonation. 

On March 26, 1958, President Eisenhower an- 
nounced this Government's intention to invite a 
group of scientific and news-media repi'esentatives 
to observe a detonation demonstrating the prog- 
ress U.S. scientists are achieving in reducing 
radioactive fallout from nuclear explosions.^ The 

After the Soviet representative withdrew his draft 
resolution. Ambassador Lodge made the following state- 
ment (U.S./U.N. press release 2907) in his capacity as 
President of the Security Council for the month of April : 

"Let the record show that the present occupant of the 
Chair did not engage in any unheard-of procedure ; that 
the rules which he followed are not contrary to usage; 
that what he did was not unprecedented and did not 
suppress free speech ; that what he did was to carry out 
the regular order in the democratic way, which is that, 
when a member makes a proposal, it is put to the vote. 
That is the way things have always been done in the 
Security Council. 

"The fact of the matter is that the Soviet representative 
did not have the votes — and all of us can give our reasons 
why he did not have the votes." 

' Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, 
Czechoslovakia, Trance, India, Japan, Mexico, Sweden, 
United Arab Republic, United Kingdom, Union of Soviet 
Socialist Republics. 

' Bulletin of Apr. 14, 1958, p. 601. 


detonation which the scientific observers and 
U.S. and foreign news-media representatives are 
being invited to observe will take place in July 
or early August 1958. 

The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission is simul- 
taneously releasing information concerning the 
extension of invitations to U.S. news media to 
observe the detonation. 

The United States and Middle Africa 

hy Julius 0. Holmes 

Special Assistant to the Secretary ^ 

In view of the vastness of Africa, the great ex- 
tent of its problems, and the limited time available, 
I shall confine my discussion of "The United States 
and Middle Africa" to a single topic — that of the 
movement of African nationalism, which is strong 
and swift. 

For our purposes this morning I shall define 
"Middle Africa" arbitrarily as all of the continent 
except the Mediterranean states and Algeria in the 
north and the Union of South Africa at the south- 
ern extremity. This area — considerably larger 
than the whole of the United States — has a popu- 
lation estimated at 140 million and consists entirely 
of dependent or United Nations trust territories, 
with the exception of the independent states of the 
Sudan, Ethiopia, Liberia, and Ghana. 

Political, social, and economic developments in 
Middle Africa are uneven. Some areas are very 
advanced; others are just awakening to the urge 
for self-assertion. Metropolitan powers respon- 
sible for most of the area pursue diveree policies 
based on different philosophies. As a result 
nationalism throughout the region is neither uni- 
form nor simple. 

Complicating the development of nationalism in 
Middle Africa are tribal conflicts on the one hand 
and tribal loyalties on the other; strains between 
different races living side by side in the same terri- 
tory ; and threats from extraneous forces inimical 
to orderly, evolutionary advancement. Where 
electorates have developed, the African often tends 
to vote for and follow personalities rather than 

Xjrograms, and leaders crying "Africa for the 
Africans" and "an end to colonialism" are the ones 
most likely to have a popular following. 

Yet, despite these negative aspects and complica- 
tions, nationalism and the trend to self-govei'n- 
ment are strongly manifest in contemporary Mid- 
dle Africa. Resurgent nationalism, of course, is a 
worldwide, postwar development which began in 
Asia, swept through the Middle East and across 
North Africa, and is now a powerful force 
throughout the rest of the African continent. 
This movement resulted in the creation — or re- 
creation, to be more precise in some cases — of 20 
new nations with a population of about 750 million 
people. Of these 20 new countries, 5 are in Africa. 

Indicative perhaps of the growing consciousness 
of their common interests, representatives from 
eight of the nine independent states of Africa ' are 
now meeting in a Pan- African conference at 
Accra, discussing mutual problems and means of 
increasing cultural, economic, political, and social 
cooperation throughout the continent. The out- 
come of this conference, which was called by Prime 
Minister Nkrumah of Ghana, will be closely 
studied by all those interested in African political 

Befoi'e we turn to an examination of the trend 
toward self-government among the dependent 
Middle African territories, it is important to re- 
call that Africa's first republic, Liberia, will this 
year celebrate its 111th anniversary and that 
Ethiopia's history as an independent African en- 
tity dates back to Biblical times. 

Trust Territories Ready for Release From Tutelage 

As examples of slightly differing stages of na- 
tionalist development, let us first consider four of 
the six U.N. trust territories, all but one of which 
were German colonies until World War I and 
mandates of the League of Nations until World 
War II. Under terms of the United Nations 
Charter, each administering power is charged 
with promoting tlie advancement of its trust ter- 
ritories toward self-government or independence. 
As a consequence, some are now about ready to be 
released from tutelage. 

Among those in this category is Somalia, a for- 
mer Italian colony, which after a brief period un- 
der British administration after World War II 

'Address made before the Pittsburgh Foreign Policy 
Associ.ition, Pittsburgh, Pa., on Apr. 18 (press release 198 
dated Apr. 17). 

The Union of South Africa declined an invitation to 
attend the conference. 


Department of Sfafe Bulletin 

Secretary Dulles' Message 

on the Pan-African Conference 

Tress release 200 dated AprU 17 

Following is the text of Secretary Dulles' message 
to Prime Minister Kwame Nkruniah of Ghana de- 
livered on the eve of the Pan-African Conference, 
which opened at Accra April 15. 

Dear Mr. Prime Ministeb : As representatives of 
eight indepeudent African states assemble in Accra 
ou your invitation to discuss mutual problems and 
develop new modes of cooperation, I take this op- 
portunity t(i extend my heartiest good VFishes and 
hopes for the success of the Conference. 

Through you, I wish to assure the African nations 
that they can count on the sympathetic interest of 
the people and government of the United States. 
The United States will continue to stand ready to 
support the constructive efforts of the states of 
Africa to achieve a stable, prosperous community, 
conscious of its interdependence vFithin the family 
of nations and dedicated to the principles of the 
United Nations Charter. 
Sincerely yours, 

JoHX Foster Dulles. 

became an Italian tiiist territory in 1950 and is 
scheduled by General Assembly resolution to be- 
come independent in 1960. This country, on the 
horn of Africa, populated by 1 million people, 
largely Muslim, elected its first legislative assem- 
bly of 70 members in February 1956 and has been 
governed by a ministerial government headed by 
Prime ISIinister Abdullahi Issa of the majority 
Somali Youth League Party since May of that 
year. Elections will be held soon for a new legis- 
lative assembly, which will be charged with 
preparing the constitution for the new state. Ee- 
lations between the Somalis and the Italian 
Tru.steeship Administration are excellent, and 
there is no reason to question that the orderly 
transition of this country to full independence 
will be achieved as anticipated. 

A U.N. supei-visory staff will be present when 
citizens of the French west African Republic of 
Togo vote on April 27 for nn enlarged chamber 
of deputies, instituted as a result of recent liberal 
amendments to the constitutional statute. The 
new chamber, which will meet after this month's 
elections, will probably expi-ess its views regard- 
ing the future status of Togo and determine 
whether to request the U.N. General Assembly to : 
(1) terminate the trusteeship agreement or (2) 
continue under the trusteeship. 

May 12, 7958 

The French Trust Territory of Cameroun, to 
which the French have, as in the case of Togo, 
liberally awarded autonomy in many matters but 
not including foreign affairs, defense, and cur- 
rency, has its own flag and national anthem, an 
indigenous civil service, and a developing judicial 
system. The political evolution of the Cameroun, 
however, has been complicated by the uprising of 
a small group of Communist-led rebels — the UPC 
(Union des populations camerounaises) — who de- 
mand that the French negotiate with them on 
the questions of immediate independence. This 
element is confined to a small jungle coastal area, 
liowever, and is not considered sufficiently strong 
either to threaten or to overthi'ow the present 
Camerounian Government. 

The much smaller British Cameroons are di- 
vided into two administrative areas: northern 
Cameroons, which is expected to join the north- 
ern region of Nigeria with which it is now as- 
sociated, and southern Cameroons, larger and more 
populous, which, on the one hand, has a history 
of political association with Nigeria that began 
with the First World War and, on the other, has 
tribal kinship with neighboring peoples in the 
French Cameroun. These two British areas will 
also be called upon in the near future to deter- 
mine : (1 ) whether they will join the new Nigerian 
nation, expected to become independent within 
the British Commonwealth in 1960; (2) continue 
under U.N. trusteeship; or (3) join with a fully 
self-governing French Cameroun. 

Progress toward comi^lete self-government in 
Middle Africa is not limited to U.N. trust terri- 
tories, however. Great strides are being taken 
toward full local autonomy in other French and 
British territories. 

France's Imaginative Policy in Tropical Africa 

France is to be commended for its imaginative 
policy in tropical Africa since World War II. 
The constitution for the Fourth French Eepublic 
confers citizenship on the African inhabitants 
of French territories. Through the new loi cadre, 
or "framework law," put into effect early in 
1957 — and not to be confused with the special 
7oi cadre approved for Algeria last winter — 
Africans are now brought into political activity"" 
at all levels from the municipal, territorial, and 
federal legislatures in Africa to French Union and 
national legislative bodies in Paris. 


In French West and Equatorial Africa, French 
Somaliland, and Madagascar, representatives, 
mainly African, were elected to legislative assem- 
blies in March 1957 on the basis of universal adult 
suffrage and a single electoral roll. African cab- 
inet ministers and French associates are now work- 
ing side by side in harmony and cooperation in 
each of these territories. 

A unique development of perhaps major impor- 
tance in African political evolution has recently 
unfolded in the federation of the eight huge terri- 
tories of French West Africa, which has a popula- 
tion of about 19 million and is about eight times 
the size of France. 

Two of the leading African parties of this feder- 
ation — the African Socialist Movement and the 
African Convention — and five smaller regional 
groups, at meetings held recently in Paris and 
Dakar, decided to merge into a single political 
movement and to present the following three- 
point program to the French Government : 

1. Creation of two "democratic federations of 
territories": French West Africa and French 
Equatorial Africa; and complete internal auton- 
omy for all French African territories, whether 
federated or not ; 

2. The "right to independence" for the two 
federations; and 

3. Amendment of the French Constitution to 
transform the French Union into a confederal 
republic in which metropolitan France, the two 
federations, and the remaining nonf ederated Afri- 
can territories would be equal partners. 

Although the outcome of this ambitious pro- 
posal is uncertain, it illustrates one of the many 
forms that the movement toward fuller auton- 
omy in Afi-ica can take and demonstrates the 
understanding which enlightened African leaders 
have of the interdependence of Africa and West- 
ern Europe. 

Britain Encouraging Self-Government 

Great Britain, too, has been consistently encour- 
aging the development of self-government in its 
dependent territories. A major problem facing 
British East and Central African territories, how- 
ever, is the promotion of harmonious relations and 
policies among the many races and diverse tribal 
and religious groups living side by side. 

Fortunately in the case of the British West 
African Federation of Nigeria the racial issue 
hardly exists. Of the total population of almost 
34 million — making Nigeria the most populous 
political entity in Africa — only 16,000 are non- 
Africans, and these are transient or temporary 
commercial, professional, or civil service ele- 
ments. This country, which includes three large 
federal regions — the western, eastern, and north- 
ern, with the latter containing more than half the 
population — is scheduled to determine with Great 
Britain in 1960 the exact timetable for its mde- 
pendence within the British Commonwealth. 
Nigeria totlay has both regional and federal min- 
isterial governments, the latter headed by a fed- 
eral Prime Minister. Although the Federation 
faces numerous unresolved problems, such as the 
separatist tendencies among the three regions, the 
major emphasis throughout the territory is on 
achieving independence in 1960. 

In that same year the presently self-governing 
central African Federation of Rhodesia and Ny- 
asaland will work out with the British Govern- 
ment the next constitutional step to be taken along 
the road to full Commonwealth status. The great 
problem facing this rich, industrious federation 
of three territories with a population of 7.3 million, 
including about 300,000 Europeans and 30,000 
Asians, is the achievement of a successful racial 
policy. There has been notable progress in de- 
veloping harmonious race relations in the Fed- 
eration, particularly in Southern Rhodesia, in the 
last 10 years. It is to be hoped that the declared 
policy of racial partnership, in which the African 
is to be brought gradually forward to an equal 
status in political and economic fields, will suc- 
ceed. The question is simply whether progress 
will be fast enough to satisfy the increasingly 
vocal Africans or too fast to be acceptable to the 
present dominant white minority. 

Time does not permit a comparative analysis of 
the current political situation in the remaining 
British, French, Belgian, Portuguese, and Span- 
ish territories of this vast region. However, in 
all of these areas the force of nationalism — the 
self-conscious African desire to assert his iden- 
tity — is at work, although the degree of pressure 
, being developed and the results of that pressure 
vary greatly. 

We can readily conclude that this emergent na- 
tionalism will soon transform the political map of 

Deparfmenf of State Bulletin 

Affica, beginning not later than 1960 in Somalia 
and probably Nigeria and steadily continuing in 
other territories in the years to follow. A new 
relationship will therefore develop between the 
once dark continent and Europe. We are con- 
lident that, with wise, f arsighted, and resjionsible 
leadership on both sides, this new relationship will 
bring enduring political, cultural, and trade ties 
redounding to the mutual benefit. 

U.S. Position on African Nationalism 

There should be no misunderstanding about the 
United States position on the subject of African 
nationalism. As Secretary Dulles has declared on 
numerous occasions, the United States recognizes 
that the "shift from colonialism to independence" 
is in process and the United States role "is to try 
to see that the process moves forward in a construc- 
tive, evolutionary way." 

The United States recognizes the tremendous 
contribution which the European metropolitan 
powers have made and are continuing to make to 
the economic, social, and political development of 
modern Africa. The United States seeks neither 
to displace any European state in Africa nor to 
promote premature independence movements 
there. On the other hand, we believe that the 
irrevocable trend toward self-government requires 
the support and understanding of the United 
Nations and the free world to remain in construc- 
tive, mutually beneficial, evolutionary channels. 

With greater freedom always comes greater re- 
sponsibility. We believe that the emerging peoples 
of Africa, including the newly independent na- 
tions, must recognize their responsibilities to the 
world community, with which they are interde- 
pendent. We feel that responsible leaders in ter- 
ritories now gaining greater degrees of local 
autonomy must also realize that premature inde- 
pendence can be as harmful as prolongation of a 
dependent status. 

A vast expectancy develops among dependent 
peoples as they move toward the threshold of in- 
dependence. Current African leadership is mod- 
erate and friendly to the West. But clearly the 
ability of these moderate leaders to continue to 
cooperate with the West will depend principally 
on what the West does in enabling them to meet 
the legitimate and mounting aspirations of their 
people by insuring the steady economic, social, and 
cultural development of their countries. 

Increasingly, the African is looking beyond the 
confines of his continent for ideas, assistance, and 
even leadership. Conversely, new ideas, knowing 
no boundaries, are reaching Africans of every 
walk of life, even in the bush and the jungle. And 
these new ideas are not all coming from the West. 
It is evident that we regard it far better, in the 
African's interest and in ours, that these ideas, 
this assistance, and this leadership should come 
from the West to which Africa is, by the very 
nature of its recent history and development, 
normally oriented. 

The United States has much to offer Africa. 
We ai-e dedicated to the ideals of democracy and 
government by consent of the governed, to the 
preservation of world peace and prosperity — 
ideals which the African respects and seeks to 

The future of Africa rests, of course, primarily 
with the Africans. Large sections of Middle 
Africa, nevertheless, are still primarily the re- 
sponsibility of the European metropolitan powers. 
The United States must, as the African expects, 
apply its ideals to its foreign policy. We must, 
as the European expects, contribute to the main- 
tenance of African stability. 

In short, we must do our part to help Africa 
develop along the moderate, evolutionary path to 
progress, strength, and stability. We are now 
laying the groundwork in Washington to do 
this — with increased economic aid, improved for- 
eign service, educational exchange, and informa- 
tion programs, and encouragement of private busi- 
ness and philanthropic endeavor. 

This we consider to be an expression of the 
theme of your forum: world leadership. True 
leadership in Africa, to be mutually fruitful, 
must take the form of partnership, a partnership 
of close cooperation with Africans and other mem- 
bers of the free world, dedicated to furthering the 
economic, social, and political advancement of this 
old continent which is new in its awakening. 

United States Asks Departure 
of Czechoslovak Attache 

Press release 205 dated April 21 

On April 17, 1958, Joseph R. Jacyno, Second 
Secretary of the American Embassy at Prague, 

May 12, ?958 


was improperly detained by three Czechoslovak 
plainclothes men while visiting a friend to whom 
he had taken musical recordings. The frameup 
perpetrated by the Czechoslovak secret police re- 
sulted in a note from the Czechoslovak Ministry 
of Foreign Affairs on April 18, 1958, which or- 
dered Mr. Jacyno to leave Czechoslovakia imme- 

The Department of State on April 21 sent the 
following note to the Czechoslovak Ambassador 
in Washington : 

"The Secretary of State presents his compli- 
ments to His Excellency the Ambassador of the 
Czechoslovak Eepublic and has the honor to in- 
form him that the continued presence in this 
country of Dr. Koman Skokan, Commercial At- 
tache, is no longer acceptable to the Govenunent 
of the United States. The Secretary of State 
would appreciate the Ambassador's cooperation 
in arranging for the immediate departure of Dr. 

The New Federation of The West Indies 

hy Frederick W. Jaridrey 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for European Affairs ' 

I appreciate very much being invited to join you 
tonight in saluting the new federation of The 
West Indies. I know that the Under Secretary 
of State and your former Governor, ilr. Herter, 
feels with me that it is most appropriate to honor 
tliis occasion in Boston, a city which for so many 
years has enjoyed ties with the West Indies. 

Not only has Boston traded directly with these 
islands for a considerable period, but it was often 
by way of the West Indies that cargo and pas- 
senger ships from Europe came to New England. 
It was in the West Indies that these ships made 
their first landfall and received their first welcome 
to the New World. After an exhausting crossing 
of the Atlantic, the Caribbean stop offered pas- 
sengers and crew alike an opportmiity to ref resli 
themselves in a friendly atmosphere. That 

' Address made at the West Indian Federation Celebra- 
tion Dinner at Boston, Mass., on Apr. 22 (press release 

friendly atmosphere and fine climate still attract 
many to the islands and will, I am sure, continue 
to be a major economic asset to the federation. 

Just as our past historical ties with the indi- 
vidual islands of the West Indies were most cor- 
dial, so now we look forward to a mutually happy 
relationship with the new federation. 

As I am sure you all know, we are keenly inter- 
ested in the progress of a people toward nation- 
hood through the lawful processes of democracy. 
In the light of our own i^olitical heritage and 
experience, in which Boston played an early role, 
it is only natui'al that our foreign policy should 
reflect this keen interest. We are anxious to 
assist those who are moving toward self-govern- 
ment to the extent we can through such means as 
are at our disposal, sharing with them the experi- 
ence and technical skills we have accumulated. 
It is with this tradition and interest that we stand 
ready, in cooperation with the United Kingdom, 
to assist The West Indies. 

In tiiese days the West is frequently accused of 
a desire to obstruct the progress of dependent ter- 
ritories toward independence, and much propa- 
ganda is devoted to charges of imperialism. All 
one needs to do is examine a map to discover how 
far the West, led by the United Kingdom, has 
gone in just the opposite direction. A new type 
of relationship has been developed. In terms of 
this relationship, the United Kingdom, as a true 
"mother country," has tried with marked success 
to prepare the people of such territories for self- 
government and independence. The list of coun- 
tries which have thus acquired their independence, 
just since the war, is most impressive — India, 
Pakistan, Burma, Ceylon, the Sudan, Ghana, and 
most recently Malaya. 

The union of the West Indies islands in the 
federation is acknowledged as an important step 
in this same progi'ession from a status of depend- 
ence to one of independence within the Common- 
wealth. We desire to associate ourselves with this 
process and to work closely with our British allies 
in helping The West Indies to achieve statehood 
imder the most favorable conditions possible. 

Where there is evidence that a people and its 
leaders have the political maturity to guide their 
own future through democratic institutions, we 
wish them the greatest success. As far as The 
West Indies is concerned, we have full confidence 

Deporfmenf of Stafe Bulletin 

in tlie ability and integrity of its national leadei-s, 
;ii;il the federation is to be congratulated for 
choosing Sir Grantley Adams, an experienced and 
devoted statesman, as it:s first Prime Minister. 

Although, as I have already mentioned, our 
connections with the Caribbean area were his- 
torically in terms largely of trade, they have, in 
more recent times, involved visits to the area by 
many of our people, both as traders and as 
tourists. Since the early days of the last war they 
have also involved a number of important defense 
relationships. We recognize that these arrange- 
ments, important to our own defense and that of 
the Western Hemisphere — and indeed of major 
value to the free world's security system — have 
caused certain concern within The West Indies. 
It might be noted in connection with one aspect 
of this problem that approximately 75 percent of 
the total land acquired by the United States in 
tJie West Indies since 1941 has, in fact, been 
turned back to the local governments for agricul- 
tural and other uses. The people of The West 
Indies can be sure that we are mindful of their 
needs for land and will continue to turn it back 
whenever the requirements of defense permit. 

As well, there are certain positive advantages 
which accrue as a result of our defense relation- 
ship with The West Indies. I do not speak alone 
of the revenues which result from the presence of 
United States defense installations in the area. 
Fully as important is the opportunity which these 
associations give us both to develop a higher de- 
gree of mutual understanding and a sense of our 

Although the territories of The West Indies 
have great beauty and are endowed with natural 
resources, the standard of living still needs to be 
improved. The problem of populatioii in relation 
to developed resources is a serious matter and 
clearly calls for further economic development. 
We are desirous to assist in attacking this prob- 
lem. To this end we are prepared to consider 
ways in which we may be able to help the new 
federation. Today we have also annomiced that 
immigration quotas to the United States from 
The West Indies will be increased by 100 percent.^ 

U.S. To Discuss Assistance 
to Tlie West Indies 

Press release 213 dated April 24 

The U.S. Government has advised the Government 
of Great Britain of its interest in the new federa- 
tion of The West Indies. It is the United States 
desire to foster the success of the federation and 
to assist, where practicable, its balanced economic 
growth. Accordingly it has requested the British 
Government to advise the Government of The West 
Indies that the United States would welcome in 
Washington a group representing The West Indies 
to discuss ways in which the U.S. Government may 
liest assist the Federal Government and through it 
tlie people of the new federation. 

On April 18 technical assistance agreements were 
signed at Washington extending American aid to 
the eastern territories of the federation.' With the 
technical assistance agreement already in effect 
with Jamaica, these agreements now extend ar- 
rangements for technical assistance to all of the 

Bulletin of May 5, 1958, p. 749. 

'On Apr. 22 the Department of State instructed its 
consulates at Barbados, Kingston, and Port-of-Spain that 
they could make available to the local press an announce- 
ment of the increase in the subquotas for The West Indies 
under the mother-country. quota. 

These are tokens of our friendship. They are evi- 
dence of our faith and belief that The West Indies 
will, in the not too distant future, be an important 
and prosperous member of the Western Hemi- 
sphere, as well as a full member of the British 
Commonwealth of Nations. 

As evidence of our good wishes for the success 
of the federation, I should like to read Secretary 
Dulles' message of January 3 to Lord Hailes on 
the occasion of his investiture as the first Governor 
General of the federation : 

It is with pleasure that I send greetings, on behalf of 
the President of the United States and of all Americans, 
on this important occasion. 

Your investiture as the first Governor-General of the 
Federation of The West Indies marks an historic step 
which the American people note with deep satisfaction. 
We and the people of the Federation have much in com- 
mon — respect for law, for the rights of the individual, 
and a strong love of freedom. We look forward to being 
good neighbors. 

The ties of culture and of commerce, of brotherhood 
and tradition which bind us will, I know, grow even 
stronger under the Federation whose birth you celebrate 

I thank you for allowing me to join with you 
in this salute to The West Indies. 

May 72, 7958 



"Freedom From Fear" 

ly Walter S. Robertson 

Assistant Secretary for Far Eastern Affairs ^ 

^Yhen the "four freedoms" were enunciated in 
1941, tlie world was faced with problems not un- 
like those which beset it today. Dangers then 
flared from the ruthless ambitions of a few in- 
dividuals. Tyrants were sweeping away free- 
doms on three continents for the sake of amassing 
dictatorial power. In the face of this the world 
drew courage from America's declaration of faith 
that the four basic freedoms must prevail. 

Courage and resolution were demanded of mil- 
lions in those days. Kesistance to evil men's 
schemes found inspiration in the deeds and exam- 
ple of many men, especially leaders such as the 
Philippines' Brigadier General Carlos P. Komulo, 
now become a distinguished world figure whom 
we delight to honor here tonight. 

Some months after the Atlantic Charter 
adopted the "four freedoms" and held them high 
as a beacon of hope to mankind, Carlos Romulo 
demonstrated with personal action that to achieve 
those freedoms meant to fight for them. And he 
fought his fight without fear. He fought val- 
iantly to bring about the end of the danger of 
those times and the beginning of an era in which 
man no longer need suffer from fear. 

That battle was won. An era of peace dawned. 
Fear of the dictators vanished, and the world or- 
ganized itself in a promising association dedicated 
to preservation of the "four freedoms." Carlos 
Romulo appropriately became a prime figure in 
the United Nations, serving with great distinction 
as president of the General Assembly in 1949-50. 

But unhappily disillusionment came. "We soon 
discovered there was not, after all, a unanimity 
among nations in the yearning for a truly free 
world. Something worse than brutal ambition 
exposed itself in opposition to all freedoms. 
Free men again rallied against the new threat. 
But it still exists, and so it is that now, in 1958, 
we find ourselves once again in the tragic 
circumstance of being oppressed by fear. 

It is indeed an unhappy paradox that in this 
amazing world of today, where new discoveries 

1 Address made at the Four Freedoms Dinner at New 
York, N. Y., on Apr. 21 (press release 204). 

and inventions offer promise of an exciting and 
fabulous future, mankind should look into that 
future with deep anxiety. Science has opened 
so many new doors to us and shown us such breath- 
taking vistas that we are incapable of compre- 
hending the kind of world now possible for our- 
selves and future generations. We already 
marvel at the advances so far made. Life is now 
not only longer and more pleasant in its relief 
from many old scourges and plagues; it is also 
more exhilarating, more comfortable, and in 
many respects less arduous. 

The prospect of a better life has, of course, a 
special appeal to the hundreds of millions of 
people throughout the world who only in recent 
years have emerged from the darkness of out- 
moded systems. For them the urge merely to 
catch up with the rest of us is the basis for vi- 
brant and determined national movements. For 
these awakened masses, too, the miracles of scien- 
tific advance in the last dozen years seem to open 
limitless possibilities, and their spirits are up- 
lifted thereby. 

A Fear of Nuclear Conflict 

Mankind's optimism, however, is universally 
sobered by other realities. There is no certainty 
that the bright future will be realized ; there is no 
sure confidence that the joys of scientific develop- 
ment will be available for human beings. A fear 
of nuclear conflict dampens the spirits of people 
the world over. The specter of devastation and 
poisoned atmosphere causes deep and universal 
anxiety. This fear stems from an inability to en- 
vision the outcome of the current world tension. 
Tlie fear is of the consequences of a conflict so 
extended that it will engulf most of humanity and 
inevitably will affect all peoples everywhere. 

We who are dedicated to the "four freedoms" 
are party to this conflict. We are party to it 
precisely because of our dedication. It is a con- 
flict between our determination to maintain free- 
dom for all individuals and a relentless conspir- 
acy against that freedom — the conspiracy of inter- 
national communism. 

Mankind fears how this conflict will be re- 
solved. Some feel it must erupt into mass 
destruction. There may be some who believe the 
defeat of freedom's forces is inevitable because of 
the driving force of the disciplined conspirators 
and because of free men's apparent irresolution 

Department of State Bulletin 

:ii;<l divergence of action. I submit, however, that 
thi're need be no despondency on this score. I 
caimot concede that nations are so unable to gov- 
ern tlieir relationships that they must inevitably 
obliterate themselves over their differences. 

The problem is mamnade. A manmade solu- 
tion must and can be found. I am sure that close 
analysis of how man thinks and reacts will sug- 
gest that solution. Yet we must not minimize 
the danger. The steady growth of the Com- 
munist conspiracy to take over the world and re- 
sliape it in its own image is frighteningly 
impressive. It has indeed become a gargantuan 
menace in its 40 years of evil development and 
expansion. But I assert that it is not invincible. 
Wlrile it shows undeniable strengths, it also ex- 
poses its weaknesses. I do not despair of thwart- 
ing its objectives. Nor do I subscribe to the pessi- 
mistic contention that the conspiracy will destroy 
everything rather than permit itself to fail. 

Scientific advancements are proof that man is 
continually learning. He now has harnessed 
many elements of nature and learned to direct 
them to his own benefit. Moreover, he is con- 
tinuing to learn about himself. In the 40 years 
that the Communists have pursued their con- 
spiracy, we have learned much about it. We 
know precisely how it works. We also have 
learned the immensely valuable lesson, thougli we 
have learned it at great cost, that the conspiracy 
can be stopped with the weapons it fears most: 
strength and determined unity. With these 
weapons we already have obliged the enemy to 
change his tactics. He no longer blusters and 
threatens military invasions. He poses rather as 
a lover of peace and democracy, and, while offer- 
ing a smiling countenance, he moves as relent- 
lessly as ever on his course of subversion, 
enticement, and propaganda. He exploits our 
differences with one another and seeks to divert 
our attention. 

These weapons of ours — strength and unity — 
need now to be reinforced with alertness and re- 
newed determination. We know our enemy. 
Unremitting opposition, sparked by clear mider- 
standing of his methods and his objectives, can 
stop the Communist conspirator's march, no 
matter what tactic he chooses. We can do it, that 
is, if we do not relax our vigil nor reduce our 
strength. We could fail, however, if, even for a 
short time, we were to let down our guard in the 

May 72, 1958 

mistaken impression the new smiling approach 
means he no longer seeks to engulf us. We must 
ever remember that our enemy lias not changed. 
He has given up none of his gains. Examination 
of his inducements reveals benefits only to himself. 
He has not abandoned his intention to obliterate 
our freedom. We therefore cannot for a moment 
be distracted from the threat of destruction that 
is aimed at our individual liberties and at our con- 
cept of acceptable civilization. 

Also, no matter how compelling the circum- 
stances that tend to divert us from a steadfast 
course, we cannot, if we are successfully to coun- 
ter the Communist conspiracy, afford to be over- 
impressed with considerations of temporary 
expediency. Specifically, we must be ready to 
pay the cost in taxes ; we must be constant in our 
determination to stand by reliable allies ; we must 
persevere in the maintenance of our own and our 
allies' military strength; we must continue 
patiently our program of assisting the economic 
growth of those newly developing nations that 
are so eager to catch up with us, for as they gain 
in strength they will present additional deter- 
rents to the Communist plotters. Properly as- 
sisted, they can be relied upon to defend their 
own liberty and thus prove great assets in the 
struggle for freedom everywhere. 

No Need To Whistle in the Dark 

Those who seek "freedom from fear" in today's 
world can take heart from the comradeship of this 
great union against threatening conspiracy. 
There is no need to whistle in the dark. There 
is no need to pose in bravery, any more than to 
cower in a sense of impending doom. Our union 
is well armed materially, and it is invincible in 
its spirit. 

The greatest encouragement of all should be in 
the knowledge tliat the will for freedom never 
dies. Throughout human history the yearning 
to be free and to stay free has led to great deeds. 
Less than 20 years ago it united men around the 
world. Carlos Eomulo, who along with his 
countrymen so courageously upheld the cause 
of freedom, wrote during that conflict : 

The essence of our world struggle is that all men shall 
be free. 

It is the essence of our struggle today. And 
he was never more right than when he also wrote : 


To create peace we must devote to it the same en- 
thusiasm and industry we have shown in our preparations 
for war. 

He saw the need to approach a task such as 
ours with enthusiasm. If we sometimes approach 
the present task too grimly, it may be because we 
know the stakes are high and the danger is great. 
But there is cause for confidence, and this con- 
fidence should give us enthusiasm. Certainly the 
brightness which the future could hold for us 
justifies an enthusiastic approach to the achieve- 
ment of it. I am sure that, if we persist in seeing 

our problem clearly and maintain an unclouded 
vision of our goal, we can substitute a resolute 
and fearless enthusiasm for our anxiety over the 

In short, by a renewed determination and re- 
affirmed dedication of purpose we can achieve 
that "freedom from fear" for which all men yearn 
and which is essential to the fulfillment of man- 
kind's most cherished hopes. 

It is in this sense that we can proclaim with 
Franklin Roosevelt that there is nothing to fear 
but fear itself. 

The People Who Wage the Peace 


hy Roy R. Rubottom, Jr. 

Assistant Secretary for Inter- Amencan Affairs ^ 

The 24th Secretary of State, William H. Seward, 
once explained the appointment of a certain pri- 
vate citizen to a diplomatic post in these words: 
"Sir, some persons are sent abroad because they 
are needed abroad, and some are sent because they 
are not wanted at home." It's about the first cate- 
gory, the people who wage the peace — the Foreign 
Service of the United States of America — that I 
speak to you today. 

Under our constitutional system the President 
makes United States foreign policy. He relies in 
particular for advice and guidance on the Secre- 
tary of State, who is also charged with coordinat- 
ing the formulation and execution of the 
President's program. A number of Federal agen- 
cies share the implementation of the President's 
foreign-policy decisions. They include the De- 
partment of Defense, the Office of Defense Mobili- 
zation, the United States Information Agency, the 
International Cooperation Administration, and 
the Central Intelligence Agency. Other depart- 
ments, such as Treasury, Justice, Commerce, Agri- 
culture, and Labor, as well as the Atomic Energy 
Commission, also are concerned with certain 
aspects of United States foreign relations. 

Address made before the Great Issues Forum at South- 
ern Methodist University, Dallas, Tex., on Mar. 25. 

But, of course, it is the Department of State, led 
by the Secretary of State, which by law and prac- 
tice must bear the main and, I might add, awesome 
burden of insuring in peacetime that our country's 
interests are protected and strengthened. At home 
and in 87 countries abroad State Department per- 
sonnel are on the job — and it's a 24-hour job, too. 
Our code rooms in Washington and in our larger 
embassies never close. A telegram which arrives 
captioned NIACT, meaning "night action," results 
in an immediate telephone call, nights and week- 
ends, regardless of the hour, to the home of a State 
Department official. Weekends, too, in Washing- 
ton and at all overseas posts, a duty officer is always 
available, and there's no overtime pay involved 
either. At those few places where one-man points 
are located— Belo Horizonte, Brazil, for example — 
the American consul is, in reality, never off duty. 

The Department of State, I might point out, 
although historically the oldest and consequently 
in precedence the first, is next to the smallest execu- 
tive department, both in terms of personnel and 
money spent. This year's budget of $193 million 
must be stretched literally around the world, in- 
cluding special United States missions at the seat 
of the United Nations in New York, the Organiza- 
tion of American States in Washington, the North 

Department of State Bulletin 

Atlantic Treaty Organization in Paris, and so on. 
By way of contrast, a squadron of B-52 bombers 
costs around $120 million and a Forrestal-type air- 
craft carrier runs around $220 million. 

I've been talking about State Department em- 
pl(jyees. "Wliere does the Foreign Service come 
in ? Let me try, without becoming too technical, 
to explain their relationship. 

Until very recently the differentiation could be 
made that, generally speaking, civil-service em- 
ployees manned State Department offices in Wash- 
ington while Foreign Service employees ran State 
Department offices abroad — embassies, legations, 
consulates general, and consulates. Thus, an inter- 
change of both domestic and foreign experience 
was rarely possible in the Department of State. 
Since 1954, however, virtually all officer positions 
which are directly concerned with the conduct of 
United States foreign affairs, both in the Depart- 
ment — which means Washington — and overseas, 
are staffed by Foreign Service officers. The result, 
in effect, is that Foreign Service officers now move 
freely from Washington to the field and back as 
the needs of efficient administration dictate. 

Tradition of the Foreign Service 

Our Foreign Service has a tradition going back 
to the founding of the Eepublic. The American 
diplomatic service preceded the consular service 
by more than 4 years. The first diplomatic agent 
sent abroad by our Government was Silas Deane, 
who went to France in 1776 in the guise of a mer- 
chant. Benjamin Franklin and John Adams had 
to take time out from their diplomatic negotia- 
tions at the Court of Louis XVI in 1778 to help 
shipwrecked American seamen. The consular 
service dates from the appointment of William 
Palfrey as Consul to France in 1780 and was thus 
nearly 10 years old when Thomas Jefferson took 
office as the first Secretary of State. 

Some of our other great statesmen, John Jay, 
James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, also repre- 
sented the fledgling nation abroad. Of the first 
six Presidents of the United States, four had 
previous diplomatic experience. Interestingly 
enough, the middle of the 19th century found some 
of our most illustrious literary figures also serving 
the United States in foreign lands. One can cite 
James Russell Lowell, Minister to Spain and later 
to the Court of St. James ; Nathaniel Hawthorne, 

Moy 12, 1958 

Consul at Liverpool ; Washington Irving, Minister 
to Spain; and Bret Harte, Consul at Glasgow. 

Because our country was a part of the New 
World, our diplomatic and consular services were, 
of course, among the latest of their kind. By some 
accounts there were agents who performed con- 
sular functions as long ago as the days of Tyre and 
Carthage. But the consul as we know him prob- 
ably derives from the consular tribunals, consules 
artis maris, of the medieval cities of Italy and 
southern France. These tribunals settled quarrels 
arising at sea, and still looming large among a 
consul's duties today are the care and protection of 
American vessels and seamen. The first consuls 
fostered trade and commerce and protected the in- 
terests of their fellow countrymen in foreign lands. 
For a time, too, they held court and exercised 
judicial powers for settling disputes among their 

The diplomat, as a representative of one head of 
state accredited to another sovereign, has an 
equally misty origin. Certain early writers trace 
the first ambassadors to God himself, who created 
the angels to be His legates. But the real be- 
gimiings of diplomacy, involving intercourse be- 
tween nations, the rise of permanent missions, and 
the development of a diplomatic hierarchy, are 
more clearly traceable to Italy during the Middle 
Ages. You will recall that Florence counted 
among her envoys Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio, and, 
later, Machiavelli. 

Undoubtedly because diplomacy was associated 
with kings and courts, intrigue and rivalries, the 
Continental Congress and subsequently the early 
Presidents chose our first diplomats carefully and 
well. Thanks to their achievements in establish- 
ing mutual understandings with Old World states, 
we first won assistance to gain independence 
and, then, safeguards for our sovereignty. What 
has been termed the golden age of American diplo- 
macy helped preserve the United States through its 
vulnerable youth until it could develop strength 
and self-sufficiency as a nation. 

But with the advance of the 19th century, the 
United States became increasingly preoccupied 
with domestic affairs. We grew so rapidly that 
both need and fear of Europe were outgrown. 
Few people cared about the kind of representation 
our country had abroad. Only gradually did the 
feeling spread that the United States needed a 
professional foreign service. But not until early 


in this century was anything done to stop the prac- 
tice of making appointments on political or per- 
sonal grounds. Steps were also taken to increase 
inadequate salaries and allowances, which had 
obliged appointees to draw on private fimds of 
their own. 

It was only 34 years ago that the organization 
known as the Foreign Service of the United States 
of America actually came into being through the 
amalgamation of the diplomatic and consular 
services. The Eogers Act, in effect, provided the 
first statutory foundation for a disciplined and 
dedicated body of career officers at the service of 
the President and the Secretary of State. 

To illustrate how the Foreign Service and its 
members fit into the Department of State organi- 
zation, I want to employ a few figures. The grand 
total of Department of State American personnel, 
by most recent counts, is 12,847. Of this number, 
8,035 are in the Foreign Service. The Foreign 
Service, in turn, can be divided statistically. The 
principal representatives of the United States 
Government in foreign countries are usually 
Foreign Service officers, who now total 3,430. 
They are supported by the Foreign Service Re- 
serve corps and the Foreign Service Staff corps. 
When the need arises for highly specialized skills 
or experience, the Secretary has authority to make 
special appointments of Foreign Service Reserve 
officers. There are now 739 of them, limited by 
legislation to a maximum term of 5 years. The 
Foreign Service Staff corps is also career, with 
both officers and clerks. Its size has been con- 
siderably reduced as part of the 1954 Department 
of State reorganization recommended by the Sec- 
retary's Public Committee on Personnel headed by 
Dr. Henry M. Wriston. There are now 1,273 
Foreign Service Staff officers. The balance of the 
Staff corps handles stenographic, clerical, techni- 
cal, and custodial work of the Foreign Service. 

In addition I should mention here, not only for 
the sake of the record but to give credit where it 
is due, that the Foreign Service employs at its 279 
posts abroad 9,337 foreign nationals. Many of 
these local employees have decades of invaluable 

How Foreign Service Officers Are Seiected 

Unlike many other countries, the United States 
does not require that aspiring Foreign Service 
officers present certificates of any kind ; although 

the overwhelming majority are college gi-aduates, 
yet there is no kind of diploma which will qualify 
one automatically. Foreign Service officers are 
selected through competitive examination, open 
to any American citizen 20 to 31 years of age. 
First comes the written examination, which takes 
one day and consists of four parts — English ex- 
pression, general ability, general background, and 
modern language. The oral examination, for 
those who pass the written, usually runs an hour 
and a half and is conducted by a three-man panel. 
Ha^dng successfully completed his written and 
oral tests, the candidate is given a physical ex- 
amination. Foreign Service officers being sub- 
ject to assignment anywhere, certain disorders 
which do not seriously interfere with work at 
home may disqualify one for foreign service. 
Qualified candidates are also given the i-egular 
background investigation required of all prospec- 
tive Department of State employees. This investi- 
gation seeks to assure that a person's character, 
reliability, and loyalty are such that he can be 
trusted with the responsibility of United States 
Government employment. 

You will get some idea of the selective nature 
of the Foreign Service examination process from 
the following summary : Of 2,616 young men and 
women who took the written tests last June, 556 
passed. So far, 279 of this successful 21 percent 
have gone on to take the oral : 55 were accepted; 
16 were deferred — probably to make up foreign- 
language deficiencies; and 208 failed. 

There is not only competition, as you have just 
seen, to enter the Foreign Service. There is also 
competition to stay in — and to advance. Nom- 
inated by the President of the United States and 
confirmed by the United States Senate, Foreign 
Service officers enter in class 8. They can rise to 
class 1, then to career minister and career ambas- 
sador. Each year every officer is rated by selec- 
tion boards in comparison with all the others in 
his class. A number with the highest ratings are 
promoted. Unless an officer is promoted after a 
certain number of years, he faces separation. As 
in the military services, it's either "up — or out." 
Almost two-tliirds of our ambassadors and minis- 
ters today came up from the ranks — some without 
the benefit of a university education, I might add. 
Of the Department's three Deputy Under Secre- 
taries, two are Foreign Service officers. Some- 
times Foreign Service officers are assigned as As- 
sistant Secretaries of State. 


Department of State Bulletin 

A Foreign Service officer, when appointed by 
the President, receives three titles : one as a For- 
eign Service officer, one as a diplomatic officer, 
and one as a consular officer. The first determines 
his class ; use of the others depends on his assign- 
ment. His salary is based on his class in the 
Foreign Service, not his post or his job. For ex- 
ample, in Washington he may be assigned as 
Bolivian desk officer in the Bureau of Inter- 
American Affairs; later he may be sent to Tijuana 
as consul and then to Caracas as Second Secretary 
of Embassy. Barring a promotion from, say, class 
5 to 4, meanwhile, his salary in all three places 
would be the same. 

Before this student audience, some of whom I 
hope will seek to join me as career officers in the 
Foreign Service of the United States, I should 
like to emphasize how, in a sense, it is a profession 
which, while requiring careful preparation, does 
not lend itself to exact textbooks. There are a 
number of institutions of higher learning which 
concentrate on international relations, even specif- 
ically in Foreign Service. Yet there are no spe- 
cific courses on how to become a Foreign Service 
officer. The reason is evident when it is noted 
that the written examination covers: (1) correct- 
ness, effectiveness, sensitivity, and organization in 
written English; (2) ability to read and to in- 
terpret tabular and quantitative data ; (3) under- 
standing of the ideas and concepts basic to the 
development of the United States and other coun- 
tries; and (4) ability to read with comprehension 
French, German, Russian, or Spanish. 

During the oral examination the panel studies 
the candidate's personality, resourcefulness, and 
versatility. It probes the breadth and depth of 
his interests, his ability to express and defend his 
views, his ability to work with people, and, in 
general, his suitability as a representative of the 
United States abroad. The candidate is judged 
primarily on his ability to express clearly and un- 
derstandably thoughtful opinions based on facts 
at his disposal rather than on the factual accuracy 
of his answers. He is asked about American his- 
tory and geography, economic theoi-y, current 
events, the United States and foreign govern- 
ments, and cultural developments. His motiva- 
tion for entering the Foreign Service, his outside 
intei-ests, and his general personality are also 
taken into account. 

Once a Foreign Service officer, one's education 

only begins. His work requires intimate knowl- 
edge of the political customs, governmental f onns, 
and cultural patterns of people who may work, 
think, and worship in a manner quite different 
from our own. Understanding in these matters 
cannot be acquired quickly or easily. It must be 
the result of continuous and supervised growth 
through experience, study, social contact, and per- 
ceptive observation. 

Career Planning and In-Service Training 

Career planning and in-service training of For- 
eign Service officers have a high priority in the 
Department of State. A career development and 
counseling staff in the Office of Personnel has un- 
der constant review the records of individual 
officers, to whom they are readily available for 
advice and assistance. The Department's For- 
eign Service Institute offers a wide range of 
courses. All newly appointed officers must attend 
a 3-month, full-time basic course prior to their 
first assignment. There are numerous types of 
part- and full-time orientation and substantive 
courses, ranging in duration from half a day to 9 

It may sm-^^rise you to know that this morning 
88 Foreign Service officers, before putting in a full 
day's work in the Department, voluntarily spent 
from 7 : 30 to 9 o'clock studying either French, 
German, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, or Russian. 
This goes on 5 days a week. Another 83, with 
the Department paying their tuition, go after 
work to one of the various Washington imiver- 
sities offering night extension classes. And final 
grades go into their personnel folders for con- 
sideration in connection with pi'omotions. 

During the last fiscal year the Institute assigned 
27 selected Foreign Service officers of unusual 
promise to seven colleges and universities for ad- 
vanced economics and political science courses. 
An additional 29 studied at the National War 
College and other colleges maintained by the 
United States Armed Forces. The Institute pro- 
vides instruction 4 to 6 hours daily in 25 lan- 
guages, including Hausa and Vietnamese, and 
also maintains full-time language progi-ams a' 
schools in Mexico, France, and Germany and Ian 
guage and area programs for Arabic, Chinese, and 
Japanese in Lebanon, Formosa, and Japan. In 
all there are now 99 Foreign Service officers train- 
ing to become what we call language-and-area 

tAay 12, 1958 


specialists for Eastern Europe and the Near and 
Far East. 

Tliis increasing recognition of the need for For- 
eign Service officers with specialized advanced 
ti-aining and experience bespeaks the realinement 
of power and commitment following World "War 
II which affected profoundly the position of the 
United States in world affairs. The functions of 
the Foreign Service, as envisaged in the classical 
image by the Kogers Act of 1924, were to repre- 
sent the United States abroad, to report signifi- 
cant developments in foreign countries, and to 
extend official protection as required to American 
nationals and interests. Tliese functions still con- 
tinue, but added to them have been many others 
of varying degrees of specialization which For- 
eign Service officers are expected to perform in 
connection with the postwar expanded responsi- 
bilities of the United States Government. There- 
fore, we now find ourselves engaged in higlily 
technical studies. Negotiation and elaboration of 
complicated agreements of economic, scientific, or 
military character is another new task. We re- 
port on social and labor problems and participate 
in multilateral organizations. 

I could expand at some length on the many 
other new functions which would at one time have 
been considered the exception but are now the 
rule in modem diplomacy. But I should rather 
emphasize that this expansion of scope has been 
accompanied by an increase in volume of prob- 
lems. This has required considerable decentrali- 
zation of organization, thereby placing impor- 
tance on individuals and their judgment. In the 
light of this important development the sugges- 
tion that Foreign Service officers are merely mes- 
senger boys at the end of a telegraph line is com- 
pletely fallacious. 

Correction of this and similar misconceptions 
of what Foreign Service officers do as well as who 
they are is difficult, due to the very nature of their 
work. Eegrettably, they are too little known to 
most of their fellow Americans. Their lives are 
spent predominantly around the face of the globe, 
often at personal hardship and even danger, 
broken by occasional assignments in Washington 
and irregular brief periods of home leave with 
their families in other parts of the United States. 

Actually the Foreign Service Officer corps is 
representative of every area of our country and 
every walk of life. There is no monopoly of Ivy 


Leaguers nor of any other smgle small group. 
All in all they represent a thoroughly American 
cross section of hard-working, do\vn-to-earth, 
straightforward men and women whose main dif- 
ference from the rest of the population is that 
they are professionally concerned with upholding 
United States interests abroad. Tempering tliis 
concern is a healthy perspective to make them 
realize that eveiything they do in the field of for- 
eign affairs should stem from domestic funda- 
mentals right here in the United States. 

Foreign Service Heroes 

To speak of danger in the Foreign Service is 
not mere rhetoric. A flag-flanked plaque on one 
marble-lined wall in the lobby of the Department 
of State Building in Washington testifies to the 
death of 71 diplomatic and consular officers of the 
United States "who while on active duty lost their 
lives under heroic or tragic circumstances." This 
honor roll of Foreign Service heroes is headed by 
the name of William Palfrey — "lost at sea 1780." 
The last name on the list is that of David Le 
Breton, Jr., "drowned saving lives — Tunis 1953." 

In the 173 years spanning these two names and 
dates, the words "lost at sea" have been inscribed 
under seven names. Forty-two were killed by fe- 
vers and diseases, such as yellow fever, malaria, 
cholera, and smallpox. Exhaustion and exposure, 
suffered on the job, have claimed three others. 
Four have been murdered. Six gave their lives 
trying to save others. Volcanic eruptions and 
earthquakes killed another seven. And, reflect- 
ing United States efforts to mediate recent civil 
disturbances, one was shot by a sniper and an- 
other was killed by gimfire. 

This list does not include more than a score of 
Foreign Service officers who have been killed in 
recent years while flying from one post of assign- 
ment to another. Since 1942 three diplomatic 
couriers have died in plane crashes. Some of you 
may recall a crash near Vienna in October 1955 
when a courier, disregarding serious internal in- 
juries, extensive burns, and intense pain, salvaged 
his diplomatic pouch before extricating himself 
from tlie burning wreckage. Despite pain and 
shock he refused all medical attention after arrival 
in a hospital until he delivered his pouch into safe 

Of course, I do not mean to imply that the life 
of the average Foreign Service officer verges on 

Deparfmsnf of State Bulletin 

deatli's door every day. Rather than dangerous 
adventure, his lot more often is dull hardship. 
Trying climate, absence of modern conveniences, 
lack of medical facilities, isolation, and hazards 
to health and bodily safety — from one to all of 
these factors may plague his daily existence. At 
times, I confess, there is also a lighter side. Of 
the experiences of the wife of a Foi-eign Service 
officer, the Saturday Evening Post wrote this head- 
line several years ago: "Disinfected in Ethiopia, 
terrorized in Tunisia, and pinched by a Very Im- 
portant Foreigner — all in the line of duty." 

Even where life offers the more normal ameni- 
ties, a Foi-eign Service officer often has compara- 
tively little time to call his own. Not for a moment 
can he forget his primary obligation, which is 
not only to strengthen understanding and friendly 
relations between the United States and the coun- 
try in which he serves but also to strengthen the 
global position of the United States. The fulfill- 
ment of this obligation, which entails presenting 
the United States position to foreign officials and 
influential citizens as well as to sound out their 
views, depends principally on personal contacts 
and interchange. Personal contacts take time and, 
in great numbers, can be exhausting. Social func- 
tions, while an important part of his duties, may 
afford little pleasure when crowded together and 
attended out of necessity. Spending a quiet eve- 
ning with his family becomes a privilege dependent 
on the absence of official exigencies. 

This brings us to another of the canards involv- 
ing striped pants. I would be less than candid if 
I did not admit that sometimes — but not often — 
Foreign Service officers wear formal dress on cer- 
tain ceremonial occasions. But nearly everyone 
I know usually outgrows the outfit before he has 
a chance to wear it out. Wearing striped pants, 
when required, is a part of protocol, and protocol 
simply means following certain rules and pi^o- 
cedures in order to regularize and facilitate re- 
lations with other people. That is especially im- 
portant with people of other countries and other 
civilizations, whose customs, including dress, may 
differ widely from our own. 

But whatever the dress of a Foreign Service 
officer at any particular time and on any particular 
occasion, you can be sure that he feels deeply both 
the honor and responsibility of participation in 
our Nation's first line of defense. Deprived of 
the possibility of spending his life in a hometown. 

May 12, 1958 

the wide world is his hometown. Certainly the 
frequent changes of post to which Foreign Service 
officers are subject offer them the pleasure of travel 
and the stimulation of association with new peoples 
and places. But it also means endless farewells — 
and that isn't so pleasant. 

One of my colleagues tells this illustrative 
story: About to leave a post in Spain, a friend 
said : "You know, when we say goodbye next week, 
it will be very sad. Since I probably won't ever 
see you again, it will be like going to your fu- 
neral." My colleague, touched by this sentiment, 
had the inspiration to reply: "What of me! 
Wlien I have to say goodbye to all the friends I 
have made here, it will be as if I am attending 
scores of funerals simultaneously." 

Threefold Role of Women 

At this point, before the distaff side of the audi- 
ence complains, I want to emphasize the threefold 
role of growing importance in the Foreign Serv- 
ice being played by women. First, as Foreign 
Service officers, they number 306, led by the 
United States Ambassador to Norway, Frances 
E. Willis, with 31 years' experience. Second, 70 
percent of the Foreign Service Staff corps is fe- 
male. Without their efficient assistance in mak- 
ing the wheels of organization turn, the Foreign 
Service would be as a car without an engine. 
Third, but far from least, are the wives. While 
this is a subject which, I am certain, Mrs. Ru- 
bottom could discuss far better than I, permit me 
these few words of praise for helping their hus- 
bands do their job better. 

On arrival at a new post, for instance, husband 
can go right into an already functioning office, but 
wife has to find and set up a new home and a new 
life for herself and family under strange and 
sometimes difficult circumstances. She has to as- 
sume a heavy load of representational responsi- 
bilities and obligations dictated by ever-present 
protocol. Nevertheless she usually finds time to 
indulge also in such typical American women's 
activities as organizing and conducting charity 
benefits and community betterment projects of all 
kinds. It's no secret that a Foreign Service offi- 
cer is judged not only on his own merits and de- 
merits but also those of his wife. 

Foreign Service children also deserve their 
share of credit and praise. If they haven't been 
bom abroad, they are reared in various foreign 


lands. They start school in one language and 
may go on to finish in a second or third; mean- 
while, they have been learning to speak English 
at home with their families. They have to learn 
to make and lose friends with unexpected rapid- 
ity, and home for them, too, is where they hang 
their hats. Their good spirits and equanimity 
in the face of the inevitable minor, if not major, 
disasters that accompany this kind of semino- 
madic existence are a constant source of inspira- 
tion and comfort to us adults, I assure you. And 
let's admit one of their most vital contributions : 
Thanks to their quick proficiency in languages, 
we parents often make shameful use of them as 
interpreters until our trailing linguistic abilities 
finally catch up. 

I have tried in this siunmary scanning of the 
United States Foreign Service to give you, as I 
stated at the start, a factual account of its his- 
tory, its mission, its members. Foreign Sei-vice 
officers are no supermen, but neither are they 
"cookie pushers." In full conscience they have 
chosen to dedicate themselves to the loyal service 
of their country, if need be, in farflung, isolated, 
and disease-ridden posts. (Let me point out here 
that over one-third of the 279 Foreign Service 
posts have living conditions classified officially as 
"hardship." Sixty percent have fewer than 15 
American personnel.) 

The Foreign Service of the Department of State 
is in a very real sense the official "eyes and ears" 
of the United States Government abroad ; it is, in 
fact, our first line of defense in peacetime. For- 
eign Service officers, if they have any request of 
Americans at home, do not ask increased benefits 
or higher salaries. They would rather receive 
your moral support and confidence and possibly 
a minimum of recognition as they wage peace and 
defend freedom on distant ramparts for their fel- 
low countrymen and all mankind. 

President Heuss of Germany 
To Visit United States 

The Department of State announced on April 
24 (press release 212) that arrangements had been 
completed for the arrival at Washington on June 
4 of Tlieodor Heuss, President of the Federal 
Republic of Germany, who will visit the United 
States at the invitation of President Eisenliower. 

President Heuss and his party will remain in 
Washington until Jime 7, when they will begin a 
trip schedided to include visits to Philadelphia, 
Pa., Hanover, N. H., Detroit, Mich., Chicago, 111., 
San Francisco, Calif., the Grand Canyon National 
Park, Williamsburg and Charlottesville, Va., and 
New York, N. Y. They will leave from New York 
on June 23. 

Mutual Security and World Trade 

hy Deputy Under Secretary Dillon ^ 

For the past 10 years the rapidly developing 
military might of the Soviet bloc has threatened 
the peace and security of the world. Actually, 
the threat of international communism has been 
with us from the dawn of the Union of Soviet 
Socialist Republics. To explain what I mean, 
here are two statements made by Lenin shortly be- 
fore his death in 1924. This is what he said : 

As long as capitalism aud socialism exist, we cannot 
live in peace ; in the end, one or the other will triumph — a 
funeral dirge will be sung over the Soviet Republic or 
world capitalism. 

Now that statement covers a lot of territory — 
the entire world. It refers to Great Britain and 
France and Latin America and Asia as well as to 
the United States. 

But Lenin's other effort at prophecy was very 
specific. Here it is: 

First we will take Eastern Europe, next the masses of 
Asia, and finally we will encircle the last bastion of 
capitalism — the United States. We shall not have to 
attack it ; it will fall like overripe fruit into our hands. 

I don't need to point out to this audience that 
the Soviet Union has accomplished the first step. 
Alost of what the mapmakers called Eastern 
Europe 20 years ago now lies behind the Iron Cur- 
tain. And the Soviet Union is still following the 
strategy and the doctrine laid down by Lenin 
more than a quarter of a century ago. 

The military potential of the Soviet Union to- 
day is impressive. At their disposal is the largest 
peacetime standing army in the history of the 
world. They have a submarine fleet six times 
larger than our own. Tactical and intermediate- 

' Address made before the National Machine Tool Build- 
ers' Association at Chicago, 111., on Apr. 24 (press release 
209dated Apr. 23). 

Departmsnt of Siafe Bulletin 

range missiles with nuclear warheads back up this 
menace. "We know that Soviet scientists are work- 
ing around the clock to perfect an intercontinental 
ballistic missile. 

This is the military threat of international com- 

We are countering this threat. Very briefly, I 
would like to tell you how. 

First, we have strengthened and modernized our 
own military establislunent. The more than 
2,600,000 men and women in the Army, Navy, Air 
Force, and Marine Corps are equipped with the 
latest nuclear weapons, atomic submarines, guided- 
missile ships, fighters, bombers, and ballistic 
missiles. This combined force, dispersed, ready 
for action, and capable of instant retaliation, is a 
mighty deterrent to any aggressor. 

But we have not stopped there. The world to- 
day is a world of interdependence among nations. 
No nation — not even the United States — can go 
it alone. 

That is why we have joined with other nations 
to further our mutual security against Commu- 
nist military aggression. We have established mil- 
itary alliances with 42 nations of the free world, 
either through bilateral treaties such as those with 
Japan and the Philippines or through multilat- 
eral arrangements such as the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization and the Eio Pact with our 
Latin American friends. 

During the past 7 years the United States has 
contributed $20 billion in mutual defense assist- 
ance to its free-world allies. But — and this is the 
significant point for the American citizen to fully 
understand — during this same period our partners 
in these defensive alliances have expended $122 
billion of their own funds to develop and main- 
tain their military strength. No one, therefore, 
can honestly call our military assistance a give- 
away program; and no one can deny that it is 

An equally important contribution of our allies 
has been in making real estate available for our 
joint defense. On the real estate loaned for Amer- 
ican forces we have constructed more than 250 
major overseas bases. From these bases the Stra- 
tegic Air Command and the Navy can launch 
forces capable of destroying any aggressor. 

This power in being has earned the respect of 
the Soviet Union. Mr. Khrushchev knows that, 
because of the free-world defense system main- 

tained by the United States and its allies, a third 
world war would mean the end of civilization 
rather than the victoi-y of commimism. The 
Soviet leaders are realists. They know that civi- 
lization is at the crossroads and that the survivors 
of another war miglit be reduced to living in caves 
and throwing rocks at each other. 

Soviet Economic Offensive 

The Kremlin rulers, well aware that new ef- 
forts at military conquest could result in the de- 
struction of the Soviet homeland, have neverthe- 
less not changed their ultimate objective, which 
is world domination. They have only shifted their 
tactics. They have now added a new and formid- 
able weapon to the Soviet arsenal. I am not re- 
ferring to the earth satellites but to the Soviet 
economic offensive. This got under way shortly 
after the death of Stalin in 1953. It has been 
gaining in momentum ever since. 

The Soviet economic offensive is presented with 
colorful propaganda. I would like to read to you 
just one sentence from a statement made by a 
Eussian delegate at the recent Afro-Asian Peo- 
ples' Solidarity Conference in Cairo : 

We are ready to help you as brother helps brother, 
without any interest whatever, for we know from our own 
experience how difficult it is to get rid of need. 

Language such as this seems transparent to us. 
We wonder how other people can believe these 
soft words coming from the brutal oppressors of 
Hungary. Unfortunately such blandishments are 
too often believed in the less developed areas of 
the world. For the Soviet leaders are not relying 
upon propaganda alone. They have now launched 
a massive program of trade and economic assist- 
ance designed to swing the less developed coun- 
tries into the Communist orbit. 

Starting from zero in 1954, Soviet-bloc economic 
assistance to the less developed nations had risen 
to $1.6 billion by the end of 1957. Soviet-bloo 
loans are being used to finance such projects as a 
steel mill and electric power station in India ; ship- 
yards and textile mills in Egypt ; a sugar factory 
in Ceylon; and many other enterprises in these 
and other less developed countries. The Soviet 
bloc has also increased its trade with the less 
developed nations from $840 million in 1954 to 
about $1.7 billion in 1957 — more than double; and 
the number of trade agreements signed has leaped 
from 49 to 147. 

May ?2, 1958 


President Eisenhower in a message to Congress " 
made it clear how we as Americans must regard 
this new threat. Here is what the President said : 

If the purpose of Soviet aid to any country were siraply 
to help it overcome economic difficulties without infring- 
ing its freedom, such aid could be welcomed as forward- 
ing the free world purpose of economic growth. But there 
is nothing in the history of international communism to 
indicate this can be the case. Until such evidence is 
forthcoming, we and other free nations must assume that 
Soviet bloc aid is a new, subtle, and long-range instru- 
ment directed toward the same old purpose of drawing 
its recipient away from the community of free nations and 
ultimately into the Communist orbit. 

Now the greatest mistake we could make would 
be to assume that this Soviet economic offensive 
is something that "will pass in the night" — that 
it is a "flash in the pan" — ^that it will peter out. 

The industrial growth of the Soviet Union is 
moving along at a pace more than twice that of 
the United States. Their rate of industrial 
gi-owth is 9 or 10 percent a year compared to 
America's 4 percent. Five years from now Kus- 
sia's industrial production may well reach a figure 
of over $100 billion. 

Despite their propaganda there are a nimiber 
of things which the men in the Kremlin cannot 
hide behind the Iron Curtain. The Soviets have 
not tried to hide from us their determination to 
weaken United States friendship with the newly 
developing nations and at the same time increase 
the dependence of these young nations on the 
Soviet bloc. 

Countering the Threat 

Now, what are we doing under the mutual se- 
curity program to counter this Soviet economic 

Since "World War II, 20 new independent na- 
tions have been created. These new countries 
represent about 750 million people — almost one- 
third of the world's population. Within their 
boundaries lie immense natural resources, some 
of them scarcely tapped. 

These newly independent countries have lived 
with poverty, disease, hunger, and despair since 
the dawn of man. But in winning their inde- 
pendence they have set in motion a powerful force. 
It has been called the "revolution of rising ex- 
pectations." These new nations know that the 

' BxiLLETiN of Mar. 10, 1958, p. 


rest of the world lives far better than they do. 
Their own per capita income of about $75 a year 
is barely sufficient to provide subsistence. 

But despair has given way to hope and an im- 
patient determination to find "a place in the sim." 
Intense nationalism characterizes these young 
nations. The leaders of these 750 million people 
are being pressured to produce a higher standard 
of living — and quickly. We are working with 
these less developed nations in an effort to help 
them help themselves. 

They need higher levels of health, education, 
and sanitation. They need to learn new methods 
of agriculture, of irrigation, of conservation. 
They need nurses, doctors, teachers, engineers, 
administrators. Through our technical coopera- 
tion program we are helping in all of these areas. 

There are strong moral and humanitarian rea- 
sons for this effort to bring these hundreds of mil- 
lions of people into the community of modern free 
nations. But there are even more compelling 
reasons from a self-interest standpoint. If the 
less developed countries should turn to commu- 
nism in a mistaken effort to speed up their devel- 
opment, our own security would be gravely en- 
dangered. Moreover, this one-third of the earth's 
population represents both a source of vitally 
needed raw materials for our economy and a tre- 
mendous potential market for the goods of 
America, the world's largest trading nation. 

Development Loan Fund 

We are not trying to "prime the pump" of these 
underdeveloped coimtries. We are helping them 
to get the basic industry — the pump itself — for 
them to prime. Most of these new countries do not 
yet have the basic facilities required before they 
can attract private "risk capital." They lack 
good harbors, port facilities, roads, communica- 
tions, power, railways. 

To help meet the needs of these countries we 
established late last year the Development Loan 
Fund, as a part of the mutual security program. 
Congress appropriated $300 million last year for 
this fund, and this year we are requesting an ad- 
ditional $625 million. 

The Development Loan Fund lends money for 
specific, economically sound, and technically feasi- 
ble projects. It does not extend credit when other 
financing is available on reasonable terms. It con- 
centrates on long-range, economic-growth projects. 

Department of State Bulletin 

Ai)plications for more than $1.5 billion in such 
projects are now being carefully screened. 

The total budget for the mutual security pro- 
gram for the coming fiscal year is $3,942 billion. 
The military aspects of the program represent 
about two-thirds of this total, and the economic 
part the other third. 

Now, in my talks and travels I get the impres- 
sion that most Americans believe in the mutual 
security program but feel that because of eco- 
nomic troubles on the home front we may not be 
able to afford the full program. 

There are two fallacies to this line of reasoning. 
First of all, this program is vital to our national 
security, and the United States must always be 
able to afford whatever it costs to maintain its 
own security and freedom. 

Second, the mutual security program is today 
a very strong bulwark in our efforts to pull Amer- 
ica out of the recession. Eighty cents of every 
dollar spent on our mutual security program is 
spent right here in the United States. 

Here are a few figures showing purchases from 
American farms and factories in just 1 year 
under the MSP : 

Irou and steel 

Bread grains 



Motor vehicles 



$35 million 

$94 million 

$25 million 

$84 million 

$20 million 

$35 million 

$20 million 

— and military equipment, the sum of $1,443 bil- 
lion. Now I am sure you gentlemen know that the 
effect of these purchases is felt by hundreds of sub- 
contractors and suppliers in every walk of Ameri- 
can life, including, of course, your own very vital 

As a matter of fact, in the last fiscal year the 
International Cooperation Administration fi- 
nanced the purchase by foreign governments of 
$70 million worth of machinery and equipment, 
including $2.5 million in machine tools. During 
the current fiscal year ICA's financing of Ameri- 
can machine-tool exports has already amounted 
to $1,184,000. 

In addition to these direct purchases the mutual 
security program benefits other segments of the 
economy. For example, United States flag ship- 
pers received $58 million last year for carrying 
MSP goods overseas. 

Any cut in the sums requested for the mutual 
security program will be reflected directly in 
smaller orders for American factories. What 
sense does this make at a time when we are striv- 
ing to keep the wheels of industry turning? It 
is estimated that about 600,000 jobs are directly or 
indirectly due to the mutual security program. 
This hardly seems the time to add these workers 
to the ranks of the unemployed. 

Reciprocal Trade Agreements Program 

In connection with the hundi-eds of millions of 
dollars of American-made goods that are shipped 
abroad under the mutual security program, I 
would like to say just a few words about the re- 
ciprocal trade agreements program. As you 
know, this is now before Congress for renewal. 

I know that this industry is concerned about 
machine-tool imports. Mr. Olsen and Mr. Lun- 
dell, who are here from the Department of 
Commerce, are experts in the field of machine 
tools, and I am not ; but I would like for you to 
consider two or three facts. 

Trade statistics show that machine-tool imports 
to the United States increased from $22 million m 
1954 to $36 million in 1957, but U.S. exports of 
machine tools increased during this same period 
from $121.5 million to $183 million. This industry 
not only has an export balance of $147 million, but 
this balance is actually larger than it was in 1954, 
when it was only $99.5 million. 

Under the reciprocal trade agreements program 
the United States has become the largest exporter 
and the largest importer in the world. In 1957 
our exports totaled $19.5 billion while imports 
were $13 billion. 

AVe often hear about import competition in this 
country, but we seldom hear the other side of the 
story. For example, in the month of February, 
114 Japanese textile concerns went bankrupt. 
Now I am not asking you to worry about these 
114 firms or about the thousands of employees who 
lost their jobs when these concerns closed their 
doors. But the cold algebra of trade shows that 
Japan is our second best export customer — better 
than a billion-dollar-a-year customer. And when 
a billion-dollar-a-year customer shows signs of 
sickness, we had better take an interest. 

Japan desperately needs a "smoothing out" of 
her trade relations with the United States. Last 

May 12, 1958 


year her trade deficit with the United States was 
$624 million. Japan is the most industrialized 
nation in Asia, and the Japanese are a dependable 
ally in the Far East. The situation in which 
Japan finds herself— 90 million people to support 
in an area less than the size of California and with 
few natural resources — illustrates vividly the 
interrelationship between trade and defense. 

I use Japan only as an illustration. We could 
move around the world and point to many others — 
in "Western Europe, in Latin America, in Asia. 
Wherever we look, we find that international trade 
is of vital interest to nations whose well-being and 
security is essential to our own. Trade and na- 
tional security cannot be separated in the modern 

To safeguard the Nation's defense through ef- 
fective alliances while at the same time adequately 
protecting American business interests is the chal- 
lenge we face. I believe that the reciprocal trade 
agreements program with its built-in protections 
can accomplish both purposes. I believe, too, that 
if the businessmen of the United States lose con- 
fidence in their ability to meet world competition, 
at home and abroad, we will see the new nations 
move one by one into the Soviet orbit, taking with 
them resources vital to our own economy. This 
would leave America encircled and beleaguered. 
Eventually it would mean the end of the freedom 
we hold so dear. 

This is the problem. The stakes were never 
higher. We face a ruthless and determined foe. 
The machine-tool industry has played a major 
role in the history of this country, in peace and 
in war. To win this economic struggle with the 
Soviet Union we will need from you all the skills, 
all the resourcefulness, all the ingenuity, and all 
the daring which you can summon. 

Above all we need from you and from every 
American industry renewed confidence — confi- 
dence in the free-enterprise system and confidence 
in the trading system that has made us the envy 
of the world. This cold war is one for America's 
businessmen to win. It is down our alley. I have 
unbounded faith in the outcome. 

U.S. Sends Medical Supplies 
to East Pakistan 

The Department of State annoimced on April 
23 (press release 208) that the United States is 
sending emergency medical supplies to East Pak- 
istan to help combat serious outbreaks there of 
smallpox and cholera. 

The shipments, which have already started by 
commercial air express, are in response to a re- 
quest from the Government of East Pakistan, 
which is the most populous section of the Repub- 
lic of Pakistan. Pakistan is comprised of the two 
provinces of East Pakistan and West Pakistan, 
which are separated by 1,000 miles of Indian ter- 
ritory. No outbreaks of the diseases have been 
i-eported from West Pakistan. 

Reports from Dacca, provincial capital of East 
Pakistan, indicate that the incidence of the dis- 
eases in the eastern province has reached as many 
as 1,900 cases of smallpox in one week, with about 
750 deaths, and 330 cases of cholera with more 
than 200 deaths in the same period. The reports 
describe the outbreaks as epidemic in proportion. 

The medical supplies being procured by the 
International Cooperation Administration for 
air express to East Pakistan include 6 million 
doses of smallpox vaccine, 1 million tablets of 
sulfadiazine, 1 million tablets of sulfaguanidine, 
and 12,000 hypodermic needles. 

Depar/menf of State Bulletin 

Atoms for Power: International Status 

hy Robert McKinney 

U.S. Representative to the Inteimational Atomic Energy Agency ■ 

I have been asked to si^eak on some of the broad 
international political and economic implications 
of atomic power. A few prefatory remarks about 
the new world organization in this field would 
therefore seem in order. 

The charter of the International Atomic Energy 
Agency is the product of unanimous agreement be- 
tween 82 nations which belong to the United Na- 
tions or its specialized agencies. At present it 
has been ratified by the governments of 65 nations. 
We are an independent world agency, autonomous, 
and associated with but not a subsidiary of the 
United Nations. 

We are not a political assembly. We are not a 
trade association. We are a technical operation 
which may eventually pay its own way. Depend- 
ing on the particular circumstance, we may func- 
tion as manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, 
broker, as purveyor of scientific, technical, engi- 
neering, auditing, or financial services, or as a re- 
search complex. 

The Agency will sponsor research throughout 
the world, it will assist in reactor construction, 
and it will handle isotopes and reactor fuels. Un- 
doubtedly at a later period it will have its own 
processing and storage plant. International regu- 
lation of waste disposal and establishment of 
radiological standards are Agency business. The 
Agency will conduct an extensive training pro- 
gram aimed particularly at developing a body of 
atomic specialists in the less advanced countries 
able to carry on their national programs. 

Let us think of the International Atomic Energy 
Agency, therefore, as a business, as a new but 
practical venture in which the member nations 

'Address made before the Southwestern Assembly, 
sponsored by the Riee Institute, at Bracketville, Tex., on 
Apr. 18 (press release 196 dated Apr. 16). 

have invested in the firm expectation that we will 
earn a good return. 

I should note that only 9 out of 65 member na- 
tions, 3 out of 23 governors, and 4 out of 26 senior 
Agency officials are from Iron Curtain countries. 
Certainly our balance of geographical representa- 
tion will make ideological subversion most difficult. 
If the performance during our first 6 months is 
any indication, I believe the board members and 
Agency officers now working together will surprise 
us by their progress. And our high enthusiasm 
cannot help but bring about an understanding 
which will make itself strongly felt in negotiations 
among our member nations in other fields. 

Atomic Training 

The relatively few people now at work in atomic 
fields throughout the world largely chose their 
vocations and finished their university training 
before nuclear energy had been given much at- 
tention by our basic educational systems. In con- 
sequence, many of those now pioneering on this 
exciting frontier have entered from other fields, 
often too late and with too little background for 
their own fullest attainment and satisfaction. 

Our hopes for the future must rest on our abil- 
ity to interest young people in science and engi- 
neering, particularly in the peaceful uses of atomic 
energy. The attractions are many and great. Al- 
ready atomic energy has attracted some of the 
world's most brilliant minds. Yet I am convinced 
that the really gi-eat figures of the atomic age are 
still to come. It is the young men and women in 
high school and college laboratories today who 
will be the Nobel Prize winners of tomorrow. 
And some of them will undoubtedly owe the prizes 
for their atomic discoveries to the training pro- 
grams the IAEA is establishing today. 

hAay 72, 1958 


Many countries have already made construc- 
tive contributions to the Agency's training pro- 
grams. For our part the United States has con- 
tributed $1 million in fellowships. We plan to 
contribute a research reactor and laboratory fa- 
cilities. Such essentials as these are not "give- 
aways." Instead they represent a planned and 
balanced scheduling of the things we have to do 
today to insure that the next generation of nu- 
clear workers will be equal to their tasks. 

The Less Advanced Countries 

The Agency statute specifically charges us with 
a responsibility for assisting the less advanced 
countries with their atomic programs for electric 
power, medicine, agriculture, industry, and re- 
search. New and underdeveloped nations are 
acutely conscious of the potential benefits of 
atomic energy. They are resolved that they shall 
not be passed over by the atomic age as they feel 
they were by the industrial revolution. Eegard- 
less of the poverty of their means, they aspire to 
earn their share and not be petitioners for an 
atomic dole. Anxiety that nuclear energy was 
destined to become just one more big-power ad- 
vantage explains why the President's creative 
pi'oposal of 4 years ago for creation of the Agency 
uncovered such abundant response. 

We hope to give these countries the benefit of 
our long and costly experience in nuclear develop- 
ment. A pooling effort such as the Agency pro- 
vides will mean for these countries a great saving 
in time, resources, and money. 

The Need for Atomic Power 

Evei-ywhere, every day, need for electricity is 
growing, 2:)articularly in fuel-shoi-t nations. For 
example, Italy, with 12 million kilowatts of elec- 
tric generating capacity now installed, sees her 
liower demand doubling in 9 years. Turkey, 
which has only one-half million kilowatts of in- 
stalled capacity, sees her requirements doubling 
in less than 5 years. Careful surveys of future 
jiower requirements in many countries convince 
us that the world demand for electric power would 
at least double over the next 10 years — given any 
expectation of meeting that demand. 

Without atomic power that expectation cannot 
be fulfilled. Four out of every ten people in the 


world live in countries where any significant ex- 
pansion of electric output is impossible unless that 
expansion is based on the uncertainty of imported 
fuels. As I see it, this means that through the 
Agency and otherwise we must stimulate the early 
construction of civilian atomic power plants 
abroad in as many countries as are able to make use 
of them. 

The essential raw material of the Agency is nu- 
clear fuel for firing civilian atomic power plants 
abroad. We will not have carried out one of the 
main charges laid upon the Agency by our found- 
ing nations unless and vmtil we have made civil- 
ian atomic power an important contributor to the 
energy needs of a world at peace. If all goes well, 
by far the largest part of our business will be 
eventually devoted to dealing in one way or 
another with enriched and natural uranium, with 
thorium and plutonium. 

Here for the first time, by international agree- 
ment, we liave at hand the means for furnishing 
dependable supplies of nuclear fuels and reactor 
materials to fill the world's otherwise inevitable 
energy deficit. Certainly there is no comparable 
international organization which can assume long- 
term obligations for supply of conventional 
fuels — that is, of oil and coal — stable in quantity 
and stable in price. So, when viewed in perspec- 
tive, the Agency takes on truly great significance. 

World Technological Leadership 

The goal of the United States must be to main- 
tain and contiiniously make visible world tech- 
nological leadership in all fields. If we are the 
first to make civilian atomic power cheap, safe, 
and simple, we will have won an important ad- 
vantage in this struggle. But if another nation 
does so first, the defeat will be even more impor- 
tant, for it could be taken, by extension, as evi- 
dence that we are no longer first in the military 
atomic field. This is true because atomic military 
developments are necessarily shrouded in secrecy. 
There can, however, be firsthand observation of 
atomic supremacy in the peaceful uses of atomic 
energJ^ The degree of leadership displayed in 
civilian atomic energy may be projected by many 
into estimates of military nuclear strength. 

Because of tlie way world opinion works, it 
seems to me necessary for the United States to 
establish and hold world leadership in civilian 

Departmenf of Sfaie BuUefin 

:U(iiiiic power as a cornerstone to technological 
leadership because we want to do all we can to 
insure that our military atomic capability remains 
a deterrent to aggression. It is essential that the 
world be kept aware of this leadership. In this 
endeavor there can be no better evidence of leader- 
ship than reactors of American design or fired 
with American fuels feeding electricity into 
light globes and electric motors throughout the 
world. Over the long run news stories of new re- 
actors built abroad will do more than news stories 
from weapons proving grounds. 

And the task of demonstrating leadership in 
nuclear power development is one which our 
friends and allies in the free world must help to 
bear. For our pait we can provide people, know- 
how, and materials for research and development 
and testing; we have built and can continue to 
build demonstration plants here in the United 
States. For their i^art our friends and allies must, 
by building additional demonstration plants, help 
gather the body of broad operating experience 
which can only come from actually running on- 
the-line atomic power stations. Our friends can- 
not, and I am sure they will not, sit back and play 
no part in this competition. The stakes are as 
high for them as they are for us. Nor can any of 
us do our parts by often establishing goals for 
atomic power development but seldom starting 
actual construction. 

The Icepack Begins To Break 

The reactor construction programs which are 
now shaping up in Western Europe, Great 
Britain, and Japan give promise that the icepack 
in which atomic power has long been frozen is 
finally breaking and that international collabora- 
tion will give great impetus to these and other 
programs for civilian atomic power, leading to 
actual on-the-line operation of more civilian re- 
actors at an earlier date than was thought pos- 
sible even a few months ago. 

An extensive market is beginning to take defi- 
nite form, and American industry's stake in it is 
real. Because the International Atomic Energy 
Agency will be an international focal point for all 
these projects, by assuring that potential weapons 
materials are accounted for and through other 
forms of support and assistance, the Agency can- 
not help but be a focal point in the American 

atomic energy industry. In one or another of the 
Agency's activities throughout the world our 
presently suffering atomic industrialists will see 
new markets and new help to their salesmen. 

But the manufacturing volume implied by the 
growth of civilian atomic power programs 
throughout the world is only part of the benefits 
the United States can expect. International col- 
laboration in the peaceful uses of atomic energy 
invariably and inevitably is accomplished by a 
further release from the restraints of atomic se- 
crecy. Perhaps the most noteworthy example oc- 
curred in connection with the first Geneva con- 
ference in 1955. I feel confident that the second 
Geneva conference will be the occasion for further 
presentation of new data on exploitation of both 
fission and possible fusion power. And there can 
be no doubt that the efl'ect of our joint activities 
in Vienna, as need is demonstrated and confidence 
gained, will be the gradual but positive broaden- 
ing of existing atomic knowledge and the genera- 
tion of new knowledge. 

Problems of Reactor Development 

As I said a moment ago, what we need most of 
all to speed our search for low-cost reactors is a 
large body of actual operating data from plants 
designed for civilian purposes. We all know the 
difficulties involved in dealing with new systems 
as expensive as reactors. Every atomic decision, 
by business or government, has many ramifications. 
How will the i-esearch and development be fi- 
nanced? "What about fuel costs and buy-back 
prices ? Who should have first crack at being per- 
mitted to sponsor specific projects ? Should pub- 
lic-power enterprises be given priority, or should 
they bid competitively against private utility sys- 
tems ? "Wliere should the first reactors be located ? 
Wliat are the potential hazards to people who live 
near these reactors, and how should these risks be 
insured ? 

In our United States program each atomic power 
demonstration plant is a special case, characterized 
by its own special problems and special design. 
A few precedents are being established in limited 
areas, but the large sums of money involved make 
it imperative that, until our experience is bi'oader, 
these precedents be regarded as part of a develop- 
mental and transitional phase of the progress 
toward economic nuclear power. 

May 72, 7958 


Advantages of an International Program 

Not all problems of domestic recictor develop- 
ment apply in making decisions about atomic 
power programs abroad. Yet reactor-operating 
data developed abroad would make a marked con- 
tribution to the body of technical knowledge and 
fund of operating experience required to hasten 
low-cost atomic jiower here in the United States. 

Such an international atomic power demonstra- 
tion program, however, carries with it the further 
important values I touched upon before. 

International development of nuclear power, 
under the American and now the Agency concept, 
will be accompanied by the means of insuring 
against diversion to military purposes. This re- 
quires a sound and certain inspection system. Our 
proposals to this effect during negotiation of the 
statute were first received with misunderstanding 
and apprehension by many governments. Yet 
in the end it was unanimously acknowledged that 
such controls were indispensable to an atmosphere 
of mutual confidence in which the peaceful uses 
of atomic energy could flourish. 

What International Inspection Means 

The nations which foimded the IAEA were 
willing to pay the price for controls, even if it 
included outside audit. What was achieved was 
indeed a political breakthrough. For the first 
time East and West agreed that an international 
body should have an insjiection system as an in- 
tegral jjart of enforcing international agreements. 
Foreseeing the growth of civilian atomic power 
throughout the world, our statute provides that 
the Agency inspectors "shall have access at all 
times to all places and data and to any person who 
by reason of his occupation deals with materials, 
equipment, or facilities which are required by this 
statute to be safeguarded, as necessary to account 
for source and special fissionable materials sup- 
plied and fissionable products and to determine 
whether there is compliance with the undertaking 
against use in furtherance of any military 
purpose. . . ."2 

Already have the somewhat teclmical phrases 
of the Agency statute covering safeguards been 
spelled out in black and white in this world's great 

'For text of IAEA statute, see Bulletin of Nov. 19, 
1956, p. 820. 

languages. To men like you, their deep meaning 
requires no interpretation. But let me para- 
phrase them in the basic language of hope, so that 
men in tlie street do not find themselves over- 
whelmed by the scare headlines of the space age : 
We now have the prospect that men and women 
everywhere can watch the building up of supplies 
of nuclear fuels in the hands of their neighbors 
or even of their potential enemies without fear 
that they will be used as weapons against them. 
For this interpretation of our statute into the 
language of hope to achieve its full meaning, the 
International Atomic Energy Agency must and 
will now get on with the task of designing spe- 
cific procedures which will be workable and com- 
patible with teclmical and economic considera- 
tions. The criteria employed in the system so 
designed I am sure will have worldwide applica- 
tion. Compatible standards must be applied not 
only in Agency projects but also in atomic plants 
brought into being under regional or bilateral ar- 
rangements. This step is a matter of the highest 
priority because it can lead eventually to our real 
goal of universal atomic inspection. Looking to 
this ultimate goal, we will press for early coordi- 
nation by the Agency's Board of Governors of 
measures to develop a materials-accountability 
program, including the important first step of 
training Agency inspector personnel. 

Civilian Atomic Power vs. Military Stockpiles 

As I come toward the end of my remarks, I 
should like to summarize and emphasize the rea- 
sons why civilian atomic power is one of the main 
product lines of the International Atomic Energy 

One reason is that atomic power holds promise 
of becoming profitable because it alone can make 
available an extensive new energy source to fuel- 
short, energy-hungry nations. 

Another reason is the significant considera- 
tion that, if fissionable materials in substantial 
amounts are devoted to the generation of civilian 
atomic power under an arms-control agreement, 
the world can create a device — backed up by a 
real profit motive — which will siphon off nuclear 
materials from weapons stockpiles. This will not 
only lessen military potentials throughout the 
world ; it will convert an extremely costly compo- 
nent of these militai-y potentials — fissionable ma- 

Department of Sfafe Bulletin 

terials — from a sterile status into a status of fi- 
nancial gain and economic benefit. 

There is a third important reason. There must 
bo uniform, worldwide rules for health and 
safety in the atomic field in order to remove this 
controversial subject from the arena of national 
political bias and ideological propaganda. When 
mankind intrudes on nature's balance of matter, 
there sometimes result dangerous sources of radi- 
ation, the malignancy of which cannot be extin- 
guished or shortened. The most extreme form 
of radiation danger would, of course, arise from 
a war fought with nuclear weapons. Certainly 
hazards inherent in using radiation to treat or 
diagnose man's diseases, accidents involving 
atomic plants, or in weapons tests, for that mat- 
ter, would be microscopic by comparison. In this 
problem of radiation we will all agree that the 
world must move into every aspect of the atomic 
age with caution, lest we open a Pandora's box 
to plague our children. 

It takes all kinds of people to make a world — 
even to make a single field such as atomic energy. 
In the West many people are working to bring 
forth to fruition the promise of peaceful applica- 
tions of the atom. I am sure there are some folks 
on the other side of the Iron Curtain who want to 
do the same thing. 

There can only be one answer on either side of 
the Iron Curtain to the problem of controlling 
hazards of radiation. That answer is obvious, 
simple, and direct : practical and feasible interna- 
tional standards strictly enforced. That the 
International Atomic Energy Agency is the pio- 
neer in the field of world atomic regulation and is 
empowered by its statute to move broadly in the 
entire field of radiation hazards is genuine cause 
for worldwide enthusiasm about this new organi- 

I do not mean to imply by what I have said here 
tonight that civilian atomic power is any panacea. 
I would be the first to agree that, by itself, civilian 
atomic power is certainly not the answer to the 
world's quest for peace. Our quest for peace will 
test our genius to develop many different but com- 
plementary mechanisms. If we do succeed in 
ending the threats to civilization inherent in atomic 
war — and we must — we will owe our success to the 
sum total of the workable mechanisms which we 
devise. Here we lay open the fundamental 

Moy 72, J 958 

problem of our age — that progress in human tech- 
nology has seriously outstripped progress in hu- 
man relations. While science has led the way to 
new conquests in both the microcosmos and the 
macrocosmos, with pushbutton war ever more 
feasible, the nature of international relations is 
such that we can expect no equivalent mockup for 
pushbutton peace. Our hopes boil down to the 
hope for political breakthroughs by men intent on 
achieving international understanding. 

Some folks think the United States objective of 
diverting fissionable materials from military to 
peaceful uses is no more than a pious, unattain- 
able dream. Because of what I have already seen 
of the Agency's operation, however, I do not share 
these doubts. I have been convinced by the evi- 
dence. Bit by bit this evidence piles up in the 
earnest conversations among earnest men about 
what we have been thinking in long, wakeful 
flights to Vienna from Ankara, Karachi, Djakarta, 
Seoul, Tokyo, Washington, Rio de Janeiro, Stock- 
holm, London, Paris, Rome, Bucharest, and 
Moscow. None can realize better than we the great 
pressures on the nations most advanced in nuclear 
technology — that is, on those nations now able to 
make weapon materials in quantity — to get on with 
concrete action for using substantial amounts of 
these weapon materials for civilian atomic power. 
These pressures come not only from the forces of 
world opinion ; they come also from the deep, dia- 
strophic forces of history. 

By itself and alone, propaganda can make no 
answer to these pressures. They will intensify 
until countered by action. And the climax of these 
forces and counterforces approaches because the 
world has now created in "Vienna a proving ground 
in which the technical prowess and the moral de- 
termination of the great powers are on permanent, 
continuous, open demonstration in side-by-side 
comparison for judgment by men of all nations. 
This proving ground is no place for disembodied 
promises. Like the proving ground of any other 
practical business, it must be filled by real, live 
products which people can see and touch. Because 
the world has the Agency as a proving ground, 
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will not be 
able to convince anybody that its known allocations 
of uranium 235 to civilian purposes, and particu- 
larly the 50 kilograms offered to the Agency, are 
in any way comparable to the dedication by the 


United States of America of 100,000 kilograms to 
these uses. Half of our commitment is earmarked 
for power plants abroad. Five thousand kilo- 
grams is our commitment to start the IAEA in 
business, and we have also offered to match the 
commitments of other nations until mid-1960. 

No juggling with figures can overcome the sig- 
nificance of this offer. In fact, as a result of side- 
by-side comparison at the Agency proving ground, 
the world has begun to realize that the Soviet offer 
to contribute to the growth of international 
civilian atomic power must be increased — sub- 
stantially increased. Otherwise the parsimonious 
offer of reactor fuel and the Soviet claim that they 
have curtailed tlieir military potential by suspend- 
ing weapons tests, standing side by side, will make 
each other look hollower with every passing day. 

And if the world had at hand a like oppor- 
tunity for comparison and inspection in the mili- 
tary atomic field, it would soon leani that the 
Soviet pronouncement now current in the head- 
lines is only the peculiar way of saying, Moscow 
style, that Russian bomb experts must return to 
shop and laboratory to work on their 1959 and 
1960 models. Only by this process of continuing, 
open comparison in both peaceful and military 
atomic fields will the U.S.S.E. be forced into bona 
fide agreements, enforceable by inspection. 


How great have been the peaceful atomic 
achievements of the United States the world is 
only now beginning even faintly to understand. 
These achievements, however, will become visible 
to the world at large as the International Atomic 
Energy Agency moves toward its objective of ap- 
plying the peaceful atomic achievements of all 
nations on a worldwide scale. 

Success in this endeavor could eventually point 
the way to intei-national cooperation on the limi- 
tation of nuclear armaments. 

Establishing international standards for health 
and safety of workers, communities, and nations 
involved in reactor operation leads logically to 
international studies of general radiation hazards. 

Misuses for propaganda poison the wellsprings 
of every household in the world. I therefore hope 
that it is as clear to you as it is clear to me that. 

just as the threat to peace lies in the hostile uses of 
atomic energy, our real promise lies in the peaceful 

President Asks Reexamination 
of Cotton Import Quota 

White House press release dated April 8 

The President has requested the U.S. Tariff 
Commission to reexamine the quota upon imports 
of cotton having a staple length of fi/g inches or 
more. The President asked the Commission to 
determine whether changed circumstances require 
the modification of the quota to carry out the pur- 
poses of section 22 of the Agricultural Adjust- 
ment Act, as amended. The Commission will in- 
clude in its consideration the possible subdivision 
of the quota on such bases as physical quality, 
value, or use. 

President's Letter to Chairman of Tariff Commission 

Dear Mr. Chairman : I have been advised by 
the Secretary of Agriculture that changed cir- 
cumstances require modification of the quota es- 
tablished under Section 22 of the Agricultural 
Adjustment Act, as amended, upon cotton having 
a staple length of 1% inches or more. 

The changed circumstances are the entry within 
the quota of large and increasing quantities of 
Mexican upland cotton having staple lengths of 
less than 1% inches. This results in the exclu- 
sion of substantial quantities of cotton having a 
staple length of 1% inches or more. 

The United States Tariff Commission is re- 
quested to undertake an investigation under Sec- 
tion 22 (d) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, 
as amended, and re-examine the quota upon cotton 
having a staple length of li/s inches or more to 
determine whether changed circumstances require 
the modification of the quota to carry out the pur- 
poses of Section 22. The Commission should in- 
clude in its consideration the possible subdivision 
of the quota on the basis of physical qualities, value, 
use, or other basis. The Commission's findings 
should be completed as soon as practicable. 


Department of Sfafe Bulletin 


Tenth Anniversary of the OEEC 

hy Under Secretary Herter ' 

It is with great pleasure that I bring you on 
this memorable occasion greetings and congratu- 
lations from President Eisenhower and Secretary 
of State Dulles. 

We in the United States have felt ourselves 
particularly close to the OEEC. This is partly 
because tlie OEEC was originated in response to 
United States efforts to help Europe in its eco- 
nomic recovery after World War II. But it is 
also a recognition of the important part the 
OEEC has played and continues to play in fur- 
thering the stability and strength of the free 

The 10th anniversary of the OEEC is an es- 
pecially happy occasion for me personally. It 
was my good fortune to play a small part in the 
work which created the OEEC and helped West- 
ern Europe on its way to the remarkable recovery 
which has taken place in the last 10 years. In 
June 1947, when General Marshall made his his- 
toric call for cooperation in solving the imminent 
and ominous problems with which the nations of 
Europe were faced, I was serving in the House of 
Representatives of the United States Congress. 
Several montlis earlier I had filed a resolution for 
the creation of a special committee of the House 
of Representatives to make a study of the needs 
of the European nations for assistance from the 
United States as well as the impact of such as- 
sistance on the domestic economy of the United 

After General Marshall's speech tlie Congress 
took up my resolution and some weeks later passed 
it by a large bipartisan vote. The committee was 
authorized to travel to Europe to make its studies, 

' Address made at official ceremonies observing the lOtli 
anniversary of the founding of the Organization for 
European Economic Cooperation at Paris on Apr. 2.5 
(press release 215 dated Apr. 24) . 

May J 2, J 958 

and I had the honor to be appointed vice chairman 
of that committee and, in the absence of the chair- 
man, to lead it on its mission abroad. At that 
time it was our privilege to work very closely 
with many of you who are here today. In our 
study of Western Europe's needs and potentiali- 
ties we came unanimously to the inescapable con- 
clusion that only through cooperation, through 
working closely together, shoulder to shoulder, 
could the countries of Europe bring their econo- 
mies to the point where they would again meet 
the needs of their peoples and, equally important, 
go on to meet these peoples' growing aspirations. 
I remember in particular in those days the hope- 
lessness that was felt by many people, both in 
my country and in Europe, who feared the situ- 
ation in Europe was already beyond remedy. 
There were those who argued that we should do 
nothing because nothing could be done — that the 
situation in Western Europe had deteriorated to 
a point where its economy and political structure 
alike would inevitably collapse. It sounds odd to- 
day, but there were even a few people who shrank 
from the idea of a powerful initiative to cure 
the situation, on the grounds that a joint Western 
effort of this kind might give offense to the Soviet 
Union. Fortunately we did not listen to the coun- 
sels of despair and timidity. We were firmly 
convinced then — as we are today — that Western 
civilization has both the jight of survival and the 
means of survival. 

At this point I would like to point out a his- 
torical fact of some significance. The initiatives 
which came from the United States Government 
through General Marshall and the visits made 
by tlie members of the committee of whicli I was 
acting chairman contemplated that aid fur- 
nished by the United States should be available 
to all the nations of Europe. The Soviet Gov- 
ernment decreed that this should not be and so 
exercised its influence that including the nations 
of Eastern Europe was rendered impossible. 
From that time the division of Eastern Europe 
and Western Europe can be clearly dated. 


In April of 1948 the Congress of the United 
States adopted the Economic Cooperation Act. 
The nations of Western Europe welcomed this 
action and responded a few days later by estab- 
lishing the Organization for European Economic 
Cooperation. Thus was provided a formal 
framework for the cooperative eilorts that had 
already begun during the preceding months. 

Continuing Usefulness of OEEC 

In creating the OEEC, the countries of West- 
ern Europe recognized the need to solve their 
economic problems as a group, to permit exam- 
ination of their national economic policies in a 
European forum, and to remove barriers to trade. 
The usefulness of the Organization tlierefore did 
not end when, in the ensuing years, the economic 
recovery program reached and surpassed its 
goals. The value of coojieration in the economic 
field had been made so evident that the Organi- 
zation became the framework for vital new pro- 
grams for freeing trade and payments among the 
member countries and for finding joint solutions 
to many of the common problems that stood in the 
way of Europe's pi'ogress. 

I cannot in this brief message hope to cover 
fully, or even to mention, all of the aspects of the 
OEEC's work that have fostered the well-being 
and the spirit of cooperation of Western Europe 
and the entire Atlantic Community. The 
OEEC's many committees, working groups, and 
other subsidiary bodies have all contributed in 
full measure to this overall goal. Tlie work of 
the Organization touches on almost every sphere 
of European economic endeavor, and we recognize 
and appreciate its versatility and efficiency. 

I do want to mention, however, the OEEC's 
great accomplishments in the liberalization of 
trade among the member countries. By coor- 
dination and persuasion it has played a major role 
in swelling European trade and in setting goals 
for the removal of barriers to commerce within 
Western Europe. We sincerely hope that all of 
the member nations will be able to move rapidly 
toward the fulfillment of those goals. We be- 
lieve at the same time that it is in the interest of 
all that this freedom from restriction should be 
extended as rapidly as possible to imports from 
other areas of the world. 

New payments arrangements were a necessary 
corollary to this increased international flow of 


goods. The European Payments Union has 
proven itself to be a valuable instrument, not only 
by facilitating the financial aspects of European 
recovery but also by providing a forum within 
which the financial problems of the member coun- 
tries could be thoroughly explored and means of 
assistance agreed on in times of general and in- 
dividual crisis and need. 

Since the peaceful conquest of the atom is of 
such importance to us all, I would also like to pay 
brief tribute to OEEC work in this field, cul- 
minating in the recent establishment of the 
European Nuclear Energy Agency. The United 
States wishes the agency well and hopes to par- 
ticipate as may be appropriate in activities under- 
taken under its aegis. 

There are two other phases of the OEEC's 
current activity that are of particular interest 
to my own country at this time. 

There are, first, the efforts that the member 
countries have made together, with the support of 
the United States, to apply the tools of produc- 
tivity to the age-old problem of producing goods 
in greater abundance and at prices within the 
reach of all. The participants in the program 
of the European Productivity Agency have 
demonstrated their increasing interest as the po- 
tentialities of these techniques have become ap- 
parent. I am sure that we shall develop an in- 
creasingly close and fruitful collaboration in the 
field — to the benefit of all. 

There are also the steps that we are taking with 
you in the scientific manpower program, which 
is aimed at developing one of our inestimably 
precious resources — our specialists, trained in 
the vital fields of science and technology, and our 
young people looking forward to service in these 
spheres. Here also cooperation in education and 
utilization is essential and will lead to greater 
strength, prosperity, and security for all of our 

In addition to the obvious practical accomplish- 
ments of the OEEC, it has had other less tangible 
but equally significant results. To men faced with 
a disintegrating economy and society it opened 
vistas of hope. The continued achievements of 
the OEEC gave courage and pride and a renewed 
sense of destiny to many people in many Euro- 
pean countries. These people had felt previously 
that they were floundering in an effoi't to find 
solutions to their national problems rather than 

Deparfment of State Bulletin 

moving with purpose and direction. The suc- 
cess of this mutual undertaking instilled a heart- 
ening confidence in men that common problems 
could be solved by a common will and by co- 
operative efforts. And it created a resolve that 
such will and such efforts should not be lacking 
in the future. 

U.S. Interest in OEEC 

The United States has maintained a deep in- 
terest in the OEEC since its inception. In addi- 
tion to watching its progress with much satisfac- 
tion, the United States has closely associated it- 
self with the work of the Organization and has, 
wherever appropriate, participated regularly and 
with deep interest in its activities. This sym- 
pathetic interest in the activities of the OEEC 
has been founded on the same recognition of the 
need for unity and strength in Europe that 
prompted our initiative in 1947. This has in fact 
constituted for many years a central feature of 
our foreign policy. 

It is in this context that we have given our 
strong support to the historic efforts of six of the 
European nations to find in economic integration 
a basis for increasing political unity. This sup- 
port continues as these countries now enter a new 
stage in their progi'ess toward unity — the success- 
ful establislunent of two new European com- 
mimities, one in the field of broad economic inte- 
gration, the other in the vital area of nuclear en- 
ergy development. Tlie understanding, confi- 
dence, and experience which have developed in 
building the OEEC surely contributed substan- 
tially to the later formation of the European Coal 
and Steel Community and more recently to the 
European Economic Community and to EURA- 

It is in this same context of support for Euro- 
pean unity that I wish also to emphasize the deep 
interest of the United States in the patient, imag- 
inative, and constructive efforts now under way 
within the OEEC framework to establish a sys- 
tem of association between the other 11 countries 
of the Organization and the 6-nation European 
Economic Community. We hope that these ef- 
forts will result in multilateral arrangements, mu- 
tually satisfactory to the member countries, that 
will lead in time to a broader union. We trust 
that, in the interests of Europe and of other areas, 

May 72, 7958 

the arrangements will be such as to promote a 
long-term expansion of trade with the rest of the 
world in keeping with our common international 
obligations. The United States has given strong 
support to every postwar proposal which has held 
promise of strengthening Europe economically 
and reinforcing its cohesion, thereby strengthen- 
ing the free world. In keeping with this general 
aim I wish to state here today that the United 
States warmly supports the European Free Trade 
Area negotiations and wishes them success. 

Looking ahead now for a moment we can fore- 
see a future that offers the hope of untold benefits 
for mankind. Many things remain to be done, 
however. Our first task is to preserve both the 
principle and the fact of cooperation. There will 
always be some people, both in Europe and in 
America, who will try to deal with any economic 
problem or difficulty by headlong retreat into iso- 
lation. But, if the Western World learned any- 
thing from the painful period between the two 
World Wars, it learned the utter insanity of this 
kind of approach. I am sure we all recognize 
today that there is no longer such a thing as self- 
sufficiency. None of us can hope to solve eco- 
nomic problems without the cooperation of 

By preserving and extending the cooperation 
we have so successfully acliieved we can approach 
with confidence our second great task — the main- 
tenance and progressive improvement of our 
overall economic health. A sound and expand- 
ing economic life is not only essential to the hap- 
piness and well-being of our peoples but also to 
their security and, in fact, to their very survival. 
In a world threatened by the danger of subver- 
sion as well as the danger of military aggi-ession, 
we cannot afford economic weakness any more 
than we can afford military weakness. We must 
work together to develop our resources, to pro- 
mote the flow of free- world trade, to build up our 
scientific and technological capabilities, to solve 
our fiscal problems, and to do all the otlier things 
tliat may be needed to assure the material and 
spiritual strength upon which Western civiliza- 
tion depends. 

Finally, we must stand ready to use our own 
strength to help build political and economic 
strength in other parts of the free world. We 
can never consider ourselves secure as long as 
many areas of the earth still suffer poverty, sick- 


ness, and ignorance. The encouragement of eco- 
nomic and technical development in these areas 
is not a job for any one of us alone but for all of 
the industrialized countries who are interested in 
promoting the true welfare and independence of 
these areas. It is our duty to share with the 
peoples of less developed countries the fruits of 
our technological advancement and to help them 
achieve their potential for development and 
growth. In this way we will not only enable 
these peoples to withstand the malevolent forces 
loose in today's world but will also be building a 
positive relationship between them and our- 
selves — a relationship that will serve our mutual 
interests for many years to come. 

Mr. Chairman, distinguished guests, let me 
extend to the OEEC once more our sincere con- 
gratulations and best wishes on the successful 
conclusion of its first 10 years. May the Organi- 
zation continue to fulfill its evolving role in Eu- 
rope for many years to come. Ajid may our 
association with it continue to be as fruitful and 
cordial as it has been during the past decade. 

U.S. Participation in Work of ECE 

Statement hy Heni^ J. Heinz II ^ 

I wish to take advantage of your earlier invita- 
tion to the delegates to make general statements 
concerning the work of the committees even 
though we have now passed to the discussion of 
the work of the individual committees. I think 
the United States has demonstrated by its cooper- 
ation in the work of these committees the imjjor- 
tance which it attaches to their endeavors, and I 
wish to join the other delegates in expressing our 
appreciation for the excellent work produced by 
the chairman and members of these committees 
and by the secretariat. 

We have no specific proposal to make at this 
time with regard to the work of the committees 
in general but will be more precise about the re- 
ports of the individual committees at the appro- 
priate time. However, since the delegate of the 
U.S.S.R. took the occasion on this item on the 

■ Made at the 13th session of the Economic Commission 
for Europe at Geneva, Switzerland, on Apr. 11. Mr. 
Heinz was U.S. delegate to the 13th session. 

agenda to make some very general comments on 
the work of the Commission itself, I do wish to 
comment briefly on certain points he made. 

The representative of the U.S.S.R. referred to 
his Government's desire for peace and supported 
this by reference to certain proposals which his 
Government has made. May I suggest that the 
Economic Commission for Europe is scarcely the 
appropriate forum from which to provoke a de- 
bate on the relative dedication of various govern- 
ments to peace. I would remind the Commission 
of the proposals tliat have been made by the 
Western countries for utilizing the machinery of 
the United Nations in an effort to achieve a rea- 
sonable and safe basis for disarmament. 

The Governments of the United States and of 
Western Europe have demonstrated in many ways 
that tliey yield to no country in their conviction 
that expanding trade is essential not only to the 
peace but to the prosperity of the world as a 
whole. I am sure I do not need to cite the efforts 
which liave been made in ECE by these countries 
and in the GATT, which it is well known is open 
to universal membership. Speaking for my own 
Government, the pursuit by the United States of 
liberal trade practices has been made clear, not 
only by words but actions, with but one qualifica- 
tion. Tliis qualification is that, no matter how 
strong our convictions are as to the importance of 
trade, I think all sovereign governments would 
agree that at all times considerations of national 
security must also be taken into account. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I feel I should make 
some reference to the remarks of the Soviet dele- 
gate concerning the present business recession in 
the United States. I shall not try to forecast 
coming events, but I should like to place this re- 
cession in some perspective. 

I am sure all the delegates here are aware that 
the decline whicli has taken place in United States 
business activity has been relatively modest and 
that it is a decline from the highest levels of in- 
come and production we have ever attained. 
From the standpoint of human welfare (about 
which the delegate of the U.S.S.R. expressed such 
concern), it is worth while to call to the attention 
of the delegates the fact that personal incomes 
have fallen only one-third as much as total na- 
tional output. Moreover, substantial unemploy- 
ment-compensation programs, other social-welfare 
benefits, and the relatively high level of savings 

Department of State Bulletin 

aiuong working people have alleviated a large part 
of tlie problems. 

Naturally, Europe is interested in the level of 
business and employment in the United States. 
Tin- Government of the United States has already 
taken important action to speed recovery, and the 
President lias indicated that the Government is 
ready to take whatever action is necessary to foster 
economic recovery and growth. 

I\Ir. Chairman, the United States is convinced 
that the Economic Commission for Europe and 
its subsidiary bodies offer an excellent forum for 
appropriate discussion and necessary action in the 
solution of mutual economic problems and ex- 
panding the European economy. 

We have noted with satisfaction the increasing 
availability to the Commission of statistical and 
other data, particularly from the U.S.S.R. and 
other countries of Eastern Europe. We hope that 
this trend will continue to the point that informa- 
tion submitted by all member countries of ECE 
will be comparable. The United States has made 
available its know-how and experience to the sub- 
sidiary bodies of the Commission and has sent 
leading representatives of American industi-y and 
government to these meetings. And, Mr. Chair- 
man, we wish to assure you that the United States 
will continue to take an active role in the work 
of the Commission. 


U.S. and Sweden Sign Amendment 
to Nuclear Energy Agreement 

The Governments of Sweden and the United 
States on April 25 signed an amendment to tlie 
agreement for cooperation between tlie two coun- 
tries concerning peaceful applications of nuclear 
energy which has been in effect since January 18, 
1956.^ Assistant Secretary of State C. Burke El- 
brick and Chairman of the Atomic Energy Com- 
mission Lewis E. Strauss signed the amendment 
for the United States, and Ambassador Erik 
Boheman signed for Sweden. 

' Bulletin of Jan. 30, 1956, p. 181. 
May 72, 1958 

The amendment extends the term of the agree- 
ment to 10 years from the effective date of the 
amendment. It will provide for the transfer over 
the duration of the agreement of up to 200 kilo- 
grams of uranium enriched in the fissionable iso- 
tope U-235 for fueling research reactors and a 
materials-testing reactor. 

The great majority of this material will be uti- 
lized in a 30,000-kilowatt materials-testing reactor 
being designed and constructed by the Nuclear 
Products-Erco Division of ACF Industries, Inc., 
and to be located at the Swedish research center 
at Studsvik, about 70 miles south of Stockholm. 
The expected completion date is the fall of 1958. 

The amendment will become effective after all 
of the statutory requirements of both nations have 
been fulfilled. 

Exchange of Ratifications 

of Commercial Treaty With Nicaragua 

Press release 217 dated April 21 

Eatifications were exchanged on April 24 of the 
treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation 
between the United States and the Eepublic of 
Nicaragua. The treaty was signed at Managua 
on January 21, 1956.^ The exchange also took 
place in the Nicaraguan capital. The treaty will 
by its terms enter into force one month from the 
date of the exchange of ratifications. 

The treaty consists of 25 articles and a protocol. 
In these provisions each of the two governments 
(1) agrees to accord, within its territories, to 
citizens and corporations of the other country 
treatment no less favorable than it accords to its 
own citizens and corporations with respect to 
many commercial and industrial pursuits; (2) 
affirms its adherence to the principles of nondis- 
criminatory treatment of trade and shipping; (3) 
subscribes to fundamental guaranties assuring 
personal and property rights ; and (4) recognizes 
the need for special attention to the problems of 
stimulating the flow of private capital investment 
for economic development. The treaty deals with 
the following broad subjects: (1) entry, travel, 
and residence; (2) basic personal freedoms; (3) 
guaranties with respect to property rights; (4) 
the conduct and control of business enterprises; 

Bulletin of Jan. 30, 1956, p. 174. 


(5) taxation; (6) exchange restrictions; (7) the 
exchange of goods; (8) navigation; (9) excep- 
tions, territorial applicability, and miscellaneous 

This treaty with Nicaragua is the 16th com- 
mercial treaty negotiated by the United States 
since the current program was initiated at the end 
of AVorld War II. 

Current Actions 


Narcotic Drugs 

Convention for limiting the manufacture and regulating 
the distribution of narcotic drugs, concluded at Geneva 
July 13, 1931, as amended by protocol signed at Lak« 
Success December 11, 1946. Entered into force July 
9, 1933, and December 11, 1946. 48 Stat. 1543 ; 61 Stat. 
2230; 62 Stat. 1796. 
Accession deposited: Indonesia, April 3, 1958. 


Protocol amending the international sugar agreement 
(TIAS 3177), with annex. Done at London December 
1, 1956. Entered into force January 1, 1957; for the 
United States September 25, 1957. TIAS 3937. 
Ratification deposited: Haiti, February 6, 1958. 



Agreement amending the agricultural commodities agree- 
ment of December 18, 1957 (TIAS 3959). Effected by 
exchange of notes at Athens March 20 and April 3, 
19.58. Entered into force April 3, 1958. 


Research and power reactor agreement concerning civil 

uses of atomic energy. Signed at Washington July 3, 


Entered into force: April 15, 1958 (date each govern- 
ment received from the other written notification that 
it has complied with statutory and constitutional re- 
Research reactor agreement concerning civil uses of 

atomic energy. Signed at Washington July 28, 1955. 

Entered into force July 28, 1955. TIAS 3312. 

Terminated: April 15, 1958 (superseded by agreement 
of July 3, 1957, supra). 


Agricultural commodities agreement under title I of the 
Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 
1954, as amended (68 Stat. 455; 7 U. S. C. 1701-1709), 
with memorandums of understanding and exchanges of 
notes. Effected by exchange of notes at Lima April 9, 
1958. Entered into force April 9, 1958. 


Agreement amending research reactor agreement concern- 
ing civil uses of atomic energy of January 18, 1956, as 
amended (TIAS 3477 and 3775). Signed at Washing- 
ton April 25, 1958. Enters into force on date on which 
each government receives from the other written noti- 
fication that it has complied with statutory and con- 
stitutional requirements. 




The Senate on April 22 confirmed Walter Howe to be 
Ambassador to Chile and Whiting Willauer to be Ambas- 
sador to Costa Rica. 


Selden Chapin as Deputy Commandant for Foreign 
Affairs of the National War College, effective about July 
15. (For biographic details, see Department of State 
press release 218 dated April 24.) 

Cliecit List of Department of State 

Press Releases: April 21-27 

Press releases may be obtained from the News 

Division, Department of State, Washington 25, D. C. 

Releases issuetl prior to April 21 which appear 

in this issue of the Bui-letin are Nos. 196 of April 

16 and 198 and 200 of April 17. 






Robertson: "Freedom from Fear." 



Czechoslovak attach^ asked to leave 



U.S. resolution on fishing approved by 
U.N. conference committee. 



Jandrey : West Indies federation. 



Emergency medical assistance to East 
Pakistan (rewrite). 



Dillon: "Mutual Security and World 



Dulles: Military Chaplains' Associa- 



ICA insures investment of Chicago 

Itinerary for visit of President of 



German Federal Republic (rewrite). 



U. S. and West Indies to discuss 



Renegotiation of fruit and vegetable 
concessions by Canada. 



Herter : 10th anniversary of founding 
of OEEC. 



Tripartite statement presented to 



Treaty of friendship with Nicaragua. 



Chapin designation (biographic de- 



U.S.-Sweden atomic energy agreement 



Foreign newsmen invited to observe 
U.S. nuclear tests. 



Jandrey: "Nationalism and Collective 



Palmer: "Nationalism in Africa." 



Delegation to inauguration of Presi- 
dent of Argentina. 



Becker: "Some Political Problems of 
the Legal Adviser." 


*Xot prin 

t Held for 

a later issue of the Bulletin. 

Department of State Bulletin 

VLiy 12, 1958 



Vol. XXXVIII, No. 985 


3e( rt'tary Dulles' Message on the Pan-African Con- 
ference 765 

riio United States and Middle Africa (Holmes) . 764 
American Principles 

'Freedom From Fear" (Robertson) 770 

3ur Experiment in Human Liberty (Dulles) . . . 755 

atomic Energy 

A.toms for Power: International Status (Mc- 

Kinney) 783 

News-Media Representatives Invited To Observe 

Detonation 763 

U.S. and Sweden Sign Amendment to Nuclear 

Energy Agreement 793 

Chile. Howe confirmed as ambassador 794 

Communism. Our Exi)eriment in Human Liberty 

(Dulles) 755 

Costa Rica. Willauer confirmed as ambassador . 794 
Czechoslovakia. United States Asks Departure of 

Czechoslovak Attach^ 767 

Department and Foreign Service 

Confirmations (Howe, Willauer) 794 

Designations (Chapin) 794 

The People Who Wage the Peace (Rubottom) . . 772 
Economic Affairs 

Mutual Security and World Trade (Dillon) ... 778 
President Asks Reexamination of Cotton Import 

Quota 788 


Tenth Anniversary of the OEEC (Herter) .... 789 
U.S. Participation in Work of ECE (Heinz) ... 792 
France. U.S., U.K., and France Suggest Joint Meet- 
ings at Moscow (tripartite statement) .... 759 
Germany. President Heuss of Germany To Visit 

United States 778 

Ghana. Secretary Dulles' Message on the Pan- 
African Conference 765 

International Organizations and Conferences 
Atoms for Power: International Status (Mc- 

Kiuney) 783 

Tenth Anniversary of the OEEC (Herter) ... 789 
U.S. Participation in Work of ECE (Heinz) ... 792 
Military Affairs. Security Council Hears Soviet 
Complaint on U.S. Military Flights; U.S.S.R. 
Withdraws Draft Resolution (Lodge) .... 760 
Mutual Security 

Mutual Security and World Trade (Dillon) . . . 778 
TJ.S. Sends Medical Supplies to East Pakistan . . 782 
U.S. To Discuss Assistance to The West Indies . . 769 
Nicaragua. Exchange of Ratifications of Commer- 
cial Treaty With Nicaragua 793 

Non-Self -Governing Territories. The United 

States and Middle Africa (Holmes) 764 

Pakistan. U.S. Sends Medical Supplies to East 

Pakistan 782 

Presidential Documents. President Asks Reexami- 
nation of Cotton Import Quota 788 

Science. News-Media Representatives Invited To 

Observe Detonation 763 

Sweden. U.S. and Sweden Sign Amendment to 

Nuclear Energy Agreement 793 

Treaty Information 

Current Treaty Actions 794 

Exchange of Ratifications of Commercial Treaty 

With Nicaragua 793 

U.S. and Sweden Sign Amendment to Nuclear 

Energy Agreement 793 


Security Council Hears Soviet Complaint on U.S. 

Military Flights; U.S.S.R. Withdraws Draft 

Resolution (Lodge) 760 

U.S., U.K., and France Suggest Joint Meetings at 

Moscow (tripartite statement) 759 

United Kingdom 

The New Federation of The West Indies ( Jandrey). 768 
U.S. To Discuss Assistance to The West Indies . . 769 
U.S., U.K., and France Suggest Joint Meetings at 

Moscow (tripartite statement) 759 

United Nations. Security Council Hears Soviet 

Complaint on U.S. Military Flights; U.S.S.R. 

Withdraws Draft Resolution (Lodge) .... 760 
West Indies, The 

The New Federation of The West Indies (Jandrey) . 768 
U.S. To Discuss Assistance to the West Indies . . 769 

Name Index 

Chapin, Selden 794 

Dillon, Douglas 778 

Dulles, Secretary 755, 765, 769 

Eisenhower, President 788 

Heinz, Henry J., II 792 

Herter, Christian A 789 

Heuss, Theodor 778 

Holmes, Julius C 764 

Howe, Walter 794 

Jandrey, Frederick W 768 

Lodge, Henry Cabot 760 

McKinney, Robert 783 

Robertson, Walter S 770 

Rubottom, Roy R., Jr 772 

Willauer, Whiting 794 





Order Form 

United States 
Government Printing Office 

Washington 25, D. C. 




A List of Treaties 

and Other International Agreements 

of the United States 

in Force on January 1, 1958 

This publication is a guide to treaties and otlier international 
agreements in force between the United States and other countries at 
the beginning of the current year. 

The list includes bilateral treaties and other agreements, ar- 
ranged by country or other political entity, and multilateral treaties 
and other agreements, arranged by subject with names of countries 
which have become parties. Date of signature, date of entry into 
force for the United States, and citations to texts are furnished for 
each agreement. 

Documents affecting international copyright relations of the 
United States are listed in the appendix. 

Information on current treaty actions, supplementing the infor- 
mation contained in Treaties in Force, is published weekly in the 
Department of State Bulletin. 

The new edition of Treaties in Force (266 pp.) is for sale by the 
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, 
Washington 25, D. C, for $1.2.5 a copy. 



Supt. of Documents 
Govt. Printing Office 
V^ashington 25, D.C. Please send me copies of Treaties in Force. 


Enclosed And: 

. Street Address: 

(.cash, check, or 
money order). City, Zone, and State: 




Vol. XXXVIII, No. 986 

May 19, 1958 

THE STRATEGY OF PEACE • /Address by Secretary Dulles . 799 


MAY 1 804 

TION SYSTEM IN ARCTIC • Exchange of Correspond- 
ence Between President Eisenhower and Premier 
Khrushchev 811 


83d VETO • Statements by Ambassador Henry Cabot 
Lodge 816 


U.S. Note of May 3 821 

Polish Note of February 14 822 

NATIONALISM IN AFRICA • by Deputy Assistant Secretary 

Palmer 824 


ADVISER • by Loftus Becker 832 

For index see inside back cover 


Vol. XXXVIII, No. 986 • Publication 6644 
May 19, 1958 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents 

D.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington 25, D.O. 


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 20, 1958). 

Note: Contents of this publication are not 
copyrighted and Items contained herein may 
be reprinted. Citation of the Depaetment 
OF State Bulletin as the sour'ie will be 

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 otlier 
officers of the Department, as well as 
special articles on various pliases 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 interruitioTuil interest. 

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

The Strategy of Peace 

Address hy Secretary Dulles ^ 

There is nothing mysterious about the goals of 
United States foreign policy. It seeks to defend 
and advance the interests of the United States. 
These interests are of several kinds : 

(1) There is the life of our people and the 
physical safety of our homeland. These would be 
endangered by war. 

(2) There is the well-being of our economy. 
This would be gravely impaired if hostile forces 
dictated the pattern of world trade. 

(3) There is the integrity of the principles for 
which our nation was founded. Our nation is 
more than population, more than real estate. Our 
nation represents ideals. These ideals are an in- 
tegral part of America, to be defended and pro- 
moted by our foreign policy. 

Now let me comment briefly on these three as- 
pects of our foreign policy. 


We defend our people and our homeland against 
armed attack by having the power to hit back 
hard at anyone who attacks us or our allies. This 
causes any potential aggressor to pause, for he 
knows that he could not, by aggression, gain as 
much as he would stand to lose. In order to have 
that assured capacity to strike back we need co- 
operation with other countries. 

Potential aggressors need to be put on notice 
that they cannot, witli impunity, pick up nations 
one by one, leaving the United States to the last, 
when even we will be relatively weak. Accord- 

' Made before the Atomic Power Institute sponsored by 
the New Hampshire Council on World Affairs at Durham, 
N. H., on May 2 (press release 239 and 239-A). 

May 79, J 958 

ingly, we have made collective-defense treaties 
and similar arrangements with nearly 50 other 
coimtries. These commit each nation to helji the 
other in the event of armed attack. 

A further benefit from these arrangements is 
that under them the burden of the military effort 
is shared. For example, the ground forces of the 
cooperating free-world nations amount to about 
5.6 million men. But only about 950,000 of these 
are American. 

Also our Strategic Air Command is afforded 
well dispersed positions around the world. This 
dispersal greatly increases the effectiveness of the 

Our collective-security arrangements are serv- 
iced by our mutual security program. It supplies 
our allies with a certain amount of military equip- 
ment. In a few cases it lielps them fuaancially to 
maintain military establislmients whicli are 
needed but which their economies are too poor to 
support without some outside help. And we pro- 
vide development assistance to certain less devel- 
oped free-world countries. We do that to lielp 
them build their societies on the principles of 
freedom and to escape pressure to turn to the 
Communist bloc with the peril to liberty which 
that involves. 

The Soviet Union tries hard to disrupt our de- 
fensive efforts. It portrays the United States 
as militaristic and our collective-defense group- 
ings as "aggressive militaiy blocs." 

Of course, as you and I know, the American 
people are among the least militaristic of any peo- 
ple in tlie world. George Wasliington called upon 
us to maintain what he called a "respectable de- 
fensive posture." By that he meant a military 


posture strong enough so that others would re- 
spect it. Unfortunately, we have not always done 
that. At times our military strength has been 
so negligible that militaristic despots treated us 
as a cipher, not to be taken into accouiit in their 
aggi'essive plan. 

We are trying not to commit that fault again. 
We do not mtend to make ourselves weak merely 
because the Soviet imperialists urge that we do 
so to prove our "idealism." 

Our collective arrangements are defensive, as 
specifically authorized by the United Nations 
Charter. These groupings are more than expedi- 
ents. They introduce a fresh concept into the 
structure of world order. 

Within our own country and every civilized 
country, local security is sought on a collective 
basis. We unite to provide a central police force, 
a central fire department, and the like. 

Now at last, within the free world, we are be- 
gimiing to apply that enlightened collective con- 
cept. In that way weaker nations can be made 
secure from being picked up one by one. In that 
way a strong nation can avoid having to become 
a garrison state and, even then, being encircled 
and strangled as a result of the smaller nations 
being picked up one by one. On a collective basis 
nations get maximum security at minimum cost. 

No doubt our people would not hesitate to pro- 
vide the vast funds needed for our solitary de- 
fense, and our youth, if necessai'y, would give a 
greatly increased measure of their time to mili- 
tary service. But even with that maximum effort 
we would be less secure. 

Every American who wants to see his country 
safe and solvent ought to get out and actively 
support our mutual security program now before 
the Congress. 

Economic Welfare 

Our foi-eign policy also tries to assure our peo- 
ple a prosperous home economy. That depends 
in good part upon foreign trade. Our exports 
are running at a rate approaching $20 billion 
a year. Our foreign trade employs about 4.5 
million people. Our imports provide many im- 
portant things that we need and could not readily, 
or at all, produce here at home. Furthermore, 
our trade relations help to keep the free world 
together. Without ample trade with the United 
States many countries would be virtually forced 


The major expression of our foreign trad( 
policy is the Keciprocal Trade Agreements Act.i 
The principle of the act was first adopted in 1934, 
and 10 times the Congress has acted to renew it, 
Under it our trade has flourished. In 1934 our 
total foreign trade — exports and imports — a, 
amounted to $3.7 billion. Last year it amounted 
to $32.4 billion, excluding military exports. 

The latest renewal expires next month, and fur- 
ther extension is now being sought from the Con- 
gress. Failure to extend would be a major dis- 
aster. A very few might temporarily benefit, 
But veiy many, and in the long run all, would 
suffer gravely. 

Surely we do not want to go back to the early 
1930's. Then our high tariti and monetary deval- 
uation policies wreaked havoc upon international 
trade and boosted into power, in Germany and 
Japan, extreme nationalists who later plunged the 
world into World War II. 

iin of 
Kcpteil : 
w IV 
Is raid 
to five ol 

sptive ], 
Every American who wants to see his country j,|jj 


economically sound, who wants allies, and who 
wants peace should work for the extension of oui 
Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. 


Let me speak now about our efforts to promote 
the ideals of America. 

Our nation was founded by men of religious 
faith. They believed that our Declaration of 
Independence was not merely rhetoric but truth 
and that all men were in fact endowed by their 
Creator with certain inalienable rights. They be- 
lieved that they had a mission to help men every- 
where to have the opportunity to exercise their 
God-given rights. 

Under the impulsion of their faith and works 
there developed here an area of unusual spiritual, 
intellectual, and economic vigor. It became 
known as the Great American Experiment. The 
ideals that stimulated it have been projected 
throughout the world. They have more than once- 
helped to turn back the tides of despotism, 

America would not be America if it were' 
stripped of such idealism 

The values of personal liberty are, of course, 
best demonstrated by individuals. It is they who 
have liberty, and it is their use of liberty that 
can make it a dynamic force. On the other hand, 

Department of State Bulletin 




fc pen 
» p 

their misuse of liberty plays into the hands of 
despots. That means that individuals should ex- 
se self-discipline and self-sacrifice and not turn 
liberty into license. The individual deportment 
of free Americans is the most decisive force, for 
good or evil, in the present contest with despotism. 

I do not imply that government has no part to 
play. It too can find ways to reflect the ideals 
of the people whom it serves. 

Government may not interfere in the internal 
affairs of other comitries. That is contrary to 
accepted international law and practice and for- 
bidden by many of our treaty engagements. But 
your Government can, and does, make clear to all 
the world what are the ideals for which our nation 
was founded. 

We can, and do, refuse through our Government 
to give official sanction to the oppression of other 
peoples and the denial to them of the rights by 
which they are endowed by their Creator. 

Your Government can, and does, see to it that 
captive peoples know that they are not forgotten 
and that their hopes for freedom have the sanc- 
tion of a vast mass of world opinion. 

World Order 

One of the ways to protect and advance the in- 
terests of our people is by strengthening the fabric 
of world order. Peace will never be secure until 
there is an adequate body of international law, and 
effective means of enforcing that law, and means 
of changing that law as needed to promote justice. 

The United Nations was a great step forward. 
It was largely a United States initiative. But its 
Security Council is hobbled by the veto power. 

President Eisenhower recently proposed that 
the permanent members of the Security Council 
should exercise greater restraint in the use of the 
veto power. The Soviet Union reacted violently 
against that proposal. Nevertheless, we shall per- 
sist in seeking to strengthen the United Nations. 

We seek, under its auspices, a rule of law for 
such newly developing areas as Antarctica and 
outer space. A law-of-the-sea conference has 
just been concluded at Geneva as an effort to cre- 
ate and modernize international law. The 86 na- 
tions attending reached agreement on important 
segments of that law. We are making progi-ess 
in this field. 

Still, the United Nations has not yet found the 
way to guarantee law and order. That is why we 

May 19, 7958 

have to maintain the system of regional collective- 
defense arrangements to which I have referred 
and which the charter authorizes. It is our ar- 
dent hope, however, that the United Nations can 
more and more be the framework within which all 
may find justice and peace. 

Agreements With the U.S.S.R. 

In the meanwhile, there is an immediate prob- 
lem that concerns us greatly : Can we reach agree- 
ments with the Soviet Government which would 
mitigate the sharpness of our conflict and reduce 
the danger of friction which could flare into war ? 

I can assure you that that is constantly in our 
minds. There are, however, great difficulties. 

For one thing, the Communists do not look 
upon agreements as we do. We consider our- 
selves bound to live up to our agreements. This 
is important because nations, unlike individuals, 
are under no superior force that compels them to 
live up to their promises. 

But the Communists feel no obligation to per- 
form their agreements. They have broken one 
agreement after another, confirming what Lenin 
said that, to the Communists, "promises are like 
pie crusts, made to be broken." It would obvi- 
ously be reckless for tlie free world to weaken it- 
self merely in reliance of Soviet promises to per- 
form in the future. 

A second obstacle is that the purposes of the 
Communist rulers are so basically acquisitive and 
aggressive that there is very little common ground 
between them and us. 

Recent exchanges of views with the Soviet 
Union disclose their negotiating goals. They 
want : 

(1) Our acceptance of Soviet Communist dom- 
ination of the nations of Eastern Europe. They 
want us to abandon there the concept of our Dec- 
lai-ation of Independence and the explicit pro- 
visions of the Atlantic Charter and of the Yalta 
agreements, that the peoples of these countries are 
entitled to choose the form of government under 
which they will live ; 

(2) Our acceptance of the continued partition 
of Germany, or its reunification only on condi- 
tions that would give the Communist puppet re- 
gime in East Germany an opportunity to extend 
its rule over all of Germany ; 

(3) Liquidation of our collective-defense asso- 
ciations, such as NATO, and abandonment by the 


United States of the concept and practice of col- 
lective security ; 

(4) United States recognition of Communist 
Cliina, its seating in the United Nations with veto 
power on the Security Council, and acknowledg- 
ment of the Chinese Communist claim to Taiwan 
(Formosa) ; 

(5) Elimination of the present trade controls 
by which the free world avoids sending strategic 
war goods into the Sino-Soviet bloc. 

Each of these objectives represents an immense 
gain for the Soviet Union and a great loss to the 
free world. Soviet propaganda suggests that, if 
we would accept these losses, then the Commu- 
nists might end the cold war. However, Mr. 
Khrushchev has, in other contexts, stated that it 
was inevitable that the cold war should go on and 
he intended that it should go on. 

It would be reckless to weaken the free world 
on the gamble that that would end the cold war. 
It is more likely that it would continue under far 
more difficult conditions for us. 

A few days ago Mr. Khrushchev said in Moscow : 
"We Bolsheviks are ravenous people. Wliat we 
achieved through struggles in the past is not suffi- 
cient for us. We want more — tomorrow." They 
already have a billion people — and are still rav- 
enous. I wonder how many more they need be- 
fore their appetite is sated. 

Now I do not, of course, conclude that there are 
no areas for useful agreement. 

In 1953 we made an armistice agreement with 
the Communists which ended the fighting in 

In 1955 we, with the British and the French, 
concluded with the Soviet Union the state treaty 
that liberated Austria. 

Earlier tliis year the United States concluded 
with the Soviet Union a cultural exchange agree- 
ment of limited scope. 

We believe that there can be other carefully 
negotiated agreements of mutual interest. We 
have been trying hard to get an agreement for 
reciprocal inspection in the Arctic area. The 
Soviet Government professed to fear our air 
maneuvers in the north. It took these alleged 
fears to the United Nations Security Council and 
complained of our activities.^ We explained that 
we needed to keep some planes in the air all the 

time because we fear that a massive and sudden ^^''■' 
surprise attack might be launched over the top ofl •"'"^" 
the world. So to allay both feai-s we proposed' In'*'' 
international inspection on both sides of the I ' 
Arctic area to give assurance tliat there could 
not be any surprise or accidental attack.^ The 
matter came to a vote just a few hours ago. Tern 
of the 11 members of the Security Council sup- 
ported our proposal. There was only one vote 
against — that of the Soviet Union. But that one 
negative vote constituted a veto. So, at the choice 
of the Soviet Union, the fears and risks continue 
They continue for one reason alone, and that is 
because the Soviet Union rejects international in- 
spection against surprise attack. 

The significance of that is frightening. The 
result is tragic. It means that at the will anc 
choice of the Soviet Union we have to go on liv- 
ing on the edge of an awful abyss from which w( 
could, so readily, be rescued if only the Soviei 
Union did not insist upon retaining for itself tht 
possibility of massive surprise attack. 

But we refuse to be discouraged. We remair 
willmg to join in any dependable arrangemem 
which will reduce the risk of surprise or acci 
dental attack or, on a fair basis, reduce" 

The Strategy of Victory 

We must, however, assume tliat we face a lonj 
period of effort, sacrifice, and strain. That wil 
come to an end when tlie Soviet rulers moderate 
their imperialist and ideological urges. 

Today the Soviet Commiuiist rulers seek to im 
plement their materialistic doctrine. They be 
lieve that human beings are in effect materia 
particles to be fitted together as cogs in some well 
oiled machine. Also they believe that that "fit 
ting together" should be carried out thi-oughoul 
the world under Soviet Communist dictation 
They profess to believe that this would assure 
world harmony, peace, and maximum produc- 
tivity. All of this is a way of rationalizing the 
usual desire of despots for more and more power 

Experience, however, is teaching the Sovielt 
rulers what has been taught so many times before 
that man is not just a vivacious particle of matter 
Men have souls and minds and individuality 
They can never for long be forced into con- 

tot DC 
b tLi 
le rff. 
tie Df 

can ivii 

' BuiXETiN of May 12, 1958, p. 760. 

' See p. 

Department of State Bulletin 

oped m 
m pur 
ibt ot 
nniuist 1 
at thin 
tlifi« i 

I forinity. The Soviet Communist Party has 
f) undertaken the impossible, as they are beginning 
-] to learn. 

They are learning a lesson in the satellite coun- 
tries. A former adherent, Yugoslavia, is inde- 
pendent. In the other Eastern European coun- 
tries there is a sustamed and growing demand for 
independence. It has manifested itself in violent 
outbreaks tliat occurred in 1953 in East Germany 
and in 1956 in Poland and, most conspicuously, 
icJin Hungary in late 1956. There has been a con- 
iiie stant flow of refugees from East Germany into 
West Germany. 

In the case of the revolts and in the case of 
the refugees it is the youth who figure most 
largely. Throughout their mature lives they 
have never known anything but intense Commu- 
nist indoctrination and discipline. But love of 
God and love of country still sui-vive. Human 
differences still persist. No materialistic regime 
111 can wholly or permanently crush them out. 
Sooner or later the Soviet rulers are going to 
have to face up to these practical facts. Indeed 
there are occasional signs that they are already 
begimiing to do so. 

Even within the Soviet Union itself the Com- 
munist Party finds that human beings cannot be 
forced into a single mold of conformity. Under 
Stalin this was sought to be effected by the brutal 
terrorism of the secret police. There was a re- 
vulsion against that, and the system has been 

As the Soviet Union competes in the field of 
modem weapons and modern industrial tech- 
niques, increasing niunbers have to be given a 
high degree of education. Thus there is devel- 
oped an intelligentsia. And minds trained for 
one purpose cannot be kept thinking merely in 
the channels that the party chooses. They think 
about other matters, including the unsoundness of 
the Communist dogma and the cheapness of Com- 
munist slogans. 

There is more personal security and independ- 
ent thinking within the Soviet Union now than 
there has ever been since the October 1917 

The Soviet economic centralization has proved 
unworkable, and now there is economic decentrali- 
zation. This means more local administration of 
affairs, with more regard to local differences and 
local habits. 

May 19, 1958 

There has also been a change in the foreign pol- 
icies of the Soviet Union. In 1939, and between 
1945 and 1950, it resorted primarily to violence. 
It attacked Poland and Finland. It took over 
Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia by military occu- 
pation. It assisted, and in some cases instigated. 
Communist warfare in China, Greece, Malaya, the 
Philippines, Burma, and Indochina. It used 
force or the threat of force to take over Czecho- 
slovakia and to blockade Berlin. It backed open 
war in Korea. 

But these violent techniques no longer pay off. 
They are checked by the free-world network of 
collective security. So the Soviet rulei-s now 
smile and pretend to be friends and to adopt what 
they hope will be winning ways, giving aid in the 
form of trade, technicians, and loans, and giving 
pleasure through ballets and the like. In this 
way the Soviet Union has gained increased influ- 
ence and acceptability as against the time when 
it only growled and bared its teeth. But it is 
impossible to go on smiling for a long time with- 
out its having an internal effect on character. In 
the long run a nation, like an individual, tends to 
become what it pretends to be- 

The essential is that, for this long run, the free 
world should stay strong and united. It must be 
willing to make the sacrifices needed to prevent 
the Soviet rulers from gaining external victories 
bringing new victims into the Commimist camp. 
That would enhance the prestige of the Connnu- 
nist extremists and embolden them and enable 
them to hold back the evolutionary trends at work 
within the Soviet bloc. 

The United States, as the strongest of the free 
nations, can contribute immensely to giving evo- 
lutionary forces of freedom a chance to make 
themselves decisively felt. 

President Eisenliower, speaking at Paris last 
December at the NATO meeting, said that "there 
is a noble strategy of victory — not victory over 
any peoples but victory for all peoples."^ 

Tlie essential is that the American people hold 
fast to the ideals bequeathed us by our foundere 
and implement those ideals with courage that is 
traditional with us. We shall need a sustained, 
sacrificial effort. We may have to do some of 
the things that we do in war — but without the 
killing and being killed. 

Bulletin of Jan. 6, 1958, p. i 


Wliy should we not make that effort? The 
stakes are perhaps the greatest for which men 
have ever had to strive, in peace or in war. And, 
if we strive aright, tliese stakes can be won in 
peace, without the awful horror of world war 
III. Surely for the averting of war and the safe- 
guarding of freedom men should be willing 

to make a sustained and sacrificial effort. We can 
do so in confidence that peaceful victory is at- 
tamable and that our efforts can bring the day 
when the dark shadows which now oppress hu- 
manity will give way to an era of light and 


Secretary Dulles' News Conference of May 1 

Press release 236 dated May 1 

/Secretary Dulles: I have a statement which I 
would like to make. I understand that copies of 
it have been made available to you.^ 

I should like to make some observations regard- 
ing the United States resolution before the United 
Nations Security Council, which calls for the es- 
tablishment of an Arctic inspection zone.^ 

The establislunent of international inspection 
in an Arctic zone is proposed by the United States 
not as a maneuver, not as propaganda, but in a 
sincere effort to meet the admitted problems of a 
particular area. The United States, not only pub- 
licly but privately, has done its best to make clear 
to the Soviet Government the sincerity of its i^ur- 
pose and its desire to avoid turning this grave 
matter into a propaganda battle. 

The Soviet Government has said that it is wor- 
ried by the flights of United States aircraft in this 
area. We have said that we need to keep planes 
aloft because we are fearful that the Soviets may 
launch a nuclear attack against us over the top of 
the world.^ It seemed to us that, if both sides are 
animated by really peaceful intentions, there is a 
natural solution — that is to have international 
inspection which would allay the fears on both 
sides. If the Soviets do not have bomber and mis- 
sile bases in the north of their comitry available for 
a sudden surprise attack upon the United States, 

' The following six paragraphs were also released sepa- 
rately as press release 234 dated May 1. 

' See p. 816. 

' For a statement made In the Security Council on Apr. 
21 by U.S. Representative Henry Cabot Lodge, see Bul- 
letin of May 12, 1958, p. 760. 


then our own problem of security is greatly altered. 
Perhaps we would then feel it safe greatly to mini- 
mize the flights of which the Soviet Union com- 
plains. In any event the Soviet Union would 
know that any United States flights are so safe- 
guarded, beyond risk of misadventure, that they 
eannot be a threat to the Soviet Union unless the 
Soviet Union first attacks. 

The establishment of one important zone of 
international inspection, as proposed by the United 
States, would be a constructive first step toward 
easing world tensions. It is a step that can be 
taken at once without awaiting any high-level 
conference. The United States believes that an 
addition, along the lines proposed by Sweden, is 
totally consistent with this initiative. It is also 
consistent with the position taken by the United 
States regarding a possible heads-of-government 

We continue to believe that the present situa- 
tion requires that every attempt be made to reach 
agreement on the main problems affecting the 
maintenance of peace and stability in the world. 
In the circumstances a summit meeting would be 
desirable if it would provide opportunity for 
conducting serious discussions of major problems 
and would be an effective means of reaching 
agreement on significant subjects. Before a sum- 
mit meeting can take place, however, preparatory 
work is required so that some assurance can be 
given that meaningful agreements can be 

We believe the discussions initiated by certain 
governments in Moscow can constitute a useful 
prior preparatory phase before any possible sum- 

Deparfment of State Bulletin 

Ill it meeting. Similarly, we believe that the steps 
contemplated by the United States resolution be- 
fore the Council, in addition to their intrinsic 
merit, could also serve, as the Swedish Govern- 
ment suggests, as a useful prelude for the dis- 
"^ cussion of the disarmament problem at any 
possible summit meeting. We therefore hope 
that the U.S.S.R. will agree to sit down with 
the interested states at once to begin the necessary 
technical discussions looking toward the establish- 
ment of an Arctic inspection zone. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, if the Russians were to ac- 
cept an Arctic inspection system, would we aban- 
don or modify our present '''■fail safe'''' system? 

A. I say in this statement that the question of 
what we would do would depend upon what we 
learn as a result of inspection. I cannot tell you 
in advance what that would be. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, the reason I ash the ques- 
tion — if there were an inspection system, it would 
seem to he inconsistent with the takeoff flights 
of plants in the Arctic at a time when the inspec- 
tor would he there, and it would he difficult to 
see how the present system of u/nilateral flights, 
hased on our radar installations, could he con- 
tinued if there were international inspection. 

A. I have the strong belief that, if there were 
established this international inspection system, 
it would, in fact, lead to a considerable modifica- 
tion of our practices. That assumes that we do 
not find, or the international inspection system 
does not find, something that is so alarming that 
it makes it necessary to continue. On that as- 
sumption, and the assumption the inspection sys- 
tem would give us a more effective notice of a 
possible attack than we get now when we are 
dependent on radar information, which is not 
always reliable in the fii*st instance — then I 
would think the other precautions would be 

The Inspection Area 

Q. Mr. Secretary, the Russian reaction — Mr. 
Groinyko^s reaction — the other day was, in part, 
that it did not include any of the United States 
excluding Alaska tohereas it includes part of the 
Soviet Union. Is the area descrihed hy Mr. 
Lodge in the United Nations negotiable, or is it 
that area of the Arctic and nothing else? 

May 19, 1958 

A. Well, I don't think it is anytliing that we 
would haggle about in detail. A few changes or 
variations here and there, I suppose, would not 
be objectionable. But, broadly speaking, this is 
the area which we thiitk should be covered now, 
and we do not want to get into areas which are 
remote from that particular area and which carry 
with them a whole new set of political problems. 

This area was thought of as a useful beginning 
place for two reasons: first because it is an area 
of very high strategic importance, second because 
it is relatively free from the political complications 
that exist, for example, in Europe; so, consistently 
with that principle, we would want to stick at this 
stage to that particular area. 

I don't say that the particular details are sacro- 
sanct. For instance, our resolution suggests that 
we woidd be glad to include the portions of Sweden 
and of Finland and, I think, a little bit of Iceland, 
which ai'e not in the zone as was originally pro- 
posed. That indicates that we are not totally in- 
flexible on the subject. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, to clarify one point, you said 
our flights would depend on whether we found 
something so alarming as to warrant their continu- 
ation. Is it likely the Russians would leave, in an 
area to he inspected, something so alarming as to 
warrant continuation of the American flights? 

A. I think it unlikely. I think it almost certain 
that, if there were inspection, that would allay the 
fears of sudden surprise attack to a degree that 
might make these flights unnecessary. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, you said in your statement 
you thought this plan could he put into effect with- 
out awaiting any high-level conference. If the 
Soviets continue to insist that this he discussed at 
a summit conference, would we have any ohjection? 

A. Well, of course we don't know yet whether 
there will be any summit conference. If there is 
going to be a summit conference and if the pre- 
paratory work shapes up in that way, I assume 
that it would be something we would be prepared 
to discuss. I will say that the attitude of the Soviet 
Union at this time toward that matter would, I 
suppose, have a bearing upon or influence our own 
thinking as to the value of the summit conference. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, you said in your statement 
that the seriousness of the purpose of the United 
States has heen put forward hoth privately and 


publicly. Caidd you illustrate what you meant hy 
that? Was it a message from the President to 
Pi'ime Minister Khrushche v f 

A. There was a message which I gave to the 
Soviet Ambassador here on Saturday afternoon, 
which I made with the authority of the President. 
There was also a private meeting at about the 
same time in New York between Ambassador 
Lodge and Mr. Sobolev, the Soviet delegate to the 
United Nations. 

Q. ^Yas the Soviet reaction in private as shocked 
amd hostile as it was in public? 

A. I would say that there was not the use of 
some of the extravagant phrases that were used by 
Mr. Gromyko. But the initial reaction wasn't 
exactly heartwarming. (Laughter) 

Q. These two incidents you just spoke of, Mr. 
Secretar'y — does it indicate, in your opinion, any 
new phase in developments between this Govern- 
ment and the Soviet Government in the context of 
actually getting off the ground in private con- 

A. Well, I can hardly overstate my view that, 
if something of this sort [Arctic inspection zone] 
got started, it might mark a real turning point in 
this whole cold- war situation. I attach very great 
importance to it, and that is the reason why we 
have tried so hard to avoid seeming to make it a 
propaganda exercise or just a maneuver. We have 
tried to make it clear to the Soviet Union that we 
did take this very seriously and we are extremely 
anxious, if possible, to make good. 

You see, this offer to get started, at least with 
teclmicians, on this area has been along the lines 
we have been thinking about for some time. If 
we could get started even at that level, and as a 
preliminaiy to any heads-of-government meeting, 
it would make it much more likely that a heads- 
of-government meeting could do something sub- 

If there is no preliminary work which clears 
away the underbrush in some of these matters, it 
is not very easy for me to see the ability of the 
heads of government themselves to make any 
meanmgful decision. It would be a good deal, I 
am afraid, like the last smnmit meeting, where 
the heads of government agreed on a directive 
to be carried out by the foreign ministers. The 
foreign ministers found themselves imable to 
carry it out, so the whole effect was zero. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, did the Ambassador on Sat- 
urday indicate, as Mr. Sobolev did on Tuesday, 
that any agreement on an Arctic zone must be 
part of a package deal and their package, which 
includes a banning of nuclear weapons altogether? 

A. I did not get any immediate response from 
the Ambassador when I informed him about this. 

U. S. Disarmament "Package" Broken 

Q. Mr. Secretary, the fact that you offered this 
separately — does it mean that to an extent we 
have broken our own package? 

A. Yes, it means to that extent we have broken 
the package. However, as you will recall, the 
original proposal of President Eisenhower for an 
open-skies inspection system * and his acceptance, 
as a supplement of that, of the Soviet proposal for 
ground posts = was put forward as a prelude to 
what you might call disarmament talks. You see, 
an inspection system is not disarmament. It 
doesn't take any arms away from anybody. But 
it could create, and I believe it would create, an 
atmosphere under which a genuine disarmament 
would, in fact, take place. It was put forward 
by President Eisenhower at Geneva in 1955 as a 
step which, if taken, would make it possible there- 
after to take disarmament steps. So that, while 
it was included as part of the total package that 
was presented to the Soviets last August in Lon- 
don,^ it has never, in the contemplation of the 
United States, been a step which we would be un- 
willing to take unless other steps were also taken 
We were willing to take it believing, if it were 
taken, other steps, in fact, would be taken. 

low n 


ion of 





Q. Have other parts of the package also beer^ 
separated out or broken, Mr. Secretary? 

A. Only to the extent of our willingness to begir 
technical studies of the problems involved withoulf J"""™ 
prejudice — as it was put in our last note to the ^''^ 
Soviet Union ' — to the position of any governmeni 
as to their interdependence or separability. 

Q. That means that the testing issue and thtt nUtatcs 

cutoff of production of fissionable materials arc 
still linked together? 

' Ibid., Aug. 1, 1955, p. 173. 
■ Ibid., Oct. 24, 1955, p. 643. 
' Ibid., Sept. 16, 1957, p. 451. 
Seep. 811. 

Department of State Bulleth Moy|; 



|wiy am 
Kill* ill 

k tiie 
% sho 

k sits; 


A. They have not yet been disjointed, although 
we are prepared to have studies carried on as to 
low you would supervise a suspension of tests 
without anybody being committed on the proposi- 
tion of whether or not that was to be intercon- 
lected with the cutoff, for example, of fissionable 
naterial or other aspects of the disarmament 

Q. Are those studies to be conducted within this 
Government, or are these international studies that 
fou are talking about? 

A. Well, those would have to be conducted, pre- 
sumably, on an international basis — the