Skip to main content

Full text of "Department of State bulletin"

See other formats





Superintendent of Documents 
U.S. government printing office 




Cnytr Os-^zm. 








Address by Vice President Uumphrey ^29 



by Under Secretary Rostow 431 


by Assistant Secretary Oliver J^Ifi 


Statement by Ambassador Goldberg 452 

Statement by Secretary Rusk 445 

For index see inside hack cover 



Vol. LVIII, No. 1501 
April 1, 1968 

For sale by tlJe Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Qovemment Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 


52 issues, domestic $10, foreign $18 
Single copy 30 cents 

Use of funds for printing of this publication 
approved by the Director of the Bureau of 
the Budget (January 11, 1966). 
Note: Contents of this publication are not 
copyrighted and items contained herein may be 
reprinted. Citation of the DEPARTMENT OF 
STATE BULLETIN as the source will be 
appreciated. The BULLETIN is indexed in 
the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature. 

The Department of State BULLETIN, 
a weekly publication issued by the 
Office of Media Services, Bureau of 
Public Affairs, 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 selected 
press releases on foreign policy, issued 
by the White House and the Depart- 
ment, and statements and addresses 
made by the President and by the 
Secretary of State and other officers 
of the Department, as tvell as special 
articles on. various phases of interna- 
tional affairs and the functions of the 
Department. Information is included 
concerning treaties and international 
agreements to which the United 
States is or may become a party 
and treaties of general international 

Publications of the Department, 
United Nations documents, and leg- 
islative material in the field of inter- '^ 
national relations are listed currently. 

Seventh Anniversary of the Alliance for Progress 

Address hy Vice President Huinphrey '■ 

Seven years ago tonight President John F. 
Kennedy stirred the people of our hemisphere 
by proclaiming a new "Alliance for Progress 
... a vast cooperative effort, unparalleled in 
magnitude and nobility of purpose, to satisfy 
the basic needs of the American people for 
homes, work and land, health and schools." ^ 

Later that year, our nations agreed at Punta 
del Est« "to unite in a common effort to bring 
our people accelerated economic progress and 
broader social justice within the framework of 
personal dignity and political liberty." ^ 

The declarations were brave ones — our goals, 
in a sense, audacious. 

For we aimed, those 7 years ago, toward the 
broad realization of human aspirations wliich 
had gone unmet for generations. 

Wliere do we stand 7 years later ? 

There are many who claim that our declara- 
tions were empty and that our goals will forever 
remain unacliievable. 

They point to a rising birth rate. They point 
to whole regions left isolated and backward. 
They point to cliildren growing up without ade- 
quate schooling or nourishment. 

They point, most of all, to what they believe 
to be unshakable characteristics of man's 
nature — the meaner habits, if you will, which 
have led through history to oppression, to social 
and economic injustice, and to exploitation of 
one man for the benefit of another. 

Tliey may be right. But I do not think so. 

For here are facts which show that the Alli- 
ance works. 

' Made at the Pan American Union, Washingrton, 
D.C., on Mar. 13. 

' Bulletin of Apr. 3, 1061, p. 471 . 

' For text of the Charter of Punta del Este, see ibid., 
Sept. 11, 1961, p. 463. 

There is the fact, for instance, that by last 
year primary school enrollment had increased 
by 50 percent — ^and secondary school enrollment 
by more than 100 percent — over 1960. 

Tliere is the fact of inci-easing net agricultural 
production and, perhaps more important, net 
food production. 

There is the fact that, when the Alliance was 
conceived in 1961, the original conception was 
of a gross mvestment by the Latin American 
participants of 80 percent. 

That investment has been 89 percent of the 

And during this time, I might add, we of the 
United States kept our share of the bargain by 
providing a total of some $7.7 billion. 

There are other facts. 

In implementing the Alliance for Progress we 
have converted the original concept of the Alli- 
ance as a cooperative effort into a concrete, 
multilateral, decisionmaking body — the Inter- 
American Committee on the Alliance for Prog- 
ress. We salute the pioneering work of the first 
President of CIAP, Dr. Carlos Sanz de Santa- 
maria, as we do that of Dr. [Jose] Mora. 

There is the inescapable fact, too, that the Al- 
liance for Progress is today the standard by 
which political leaders and governments are 
judged, even in those countries which do not 
fully adhere to the standard. And this is per- 
haps the most important fact of all in rebuttal 
to those who doubt our capacity for creating 

Our course for the future was clearly outUned 
last year when the Presidents of our hemisphere 
met in Punta del Este.* 

At this meeting a decision was taken to give 

'For background, see ibid.. May 8, 1967, p. 706. 

APRIL 1, 1968 


top priority to the economic integration of the 
hemisphere. President Johnson reaffirmed the 
commitment of the United States to that cause. 
In addition, the Presidents : 

— Agreed on the urgency of opening up the 
inner frontiers of the South American 

— Agreed to consider the possibility of stimu- 
lating intraregional trade through temporary 
preferential trading agreements. 

— Agreed on the urgency of accelerating the 
modernization of agriculture and the rural 

— Agreed to facilitate the dissemination of 
technology through the establishment of new 
regional institutes. 

— Agreed to devote increased resources to 
health and education in every land. 

That is our action program for tomorrow. 

Will it, and can it, be successful ? 

Ultimately, it will not depend so much on our 
resources, on our plans and policies, on our 
tangible assets — as important as they will be — 
as it will depend upon our will. 

Just how deep is our commitment to a just 
and peaceful revolution in tliis hemisphere ? 

Just how deep is our belief that individual 
human freedom and dignity are worth our 
sweat and sacrifice? 

If our commitment, and our belief, are deep 
enough, I have no doubt that we shall find the 
way to provide the other necessary things. 

All of us, and I specifically mclude my own 
country, must be willing to sustain the effort 
and the vision that wiU be necessary to build 
upon the bare beginning we have made. 

For if we in our hemisphere — dedicated as 
we are to the rights of man, endowed as we 
are with the means to take the course of history 
in our hands — fail, what hope may others have? 

We have the chance and the obligation before 
us to create the New World our forefathers 
sought — a world not new in its principalities 
and kingdoms nor in the glory of ite monuments 
and armies, but a world new in this final, 
achievable reality : that each child might enter 
hiunan society with the right to health, the 
right to hope, and the right to free expression 
and human opportunity because his fellow men 
wiU that it be so. 

Letters of Credence 

El Salvador 

The newly appointed Ambassador of El Sal- 
vador, Julio Rivera, presented his credentials 
to President Jolm^son on March 15. For texts 
of the Ambassador's remarks and the Presi- 
dent's reply, see Department of State press re- 
lease dated March 15. 


The newly appointed Ambassador of Para- 
guay, Eoque Jacinto Avila, presented his cre- 
dentials to President Jolinson on March 15. For 
texts of the Ambassador's remai-ks and the 
President's reply, see Department of State press 
release dated March 15. 



National Security or a Retreat to Isolation? 
The Choice in Foreign Policy 

hy Eugene V. Rostow 

Under Secretary for Political Affairs ^ 

For the first time since the early 1950's, the 
foreign policy we have pursued since the end 
of the war is facing a fundamental challenge. 
The issues in the debate are familiar to all of 
us. We have been arguing with each other about 
them since the age of Theodore Roosevelt and 
Woodrow Wilson. 

There is an element of nostalgia for me in 
this debate. I have been in Wasliington for 16 
months now, but it often sounds as if I were 
back at Yale attending a faculty meeting. For 
those of you who have never had the experience, 
let me explain that faculty meetings are like 
congressional hearings or interdepartmental 
committee meetings, only more so. An ordinary 
faculty meeting can generally find 15 or 20 
reasons — all reasons of high principle — for not 
doing what otherwise would seem to be obvi- 
ously essential. 

At this grim and fateful moment, the issue 
before the American people is exceedingly 
simple: What do we do now — now, in 1968 — 
taking into accoimt the consequences of the 
strength or weakness of what we do in every 
area of tension in the world, from the Middle 
East and South America to Berlin and Tokyo ? 
That is the question, and it concentrates the 
mind to restate it. 

Many of the answers that come thundering 
forth, eloquent and concerned, are worthy of 
classic faculty meetings in this or any other 
country. Responding to the issue before us, they 
say that President Eisenhower should never 
have signed the SEATO Treaty in 1954, and 
that the Senate should never have ratified it or 

'Address made before the Women's Forum on Na- 
tional Security at Washington, D.C., on Feb. 20 (as- 
delivered text; for advance text, see press release 38). 

joined in the Tonkin Gulf resolution 10 years 
later. President Kennedy, they add, should 
never have increased the presence of American 
military advisers in Viet-Nam starting in 1961. 
There should have been a referendum in Viet- 
Nam in 1956, we are told. But no one suggests 
how fi-ee, secret elections could have been held 
in North Viet-Nam in 1956. Nor have I come 
across any explanation of why the failure to 
hold a referendum justified war in Viet-Nam, 
any more than it would in other countries 
divided by circumstance against their will ; that 
is, in Germany or Korea. There is too much 
corruption in Viet-Nam, others say — this of a 
small, fragmented Asian society, without the 
administrative machinery of a modem state, 
which has endured more than 20 years of guer- 
rilla warfare! We are solemnly advised to 
negotiate — to negotiate now — or call the Geneva 
conference or neutralize the coimtry or use the 
machinery of the United Nations. 

It is baffling to confront such inexplicable 
advice. The Government has pursued every hint 
of a negotiating possibility and developed many 
of its own. Many of these exploratory talks, 
it is clear in retrospect, were cruel deceptions. 
Thus far, they have all come to the same heart- 
breaking end. We have pressed the Soviet Union 
for years to reconvene the Geneva conference or 
to allow the issue of Viet-Nam to be considered 
by the Security Council or to cooperate in other 
ways to bring about a fair political settlement of 
the conflict. 

Most critics of the administration, liowever 
severe, are careful to point out that they do not 
favor a luiilateral American withdrawal from 
Viet-Nam or abandoning our allies or recogniz- 
ing the NLF as "the sole legitimate repre- 

APRIL 1, 1968 


sentative of the South Vietnamese peo]jle." It 
is therefore difficult to discover in what respect 
they differ from the administration. 

True, several would stojj bombing North 
Viet-Nam in order to get meaningful negotia- 
tions underway. They must find it hard to 
recommend this course a few weeks after Hanoi 
launched a general offensive during an agreed 
truce. A2id they nowhere suggest any reason to 
believe that a bombing pause would do any more 
good now than such pauses did on earlier occa- 
sions to bring about negotiations. 

On this point, too, the administration has 
been using every conceivable channel to find 
out what the Delphic words of the North Viet- 
namese Foreign Minister and other Communist 
spokesmen really mean. As the President has 
said repeatedly, we will negotiate while hostili- 
ties continue, negotiate imder a cease-fire, or 
negotiate under a balanced agreement of de- 
escalation. "VVliat we cannot and will not do is to 
negotiate while half the war is stopjied. 

The critics of the administration find it hard 
to believe what recent events in Viet-Nam make 
obvious: that Hanoi is not interested in nego- 
tiations but in the complete conquest of South 
Viet-Nam and that the absence of peace is the 
choice of the other side. 

The Burden of Responsibility 

But tlie passion of the debate is more signifi- 
cant than its defects in logic. Beyond the words 
is a protest of the utmost imijortance : a protest 
against the 20th century and against the re- 
sponsibilities the 20th century requires the 
United States to assume in defense of our na- 
tional security. 

The debate is not really concerned with the 
past, present, and future of the hostilities 
in Viet-Nam. It is addressed to the fact that we 
are involved in world politics and no longer live 
as we did in the 19th century, isolated and safe 
in a system of power maintained by others. Sen- 
ator [George D.] Aiken remarked the other day 
that we have inherited the responsibilities of the 
British Empire but not its privileges. There is a 
good deal to his wise comment. The real issue 
we are debating is whether we continue to carry 
responsibilities of this order, with the help of 
Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and 
other countries who may wish to join us in re- 
gional efforts for peace, or whether we try once 
again to retreat into the world of the past, a 

world which isn't there and cannot be re- 

It is an old debate, difficult to resolve pre- 
cisely because it pits reality against memories 
that are part of our bone. And it is a debate of 
the utmost importance — to us and to every other 
people in the world. 

Let no one be confused about what is at stake. 
If the American people falter or seem to falter 
now, before the world succeeds in creating a 
stable balance of power and a stable system of 
peace, our friends and our rivals will alike con- 
clude that safety and peace are in peril : Our 
rivals will see opportunities opening, and our 
friends will wonder how good America's word 
really is when the going gets rough. The rislis 
of miscalculation will be increased. 

Such an atmosphere of anxiety and uncer- 
tainty is the breeding groimd of war. Three 
times in this century men have misread the will 
of America, confusing our natural grumblings 
for our ultimate purpose. 

I hope the same mistake is not being made 
once more. However much we dislike the burden 
of responsibility, the United States will not 
again abandon the defense of our national inter- 
ests to chance. The United States and many 
other countries would take the gravest view of 
any renewal of hostilities in the Middle East or 
in Korea. And they regard the pattern of mili- 
tary support for North Viet-Nam with growing 
concern. Our national interest is a general sys- 
tem of peace — a flexible system, tolerant of 
change, but a system nonetheless stable enough 
and disciplined enough to prevent general war. 

Facing Down Aggression 

The facts of life in the 20th century, and the 
nature of our civilization, require us to pursue 
the foreign policy which has been developed by 
our four Presidents since 194,5. Our history 
keeps us from a Roman solution. We are not im- 
perialists; we cannot and will not impose pax 
Americana on the world. But the changing map 
of world power in this century makes it neces- 
sary for us — for the first time in our history — 
to play a leading part in seeking to build a se- 
cure and stable system of world order. 

The old system is gone, destroyed in the after- 
math of two World Wars. A new one has not 
yet been established. The European states which 
organized the balance of world power in the 
19th century are no longer capable of accom- 



plislung that goal. The Soviet Union, the 
United States, and Japan are states on a new 
scale of power. The nuclear weapon has trans- 
formed the problem of power. The dissolution of 
empire and the rise of Communist movements 
have created new focal points of danger 
throughout the world. 

ing regional coalitions of peace to join us in the 
ing regional coalitions of peace to join us in the 
search for stability. Obviously, we cannot hold 
the world together singlehanded. We are seek- 
ing steadily to enlarge and expand these coali- 
tions of peace so that our share in the working 
of peacekeeping can be reduced. But we have a 
vital national interest in world peace. And we 
cannot delegate the protection of that interest 
to anyone else. There is no one to pick up the 
torch if we let it fall. 

This is the implacable subject matter of our 
debate over foreign policy. It is a debate be- 
tween facts and nostalgia, between realities and 
dreams. We have to accustom ourselves to the 
unpleasant situation with which we must live : 
that there are no quick, cheap solutions and that 
we shall have to continue to exert ourselves, 
with regional alliances of increasing strength, 
until the Commimist nations accept a rule of 
live-and-let-live and join us in a regime of 
peaceful coexistence. 

The debate over our course in Viet-Nam is 
one stage in a great debate which has lasted for 
more than 40 years. 

After the First World War we repudiated 
President Wilson and sought to return to a 
"normalcy" that we refused to believe had gone 
forever. In the 1930's we followed an inward- 
looking isolationism that placed our own vital 
interests in mortal peril. Our internal debate 
raged until the moment when the enemy's attack 
mocked our irresolution. 

The postwar administration of President 
Truman provides a happier parallel for the 
present debate. President Truman was the main 
architect of the policies we are following today. 
Like President Johnson, he had the courage not 
to run away from an unpopular war, whatever 
the political cost to himself. And like President 
Johnson, he had to fight not only the Commu- 
nists abroad but the extremists at home — those 
on the right, who were for total, uncompromis- 
ing, unrestrained war against communism, and 
those on the left, like Henry Wallace, who 
wanted us to stay home and leave the world to 
whoever could take it. 

President Truman, as you remember, gave in 
to neither extreme. Instead, he laid down what 
has been our basic foreign policy ever since: 
the policy of coexistence. In a world of nuclear 
bombs. President Truman believed it was mad 
to contemplate a holy war against communism 
tliroughout the world. America wanted to live 
in peace within a reasonably stable world of 
broad horizons, a world in which we and our 
friends could seek the blessings of freedom and 
progress. We had no desire to launch military 
attacks against Communist systems, but we 
could not tolerate Commimist aggression. What 
we sought was Communist acceptance of the 
idea that force could not be used to change the 
boundaries of the two systems, a principle we 
upheld in supporting the territorial integrity 
and political independence of Iran, Gi'eece, 
Turkey, and Korea and in preventing the ab- 
sorption of Berlin. Wlaen Communists sought 
to change the balance of power by force or the 
threat of force, we reacted firmly. That, in broad 
terms, was the meaning of the famous Tmman 
doctrine, announced in response to Soviet de- 
signs on Greece and Turkey. 

Following that doctrine, successive American 
Presidents faced down Communist aggression 
time and time again. This principle is the es- 
sence of our position in Viet-Nam. On each oc- 
casion, we have made it perfectly clear that we 
were not trying to destroy the Communists in 
their own countries but only helping others to 
resist their aggression into the non-Communist 

A Policy of Peacekeeping and Aid 

For four administrations, we have followed 
the same doctrine of convincing the Commu- 
nists that while aggression would get them no- 
where, peaceful coexistence was theirs for the 

Resisting aggression, of course, is only half 
our foreign policy. To be sure, in order to have 
a decent society, either at home or aboard, there 
must be law and order. Force must be kept un- 
der control. But we all know that law and order, 
by itself, is not enough ; there must be progress 
and hope. One half of President Truman's pol- 
icy is symbolized by the Trimian doctrine, the 
other by the Marshall Plan and the Point 4 pro- 
gram. These were not "giveaway" programs, 
as their shortsighted critics so often called them, 
but were designed to help other people back on 

APRIL 1. 19 6S 


their feet so that they could look after their own 

In Europe, with the Marshall Plan, our 
policy fostered a brilliant success. With our 
help at a critical moment, the Western Euro- 
peans have made themselves more stable and 
prosperous than at any time in their history. 
No one talks any more about Western Europe 
"going Communist." Today the Western Euro- 
peans contribute a major share to Atlantic 
defense through NATO and give large quan- 
tities of aid to developing countries around the 
world. The NATO Council recently opened a 
new chapter in the evolution of the alliance.^ 
The allies undertook to join us in the search for 
a stable peace not only in Continental Europe 
but in the Mediterranean, where new threats 
have emerged, and in areas of tension beyond 
Europe itself. With their help, we should be 
able to develop patterns of coherence and 
stability, and to support programs of progress, 
which would help prevent further outbreaks of 

We look forward to the Europeans taking a 
greater role in world affairs outside Europe 
itself. We are pleased by the increasing influence 
exerted in Asia by the Japanese, whose pros- 
perity has made them the world's third largest 
economy. We believe that the key to the future 
lies in interdependence. And we accept as basic 
that that interdependence means a partnership 
of equals. 

In short, in the developed parts of the free 
world — in Europe and in Japan — our policy of 
peacekeeping and aid has on the whole been a 
success. We have helped others achieve a condi- 
tion of order within wliich the dynamic of each 
society for progress can find fulfiUment. We 
have been gradually helping to build regional 
coalitions based on genuine cooperation, not for 
war but to prevent it and to give a rational 
structure to the world's economic relations. 

Challenge of the Developing Countries 

But as we have witnessed relative success 
arrive in one area, we have been faced by a 
growing challenge in another— in the whole 
"third world" of developing countries, many 
only recently freed from centuries of colonial 

Our strategy throughout the third world is 
the same as our strategy in Europe. We are sup- 
porting countries in the various regions of the 
world in tlieir efforts to develop their own 

political and economic institutions and encour- 
aging them to work together in international 
groupings for defense and economic develop- 
ment. We are working with the nations of Latin 
America in the Alliance for Progress. Many of 
the free nations of Asia are similarly coming 
together in a number of organizations to pro- 
mote trade, economic development, and defense. 

We have assisted these peoples of the third 
world both with military power to shield them 
against aggression and with aid to prime the 
process of their economic development. We 
hope that the various regional groupings that 
are forming will in time give an orderly and 
progressive structure to the coimtries of the 
third world and enable them to cure their sense 
of despair and to resist the many foi-ces of con- 
fusion and violence that are inevitable in 
a world undergoing such rapid and radical 

There has been real progress in many parts 
of this third world. In Latin America, many 
countries have made impressive steps toward 
modernity. In the Middle East, Turkey, Israel, 
Tunisia, and Iran have shown dramatic im- 
provements. So, further East, have such coun- 
tries such as Pakistan, Thailand, the Republic 
of China, and South Korea. Others, like In- 
donesia, have recently taken encouraging steps 
to put themselves on the road to steady economic 
growth and progress. In short, there has been 
enough advance to convince all that advance 
is possible. 

But there is no point in comforting ourselves 
by looking only at the bright spots. There is a 
tremendous job to be done in many parts of the 
world before peoples can achieve stable political 
systems and throw off the poverty and despotism 
they have known for centuries. All over the 
world, ancient societies have suddenly had to 
face the challenge of life on their own responsi- 
bility in a world that is strange to them and 
often hostile. There is going to be local turmoil 
in many places for a long time to come. 

This would be true even if there were no 
Conmiunists; but, of course, there are. They 
wait, like scavengers, to feast off the wounds of 
struggling societies. It is ridiculous to see them 
behind all the troubles in the world, but it is 
equally ridiculous to pretend that they do not 
exist. In most of the troubled areas of the world 

'For text of a communique issued by the North 
Atlantic Council at Brussels on Dec. 14, 1967, see 
Bulletin of Jan. 8, 1968, p. 49. 



they are active forces, exploiting confusion and 
seeking opportunities to extend their own brutal 
and dreary system. 

The Communist Offensive in Southeast Asia 

Nowhere have the Communists taken the of- 
fensive more openly than in Southeast Asia. 
There is, quite literally, not one nation in this 
part of the world that has not had to contend 
■with a Communist threat to its plans for peace- 
ful development. Mindful of the rebuff the free 
world dealt the North Korean attempt at direct 
aggression in 1950, Communists in Southeast 
Asia are trying a newer and more sophisticated 
form of aggression. They call it the "war of 
national liberation." It is a formidable weapon, 
as we have reason to know. 

Tlie nations of Southeast Asia are still weak, 
militarily and economically. In each one, men 
and women are trying to develop institutions 
of modernity, institutions which could release 
the energies of the people and create new op- 
portunities for their advance. Left to their own 
resources, however, it is imlikely that even the 
most determined of them would be able to 
succeed in their own plans for development in 
the face of external pressure and subversion 
from within. Should the development of these 
countries be disrupted, the risk that they would 
be taken over — the risk, that is, of a Commu- 
nist-dominated Southeast Asia — would increase 
radically, and thus radically increase the risk 
of wider change in the equilibrium of force, 
fear, and influence in the world. 

I am not raising the specter of "monolithic 
communism." Even the State Department has 
heard about divisions among Communist lead- 
ers and ideologies. But Conmiimist oligopoly 
is not necessarily an improvement over Com- 
munist monopoly, from our point of view. It 
might be even more aggressive, as each state 
seeks to demonstrate its superior zeal. 

"We know that Hanoi is not altogether a 
satellite of Peking. But would Hanoi's rule in 
Laos or Cambodia be any less oppressive or any 
more welcome to the local populations than 
Peking's rule in Burma or Malaysia? The dan- 
ger posed by the alliance of Peking and Hanoi, 
and of other states transformed into their 
images, would be at least as dangerous to us, to 
India, to Indonesia, and to other countries of 
the area as any single "monolithic" power dom- 
inating the region. If this happened we would 
be confronted, in our "small world" of super- 

sonic jet aircraft and missiles, with the threat 
of a hostile Asia quite similar to the threat 
which we perceived 30 years ago as a menace 
to our own security. Such a condition in South- 
east Asia would have certain consequences in 
Korea, in Japan, and in the islands near Asia. 
It could be as much a threat of spreading chaos 
and anarchy as one of simple aggression — and 
no less serious for that reason. 

An awareness of these risks does not require 
the United States to assimie the role of univer- 
sal gendarme anywhere in the world where 
there is even the hint of a Commvmist threat. 
We realize that, in the last analysis, only the 
Asians themselves can prevent a Communist 
Asia. But Cliina has an enormous weight and 
an even greater shadow. Peoples and govern- 
ments are resisting communism successfully now 
in Thailand, in Indonesia, in Malaysia, and 
elsewhere, despite the imbalance between their 
power and that of China. They will continue to 
do so, provided we and our allies prevail in 
Viet- Nam, so long as they remain confident that 
they are not alone in facing up to Hanoi and 

To enliance their efforts at economic develop- 
ment, and in defense, the nations of Southeast 
Asia have formed a nimiber of useful regional 
organizations. But, both militarily and econom- 
ically, even their combined power could not 
match that of a crusading China and her 
zealous disciples. What does right it, what does 
give them the confidence to pursue their own 
efforts, is America's demonstrated willingness 
to support Asian governments who are making 
their own self-development and their own self- 
defense efforts in the face of Conununist in- 
surgency. Formally, I recall to you, this willing- 
ness was expressed in the SEATO Treaty, 
signed in 1954, a treaty which specifically rec- 
ognizes the possibility of the new form of ag- 
gression which now confronts our Asian friends 
and allies. In fact, it is being tested now in 
South Viet-Nam. 

Far from making us a world policeman, it is 
this willingness to assist, provided it remains 
credible, which is in fact the best guarantee 
that no new world war, no new critical situa- 
tions requiring a military intervention, will be 
reached. As long as Asians remain convinced 
of American willingness to stand beliind them 
and help them, the small nations of Asia can 
continue to face up to Hanoi and Peking, deal 
with Conamunist insurgency at home, and de- 
velop in the ways of their own choosing. 

APRn. 1, 1968 


This is what is at stake in Viet-Nam — ^the 
credibility of America's support in Southeast 
Asia and indeed in the many other areas of the 
world in whose security we have a national in- 
terest. Remove this credibility and we will in- 
deed be placed in the position of becoming world 
policemen or captives in a fortress America. In 
theory, there may be better places to fight than 
Viet-Nam ; in fact, we have no alternative. 

Political and Military War in Viet-Nam 

Although the import of my address today is 
directed at our policy throughout the world, I 
believe the events in Viet-Nam in the last few 
weeks require that I give special emphasis to 
that comer of the world this evening. 

First of all, what is our enemy in Viet-Nam? 
Our enemy in Viet-Nam is aggression, con- 
ducted by the Communist government of North 
Viet-Nam and supported by other Communist 
governments. We do not maintain that this Com- 
munist government in Hanoi is a satellite of 
Peking — but neither do we accept the notion 
that it is a great bulwark against it. The two 
are allies — desiring the same goals, using the 
same means. When we resist one ally in South 
Viet-Nam, the lesson is not lost on the other, in 

Aggression in South Viet-Nam is directed 
and supplied by and increasingly manned by 
personnel of the government of Hanoi headed 
by Ho Chi Minh. That Ho Chi Minh is a Viet- 
namese nationalist, no one will deny. But what 
some people would like us to forget is that he is 
also a Communist. As a Coromunist, he has made 
himself the enemy of every form of Vietnamese 
nationalism not his own. By 1951, he had driven 
the last of the nationalist non-Conmiunists out 
of the Viet Minh. In 1955 and 1956, he drove 
some 840,000 non-Communist Vietnamese out 
of North Viet-Nam, imprisoned about 100,000 
others, and liquidated outright at least another 
50,000. These estimates are conservative and 
probably understate the extent of his purges. 

Not content to have eliminated any contend- 
ing schools of thought from his own domain, he 
set about deliberately to impose his own system 
on South Viet-Nam as well. He planned to do 
this not through political agitation, or through 
anything resembling the democratic process, but 
by force. His plans were made early. After the 
cease-fire of 1954, he instructed sonic of his fol- 
lowers to go underground, in the South. Others 
were called to the North for training and re- 

infiltration. By 1957, he had turned these forces 
loose to start a campaign of political and mili- 
tary action, and of outright terror, which has 
gradually grown in size to the propoi-tions it 
has reached today. 

To be sure, this campaign operated on fertile 
ground. In any country with a history of chaos 
such as that of Viet-Nam in the 20th century, 
there are bound to be many disaffected people, 
deeply established habits of violence, and a 
great deal of diflSculty in establishing a central 
government based on consent. The Communists 
have recognized this from the begimiing and 
are skillful in linking their political efforts to 
the exploitation of popular grievances. Because 
of these grievances, and through the use of ter- 
ror — against individuals, groups, and recently 
against entire cities — the Communists have suc- 
ceeded in building an infrastructure with roots 
buried in the soil of South Viet-Nam. So long 
as this infrastructure remains, the war in Viet- 
Nam will not be won. When it is destroyed, vic- 
tory in Viet-Nam will be as assured as the 
victory over the guerrillas in Malaya some 10 
years in the past. 

This fact is the key to understanding the war 
in Viet-Nam, a war which is as much political 
as it is military. 

The events of the first part of this month, the 
Tet, or New Year's, offensive, reveal to us how 
important this basic fact is. During the Tet of- 
fensive, the Communists attacked some 38 of 
44 of Viet-Nam's Provincial capitals, plus the 
capital city of Saigon itself. They did this at 
the cost of tremendous losses to their own forces 
— estimated to be as high as 38,000 men killed 
alone, not to mention over 6,000 prisoners and 
uncounted woimded. 

Their purpose in these attacks was not a pure- 
ly military one. Nor do we think they would 
sacrifice so many men merely to create a "di- 
version," as some commentators have suggested, 
from the more purely military confrontation at 
Khe Sanh. From all the evidence we have, their 
purpose was to weaken, or even to destroy, the 
Government of South Viet-Nam and to set back 
the political programs — the pacification and de- 
velopment programs in the countryside — wliich 
threatened the possibility of their ultimate suc- 
cess. For the Communists know, and we must 
never forget, that if they ever did succeed in 
destroying the constitutional and elected polit- 
ical authority in Soxith Viet-Nam, they would 
indeed have won the war. They would have won 
it even if a Khe Sanh, a Dak To, a Loc Ninh, 



or any otlier point in geography, and dozens 
of others to boot, were successfully defended. 

The maximum goals of the Tet offensive were 
not achieved. The popular uprisings which they 
told their troops would greet them in the cities 
did not materialize. Indeed, the urban popula- 
tion of Viet-Xam has shown that it is not will- 
ing voluntarily to throw in its lot with the Viet 
Cong. And the Army of South Viet-Nam 
fought back, and fought back well. This was a 
failure and, hopefully, a revealing failure to 
the Vietnamese Communists. But it was not a 
decisive failure. And at the same time, we and 
our allies suffered a severe setback. 

Were the Vietnamese Government now to 
stand by inactively, in the face of the recent 
destruction, in the face of people made home- 
less, in the face of the fear that the Viet Cong 
have brought, for the firet time, to the peoples 
of the cities, then the Communists would not 
consider their losses to have been in vain. Tliis 
would be no less true if the Vietnamese Govern- 
ment were to abdicate its responsibilities, either 
for ciAac action or for the maintenance of secu- 
rity, to us Americans. For in that case, it would 
only be a matter of time before the cycle would 
repeat itself again and again. And sooner or 
later, losses and overwhelming "kill ratios" not- 
withstanding, the people's patience with a 
government that could neither help them nor 
protect them would crumble, and the Commu- 
nists would have won their political war. 

South Viet-Nam Beginning To Build a Unity 

I say this not to be dramatic but to point out 
to you that the United States Government has 
never lost sight of the fact that to the extent 
that the campaign in Viet-Nam is a political 
war, it is a South Vietnamese war. However 
much we can help to ward off aggression, only 
the South Vietnamese can win the political 
struggle. Although the final report has yet to 
be made, the reactions of the South Vietnamese 
so far give strong indications that they wish to 
do just that. 

The South Vietnamese Government has re- 
mained in place, in Saigon and in every Prov- 
ince of Viet-Nam. It has organized a relief com- 
mittee which has succeeded in coordinating the 
efforts of the Vietnamese ministries and author- 
ities and in channeling these efforts directly 
where they are needed among the victims of the 
Communist offensive. Local authorities through- 
out the country are taking similar actions. 

Equally significant, Vietnamese individuals 
and groups outside the Government — and often 
in opposition to the Government — Buddhists 
and Catholics, Cao Dai and Hoa Hao, labor 
leaders and students, eminent political leaders 
outside of the Government as well as in it, have 
expressed their willingness to unite against an 
enemy whose destructive capacity, and will, 
have never been more grapliically illustrated. 
The Goverimient of South Viet-Nam has ex- 
pressed its willingness to collaborate with all 
of these forces. 

As the Nazis came to learn after the worst 
of their efforts against Britain had been ex- 
hausted, adversity can serve to iinite a people 
and fire its determination. There are signs that 
tliis is what the Conmiunist attacks may be pro- 
ducing in Viet-Nam. 

In the rural areas, the situation remains 
more difficult to assess. In some Provinces, self- 
defense forces and cadre teams have had to 
withdraw to assist the peoples of the Province 
and district capitals. In others. Revolutionary 
Development cadre and Popular Forces have 
remained m place, and the pacification program 
seems to be going on as before. In the country- 
side, as in the cities, the test will be what the 
Vietnamese and their Government are able to 
do to restore the momentum of the program. If 
they succeed in returning to the coimtryside 
promptly, before the Viet Cong consolidates 
its new positions, the Viet Cong's recent gains 
should not prove difficult to reverse. 

I know you are all interested in what is hap- 
pening in Viet-Nam. You are interested in what 
our men are doing at Khe Sanh, in the Central 
Highlands, and elsewhere in Viet-Nam. I do 
not have to tell you that their efforts in con- 
stantly rebuffing main-force Communist units 
which threaten to come close to populated areas 
are providing an absolutely essential shield be- 
hind which the efforts I have described to you 
could succeed. I do not have to tell you that 
without their efforts the Communists could 
forcibly destroy the political revolution the 
South Vietnamese are trying to create for 

But if you really want to understand Viet- 
Nam, I ask you also to look behind that shield. 
I ask you to look at the Vietnamese Armed 
Forces, the Regional Forces in the Provinces, 
and the Popular Forces who form tlie close-in 
defense of the pacified hamlets. These men suf- 
fered losses more than twice ours in the recent 
events. They acquitted themselves well in bear- 

APRIL 1. 1968 


ing the primary responsibility for driving the 
Communists from Viet-Nam's cities. Above all, 
in the coming weeks, I ask you to watch the 
Vietnamese people and their leaders at all levels. 
Follow what is happening in Saigon — but notice 
also that small item describing the activities of 
local people and authorities — from Quang Tri 
to the Mekong Delta. 

What I expect you will see is a nation begin- 
ning to come together, beginning to build a 
unity which should doom the Commimists' 
efforts to impose their system on South Viet- 
Nam. When this unity is achieved, there will be 
no place for the Communist infrastructure in 
Viet-Nam. When this is gone, any unsupported 
Commimist military forces remaining in the 
South can be dealt with by local police or mili- 
tary forces — and the war will indeed be over. 

By assisting the Vietnamese in this effort, we 
will have successfully defended our own inter- 
ests. We will have convinced the Communists 
that they cannot succeed in a war of national 
liberation in Southeast Asia any more than 
they did through more conventional aggressive 
action in Korea or in Europe. 

The New Version of the Old Isolationism 

Only by convincing them of the firmness of 
our resolve and our willingness to live up to 
our promises will there be any hope of achiev- 
ing in Asia the same kind of stability that we 
and our allies have been able to reach in Europe. 

If our resolve gives way, it will be the old 
story. Successful aggression in one place will 
encourage aggression everywhere and sap the 
courage of those who are now prepared to re- 
sist. South Viet-Nam is not unique. The same 
potential for subversion exists in any number 
of countries in the third world. If Communist 
aggression succeeds in preventing Viet-Nam 
from building a progressive non-Communist 
society, the emboldened Communists will not 
unreasonably expect to succeed — and to suc- 
ceed mainly by threat — in many other places. 

Why do we care? That is the real question, 
the question that only a few critics of our 
policy occasionally raise. Wliy are we making 
this great effort to help sustain the Vietnamese 
in their revolution and to sustain other nations 
in their economic development? Why do we not 
withdraw to the developed countries, as they 
propose, and abandon the third world to com- 
munism, racism, and chaos? We can protect our- 
selves in our fortress, they argue. And we have 
problems enough at home. 

This is the new version of the old isolation- 
ism. It has led us to disaster in the past. If we 
follow it now, it can only lead us to disaster in 
the future. It is based on a fundamental illu- 
sion that we have inherited from the 19th cen- 
tury: that America can somehow ignore the 
rest of the world and still be safe. We Amer- 
icans have no choice but to accept the facts of 
life in the 20th century. In the last century, we 
were protected by a wide ocean and a reason- 
ably stable balance of power maintained by 
Europeans among themselves and through their 
empires around the world. We could count on 
their rivalries to make sure that no one was 
powerful enough to threaten us. Today that old 
balance, and the world order that went with it, 
is swept away. If we retreated from the world, 
no purely local forces could stop Russia from 
dominating Europe or no purely local forces 
could stop Communist China and its allies from 
dominating all the Far East. 

Those who advocate withdrawing into our 
own continental fortress should ask themselves 
what sort of country we might be if large parts 
of the world were united in hostility toward 
us. A fortress imder siege is not a pleasant place 
to live. A garrison state is an uncongenial en- 
vironment for freedom. We can, in fact, hope 
to develop as a free society only in a world that 
is stable, secure, and reasonably open. 

It is sometimes said that we must turn our 
backs on the world because we have too many 
problems at home, because we cannot afford 
to rebuild our cities and eliminate poverty and 
still maintain our foreign commitments. This is 
nonsense. Our economy grows more every year 
than the costs of Viet-Nam. Our level of taxa- 
tion is still below that which prevailed at the 
time of Korea. 

We have enough resources; what we need is 
the will. 

In today's world, selfishness and irresponsi- 
bility cannot start or stop at the water's edge. 
Irresponsibility at home and irresponsibility 
abroad go together. We cannot retreat from our 
cities and hide out in the suburbs. We cannot 
abandon the third world and withdraw to 

We must find the vsdll and the means to 
meet our responsibilities both at home and 
abroad if we are to be true to oui-selves, our 
friends, and the interests of the generations 
that follow us. That is the basic policy of this 
administration ; that is where the President has 
been leading us. 



"Our Goal Is Peace" 

FdU'Owing is the foreign policy portion of re- 
marks made by President Johnson before the 
Veterans of Foreign Wars at Washington, B.C., 
on March 12. 

White House press release dated March 12 

I want all of those who hear me or read me to 
know that I believe that you are great spokes- 
men for the American veteran — for the man 
who has laid his life on the line for his country. 

But you have also been a voice for responsi- 
bility in all world aifairs. You have understood 
that duty always travels with strength, that 
the greatness of a nation is measured by its 
willingness to fuLlfill its moral obligations to its 
own people, as well as to mankind. 

The United States, at the end of the Second 
World War, did not go out in search of new 
obligations. Our strength and our commitment 
to man's freedom brought those obligations 
right here to our door. Four Presidents now 
have recognized those obligations. Ten Con- 
gresses have verified them. 

They have been costly — in blood and in treas- 
ure. The only higher cost would have come 
from our ignoring them or from our failure to 
assimie them. The price of isolationism, whether 
it is the old-fashioned kind of isolationism that 
is rooted in ignorance or the new-fashioned kind 
that grows from weariness and impatience — 
whatever its kind, isolationism exacts the high- 
est price of all and, ultimately, as we have 
learned, it is unpayable. 

Our goal, my friends, is not the unlimited ex- 
tension of American responsibilities anywhere. 

It is clearly not the conquest of a smgle foot of 
ten-itory anywhere in the world. It is not the 
imposition of any form of government or econ- 
omy on any other people on this earth. 

Our goal is peace — the blessed condition that 
allows each nation to pursue its own pui'poses — 
free of marching invaders and aggressors, free 
of terror in the night, free of hunger and igno- 
rance and crippling diseases. 

If we take up arms, we take them up only to 
guard against those enemies. It is to help the 
nation-builders. It is to try to shield the weak so 
that time can make them strong. It is to bar ag- 
gression. It is to build the lasting peace that is 
our country's single purpose today. 

We send our young men abroad because peace 
is threatened — in other lands tonight and ulti- 
mately in our own. 

We take our stand to give stability to a world 
where stability is needed desperately. 

We rattle no sabers. We seek to intimidate no 

But neither shall we be intimidated. And 
from American responsibilities, God willing, we 
shall never retreat. There is no safety in such a 
course. Neither reason nor honor nor good faith 
commends such a course. 

You of the VFW have been the strong right 
arm of many Commanders in Chief, of many 
Presidents. You have been a voice of conscience 
and responsibility for many years for many mil- 
lions of Americans. I ask only that you hold 
straight to that course. You will help to lead 
your nation and you will help to lead your 
world beyond danger to the peaceful day when 
free men know not fear, but when free men 
know fulfillment. 

APRIL 1, 19 68 


The Heartlands of the Home Hemisphere 

&y Covey T. Oliver 

Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs ^ 

It is always a pleasure for me to visit with the 
people of this country's great heartland. It 
seems all too seldom that I get the opportunity 
to return to the commercial, industrial, and ag- 
ricultural complex that makes up the Midwest 
of today. 

Some "coasters" in this country, both east 
and west, seem to think that since I am involved 
in foreign affairs I should limit my visits to 
those areas of the country which are most di- 
rectly involved and most interested in interna- 
tional relations. They point out that the Mid- 
west has no foreign embassies, few consulates, 
few foreign visitors, and little direct interna- 
tional transportation. What these people do not 
seem to realize is that the people of the Mid- 
western United States not only are seriously 
concerned with the course and progress of this 
nation's foreign affairs, but that many of them 
are just as directly involved in these affairs as 
any coaster. Since I was "bom and raised" on 
the southern fringe of this great heartland, 
some coasters may think I am a little biased 
in my judgment. Bias or no, however, my opin- 
ion on tills issue is certainly supported by the 

A recent coimt of Peace Corps volunteers, for 
instance, showed that 253 Indiana youths are 
scattered throughout the underdeveloped coim- 
tries of the world donating 2 years of their lives 
for the progi-ess of other people. Another 79 
Hoosiers serve abroad with the Agency for In- 
ternational Development. Some 42 are working 
in our embassies and consulates. In all, the 20 
States of the Midwest contribute one-third of 
all Peace Corps volunteers; 1,370 AID em- 

' Address made before the Indiana Partners of the 
Alliance and Sigma Delta Chi Society at Indianapolis, 
Ind., on Mar. 11 (press release 46 dated Mar. 9). 

ployees and 2,653 Foreign Service officers, re- 
servists, and staff personnel. 

These organizations, of course, by no means 
exhaust the list of midwestemers who help to 
guide United States international relations. 
The International Executive Service Corps — 
known to its members as the paunch corps — 
draws 26 percent of its 3,187 qualified volmi- 
teers from the heartland of this coimtry for the 
admmistrative and managerial talents which 
are in such short supply in developing countries. 

Before I leave these statistics of midwestem 
involvement in foreign affairs I would especially 
like to note Indiana's participation in a vital 
people-to-people program known as the Part- 
ners of the Alliance, through which Hoosiers 
have assisted the development efforts of the 
people of Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil. To date, 
the Indiana Partners have contributed two 
motors to a Brazilian trade school, are involved 
in eight community development projects, and 
collected more than $1,500 for a college and 
another $500 for training materials for nursing 
education. I understand that as a result of your 
good work a Brazilian will soon have a set of 
artificial limbs, and that a number of women's 
organizations are studying ways they can best 
help their counterparts in Rio Grande do Sul 
and Parana. For a long time tliere has been 
a little Brazil in Indiana. Now there is a little 
Indiana in Brazil. 

I thank you good people for adding a much 
needed personal dimension to this nation's inter- 
American relations through the Partners of the 
Alliance program. I look forward to hearing the 
results of your future efforts. 

From the facts I have mentioned, it is plain 
there is little evidence to support the view that 
the heartlanders of the United States are ex- 



clusively national in their outlook and interests. 
You are all involved in foreign affairs and do 
much more than watch the course of the few 
pennies of your tax dollar that go for foreign 

The Other American Heartland 

As involved as you are, however, I believe 
that the greatest challenge to the people of this 
great heartland in the field of foreign assist- 
ance is yet to come. I believe that in the next few 
years the Federal Government and the govern- 
ments of all member nations of the Alliance for 
Progress will be looking increasingly to this 
region for the knowledge, the experience, the 
skills, the energy, and the tools to open the other 
vast American heartland, the interior of South 

That other heartland is bounded on the north 
and west by the Andes, the second highest 
mountain chain in the world. It stretches across 
rivers, jungles, high plateaus, and grasslands 
southward to the swamps of Mato Grosso in 
Brazil and the scrub plains of the Gran Chaco 
in Bolivia, Paraguay, and Argentina. This 
largely untouched area includes practically all 
of the Amazon River Basin, the largest water- 
shed in the world. More than 2 miUion square 
miles of wilderness still wait for the develop- 
ing hand of man to add their natural wealth 
and productive capacity toward the well-being 
of individuals, nations, and the world. 

Not very long ago as national lives are meas- 
ured, the United States and the newly independ- 
ent nations to the south stood at the same stage 
of territorial development. Like them, this na- 
tion was poor and undeveloped and held only 
an insecure toehold on the edge of an imknown 
continent. At that time. North and South Amer- 
ican men of vision understood that opening and 
developing the heartlands was the key to na- 
tional security and future greatness. 

In this country, Alexander Hamilton, our 
first Secretary of the Treasury, clearly saw that 
the United Statas could not hope to acquire and 
develop the North American heartland with its 
own human and financial resources. He knew we 
would require huge foreign investments to 
build a nation out of the wilderness and to tie 
it together with roads, canals, and bridges. 
Since there was no international development 
bank and since no developed nation offered a 

concessional foreign assistance program to its 
less developed neighbors, the United States had 
to depend on the vision and courage of private 
financiers. Hamilton designed fiscal policies 
that would attract and give confidence to for- 
eign investors, and he told the citizens of the 
United States to welcome such capital. In 1791 
he said foreign capital "ought to be considered 
as a most valuable auxiliary conducing to put 
in motion a greater quantity of productive la- 
bor, and a greater portion of useful enterprise, 
than could exist without it." 

As a result of this welcoming and eager atti- 
tude, and no doubt attracted by the prospect of 
having a hand in the development of such a 
great area, foreign investment poured into the 
United States : 

— The cash requirement for the Louisiana 
Purchase, more than $11 million, was promptly 
supplied by European money markets. 

— The State of New York obtained financ- 
ing for the Erie Canal almost entirely from 

— By purchasing $243 million worth of U.S. 
railroad securities, Europeans helped to finance 
the great cost of throwing transportation lines 
across the continent ahead of settlement. 

Dm'ing the time of our greatest territorial 
growth and development, foreign investments 
in the United States grew from $60 million in 
1800 to more than $7 billion by 1914. 

Our heartland simply could not have been 
opened and developed in the time it was with- 
out foreign capital and expertise. We were too 
poor to meet the tremendous costs involved in 
such a venture. 

But while the United States grew in size and 
wealth and while the first successful foreign in- 
vestments in this continent's development at- 
tracted an ever-increasing flow of capital from 
abroad, the countries of South America fell 
farther and farther behind in their efforts to 
tame their own interior. Tliere are a mmiber of 
reasons for this. 

The greatest single factor was perhaps the 
great natural barriers and climatic extremes 
of the South American heartland. The towering 
Andes and the great central forests repelled all 
but a few attempts to open the interior. Weather 
and disease sapped the energy and the will of 
most men who tried. Sporadic booms, such as 
the rubber boom in Brazil in the early 190O's, 

APRIL 1, 1968 



kept alive the dream of taming the heartland 
and drew in thousands of would-be settlers. 
More often than not, however, new towns re- 
mained cut off from the developed areas of the 
coast and gradually were erased as man, no 
longer able to pay the hmnan cost of staying, 
retreated to the fringes of the continent or 
lapsed into a primitive state. 

Another reason for the lack of progress in 
opening the South American heartland was the 
absence of economic and political stability in 
the nations involved. Foreigners could never be 
sure that money they invested during one ad- 
ministration would be respected by the next. 
Ill-defined borders in the heartland led to dev- 
astating wars and destruction of what little de- 
velopment miglit have gone before. 

Dramatic Developments Expected 

Today, the vast South American heartland 
still stands virtually untouched — a problem, a 
dream, and a challenge. Yet things are changing. 

As a direct result of the efforts of American 
nations under the Alliance for Progress, Latin 
America generally is enjoying an unprecedented 
period of economic and political stability. Nine- 
teen of the 21 other member nations of the 
Alliance for Progress now have some form of 
investment guarantee agreement with the 
United States to protect private citizens from 
some of the major risks involved in investing 
in developing countries. Technological and sci- 
entific advances offer new solutions to natural 
problems once believed to be insoluble. 

Businessmen, government officials, techni- 
cians, scientists, and scholars are preparing co- 
ordinated plans for regional and international 
communications and transportation networks 
that will span the South American heai-tland 
and open it to pioneers and frontiersmen. Their 
work has been spurred by the American Presi- 
dents who met last year in Punta del Este'' 
and decided to make the dream of Latin Ameri- 
can economic integration a reality by 1985. In- 
herent in the Presidents' emphasis on the need 
for greater investments in multinational infra- 
structure projects, agriculture, education, sci- 
ence and teclmology is the understanding that 
true integration will only come when the bar- 
riers guarding the heartland of South America 
have been overcome and that region made to 

• For background, see Bullettnt of May 8, 1967, p. 712. 

yield its wealth to the further development of 
Latin America. 

To give you some idea of the dramatic de- 
velopments expected over the coming decades, it 
may be worthwhile to mention a few of the 
exciting projects for which detailed feasibility 
studies are already completed or now under con- 
sideration. Among them: 

— An improved continental telecommimica- 
tions system, including the use of satellites, to tie 
together the nations of Latin America, and 
Latin America with the rest of the world; 

— The Carretera Marginal^ or Jmigle Edge 
Highway, which will open and link the back- 
lands of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia ; 

— The River Plate Basin development scheme, 
which centers on hydroelectric, transportation, 
and industrial development of the watershed 
that includes parts of Argentina, Uruguay, 
Paraguay, Brazil, and Bolivia. 

These and many other projects will someday 
serve as loci of heai-tland development. New 
lands will be cleared, fertilized, irrigated, and 
brought under cultivation to help meet Latin 
America's, and indeed the world's, present and 
future food requirements. New cities and new 
industries wiU spring up to take advantage of 
enhanced transportation and communications 
and greater power sources. New markets will 
open, demanding increased foreign trade. 

Efforts of Private Citizens Needed 

I am sure you all can see the tremendous chal- 
lenge entailed in the long-term effort that will 
be required to open and develop South Amer- 
ica's heartland and the innumerable opportuni- 
ties this task affords midwesterners of this 

Alliance governments can plan, coordinate, 
and support the work that must be done. Our 
Government, for example, recently contributed 
additional fimds to the Inter- American Devel- 
opment Bank which, together with Latin Amer- 
ican government contributions, wiU enable the 
Bank to finance a minimum of $300 million 
worth of multinational development projects 
over a 3-year period. Our agricultural experts 
working with AID are helping their Latin 
American counterparts plan for increased agri- 
cultural productivity. Financial experts and 
economists from all over the Americas are 
working together to establish tax systems and 

44 2 


ownership schemes that are fair to the develop- 
ing countiy as well as the foreign investor. 

Governments, however, cannot do the whole 
job. The major etfort for developing the South 
American heartland must come from private 
citizens willing to exert the backbreaking effort 
it always takes to develop a wilderness and will- 
ing to invest in an uncertain but promising 

Those of you who live in the North American 
heartland, perhaps better than most, under- 
stand the nature and problems of frontier de- 
velopment, ^lany of you grew up listening to 
the stories your fathers told of the difHculties 
they encountered when they first came into this 
area. Your growing factories have had to invent 
and produce new tools to overcome a new en- 
vironment and to take advantage of technologi- 
cal advances. And finally, as your Partners of 
the Alliance program indicates, you understand 
the importance of consideration and under- 
standing in human relations. 

For these reasons, I believe that the people 
of this great heartland are particularly suited 
to help other Americans to the south develop 
their own heartland. I am not suggesting that 
you all pack up this afternoon and begin a new 
life on the frontiers of South America. South 
American development is, after all, primarily a 
job for South Americans. 

What I am suggesting is that all of you ac- 
tively search for ways you can best help Latin 
Americans in the tremendous job ahead. They 
need tractors, bulldozers, and plows. They will 
need mutually acceptable capital investments. 
They need schoolteachers, nurses, doctors, and 
engineers. The opportunities for expanding your 
present people-to-people, company-to-company, 
or church-to-church programs are innimierable. 
All it takes is imagination and a willingness to 

For more than 20 years, this nation has dedi- 
cated considerable resources to support the de- 
velopment efforts of other countries. One does 
not have to delve too deeply into the imderlying 
reasons for this unprecedented action to find a 
strong, general sense of moral rectitude — a basic 
charitable impulse that unifies our citizens. 

Yet if this were the only reason we have 
helped others before and are helping our part- 
ners in the Alliance for Progress today, we 
would perhaps be justified in curtailing the 
effort during periods such as this when other 
demands on our resources proliferate. Since we 

cannot curtail our efforts now, despite the cost 
of Viet-NauT and the danger threatening our 
ovm cities, there must be other good reasons for 
making the sacrifice. 

Benefits to U.S. of Development Assistance 

First of all, it is an article of faith with us 
that the security of our home hemisphere de- 
pends on total hemispheric development. We 
can no longer live as a tremendously wealthy 
nation in a neighborhood where others are ab- 
jectly poor. The violence that threatens our own 
cities today gives irrefutable evidence of the 
consequences that can be expected if social dif- 
ferences between neighbors are ignored and al- 
lowed to increase. A corollary of this is that at 
the present, relatively peaceful, time we can ac- 
complish much with very little. Tlie tiny per- 
centage of our gross national product that we 
have contributed to the Alliance for Progress — 
it will approximate sixteen-hundredtha of 1 per- 
cent this year— together with the development 
investments of our allies, has already done a 
great deal. Since the Alliance began, for ex- 
ample, primary -school enrollment has increased 
50 percent and now includes 36 million chil- 
dren. Electric power has increased by over two- 
thirds and road mileage by about 16 percent. 

Secondly, the sacrifice entailed in giving as- 
sistance to poorer nations is not as gi-eat as 
many tHnk it is. More than 88 percent of all 
foreign aid funds spent by the Agency for In- 
ternational Development is spent in the United 
States for U.S. goods, products, and services. 

And tliirdly, the United States benefits di- 
rectly from the development of other free na- 
tions in the same way that Europe has bene- 
fited a thousandfold from the help it gave us 
during our development period. For example, 
I read recently that in 1966 Indiana ranked 
among the highest of the 50 States in export 
dollar volume, selling about $620 million worth 
of manufactured products abroad during that 
one year. How much of that sum, how many 
jobs in this area alone, would have been lost had 
we decided 20 years ago that our allies and 
former enemies must redevelop by themselves? 

It does not take much imagination to see the 
potentially vast benefits in terms of trade alone 
that could result from the total development of 
the great heartland of South America. 

If we officials who work directly in the Al- 
liance for Progress, both here and in the other 

APRIL 1, 1968 


Americas, succeed in laying the groundwork 
for development — and I sincerely believe we 
will — you of the North American heartland will 
be called upon to contribute your energy, in- 
ventiveness, experience, and imderstanding, 
especially to those who face problems similar to 
those you and your fathers faced in settling and 
developing the Midwest. 

Look southward in the home hemisphere ! The 
need and the opportunity for assisting are there. 
With your help, both Ainerican continents will 
one day be able to point with pride to dynamic 
heartlands — heartlands that furnish much of 
the power, the food, and the human and natural 
resources that drive the continuous development 
and social improvement of our New World. 

2 years and alternate between Japan and the 
United States. 

Earlier conferences, devoted to examining the 
most critical areas of exchange activity between 
the two countries, emphasized educational and 
cultural television exchange, area studies, trans- 
lating and abstracting of scholarly literature, 
exchanges in the performing arts, and the role 
of universities in mutual understanding. 

President Johnson Signs 
Export-Import Bank Bill 

Remarks iy President Johnson ^ 

U.S.-Japan Cultural Conference 
To Be Held in the United States 

The fourth United States-Japan Conference 
on Cultural and Educational Interchange will 
be held April 3-9 in Washington and at Airlie 
House in Warrenton, Va., it was annoimced on 
March 14 by the Governments of Japan and the 
United States (Department of State press re- 
lease 49). 

Under the general theme of "Education and 
Development in Advanced Societies," experts 
in government and private life from both coun- 
tries will consider such issues as the coordina- 
tion of higher education with developmental 
requirements, the effects of expanding size on 
the quality of education, and the means of in- 
creasing international cooperation in education 
and scholarship. 

Leading the 11-man Japanese delegation will 
be Tatsuo Morito, president of the Japan 
Scholarship Association. The chairman of the 
American delegation will be John W. Hall, pro- 
fessor at Yale University and an outstanding 
student of Japan.^ 

These United States-Japan conferences are 
the result of talks held in Washington in 1961 
between the late Prime Minister Hayato Ikeda 
and the late President Jolm F. Kennedy.^ The 
meetings have taken place approximately every 

' For names of members of the delegations, see press 
release 49 dated March 14. 

• For text of a joint communique issued on June 22, 
1961, see Bulletin of July 10, 1961, p. 57. 

White House press release dated March 13 

Like a girl getting married, the Export-Im- 
port Bank is legally changing its name this 
morning. It used to be Imown as the Export- 
Import Bank of Washington. From now on it 
becomes the Export-Import Bank of the United 
States of America. 

The change of the Bank's name is both sym- 
bolic and real. It will play a larger role in the 
cause of national importance that touches 
every citizen and will help increase the flow of 
exports and improve our balance-of-payments 
position, I hope. 

The strength of our dollar, the soundness of 
the free-world monetary system, really depend 
on the strength of that position. 

Last year our balance-of-payments deficit 
reached $3,600,000,000, the highest since 1960. 
To correct this requires an urgent and a con- 
certed effort by all of us. Each of us can be 
blamed for it. To correct it, all of us must make 
proper efforts — the leaders of the executive 
branch of the Government, the Congress of the 
United States, and finally, the public. 

Unless we act now — and unless we act soon — 
we run a very grave and very unnecessary risk. 

We have the responsibility today for world 
economic leadership. But we must exercise that 
responsibility. I think it is very essential to the 
national interest that we pass a tax bill now — 
that we move foi"ward on the rest of the bal- 
ance-of-payments program that is recom- 

' Made at the White House on Mar. 13 upon signing 
S. 1155 (Public Law 90-267). 



If we have not recommended all of the tilings 
that you would like to see considered, I would be 
glad to have recommendations from anyone else. 
But they need attention. 

The law that I will shortly sign is a part of 
our total balance-of-payments program as we 
see it. Tliis measure will enable a great insti- 
tution — under a great Chairman — ^that has al- 
ready done much for our country to do even 
more, I think. I hope it does more. 

So today we have come here to the Fish Room 
to give the Export-Import Bank some of the 
financial horsepower that it very desperately 
needs in order to carry out that important job. 

I am going to ask every official in this Gov- 
ernment — the Secretary of Commerce, the Sec- 
retary of the Treasury, the Secretary of 
Agriculture, and all the other leadei-s — to con- 
centrate their efforts on trying to stimulate our 
exports and to work in close cooperation with 
this Bank and the authority that the Congress 
has wisely entrusted to it. 

The Bank is now 34 years old — perhaps a 
little old for a girl to be changing her name. 
But sometimes they do — even at that age. It is 
better late than never. 

I wish for her a very long, very happy, and 
very productive life. 


The Foreign Aid Program for Fiscal 1969 

Statement by Secretary Rtisk ' 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before 
this committee in support of the Foreign Assist- 
ance Act of 1968 and the President's budget pro- 
posals for economic and military assistance for 
fiscal year 1969. 

The President has requested new appropria- 
tions of approximately $2.5 bUlion for eco- 
nomic assistance through the Agency for Inter- 
national Development and $420 million for 
grant military assistance under the Foreign 
Assistance Act. 

For nearly two decades, assistance to less 
developed countries has been a major component 
of the foreign policy of the United States. It 
has been advocated as an essential effort by four 
successive Presidents and approved by biparti- 
san majorities in 10 successive Congresses. 

* Made before the Senate Foreign Relations Com- 
mittee on Mar. 11 (press release 47). The complete 
hearings will be published by the committee. 

President Kennedy in 1961 called our inter- 
national cooperation in development and mu- 
tual security "the single most important pro- 
gi'am available for building the frontiere of 
freedom." ^ This committee endorsed that view, 
stating, "The Committee believes, no less than 
the President, that the United States must plan 
for and contribute generously toward a decade 
of development. Foreign aid is both an un- 
avoidable responsibility and a central instru- 
ment of our foreign policy." 

In his message to the Congress tliis year, 
President Johnson said : ^ 

The peoples we seek to help are committed to change. 
This is an immutable fact of our time. The only ques- 
tions are whether change will be i)eaceful or violent, 

' For President Kennedy's special message to Con- 
gress on May 25, 1961, on urgent national needs, see 
Bulletin of June 12, 1961, p. 903. 

' /biff.. Mar. 4, 1968, p. 322. 

APRIL 1, 1968 


whether it will liberate or enslave, whether it will build 
a community of free and prosperous nations or sen- 
tence the world to endless strife between rich and 

Foreign aid is the American answer to this question. 
It is a commitment to conscience as well as to coun- 
try. It is a matter of national tradition as well as na- 
tional security. 

Our paramount national interest is, of course, 
the safety of our nation and its basic institu- 
tions. Another of our major national interests 
is the economic well-being of our people. Both 
these national interests require a safe and pro- 
gressive world environment. 

We cannot find security apart from the rest 
of the world. And, in the long run, we can be 
neither prosperous nor safe if most other peo- 
ple live in squalor or if violence consumes the 
world around us. What we want for ourselves 
is, in the main, what other peoples want for 
themselves. These common goals are set forth 
succinctly in article 1 of the United Nations 

Even though most of the developing coun- 
tries are making economic progress, the gap 
between most of them and the economically ad- 
vanced nations is growing wider. It has been 
estimated that the economically advanced coun- 
tries — North America, Western Europe, the 
Warsaw Pact nations, Japan, Australia, New 
Zealand — have a per capita gross national prod- 
uct 12 times that of the rest of the world. And 
it has been estimated that, at present rates of 
growth, this differential will be 18 to 1 by the 
end of the century. 

The purpose of our assistance to the develop- 
ing countries is not to "buy friends." It is to 
help build free nations, increasingly able to 
meet the needs of their peoples. 

Today most of the developing countries have 
moderate leaders conamitted to peaceful prog- 
ress. And in most parts of the developing world, 
governments committed to orderly economic and 
social progress have been successful in sup- 
pressing or fending off the promoters of violent 
revolution. But moderate leaders who believe 
in peaceful progress cannot be expected to en- 
dure unless they produce results — unless their 
peoples make tangible economic and social 

Mr. Chairman, I believe it is clearly in the 
interest of the United States to assist those who 
are committed to peaceful progress. 

Over the past few years, we have learned — 
from our successes and from our failures— to 
do the job better. There have been striking 

changes in the costs, composition, methods, 
problems, and prospects of foreign aid. We have 
learned how to build constructive aid relation- 
ships with the comitries we help and to work 
together with other donor nations toward com- 
mon goals. We have concentrated our assistance 
programs. In fiscal year 1969, nearly 90 percent 
of aid's country programs will be concentrated 
in 15 coimtries; more than four-fifths of devel- 
opment lending will be concentrated in eight 
countries ; and 95 percent of supporting assist- 
ance will be concentrated in four countries. 

The program being submitted is a prudent 
program which takes into account other pres- 
ent demands on our resources. This program and 
associated programs before the Congress rep- 
resent two-thirds of 1 percent of our gross na- 
tional product. 

Other wealthy nations are spending much 
more for foreign aid than formerly and pro- 
viding it on more generous terms. In 1961 the 
other non-Communist countries as a group pro- 
vided $2.8 bUlion in all forms of economic aid 
to tlie developing countries at terms averaging 
5.1 percent interest. Currently they are pro- 
viding about $4 biUion at 3.2 percent average 

Tlie United States now ranks fifth among the 
members of the Development Assistance Com- 
mittee in official aid as a proportion of national 

A larger part of our aid is being channeled 
through international organizations. The pro- 
posals before you this morning and pending 
elsewhere in the Congress would channel $154 
million in aid funds to United Nations and 
other international organizations and about $500 
million in subscriptions to the Inter- American 
Development Bank, the International Develop- 
ment Association, and the Asian Development 
Bank — twice the amount administered by multi- 
lateral organizations in fiscal 1962. 

In addition, most of our bilateral develop- 
ment aid today is provided imder international 
consultative arrangements or consortia guided 
by multilateral agencies. 

Military aid has been reduced sharply, while 
long-range development aid has risen. At the 
beginning of this decade, nearly half of the 
foreign aid funds went for military equipment 
and training, and about half of the economic 
aid was for defense support. Today supporting 
assistance, despite the abnormal requirement in 
Viet-Nam, amounts to less than one-fourth of 
the AID budget request. Grant military assist- 
ance, excluding requirements for Viet-Nam, 



Thailand, and Laos, has been cut to less than 
one-fourth of the 1961 and 1962 levels. 

The cost of aid programs to our balance of 
payments has been largely eliminated. Military 
and Food for Freedom programs have never 
caused a significant balance- of -payments drain. 
But in fiscal 1961, AID's predecessors spent 54 
percent of their fimds overseas, recording a 
$980 million drain in the U.S. balance of pay- 
ments. This year AID will spend no more than 
$170 million offshore, and in fiscal 1969 it ex- 
pects to hold this to $130 million. At the same 
time, payments of principal and interest on 
previous aid loans Tvill produce a dollar inflow 
to the United States more than offsetting direct 
offshore expenditures. 

Self-help. Increasingly, our aid is conditioned 
on specific self-help efforts by the less developed 
countries. Increasingly, they are taking the diffi- 
cult steps necessary for development progress. 
Development requires internal leadership and 
drive, painful choices and sacrifices, and people 
who are willing to work. 

The self-help record is good, and it is getting 
better. Nearly five-sixths of tlie development 
investment in the major recipients of AID as- 
sistance is self -financed. 

Regionalism. Regional cooperation can pro- 
duce more effective results from limited re- 
sources. Regionalism builds markets across 
national boundaries and can replace traditional 
conflict with cooperation. In Africa, in East 
Asia, and in Latin America, the United States 
supports and is responding to the increasing 
pace of regional development initiatives. 

In this hemisphere, we and our friends to 
the south are engaged in a great cooperative 
enterprise in social reform and economic and 
political development: the Alliance for Prog- 
ress. Last April at Punta del Este, the Presi- 
dents of the American Republics agreed upon 
new lines of action to carry forward the work 
of the Alliance and to culminate in the economic 
integration of Latin America, one of the most 
important decisions ever made in the history 
of this hemisphere.* And I wish to take this 
occasion to express appreciation to your Sub- 
committee on American Republics Affairs, 
headed by Senator [Wayne] Morse, for the 
studies and testimony just completed on the 
future of the Alliance for Progress. 

The President has requested appropriations 
for the Inter- American Development Bank. The 
Bank is a critical element of the Alliance for 

Progress and needs more funds to get on with its 
development work. 

I urge this committee to recommend promptly 
authorization for U.S. contributions of $200 
million over a 4-year period for special funds 
of the Asian Development Bank. 

The new African Development Bank has 
made its first loan. It has requested help from 
the United States and other countries to estab- 
lish special funds. 

Agricultvre. You are familiar with the re- 
port of the President's Science Advisoiy Com- 
mittee on the world food supply .° It states that : 
"The world food problem is not a future threat. 
It is here now and it must be solved within the 
next two decades." It also stated that: "The 
scale, severity, and duration of the world food 
problem are so great that a massive, long-range, 
innovative effort unprecedented in human his- 
tory will be required to master it." 

AID is giving top priority to the war on 
hunger. The beginnings of a significant break- 
through in food production are already visible 
in several countries. It is no longer just a 
theory — we know — that food production can be 
rapidly increased through the use of new seeds 
and more fertilizer and pesticides, combined 
with research, improved storage, marketing, 
and distribution facilities, farm credit, and pro- 
ducer price incentives. 

The developing nations must continue to in- 
crease the priority they themselves give to agri- 
culture, and they must have continuing outside 
assistance to get on with the job. That is why 
AID proposed to devote nearly $800 million in 
fiscal year 1969 to direct programs in agricul- 
ture, an increase of nearly 40 percent over the 
level possible with reduced appropriations in 
fiscal year 1968. 

Only last month, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture reported that per capita food pro- 
duction in the less developed coimtries in 1967 
expanded by more than 5 percent over 1966 — 
a new record. 

But agriculture alone will not answer the 
problems of world food and nutrition. General 
economic development is needed, as well, to pro- 
vide effective demand for food on the part of the 
consumer at prices which make it profitable for 
the farmer to grow it. Farmers in turn must be 
able to purchase better equipment and consumer 
goods with the profits they realize. 

Population. The less developed nations are 
also beginning to come to grips with their prob- 

* For background, see iUd., May 8, 1967, p. 706. 

' For background, see ihid., July 17, 1967, p. 76. 

APRIL 1 1968 


lems of rapid population growth. Today more 
than half the people in the developing world 
live in nations wliich have adopted official pol- 
icies of reducing birth rates. 

AID extends population assistance to govern- 
ments that ask for it — and only to programs in 
which people are free to participate or not, as 
they see fit. We have not made family planning 
a condition of assistance. We believe it is neither 
wise nor helpful to do so. 

Administration. AID is efficiently and 
soundly managed. It operates in an extremely 
complex, high-risk business. Over the past few 
years, it has steadily improved its ability to 
find, correct, and prevent mistakes. 

It cooperates closely with my own Inspector 
General's staff, with the General Accounting 
Office, and with the investigative committees 
of the Congress to correct errors and improve 
efficiency. It has increased its own staff of audi- 
tors and inspectors. It deals promptly with the 
relatively few instances in which mistakes and 
shortcomings occur. 

Public-Private Partnership. Our AID pro- 
grams recognize that private enterprise and in- 
stitutions are fundamental to successful develop- 

AID works in direct partnership with pri- 
vate efforts to speed development progress: 

— aid's investment incentive programs en- 
courage private American investment in less de- 
veloped countries. American private investment 
provides modern teclinology and skills and ex- 
pands growth of the private sector in recipient 

— AID mobilizes private American institu- 
tions — universities, business, labor, voluntary 
agencies — to help build dynamic private insti- 
tutions in the developing coimtries. 

— AID encourages policy changes to free the 
private sector from shackling government con- 
trols, builds the physical infrastructure, and 
develops human mstitutions essential for 
growth of the private sector in recipient 

Today, more and more developing countries 
ara learning that private initiatives and incen- 
tives can greatly accelerate their development. 

Our development aid programs are bringing 
solid results. These do not generate the head- 
lines that crises do, but they are quietly chang- 
ing the face of the developing world — and 
changing it for the better. 

Mr. Chainnan, let me add a word about the 

request for grant military assistance of $420 
million for fiscal year 1969. 

Among the major purposes of military assist- 
ance are: 

1. To strengthen the capability of selected 
allied and friendly nations against the threat 
of external attack. 

2. To help developing countries protect their 
societies against internal violence, thus provid- 
ing the framework of stability within which 
national development may thrive. 

This is an austere program. It is concentrated 
on high-priority needs in the free world — 85 
percent of the present appropriation request for 
grant aid is for five "forward defense" countries. 
The enactment of this program is important. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States has much 
urgent business, but I believe that foreign aid 
must be an urgent item on our agenda. In the 
less developed world, change is the fimdamental 
fact of our time. The vmderdeveloped coimtries 
have determined to fight their age-old enemies : 
hopelessness and poverty. They can have no 
hope of success in this fight, no matter how great 
their efforts, without adequate assistance from 
the wealthy nations of the world. We must 
choose between providing that assistance or 
destroying the hope of peaceful change. 

Some say we should postpone or eliminate 
foreign aid because of the cost of our efforts 
to help defend freedom in Southeast Asia. But 
the freedom and progress of hundreds of mil- 
lions of other Asians, the 250 million people 
in Latin America, and the 250 million people 
in Africa also engage our concern and are di- 
rectly related to our own security and 

I find it hard to accept assertions that we can- 
not afford to devote a fraction of 1 percent of 
our GNP to building a safer and more pros- 
perous world by helping other nations to make 
peaceful progress. 

In many of the less developed countries, de- 
velopment has been gaining in momentum. If 
that momentum is reversed, the consequences 
for our prosperity and for the peace of the 
world could be disastrous. Last year the foreign 
aid program was cut below the minimum level ^ 
necessary to sustain that momentum. For fiscal 
year 1969 we must have adequate fimds to get 
on with the job. I in-ge the committee to recom- 
mend the full authorizations requested by the 
President for programs under the Foreign As- 
sistance Act. 




Calendar of International Conferences' 

Scheduled April Through June 1968 

ECE Coal Committee: Group of Experts on the Utilization of Ash . . . 
ECE Committee on Agriculture Problems: Meeting of Experts on 

Farm Rationalization. 

IMCO Legal Committee: Working Group I 

ECE Group of Rapporteurs on Safety Belts 

ITU/CCIR Study Group I 

ECE Working Group on Statistics of the Distributive and Service 

ECOSOC Advisory Committee on Application of Science and Tech- 
nology to Development. 

U.N. Scientific Advisory Committee 

Inter- American Tropical Tuna Commission: 20th Annual Meeting . . 

SEATO Council: 13th Session 

UNESCO Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission: Working 

Committee on an Integrated Global Oceanic Station System. 

NATO Civil Communications Planning Committee 

NATO Atlantic Policy Advisory Group: 13th Meeting 

FAO Study Group on Cocoa: 22d Session of the Committee on 


7th Special Intergovernmental Meeting on Yellowfin Tuna 

ANZUS CouncU: 17th Meeting 

UNCTAD Working Group on Tungsten: 5th Session 

FAO Ad Hoc Committee on Organization 

IMCO Subcommittee on Radio Communications: 4th Session . . . . 

North Pacific Fur Seal Commission: 11th Annual Meetin 

PAHO Conference of American Ministers of Agriculture on the Hoof 

and Mouth Disease. 
U.N. Scientific Advisory Committee on the Eflfects of Atomic Radiation 

ITU/CCITT Study Group 

Inter- American Indian Conference: 6th Session 

FAO Intergovernmental Committee for the World Food Program . . . 
Economic Council for Asia and the Far East: 24th Plenary Session . . . 

Economic Council for Europe: 23d Plenary Session 

ICAO Teletypewriter Specialist Panel: 7th Meeting 

U.N. Industrial Development Board: 2d Session 

UNCTAD/U.N. Sugar Conference: 2d Session . 

Inter-American Institute of Agricultural Sciences: 7th Annual Meeting 

of Board of Directors and 13th Meeting of Technical Advisory 

Council and Permanent Committee on Budget. 
OECD Agriculture Committee: Working Party I 

Austria Apr. 1-3 

Geneva Apr. 1-5 

London Apr. 1-5 

Geneva Apr. 1-5 

Geneva Apr. 1-5 

Geneva Apr. 1-5 

Geneva Apr. 1-12 

Geneva Apr. 2-3 

Panama City .... Apr. 2-3 

Wellington Apr. 2-3 

Paris Apr. 2-5 

Brussels Apr. 3-5 

Bergen, Norway . . . Apr. 3-6 

Rome Apr. 4-5 

Panama City .... Apr. 4-5 

Wellington Apr. 5 (1 day) 

New York Apr. 8-10 

Rome Apr. 8-10 

London Apr. 8-11 

Moscow Apr. 8-11 

Washington Apr. 8-11 

Geneva Apr. 8-19 

Geneva Apr. 11-15 

Patzcuaro, Mexico . . Apr. 15-21 

Rome Apr. 17-24 

Canberra Apr. 17-30 

Geneva Apr. 17-May 3 

Montreal Apr. 17-May 2 

Vienna Apr. 17-May 15 

Geneva Apr. 17-June 14 

San Jos6 Apr. 21-May 4 

Paris .^pr. 22-23 

' This schedule, which was prepared in the Office of International Conferences on Mar. 15, 19G8, lists inter- 
national conferences in which the U.S. Govenmient expects to participate officially in the period April-June 1968. 
The list does not include numerous nongovernmental conferences and meetings. Persons Intere.sted in those are 
referred to the Wwld Lint of Future International Meetings, compiled by the Library of Congress and available 
from the Suiierintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20102. 

Following is a key to the abbreviations: ANZUS, Australia, New Zealand. United States Treaty; CENTO, 
Central Treaty Organization; CCIR, International Radio Consultative Committee; CCITT, International Tele- 
graph and Telephone Consultative Committee : ECE, Ek^onomlc Commission for Europe ; ECLA, Economic Com- 
mission for Latin America ; ECOSOC, Economic and Social Council ; FAO, Food and Agriculture Organization ; 
lA-ECOSOC, Inter-American Economic and Social Council; ICAO, International Civil Aviation Organization; 
ILO, International Labor Organization ; IMCO, Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization ; ITU, 
International Telecommunication Union; NATO, North Atlantic Treaty Organization; OECD, Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development; PAHO, Pan American Health Organization; SEATO, Southeast Asia 
Treaty Organization; U.N., United Nations; UNCTAD, United NaUons Conference on Trade and Development; 
UNESCO, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization ; UNICEF, United Nations Children's 
Fund; UPU, Universal Postal Union; WHO, World Health Organization; WMO, World Meteorological 

APRIL 1. 1968 


Calendar of International Conferences — Continued 

Scheduled April Through June— Cowtiwued 

International Tin Council La Paz Apr. 22-26 

Inter- American Development Bank: 9th Meeting of Board of Gov- Bogota Apr. 22-26 


Hague Conference on Private International Law: 2d Meeting of The Hague Apr. 22-May 4 

Special Commission on Torts. 

ICAO Airworthiness Committee: 8th Meeting Amsterdam Apr. 22-May 5 

U.N. International Conference on Human Rights Tehran Apr. 22-May 13 

ECLA Committee of the Whole Santiago Apr. 23 (1 day) 

CENTO Ministerial Council London Apr. 23-24 

IMCO Working Group on Stability of Fishing Vessels: 7th Session . . London Apr. 23-26 

OECD Maritime Transport Committee Paris Apr. 24 (1 day) 

OECD Agriculture Committee Paris Apr. 24-25 

OECD Industry Committee: Working Party VI Paris Apr. 24-26 

FAO Committee on Fisheries Rome Apr. 24-30 

ECE Conference of Senior Officers from National Bodies Concerned Stockholm Apr. 24-May I 

with Urban and Regional Research. 

NATO Petroleum Planning Committee Brussels Apr. 25-26 

UNESCO International Coordinating Group for the Cooperative Honolulu Apr. 29-May 4 

Study of the Kvu-oshio Current: 5th Meeting. 

ILO Textile Committee: 8th Session Geneva Apr. 29-May 10 

ITU/CCIR Study Group Palma, Majorca . . . Apr. 29-May 10 

U.N. Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to Implementa- Geneva April 

tion of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial 

Countries and Peoples. 

Ad Hoc Meeting of Food Aid Convention Signatories London April ] 

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: 18th Session .... Washington April 1 

OECD Economic Policy Committee Paris April ' 

OECD Manpower and Social Affairs Committee Paris April 

OECD Restrictive Business Practices Committee Paris April , 

OECD Trade Committee: Working Party on East-West Trade . . . Paris April j 

International Wheat Council: Special Session London April/May ' 

NATO Planning Board for Ocean Shipping: 20th Meeting Washington M:ay 6-9 

FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission: Committee on Food Washington May 6-10 


UNESCO Coordinating Council for the International Hydrological Paris May 6-14 

Decade: 4th Session. 

U.N. Committee on Space Research: 11th Plenary Session Tokyo May 6-18 

World Health Organization: 21st Assembly Geneva May 6-24 

Economic and Social Council: 44th Session New York May 6-31 

IMCO Subcommittee on Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Sea: 14th London May 7-10 


Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission: 6th Annual Meeting .... Reykjavik May 7-13 

International Film Festival Cannes May 10-24 

ITU Administrative Council: 23d Session Geneva May 11-31 

WMO Symposium on Data Processing for Climatological Purposes . . Asheville, N.C .... May 12-19 

FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission: Committee on Processed Washington May 13-17 

Fruits and Vegetables. 

IMCO Council: 20th Session London May 14-17 

UNCTAD/FAO Joint Working Party on Forest and Timber Products: Geneva May 14-24 

2d Session. 

ICAO Facilitation Division: 7th Session Montreal May 14-31 

ECE Joint Meeting of the Working Groups on Electronic Data Pro- Washington May 15-24 

cessing and Censuses of Population and Housing. 

FAO Study Group on Rice: 12th Session Rome May 16-22 

FAO Research Vessel Forum: 2d Meeting Seattle May 19-25 

NATO Food and Agricultural Planning Committee Brussels May 20-22 

NATO Industrial Planning Committee Brussels May 20-22 

UNESCO Executive Board: 78th Session Paris May 20-June 19 

IMCO Subcommittee on Subdivision and Stability: 8th Meeting . . . London May 21-24 

CENTO Council for Scientific Education and Research: 17th Session. . Istanbul May 21-24 

ILO Governing Body: 172d Session Geneva May 24-June 1 

NATO Science Committee Brussels May 27-28 

FAO Study Group on Grains Rome May 27-31 

IMCO Subcommittee on Tonnage Measurement London May 27-31 

International Rubber Study Group: 20th Assembly Paris May 27-31 

Inter- American Commission of Women: 5th Special Assembly .... Washington May 27-June 7 

ECE Committee on Housing, Building and Planning: 29th Session . . Geneva May 28-31 

WMO Executive Committee: 20th Session Geneva May 30-June 14 


International Cotton Institute: 3d Assembly Athens May 31-June 1 

UNESCO Executive Committee of International Campaign to Save Paris May 

the Monuments of Nubia. 

UPU Executive Council Bern May 

Inter-American Committee on the Alliance for Progress: Meeting of Montevideo May 

Government Representatives on the Financial Implications of Latin 

American Integration. 

Inter-American Permanent Technical Committee on Labor Matters . San Jos6 May 

Pan American Highway Congress: Ad Hoc Committee to Review Buenos Aires May 


OECD Economic Policy Committee: Working Party IV Paris May 

OECD Trade Committee: Working Party Paris May 

Council of Europe: Committee of Experts on Patents Strasbourg May 

International Secretariat for Volunteer Service: 8th Meeting of the undetermined .... May or June 


OECD Trade Committee Paris June 3-4 

U.N. Development Program: 6th Session of Governing Council . . . Geneva June 3-7 

UNICEF Committee on Administrative Budget Santiago June 3-7 

WHO Executive Board: 42d Session Geneva June 3-7 

Meeting on Logistics of Antarctic Treaty Signatories Tokyo June 3-8 

International Cotton Advisory Committee Athens June 3-12 

NATO Planning Board for European Inland Surface Transport . . . Brussels June 4-6 

OECD Economic Policy Committee: Working Party II Paris June 4-7 

International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries: 18th London June 4-8 

Annual ^Meeting. 

13th General Conference on Weights and Measures: 2d Session . . . Paris June 5-7 

International Film Festival Karlovy Vary, June 5-15 


International Labor Organization: 52d Conference Geneva June 5-27 

NATO Civil Aviation Planning Committee Brussels June 6-7 

IMCO Legal Committee: 3d Session London June 10-14 

UNESCO Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission: 8th Meeting London June 10-14 

of the Bureau and Consultative Council. 

FAO/WHO Committee of Experts on the Code of Principles for Milk Rome June 10-15 

and Milk Products: 11th Session. 

ICAO Informal jVIeeting on the Exchange of Origin and Distinction Montreal June 10-17 

Statistics Between Certain States in North, South, and Central 


UNICEF Executive Board Santiago June 10-18 

OECD Economic Pohcy Committee Paris June 12-13 

OECD Economic Policy Committee: Working Party III Paris June 14-15 

13th Pan American Child Congress and Inter-American Children's Quito June 15-22 

Institute: 48th Session of Directing Council. 

Inter-American Council of Jurists: 6th Meeting of Juridical Committee . Rio de Janeiro .... June 15-Sept. 15 

FAO Subcommittee on Development of Cooperation with International Rome June 17-20 

Organizations Concerned With Fisheries: 2d Session. 

Hague Conference on Private International Law: Special Commission The Hague June 17-22 

To Revise Chapter II of 1954 Convention on Civil Procedures. 

ICAO North Atlantic System Planning Group: 4th Meeting Paris June 17-28 

U.N. Group on Preferences: 3d Session Geneva June 18-28 

18th International Film Festival Berlin June 21- July 2 

NATO Ministerial Council: 4l8t Meeting Reykjavik June 24-25 

ITU/CCITT Study Group III Geneva June 24-26 

International Whaling Commission: 20th Annual Meeting Tokyo June 24-28 

IMCO Subcommittee on Bulk Cargoes London June 25-28 

ECE Conference of European Statisticians: 16th Plenary Session . . . Geneva June 

6th Annual lA-ECOSOC Meetings at the Expert and Ministerial Level. Port-of-Spain .... June 

Inter- American Travel Congress: 10th Meeting Caracas June 

Inter-American Telecommunioations Commission: 3d Meeting .... Rio de Janeiro .... June 

OECD Energy Committee Paris June 

OECD Science Policy Committee Paris June 

OECD Committee on Scientific and Technical Personnel Paris June 

APRIL 1, 1968 451 

Freedom of Information, a Basic Human Right 

Statement hy Arthur J. Goldberg 

U.S. Rejyresentative to the United Nations * 

I believe that the present item on our agenda, 
bearing as it does upon freedom of informa- 
tion, is of great value, both potential and actual, 
to this Commission and to the United Nations 
in its work for the advancement of human 
rights. Indeed, I am one of those who adhere 
to the belief that freedom of expression and 
freedom of information are the basic rights 
upon which all other freedoms are built and 
that without freedom of information no other 
right can be secure. 

It is historically true that the suppression of 
free information and of free expression has 
time and again been the first step toward re- 
pression of the full range of human rights — 
economic, social, political, and religious. And in 
contrast, free and untrammeled expression and 
exchange of information are the best possible 
safeguards against the destruction of human 

In the aftermath of the terrible destruction 
of human rights which had occurred during 
World War II, freedom of information was a 
matter of direct concern to the delegates to the 
first sessions of the United Nations as they 
worked to build the foundations of a lasting 

And indeed the Universal Declaration of 
Human Rights, that first gi-eat work of the 
United Nations in this field, declares as fol- 
lows (article 19) : 

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and 
expression; this right includes freedom to hold opin- 
ions without interference and to seek, receive and im- 
part information and ideas through any media and re- 
gardless of frontiers. 

This Commission has manifested on many 

'Made in the U.N. Human Rights Oommission on 
Mar. 6 (U.S./U.N. press release 30, Corr. 1, dated 
Mar. 11). 

occasions its concern for the fulfillment of that 
f imdamental right ; indeed, the present item on 
our agenda further testifies to that concern. 

It is the plain duty of the Human Rights 
Commission to be concerned about transgres- 
sions against freedom of opinion and expression 
whenever and wherever they occur. No comitry, 
including my own, can claim a perfect record — 
although we are fortunate in having an inde- 
pendent judiciaiy which has given hi creased 
protection to our own constitutional safeguards 
of freedom of expression, of the press, and of 
conscience. If, therefore, I today call attention 
to current and serious transgressions in the 
Soviet Union, it is in discharge of the plain 
obligations of this Commission and not to make 
cold war pix>paganda. 

We are all aware by now of the secret trial 
of two writers, Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuli 
Daniel, wliich was held in the Soviet Union 
starting February 10, 1966, and which ended 
4 days later. The most important fact about 
this trial was not merely the way in which it 
was conducted ; but as has been pointed out, the 
accused writers were tried and convicted for 
what they had written. Soviet writers like Boris 
Pilnyak, Isaak Babel, Anna Akhmatova, Boris 
Pasternak are among many Soviet writers who 
have been miprisoned, executed, silenced, de- 
nomiced — but in this trial the only accusation 
was based on the literary work of the writers. 

To one like myself, devoted to due process of 
law, a trial is greatly to be preferred to a sum- 
mary execution. But a trial for the crime of 
writing a literary work is not due process; it 
is an outrageous attempt to give the form of 
legality to the suppression of a basic human 

This is not only my opinion. It is the opinion 
of many people within and without the Com- 



niunist world, including many sympathetic to 
tlie Soviet Union and including the Communist 
press outside tlie Soviet Union. 

Jolm Gollan, the general secretary of the 
British Communist Party, said, as rejjorted in 
the London Daily Worker Februai-y 15, 1966: 

The Soviet press attacks on the aceitsed before the 
trial assumed their guilt. So did the Tass versions of 
what weut on in the court. Since no full and objective 
version of the proceeding of the trial has appeared, 
outside opinion cannot form a proper judgment on the 
proceedings. The Court has found the accused guilty, 
but the full evidence for the prosecution and defense 
which led tJie court to this conclusion has not been 
made public. Justice should not only be done but should 
be seen to be done. Unfortunately, this cannot be said 
in the case of this triaL 

The French writer Louis Aragon, with the 
approval of the secretary of the French Com- 
munist Part}', Waldeck-Kochet, published in the 
French Communist newspaper, UHumanite, on 
February 16, 1966, a statement denouncing the 
trial. Jean-Paul Sartre, together with Louis 
Aragon, showed liis distaste for the trial of 
Daniel and Sinyavsky by refusing to attend the 
fourth Writers Congress in Moscow May 22- 
27, 1967. 

A few days after this Congress, the respected 
French daily, Le Monde, May 31, 1967, pub- 
lished an open letter to the Congress by Alek- 
sandr Solzhenitsyn, author of the novel "One 
Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich," condemn- 
ing the trial. His letter argued that the Soviet 
Constitution nowhere provides for censorship 
and that censorehip is therefore illegal and 
should be abolished. He described how members 
of the Writers Union had been pressured to 
change plot, structure, chapters, sentences, 
words of their literary works — knowing that if 
thej- resisted the pressure their manuscripts 
would never see the light of day; and said 
Solzhenitsyn, "Wliat is best in our literature 
appears in a mutilated form." He wrote : 

Literature which does not breathe the same air as 
contemporary society, which cannot communicate 
Its pain and fears, which cannot warn in time against 
moral and social dangers, does not deserve the name 
of literature, but merely of cosmetics. 

The author of this letter — which was not pub- 
lished in the Soviet Union — spent 11 years in 
prison and exile for his criticism of Stalin, 
despite two decorations for war service before 
liis arrest in February 1945. 

In March 1966, 63 Moscow writers petitioned 
the Presidium of the 23d Commimist Party 

Congress of the Soviet Union, pleading that 
Sinyavsky and Daniel not be sentenced to pris- 
on terms at hard labor. The same month, 40 
prominent Soviet intellectuals, including 
[ Yevgeni] Yevtushenlco and Solzhenitsyn, peti- 
tioned the Soviet Government on behalf of the 
convicted writers. And at the same 23d Soviet 
Party Congress, it was reported that the lead- 
ers of three Communist parties — Waldeck- 
Eochet of France, Luigi Longo of Italy, and 
Gomulka of Poland — had refused to applaud 
the si^eech by Mikhail Sholokhov which at- 
tacked defenders of Sinyavsky and Daniel. An 
open letter was sent to Pravda in May 1966 by 
17 French leftist artists protesting the 
Sinyavsky-Daniel trial, but Pravda refused to 
print it. 

But this one trial of two yoimg writers whose 
ideas the Soviet regime found embarrassing has 
not been the sole recent Soviet attempt to repress 
free literary expression. Largely through the 
brave action of Pavel Litvinov, grandson of the 
former Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, 
the world has recently become aware of the 
trial, behind closed doors, of Vladimir Bukov- 
sky. Bukovsky's crime, it appears, was to or- 
ganize a public but peaceful protest of the ar- 
rest of four fellow writers — Aleksandr Ginz- 
burg, Yuri Galanskov, Aleksei Dobrovolsky, 
and Miss Vera Lashkova. These four writers 
had in turn apparently been arrested for their 
part in publishing documents critical of the 
trial of Sinyavsky and Daniel and disseminat- 
ing information about it, including excerpts of 
the transcript of the trial. 

None of the transcripts of these trials has 
been made public by Soviet authorities. The re- 
cent trials were closed to foreign newsmen, even 
to newsmen from foreign Communist publica- 
tions. Public attention was severely restricted. 
Only fragmentary, incomplete, and apparently 
distorted reports of the trials appeared in the 
Soviet press. The proceedings, I hardly need 
point out to this Commission, were in clear 
violation of article 11 of the Universal Declara- 
tion of Human Rights, which states that : 

Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right 
to be presumed innocent until proved guilty accord- 
ing to law in a public trial at which he has had all 
the guarantees necessary for his defense. 

As for the acts for which the accused were 
tried, these are protected not only by the 
Declaration of Human Rights but by the So- 

APRIL 1. 1968 


viet Constitution itself. Indeed, Bukovsky, in 
the excerpts from his plea to the court which 
have reached the outside world, quoted in his 
own defense this passage from the Soviet Con- 
stitution (chapter X, article 125) : 

In accordance with the worker's interest and with 
the aim of strengthening the Socialist system, the citi- 
zens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law: A. Free- 
dom of si)eech ; B. Freedom of the press ; C. Freedom 
of gatherings and meetings ; D. Freedom of processions 
and demonstrations on the street. 

In his plea Bukovsky further observed : 

Freedom of speech and of the press Is, first of all, 
freedom for criticism. Nobody has ever forbidden praise 
of the Government. If in the CJonstitutlon there are 
articles about freedom of speech and of the press, 
then have the patience to listen to criticism. In what 
kinds of countries is it forbidden to criticize the Gov- 
ernment and protest against its actions? Perhaps in 
capitalist countries? No, we know that in bourgeois 
countries Communist parties exist whose purpose it is 
to undermine the capitalist system. 

Apparently, as Bukovsky suggested, Com- 
munists have more freedom in so-called capi- 
talist countries than in the Soviet Union. 

Tlie trial of Galanskov, Ginzburg, Dobrovol- 
sky, and Miss Lashkova shows a similar disre- 
gard for the right to a fair and public trial. But 
in their case there is a further distressing aspect 
that the four young writers were kept in cus- 
tody for a full year prior to their trials. 

Mr. Chairman, constitutions or declarations 
of human rights are not needed to protect con- 
ventional or orthodox ideas. As Bukovsky ob- 
served, "Nobody has ever forbidden praise of 
the Government." It is the unorthodox or im- 
conventional ideas which need protection — 
ideas which are uncomfortable to the ruling au- 
thorities and which might expose them to the 
danger of public disapproval of their acts or 

As a Justice of the Supreme Court of my own 
country, I was privileged to take part in a nmn- 
ber of decisions which reaffirmed the rights of 
free expression and of freedom of the press and 
freedom of travel for those who reside in the 
United States. Tliese rights have repeatedly 
been upheld even in cases when the citizens in- 
volved openly professed ideas and opinions 
which were not only critical of, but indeed hos- 
tile to, the basic beliefs and way of life of the 
majority of our people. 

In 1964, in a concurring opinion which I 
wrote for the Supreme Court in New York 
Times v. Sullivan, I said: 

The theory of our Constitution is that every citizen 
may 8i)eak his mind and every newspaper express ita 
view on matters of public concern and may not be 
barred from speaking or publishing because those in 
control of government think that what is said or writ- 
ten is unwise, unfair, false or malicious. 

In the case of Cox v. Louisiana, in overturn- 
ing the decision of a lower court, the U.S. Su- 
preme Court held that the State could not con- 
stitutionally punish a peaceful and orderly 
demonstration as a breach of the peace. In an 
opinion which I had the privilege of prepar- 
ing, the Court appropriately quoted fi"om an 
earlier decision, Terminiello v. Chicago, which 
pointed out that free expression 

may indeed best serve its high purpose when it Induces 
a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with con- 
ditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. 
Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may 
strike at prejudice and preconceptions and have pro- 
foimd unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance 
of an idea. That Is why freedom of speech is protected 
against censorship or punisliment. . . . There is no 
room under our Constitution for a more restrictive 
view. For the alternative would lead to standardiza- 
tion of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant 
political groups. 

And in another case, that of Apthsker v. Sec- 
retary of State, I wrote an opinion for the Court 
striking down domestic legislation preventing 
members and officials of the Communist Party 
from engaging in travel for intellectual pur- 

Mr. Chairman, it is because of my own deep 
commitment to the belief that freedom of in- 
formation and of expression are essential to the 
preservation and advancement of human rights ! 
that I have brought these evils in the Soviet 
Union to the attention of this United Nations 
Commission. As one of America's greatest jurists 
once said, "Sunlight is the most powerful disin- 

Mr. Chairman, I have presented this state- 
ment because my country deeply believes in 
freedom to speak one's mind as one of the funda- 
mental rights of man, a right which all nations 
have an obligation to protect ; and, in the spirit 
of the Universal Declaration of Himian Rights, 
no country should be exempt from that obliga- 

This is not ih& statement of one who desires ' 
to score debating points against the Soviet 
Union ; nor is it the statement of a recent con- 
vert to the concept of freedom of expression. 

Much has been said and written in the past 
10 or 15 years about various improvements in 



the state of individual liberties witliin the So- 
viet Union. To the extent that such improve- 
ments have taken place, even though their per- 
manence and legal standing is far from certain, 
they are surely to be welcomed. 

But now we are witnessmg a great backward 
step with most disturbing implications for the 
cause of liuman rights. Writers have been ac- 
cused, tried, and sentenced as criminals for the 
sole offense of expressing themselves in writing 
in ways which did not please the authorities — 
and because these writings were sent abroad 
without official permission. Their trials were 
conducted in violation even of legal safeguards 
contained in Soviet law itself. Wlien others 
arose to protest these proceedings, they, too, 
were arrested, held without trial for over a 
year, and tried and sentenced in secret^ — so that 
people on the outside would not even know of 
their arrest except for the protests of a coura- 
geous few, who now themselves face reprisals. 

Mr. Chairman, I could not state the matter 
more eloquently tlian it has already been stated 
in the open letter which was addressed only this 
week to the Presidium of the Consultative 
Meeting of Communist Parties in Budapest, 
signed by 12 Soviet scholars and scientists 
including the physicist Pavel Litvinov, the 
grandson of the late Soviet Foreign Minister. 
I quote the words of this appeal: 

In recent years a number of political trials have 
taken place in our country. The essence of these trials 
consists in the fact that people have been condejnned 
for their convictions in violation of their basic civil 
rights. Precisely because of this, the trials involved 
gross violations of legality, the most important being 
the absence of publicity. Society is no longer prepared 
to accept such illegality, and this has evoked indigna- 
tion and protests, which have increased with each trial. 
Numerous letters from individuals and groups have 
been sent to various judicial, governmental and Party 
organs, up to and including the Central Committee 
of the CPSU. The letters have not been answered. The 
reply, for the most active protesters, has been loss 
of jobs, summonses to the KGB accompanied by threats 
of arrest, and finally — the most alarming form of 
arbitrariness — forcible detention in mental hospitals. 
These Illegal and inhuman acts cannot have any positive 
results — on the contrary, they heighten tension and 
give rise to more indignation. We consider it our duty 
also to note that several thousand political prisoners, 
of whose existence almost no one is aware, are in- 
carcerated in camps and prisons. They are held in In- 
human conditions of compulsory labor, half naked, 
and given over to the arbitrary actions of the camp 
iuthorities. Having completed their terms, they are 
■ondemned to extra-legal, and often illegal, persecu- 
tions ; limited in their choice of places to live ; and often 

subjected to administrative supervision which places 
a free man In the position of an exile. We also draw 
your attention to the fact that discrimination against 
minority nations and the political i)ersecution of peo- 
ples fighting for national equality has been especially 
marked in the question of the Crimean Tatars. 

We know that many communists in foreign countries 
and in our country have more than once expressed their 
disapproval of the political repression in recent years. 
We ask the participants in the Consultative Meeting to 
weigh carefully the danger which arises from the 
trampling on human rights in our country. 

Mr. Chairman, this Commission has a re- 
sponsibility to uphold the human rights of aU 
peoples, regardless of their race or ideology or 
political system. Moreover, the United Nations 
itself has a responsibility to work for condi- 
tions of stability and well-being, including the 
enjoyment of human rights and ftmdamental 
freedoms, which as our charter correctly re- 
minds us, "are necessary for peaceful and 
friendly relations among nations." 

In the liglit of that dual responsibility, we 
have an obligation to add our voices in tliis Com- 
mission to the worldwide protest against these 
new violations of individual rights in the Soviet 
Union. The individuals affected by these viola- 
tions are hiunan, and their rights are not a bit 
smaller than yours or mine. What has happened 
to them has cast a shadow across the world 
in the very year dedicated by this organization 
to human rights. On behalf of the United States 
I therefore protest the injustices to which they 
have been subjected and appeal to the Soviet 
Government to grant them speedy redress. 


Current Actions 


Diplomatic Relations 

Vienna convention on diplomatic relations. Done at 
Vienna April 18, 1961. Entered into force April 24, 
Accession deposited: Honduras, February 13, 1968. 

' Not in force for the United States. 

iPRIL 1, 1968 



International grains arrangement, 1967, with annexes. 
Open for signature at Washington October 15 until 
and including November 30, IQQT." 
Accession to the Wheat Trade Convention deposited: 
Barbados, March 7, 1968. 

Maritime Matters 

Agreement regarding financial support of the North 
Atlantic ice patrol. Opened for signature at Wash- 
ington January 4, 1956. Entered into force July 5, 
Acceptance deposited: Israel, March 14, 1968. 

Narcotic Drugs 

Addition of the substances acetorphine and etorphlne 
to schedule IV of the Single Convention on Narcotic 
Drugs, 1961 (TIAS 6298). Notification dated Feb- 
ruary 19, 1968. Entered into force February 19, 1968. 



Agreement amending the agreement of August 3, 1962, 
relating to Investment guaranties (TIAS 51.34). 
Effected by exchange of notes at Addis Ababa 
March 17, 1967, and March 8, 1968. Entered into 
force March 8, 1968. 

Somali Republic 

Agreement for sales of agricultural commodities un- 
der title I of the Agricultural Trade Development 
and Assistance Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 
454, as amended; 7 U.S.C. 1691-1736D), with annex. 
Signed at Washington March 15, 1968. Entered into 
force March 15, 1968. 



The Senate on March 15 confirmed the nomination of 
H. Gardner Ackley to be Ambassador to Italy. (For 
biographic details, see Department of State press re- 
lease 53 dated March 21.) 


Samuel D. Berger as Deputy Ambassador to the 
Republic of Viet-Nam. (For biographic details, see 
White House press release dated February 22.) 

' Not in force. 

Recent Releases 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, V.8. 
Government Printing Office, Washington, B.C. 
20i02. Address requests direct to the Superintendent 
of Documents. A 25-percent discount is made on orders 
for 100 or more copies of any one publication mailed 
to the same address. Remittances, payable to the Su- 
perintendent of Documents, must accompany orders. 

The Question of Viet-Nam in Foreign Policy Planning. 
A Discussion Guide to accompany a tape-recorded 
briefing by Walt W. Rostow, Special Assistant to the 
President He succinctly interprets current Viet-Nam 
problems against a bacljground of their 2,000-year his- 
tory and present-day potential. A list of reference ma- 
terials is Included. Pub. 8336. 4 pp. 5<t. 

The Foreign Aid Program. A Discussion Guide to ac- 
company a tape-recorded briefing by William S. Gaud, 
Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International 
Development, in which he summarizes the history, 
goals, and scope of our economic assistance program 
The Guide provides definitions, discussion questions, 
and a listing of suggested reference material. Pub. 
8338. 3 pp. 5«i. 

United States-Soviet Relations. A Discussion Guide to 
accompany a tape-recorded briefing by David H. Henry, j 
a member of the Policy Planning Council, in which he | 
analyzes the current U.S.S.R. situation vis-a-vis the 
United States. The Guide also contains a Ust of sug- 
gested reference materials. Pub. 8339. 4 pp. 5(f. 

The Country Team. A Discussion Guide to accompany 
a tape-recorded briefing by Ambassador Edward M. 
Korry, in which he explains how a U.S. embassy func- 
tions as a "Country Team" to carry out U.S. policy in ] 
the country of its assignment. Definitions of elements i 
of a "Team," discussion queries, and some reference' 
materials on the Foreign Service, including Informa- 
tion on how to apply for entry, are concisely covered. 
Pub. 8342. 4 pp. 5(f. 

U.S. Arms for the Developing World: Dilemmas of; 
Foreign Policy. Address made by Under Secretary of 
State Katzenbach before the Institute of International 
Relations, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif., on 
Nov. 17. Reprinted from Department of State Bulletin 
of Dec. 11, 1967. Pub. 8349. General Foreign Policy 
Series 222. 5 pp. 5^. 

Partial Revision of Radio Regulations, Geneva, 1959, 
and Additional Protocol. With other governments. 
Signed at Geneva April 29, 1966. Proclaimed by the! 
President September 1, 1967. Entered into force with! 
respect to the United States of America August 23, 
1967. TIAS 6332. 234 pp. $3.75. 

Boundary Waters — Pilotage Services on the Great 
Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway. Agreement with 
Canada, amending the agreement of April 13, 1967. 
Exchange of notes — Signed at Washington October 6. 
1967. Entered into force October 6, 1967. TIAS 6352. 
6 pp. 5(f. 




ETD* d 

INDEX ^pril I, 196S Vol. LVIII, No. 1601 

Americaii Principles. "Our Goal Is Peace" 

(Jobnson) 439 


Confirmations (Ackley) 456 

The Foreign Aid Program for Fiscal 1969 

(Rusk) 445 

Department and Foreign Service 

Confirmations (Ackley) 456 

Designations (Berger) 456 

Economic Affairs 

The Heartlands of the Home Hemisphere 

(Oliver) 440 

President Johnson Signs Export-Import Bank 

Bill (Johnson) 444 

Educational and Cultural Affairs. U.S.-Japan 
Cultural Conference To Be Held in the United 
States 444 

EI Salvador. Letters of Credence (Rivera) . . 430 

Foreign Aid. The Foreign Aid Program for Fiscal 
19C9 (Rusk) 445 

Human Rights. Freedom of Information, a Basic 
Human Right (Goldberg) 452 

International Organizations and Conferences. 

Calendar of International Conferences . . . 449 

Italy. Ackley confirmed as Ambassador . . . 450 

Japan. U.S.-Japan Cultural Conference To Be 

Held in the United States 444 

Latin America 

The Heartlands of the Home Hemisphere 

(Oliver) 440 

Seventh Anniversary of the Alliance for Prog- 
ress (Humphrey) 420 

Paraguay. Letters of Credence (Avila) . . . 430 

Presidential Documents 

"Our Goal Is Peace" 439 

President Johnson Signs Export-Import Bank 
Bill 444 

Publications. Recent Releases 456 

Treaty Information. Current Actions .... 455 

U.S.S.R. Freedom of Information, a Basic 
Human Right (Goldberg) 452 

United Nations. Freedom of Information, a 

Basic Human Right (Goldberg) 452 


Berger designated Deputy Ambassador . . . 456 

National Security or a Retreat to Isolation? The 

Choice in Foreign Policy (Rostow) .... 431 

Name Index 

Ackley. H. Gardner 456 

.\vila, Roque Jacinto 430 

Berger. Samuel D 4.56 

Goldberg, Arthur J 452 

Humphrey, Vice President 429 

Johnson, President 439, 444 

Oliver, Covey T 440 

Rivera, Julio 430 

Rostow, Eugene V 431 

Rusk, Secretary 445 

Check List of Department of State 
Press Releases: March 11-17 

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

Releases issued prior to March 11 which ap- 
pear in this issue of the Bulletin are Nos. 38 
of February 20 and 46 of March 9. 

No. Date Subject 

47 3/11 Rusk: statement on foreign aid be- 
fore the Senate Foreign Relations 

t48 3/14 Oliver: "Innovative Effects of the 

Alliance for Progress." 
49 3/14 U.S.-Japan Cultural Conference (re- 

*50 3/16 Mrs. Anderson designated Si^cial 
Assistant to the Secretary (bio- 
graphic details). 

* Not printed. 

t Held for a later issue of the Bulletin. 

<^'^Z XOO d 


on Onond NOiSOQ 
J 030 QSO 

Superintendent of Documents 
u.s. government printing office 












Addvesa iy President Johnson IfBl 



Statement hy Ambassador Goldberg and Text of Resolution ^7^ 


by Leonard C. Meeker, Legal Adviser ^65 

For index see inside back cover 



Vol. LVIII, No. 1502 
April 8, 1968 

For sale by the .Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 


S2 Issues, domestic .$10, foreign $16 
Single copy 30 cents 

Use ot funds for printing of tins publication 
approved by tbe Director of the Bureau of 
the Budget (January 11, 1966). 

Note: Contents of this publication are not 
copyrighted and items contained herein may be 
reprinted. Citation of the DEPAHTMENT OF 
STATE BULLETIN as the source will be 
appreciated. The BULLETIN is indexed in 
the Eeaders' Guide to Periodical Literature. 

The Department of State BULLETIN, 
a weekly publication issued by the 
Office of Media Services, Bureau of 
Public Affairs, provides the public and 
interested agencies of the Government 
tvith 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 selected 
press releases on foreign policy , issued 
by the White House and the Depart- 
ment, and statements and addresses 
made by the President and by the 
Secretary of State and other officers 
of the Department, as well as special 
articles on various pliases of interna- 
tional affairs and the functions of the 
Department. Information is included 
concerning treaties and international 
agreements to which the United 
States is or may become a party 
and treaties of general international 

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

". . . m South Viet-Nam, aggression fghts not only on the 
hattlefteM of village and hill and jungle and city. The enemy 
has rea^lied out to fight in the hearts and minds of the American 

"Foreign Policy Is the People's Business" 

Address by President Johnson ^ 

Secretary Eusk and I are very pleased to wel- 
come you here today. Your presence, I think, 
proves a very basic truth about our American 
democracy — that is that foreign policy is the 
people's business. It is not restricted to any 
favored few. It is the proper concern of every 
American who is interested in his nation's 

The primary business of our foreign policy is 
to build a world in which we and our children 
and our neighbors throughout the world may 
live in freedom and may live in dignity. 

The heritage of 5,000 years of human civiliza- 
tion, then, hangs on our success. 

I have said many times that these are years of 
testing. I have said that what is being tested is 
the will of America, not the capacity of Amer- 
ica. We have the will ; we have the strength ; we 
have the power. But the test is : Do we have the 
will ; do we have the spirit to succeed ? 

Historj'^ has elected to probe the depth of our 
commitment to freedom. How strongly are we 
really devoted to resist the tide of aggression? 
How ready are we to make good on our solemn 
pledges to other nations? 

Since the end of World War II, Americans, 
regardless of political party, have answered, not 
witli words but with deeds, with billions through 
the Marshall Plan, to give new life to a shat- 

' Made before the Foreign Policy Conference for Na- 
tional Nongovernmental Organizations at the Depart- 
ment of State, Washington, D.C., on Mar. 19 (White 
House press release) . 

tered Europe; with leadership in creating the 
United Nations and all the collective security 
arrangements that meant to insure that no ag- 
gressor ever again would doubt the resolve of 
free men to stand up and to defend freedom. 

We demonstrated with a tireless quest for 
rules to keep the nuclear beast in his cage and 
with foreign aid programs to help lift the less 
developed countries — containing two of every 
three citizens of the free world — to help them to 
true independence. 

Now, these are the basic themes of what 
American foreign policy is all about. They have 
been essentially the same for more than 20 years 
now, under all administrations — Republican 
and Democratic. 

They are the same themes that are being chal- 
lenged at this moment and defended by our men 
in Viet-Nam. There in South Viet-Nam, ag- 
gression fights not only on the battlefield of vil- 
lage and hill and jungle and city. The enemy 
has reached out to fight in the hearts and minds 
of the American people. 

Ho has mounted a heavy and a calculated at- 
tack on our character as a people, on our con- 
fidence and our will as a nation, on the con- 
tinuity of policy and principle that has so long 
and so proudly marked America as the real 
champion of man's freedom. 

Let no single American mistake the enemy's 
major offensive now. That offensive is aimed 
squarely at the citizens of America. It is an as- 
sault that is designetl to crack America's will. It 

APRIL 8, 1968 


is designed to make some men want to sur- 
render; it is designed to make other men want 
to withdraw ; it is designed to trouble and worry 
and confuse others. 

But it is, in ellect, an assault that is designed 
to crack your country's will. We are the 
aggressor's real target because of what we 

When we are gone, I ask you what other na- 
tion in the world is going to stand up and pro- 
tect the little man's freedom anywhere in tlie 
world ? 

Yes, the enemy seeks more than the conquest 
of South Viet-Nam. He seeks more than the col- 
lapse of all of Southeast Asia. He seeks more 
than the destruction of the Pacific dream, where 
a new and prospering Asia sees its hopeful 

Aggression at this moment is striking in Viet- 
Nam at the very root of life, at the very idea of 
freedom, at the right of any man or any nation 
to live with its neighbors without fear, to find 
its own free destiny and to determine it for 

We cannot fail these anxious and these ex- 
pectant millions. We just must not fail ourselves. 

We must not break our commitment for free- 
dom and for the future of the world. We have 
set our course. We will pursue it just as long 
as aggression threatens it. 

And make no mistake about it — America will 

This afternoon I am reminded of anotlier day 
many years ago — tlie year was 1937 and I had 
just returned to Washington as a young Con- 
gressman in my twenties. That, too, was a time 
of grave challenge. But it was also a time of 
great hope and great promise. 

You may recall that there were great popular 
movements m those clays against any violence in 
international affairs. Well-meaning, sincere, 
good people around this entire country were 
pledging themselves never to bear arms. They 

were castigating our Government for any in- 
volvement beyond our own shores. They were 
even refusing to spend $5 million to fortify 

President Roosevelt went to Chicago one 
night in 1937. He delivered a speech which still 
holds much for all of us today. Franklin D. 
Roosevelt warned the world that night that the 
shadow of aggression threatened not only the 
nations that were immediately in the aggressor's 
path, but it threatened the future of all free men 
and women. 

On that night in Chicago he asked the nations 
of the world to "quarantine the aggressors." 

For liberty and independence can be secure 
only if free men resolve to draw a line, to stand 
on it, and to hold it. 

President Roosevelt called for "a concerted 
effort in opposition to those violations of 
treaties and those ignorings of humane instincts 
which today are creating a state of international 
anarchy and instability from which there is no 
escape through mere isolation. . . ." 

Well, that was 1937. It took some time and it 
took a world catastrophe to wake men up and 
for them to finally hear that message when we 
were attacked. 

So let this generation of ours learn from the 
mistakes of the past. Let us recognize that there 
is no resigning from world responsibility. There 
is no cheap or no easy way to find the road 
to freedom and the road to order. Biit danger 
and sacrifice built this land, and today we are 
the number-one nation. And we ai'e going to stay 
the number-one nation. 

Our forefathers asked no quarter of the beast 
and the plague and the hunger that they found 
when they came to the New World. 

In the words of a great President, Abraliam 
Lincoln : "With firmness in the right, as God 
gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish 
the woi'k we are in." 

I ask your help in finishing that work. 



A Time for Unity 

FoUowing h an excerpt from rernarhs hy 
President Johnson made before the National 
Farmers Union convention at Minneapolis, 
Minn., on March 18. 

White House press release dated March 18 

If the farmers of America will only wake up 
and sj^eak up courageously and forcefully in 
their own behalf^if we and you together have 
the patience and the determination and the 
good common horsesense to preserve, improve, 
and build upon the progress we have made in 
our agricultural programs — if we trust our 
hopes instead of relying on our fears and the 
demagogs who would mislead us, American 
agriculture can grow and prosper as it has never 
grown before. I believe — I have been in most of 
the 50 States of this Union, and I am just a few 
hours away from rural America at this 
moment — that rural America stands for the 
very best in all America. 

There is another area in which all Ameri- 
cans — mothers and fathers, farmers and city 
dwellers — must demonstrate that same courage, 
that same patience, that same determination. 

For many years we have been engaged in a 
struggle in Southeast Asia to stop the onrush- 
ing tide of Cormnunist aggression. 

We faced it when the Greek Communists were 
a few miles out of Athens a few years ago. We 
faced it when we had to fly zero weather into 
Berlin to feed the people when that city was 
beleaguered and cut off. We faced it on the 
Pusan Peninsula when our men were fighting 
for the hills of Korea and everybody said: 
"They are not worth it." 

We fight Communist aggression the same to- 
day in Southeast Asia. This tide threatens to 
engulf that part of the world and to affect the 
safety of every American home. It threatens 
our own security, and it threatens the security 
of every nation allied with us. The blood of 
our young men this hour is being shed on that 

They know why they are there. I read 100 

letters from them every week. They do not have 
the doubts that some at home preach. They have 
seen the enemy's determination. They have felt 
his thrust trying to conquer those who want to 
be left alone to determine their government for 
themselves but who the aggressor has marched 
over to try to envelop. Our fightmg men know, 
from the evidence in their eyes, that we face a 
ruthless enemy. You make a serious mistake if 
you underestimate that enemy, his cause, and 
the effect of his conquest. They know from the 
carnage of the enemy's treacherous assaults that 
he lias no feelings about deliberate murder of 
innocent women and children in the villages 
and the cities of South Viet-Nam. 

They are not misled by propaganda or by the 
effort to gloss over the actions of an enemy who, 
I remind each of you, has broken every truce 
and who makes no secret whatever of his inten- 
tion and his determination to conquer by force 
and by aggression his neighbors to the south. 

At the same time, during these past 4 years, 
we have made remarkable strides here at home. 
We have opened the doors of freedom, full citi- 
zenship, and opportunity to 30 million minority 
people, and we have sustained the highest level 
of prosperity for the longest period of time ever 

But the time has come this morning when 
your President has come here to ask you people, 
and all the other people of this nation, to join 
us in a total national effort to win the war, to 
win the peace, and to complete the job that must 
be done here at home. 

I ask all of you to join in a program of na- 
tional austerity to uisure that our economy will 
prosper and that our fiscal position will be 

The Congress has been asked by the Presi- 
dent — in January a year ago — to enact a tax 
bill which will impose upon the average citizen 
an additional 1 cent for every dollar of taxes. I 
ask you to bear this burden in the interest of a 
stronger nation. 

I am consulting with the Congi'ess now on 
proposals for savings in our national budget — in 

APRIL 8, 1968 


nondefense, non-Viet-Nam, in other items all 
across the board. If I can get the help of the 
Congress — and it is their will — we sliall make 
reductions in that budget. They will postpone 
many needed actions that all of us would like 
to see taken in another time. 

All travel outside the Western Hemisphere by 
Govermnent officials and by all private citizens 
which is not absolutely essential to you should, 
in the interest of your country, be postponed. 

I have already called for savings and cuts 
in expenditures and investments abroad by pri- 
vate corporations.^ We are going to intensify 
this program. 

We have spent the weekend in an attempt to 
deal with the very troublesome gold problem. 
We have said that we are no longer going to be a 
party to encouraging the gold gambler or the 
gold specidator.^ 

Most of all, I ask your help, and I come here 
to plead for your patriotic support, for our men, 
our sons, who are bearing the terrible burden of 
battle in Viet-Nam. 

We seek not the victory of conquest, but we 
do seek the trivnnph of justice — the right of 
neighbors to be left alone, the right to determine 
for themselves what kind of government to 
have. We seek that right and we will — make no 
mistake about it — win. 

I am deeply aware of the yearning through- 
out this coimtry, in every home of this land, and 
throughout the Western World, for peace in the 
world. I believe all peoples want peace. I know 
that our peoples want peace, because we are 
a peace-loving nation. There is none among you 
who desires i^eace more than your own Presi- 
dent and your own Vice President. 

We hope to achieve an honorable peace and a 
just peace at the negotiating table. 

But wanting peace, praying for peace, and 
desiring peace — as Chamberlain found out — 
doesn't always give you peace. 

If the enemy continues to insist— as he does 
now, when he refuses to sit down and accept the 
fair proposition we made, that we would stop 
our bombing if he would sit down and talk 
promptly and productively— if he continues to 
insist, as he does now, that the outcome must be 
determined on the battlefield, then we will win 
peace on the battlefield by supporting our men 
who are doing that job there now. 

We have a constitutional system. A majority 
of Aniericans have the right to select the leaders 
of their own choosing. 

That is all we are asking for in South Viet- 

You have provided your President with 100- 
odd ambassadors, the most trained men in every 
diplomatic outpost throughout the world. 
Through West Point and Annapolis, you have 
provided your President with the best trained, 
best educated, most experienced, and best led 
group of men that has ever formulated the 
sti'ategy or the tactics for any nation. 

Your President welcomes suggestions from 
committees, from commissions, from Congress, 
from private individuals, from clubs — from 
anyone who has a plan or a program that can 
stand inspection and can offer us any hope of 
successfully reaching our goal, which is peace 
in the world. 

We consider them all, long and late. We work 
every day of every week trying to find the 

But when aggressors in the world are on the 
march, as they were in World War I and II, 
as they were in Korea, as they were in Berlin, 
as they were in other places in our national 
history, then we must unite until we convince 
them that they know they cannot win the battle 
in South Viet-Nam from our boys, as they are 
trying to win the battle from our leaders here 
in Washington in this count ly. 

That is very dangerous for them, to think for 
a moment that they can attack the moral fiber 
of our own country to the point where our peo- 
ple will not support the policy of their own 
Govermnent, of their own men whom they have 
committed to battle. 

You may not have a boy in that battle that is 
going on now — or you may have. But whether 
you do or you don't, our policy ought to be 
the same. We ought not let them win something 
in Washington that they can't win in Hue, in 
the I Corps, or in Khe Sanh. And we are not 
going to. 

Just one final word: We ask every Senator, 
every Congressman, every farmer, and every 
businessman to join with us in our program of 
trying to unite this nation and trying to support 
our commitments and our own security. 

We thought in the early days of World War 
I, before the Lusltania was sunk, that we had 
no concern with what happened across the 
waters. But we soon found out that we couldn't 
stand on that position. 

We thought in World War II that we had no 
concern with what Hitler was doing in other 
parts of the world and he wasn't vei-y danger- 

• For background, see Bui-letin of Jan. 22, 1968, 
p. 110. 
= See p. 464. * 



oiis anyway, that we could sit this one out. 

But we soon found tliat wo lived in a very 
small world. 

Even though we hadn't gone beyond our 
shores, they sank our fleet at Pearl Harbor. 

"We soon learned that we must never permit 
an aggressor's appetite to go uncontrolled, be- 
cause the person he eats up today may make him 
more hungry for you tomorrow. 

TVe want peace and wo are ready to meet now, 
this minute. 

You may want peace with your neighbor, too, 
and you may be willing to go across the road and 
into his yard to try to talk him into it. But if 
he keeps his door barred and every time you 
call him the call goes unanswered, and he re- 
fuses to meet you halfway, your wanting peace 
with him won't get it for you. 

So as long as he feels that he can win some- 
thing by propaganda in the country — that he 
can undermine the leadership — that he can 
bring down the government — that he can get 
something in the Capital that he can't get from 
our men out there — he is going to keep on 

But I point out to you the time has come when 
we ought to unite, when we ought to stand up 
and be counted, when we ought to support our 
leaders, our Government, our men, and our allies 
until aggression is stopped, wherever it has 

There are good, sincere, genuine people who 
believe that there are plans that could bring us 
to peace soon. 

Some think that we ought to get it over with, 
with a much wider war. 

We have looked at those plans, and looked at 
them carefully. 

"We liave looked at the possible danger of in- 
volving another million men. 

"We have tried to evaluate how you could get 
it over with, with less costs than we are now 

"We do not seek a wider war. "We do not think 
that is a wise course. 

There is another extreme that thinks that you 
can just have peace by talking for it, by wishing 
for it, by saj-ing you want it, and all you need to 
do is to pull back to the cities. 

"We had that plan tested in the Tet offensive. 
They killed thousands and thousands in the 

Those of you who think that you can save lives 
by moving the battlefield in from the mountains 
to the cities where the people live have another 
think coming. 

If you think you can stop aggression by get- 
ting out of its way and letting them take over, 
roll over you, you have another think coming, 

Most of these people don't say : "Cut and run." 
They don't say: "Pull out." They don't want 
a wider war. They don't want to do more than we 
are doing. 

They say that they want to do less than we are 

But we are not domg enough to win it the way 
we are doing it now, and we are constantly try- 
ing to find additional things that are reasonable, 
prudent, and safe to do. 

So you have one extreme that says : "Let's go 
in with flags flying and get it over with quickly, 
regardless of the dangers involved." 

You have another group that says : ""We are 
doing too much. Let's pull out. Let's be quiet. 
"We want peace." 

Then you have a third group that says : ""We 
don't want to conquer you. "We don't want to 
destroy your nation. "We don't want to divide 
you. "We just want to say to you that we have an 
obligation. "We have signed 42 alliances with 
people of the world. "We have said that when an 
aggressor comes across this Ime to try to domi- 
nate other people and they call on us to help, we 
are going to come and help until they decide to 
leave their neighbors alone." 

"We tliink that we are making progress on 
getting them to decide. They think they are 
making progress on getting us to decide to give 
up and pull out. 

But I think they will find out in the days 
ahead that we are reasonable people, that we are 
fair people, that we are not folks who want to 
conquer the world. 

We don't seek one acre of anybody else's soil. 

We love nothing more than peace, but we hate 
nothing more than surrender and cowardice. 

We don't ask anybody else to surrender. We 
just ask them to sit down and talk, meet at a 
family table and try to work out our differences. 
But we don't plan to surrender either; we don't 
plan to pull out either; we don't plan to let 
people influence us, pressure us, and force us to 
divide our nation in a time of national peril. 

Tlie liour is here. 

Tliis Govermnent has the best diplomats. This 
Government has the best generals. This Govern- 
ment has the best admirals. This Government 
has the best resources in every corner of the 

Although I have had more Secretaries of 
State than any President in modern times — or 

APRIL 8. 1968 


more would-be Secretaries of State— I still tliiok 
this Government has one of the most able and 
patriotic men I have ever known sitting in that 
chair, and I think his policy is sound. 

So as we go back to our homes, let's go back 
dedicated to achieving peace in the world, try- 
ing to get a fair balance here at home, trying 
to make things easier and better for our children 
than we had them, but after all, trying to pre- 
serve this American system, wliich is first in the 
world today. 

I want it to stay first, but it cannot be first if 
we pull out and tuck our tail and violate our 

Thank you very much. 

Fulfilling Our Commitments 
at Home and Abroad 

Following is an excerpt from an address hy 
President Johnson made before the National 
Alliance of Businessmen at Washington, D.C., 
on March 16. 

White House press release dated March 16 

' ■ • • • 

Earlier this week in the East Eoom of the 
White House, I awarded the Medal of Honor 
to two of our bravest fighting marines. As I 
stood there before them, I heard once again the 
words "above and bej'ond the call of duty." I 
reflected on this. I recognize that not every man 
is called upon to give above and beyond the call 
of duty. Not every man is called upon to give 
even his fullest measure of devotion. Not every 
man is called upon to serve his covmtry or to 
exercise his talents and his responsibilities. 

But those who carry the burdens of public 
office must do their duty as they see it. They 
must do the right thing "as God gives us to see 
the right." 

As your President, I want to say this to you 
today : "We must meet our conmiitments in the 
world and in Viet-Nam. We shall and we are 
going to win. 

To meet the needs of these fighting men, we 
shall do whatever is required. 

We and our allies seek only a just and an hon- 
orable peace. We work for that every day— to 
find some way to settle this matter with the" head 
instead of the hand. We seek nothing else. 

The Communists have made it clear that up 
to now, thus far, they are unwilling to negotiate 

or to work out a settlement except on the battle- 
field. If that is what they choose, then we shall 
win a settlement on the battlefield. 

If their position changes — as we fervently 
hope it will — then we in the United States and 
our allies are prepared to immediately meet 
them anywhere, any time, in a spirit of flex- 
ibility and understanding and generosity. 

But make no mistake about it — I don't want a 
man in here to go back home thinking other- 
wise — we are going to win. 

At the same tune, we have other commitments 
and we have vei'y urgent commitments here at 

All of these commitments ultimately wind up, 
as you executives know, representing a drain on 
the Treasury. 

To do what must be done means that we must 
proceed with utmost prudence. We must tighten 
our belts. We must adopt an austere program. 
We must adopt a program of fiscal soundness. 

This week we passed a law removing the 
useless and burdensome gold cover. 

This week the Federal Reserve Board has 
increased the discount rate in an attempt to 
bring some restraints. 

We are meeting at this moment with the 
members of the central banks in the world as 
^vell as with the leaders of the Congress. We are 
talking to the congressional leaders about ad- 
justments and reductions that can be made in 
the national budget. 

Hard choices are going to have to be made in 
the next few days. Some desirable programs of 
lesser priority and urgency are going to have 
to be deferred. That is Avhy we hope that the 
free enterprise system — the private employers 
of America — can help the Government take 
some of this responsibility. Because every one 
of these men whom you can employ, help train, 
and prepare, means one less that the Govern- 
ment does not have to deal with. 

But the key to fiscal responsibility is still un- 
turned, according to all the fiscal experts. The 
key is the penny-on-the-dollar tax bill that is 
now pending. This tax increase will yield less 
than half of the $23 billion per j-ear that we 
returned to the taxpayer in the tax reductions of 
1964 and 196.5. 

We are paying lower tax rates than we have 
paid any time since World War II. We are in 
the middle of a war in Viet-Nam and we have 
all of these problems here at home. 

If we could just go back to the tax rate that 
was on the books when I became President — 
before two reductions — we could take in $23 bil- 



lion more this year. So I appealed to the Con- 
gress last week — and I will again next week — 
and I call upon the Congress now to meet the 
urgency of the liour with the responsibility that 
it requires. 

"With all of these measures taken, our fiscal 
position is going to be strengthened. We will be 
able to supply what is needed to win a just and 
a lasting peace in Viet-Xam — hopefully at the 
negotiating table but on the battlefield if we 

"We will fulfill our commitments abroad and 
here at home to try to move forward with a 
program of better health, education, and train- 
ing for all of our people — more security and 
better houses for all of our families. 

If our economy is strong, we can take care of 
most of these essential needs— not as quickly as 
we would like but soundly, efficiently, and, I 
hope, adequately. 

None of this is going to be easy or pleasant. 
But I believe that Americans will resolutely 
bear their share of the burden in helping to meet 
their needs at home rather than push us into 
fiscal chaos or rather than fail to give our fight- 
ing sons the help and the support that they need. 

Builders of the Peace 

Following are remarks hy President Johnson 
made on March 21 hefore the first graduating 
class of the Foreign Service Institute's Viet- 
Nam Training Center. 

White House press release dated March 21 

Today those of you who have gathered here 
at the White House set out as warriors for peace. 
I asked you to come here because I want all the 
people of America to know of your particular 

You should expect that your efforts will go 
largely unreported. Your progress is going to be 
harder to see and harder to measure. 

But the victories you win are the ones on 
which peace will be built in Viet-Xam. 

Let no one misread our purpose : Peace is our 

Let no one mistake our resolve : Peace will be 

It will be peace with honor. It will be a peace 
in which the people of South Viet-Nam will be 
free to live the lives they choose to live. 

Peace will come because brave men — and 
free men — are preventing aggressors from tak- 
ing a neighbor's land by force. 

Peace will come because men like you are will- 
ing to help the people of South Viet-Nam forge 
a free nation. It will come because those 
beleaguered people themselves — after a century 
of colonialism and a generation of war — have 
not broken before the enemy's terror. 

There is a deep and a quiet courage among 
millions of simple people in Viet-Nam. It goes 
largely imreported — the stories of the farmers, 
the stories of the teachers in the schools, the sto- 
ries of students and the fathers and the mothers 
and the families who sacrifice and struggle — un- 
noticed in the anguish of war. 

But when the enemy imleashed his savage at- 
tack over the Tet holidays, he thought that he 
would crack the will of the Vietnamese people. 

But he was wrong. 

He did not crack the will of the students in 
the high school in Quang Nam. Instead, they 
turned out in a body to volunteer for the emer- 
gency work of reconstruction. 

He did not crack the will of the citizens of 
the Hang Xanh district in Saigon, wlio fought 
the Viet Cong with sticks, or the nurses near 
Baria, who hid a Korean medical team while the 
enemy occupied their hospital for more than 
30 hours. 

Stories like these were repeated up and down 
this ravaged land. We did not read about them. 
The enemy attack is what got tlie headlines. 

But in Viet-Nam there were heroes by the 
hundreds that dark week — who were unseen and 
unsung. And their actions spoke for a free peo- 
ple who are determined to find their own way 
into their own future. 

Their will did not, as expected, break under 
the fire. 

Neither shall ours break under frustration. 

Peace will come to Viet-Nam. The terror of an 
invading enemy will be turned back. The work 
of reconstruction will go on. And a nation will 
rise, strong and free. 

I think that each of you standing here on the 
Wliite House steps today will be proud to say 
that you were there — that you were a part of 
helping a struggling people come into their own, 
participate in self-determination, and become a 
part of liberty and freedom in the world. 

I think you will be proud to say that you were 
there, because you will be the buUders of the 

I am honored to greet you this morning. 
Thank you very much. 

APRIL 8, 1988 


Gold Pool Contributors Agree 
on Policies for Market Stability 

Following is the text of a communique issued 
at Washington on March 17 at the conclusion 
of a 2-day meeting of the governors of the cen- 
tral hanks of the seven ''gold pooV nations. 

The Governors of the Central Banks of Bel- 
gium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Swit- 
zerland, the United Kingdom, and the United 
States met in Washington on March 16 and 17, 
1968 to examine operations of the gold pool, to 
which they are active contributors. The IManag- 
ing Director of the International Monetary 
Fund and the General Manager of the Bank 
for International Settlements also attended the 

The Governors noted that it is the determmed 
policy of the United States Government to de- 
fend "the value of the dollar through appropri- 
ate fiscal and monetary measures and that sub- 
stantial improvement of the U.S._ balance of 
payments is a high priority objective. 

They also noted that legislation approved by 
Congress makes the whole of the gold stock of 
the nation available for defending the value of 
the dollar. 

They noted that the U.S. Government will 
continue to buy and sell gold at the existing 
price of $35 an ounce in transactions with mone- 
tary authorities. The Governors support this 
policy, and believe it contributes to the mainte- 
nance of exchange stability. 

The Governors noted the determination of 
the U.K. authorities to do all that is necessary 
to eliminate the deficit in the U.K. balance of 
payments as soon as possible and to move to a 
position of large and sustained surplus. 

Finally, they noted that the Governments of 
most European countries intend to pursue mon- 
etai-y and fiscal policies that encourage domestic 
expansion consistent with economic stability, 
avoid as far as possible increases in interest 
rates or a tightening of money markets, and 
thus contribute to conditions that will help all 
countries move toward payments equilibrium. 
The Governors agreed to cooperate fully to 
maintain the existing parities as well as orderly 
conditions in their exchange markets in accord- 
ance with their obligations imder the Articles 
of Agreement of the International Monetary 
Fund. Tlie Governors believe that henceforth 
officially-held gold should be used only to effect 
transfers among monetary authorities and, 
therefore, they decided no longer to supply gold 
to the London gold market or any other gold 
market. Moreover, as the existing stock of mon- 
etary gold is sufficient in view of the prospective 
establishment of the facility for Special Draw- 
ing Rights, they no longer feel it necessary to 
buy gold from the market. Finally, they agreed 
that henceforth they will not sell gold to mone- 
tary authorities to replace gold sold in private 

The Governors agreed to cooperate even more 
closely than in the past to minimize flows of 
funds contributing to instability in the exchange 
markets, and to offset as necessary any such 
flows that may arise. 

In view of the importance of the pound ster- 
ling in the international monetary system, the 
Governors have agreed to provide further fa- 
cilities which will bring the total of credits_ im- 
mediately available to the U.K. authorities 
(including the IMF standby) to $4 billion. 

The Governors invite the cooperation of other 
central banks in the policies set forth above. 

March 17, 1968 



Legal Aspects of Contemporary World Problems 

iy Leonard C. Meeker 
Legal Adviser'^ 

"We live in a time when resort to armed force 
has become progressively more dangerous. The 
weapons of war are more sophisticated, more 
destructive, and more numerous. 

The nations of the world are thus imder a 
practical political necessity to bring armaments 
under control and to reduce them. 

Xations must also operate more faithfully and 
more effectively international procedures and 
machinery for resolving disputes peacefully if 
the world community is to have peace and evolve 
along rational lines. 

The efforts of the international community in 
disarmament remain today stiU primitive. 
Nearly 5 years ago agreement was reached on 
the limited test ban treaty. The treaty has sub- 
stantial political importance. It did not, how- 
ever, stop the arms race. 

Last year the United Nations completed and 
brought into force a treaty on outer space, which 
imposed some limitations on weapons and mili- 
tary activities on celestial bodies and elsewhere 
in space.2 It was plainly worthwhile to take 
these measures designed to prevent extension of 
the arms race into space. But again, article IV 
of the space treaty, however valuable as an 
ounce of prevention, did not halt the arms race 
in the traditional environments. 

The members of the 18-Nation Disarmament 
Committee in Geneva are today, we hope, ap- 
proaching final agreement on the nonprolifera- 
tion treaty, to prevent the spread of nuclear 
weapons. This is an international undertaking 
of very considerable importance. If nuclear 
weapons were to spread to additional numbers 

•Address made before the American branch of the 
International Law Association at New York, N.T., on 
Mar. 1. 

' For text of the treaty, see BuLLEmr of Dee. 26, 1966, 
p. 953. 

of countries around the world, there would be a 
lot less international security and the dangers 
to general peace would be greatly enlarged. 

One of the criticisms earnestly advanced by 
nonnuclear powers is tliat the nonproliferation 
treaty does nothing to limit or reduce the nu- 
clear destructive capacity of the nuclear powers. 
A niunber of governments have made clear that 
their willingness to be bound by obligations of 
nonproliferation over a period of time is going 
to be conditioned by the progress that nuclear 
powers are able to make in nuclear disarma- 
ment. This serving of notice must be taken seri- 
ously by the nuclear powers. They will be imder 
a practical requirement to make some definite 
progress on stopping their own nuclear arms 
race once the nonproliferation treaty has been 

We have already proposed to the Soviet 
Union discussions on tlie buildup of offensive 
and defensive nuclear missiles. The Soviets have 
agreed, in principle at least, to such discussions. 
It is important to get ahead with them to avoid 
another costly and futile escalation of the arms 

Disarmament is one part of the effort to con- 
firm man's stay on this planet and to promote 
his evolution in hopeful directions. What I want 
to discuss mainly this evening is another part 
of this effort : the use of international political 
arrangements for the orderly handling and re- 
solving of conflicts. 

Any discussion of international conflict reso- 
lution properly has its start with the Charter 
of the United Nations, an instrument drafted in 
the immediate aftermath of the great battles of 
World War II and with the most acute aware- 
ness that war is a terrible scourge to mankind. 
Sometimes it is wondered whether the same 
charter could be agreed upon today, or whether 

APRIL 8, 1968 

294-536 — 68- 


the renascence of nationalism in many parts 
of the world has rendered the United Na- 
tions design inoperable on the contemporary 
scene. Skeptics would do well to ponder the 
greater difficulties and threats we would face if 
there were no world organization. 

The United Nations Charter laid down, in 
article 2, paragraph 4, some new rules of inter- 
national law restricting the use of armed force. 

These rules must be acknowledged to have 
had some effect on the conduct of governments. 
The new rules cannot be discounted as negli- 
gible in their influence on even the great powers. 
To be sure, the operation of the new law of the 
charter has been imperfect. But it would be 
wrong to say that the world is not better for 
its existence. 

Clearly, one of the problems has been that if 
resort to armed force is not to be generally 
available for resolving differences, there must 
be a workable and preferable alternative. Keep- 
ing the status quo unchanged is not a satis- 
factory vmiversal answer for dealing with 
disputes. Unless competing interests can be 
reconciled in some rational way, it is likely that 
conflict will still break out. 

We have to ask : How successful has the world 
community been in substituting orderly peace- 
ful settlement for resort to force? The United 
Nations Charter added a good deal of new 
machinery and international procedure. The use 
of these, and the results produced, give a mixed 
picture. There have been some successes. There 
have also been failures. 

My own conclusion is that lack of greater 
success flows not so much from a shortage of 
available machinery and procedure, or from any 
intrinsic defects in what we have, as from a po- 
litical reluctance on the part of governments to 
make maximum use of existing peaceful-settle- 
ment facilities. 

Events in the Near East 

Many problem situations could be chosen 
from current or recent history to serve as sub- 
jects for analysis. This evening I should like to 
review two situations within the last year which 
present important legal issues intertwined with 
their political, military, and other aspects. 

Let us look first at the scene in the Near East 
in May 1967. A set of uneasy armistices, worked 
out by the United Nations, had prevailed over 
the years between Israel and the Arab states. In 
addition, arrangements had been made in 1957 

to station a United Nations Emergency Force 
between Israel and Egypt and in particular at 
the entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba. President 
Nasser of the U.A.K. upset the equilibrium by 
demanding withdrawal of the United Nations 
Force. His very demand raised a legal question ; 
that is, whether the U.A.R. had the right to de- 
cide unilaterally that the United Nations Force 
must go. Unfortunately, this legal question was 
not even debated, much less submitted to any 
orderly process of determination. The United 
Nations Secretary-General acceded to the 
U.A.R. demand, and the United Nations Force 
was withdrawn. 

President Nasser next announced that the 
Gulf of Aqaba was closed to Israeli-flag ves- 
sels and to strategic cargoes going to the Israeli 
port of Eilat at the head of the gulf. An im- 
portant question of maritime law was raised. 
The United States considered the announced 
closing of the gulf to be illegal. We thought the 
World Court's decision in the Corfu Channel 
case was directly in point. We believed the 
U.A.R. was not entitled to assert belligerent 
rights as a basis for interfering with traffic to 
and from Eilat. We could see no basis in history 
for the U.A.R. claim that the gulf was "Arab 
territorial waters." We thought the rule stated 
in article 16, paragraph 4, of the 1958 Geneva 
Convention on the Territorial Sea ' expressed 
international law, which in our view gave a 
right to free navigation through the Strait of 
Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba. Finally, we 
thought that the U.A.R.'s purported closing of 
the gulf was incompatible with U.A.R. obliga- 
tions under the arrangements made by the 
United Nations in 1957. 

President Nasser made no efi'ort to secure an 
orderly and impartial determination of the legal 
issues involved. He simply moved unilaterally 
to announce that the gulf was closed and to make 
military dispositions designed to enforce his 

Israel, for its part, made no effort to secure 
an orderly and impartial determination either. 
Instead, Israel on June 5 undertook a military 
campaign to eliminate what it considered a 
threat to its vital interests. 

While the primary responsibility for break- 
ing the peace in this part of the world last May 
and June rests on the states directly involved, 
it must be acknowledged that the efforts of the 

' For text of the convention, see i'bid., June 30, 1958, 
p. 1111. 



rest of the international community to avoid 
hostilities and to settle the issues peacefully were 
at best disappointing. The United Stales sought, 
as a hrst step last May, to secure wide adherence 
to a declaration by maritime nations on rights 
of passage through the Strait of Tiran and the 
Gulf of Aqaba. Such a declaration, if made, 
could not have been relied upon to solve the 
whole problem, but it might have moved the 
situation onto a track of peaceful resolution. 
The responses to our initiative were deeply dis- 
appointing, and in a matter of days the lighting 

U.N. Efforts Toward Settlement 

We are all familiar with the course and out- 
come of the 6-days' war. Once it began, there 
was by common consent a necessity to involve 
the United Nations. At the end of days of de- 
bate, consultations among the great powers, and 
the passage of several Security Council resolu- 
tions, a cease-fire was finally made effective. The 
existence and functioning of the United Nations 
machinery contributed materially to this result. 
They avoided a prolongation and widening of 
the war. 

Thereafter, the United Nations General As- 
sembly met and debated at length the tenns 
for undertaking a negotiated settlement in the 
aftermath of war. Once again, it was assumed 
by common consent that the United Nations 
must tackle the problem of making peace. Who 
else would do it? Various proposals were put 
forward. They were debated vigorously. 
Energetic negotiating efforts were carried on 
over many weeks, but no agreed resolution 
emerged from the Assembly. 

Months later, after continued diplomatic ex- 
changes and a further proceeding in the Secu- 
rity Council, the United Nations produced a 
generally agreed formula in the Council's 
resolution of November 22.* This resolution 
affirmed : 

that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires 
the establishment of a jnst and lasting peace in the 
Middle East which should Include the application of 
both the following principles : 

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from ter- 
ritories occupied in the recent conflict ; 

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of bel- 
ligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the 
sovereignty, territorial integrity and political in- 

dependence of every State in the area and their right 
to live in peace within secure and recognized bound- 
aries free from threats or acts of force. 

It went on to affirm further the necessity : 

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation 
through international waterways in the area ; 

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee 
problem ; 

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability 
and political independence of every State in the area, 
through measures including the establishment of de- 
militarized zones. 

The reference to "waterways" in the Security 
Council resolution is plural in number. It covers 
not only the Gulf of Aqaba but also the Suez 
Canal. The issue of transit through the canal 
also raises legal issues. For many years Egj'pt 
had denied transit to Israeli vessels and cargoes 
despite the obligations of the Constantinople 
Convention of 1888 ° and despite a resolution 
of the United Nations Security Council declar- 
ing that Egypt had no right to prevent Israeli 

In 1957 Egypt had made a declaration^ 
undertaking to observe faithfully the provisions 
of the Constantinople Convention in the opera- 
tion of the canal. In conjunction with this 
declaration, Egypt accepted the compulsory 
jurisdiction of the International Court of 
Justice vis-a-vis the other parties to the Con- 
stantinople Convention. These included some 
principal maritime nations. But during the 10 
years from 1957 to 1967 there was never any 
litigation at The Hague to determine the law- 
fulness of Egypt's continued assertion that it 
could exclude Israeli vessels and cargoes from 
the Suez Canal. Nor did Israel during that 10- 
year period explore the possibility of acceding 
to the Constantinople Convention so as to place 
itself in a position to litigate the question of 
canal transit in its own right. 

As of the present time, the United Nations 
special representative designated under the 
Security Council resolution of November 22, 
Ambassador Gunnar Jarring, is working on 
arrangements to bring about some substantive 
discussion by Israel and the Arab states of the 
terms of a Near Eastern settlement. It is slow 
going. But the effort must be pursued if peace is 
one day to be brought to the area. A settlement 

* For background and text of Security Council 
Resolution 242 (1967), see ibid.. Dee. 18, 19G7, p. 834. 

• For text of the convention, see ilicl., Oct. 22, 1956, 
p. 617. 

' For text of the resolution adopted on Sept. 1, 1951, 
see ibid., Sept. 17, 1951. p. 479. 

' For text, see ibid.. May 13, 1957, p. 776. 

APRIL 8, 1968 


wUl have to provide some solution to, or some 
means of resolving, the legal questions, among 
others, that have divided the parties for many 

Seizure of the U.S.S. Pueblo 

I turn now to the case of the U.S.S. Pueblo, 
which was seized by North Korea on January 23 
of this year. This case presents a number of 
questions of international law. There is first the 
question of the breadth of the territorial sea. 

Then there is the question of where the Pueblo 
was when it was seized by North Korean naval 
units. The Pueblo was under firm instructions to 
remain at least 13 miles from the North Korean 
coast. At the time of seizure the Pueblo itself 
radioed that its position was at a point more 
than 15 miles from the nearest North Korean is- 
land. This location was confirmed by another 
report sent at the same time by a North Korean 
submarine chaser and monitored so that we have 
been able to know what it was that this latter 
vessel reported to its own headquarters. North 
Korea, however, has asserted that the Pueblo, 
at the time of seizure, was only 7.6 miles from 
the nearest North Korean territory. It supports 
this assertion with three kinds of alleged evi- 
dence : first, purported confessions by members 
of the Pwe&Zo's crew; second, purported navi- 
gational plots made on the Pueblo; and third, 
purported entries in the Pueblo^s log. It is, of 
course, not possible to reach any conclusions 
about these asserted items of evidence without 
being able to examine the originals and to have 
the freely given testimony of the PuebWs 
crew. On the basis of experience, we have a very 
plain and realistic understanding of the in- 
communicado conditions under which any al- 
leged confessions must have been obtained. 

There are still further legal issues. No mat- 
ter where the Pueblo was. North Korea was not 
entitled to make a forcible seizure. Article 8 of 
the 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas ' 
states categorically that "Warships on the high 
seas have complete immunity from the jurisdic- 
tion of any State other than the flag State." 
Even if the Pueblo were within North Korea's 
territorial sea, there was still no right to seize 
the Pueblo. 

The international law rules for the treatment 
of vessels within the territorial sea are set forth 
quite clearly in the 1958 Geneva convention on 

' For text, see Hid,., June 30, 1958, p. 1115. 

this subject. After a series of articles limiting 
the right of the coastal state to exercise jurisdic- 
tion over merchant ships and government ships 
other than warships within the territorial sea, 
the convention contains the following single 
article on the treatment to be accorded by the 
coastal state to a warship in the territorial sea : 

If any warship does not comply with the regulations 
of the coastal State concerning passage through the 
territorial sea and disregards any request for com- 
pliance which is made to it, the coastal State may re- 
quire the warship to leave the territorial sea. 

This is article 23. No right is provided, as m 
the case of merchant ships or certain govern- 
ment ships other than warships, to stop or forci- 
bly board a vessel of war, to arrest any persons 
on it, or to take any legal action against the ves- 
sel itself. The rule of article 23 concerning war- 
ships is a wise rule designed to protect the legit- 
imate interests of the coastal state and the state 
of the vessel's registry and to avoid armed con- 
flict—a possibility that would obviously exist m 
the case of war vessels. 

Other legal issues are also conceivable in the 
case of the Pueblo, although most of them would 
not bear on the question of lawfulness of the 
seizure : for example, claims to historic waters, 
assertions possibly based on the doctrine of hot 
pursuit, and charges that the mission of the 
Pueblo was illegal or constituted a hostile act. 
On the score of this last point, it is worth recall- 
ing that the Soviet Union operates a substantial 
number of intelligence-collection vessels all 
around the world. On occasion, these have ap- 
proached withm less than 3 miles of the coast 
of the United States. In each instance where this 
occurred, the United States authorities acted in 
strict accordance with international law and re- 
quired the vessel m question to leave the terri- 
torial sea, without taking any action against it. 

Again, in the case of the Pueblo there has been 
a United Nations phase. The United States took 
the matter to the Security Council and invoked 
the processes of that body.* We presented our 
case to public scrutiny in the f orirai of the Coun- 

The Council has taken no action. This out- 
come is obviously connected with the fact that 
North Korea is not a member of the United 
Nations, rejected its jurisdiction, and instead 
proposed bilateral discussion in the Military 
Armistice Commission under the Korean Armi- 
stice Agreement. 

' For background, see iUd., Feb. 12, 1968, p. 193. 



More than a month has now gone by since the 
seizure of the Pueblo. The United States Gov- 
ernment has with great forbearance continued a 
series of discussions on the Pueblo with North 
Korean representatives. We are continuing to 
press for release of the crew and the vessel. In 
a better ordered world, the various legal issues 
could all be placed before an international tri- 
bunal for decision. 

Basic Common Interests 

One must ask why it is that nations and gov- 
ernmental authorities are often loath to resort 
to objectively fair means of peaceful settlement 
and instead are often ready to resort to the use 
of armed force. This phenomenon is sympto- 
matic of nationalistic psychologies which re- 
main a very powerful force in the world. One 
can see the passion and hatred that inflame the 
attitudes and have lain behind the actions of 
countries in the Near East. And it is evident 
that an isolated and fanatical regime such as 
that of Xorth Korea is pathologically suspicious 
of authorities and institutions outside its own 

Changes are underway in parts of the Com- 
munist world. There is ground for encourage- 
ment in the assertions by Eastern European 
countries of greater national independence and 
a more open society. In areas where it has been 
possible to identify interests in common between 
the United States and the Soviet Union, prog- 
ress has been made. We have seen hopeful signs 
of this in arms control and in outer space co- 
operation. United Nations progress toward a 
Near East settlement has required the coopera- 
tion of the Soviet Union with other countries in 
bringing about the adoption of the Security 
Council's resolution of last November 22. 

It is evident that there is a much longer road 
to travel in creating rational relationships be- 
tween Communist regimes in Asia and other 

members of the world community. We have 
seen in the Soviet Union the gradual creation of 
a stake in order and in human well-being. A 
comparable development has yet to take place 
in the Communist areas of the Far East. 

The need for evolution in attitudes and actions 
is by no means geographically confined. We in 
the United States have reason to look at some 
of our own. As members of this association are 
certainly aware, the United States maintains 
even today the self -judging Connally reserva- 
tion to our acceptance of the World Court's 
jurisdiction. I hope that we, for our part, can 
move forward and cast off such vestiges of 
parochial outlook. 

Conditions in the contemporary world put 
pressure on governments to acknowledge that 
they share common interests superior to the 
immediate claims of individual nationalisms. 
These common interests are basic — in human 
survival, in the betterment of man's lot. We can 
hope that governments will quicken their per- 
ception of them and frame their actions accord- 
ingly while there is still time. 

U.S. Welcomes Plan for Referendum 
on New Greek Constitution 

Department Statement ^ 

We welcome the announcement by the Greek 
Government today that September 1 has been 
set as a fixed date for holding a referendum on 
the new constitution. And further, we are 
pleased to note that comments by the Greek peo- 
ple and the press on the draft of this constitu- 
tion are being encouraged. 

* Read to news correspondents by the Department 
spokesman on Mar. 15. 

APRIL 8, 1968 


Prime Minister of Somali Republic Meets With President Johnson 

Mohamed lirahim Egal, Prime Minister of 
the Somali Republic, visited the United States 
A/arch 13-21. Lie met with President Johnson 
and other U.S. officials at Washington March 
111. and 15. Following is an exchange of greet- 
ings between President Johnson and Prime Min- 
ister Egal at a welcoming ceremony on the 
South Lawn of the White House on March ll/., 
together with their exchange of toasts at a din- 
ner at the White House that evening. 


White House press release dated March 14 

President Johnson 

Mr. Prime Minister, it is a very special pleas- 
ure this morning to welcome you and Mrs. 
Egal to our nation's Capital. 

Vice President Ilumplirey has told me of the 
warm reception that he received on liis visit to 
your country. He speaks often of the friendli- 
ness of your people and the warm hospitality 
he received from you and your President. 

The people of America, Mr. Prime Minister, 
are delighted to have this opportunity to return 
your friendship. We have watciied witii interest 
and admiration the development of the Somali 
Republic in the last 8 years. We know that you 
have succeeded in building one of the most ef- 
fective democratic governments in all of Africa. 
We are aware of your noble efforts to bury 
ancient antagonisms and to get on with the work 
of peace. 

I understand, Mr. Prime Minister, that this 
is your first visit to the United States. You will 
find many differences between our countries. 
But you will also find much that is the same. 

Like you, we value the dignity and the free- 
dom of the individual. 

Like you, we are striving to perfect our demo- 
cratic institutions, to provide better homes, bet- 
ter medical care, and better schools for all of 
our people. 

Like you, we are working with all of our 
hearts and our minds to secure a just peace. 

We are deeply proud that we have been able 
to offer a measure of help to your people in your 
own efl'orts to achieve these common goals. 

I had hoped that we might welcome you this 
morning in the warm glow of a Washington 
spring. But Mother Nature has seen fit to give 
us instead just a parting taste of winter. But 
I know that you will find that our friendship 
for you and for your people flourishes in every 

Mr. Prime Minister, we bid you and your 
lovely lady the warmest of our welcomes. 

Prime Minister Egal 

On behalf of the Somali delegation, my wife, 
and myself, I would like to thank you very 
much for your very kind words of welcome. 

Both my Government and my people were 
greatly honored by the kind invitation you have 
extended to me to visit the United States. 

Even though my people are geographically 
remote from the shores of the United States, 
yet they know and feel that they share witli the 
people of this great country the irresistible 
bonds of similar institutions of government, 
mutual belief in democratic rule, and a com- 
mitment to preserve the dignity of man and his 
supremacy over all institutions of government. 

Our country, Mr. President, is as large as your 
State of Texas, as big as Portugal and Spain to- 
gether. Even though remote in distance by the 
standards of a bygone age, it has been brought 
closer to your nation by the modern advance- 
ment of technological development. 

We are close to others, also, in the family of 
nations, because geographically we are a cross- 
roads of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Our 
coastline on the Indian Ocean, as well as in the 
Gulf of Aden, is as long as yours in the Pacific. 

We thus overlook the sea line to more than 
half the world. 

During my visit, Mr. President, I shall try to 
learn from your great country examples of 
democratic rule to take back with me to enrich 
and further develop our own institutions. 

At the same time, I feel that I shall have 



ample opportunity for making comparisons be- 
tween our own institutions and yours, because, 
Mr. President, even while Europe was being 
ruled by the arbitrary decree of tlie elects of 
God, we in Somalia were practicing a very ad- 
vanced pastoral democracy. 

After independence, we naturally had to 
adapt the structure of our institutions to serve 
a modern independent sovereign state. But the 
essence of democracy, the belief in the principle, 
and most important of all, the will to work the 
institutions of democracy were all there all 
along, since time immemorial and since the be- 
ginning of our nation. 

I feel, Mr. President, that in this form of 
government and witji its preoccupation with the 
liberties of the individual, it has within itself 
the seeds for the ultimate success of the human 

For that, we are proud to acknowledge with 
you, Mr. President, and with all those who prac- 
tice it, a bond of brotherhood and a common goal 
for our endeavors. 

Mr. President, I should once again like to 
thank jou for your kind invitation and for 
your kmd words of welcome. 

I hope that my short stay in the United States 
will contribute to a closer cooperation between 
our people and our countries. 

Tlianls you. 

]Mr. Prime Minister, you have practiced the 
wisdom of that proverb. 

Your words have always served the cause of 
peace. You have stayed the arrows of conflict 
which threatened to bring bloodshed to the Horn 
of Africa. And you have lost no time, and you 
have neglected no opportunity, in the search 
for true progress for all of your people. 

You come to us, Mr. Prime Minister, from a 
new Africa where change is as certain as the 
sunrise. You are one of those who have deter- 
mined that change shall always mean promise to 
your peo|)Ie. 

You have helped to found a true democracy 
where each man has a voice in his nation's fu- 
ture. You have done much to lessen the tensions 
that threatened East Afi-ica with the waste of 
war. And you have begun the long, hard job of 
economic development to bring your people the 
food and shelter and education that all men 
seek and that all men deserve. 

Mr. Prime Minister, we here in the United 
States are inspired by your courage. We admire 
your perseverance. And most of all we are de- 
lighted by your presence here this evening. 

Ladies and gentlemen, I invite you to join me 
now in a toast to a wise leader and his people: 
To the President and to the people of the Somali 
Republic — and to Prime Minister and Mrs. 
Egal, his charming lady. 


White HoDse press release dated March 14 
President Johnson 

Webster defines "egalitarian" as one who be- 
lieves in equal opportunity for all men. 

It is not usually the function of the President 
to expand on Webster. 

But I think we can add to Mr. Webster's 

We are all egalitarians tonight, not only in 
our belief in the equality of man but in our ad- 
miration of a man for whom that philosophy 
might have been named. No statesman is strug- 
gling harder today to realize the dream of 
democracy for his own people than the man that 
we honor tonight. Prime Minister Egal. 

After our talk this afternoon, Mr. Prime Min- 
ister, a friend told me of an old Muslim saying 
that I am sure you know. It says : "There are 
four things which can never be retrieved — the 
spoken word, the sped arrow, time past, and 
the neglected opportunity." 

Prime Minister Egal 

When I came to the United States, naturally, 
as the Prime Minister, I came to talk to the Gov- 
ernment of the United States as a man. I came 
to take a closer look at the man who holds the 
final decision on so many things and, in fact, on 
so many things that affect our lives wherever we 
are in this globe of ours that is getting smaller 
and smaller. 

Having seen your President, Mr. Johnson, I 
feel I am going back with a comfortable feeling 
and I will feel happy and can sleep nights in 
the comfort and knowledge that that power is in 
the right hands. 

Mr. President, I feel humbled by the glowing 
tribute you have paid to me and my colleagues 
for the little we have done for the Horn of 

We have indeed tried our best to bring about 
peace between our people — our people in Somali, 
our people in Kenya, our people in Ethiopia — 
in the concept of the OAU [Organization of 
African Unity] and the ideals of Pan-African- 
ism. We feel that they are all our people. We 

APRIL 8. 1968 


owe a duty to them all and it is our duty to look 
after the prosperity of all. 

I do not feel, Mr. President, that what we 
have done is at all worthy of so much praise. 
In fact, your praise and the tribute you have 
paid to us will only inspire us more — to do more 
service to those people who, God knows, need 
more help. 

Mr. President, the greatest problems of 
Africa today are not politics. It is as though it 
is not the objective of Africa to fight each other 
but have intelligent attitudes of confrontation. 

We have greater frontiers, better frontiers, 
frontiers of economic development, to fight 
against poverty, against ignorance, and against 
the evils which we wish to leave behind. 

These, Mr. President, are targets which have 
to be met by ourselves. These are targets for 
which we need the assistance of friends like the 
United States. 

We are going to leave wars, confrontations, 
bickering and rivalry and jealousy behind. 
Your tribute and your example and your want 
for others will be a constant inspiration for us 
along that road. 

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, will you 
rise with me to drink to the health of the Presi- 
dent of the United States and the friendship 
between Somalia and the United States of 

U.S. and Iran Sign Agreement 
on Joint Water Resources Study 

Press release 52 dated March 19 

Following is a statement issued at Tehran, 
Iran, on March 19. 

An agreement for studies leading to increased 
development of the water resources of Iran was 
signed Tuesday, March 19, by the Governments 
of Iran and the United States represented by 
Water and Power Minister Eouhani and Am- 
bassador Armin Meyer, in Tehran. 

An earlier announcement that Iran and the 
United States would cooperate in a joint study 
of water resources was issued following the 
talks between His Imperial Majesty the Shah 
and President Johnson last August in Washing- 

The agreement calls for a joint Iranian- 

American study of the water resources in cer- 
tain areas of Iran. Its goal is to recommend 
ways for increasing Iran's water supply for 
agricultural, industrial, and domestic use. 

The initial step of the 2-year agreement wUl 
be the coming to Iran in the near future of an 
American water resources team. The team of 
experts, representing the U.S. Department of 
the Interior, will work with an Iranian team 
from the Ministry of Water and Power in the 
joint study. 

The study wUl investigate various water re- 
source techniques, including desalting, cloud 
seeding, and the prevention of the salinization 
of existing sweet water. The study will also in- 
clude electric power possibilities from the use 
of dual purpose water desalinization-electric 
power generating plants. 

Elimination of Visas Proposed 
for Certain Short-Term Visitors 

Following is the text of a letter sent hy Presi- 
dent Johnson to John W. McCormack, Sfeaker 
of the House of Representatives, on February 
23. An identical letter was sent to Hubert H. 
Humphrey, President of the Senate. 

White House press release (Austin, Tex.) dated February 23 

Dear Mr. Speaker: I ask the Congress to 
eliminate unnecessary and cumbersome barriers 
which inhibit foreign visitors and businessmen 
from traveling to the United States. 

Over a half century ago we began to require 
each foreign visitor to obtain a visa from an 
American Consul abroad. 

This process of pre-screening obliges every 
visitor — other than a national of Canada or 
Mexico — to establish to the satisfaction of the 
Consul : 

— that he is not ineligible for a visa imder 
some 25 specified grounds of eligibility ; 

— that he has a residence abroad to which he 
intends to return ; 

— that he will not accept employment wliile in 
the United States. 

Those requirements have been rendered ob- 
solete by a major increase in tourism from 
abroad, by a revolutionary reduction in travel 
time, and by the fact that 35 other nations re- 
quire no visas from American tourists. 



This system clearly must be reformed. 

Last Monday, I received a report from my 
special Ladustry-Government Commission on 
Travel.' The report outlined a broad program 
f o increase tourism to the United States, improv- 
ing our balance of payments and promoting 
international understanding. 

"Witli regard to these entry requirements, the 
Commission stated : 

Present entry procedures for vacation and business 
visitors to the United States are outmoded. They serve 
only to project an adverse image of this nation's will- 
ingness to receive foreign guests. 

By imposing time-consuming entry require- 
ments, we discourage tourism to the United 
States at a time when we are acutely concerned 
with our balance of payments. 

By imposing stringent requirements, we ap- 
pear to a foreign visitor to be greeting him 
grudgingly rather than graciously. 

By imposing complicated requirements, we 
add an unnecessary and increasingly expensive 
workload to our consulate staffs abroad. 

I believe the time has come to stop imposing 
these imnecessary requirements on our visitors. 
To accomplish this, I propose the Non-immi- 
grant Visa Act of 1968. 

This Act would authorize the Secretary of 
State and the Attorney General to issue regula- 
tions exempting visitors to the United States 
for 90 days or less from the visa requirement 
and from all but the most serious gromids of 

Under the Act : 

— The Secretary of State would designate the 
countries whose citizens would be entitled to this 
privilege. Initiallj', this would be done on the 
basis of reciprocity. 

— Foreign nationals who have been convicted 
of serious crimes, or narcotics traffickers, will 
still be barred. 

— Entering aliens will continue to be ex- 
amined by immigration and naturalization serv- 
ice officers at points of entry. 

This will afford full protection to our in- 
ternal security. 

— Persons entering under these conditions 
will be required to have a valid passport, and a 
non-refundable round-trip ticket. They will not 
be allowed to alter their status as a visitor wliile 
they are in this country. 

' For background, see Bdlletin of Mar. 18, 1968, p. 

This new Act will improve our foreign rela- 
tions and promote a better understanding of 
America throughout the world. 

It will improve our balance of payments and 
strengthen the dollar. 

It will allow us to treat travelers from abroad 
more efficiently and more hospitably. 

With the cooperation of private industry, 
the government is seeking now ways to attract 
more visitors to our shores in 1968. This new 
Act can be a vital part of that effort. 

The Secretary of State will shortly send to 
the Congress further recommendations to im- 
prove our non-immigrant visa laws. 

I consider the proposals in this letter to be 
of urgent concern. I ask the Congi'ess to give 
them prompt and favorable consideration. 

Lyndon B. Johnson 

Congressional Documents 
Relating to Foreign Policy 

90th Congress, 2d Session 

Sixth Annual Report of the Federal Maritime Commis- 
sion, Fi.scal Year 1967. H. Doc. 221. 50 pp. 

U.S. Aeronautical and Space Activities, 1967. Message 
from the President transmitting a report of the Na- 
tional Aeronautics and Space Council. H. Doc. 246. 
January 30, 1968. 145 pp. 

Foreign Aid Program, 1969. Jlessage from the Presi- 
dent. H. Doc. 251. February 8, 1968. 11 pp. 

Fifth ^Vnnual Report of the U.S. Advisory Commission 
on International Educational and Cultural Affairs. 
U. Doc. 2.52. February 8, 1908. 56 pp. 

Removal of Gold Reserve Requirements. Reixjrt of the 
Senate Committee on Banking and Currency to ac- 
company S. 2857, together with minority and in- 
dividual views. S. Rept. 1007. February 28, 1968. 
19 pp. 

To Amend the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, As 
Amended. Report of the House Committee on Foreign 
Affairs, together with supplemental and additional 
views, on H.R. 14940. H. Rept. 1140. February 28, 
19ftS. 17 pp. 

Land Reform in Vietnam. Report by the House Com- 
mittee on Government Operations. H. Rept. 1142. 
March 5, 1908. 28 pp. 

Excessive Programing and Procurement of Sweetened 
Condensed Milk for Vietnam. Report by the House 
Committee on Government Operations. H. Rept. 114.3. 
March 5, 1968. 9 pp. 

Providing for Increased Participation by the United 
States in the Inter-American Development Bank. Re- 
port to accompany H.R. 15364. H. Rept. 1145. March 
5. 1968. 9 pp. 

APRIL 8. 19 68 



Security Council Censures South Africa 
for Defiance of U.N. Authority 

Following are statements made in the U.N. 
Security Council on February 16 and March H 
hy U.S. Representative Arthur J. Goldberg., 
together with the text of a resolution adopted 
hy the Council on March H. 


D.S./U.N. press release 21 

We meet here today to consider the question 
of 33 South West Africans convicted, as one of 
them said, in a foreign land, in a foreign lan- 
guage, by the court of a foreign government, 
on charges which must also be described as for- 

The defendants have lived and been brought 
to trial under laws effectively denying them the 
elementary hiunan rights which they were seek- 
ing. Heavy sentences have been imposed upon 
30 of them convicted under the Terrorism Act. 
They had already, before trial, suffered thou- 
sands of hours in solitary confinement without 
contact with their families and without access 
to counsel. These 30 now face the bleak prospect 
of imprisonment ranging up to life in South 
African prisons. Those who pleaded guilty 
imder the Suppression of Communism Act live 
under the shadow of 5-year suspended sentences. 

Nor is that all. Although those already con- 
victed have escaped the death penalty. Judge 
[Joseph F.] Ludorf has issued a public warn- 
ing "that in the future our courts will not nec- 
essarily hesitate to inflict the death sentence." 
It is obvious that the sentences already imposed, 
and the judge's warning, all serve the purpose 
of South Africa to deter South West Africans 
from midertaking peaceful political action in 
order to participate in the government of their 
own affairs. It is also obvious that the South 
African authorities are hoping by police-state 

measures, exemplified by the Terrorism Act of 
1967, to neutralize political opposition from 
such organizations as the South West Africa 
People's Organization so that the South African 
Government may proceed unhindered in South 
West Africa with its policy of apartheid and 
with its strategy of divide and rule. 

Mr. President, the United States has made 
its view clear with respect to these trials. It is a 
view which we share with the international 
community, including jurists and lawyers of 
high repute throughout the world. We believe 
that South Africa's action in applying its own 
Terrorism Act to South West Africa — an in- 
ternational territory over which South Africa's 
mandate has been terminated by its own viola- 
tions — is contrary to the international obliga- 
tions of the Government of South Africa, to the 
international status of the territory, to interna- 
tional law, and to the fimdamental rights of the 

Obviously, the most recent developments give 
us no grounds to change this view or to diminish 
our concern. We still maintain our stated posi- 
tion that the defendants, and any other South 
West Africans held under the Terrorism Act, 
should be released and repatriated without 

Through its actions and statements, Soutli 
Africa has cloaked itself in a mantle of seem- 
ing legality. But, Mr. President, is this mantle 
really one of legality — and to go one step fur- 
ther, of international responsibility ? It is not. 
The legal justification for its actions is spurious. 
Not only do these actions nm contrary to actions 
by the political organs of the United Nations; 
the International Court of Justice has also made 
clear the international responsibility of South 
Africa with respect to the territory. This re- 
sponsibility is such that even when South Africa 
administered South West Africa under the 



mandate, its authority was conditioned by cer- 
tain obligations, including the clear obligation 
to look to the welfare of the inhabitants. Surely 
by applying its apartheid laws in the territory' it 
did not honor but rather breached this obliga- 
tion. Xow that the mandate is at an end, it can- 
not invoke even such a conditional authority. 

Another legal flaw appears in the ex post fax;to 
provision of the Terrorism Act, a provision 
which was invoked against the defendants. This 
provision troubled the court itself, to the point 
where the judge specifically cited the retroactive 
etl'ect of the law as reason for not imposing the 
death penalty. However, having shown judicial 
concern on this point, the judge then sought to 
justify severe prison sentences by taking into 
account conmaon law crimes which he considered 
might have been committed. This was done 
despite the fact that the defendants had neither 
been charged nor prosecuted for common law 
crimes and hence had no opportunity to defend 
themselves on such charges or to avail them- 
selves of the important ordinary legal safe- 
guards appropriate to such defense. 

A further cause for concern appears in re- 
ports in the South African press of charges, 
supported by sworn affidavits, that several 
South West Africans have been subjected to 
brutal and inhuman treatment by the South 
African police during detention. 

One would have hoped, Mr. President, that 
these charges, bearing as they do on the treat- 
ment accorded to persons on trial for their lives, 
would be fully aired before the conclusion of the 
trial. Instead, despite the strenuous objections of 
the applicants' counsel, the hearing on these 
affidavits was postponed until after the trial and 
sentencing were concluded. 

In siun, Mr. President, having been tried in 
a foreign court under an invalid law, the de- 
fendants were in effect sentenced upon charges 
other than those for which they had been prose- 
cuted — and without some of the most important 
safeguards normally available to the defense. 

Against tliis background of injustice, my 
Government views with serious concern recent 
reports in the South African press that other 
alleged terrorists have been arrested under this 
same Terrorism Act and are being lield by the 
police. The alleged coconspirators listed in the 
proceedings of the recent trial numbered 81. In 
view of Judge Ludorf's reference to future 
trials, we cannot with equanimity ignore this 

Now, Mr. President, I come to the question of 

what further action can and should be taken. 
Already this Council, in Resolution 245,^ unani- 
mously condemned South Africa's actions in 
this matter. Now we face the difficult problem 
of how best to bring practical relief to those 
South West Africans who have been sentenced 
and any others who may be detained and 

My Government has given careful thought to 
this matter, and today we would like to make 
some suggestions for the consideration of the 
Security Council. We have no doubt that sug- 
gestions will likewise be made by other members 
m the course of this debate, and they will receive 
the earnest attention of my delegation. 

Our suggestions are these : 

First, the United Nations through its appro- 
priate organs, and individual members of the 
United Nations, should continue and increase 
their efforts to persuade the South African Gov- 
ernment of the wrongness of its actions and to 
secure the release and repatriation of those 
South West Africans who are wrongfully de- 
tained in South Africa. My own Govermnent, 
pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 2324 ^ 
and Security Council Resolution 245, has made 
clear its position directly to the Government of 
South Africa and will continue to do so. 

Second, it is important to divest the South 
African Government of the cloak of legality 
which it has put on to cover up its invalid 
actions. Several distinguished representatives, 
including those of Finland, Sweden, and Yugo- 
slavia, have suggested recourse in this matter to 
the International Court of Justice. In the view 
of my delegation this suggestion is worthy of 
exploration by the members of the Council. 

Third, earlier this week it was suggested in 
the Human Rights Conmiission that a special 
representative of the Secretary-General might 
be dispatched to southern Africa to midertake 
all possible humanitarian measures to alleviate 
the unfortunate conditions now prevailing in 
the area. This suggestion was well received. 
Encouraged by the response of several members 
of the Commission, my delegation would like to 
offer it for the consideration of the Security 
Coimcil. Such a special representative could 
perform a useful service in regard to the issue 
we now face. 

' For a U.S. statoinent and text of the resolution, 
see BuLLETi:^ of Feb. 19. 19G8, p. 2.53. 

' For a U.S. statement and text of the resolution, see 
ma., Jan. 15, 196S, p. 92. 

APPJL 8. 1968 


Fourth, every effort should be made to assure 
humane treatment of those South West 
Africans detained by South Africa. All gov- 
ernments, including the Government of South 
Africa, which is a Jiarty to the Geneva conven- 
tions of 1949, should recognize the special im- 
partial and humanitarian role of the Red Cross. 
Indeed, South Africa has recently twice availed 
itself of Red Cross assistance in connection with 
its prisons. I suggest that it would be wholly 
appropriate to request that the International 
Conunittee of the Red Cross be invited by the 
South African Government to have full, con- 
tinuing, and unimpeded access to each South 
West African who has at any time been detained 
under the Teriorism Act of 1967. We believe 
this step should be taken concurrently with the 
efforts to obtain the release and repatriation 
of those South West Africans who are wrong- 
fully detained. 

Mr. President, I recently read with interest 
in an official publication of the Government of 
South Africa, South African Panorama, an 
article about the appellate division of the Su- 
preme Court, entitled "Symbol of Legal 
Majesty." This article says: "South Africa's 
legal system is designed to secure justice for 

History will judge whether this claim can be 
sustained. But we have a legal aphorism in my 
country which I think is pertinent now: 
"Justice delayed is justice denied." 

It is time for all who believe in the rule of law 
to call upon South Africa to secure justice for 
those who have been detained under this invalid 
law — and without further delay. 


U.S./U-N. press release 41 

"Wlien the Security Council first became seized 
with the problem of the 33 South West Africans 
illegally arrested and tried at Pretoria, the 
United States delegation clearly stated its posi- 
tion ; and we adhere to this position. The defend- 
ants were tried and convicted in a foreign court, 
under an invalid law, on charges other than 
those for which they had been prosecuted, and 
without essential safeguards which are nor- 
mally available to the defense by any conception 
of due process of law. 

This action is contrary to the international 
obligation of the Government of South Africa 

with respect to South West Africa, a territory 
enjoying international status. This action war- 
rants the censure which the Council has imposed 
on South Africa and the other actions taken in 
the resolution we have just unanimously voted. 

My delegation throughout the public and pri- 
vate discussions which have taken place has 
stressed the need, if we are to be effective, for 
maintaining the unity of purpose and intent 
that existed when Resolution 2324 was adopted 
by the General Assembly and again when Re- 
solution 245 was adopted by this Council. That 
unanimity has been achieved and maintained in 
this resolution, which we fully support. 

My delegation wishes to express its apprecia- 
tion to the sponsors for the spirit of conciliation 
which thej' liave manifested in the intensive con- 
sultations that have taken place in the interest 
of maintaining the unity of the Council. And 
my delegation particularly wishes to thank you, 
Mr. President, for your patience, courtesy, and 
skill in conducting the consultations. Your 
actions and leadership have largely been respon- 
sible for the unanimous action we have taken. 

In the spirit of compromise the sponsors have 
agreed to changes in the text of their draft res- 
olution,' to which they have been strongly com- 
mitted, to assure unanimous agreement. And one 
of these changes is the omission of reference to 
article 25 of the charter contained in their draft, 
which we would have regarded as inappropriate 
for a chajiter VI resolution. 

Particularly helpful to our common agree- 
ment was the assurance of the sponsors, made 
through the very fine statement by Ambassador 
Shahi [Agha Shahi, representative of Paki- 
stan] on their behalf at the very outset, that 
their prior resolution, and a fortiori tliis draft, 
falls within chajiter VI and that there is neither 
commitment to nor exclusion of any particular 
charter approach in any necessary future con- 
sideration by this Council of this matter. 

This resohition enjoys the unanimous sup- 
port of the Security Council, and this is a fact 
which should be borne in mind by the Govern- 
ment of South Africa. It is an expression of the 
firm will and intent of the international com- 
munity on an issue of international responsibil- 
ity. It should and must be heeded. 

We on our part, the United States, shall con- 
tinue vigorously to press the South African 
Government to release and repatriate the South 

'U.N. doe. S/8429. 



West Africans who have been illegally tried 
and imprisoned. 

■\Ve have already made our views forcibly 
known to the Government of South Africa on 
the law and justice of this case, and we shall per- 
sist in using our influence toward the achieve- 
ment of the objective set b}' the Council. It is 
by actions taken together as we have done today 
in pursuance of our common objective, and not 
by imwarranted invective directed at fellow- 
members of the Council, that we can best achieve 
our common goal. 


The Security Council, 

Recalling its resolution 245 (1968) of 25 January 
1968, by which it unanimously condemned the refusal 
of the Government of South Africa to comiily with the 
provisions of General Assembly resolution 2324 (XXII) 
of 16 December 1967 and further called upon it to 
discontinue forthwith the illegal trial and to release 
and repatriate the South West Africans concerned, 

Talcinr; into account General Assembly resolution 
2145 (XXI) of 27 October 19G6 by which the General 
Assembly of the United Nations terminated the Man- 
date of South Africa over South West Africa and as- 
sumed direct responsibility for the Territory until its 

Reaffirming the inalienable right of the people and 
Territory of South West Africa to freedom and inde- 
pendence in accordance with the Charter of the United 
Nations and with the provisions of General Assembly 
resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, 

Mindful that Member States shall fulfil all their 
obligations as set forth in the Charter, 

Distressed that the Government of South Africa 
has failed to comply with Security Council resolution 
245 (1908), 

Taking into account the memorandum of the United 
Nations Council for South West Africa of 25 January 
1968 on the illegal detention and trial of the South 
West Africans concerned as also the letter of 10 
February 1968 from the President of the United 
Nations Council for South West Africa, 

Reaffirming that the continued detention and trial 
and subsequent sentencing of the South West Africans 
constitute an illegal act and a flagrant violation of the 
, rights of the South West Africans concerned, the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of the 
international status of the Territory now under direct 
United Nations responsibility. 

Cognizant of its special responsibility towards the 
people and the Territory of South AVest Africa, 

1. Censures the Government of South Africa for its 
flagrant defiance of Security Council resolution 245 
(1968) as well as of the authority of the United Nations 
of which South Africa is a Member ; 

2. Demands that the Government of South Africa 

forthwith release and repatriate the South West 
Africans concerned ; 

3. Calls upon Members of the United Nations to co- 
operate with the Security Council, in pursuance of 
their obligations under the Charter, in order to obtain 
compliance by the Government of South Africa with 
the provisions of the present resolution ; 

4. Urges Member States who are in a position to con- 
tribute to the implementation of the present resolution 
to assist the Security Council in order to obtain com- 
pliance by the Government of South Africa with the 
provisions of the present resolution : 

5. Decides that in the event of failure on the part of 
the Government of South Africa to comply with the 
provisions of the present resolution, the Security 
Council will meet immediately to determine upon 
effective steps or measures in conformity with the 
relevant provisions of the Charter of the United 
Nations ; 

6. Requests the Secretary-General to follow closely 
the implementation of the present resolution and to 
report thereon to the Security Council not later than 
31 March 1968; 

7. Decides to remain actively seized of the matter. 

* U.N. doc. S/RES/246 (1968) ; adopted unanimously 
]by the Security Council on Mar. 14. 

U.S. and Canada Approve Procedures 
on Temporary Cross-Border Movement 

Following are the texts of notes exchanged on 
March 13 between Secretary Rusk and Cana- 
dian Ambassador A. E. Ritchie, constituting 
approval hij the United States and Canada of 
the recommendation of the Permanent Joint 
Board on Defense on principles and procedures 
for temporary cross-border movement of land 


The Secretary of State presents his compli- 
ments to His Excellency the Ambassador of 
Canada and has the honor to acknowledge the 
receipt of his note No. 87 of March 13, 1968, 
stating that the Govermnent of Canada has re- 
viewed the Recommendation of the Permanent 
Joint Board on Defense, Canada-United States, 
on the principles and procedures for temporary 
cross-border movement of land forces between 
Canada and the United States. The Ambassador 

APRIL 8. 196S 


enclosed a copy of the text of tlie Recommenda- 
tion as apijroved by the Government of Canada, 
The Secretary of State is pleased to inform 
the Ambassador that the Government of the 
United States has reviewed the Recommenda- 
tion and has approved the text as transmitted 
by the Ambassador's note. 

Department of State, 
Washington, March 13, 1968. 


No. 87 

The Ambassador of Canada presents his compliments 
to the Secretary of State of the United States of Amer- 
ica and has tlie honour to refer to discussions of the 
Canada/USA Permanent Joint Board on Defence held 
at Kingston. Ontario, October 3-7, 1066. The Board at 
that time submitted to the Governments of Canada and 
the United States of America a Recommendation on 
principles and procedures for temporary cross-border 
movement of land forces between Canada and the 
United States. 

The Canadian Ambassador has the honour to inform 
the Secretary of State that the Government of Canada 
has now reviewed this Recommendation and has ap- 
proved it. The text of the Recommendation as approved 
l)y the Government of Canada is attached. 

The Canadian Ambassador avails himself of the 
opportunity to assure the Secretary of State of his 
highest consideration. 

Washington, D.C. 
March 13, 196S 


Recommended Peinciples and Procedubes for Tem- 
porary Cross-Bobder Movement of Land Forces 
Between Canada and the United States 

1. In the interests of the security of the north half 
of the Western Hemisphere, Canada and the United 
States should establish principles and procedures to 
ensure that land forces, with their material, of either 
country engaged in matters of concern to mutual de- 
fense should be able to move temporarily into or 
through the territory of the otlier country with a mini- 
mum of formality and delay. To achieve this purpose 
the following principles should apply : 

a. Movements of ceremonial nature having political 
implications should first be formally cleared through 
the diplomatic channel ; detailed arrangements should 
then be completed through military channels ; 

b. Movements connected with, or anticipating, pos- 
sible major new military programmes, such as engi- 
neering surveys for the establishment or enlargement 

of defense Installations, should first be formally cleared 
through the diplomatic channel ; detailed arrangements 
should then be completed through military channels; 

c. Movements in conjunction with small scale train- 
ing exercises, courtesy visits, movements of individuals, 
and movements for the puriwse of tests and trials 
should require informal clearance through military 
channels only ; 

d. Operational movements in a military emergency 
should require informal clearance through military 
channels only, provided that a Canada-United States 
.state of alert has been declared ; 

e. Operational movements to provide military sup- 
port to civil authorities in emergencies resulting from 
enemy attack, should require informal clearance 
through military channels only, following a decision 
by the receiving Government that military support of 
civil authorities is required. 

f. Combined exercises designed to rehearse emer- 
gency Basic Security Plan defense measures should 
require informal clearance through military chan- 
nels only, with prior notification to the Departments 
of State and External Affairs ; 

g. Each country should from time to time review its 
national procedures for granting permission and com- 
municating approval for the movement of land forces 
of the other country across the border. 

2. The above principles supersede any previous agree- 
ment of a general character regarding the movement 
across the Canada-United States border of land forces 
engaged in matters of concern to mutual defense. 

3. Procedures for the movement of land forces with 
their material of one country into or through the ter- 
ritory of the other country, in keeping with these prin- 
ciples, are outlined in the Annex. 


Type of Movement Initial 

and Clearance AuthoritD 


1. Ceremonial visits State Department— 

2. Surveys, construction External Affairs 
and enlargements of (Minimum 30 days 

defence installations 
. Large scale exercises 
Involving battalion 
or higher formations 
and not covered 
under Item 4 of 
Operational Move- 
ment, this Annex. 

prior notice is 


a. /nffiaZ— arranged 
by State Depart- 
ment or Depart- 
ment of External 
Affairs with early 
advice to Customs 
and Immigration 

b. Customs — advice to 
customs is to 
include assurance 
that equipment to 
be Imported is and 
will remain the 
property of the 

c. Immigration — per- 
sonnel require an 
official movement 
order and Identifl- 

d. Detailt— arranged 
ttirough military 



Typt of ilotemtnt Initial Detailed 

and Clearance AuUioritu AmngemenU 


I. Eiercises Involving 

Through military 

a. />«faW5— arranged 

less than battalion 


by military author- 

strength units. 

(MUilmum of 24 hours 

ties with local 

2. Troops In transit for 

prior notice Is 

Customs and Im- 

exercises in own 


migration ofBcials 


being advised. 

3. Personnel and ma- 

b. Customi — advice 

terial required for ad- 

to Customs is to 

ministration aud lo- 

Include an assur- 

gistic support of visit- 

ance that equip- 

ing forces. 

ment to be im- 

4. Courtesy visits. 

ported is and will 

6. Movement of indi- 

remain the pro- 


perty of the gov- 

6. Movement for test 

ernment con- 

purposes of small 


groups of personnel 

c. Immigration— 00 

and equipment of 

special arrange- 

one country: 

ments required; 

a. through the terri- 

personnel require 

tory of the other 

an official move- 

country, or, 

ment order and 

b. to a military in- 


stallation of the 

other country. 


1. Military Emergency. 

2. Military support of 
civil emergencies re- 
sulting from enemy 

3. .Military support of 
civil authorities in 
disasters other than 
those resulting from 
enemy attack as in 2, 

4. Combined eierclses 
designed to rehearse 
Basic Security Plan 
defence measures. 

Through military 
channels provided 
that a Canada- 
United States state 
of alert has been de- 

Through miUtary 
channels following 
a decision by the re- 
ceiving government 
that military sup- 
port of civil author- 
rities Is required. 

Tlirough military 
channels following a 
decision by the 
receiving goverrmient 
that military support 
of civil authorities is 

Through military 
channels with prior 
notification to Ei- 
ternal Affairs and 
State Department. 

a. 2)e(afZ»— arranged 
by appropriate 
military author- 
ities with local 
Customs and 
Immigration offi- 
cials being ad- 

b. Customs— :i6vice 
to Customs is to 
Include an assur- 
ance that equip- 
ment to be im- 
ported is and will 
remain the prop- 
erty of the gov- 
ernment con- 

c. Immigration— no 
special arrange- 
ment required; 
personnel require 
an official move- 
ment order and 

ganization, with annexes. Done at Monaco May 3, 


Ratification deposited: Finland, February 16, 1968. 

Nuclear Test Ban 

Treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in the atmos- 
phere, in outer space and under water. Done at 
Moscow August 5, 1963. Entered into force October 
10, 1963. TIAS 5433. 

Notification that it considers itself bound: Botswana, 
March 4, 1968. 


Protocol for the further prolongation of the Inter- 
national Sugar Agreement of 1958 (TIAS 4389). 
Done at London November 14, 1966. Open for sig- 
nature at London November 14 to December 30, 
1966, inclusive. Entered into force January 1, 1967; 
for the United States December 21, 1967. TIAS 6447. 
Ratifications deposited: Costa Rica, February 12, 
1968; Mexico, February 8, 1968. 


International telecommunication convention with an- 
nexes. Done at Montreux November 12, 1965. En- 
tered into force January 1, 1967; as to the United 
States May 29, 1967. TIAS 6267. 
Ratifications deposited: China, January 12, 1968; 
Ivory Coast, January 15, 1968. 

Partial revision of the radio regulations (Geneva 
1959), aa amended (TIAS 4893, 5603), to put Into 
effect a revised frequency allotment plan for the 
aeronautical mobile (R) service and related infor- 
mation, with annexes. Done at Geneva April 29, 1966. 
Entered into force July 1, 1967; as to the United 
States August 23, 1967, except the frequency allot- 
ment plan contained in appendix 27 shall enter into 
force April 10, 1970. TIAS 6332. 

Notifications of approval: Federal Republic of Ger- 
many, January 16, 196S ; Guyana, January 22. 

War, Prevention of 

Convention for the pacific settlement of international 

disputes. Signed at The Hague October 18, 1907. 

into force September 4, 1900. 32 Stat. 1779. 

Acccssimi deposited: Lebanon, February 14, 1968.' 
Convention for the pacific settlement of international 

disputes. Signed at The Hague October 18, 1907. 

Entered into force January 26, 1910. 36 Stat. 2199. 

Accession deposited: Lebanon, February 14, 1968.' 

Current Actions 


Consular Relations 

Vienna convention on consular relations. Done at 

yrl^S?*^ ^'^^""'^ -■*• '^^^^- Entered into force March 19, 

Accession deposited: Honduras, February 13, 1968. 
Convention on the International Hydrographlc Or- 



Agreement relating to investment guaranties. Signed 
at Bridgetown March 11, 1968. Entered into force 
March 11, 1968. 


Agreement for sales of agricultural commodities, re- 
lating to the agreement of March 13, 1967 (TIAS 
6271). Signed at Saigon March 11, 1968. Entered 
into force March 11, 1968. 

' Not in force for the United States. 

' Not In force. 

' With a declaration. 

APRIL 8, 1968 



Recent Releases 

For sale hv the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. 

lntie\amTa7drZ. Remittances, payaDle to theSu- 
^rZenaZt of Documents, must accompany orders. 

Trade in Cotton Textiles. Agreement witb Yugoslavia 

tember 26, 1967. Entered into force September 26. 1967. 
TIAS 6353. 3 pp. 5<J. 

Marcb 1, 1967. TIAS 6354. 100 pp. 45.?. 

M««pv Orders— Postal Union of the Americas and 

Soain Agreemenrand final protocol with otber gov- 

er^nmenrs l™d at IKxico July 16, 1966. Approved 

bvTbe President August 9, 1967. Entered into force 

March 1, 1967. TIAS 6355. 30 pp. 150. 

Parcel Post— Postal Union of the Americas and Spain. 

iTement finalprotocol, and regulations of execution 

wttbTtber governments. Signed at Mta^co July 16, 

r966. Approved by the f-^^^™* fg^^^e 's' pj 20^ 
tered into force March 1, 1967. TIAS brfob. D- pp. ^"v- 

Trade in Cotton Textiles. Agreement with Jamaica Ex- 
change of notes-Signed at Washington September 29 
1967 Entered into force September 29, 1967. BfCective 
October 1, 1966. With related note. TIAS 63o7. S pp. 

Trade in Cotton Textiles. Agreement «« December 4 
1963 Agreement with the United Arab Republic. Ex- 
change of Totes between the Secretary of State and 
the Ambassador of India (representing the United 
Arab Repub ic interests). Signed at Washington Sep- 

tember 29 and 30, 1967. Entered into force Septem- 
ber 30, 1967. TIAS 6358. 3 pp. 5^. 
Trade in Cotton Textiles. Agreement with Spain. Ex- 
change of notes-Signed ^t Washington October 1. 
1967. Entered into force October 13, 190*. li^ttective 
January 1, 1967. TIAS 6360. 12 pp. 10<(. 
Trade in Cotton Textiles. Agreement with the Re- 
public of China. Exchange of uotes-Signed at Wash- 
ington October 12, 1967. Entered into force October 12, 
1967 Effective January 1, 1967. With related notes. 
TIAS 6361. 18 pp. Wt 

Economic and Technical Assistance to the P/og^?,f« «f 
Central American Integration. Agreement wih the 
Member Governments of the Organization of Central 
American States (ODECA). Signed at Guatemala 
October 30, 1965. Entered into force September 28, 
1967. TIAS 6362. 7 pp. lOif. 

Aericultural Commodities. Agreement with Liberia 
tfgned at Monrovia October 23. 1967 Entered into 
fofce October 23, 1967. TIAS 6363. 18 pp. 10«'. 
Defense-Hawk and Nike Hercules Missile Systems 
AgreemtTt with Japan. Exchange of ^otes-Signed at 
TSkyo October 13, 1967. Entered into force October 13, 
1967. TIAS 6365. 7 pp. 10.J. 



Mrs. Eugenie Anderson as Special Assistant to the 
secretary, effective April 10. (For biographic letas 
see Department of State press release 50 dated 

'^Antler Biddle Duke as Chief of P-tocol effiective 
April 1. (For biographic details, see White House 
press release dated January 13.) . , ^ „ ,„t„™ 

G. McMurtrie Godley as Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, effective March 11. 



INDEX -^iml 8, 1968 Vol. LVIII, No. 1602 

American Principles 

"Foreign Policy Is the People's Business" 

(Johnson) 457 

A Time for Unity (Johnson) 459 

Asia. Godley Uesiguated Deputy Assistant Seca-e- 

tary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs . . 480 

Canada. U.S. and Canada Approve Procedures 
on Tenjiwrary Cross-Border Movement (texts 
of notes) 477 


Congressional Documents Relating to Foreign 
Policy 473 

Elimination of Visas Proposed for Certain Short- 
Term Visitors (Johnson) 472 

Department and Foreign Service. Designations 

(Andert^ou, Duke, Godley) 480 

Economic Affairs 

Fulfilling Our Commitments at Home and 
Abroad (Johnson) 462 

Gold Pool Contributors Agree on Policies for 
Market Stability (test of communique) . . 4(>4 

A Time for Unity (Johnson) 459 

U.S. and Iran Sign Agreement on Joint Water 
Resources Study 472 

Greece. U.S. Welcomes Plan for Referendum on 
New Greek Constitution 469 

International Law. Legal Aspects of Contem- 
porary World Problems (Meeker) .... 465 

Iran. U.S. and Iran Sign Agreement on Joint 

Water Resources Study 472 

Korea. Legal Aspects of Contemporary World 

Problems (Meeker) 465 

Near East. Legal Aspects of Contemporary 
World Problems (Meeker) 465 

Passports. Elimination of Visas Proposed for 
Certain Short-Term Visitors (Johnson) . . 472 

Presidential Documents 

Builders of the Peace 463 

Elimination of Visas Proposed for Certain Short- 
Term Visitors 472 

"Foreign Policy Is the People's Business" . . 457 

Fultilliug Our Commitments at Home and 

Abroad 462 

Prime Minister of Somali Republic Meets With 
President Johnson 470 

A Time for Unity 459 

Publications. Recent Releases 480 

Science. U.S. and Iran Sign Agreement on Joint 
Water Resources Study 472 

Somali Republic. Prime Minister of Somali Re- 
public Meets With President Johnson (John- 
son, Egal) 470 

South Africa. Security Council Censures South 
Africa for Defiance of U.N. Authority (Gold- 
berg, text of resolution) ........ 474 

South West Africa. Security Council Censures 
South Africa for Defiance of U.X. Authority 
(Goldberg, text of resolution) 474 

Travel. Elimination of Visas Proiwscd for Cer- 
tain Short-Term Visitors (Johnson) .... 472 

Treaty Information 

Current Actions 479 

U.S. and Canada Approve Procedures on Tem- 
porary Cross-Border Movement (texts of 

notes) 477 

U.S. and Iran Sign Agreement on Joint Water 
Resources Study 472 

United Nations. Seciu-ity Council Censures South 
Africa for Defiance of U.N. Authority (Gold- 
berg, text of resolution) 474 


Builders of the Peace (Johnson) 403 

"Foreign Policy Is the People's Business" 

(Johnson) 457 

Fulfilling Our Commitments at Homo iind 

Abroad (Johnson) 4G2 

A Time for Unity (Johnson) 459 

Name Index 

Anderson, Mrs. Eugenie 480 

Duke, Angier Biddle 480 

Egal, Mohamed Ibrahim 470 

Godley, G. McMurtrie 480 

Goldberg, Arthur J 474 

Johnson, President .... 457, 459, 462, 463, 470, 472 

Meeker, Leonard C 465 

Check List of Department of State 
Press Releases: March 18-24 

Press releases may be obtained from the Office 
of News, Department of State, Wasliington, D.C. 

No. Date Subject 

*51 3/lS Program for visit of Alfredo Stroess- 

ner, President of Paraguay. 
52 3/1!) U.S.-lrau water resources agree- 

TiS 3/31 Ackley sworn in as Ambassador t(j 
Italy (biographic details). 

t54 3/21 Linowitz : "The Nonshooting War in 
Latin America." 

t.j5 3/22 Rostow: "The Cost of Fealty." 

'^(i 3/22 Program for visit of William \'. S. 
Tubman, President of Liberia. 

t57 3/23 U.S. delegation to SEATO Council 
meeting, Wellington. April 2-3 

t58 3/23 U.S. delegation to ANZUS Council 
meeting, Wellington, April 5. 

*Not printed. 

t Held for a later issue of the Bulletin. 

Superintendent of Documents 
U.S. government printing office 










Vol. LVIII, No. 1503 

April 15, 1968 


1)1/ Under Secretary liostoio 493 


by Afitslistant Secretary Oliver 501 



Statements by Ambassador Goldberg and Text of Resolution 508 


Address to tlie Nation by President Johnson 1^81 

For index see inside back cover 



Vol. LVIII, No. 1503 
April 15, 1968 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing OlBce 

Washington, D.C. 20402 


62 issues, domestic $10, foreign $15 
Single copy 30 cents 

Use of funds for printing of this publication 
approved by the Director of the Bureau of 
the Budget (.January 11, 1966). 

Note: Contents of this publication are not 
copyrighted and items contained herein may be 
reprinted. Citation of the DEPARTMENT OF 
STATE BULLETIN as the source will be 
appreciated. The BULLETIN is indexed in 
the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature. 

The Department of State BVLLETIiS, 
a weekly publication issued by the 
Office of Media Services, Bureau of 
Public Affairs, 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 selected 
press releases on foreign policy , issued 
by the White House and the Depart- 
ment, and statements and addresses 
made by the President and by the 
Secretary of State and other officers 
of the Department, as well as special 
articles on various pfiases of interna- 
tioiuil affairs and the functions of t/ie 
Department. Information is included 
concerning treaties and international 
agreements to which the United 
States is or may become a party 
and treaties of general international 

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

". . . / have ordered our aircraft and our naval vessels to make 
no attacks on North Viet-Na-m, except in the area north of the 
demilitarized zone where the continuing enemy buildup directly 
threatens Allied forward positions. . . ." 

A New Step Toward Peace 

Address by President Johnson ^ 

Good evening, my fellow Americans. Tonight 
I want to speak to you of peace in Viet-Nam 
and Southeast Asia. 

Xo other question so preoccupies our people. 
Xo other dream so absorbs the 250 million hu- 
man beings who live in that part of the world. 
No other goal motivates American policy in 
Southeast Asia. 

For years, representatives of our Govern- 
ment and others have traveled the world seek- 
ing to find a basis for peace talks. 

Since last September, they have carried the 
offer that I made public at San Antonio.^ 

That offer was this: that the United States 
would stop its bombardment of North Viet-Nam 
when that would lead promptly to productive 
discussions — and that we would assmne that 
North Viet-Nam would not take military ad- 
vantage of our restraint. 

Hanoi denounced this offer, both privately 
and publicly. Even while the search for peace 
was going on. North Viet-Nam rushed their 
preparations for a savage assault on the people, 
the Government, and the allies of South Viet- 

Their attack — during the Tet holidays — 
failed to achieve its principal objectives. 

It did not collapse the elected government of 
South Viet-Nam or shatter its army, as the 
Communists had hoped. 

It did not produce a "general uprising" among 
the people of the cities, as they had predicted. 

'Made to the Nation on radio and television from 
the White House on Mar. 31 (White House press re- 
I lease). 

'Bulletin of Oct 23, 1967. p. 519. 

The Communists were unable to maintain 
control of any of the more than 30 cities that 
they attacked. And they took very heavy cas- 

But they did compel the South Vietnamese 
and their allies to move certain forces from the 
countryside into the cities. They caused wide- 
sjjread disruption and sufferuig. Their attacks, 
and the battles that followed, made refugees of 
half a million human beings. 

The Communists may renew their attack any 
day. They are, it appears, trying to make 1968 
the year of decision in South Viet-Nam — the 
year that brings, if not final victory or defeat, 
at least a turning point in the struggle. 

Tliis much is clear : If they do mount another 
round of heavy attacks, they will not succeed in 
destroying the fighting power of South Viet- 
Nam and its allies. 

But tragically, this is also clear : Many men — 
on both sides of the struggle — will be lost. 
A nation that has already suffered 20 years of 
warfare will suffer once again. Annies on both 
sides will take new casualties. And the war will 
go on. 

There is no need for this to be so. 

There is no need to delay the talks that could 
bring an end to this long and this bloody war. 

Tonight I renew the offer I made last Au- 
gusts — to stop the bombardment of North Viet- 
Nam. We ask that talks begin promptly, that 
they be serious talks on the substance of peace. 
"We assume that during those talks Hanoi will 
not take advantage of our restraint. 

We are prepared to move immediately toward 
peace through negotiations. 

APRIL 15, 1968 


So tonight, in the hope that this action will 
lead to early talks, I am taking the first step to 
deescalate the conflict. We are reducing— sub- 
stantially reducing— the present level of hostili- 
ties. And we are doing so unilaterally and at 

Unilateral Deescalation by United Stales 

Tonight I have ordered our aircraft and our 
naval vessels to make no attacks on North Viet- 
Nam, except in the area north of the demilitar- 
ized zone where the continuing enemy buildup 
directly threatens Allied forward positions and 
wliere the movements of their troops and sup- 
plies are clearly related to that threat. 

The area in which we are stopping our at- 
tacks includes ahnost 90 percent of North Viet- 
Nam's population and most of its territory. Thus 
there will be no attacks around the principal 
populated areas or in the food-producing areas 
of North Viet-Nam. 

Even this very limited bombing of the North 
could come to an early end if our restraint is 
matched by restraint in Hanoi. But I cannot m 
(rood conscience stop all bombing so long as to 
do so would immediately and directly endanger 
the lives of our men and our allies. Wliether a 
complete bombing halt becomes possible in the 
future will be determined by events. 

Our purpose in this action is to bring about a 
reduction in the level of violence that now 


It is to save the lives of brave men and to save 
the lives of innocent women and children. It is 
to permit the contending forces to move closer 
to a political settlement. 

And tonight I call upon the United Kingdom 
and I call upon the Soviet Union, as cochair- 
men of the Geneva conferences and as permanent 
members of the United Nations Security Coun- 
cil, to do all they can to move from the miilateral 
act of deescalation that I have just announced 
toward genuine peace in Southeast Asia. 

Now, as in the past, the United States is ready 
to send its representatives to any forum, at any 
time, to discuss the means of bringing this ugly 
war to an end. 

I am designating one of our most distin- 
guished Americans, Ambassador Averell Hairi- 
man, as my personal representative for such 
talks. In addition, I have asked Ambassador 
Llewellyn Thompson, who returned from Mos- 

cow for consultation, to be available to join 
Ambassador Harriman at Geneva or any other 
suitable place just as soon as Hanoi agrees to a 

I call upon President Ho Chi Minli to respond 
positively and favorably to tliis new step to- 
ward peace. 

But if peace does not come now through nego- 
tiations, it will come when Hanoi underetands 
that our common resolve is unshakable and our 
common strength is invincible. 

Outcome Depends on South Vietnamese 

Tonight, we and the other allied nations are 
contributing 600,000 fighting men to assist 
700,000 South Vietnamese troops in defending 
their little country. 

Our presence there has always rested on this 
basic belief: The main burden of preserving 
their freedom must be carried out by them— by 
the South Vietnamese themselves. 

We and our allies can only help to provide 
a shield behind wliich the people of South Viet- 
Nam can survive and can grow and develop. 
On their efforts— on their determinations and 
resourcefulness— the outcome will ultimately 

That small, beleaguered nation has suffered 
terrible punislunent for more than 20 years. 

I pay tribute once again tonight to the great 
courage and endurance of its people. South Viet- 
Nam supports armed forces tonight of almost 
700,000 men— and I call your attention to tlie 
fact that that is the equivalent of more than 10 
million in our own population. Its people main- 
tain their firm determination to be free of 
domination by the North. 

There has been substantial progress, I think, 
in building a durable government during these 
last 3 years. The South Viet-Nam of 1965 could 
not have survived the enemy's Tet offensive of 
1968. The elected government of South Viet- 
Nam survived that attack and is rapidly repair- 1 
ing the devastation that it wrought. 

Tlie South Vietnamese know that further 
efforts are gomg to be required : 

— to expand their own armed forces, 
—to move back into the countryside as quick- 
ly as possible, 
— to increase their taxes, 
—to select the very best men that they have 



for civil iuid military responsibility, 

— to achieve a ue^v unity within their con- 
stitutional go\-ernment, and 

— to include in the national efi'ort all those 
groups who wish to preserve South Viet-Nam's 
control over its own destiny. 

Last week President Thieu ordered the mobil- 
ization of 135,000 additional South Vietnamese. 
He plans to reach, as soon as possible, a total 
military strength of more than 800,000 men. 

To achieve this, the Govermnent of South 
Viet-Xam started the drafting of 19-year-olds 
on March 1st. On May 1st, the Goverimient will 
begin the drafting of 18-year-olds. 

Last month, 10,000 men volunteered for mili- 
tary service ; that was 21^ times the number of 
volunteers during the same month last year. 
Since the middle of January, more than 48,000 
South Vietnamese have joined the armed forces 
— and nearly half of them volunteered to do so. 

All men in the South Vietnamese armed forces 
have had their tours of duty extended for the 
duration of the war, and reserves are now being 
called up for irmnediate active duty. 

I President Tliieu told his people last week : 

We must make greater efforts and accept more 
sacrifices because, as I have said many times, this is 
our country. The existence of our nation is at stake, 
and this is mainly a Vietnamese responsibility. 

He warned his people that a major national 
effort is required to root out con-uption and in- 
competence at all levels of government. 

Support of South Viet-Nam's Effort 

II We applaud this evidence of determination 
on the part of South Viet-Nam. Our first prior- 
ity will be to support their effort. 

"We shall accelerate the reequipment of South 
Viet-Xam's armed forces in order to meet the 
enemj''s increased firepower. Tlxis will enable 
them progressively to undertake a larger share 
of combat operations against the Communist 

On many occasions I have told the American 
people that we would send to Viet-Nam those 
forces that are required to accomplish our mis- 
sion there. So, with that as our guide, we have 
previously authorized a force level of approxi- 
mately 525,000. 

Some weeks ago, to help meet the enemy's 
new offensive, we sent to Viet-N"am about 1 1,000 

additional marine and aii'borne troops. They 
were deployed by air in 48 hours on an emer- 
gency basis. But the artillery, tank, aircraft, 
medical, and other units that were needed to 
work with and support these infantry troops 
in combat could not then accompany them by 
air on that short notice. 

In order that these forces may reach maxi- 
mum combat effectiveness, the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff have recommended to me that we should 
prepare to send during the next 5 months sup- 
port troops totaling approximately 13,500 men. 

A portion of these men will be made available 
from our active forces. The balance will come 
fi'om Reserve component units which will be 
called up for service. 

The actions that we have taken since the be- 
ginning of the year to reequip the South Viet- 
namese forces; to meet our responsibilities in 
Korea, as well as our responsibilities in Viet- 
Nam; to meet price increases and the cost of 
activating and deploying Reserve forces; to re- 
place helicopters and provide the other military 
supplies we need — all of these actions are going 
to require additional expenditures. 

The tentative estimate of those additional ex- 
penditures is $2.5 billion in this fiscal year and 
$2.6 billion in the next fiscal year. 

Protecting the Stability of the Dollar 

These projected increases in expenditures for 
our national security will bring into sharper 
focus the Nation's need for immediate action, 
action to protect the prosperity of the American 
people and to protect the strength and 
the stability of our American dollar. 

On many occasions I have pointed out that 
without a tax bill or decreased expenditures 
ne.xt year's deficit would again be around $20 
billion. I have emphasized the need to set strict 
priorities in our spending. I have stressed that 
failure to act — and to act promptly and deci- 
sively — would raise very strong doubts through- 
out the world about America's willingness to 
keep its financial house in order. 

Yet Congress has not acted. And tonight we 
face the sharpest financial threat in the post- 
war era — a threat to the dollar's role as the key- 
stone of international trade and finance in the 

Last week, at the monetary conference in 
Stockholm, the major industrial countries de- 

APRIL 15, 1968 


cided to take a big step toward creat- 
ing a new international monetary asset tliat will 
strengthen the international monetary system. 
I am very proud of the very able work done by 
Secretary [of the Treasury Henry H.] Fowler 
and Chairman [William McChesney] Martin 
of the Federal Reserve Board. 

But to make this system work the United 
States just must bring its balance of payments 
to — or very close to — equilibrium. We must 
liave a responsible fiscal policy in this country. 
The passage of a tax bill now, together with 
expenditure control that the Congress may de- 
sire and dictate, is absolutely necessary to pro- 
tect this nation's security, to continue our pros- 
perity, and to meet the needs of our people. 

What is at stake is 7 years of unparalleled 
prosperity. In tliose 7 years, the real income of 
the average American — after taxes — rose by al- 
most 30 percent, a gain as large as that of the en- 
tire preceding 19 years. 

So the steps that we must take to convince 
the world are exactly the steps we must take 
to sustain our own economic strength here at 
home. In the past 8 montlis prices and interest 
rates have risen because of our inaction. 

We must, therefore, now do everything we 
can to move from debate to action, from talking 
to voting. Thei-e is, I believe — I hope there is — 
in both Houses of the Congress a growing sense 
of urgency that this situation just must be 
acted upon and must be corrected. 

Sly budget in January was, we thought, a 
tight one. It fully reflected our evaluation of 
most of the demanding needs of this nation. 

But in these budgetary matters the President 
does not decide alone. The Congress has the 
power and the duty to determine appropriations 
and taxes. The Congress is now considering our 
proposals, and they are considering reductions 
in the budget that we submitted. 

As part of a program of fiscal restraint that 
includes the tax surcharge, I shall approve ap- 
propriate reductions in the January budget 
when and if Congress so decides that that should 
be done. 

One thing is unmistakably clear, however: 
Our deficit just must be reduced. Failure to act 
could bring on conditions that would strike 
hardest at those people that all of us are trying 
so hard to help. 

These times call for prudence in this land of 
plenty. I believe that we have the character to 

provide it, and tonight I plead with the Con- 
gress and with the people to act promptly to 
serve the national interest, and thereby serve 
all of our people. 

The Chances for Peace 

Now let me give you my estimate of the 
chances for peace : 

— the peace that will one day stop the blood- 
shed in South Viet-Nam, 

— that will — all the Vietnamese people will be 
permitted to rebuild and develop their land, 

— that will permit us to turn more fully to 
our own tasks here at home. 

I caimot promise that the initiative that I 
have announced tonight will be completely suc- 
cessful in achieving peace any more than the 30 
others that we have undertaken and agreed to 
in recent years. 

But it is our fervent hope that North Viet- 
Nam, after years of fighting that has left the 
issue unresolved, will now cease its efforts to 
achieve a military victory and will join with us 
in moving toward the peace table. 

And there may come a time when South Viet- 
namese — on both sides — are able to work out a 
way to settle their own difl'erences by free polit- 
ical choice rather than by war. 

As Hanoi considers its course, it should be in 
no doubt of our intentions. It must not miscal- 
culate the pressures within our democracy in 
this election year. 

We have no intention of widening this war. 

But the United States will never accept a fake 
solution to this long and arduous struggle and 
call it peace. 

No one can foretell the precise terms of an 
eventual settlement. 

Our objective in South Viet-Nam has never 
been the annihilation of the enemy. It has been 
to bring about a recognition in Hanoi that its 
objective — taking over the South by force — 
could not be achieved. 

We think that peace can be based on the 
Geneva accords of 1954 under political condi- 
tions that permit the South Vietnamese — all the 
South Vietnamese — to chart their course free of 
any outside domination or interference, from 
us or from anyone else. 

So tonight I reaffirm the pledge that we made 
at Manila: tliat we are prepared to withdraw 



our forces from South Viet-Nam as tlie other 
side withdraws its forces to the North, stops tlie 
infiltration, and the level of violence thus sub- 

Our goal of peace and self-determination in 
Viet-Nam is directly related to the future of all 
of Southeast Asia — where much has happened 
to inspire confidence during the past 10 years. 
We have done all that we knew how to do to 
contribute and to help build that confidence. 

A number of its nations have shown what can 
be accomplished under conditions of security. 
Since 1966 Indonesia, the fifth largest nation in 
all the world, with a population of more than 
100 million people, has had a government that 
is dedicated to peace with its neighbors and im- 
proved conditions for its own people. Political 
and economic cooperation between nations has 
grown rapidly. 

I think every American can take a great deal 
of pride in the role that we have played in 
bringing this about in Southeast Asia. We can 
rightly judge — as responsible Southeast Asians 
themselves do — that the progi-ess of tlie past 3 
years would have been far less likely — if not 
completely impossible — if America's sons and 
others had not made their stand in Viet-Nam. 

At Johns Hopkins University, about 3 years 
ago, I announced that the United States would 
take part in the great work of developing South- 
east Asia, including the Mekong Valley, for all 
the people of that region.^ Our determination to 
help build a better land — a better land for men 
on both sides of the present conflict — has not 
diminished in the least. Indeed, the ravages of 
war, I think, have made it more urgent than 

So I repeat on behalf of the United States 
again tonight what I said at Johns Hopkins: 
that North Viet-Nam could take its place in this 
common effort just as soon as peace comes. 

Over time, a wider framework of peace and 
security in Southeast Asia may Iiecome possible. 
The new cooperation of the nations of the area 
could be a foundation stone. Certainly, friend- 
ship with the nations of such a Southeast Asia 
is what the United States seeks — and that is all 
that the United States seeks. 

' For text of the joint communique is.sued at the close 
of the Manila Summit Conference on Oct. 2."), 1966, see 
Hid.. Xov. 14. 1966. p. 730. 

'Hid., Apr. 26. 1965, p. 606. 

One day, my fellow citizens, there will be 
peace in Southeast Asia. 

It will come because the people of Southeast 
Asia want it — those whose armies are at war 
tonight and those who, though threatened, have 
thus far been spared. 

Peace will come because Asians were willing 
to work for it — and to sacrifice for it — and to 
die by the thousands for it. 

The Heart of U.S. Involvement 

But let it never be forgotten : Peace will come 
also because America sent her sons to help se- 
cure it. 

It has not been easy — far from it. During 
the past 41/2 years, it has been my fate and my 
responsibility to be Commander in Chief. I 
lived daily and nightly with the cost of this war. 
I know the pain that it has inflicted. I know 
perhaps better than anyone the misgivings that 
it has aroused. 

Tlu'oughout this entire long period, I have 
been sustained by a single principle : tliat what 
we are doing now in Viet-Nam is vital not only 
to the security of Southeast Asia, but it is vital 
to the security of every American. 

Surely we have treaties which we must re- 
spect. Surely we have commitments that we are 
going to keep. Resolutions of the Congress tes- 
tify to the need to resist aggression in the world 
and in Southeast Asia. 

But the heart of our involvement in South 
Viet-Nam — under three different Presidents, 
three separate administrations — has always 
been America's own security. 

And the larger purpose of our involvement 
has always been to help the nations of South- 
east Asia become independent and stand alone, 
self-sustaining as members of a great world 
community — at peace with themselves and at 
peace with all others. 

With such an Asia, our country — and the 
world — will be far more secure than it is 

I believe that a peaceful Asia is far nearer 
to reality because of what America has done in 
Viet-Nam. I believe that the men who endure the 
dangers of battle — fighting there for us to- 
night — are helping the entire world avoid far 
greater conflicts, far wider wars, far more de- 
struction, than this one. 

The peace that will bring them home some 

APRIL 15, 1968 


daj' will come. Tonight I have offered the first 
in what I hope will be a series of mutual moves 
toward peace. 

I pray that it will not be rejected by the 
leaders of North Viet-Nam. I pray that they 
will accept it as a means by which the sacrifices 
of their own people may be ended. Aiid I ask 
your help and your support, my fellow citizens, 
for this effort to reach across the battlefield 
toward an early peace. 

A Call for National Unity 

Finally, my fellow Americans, let me say 

Of those to whom much is given, much is 
asked. I cannot say, and no man could say, that 
no more will be asked of us. 

Yet, I believe that now, no less than when the 
decade began, this generation of Americans is 
willing to "pay any price, bear any burden, meet 
any hardship, support any friend, oppose any 
foe to assure the survival and the success of 
liberty." ° Since those words were spoken by 
Jolm F. Kennedy, the people of America have 
kept that compact with mankind's noblest cause. 

And we shall continue to keep it. 

Yet I believe that we must always be mindful 
of this one thing, whatever the trials and the 
tests ahead : The ultimate strength of our coun- 
try and our cause will lie not in powerful weap- 
ons or infinite resources or boundless wealth but 
will lie in the unity of our people. 

This I believe very deeply. 

Throughout my entire public career I have 
followed the personal philosophy that I am a 
free man, an American, a public servant, and a 
member of my party, in that order always and 

For 37 years in the service of our nation, first 
as a Congressman, as a Senator and as Vice 
President and now as your President, I have 
put the imity of the people first. I have put it 
ahead of any divisive partisanship. 

And in these times as in times before, it is 
true that a house divided against itself by the 
spirit of faction, of party, of region, of religion, 
of race, is a house that cannot stand. 

There is division in the American house now. 
There is divisiveness among us all tonight. And 

' For text of President Kennedy's inaugural address, 
see Hid., Feb. 6, 1961, p. 175. 

holding the trust that is mine, as President of all 
the i^eoiale, I cannot disregard the peril to the 
progress of the A_merican joeople and the hope 
and the prospect of peace for all peoples. 

So I would ask all Americans, whatever their 
Ijersonal interests or concern, to guard against 
divisiveness and all its ugly consequences. 

Fifty-two months and 10 days ago, in a mo- 
ment of tragedy and trauma, the duties of this 
Office fell upon me. I asked then for your help 
and God's, that we might continue America on 
its course, binding up our wounds, healing our 
history, moving forward in new unity, to clear 
the American agenda and to keep the American 
commitment for all of our people. 

United we have kept that commitment. 
United we have enlarged that commitment. 

Through all time to come, I think America 
will be a stronger nation, a more just society, 
and a land of greater opportunity and fulfill- 
ment because of what we have all done together 
in these years of unparalleled achievement. 

Our reward will come in the life of freedom, 
peace, and hope that our children will enjoy 
through ages ahead. 

Wliat we won when all of our people united 
just must not now be lost in suspicion, distrust, 
selfishness, and politics among any of our 

Believing this as I do, I have concluded that 
I should not permit the Presidency to become 
involved in the partisan divisions that are de- 
veloping in this political year. 

With America's sons in the fields far away, 
with America's future under challenge right 
here at home, with our hopes and the world's 
hopes for peace in the balance every day, I do 
not believe that I should devote an hour or a 
day of my time to any personal partisan causes 
or to any duties other than the awesome duties 
of this Office — the Presidency of your country. 

Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not 
accept, the nomination of my party for another 
tenn as your President. 

But let men everywhere laiow, however, that 
a strong, a confident, and a vigilant America 
stands ready tonight to seek an honorable 
peace — and stands ready tonight to defend an 
honored cause — whatever the price, whatever 
the burden, whatever the sacrifices that duty 
may require. 

Thank you for listening. 

Good night and God bless all of you. 



The President's News Conference of March 22 

Following are excerpts from the official 
transcript of a news conference held hy Presi- 
dent Johnson at the White House on March 22. 

The President: I have a few appointments 
that I thought you would be interested in and 
■would give you something to do over the week- 
end. I want to keep all of you occupied. There 
are no triiis in the offing. 

I am naming Sargent Shriver as Ambassador 
to France. Secretary Rusk talked to him today 
in EurojDe. He understands that the French 
Government has cleared him. The nomination 
will go to the Senate and will be acted upon by 
the Foreign Eelations Committee and the Sen- 
ate. He will go through a period of briefings 
here and then go to the Paris post at a reason- 
ably early date. 

I have had under consideration for some time 
the filling of the expiring terms of certain mem- 
bers of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. On January 
19th, Mr. McNamara [former Secretary of De- 
fense Robert S. McNamara] gave me several al- 
ternatives here with his recommendations. I 
have had Mr. Clifford [Secretary of Defense 
Clark M. Clifford] review those alternatives 
and those recommendations. 

■ • « • • 

General [Harold K.] Johnson's term expires 
as Chief of Staff of the Army in July 1968. He 
plans to retire. He has notified us of liis desire 
to retire. He will be succeeded by General West- 
moreland [Gen. William C. Westmoreland, 
Commander, U.S. Military Assistance Com- 
mand, Viet-Nam], who will assume the duties, 
assuming the Senate acts on the confirmation, 
on July 2, 1968. 

We have not selected a successor to General 

Q. Mr. President, when would you anticipate 

General Westmoreland coming back to this 

The President: July 2, 1968, is when I would 
anticipate his taking over the duties of Chief of 
Staff. I don't know what the pleasure of the 
Senate committee would be. They very likely 
would want him present to act upon him. "Wlien 
they do want to act upon him, if they want him 
personally present, I would imagine that would 
be when he would return, but I am not sure. 

Q. Mr. President, token would you think 
would he the latest that you loould have to name 
a successor to hitn in Yiet-Namf 

The President: July 2. That successor post 
specifically doesn't require Senate confirmation. 
General Westmoreland would be relieved of his 
duty effective that day. I would think a suc- 
cessor would be named much earlier. But your 
question, as I understand it, was the latest I 
would announce a successor. 

Q. Mr. President, are we any closer to peace? 

The President: I cannot answer that ques- 
tion. Peace is a very elusive thing. We cannot 
pinpoint a time or a date that may be m other 
people's minds. We are trying constantly each 
day to think and plan in every way we can for 
a solution that would bring a resolution to what 
is happening in South Viet-Nam. 

But what may be in the enemy's mind, I am 
not able to speak with any real authority. I 
would not want to try to be prophetic about 
what their decisions might be. We are living, I 
think, in a very dangerous time. It is taxing the 
ingenuity, the determination, and the strength 
of the leaders of the Nation, as well as our fight- 
ing men. 

I have no doubt about what the resolution will 
be. But as to the moment or the exact timing of 
it, I cannot speak for it. 

Q. Thank you. To help us meet the invariable 
discussion that will greet some of these appoint- 
ments, could I ask two questions? One, does the 

APRIL 15, 1968 


replacement of General Westmoreland imply 
any change of search-and-destroy strategy with 
which his vMme ha^ been associated or any other 
tactical adjustment in Viet-Nam? 

The President: The strategy and the tactical 
operations have nothing to do with the ap- 
pointments as such. I do not know at this time 
who the commanding general of our troops 
there will be. Therefore, I cannot speak for his 
plans or for his program. 

I feel that General Westmoreland is a very 
talented and very able officer. He was consid- 
ered for the Honolulu assignment and for the 
Chief of Staff assignment that has been held 
by many of the greatest men in our military 
history — such as General Pershing, General 
Eisenhower, and General Wlieeler. 

After thorough consideration for many 
months and upon tlie recommendation of both 
the outgoing Secretary and the incoming Sec- 
retary, who evaluated every general in the 
Army to be Chief of the Staff of the Army, 
General Westmoreland was selected. 

What contributions he will make to the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff will be a matter for him to 
decide, and what the recommendations his suc- 
cessor will make will be for him to decide. I 
don't think it would be fair or correct or pos- 
sible today to announce the program of the 
unannounced, unknown successor. 

Q. Mr. President, have you reached a deci- 
sion on the question of additional coiribat troops 
for Yiet-Namf 

The President : I have not. I have no specific 
recommendation at this point. The people in 
tlie field and the people in the Department are 
giving tliis matter very thorough considera- 
tion — replacements, extra needs, developments 
that are taking place there, the enemy's action, 
and so forth. 

When I have any recommendations that I 
am able to act upon and do make a decision, I 
will announce it to the extent that I can witliout 
involving our security. 

I don't want to speculate on it, because, first, I 
don't have a recommendation. There are facts 
we have to know. If I don't know, I don't know 
who does know, because the decision really has 
to be made here. 

Figures from 1,000 to 1 million you will be 
reading, hearing, and reporting. But that is 
another matter. 

President Stroessner of Paraguay 
Meets With President Johnson 

President Alfredo Stroessner of the Republic 
of Paraguay visited the United States March 
19-23 and made an official visit to Washington 
March 20-21 to meet with President Johnson 
and other Government officials. Follotoing is an 
exclmnge of greetings between President John- 
son and Pres^ident Stroessner at a welcoming 
ceremony on the South Lawn of the White 
Hortse on March 20, together with their ex- 
change of toasts at a White House dinner that 


President Johnson 

White House press release dated March 20 

Mr. President, in the language of diplomacy, 
our meeting this morning is called an "official 
visit." But if the weather tliat you brought with 
you continues, I think we should call it an 
"official picnic." 

It was about tliis time last year that it was 
my pleasure to visit Uruguay for the historic 
Pmita del Este conference. 

It was there that the leaders of Latin Amer- 
ica and the United States reaffirmed the historic 
pledge of the Alliance for Progress : "to bring 
our people accelerated economic progress and 
broader social justice within the framework of 
personal dignity and political liberty." ' 

You and I, Mr. President, together with our 
fellow Presidents, resolved "to achieve to the 
fullest measure tlie free, just, and democratic 
social order demanded by the peoples of the 
Hemisphere." " 

It is very clear that there has been progress in 
Latin America toward tlie goals of social justice 
during the 1960's. Insofar as tliese goals liave 
been approached in many nations, those who 
love freedom take new heart from their example. 
Insofar as they have not yet been achieved, those 
who fear for freedom have even greater cause to 
spur their efforts. 

It is also clear that there has been progress in 
Latin America toward the goals of economic 

' For text of the Charter of Punta del Este, see 
Bulletin of Sept. 11, 1961, p. 463. 

"For text of the Declaration of the Presidents of 
America, see iJ)id., May 8, 1967, p. 712. 



prosperity but, I think we all know, not near 
enough progress. The vast resoui"ces of a great 
continent are just now beginning to really be 

Your country, Mr. President, has made an 
impressive beginning toward regional growth — 
witli the great hydroelectric plant whose ener- 
gies you will share with Argentina and Brazil, 
witli the Trans-Chaco Highway which will help 
join the peoples of several nations in new com- 
munications and new pi-osperity. 

Tlie Alliance for Progress is helping to bring 
social and economic hope to millions m Para- 
guay and to the other countries in the hemi- 
sphere. "We are proud to be partners in tliis eifort 
that is being made in this hemisphere for these 

You are welcome among us, Mr. President, 
and I look forward to our discussions together. 

The first day of spring gives us a wonderful 
excuse to meet. If anyone from the press should 
ask us what we discussed, we can always answer : 
"Well, first, we talked about the weather." 

President Stroessner ^ 

White House press release dated March 20 

Mr. President and Mrs. Jolmson: It is an 
honor for me to be in the United States of 
America as a special guest of the Government 
of tliis powerful, noble, and hospitable country. 
My pi'esence here comes at an exceptional time 
for the free world, to whicli by its own right 
my country belongs. I bring, Mr. President, the 
homage of the Paraguayan people to the great 
people of the United States of America, to- 
gether with the testimony of a sincere friend- 
ship, never contradicted by our deeds. 

I wish to express my admiration for the cre- 
ative capability of this great nation, at the 
forefront of Qiristian civilization, whose prin- 
ciples you have defended, are defending, and 
will surely continue to defend in tlie future, with 
faith in what is right and with the blood of its 
sons in the crucial moments of world history. 

You have had the kindness of remembering 
on this solemn occasion the time at which Presi- 
dent Rutherford B. Hayes acted as arbiter in 
our boundary problem. The results of this ar- 
bitration gave Paraguay title to the disputed 
lands, a decision that the Americas acknowl- 
edged as an expression of justice on the part of 
the country of George WasMngton. 

' President Stroessner spoke in Spanish. 

I feel certain that my visit to the United 
States of America will help to increase even 
more the traditional ties of friendship between 
our two peoples and that cooperation, solidar- 
ity, and mutual assistance will be the legitimate 
instruments of an active and constructive pan- 

Surely these instruments will redound to the 
benefit and hapj^mess of millions of human be- 
ings in our liemisphere wlio await the determi- 
nation of a formula which will accelerate tlieir 
development and integration within a frame- 
work of peace, democracy, and liberty. 

My country is proud to have lived up to its 
duties as an American nation, and in its name I 
reaffirm to you its willingness to go on uphold- 
ing the stixndard of a glorious civilization, of 
which the United States is the unquestioned 

Assuming with all seriousness its interna- 
tional and internal responsibilities, Paraguay 
will always honor its word, founded in the con- 
fidence given it by its historical background, 
full of glowing deeds whose significance com- 
mits us before posterity. 

I am persuaded that if our peoples contribute 
every day to the forging of a better understand- 
ing between themselves we shall be in a better 
condition to face problems related to develop- 
ment, self-determination, and democracy. 

The spiritual heritage of the Americas directs 
us to the achievement of progress. Paraguay 
lives up to the ideal of making full use of its 
own economic resources, in order to earn the re- 
spect and appreciation of others. 

Thus, we hope to stimulate the building of 
more schools, more imiversity facilities, more 
houses, more roads, better health assistance for 
tlie people, more material and spiritual accom- 
plishments which will be the foundation of 
structural changes and social reforms without 
whicli tlie Americas will be unable to wage their 
memorable struggle for democracy and liberty. 

My coimtry has faith and confidence in its 
future. Tlie institutions established by mutual 
accord to improve the well-being of all Amer- 
icans deserve all of our support. The Alliance 
for Progress is a vast plan and a great effort to 
o\-ercome problems caused by underdevelop- 
ment, and on its stage the role played by the 
United States of i^jnerica is of vital importance. 

The same should be said in relation to the 
project of the Latin American Common Market, 
to which my country gives its warm support 
with the same sincerity with which it has col- 

APRIL 15, 1068 


laborated iii all the other credit programs de- 
signed to strengthen our economy. 

Mr. President, I feel a fervent desire to once 
again shake your friendly hand, here in your 
own noble country. Please receive the sincere af- 
fection of my peoi^le, whom I have the honor to 
serve with all the energies of my spirit. 

Please accept, Mr. President, the testimony of 
my friendship, m the assurance that God will 
always bless the United States of America in its 
struggle for freedom, justice, and welfare for all 


President Johnson 

White House press release dated March 20 

Mrs. Jolinson and I were very happy to be 
able to welcome two visitors this morning — very 
important visitors: President Stroessner and 
the first day of spring. 

I think it is appropriate, though, Mr. Presi- 
dent, for me to put in a word here and warn you 
and caution you about our Washington climate. 
The political winds blow very strong around 
here. I have observed in the last few days that 
it can turn very chilly, very suddenly. A little 
reassessment will change the entire course of 
things fast. 

One famous American humorist, Mark 
Twain, must have been thinking of Wasliington 
when he once said: "In the spring, I have 
counted 136 different kinds of weather inside of 
24 hours." Mr. President, that is particularly 
true of Washington in election years. Just last 
week, we had a new weather front move in very 
suddenly. This one came from up on the Hill of 
the United States Senate and caught some 
people just standing out in the cold. They had to 
start rmming just to keep warm. 

But we, Mr. President, are very glad that we 
can offer you our warm hospitality here in this 
first house of the land tonight. I Imow you will 
agree with me tliat all of us can learn much 
from the family of Latin American nations. 
They are a family of nations that have learned 
to live together and to live in peace together. 

There has been no fighting of any real sig- 
nificance among them for more than a quarter 
of a century now. Mr. President, this is the 

trend that should unite all of the continents in 
a coimnon cause. Tliis thmg we caU peace is a 
thing that we want most. It can be the con- 
tagious spirit that excites all mankind to the 
miracle that men can work if only men can 
learn to work together in trust and in friend- 
ship and in peace. 

Mr. President, your administration's motto is 
"Peace and progress and work." I share your 
very deep conviction that there can be no lasting 
peace without genuine progress. 

All men of all faiths want peace. But there 
are different kinds of peace ; men have different 
judgments about the better ways to obtain peace. 
The great Prime Minister of Great Britain 
thought of one way to get peace — Mr. Cham- 
berlain — but he was disillusioned. 

Another Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, 
thought of another way to get peace. As a con- 
sequence, many men had to pledge their lives, 
their blood, and their treasure. 

But now it has been more than two decades. 
I think it has been confirmed in the eyes of 
history that a quick peace, an easy peace, is not 
necessarily a just peace and a peace with honor 
that will last. 

Frequently you can lose more lives with a 
phony peace than you can with a just one. 

So, Mr. President, I know that you agree that 
there can be no genuine progress without peace 
in the world and without a fair reward for hard 
work. That statement will stand emphasis in 
this country — and in other countries in the 
world today. There can be no assurance of a fair 
reward unless people can share fully in all the 
aspects of their national life. 

Mr. President, I have been thinking of your 
visit since we were together m Punta del Este 
and since the unity and peaceful nature of the 
nations of the Western Hemisphere was brought 
together there and we resolved to unite. 

The United States tonight stands eager and 
ready to encourage such developments as are 
contained in your administration's motto 
throughout Latin America. 

Mr. President, we take great pleasure, Mrs. 
Jolmson and I, in welcoming you to this house 
as a leader who is trying his best to speed the 
growth of his nation and who, I have obsei-ved, 
is making contributions to the progress of this 

As your representative of your country sits 
on the Security Council of the United Nations 



and -n-orks in his own way every day to try to 
better luimanity, the Ainerican people take this 
opportunity to express to you, and through you 
to liini and your people, our gratitude for his 
conscientious approach and his dedicated effort. 
Ladies and gentlemen, I should like to ask 
all of you to join me in a toast to President Al- 
fredo Stroessner and particularly to the good 
people of Paraguay. 

[Here President Johnson asked his guests to join 
him in paying tribute to 2d Lt. Robert J. Hibbs, who 
had been posthumously awarded the Congressional 
Medal of Honor on January 25, 1967, and whose 
parents, Mr. and Mrs. Walter E. Hibbs, were among the 

President Stroessner 

White House press release dated March 20 

Mr. President and Mrs. Johnson, ladies and 
gentlemen : I feel a vivid emotion, as President 
of my country, to be at the 'Wliite House beside 
the illustrious Chief Executive of the United 
States of America, who has elected to honor 
Paraguay in my person. 

The Wliite House is the symbol of the history 
of a great people and the official residence of 
eminent statesmen who have ruled from here 
the destiny of a noble and great federation of 
States, continuing with the thought the glorious 
George Washington initiated in this part of the 
world which first brought forth a government 
of, for, and by the people. 

I am the bearer of a message of sincere friend- 
ship on the part, of the Paraguayan people for 
the people of the United States of ^Vmerica. In 
this centennial of our great national ordeal as a 
nation, that still resounds and which we cele- 
brate in this moment, is to be found the root of 
our will to be free, to be sovereign, and in- 
dependent of all foreign power. 

These are the causes that the forefathers of 
our country waved as a banner for human re- 
demption, as an emblem of fraternity toward 
America and the world. 

As a Paraguayan and as an American, I am 
honored to be seated at this table where Presi- 
dent Johnson, in his high post as head of this 
Government, remembers the glorious past of my 
country and my people. 

Today, President Johnson and I are renewing 
the fruitful and profitable personal conversa- 
tions initiated on the occasion of the meeting of 

the j^Vmerican Presidents in Piuita del Este. We 
have agreed that we shovdd face together the 
many problems that confront our peoples' gov- 
ernments, usmg first of all our own spiritual 
and material resources — and then seeking the 
cooperation, solidarity, and mutual assistance of 
the other countries of the hemisphere which 
foster the noble ideal of an active, positive, and 
constructive pan- Americanism. 

I consider it one of the great privileges of my 
life to again visit Washington after 15 years and 
to be able to establish a constructive dialog 
with the eminent leader of this country, who, 
from his office, is defending with intelligence, 
patience, and valor the sacred principles of 
democracy and freedom in the world. 

It is not an easy task to have the immense 
responsibility of conducting a comitry like 
yours, Mr. President. 

You are serving your country, upholding its 
prmciples, and renewing its hopes and ideals 
in the march toward the formation of a better 
world — a world of peace, work, and happiness. 

It is necessary, Mr. President, to possess — 
as you do — a high level of physical and moral 
energy in order to stay at the helm of a country 
which is at the forefront of the modern world. 
Your country is a glowing expression of tho 
spiritual force of the new world, that weighs in 
the balance of justice, directing it to the fuial 
triumph of the common good. 

I wish to express my deep gratitude for your 
splendid courtesy and friendship in recalling 
the glorious past of my people, always ready to 
defend its freedom. The people of the United 
States of America know that my country is 
ready to honor that past, firm in its determina- 
tion to fight any menace to democracy and 

This was clearly demonstrated not long ago 
when we were at the side of those who coura- 
geously assured the people of the Dominican Ke- 
public the privilege of governing themselves, 
by their sovereign will as expressed at the 
polling booths. 

My visit to this hospitable land of liberty 
takes place shortly after I have once again re- 
ceived a clear-cut mandate from my people, 
freely expressed at the polls in a civic example 
seldom seen in my country. 

This election was held with the participation 
of four political parties which reflect the various 

APRIL 15, 1968 


political beliefs in our country and resulted iu 
their participation in the three powers of the 
state. I have again accepted the honor of this 
responsibility, as I have always maintained 
that in a democracy every citizen should serve 
the people to the extent of his ability, without 
expecting to be entitled to any personal gain. 

My country is working in peace. I feel proud 
of the stability of its currency, of its republican 
institutions, and of its continued progress. Its 
potential wealth is fairly distributed through- 
out its territory, and only awaits our continued 
effort to incorporate it into the mainstream of 
the economy. 

This economy is prospering from productive 
work and is fortified by the incorporation of 
foreign capital, which finds in our country the 
climate of respect, peace, and security that we 
have achieved, under ideal conditions for a 
profitable investment under protection of the 

All of my efforts since assuming office would 
have been in vain if it were not for the heroic 
spirit of the Paraguayan j^eople, which is 
legendary in this hemisphere. 

The greatest homage we can render to the 
memory of our dead is to work ceaselessly to 
improve the nation which they defended with 
their supreme sacrifice. 

My Government is dedicated to the accelera- 
tion of progress throughout our fertile land, 
which until now has not suffered from the 
population explosion which characterizes other 
regions of this planet. 

Economic and social development is a com- 
mon task of all the free countries of Latin 

America, and in this spirit my country is ready 
to support continuously all the projects which 
work toward this great objective in order to 
achieve the goals of the Alliance for Progress. 

These projects include the hydroelectric plant 
at Acaray, development of a great international 
highway system, and the improvement of a 
river communications complex serving our 
neighboring comitries as well as ourselves. 

Mr. President, I have been moved with sincere 
emotion in Arlington Cemetery at the Tomb of 
the Unknowns wlio died in the battle for free- 
dom and democracy, and at the grave of the 
great President, John F. Kennedy, passed away. 

Please accept, in the name of my party and 
me, our profound thanks for the magnificent 
demonstrations of friendship whicli we ai'e re- 
ceiving from your people and your Government, 
ever since we have been guests of this great and 
gracious country. 

On returning to my country, I shall take with 
me the assurance of a friendship strengthened 
even further by the j^ersonal contact which we 
are maintaining in the best American spirit. 

I raise a toast to the generous people of the 
United States of America, gallant exponents of 
a great cause and a great principle for which 
we shall fight side by side, shoulder to shoulder — 
for the personal good fortune of the distin- 
guished Mrs. Johnson and for the illustrious 
President Lyndon B. Johnson, who honors us 
with his moving and noble tributes which I 
accept m the name of my people — for the hap- 
piness of all ladies and gentlemen who are here 
with us at this table of friendship, and for that 
of all the free peoples of the universe. 



The Cost of Fealty 

by Eugene V. Rostow 

Under Secretary for Political Affairs ^ 

An American election is and should be an 
educational process, a process of sifting and 
canvassing the gieat issues of policy which the 
Nation faces. But an election is something more 
than a seminar. It is also a regenerative 
process — a communion through which we draw 
fresh strength from the source of all authority 
in a democracy, the mandate of the people's 

The election we face this year is one of the 
most important in a generation. It will be 
dominated by two immense issues, each central 
to our history and to our fate. 

One is the challenge to make good at long 
last our promise of equality to the Negi-o. From 
the beginnings of the Nation, more than 300 
years ago, Americans have lived with inner ten- 
sion about the status of the Negro in American 
society. Slavery and, after slavery, racial dis- 
crimination were accepted by custom and sanc- 
tioned by law. But the conscience of the com- 
munity and the conscience of the law knew these 
customs were evil, contrary to the most funda- 
mental ideal of our life as a community, the 
principle "that all men are created equal." 

Through a long and painful series of stages, 
we have sought from the beginnings of the Ke- 
public to remake society in the image of this 
ideal. Within the last few years, under the pow- 
erful leadership of President Johnson, the Na- 
tion has made giant strides to fulfill in action the 
pledge of honor we made so long ago and have 
so long neglected. 

Our new progi-ams in the field of education, 
welfare, and urban affairs seek to initiate ir- 
reversible flows of change. They undertake to 
create new opportimities for the Negro in educa- 

' Address made before the Manchester, X.H., Cham- 
ber of Commerce on Mar. 22 (as-delivered text; for 
advance test, see iiress release 55). 

tion, in the economy, in his freedom to live, to 
work, and to study where he chooses and to take 
advantage of every opportimity his talents may 
command. And we are seeking also to help the 
Negro, and others who have been disadvan- 
taged by inheritance, to overcome the handicaps 
of the past and step through the door in dig- 
nity as full members of American society. 

These processes of change have costs. They 
stir resistance and revive cruel patterns of in- 
humanity. The contest between the actual and 
the ideal is never easy and is often bitter. To- 
day the challenge and the Imrden of our prob- 
lems of poverty, of crime, and of protest have 
been made clear. President Johnson is asking us 
to honor our pledges and to carry this burden. 
Some people would now retreat, discouraged by 
the costs our national commitment entails. But 
most of us know we must not falter. 

No American can doubt the outcome. The 
values of our constitutional tradition are the 
strongest force in our minds, and in our hearts. 
They will prevail, because they must. 

U.S. Role in the World 

The second great issue in the election will be 
our foreign policy. Like every other citizen, I 
welcome the recent intensification of debate 
about our foreign policy and particularly about 
our course in Viet-Nam. Foreign policy is too 
serious a matter to be left to the experts or even 
to the State Department. It must be understood 
and accepted by the people if it is to have the 
strength of the Nation behind it. 

The debate over foreign policy has many 
parallels to the debate over Negro rights. Like 
that debate, it requires us to determine what 
kind of people we are and how we propose to 
meet the tasks which have come to our hands. 

APrjL 15, 1968 


The issue of foreign policy we are facing in 
the election — make no mistake about it — is not 
alone our policies in Viet-Nam but whether we 
continue on the path we have followed since the 
war or seek once more to I'etreat into the isola- 
tionism of the 19th century as we did in 1920. 

The issue was clearly and correctly posed by 
Senator Fulbright in his statement on March 
11 opening the Senate Foreign Relations Com- 
mittee's exammation of Secretary Rusk. The 
distinguished Senator pointed out that the 
American iieople are "aroused and disturbed" 
about the issues of the day, particularly about 
Viet-Nam. The present policies of the United 
States, he said, call into question what he called 
one of the traditional values of America. "There 
was a time not long ago when Americans 
believed tliat whate^•er else they might have to 
do in the world — whatever wars they might 
have to fight, whatever aid they might have to 
provide — their principal contribution to the 
world would be their own example as a decent 
and democratic society." The fading of this 
dream, he said, was dimming the light of opti- 
mism among the American people. lie pointed 
to fears of another summer of violence, to an un- 
popular war, and to what he called a "spiritual 
rebellion" among many of our youth. 

I share the Senator's conviction that this is 
a time of testing in our history. But I do not 
believe these two great tests, in our cities and in 
Viet-Nam, came about as aberrant phenomena 
or as acts of human will contrary to the course 
of our national development. 

Senator Fulbright is perfectly right in say- 
ing that we once thought our main contribution 
to the world should be the force of our example 
as a model society at home. That belief came to 
have a tenacious hold on the American spirit 
because of the circumstances of our life before 
1914. For more than a century, we lived in a 
system of international order maintained by the 
European nations. We were safe in that sys- 
tem and never had to take responsibility for its 

But the old system of order has gone and can- 
not be restored. Our safety as a nation now re- 
quires us to take the lead in helping to construct 
a new system of peace built around regional 
coalitions that could deter aggression and or- 
ganize the conditions of progress. We have not 
sought this responsibility. It has come to us 
because the old condition of peace has vanished 
and a new one has not yet been born. We must 

participate in the effort because our national 
security depends upon our success. 

The ideal of which Senator Fulbright spoke 
so feelingly has become an illusion. Our security 
cannot be protected by a quick intervention 
abroad followed by a return to the comfortable 
patterns of the 19th century. For the first tune 
in our experience as a nation, we must deal 
directly and continuously with the problem of 
power and the effort to continue it within a 
system of agreed rules : the rules of a new inter- 
national law. 

That fact defines our role in the world, now 
and for as far ahead as we can foresee. We are 
now engaged in the painful effort to accept that 
fact and to clear our minds of notions about 
ourselves which are no longer relevant. It is 
necessarily a difficult effort, requiriiig us to con- 
front cherished memories and hopes and dreams. 
But reality is implacable and cannot be ex- 
orcised by prayer. Senator Fulbright says this 
process means the end of optimism. I should 
rather say it marks the end of innocence. 

Experience Since World War II 

We are involved today in Viet-Nam, as in 
our cities, because commitments we made in 
quieter times are being put to the test. We 
made a commitment to give our Negro citizens 
true equality. We cannot and we shall not now 
give up on that commitment because its fulfill- 
ment is difficult, more difficult perhaps than 
many may have expected. We have made com- 
mitments to our friends in the world, first in 
Europe, then in Asia, to help them resist aggres- 
sion. I propose to you that we cannot now give 
up those commitments — made with open eyes 
and with the support of both political parties, 
representing an overwhelming majority of our 
people — because they, too, are more difficult 
than we may have hoped they would be. 

Since the administration of President Tru- 
man, since the days when the voice of Senator 
Vandenberg was heard in the Senate, most 
Americans have been convinced that our own 
freedom at home has depended upon stability in 
the world. The experience of two wars and of 
the tragic, fumbling period between the wars 
brought home to us the fact that American 
freedom cannot exist behind fortress walls with 
hostile forces dominating large parts of a con- 
tracting world outside. 

After the Second World War ended and the 
threat of Communist aggression became clear 



to us, we Americans realized that we could not 
again retreat to isolation and leave the rest of 
the world to its own devices. We had no quar- 
rel with the institution of communism within 
the Soviet Union. "We have no quarrel today 
with any state simply because it has adopted 
a Socialist system. But we recognized that Com- 
munist aggression, like Xazi aggression, could 
not be tolerated. When the Communists 
tlrreatened to use force, we made clear our 
willmgness to reply with force. This is the 
essence of the Truman doctrine, called forth by 
Communist designs in Greece and Turkey. 

Following that doctrine, successive American 
Presidents have faced down Communist aggres- 
sion time and time again — in Greece and Tur- 
key, in Iran, in Berlin, m Korea, and in Cuba. 
On each occasion, we have made it perfectly 
clear that we wei'e not trying to destroy the 
Commimists in their own countries but only 
helping others to resist Communist aggression 
in the non-Communist world. 

In this assumption the basic foreign policy 
of President Eisenhower was the same as Presi- 
dent Truman's and, indeed, as that of President 
Kennedy and now of President Jolmson. 

All four administrations also recognized that 
besides the naked use of force there are other 
means by which an aggressive power can menace 
another. "Wliile these means include the threat 
of force, they do not require its use. These means 
can be described by the term "subvei-sion" ; 
that is, preying upon economic weakness and 
political and social discontent to undermine a 
state which harbors them. We came to see that 
this form of aggression could not be countered 
by soldiers and alliances alone — that the causes 
of the grievances had to be faced. This was the 
origin of the Marshall Plan, Point 4, and the 
programs of economic assistance supported by 
every administration since then. The United 
States supports progress and democracy 
wherever its influence can reach. We do this 
because such ideas are deep in our nature and 
because we know that only progressive societies 
can develop the inner strength to resist take- 
over from within, or from without. 

In the 1940's the major thrust of Communist 
aggression was Europe: Greece and Turkey, 
then Berlin. As the nations of Europe achieved 
military security — tlirough XATO — and eco- 
nomic and political stability. Communist ag- 
gression found new outlets in Asia. In Korea 
Americans demonstrated that aggression on the 

shores of the Pacific could no more be tolerated 
than in the Xorth Atlantic area. We halted ag- 
gression in Korea, and we took steps to prevent 
its spread elsewhere in Asia. Programs of eco- 
nomic assistance, from South Korea to Indo- 
nesia, have helped to build economic and politi- 
cal stability and helped to reduce the danger 
of subversion. Defense agreements, with Japan, 
with South Korea, with the Republic of Cliina, 
with Australia and Xew Zealand, and with our 
allies in the SEATO treaty, have reduced the 
tlireat of overt aggression. 

Worth of America's Pledges Under Attack 

In many places in Asia we have had notable 
successes. Dramatic improvements have been 
registered in such countries as Pakistan, 
Thailand, the Eepublic of China, and South 
Korea. Others, like Indonesia, have recently 
taken highly encouraging steps to put them- 
selves on the road to steady economic growth 
and progress. 

But there is no point in fooling ourselves by 
looking only at the bright spots. Both local and 
international Commimist forces continue in 
their determination to overwhelm their neigh- 
bors, both through outright force and through 
subversion. At the moment, the Commimist 
offensive is focused on Viet-Xam. But what is 
being attacked is more than one country — it is 
our whole position in Asia and, in fact, the 
worth of America's pledges throughout the 

As long as these pledges required some sub- 
stantial but not overwhelming sums for foreign 
aid and a considerable but not massive concen- 
tration of military force in the area, the great 
majority of Americans — in both parties, in both 
Houses of Congress — accepted them as a neces- 
sary' development in our nation's, in the world's, 
history. Our reason told us they were right. Our 
hearts, our personal lives were little touched by 

Today these pledges are being put to a real 
test — they cost us something more substantial, 
in money and in lives. They affect each of us 
personally. They can no longer, like the Su- 
preme Court's decision on integration, be neatly 
hung on the wall to receive an occasional pious 
glance. Do we still want to back them up ? We 
must choose. 

We can say: "Well, all this talk, all these 
pledges, about helping nations resist aggression 

APRIL 15, 1068 


are all fine and good — but this isn't what we 
thought they meant. Sorry, but you'll have to 
excuse us now — it costs too much." 

Or we can say, with the late President 
Kemiedy : ^ 

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or 
ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet 
any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to 
assure the survival and the success of liberty. 

The choice is ours — but let us know what it 
means. Three administrations have given their 
word not to abandon South Viet-Nam. Fortified 
by our support, local leaders in Viet-Nam and 
in neighboring countries have risked their necks, 
marshaled their own forces, and stood up to the 
Conamunists. We should have no illusions about 
what will happen to these people if we abandon 
them now, nor of the effect of our withdrawal 
on free people around the world wlio have 
shown their willingness to work and struggle to 
build their nations and join with us in creating 
an open world society based on the idea of free- 
dom and of progress. 

The credibility of the U.S. commitment to 
each of these countries will stand or fall on our 
willingness to keep our commitments to the 
Vietnamese. In theory, there may be better 
places to tight; in fact, we have no real 

Viet-Nam Unlike Earlier Wars 

What is it that makes Viet-Nam so different, 
so disturbing? For one thing, as I have said, it 
is an acid test of our commitments — it demon- 
strates how serious they are, it demonstrates that 
being a great power necessarily involves great 
burdens. For another, it is a war unlike any we 
have fought before. 

It is different in its origins. Here there was 
no LiisHania, no Pearl Harbor, no massive at- 
tack across the 38th parallel. But was it any less 
of an act of aggression when, as early as 1957, 
Ho Chi Minh ordered those of his supporters 
whom he left behind in the South after the Gen- 
eva accords to pick up their hidden arms and 
begin a campaign of terror that has seen about 
14,000 civilians killed and another 45,000 kid- 
naped since its inception? Is it any less of an 
act of aggression when other Communists 
trained in the North after the Geneva accords 
were sent back south to forcibly change the sys- 

' For text of President Kennedy's inaugural address, 
see BinxETiN of Feb. 6, 1961, p. 175. 

tern in that half of the country? Is it any less 
of an act of aggression when both sides speak 
the same language and consider themselves part 
of one nation? The Germans, too, are one na- 
tion involuntarily divided. They, too, were 
promised their unity through free elections, 
which the Soviets have refused to consider. Yet 
no one believes that these facts give them the 
right to reunify their country by force of arms. 

The war in Viet-Nam is also different in tlie 
way it is being fought. It is a war in whicli the 
election of a village chief, the grant of a title to 
land, the actions of a youth group in rebuilding 
a Saigon slum are of crucial importance. These 
events cannot occur unless there is a military 

But the military shield will be of no avail un- 
less such political progress occurs. It is a war 
in which 500,000 Americans are engaged and yet 
one which only the Vietnamese can really win. 

It is not easy for a great nation to send its 
troops overseas to a distant and strange conti- 
nent, not to fight by themselves or in alliance 
with peoples of similar backgroimd but to fight 
in support of a people whose traditions and atti- 
tudes are different from its own, a people whose 
experience in self-government is limited, a peo- 
ple whose capacity to govern itself has never 
really been tested. 

Much has been said about the South Viet- 
namese, these people we find so difficult to un- 
derstand. We are told their devotion to self- 
interest and self-aggrandizement dominates all 
other sentiments, that it places in question their 
very will to win in the war we are engaged in 
together. How can we hope to succeed with such 

Let me take a moment to read some slightly 
edited excerpts from a few diplomatic dis- 
patches which illustrate the kind of exasperated 
feeling many of us seem to have. These words 
were written by expert obsei-vers, not about 
South Viet-Nam but about another people 
struggling to create a government and a nation 
under difficult circumstances. I quote : 

The majority of . . . [the ministers of the govern- 
ment] were chosen for their political views . . . with 
no regard to the complex administrative tasks they 
have to perform. ... As soon as someone does begin to 
distinguish himself, personal jealousies and the princi- 
ple of never allowing another's star to rise soon serve to 
get him out of the way. . . . 

A businessman . . . placed in charge of foreign 
affairs, resigned under suspicion of using state s^ecrets 
to his own commercial advantage. . . . 



It pains me to have to report that financial probity 
and the separation of public good and private gain are 
not among tbe qualities whieb grace tbis young Re- 
public. . . . All of its officials are making exorbitant 
personal profits. Self-interest is dominant everywhere ; 
it is not condemned, but unabashedly practiced. . . . 
Commercial cupidity is indeed a distinguishiug char- 
acteristic of the citizens . . . and will certainly in- 
fluence tbe future of the Republic. . . . 

I will not recall here my previous remarks on tbe 
questions which divide [them] . . . and on the ar- 
rangements . . . which result in uncoordinated efforts, 
indecision, delay in numerous essential operations, and 
in the impossibility of taking necessary steps which 
the resources of the State would otherwise permit. . . . 

This lack of order, in the whole and in its parts, 
has existed from the beginning . . . and has often 
placed the young Republic in danger. ... If [the 
enemy] ... is as aggressive as we have all too often 
seen him to be before, as confident and as courageous, 
he won't find much resistance. 

[Their soldiers] are permitted to hire substitutes. . . . 

[Their officers] are unrestrained in their ambitions 
to command and in their vanity for rank and titles. 
This epidemic disease grows faster here than any- 
where else in the world. . . . 

It is a wonder that the official who received 
these reports did not throw up his hands and 
urge his superiors to give up a bad project. We 
can all consider ourselves fortunate that the 
Count de Vergennes, Foreign Minister of the 
Kingdom of France, had a little more patience 
with our Continental Congress, and with the 
-\inerican Army, than M. Gerard, the French 
Minister to Philadelphia, demonstrated in these 
lines he wrote in 1778. Perhaps we should all 
emulate Vergennes' patience when we read re- 
jjorts about our Vietnamese allies and their will 
to win. 

The reports I cited, like some we receive from 
Viet-Nam, have good sensational content. Most 
of the others in the collection from which they 
were drawn show the firm will of the Americans 
to succeed, despite their problems. Relative to 
those I read you, they make dull reading. So, 
too, I suppose, are the daily reports on the num- 
l)er of Vietnamese men and women who give 
tlieir lives — not in dramatic battles but in the 
defense of hamlets and villages throughout the 
country. Tliat their losses surpassed ours last 
year, and were double ours during tlie Tet of- 
fensive, likewise seems to attract little atten- 
tion. Nor do we recall that the 700,000 Vietnam- 
ese bearing arms today, relative to population, 
are the equivalent of about 8 million in the 
United States. We are all aware that, until re- 
cently, 18- and 19-year-old Vietnamese were 
excluded from the draft. Now, let us all note, 

they will be part of the 135,000 new recruits 
President Thieu has pledged to add to the 
Vietnamese armed forces this year. We are all 
aware of negative evaluations of the ability of 
these men — but we forget the evaluations given 
by General Westmoreland [Gen. William C. 
Westmoreland, Commander, U.S. Military 
Assistance Command, Viet-Nam] or the simple 
statistics which show that whereas once the 
Vietnamese armed forces lost twice as many 
weapons to the Communists as they captured, 
they have now reversed the ratio to about 1 to 
1.5 in their favor. 

We are all aware of the corruption of some 
Vietnamese officials, but the reports on those 
dismissed for it — on every level — rarelj' attract 
attention. Nor, it seems to me, is much attention 
given to the bold measures now being taken to 
eliminate the roots and causes of corruiDtion 
throughout the Vietnamese Government. 

No one recognizes the need to combat cor- 
ruption more than President Thieu, who has 
called it "a shame for the whole nation." In a 
radio address given just yesterday, President 
Thieu pledged to his people : "I will not pass up 
any infraction. ... I shall not treat with in- 
dulgence any clearly established case of cor- 
ruption ... in the present and in tlie future." 

I am not proposing that we should ignore 
the faults of the Vietnamese. I ask only that we, 
like the Count de Vergennes in reading of those 
of our forefathers, weigh them against less 
dramatic, but concrete, realities. In making our 
criticisms, let us also recall that we went through 
exactly the same cycle of complaints about the 
government and fighting forces of South Korea 
18 years ago. 

Finally, our effort in Viet-Nam is different in 
what we and our allies hope to win. We seek no 
Kaiser going into exile, no Nazi state to be un- 
compromisingly destroyed, no unconditional 
surrender aboard the battleship Missouri. We 
plan no occupation, no residue of military bases. 
Of Ho Chi Minh, we ask only that he cease try- 
ing to impose his system upon South Viet-Nam 
by force. We have no quarrel with that system 
which exists in North Viet-Nam — no reserva- 
tions as to how the two states, once at peace, 
should resolve their common interests and prob- 
lems. For the South Vietnamese, we have no 
textbooks in Jeffersonian democracy, no for- 
mulas of the "American way" — we want no 
more than that they develop, in peace, their own 
Vietnamese state, in keeping with tlieir own as- 

APRIL 15, 1968 


pirations and traditions. For the Viet Cong, we 
foresee no Nuremberg trials, no forced exile 
similar to that into which Ho Clii Minh sent 
nearly 900,000 of his countrymen. The Govern- 
ment of South Viet-Nam has made it quite clear, 
in word and in deed, that it is willing to open its 
arms to any Viet Cong who renounces armed in- 
surrection and to jDermit him to aspire to what- 
ever position his talents or his popular role can 
bring him. 

Approaches to Negotiations 

President Thieu has said that while he cannot 
recognize the NLF as a rival government of 
South Viet-Nam, he is prepared for informal 
talks with individuals now associated with the 
NLF, which might bring good results. Presi- 
dent Johnson has stressed, most recently in his 
December 19 television interview,^ that we 
should welcome such contacts and would sup- 
port arrangements that might be made to build 
the public life of South Viet-Nam on the prin- 
ciple of one-man, one-vote. 

For ourselves, finally, what we want is the 
same as what we wanted in Korea : to convince 
the aggressor that he cannot win, to demonstrate 
that we will not tolerate the success of Com- 
munist military aggression, direct or indirect, 
in Asia any more than in Europe. 

These are modest objectives. They are, you 
will note, essentially joolitical objectives. They 
are objectives that demand that the enemy sur- 
render nothing that is his — neither the freedom 
of the North Vietnamese state nor that of the 
Viet Cong as citizens of the South. They are 
objectives which the administration believes 
could, and should, best be obtained not on the 
battlefield but at the negotiating table. 

There are many critics and commentators 
who tell us we must stop seeking a solution in 
the political and military arenas of South Viet- 
Nam and negotiate. 

Have these critics really found something 
new ? Is it really an unexplored area the admin- 
istration fears to venture into? I believe the 
facts show the opposite is true : that there is no 
one in this country who has given more time, 
more thought, and more action to the question 
of negotiations than President Johnson. 

We have made and continue to make any 
number of approaches to negotiations. We have 
pressed for eifective actions by the United Na- 

' For excerpts, see iUd., Jan. 8, lORS. p. 33. 

tions Security Council. But Hanoi totally re- 
jects the competence of the U.N. — and the So- 
viet Union has uncompromisingly reflected its 
ally's attitude. So that chamiel has been closed 
to us. 

We have turned to North Viet-Nam. Over 
and over again, directly and through inter- 
mediaries, we have offered to discuss any ques- 
tion any time without preconditions of any sort 
by either side. If the larger questions were still 
too much for Hanoi to consider, we have offered 
on several occasions to engage the other side in 
discussions of some form of mutual deescalation 
of violence, leading perhaps to a cease-fire, or 
at least improving the atmosphere for more sub- 
stantive discussions. They have refused. 

Hanoi has claimed that the bombing raids 
north of the I7th parallel were the impediment 
to talks. We heard them. In May of 1965, and 
again for 37 days in December that year and 
January 1966, we stopped the bombing out- 
right. We now know that Hanoi used this latter 
pause to undertake a major increase in its in- 
filtration into the South. In respect for Viet- 
namese tradition, we continued to stop the 
bombing over the holiday truce periods. This 
year, as you know, Hanoi honored its promises 
of a 7-day military standdown during Tet by 
launching a long-planned major attack on Sai- 
gon and urban centers throughout the coimtry. 

In the spring of 1966, when Hanoi began 
talking of a "permanent" cessation of the 
bombing, we indicated our willingness to con- 
sider this and asked only for some restraints 
on their part in turn. Mindful of their sense of 
face, we made it clear to Hanoi that we re- 
quired no public announcements and made no 
demands for immediate action. No answer. In 
February 1967, the President wrote to Ho Chi 
Minh and offered to stop the bombing and the 
reinforcement of U.S. troops in Viet-Nam if Ho 
would stop its infiltration.* The offer was 
brusquely dismissed. 

Later in 1967, first privately, then publicly, 
we offered what is now called the San Antonio 
formula.^ We proposed a halt to the bombing, 
provided only that it led to productive discus- 
sions within a reasonable time. We would as- 
sume that the Communists not take military 
advantage of our doing so. From late August to 
mid-October, while discussions on the formula 

' For text, see ibid.. Apr. 10, 1967, p. 595. 

° For an address by President Johnson made at San 
Antonio, Tex., on Sept. 29, 1907, see ibid., Oct. 23, 1967, ; 
p. 519. i 



were underway through third parties, we re- 
strained our bombing in the Hanoi area, just 
as we had in the first quarter of the year, wlien 
we liad hopes of arriving at something tlirough 
direct contacts in Moscow. Hanoi broke contact. 

After North Vietnamese Foreign Minister 
[Nguyen Duy] Trinh's statement of December 
29, we again imdertook explorations as to the 
possibilities of working from this statement 
toward agreement on the San Antonio for- 
mula — and again showed restraint in our bomb- 
ing in the Hanoi area. 

To clear up the persistent misunderstanding 
that we were trying to exact conditions from 
Hanoi, Secretary of Defense [Clark M.] 
Clifford made clear that we did not interpret 
the San Antonio formula to mean that it must 
stop normal levels of assistance to the Viet 
Cong but only that we assumed that Hanoi 
would not take undue advantage of our pause to 
drastically increase these levels. Nonetheless, the 
response to our explorations has been and re- 
mains negative. 

We have sought also to engage the Soviet 
Union in talks about the problem of Viet-Nam — 
to enforce the Geneva accords of 1954 and of 
1962, and to consider deescalation of its aid. 
Thus far, these approaches have not been 

This is the record of some of our efforts. We 
have left no stone unturned. We have made new 
approaches and expressed the continued valid- 
ity of our older approaches. From all the evi- 
dence, we must conclude today that Hanoi still 
hopes for a military victory and is therefore 
unwilling to talk peace except on terms that 
would violate the legally expressed will of the 
South Vietnamese people by imposing a 
foreign-dominated minority government upon 

"Wlien this attitude changes, Hanoi will find 
us ready to talk, as we are now, as we have been. 
Negotiations are no unexplored alternative to 
us. Rather, our continued military action is the 
costly and regretted alternative to a negotiated 
settlement which we much prefer but which 
Hanoi still refuses to explore with us. 

There is, of course, the other alternative 
suggested to us : that of admitting that prevent- 
ing aggression is only acceptable when it is 
cheap. This is the alternative of withdrawal. 
Wliat would it mean for Southeast Asia ? What 
would it mean, in the end, for America? 

The nations of Southeast Asia todav are as 

diverse as those in any part of the world, and 
they are developing and relating to each other 
and to the world in a variety of ways which 
reflect this diversity. Virtually all of them have 
been confronted by a Communist threat at some 
time in their history — most of them are still 
confronted by this threat today. They are meet- 
ing this threat on their own, without American 
combat troops, often without any formal ties 
of alliance to any country at all. In Indonesia, 
in Malaysia, active Communist subversion has 
been successfully met. In Burma, in Thailand, 
in Cambodia, local forces continue to hold Com- 
munist insurgents in check. Yet each of these 
countries is weak compared to the alliance of 
China and North Viet-Nam. What has given 
them, what continues to give them, the confi- 
dence to resist ? 

Confidence in the U.S. Commitment 

In the first instance, it is tlieir national and 
religious traditions — all of them contrary to 
Marxian communism. Yet history has shown 
them all that proud traditions alone cannot 
stop armies, camiot stop subversion or the con- 
ditions it feeds on. What tips the balance, then, 
is their knowledge that they are not alone. Their 
conviction that there is a great power, the 
United States, that is willing to help stop ag- 
gression. In Asia as well as in Europe, as long as 
this conviction is secure, as long as our willing- 
ness to assist remains credible, this confidence 
will remain. Southeast Asians will deal with 
their own problems, including insurgency and 

If that confidence is removed, however, these 
nations would again feel themselves alone. 
Then, not even the most determined of the free 
governments of Southeast Asia could long re- 
sist the combination of external pressure and 
internal subversion the Communists employ. 
Indeed, most of them recognize there would be 
no point in resisting such pressure single- 
handed. We could expect, then, that most of 
Southeast Asia would soon be under the control 
of one or tlie other of the Communist allies — 
which one hardly matters. Hanoi's would be 
just as oppressive to the Lao or Cambodian as 
Peking's to the Burmese or Malaysian. 

You need not take my word that our stand 
in Viet-Nam is the touchstone of that confi- 
dence. You need not take my word that our 
withdrawal from Viet-Nam, and the fall of that 
country to the Communists, would bring down 

APRIL 15, 1968 


the rest of Southeast Asia as well. Last July, 
IVIr. Lee Kuan Yew, Prime Minister of neutral 
Singapore, pointed out : 

I feel the fate of Asia — South and Southeast Asia — 
■will be decided in the next few years by what happens 
out in Vlet-Nam. I mean, that this is the contest. De- 
pending on how that is resolved, the rest of South and 
Southeast Asia will fall in place. 

Of course, there are those who believe that 
wouldn't matter either — there are those who are 
perfectly willing to sacrifice South and South- 
east Asia if that is what we must do to "get out 
of Viet-Nam." But what then of India ; what, 
eventually, of the rest of Asia ? They would, at 
the least, be confronted with very grave dangers. 
And the United States might then be faced by 
the choice between not one but a number of 
massive interventions, on the one hand, or the 
possible collapse of all of Asia on the other. 

I am not talking about "monolithic commu- 
nism." Even the State Department knows that 
Hanoi is not a simple satellite of Peking and 
that a Communist Indonesia wouldn't be, either. 
But it seems to me that an alliance of such states, 
and of others transformed into their images, 
would be no less dangerous to us than any single 
power dominating the region. We could then be 
confronted, m a contracting world of jets and 
missiles, with the threat of a hostile Asia — a 
threat comparable at least in its potentialities to 
the threat we recognized 30 years ago as a grave 
menace to our security. 

No one, of course, can give ironclad guaran- 
tees about the course of history. But no respon- 
sible statesman has the riglit to close his eyes to 
the possibilities that lie within it — especially 
when his nation's security is at stake. 

All of our recent Presidents have kept their 
eyes open. All of them recognized the dangers 
that could arise if aggression were to go un- 
checked. Today, however, because the costs are 
higher. President Johnson is being asked to 
close his eyes and to ignore the dangers — to 
us — which a unilateral withdrawal from Viet- 
Nam would entail. I am pleased to tell you he 
has no intention of doing that. He has no inten- 
tion of ignoring the words with which his 
predecessor began his term of office — or the 
cautions of the other men who have held the 
Office of the Presidency in the last 20 years. He 
has no intention of abandoning his quest for a 
just, negotiated peace in Viet-Nam or of aban- 

doning that country before such a peace is 

The debate about our course in Viet-Nam has 
only begun. There is of course an outpouring 
of feeling and concern about our engagement 
in Viet-Nam. But protest is not necessarily 
policy. Tims far the issues have not been sharp- 
ly defined. But the process of debate, particu- 
larly of debate under the fierce lights of an 
election, will require the contestants to declare 
themselves. It is natural for politicians to seek 
vantage points which will seem to offer new 
hopes for peace in a period of troubled opinion. 
But the American people will see through ver- 
bal formulas or vague programs which pretend 
to be alternatives. 

The critics of the administration have not yet 
succeeded in defining an alternative to our pol- 
icy in Viet-Nam. 

They sound like opponents of the adminis- 
tration. But there is a gap between their rhet- 
oric and reality. Sa^•e for the few who frankly 
advocate surrender, and others who would sup- 
port a major expansion of our military effort, 
it is impossible on analysis to discover in what 
respects the President's critics would modify 
his policy of firmness and restraint. They op- 
pose unilateral withdrawal. So does the admin- 
istration. They favor negotiation with Hanoi, 
but so does the administration, which has ex- 
plored literally hundreds of leads, only to find 
the other side hanging up the phone. They sug- 
gest negotiations with the NLF. But any repu- 
table authority on Viet-Nam, whatever his posi- 
tion, understands that the Liberation Front is 
not essentially different from Hanoi and that 
the fundamental conflict in Viet-Nam is 
squarely between Communists and non-Com- 
munists. They favor enlisting the cooperation 
of the Soviet Union. We have sought to do 
so many times. They urge larger participation 
of South Vietnamese forces. That small coun- 
try has just called another 135,000 men to the 
colors. True, some would try once again the 
device of suspending our bombing of North 
Viet-Nam. But they offer no reason to suggest 
that sucli a step would produce better results 
now than on the previous occasions it was tried. 

The plain fact is tliat Hanoi is not ready to 
negotiate, save perhaps to preside at our ritual 
surrender. These are the facts which every 
American voter should consider very carefully 
in the months ahead. 



Innovative Effects of the Alliance for Progress 

iy Covey T. Oliver 

Assistant Secretary for Inter-Anierlcan Affairs 

OvlX current relations with American govern- 
ments in our home hemisphere are defined by 
tlie revohitionary precepts and goals of the 
Alliance for Progress. Seven years ago we and 
our allies made a new departure in our attitudes 
toward inter-American affairs. We devised and 
continue to devise innovative techniques to en- 
able us to reach our goal of the total develop- 
ment of a continent and its peoples — a develop- 
ment that will bring all American nations into 
fruitful participation in the technological and 
scientific benefits now available to developed 
coimtries and at the same time bring a better 
life in stable, democratic societies to the mil- 
lions in our hemisphere who have been neglected 
for centuries. 

Before we could accept the Alliance way, we 
in the United States had to rethink our national 
interest and recast our hemispheric role. It was 
necessary for us to be willing to become involved 
with our neighbors in closely knit, continuous 
ways and to work with them on difficult prob- 
lems, far beyond those of mutual defense which 
had drawn us together in the war years. Also, 
we had to come to see that the ills afflicting the 
majority of American nations would not be 
cured in time by "natural" or "normal" forces 
and efforts. Thus, the Alliance became the next 
great step after the good-neighbor policy. In 
many ways it was a more significant, certainly 
a more difficult, step for us to take. But it was an 
essential one. 

On their part, our American allies in develop- 

' Address made at Miami Beach, Fla., on Mar. 1.5 
before the Annual Institute on Recent Innovations in 
the Structure and Methods of Business Transactions 
iu Latin America sponsored by the University of Miami 
IjAv; Center (press release 48 dated Mar. 14.) 

ment had to understand that their societies were 
in urgent need of wide-ranging social, political, 
and economic reform. They had to realize that 
imless this reform was initiated and supported 
by all sectors of tlieir societies, public and pri- 
vate, the demand for change would degenerate 
into violence that would threaten the peace and 
security of the whole hemisphere. 

Inherent in the decision by the member na- 
tions of the Alliance to accept new roles to 
carry out the vast development plan was the 
realization that the intimate cooperation re- 
quired would entail opening some key aspects 
of national affairs to transnational discourse and 
consideration. Alliance nations realize that true 
collaboration for hemispheric development re- 
quires the establishment of regional norms for 
self-help, mutually acceptable multinational 
supervision of development iirojects, and uni- 
formly just treatment of foreign investments, to 
mention just a few. It could almost be said that 
the acceptance of this great change from na- 
tional isolation has been the most innovative 
of all the revolutionary effects of the Alliance 
for Progress. 

Innovating in foreign affairs, as Secretary 
Rusk has pointed out, can be a risky business. 
Bold new departures such as the Alliance for 
Progress bring new problems as well as new 

Some of the new problems which challenge 
the best minds the Alliance nations liave avail- 
able are : 

1. Increased dangers of misimderstanding as 
we move beyond traditional international rela- 
tions into new relationships of intensive hemi- 
spheric involvement. An assertion energetically 
made in true belief that it is wholesome for de- 

APRIL 15, 10 68 


velopment may be taken as a demand or even 
as an ultimatum of sorts. Or the idea may not be 
valid for the local condition but the proponent 
is uninformed or insensitive to this. 

2. Growing unrest as old, inequitable societal 
structures weaken and new systems have yet to 
take strong root. Can our nations advance fast 
enough to keep ahead of rising expectations re- 
sulting from our first efforts imder the Alliance? 

3. The need to refine or redirect our goals 
and programs as the Alliance moves on, in spite 
of inertia, bureaucratic and other. 

I am sure, however, that a quick glance at what 
we have already achieved during phase I more 
than justifies a good measure of optimism that 
the Alliance will prevail : 

1. Latin America is now enjoying an un- 
precedented period of political stability di- 
rectly resulting from our Alliance efforts. No 
nation in the area has suffered an extraconstitu- 
tional change of government for the past 22 
months, compared to an average of three such 
changes annually for the preceding 36 years. 

2. Food production on a regional basis has 
kept pace with the fastest growing population 
in the world. 

3. More and better schools, new roads, bur- 
geoning cooperatives, and increased technical 
competence built up during the first phase of 
the Alliance now enable our developing neigh- 
bors to absorb and make better use of funds 
which can lead to even greater development 
rates and benefit greater numbers of people. 

We are progressing. And it must be remem- 
bered, many of our allies are advancing in the 
teeth of increased efforts by alien and alien-sup- 
ported insurgents to impose tyrannical systems 
by armed subversion. 

Now, how does this revolutionary departure 
called the Alliance for Progress relate to the 
entrepreneur, the American— and I mean Pan- 
American — businessman ? 

First of all, the Alliance needs his total and 
sincere support for its premises and goals. Un- 
like the nostrimis of demagogs, the Alliance 
does not ask one sector to bear the complete 
burden of development, nor does it contemplate 
forcing those who have the most to share their 
wealth indiscriminately with those who have 
nothing. Simplistic redistribution is no solution. 

There must be greater productivity, more effi- 
cient exchanges of goods and services, and more 
equitable sharing of total benefits. 

It is obvious that if the developing nations of 
our hemisphere are to advance on all fronts as 
quickly as possible — and they must do so very 
quickly — they cannot afford to alienate or de- 
stroy those very sectors which, for a number of 
reasons, have the greatest experience in national 
and international business and the most modern 
tools available to the society. Rather, these ad- 
vanced sectors must be brought fully into the 
development effort. 

It is accepted dogma in the violent revolu- 
tionary theories that anyone who benefited 
significantly under the unjust societal struc- 
tures of the past is a reactionary, a human bar- 
rier to true social reform in the Americas. Many, 
many — too many — who should be involved in 
the Alliance still believe that those who have 
prospered are evil, selfish, uncaring. The burden 
of persuasion that this is not the case still lies 
with the well-off in jjoor societies. It must be 
met — and in those societies themselves- — by pre- 
cept and by example. 

"VVliile we must admit that such attitudes cer- 
tainly do exist and must be overcome, it would 
be wrong and self-defeating to make the suc- 
cessful entrepreneur the pariah in our develop- 
ment scheme. Indeed, the Inter- American Coun- 
cil for Commerce and Production (CICYP), 
which lists among its members some of the 
most successful of Pan-American businessmen, 
is among the leaders of hemispheric organiza- 
tions seeking ways to add their strength to our 
development efforts. 

That is the way it should be. That is the way 
it must be if the Alliance for Progress is to 

As our nations move into the institution- 
building and reform era (phase II) of the 
Alliance and beyond to the economic integration 
of more than 20 diverse economies during phase 
III, they will depend increasingly on the entre- 
preneur to provide the great investments and 
skills needed in industry, in agriculture and 
commerce. Businessmen must help foresee and 
plan for the temporary inequalities and im- 
balances that will come with integration. De- 
veloping American countries must be able to 
covmt on private persons and entities to con- 
tribute new ideas, trained managers and tech- 
nicians, and new tools if they are to consolidate 



wliat they have already gained and build more 
rapidly toward total development. 

Many, probably most, of our Alliance allies 
still face two major problems in this regard. 
First, they must Ije able to convince potential 
investors that their countries have acquired suf- 
ficient political and economic stability. Sec- 
ondly, they must reeducate their own peoples 
to accept the fact that foreign capital, when 
used wisely and justly, can play a crucial role 
in rapid national and regional development. 

In general, I believe that Latin America to- 
day has achieved suiBcient stability to justify 
detailed investigation of long-term investment 
opportunities. I think this stability will con- 
tinue to improve, even though we must expect 
occasional lapses. 

Perhaps less advance has been made on reach- 
ing a regional or even national consensus on the 
proper role and fair treatment of foreign 
private capital. Too many, unfortunately, are 
willing to ignoi-e more basic problems and heap 
the blame for stagnation and failure on a visibly 
successful foreign investor. Yet this, too, is 
changing. Today, for instance, 19 of our 
Alliance partners have reached an investment 
guarantee agreement with this country to 
protect our investors from at least some of the 
major risks involved in investment in develop- 
ing countries. 

The role I see for the foreign investor in Latin 
America is as new there as the Alliance ap- 
proach is in international relations. 

The modern foreign investor should be willing 
to accept a development role. He should be will- 
ing to look beyond this year's profit-and-loss 
sheets to consider the effect of his endeavors on 
national and regional development efforts. This, 
if successful, will increase manyfold his returns 
in the future. He must actively search for labor- 
intensive projects that will ease the great strain 
of underemployment in most areas as well as 
work to his own profit. He should explore and 
even suggest joint-ownership arrangements and 
managerial and teclmical training programs 
that will add to the region's pool of administra- 
tors and technicians. He must be willing to ad- 
just to more effective enforcement of tax and 
other laws as developing states improve their 
administrative capabilities. 

And perhaps most important of all, the for- 
eign businessman working in Latin America 

must find some way to inculcate into his Latin 
American counterpart at all levels a similar con- 
cern for the well-being of the community, a 
similar sense of responsibility for neighbors 
who are less fortunate. 

Perhaps you will have noted that for the past 
few minutes I have spoken of "foreign inves- 
tors," not "United States foreign investors." I 
have done this, in part, because many of you 
serve the investment communities of other coun- 
tries as well. But I also want to make this point : 
Most of what I have talked about as "revolu- 
tion" in foreign investment is not revolutionary 
for American investment at home. For our in- 
vestors, participating m change in Latin Amer- 
ica will not be as difficult as it will be for some 
others, because American business is the world's 
most advanced on social as well as other fronts. 
As our own modern business viewpoints con- 
tinue to move out from the home base into the 
home hemisphere, great new forces for better- 
ment, comparable to those at work here, will be 
set in motion. The results will not always be the 
same in form as here; but just thuik of what we 
can help add to total development as time goes 
on! I list just these: 

1. A keen sense of the importance of the mod- 
ernization of the market process itself, including 
attention to the now largely neglected problems 
of almost medieval restrictive trade practices. 

2. Private, nonsectarian philanthropy, still 
almost unknown in Latin America except from 
North American sources. 

3. "Pure" research by business, with no imme- 
diate payout in mind. 

4. Business retirement systems. 

5. Customer and consumer relations. 

6. Quality control. 

7. Planning and systems management. 

8. The longer view ahead, including the eco- 
nomic integration of Latin America. 

9. Widely distributed stock ownership. 

10. Assumption of a fair share, justly deter- 
mined, of the social costs of civilization. 

11. Decentralization of responsibility, so im- 
portant in the public sector as well. 

12. "Corporate Democracy" instead of "Ty- 
coon Tyrarmy." 

We in Government are trying to get more 
men and more ideas from our universities and 
"think tanks" on the vital social and political 

APRIL 15, 1968 


fronts of the Alliance for Progress. In the mean- 
time, we must think for ourselves, not only 
about helping mculcate grass-roots democracy 
under title IX of the Foreign Assistance Act 
but also about nation and regionwide improve- 
ment possibilities. 

You can help greatly, even outside the im- 
portant field of economic development ; for my 
12 points above are also a part of social and 
political development. We in Govermnent are 
required, for reasons we all must accept, to deal 
mainly with governments in the development 
process. And public assistance inputs are mar- 
gmal. There is so much, qualitatively as well 
as quantitatively, that only you can do. Please 
keep trying— and try even harder! 

President Recommends Steps 
To Increase U.S. Exports 

The White House on March 20 made public 
the following letter from President Johnson to 
Hubert H. Humphrey, President of the Senate. 
The President sent an identical letter to John 
TF. McCormack, Speaker of the House of Rep- 

White House press release dated March 20 

March 20, 1968 
Dear Mr. President : In this letter I ask the 
Congress to take further steps to improve Amer- 
ica's balance of payments position. That posi- 
tion is the hinge of the dollar's strength abroad 
and the somidness of the Free World monetary 

Both actions I reconunend today will help to 
increase America's exports — a vital element in 
the balance of payments equation. 
I urge the Congress to : 

—Allocate $500 million of the Export-Import 
Bank's existing authority as a special fimd to 
finance a broadened program to sell American 
goods in foreign markets. 

— Approve promptly the $2.4 million supple- 
mental appropriation which I submitted on 
March 11. This will enable the Commerce De- 
partment to launch a 5-year program to promote 
American exports. 

Last year, the United States exported some 
$30 billion worth of products — the highest in 
our history. The trade surplus resulting from 

that commerce was about $3.5 billion — large but 
far from large enough. 

Our concern now must be to improve that 
record as part of a long-term program to keep 
the dollar strong and to remove the temporary 
restraints on the flow of capital abroad. 

For more than three decades, the Export-Im- 
port Bank has effectively encouraged the sale of 
American goods abroad. Through loans, guar- 
antees and insurance, it has financed billions of 
dollars in U.S. exports — the products of our 
farms and factories. But new competitive condi- 
tions in world trade demand added scope and 
flexibility in the Bank's operations. 

The $500 million allocation I am requesting 
will finance export transactions not covered 
under the Bank's present program. It will : 

— Support the determuied efforts of the en- 
tire business community to expand exports. 

— Assist American firms who now sell only 
within the United States to expand their 
markets and send their goods abroad. 

— Make available to American firms export 
financing more competitive with that provided 
by other major trading nations and especially 
suited to developing new markets. 

To achieve the greatest benefit from this new 
export financing plan, I will establish an Export 
Expansion Advisory Committee, chaired by the 
Secretary of Commerce, to provide guidance to 
the Board of Directors of the Export-Import 

The Kennedy Eomid has added a new and 
exciting dimension to the expansion of trade op- 
portimities for American business. We must be 
prepared to take full advantage of these and 
other opportmiities now mifolding in foreign 
commerce. I believe that a long-range and sus- 
tained promotional program can go far to stim- 
ulate the flow of American exports. 

In my Fiscal 1969 Budget, I requested a $25.7 
million appropriation to launch such a program. 
In order to get an immediate start, I asked the 
Congress last week for a $2.4 million supple- 
mental appropriation for Fiscal 1968. With 
these funds, we can participate in more trade 
fairs, establish Joint Export Associations for 
various industries, conduct marketing studies, 
and take other steps to stimulate the growth of 
sales abroad. 

The new authority for the Export-Import 
Bank and the supplemental appropriation for 
export promotion will reinforce our trade posi- 



tion. These measures will help business firms 
penetrate and secure new forei<^i markets and 
provide the follow-on services to expand their 
position in these markets. 

I urfie the Congress to take prompt action on 
these requests. 

The threat posed by our balance of payments 
deficit is immediate and serious and requires 
concerted action. 

We have been moving in a number of ways 
to counter that threat and to carry out the pro- 
gram I announced on January 1, 1968.' 

The proposals in this letter to increase our 
exports are part of a national balance of pay- 
ments strategy. 

We have already acted to: 

— Restrain the flow of direct investment 
funds abroad, and foreign lendmg by banks and 
otlier financial institutions. 

— Reduce the number of government person- 
nel in overseas posts, curtail government travel 
abroad, and negotiate new arrangements to 
lessen the impact of military expenditures 

— Initiate discussions with other countries on 
actions to improve our trade position. 

— Launch a new program, in cooperation with 
private inchistry, to attract more foreign visi- 
tors to these shores. As part of this program, I 
have asked for a supplemental appropriation of 
$1.7 million to strengthen the U.S. Travel 

— Remove the outmoded and unnecessary 
gold cover, in legislation which I signed yester- 

— Reach an agreement with our six active 
gold pool partners to halt speculative attacks 
on gold reserves. 

Further measures await Congressional 

One is the elimination of obsolete and burden- 
some visa requirements which now discourage 
foreign travelers from visiting our land. 

Another is legislation to reduce the expendi- 
tures of Americans traveling abroad. 

Finally, there is the anti-inflation tax — the 
most critical measure of all. This tax — one 
pennj' on every dollar earned — is the best in- 
vestment Americans can make for fiscal re- 
sponsibility at home and for a strong economic 
position abroad. 

' Bulletin- of Jan. 22, 1968, p. 110. 

The nations of the world look to us now for 
economic leadership. The fabric of international 
cooperation upon which the world's postwar 
prosperity has been built is now threatened. If 
that fabric is torn apart, the consequences will 
not be confined to foreign countries — but will 
touch every American. We must not let this hap- 
pen. Prompt enactment of the tax bill will be 
clear and convincing proof of our leadership 
and an exercise of our responsibility. 

The hour is late. The need is urgent. 

I call upon the Congress to act — now. 

Ltndox B. Johnson' 

President Transmits Sixth Annual 
Report of Peace Corps to Congress 

White House press release dated March 1 

March 1, 1968 

To the Congress of the United States: 

1 transmit to the Congress the Sixth Annual 
Report of the Peace Corps— an idea come of age, 
no longer a novelty but now a part of American 

The Peace Corps is one of President Ken- 
nedy's most enduring achievements. It is now 
larger than ever. Today, the Peace Corps is a 
leading employer of new college graduates. Last 
year 21,000 college senioi-s formally applied for 
membership in the Peace Corps — 3.5 percent of 
the graduating classes. In one college, 25 per- 
cent applied, in another 20 percent and in a 
third 17 percent. 

More than 12,000 Peace Corpsmen are doing 
America's work in 57 countries. They are in : 

— Micronesia, on lonely islands across the 
Pacific, working in many fields — from teaching 
to drafting legislative proposals. 

— Peru, helping villagers develop schools and 
social clubs. 

— Colombia, helping expand and improve the 
educational television network. 

— Malawi, conducting a successful program 
of tuberculosis control. 

In the long run, perhaps the Peace Corps' 
most significant contribution will be made at 
home. Last year, for the first time, the number 
of returned Volunteers surpassed those in the 

APRIL 15, 1968 


field. By 1980, the Agency estimates 200,000 of 
them will be involved in every level of our 

Many Volunteers return and continue their 
studies; others enter the business world. Wliat 
most returned Volunteers seek is a career serving 
others. Thus, they teach in ghettos, work in 
anti-poverty projects, and join the government 
on the local or national level. 

This, then, is the Peace Corps: seven years 
old and still growing. The idea of service to 
humanity is much older, but few institutions 
have embraced the concept as fervently and 
capably as has the Peace Corps. As this report 
indicates, our journey has begun and the future 
is promising. 

If you would confirm your faith in the Amer- 
ican future — take a look at the Peace Corps. 

Lyndon B. Johnson 
The White House, March 1, 1968. 

World Trade Week, 1968 


A new era of world trade is opening. Tlie challenges 
are great — the opportunities unlimited. 

The United States must meet the challenges, and 
seize the opportunities to increase our economic growth 
and the well-being of our citizens. 

The United States also has heavy responsibilities in 
preserving a favorable trade balance and maintaining 
the soundness of the free world monetary system. The 
United States dollar is, at present, the cornerstone of 
that system. Its strength abroad depends on keeping 
our foreign earnings and spending in reasonable bal- 

In recent years our outflow of dollars has far ex- 
ceeded the inflow, and we have a dangerous deficit in 
our international accounts. This situation cannot be al- 
lowed to continue. 

This is why we have taken action this year to bring 
our balance of payments closer to equilibrium. The 
measures we have undertaken will insure the continued 
strength of the dollar. 

An essential element of this program is the expan- 
sion of our exports of goods and services to bring in 
more dollars. 

Last year saw new records in United States trade. 
We exported $31 hillion worth of our merchandise, $3 
billion more than the year before. We also provided 
the greatest market ever for the products of other na- 
tions, importing $27 billion worth of goods. 

But we must sell even more overseas. The great 
success of the Kennedy Round of tariff negotiations 
offers us this opportunity. 

The fruits of the Kennedy Round, which produced the 
broadest reduction in import duties in history, will be 
vast new trading opportunities for the United States 
and for other countries. 

The tariff concessions cover $40 billion in world 
trade. Other countries granted the United States con- 
cessions on some $8 billion of our industrial and agri- 
cultural products — more than one-fourth of our total 
exports. We reduced duties on about the same volume 
of our imports. The United States and other major 
trading nations put the first stage of these reductions 
into effect this year. 

If we are to take advantage of these new oppor- 
tunities to increase our sales abroad, we must do 
everything possible to make our goods better and less 
expensive and to make them available in foreign 

We must make every effort to insure stable prices in 
order to meet foreign competition at home and abroad. 

Our success depends on the prompt enactment of 
legislation now before the Congress. First and fore- 
most, the penny-on-a-dollar tax bill is the key element 
in our prudent program to restrain inflation and 
strengthen our competitive position in world markets. 
My recommendations to strengthen the financing of our 
exports and the promotion of our sales abroad are also 
vital to the long-run Improvement we can and will 

World trade joins nations in economic progress. It 
creates more jobs, encourages investments, and raises 
family incomes. It makes more consumer goods avail- 
able and at lower prices. It allows nations to make more 
productive use of their manpower and machines. 

The gains won at Geneva last summer moved the 
world closer to the healthy trading conditions on 
which the prosperity of many nations depends. 

We look forward, too, to increasing trade in peaceful 
goods and technology with the Soviet Union and other 
Eastern European nations as a positive contribution to 
mutual trust, fruitful cooperation, and lasting peace. 

Our objective must be to take advantage of the new 
trading opportunities to sell our goods abroad. 

In 1968, World Trade Week has greater significance 
than ever before. 

Now, THEREFOKE, I, LvNDON B. JOHNSON, President of 
the United States of America, do hereby proclaim the 
week beginning May 19, 1968, as World Trade Week; 
and I request the appropriate Federal, State, and local 
officials to cooperate in the observance of that week. 

I also urge business, labor, agricultural, educational, 
professional, and civic groups, as well as the people of 
the United States generally, to observe World Trade 
Week with gatherings, discussions, exhibits, cere- 
monies, and other appropriate activities designed to 
promote continuing awareness of the importance of 
world trade to our economy and our relations with 
other nations. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand 
this twenty-seventh day of March in the year of our 
Lord nineteen hundred and sixty-eight, and of the 
Independence of the United States of America the one 
hundred and ninety-second. 

' No. 3S37 ; 33 Fed. Rep. 5079. 

t^JJU^ — 


department of state bulletin 

Ambassador AAcKinney To Head 
Foreign Visitor Program 

Statement hy President Johnson ^ 

I have asked Ambassador Robert JI. McKin- 
ney to coordinate the efforts of private industry 
and Government necessary to implement the 
recommendations of the Commission on 
Travel.- He will be m charge of the President's 
Foreign Visitor Program. 

I have asked Ambassador McKinney to re- 
port to me on the results of his efforts by 
May 31, 1968. 1 have also asked him to consider 
and recommend long-tenn measures which will 
insure for the future the continued and in- 
creased forward momentum of the program. 

The Commission's recommendationa aim to 
improve our international travel account by 
positive expansionary measures. They are de- 
signed to make the United States the world's 
preeminent tourist bargain. 

Several steps have already been taken by the 
travel industry and the Government : 

— On February 23, 1968, 1 asked the Congress 
to liberalize our visa regulations making it 
easier for hona fde foreign tourists to visit the 
United States.^ 

— ^Members of the American travel and hotel 
industry are offering attractive discounts to for- 
eign tourists, and they are significantly increas- 
ing their promotional activities abroad. 

— The Civil Aeronautics Board has sanc- 
tioned proposals to grant discounts to foreign 
tourists on domestic airlines; similar proposals 
are j^ending before other U.S. regulatory 

— The members of the International Air 
Transport Association are considering a pro- 
posal to reduce fares for tourists flying to the 
United States. 

I have asked Ambassador McKinney to work 
closely with the interested agencies of Govern- 
ment and the appropriate congressional com- 

' Issuer! at Washington, D.C., on Mar. 13 (White 
House i>ress release). 

' For a White House announcement of the recom- 
mendations, see Bulletin of Mar. 18, 1968, p. 397. 

' Ihia., Apr. 1.J, 1908, p. 472. 

mittees to speed passage of the visa bill and to 
coordinate early implementation of other meas- 
ures designed to facilitate the enti-y of foreign 

We will shortly be issuing the first tourist hos- 
pitality card. These cards will identify the for- 
eign tourist as eligible for discounts from 
participating firms and Government-operated 
facilities. I urge American travel, hotel, motel, 
restaurant, and other tourist-related firms which 
have not yet joined in this program to consider 
its advantages to them and to their comitry. 

I have asked x\mbassador IMcKimiey to keep 
in close touch with industiy to insure that all 
interested American businessmen are aware of 
the discoimt program and its benefits, to answer 
their questions regarding the program, and to 
consider their suggestions for its improvement. 

Many State and local governments are 
already actively encouraging foreign travel. We 
had an opi")ortunity to discuss these efforts with 
the Governors only last week. Ambassador 
McKiimey will work with Governor Price 
Daniel, Director of the Office of Emergency 
Planning, in asking State and local govern- 
ments to intensify their efforts to attract foreign 

All departments and agencies of the Federal 
Government are expected to cooperate fully 
with Ambassador McKinney in implementing 
the President's Foreign Visitor Program. 

America's greatest tourist attraction is its 
people. We Americans have always prided our- 
selves on our hosi^itality. I ask all Americans, 
individually and through our fine community 
organizations, to make a sjiecial effort to make 
foreign visitors truly welcome in tlie fuiest tra- 
dition of American hospitality. 

President Names Mr. Tempelsman 
to Human Rights Year Commission 

The "Wliite House announced on March 21 
(Wliite House press release) that President 
Johnson has appointed Maurice Tempelsman of 
New York as a member of the Human Eights 
Year Commission. 

APKIL 1.5, 1968 



U.N. Security Council Condemns Israeli Military Action 
and Deplores All Violations of the Middle East Cease-Fire 

Following are two statements made on March 
21 in the V.N. Security Council hy U.S. Repre- 
sentative Arthur J. Goldberg, together with the 
text of a resolution adopted hy the Council on 
March 2^. 


U.S./n.N. press release 46 

My Government views with grave concern 
the disturbing events which have led to this 
Council meeting. There has been fiirther vio- 
lence in the Middle East, an area overburdened 
with past violence and conflict. Upon receipt of 
the reports of today's events, my Government 
immediately issued a statement which deplored 
the Israeli military action across the cease-fire 
lines and characterized it as damaging to the 
hopes for a peaceful settlement of the basic 
issues involved. 

The position of the United States with respect 
to the matters which concern us has been stated 
many times in the Security Council. We adhere 
to the views we have frequently expressed. The 
United States Government opposes violence 
from any quarter in the Middle East. We oppose 
military actions in violation of the cease-fire 
resolutions of this Council ; such actions create 
further complications in an already complicated 
situation. We oppose acts of terrorism which are 
in violation of the cease-fire resolutions of the 
Council, and we are not blind to the additional 
problems they create. We believe further that 
military counteractions, such as that which has 
just taken place on a scale out of proportion to 
the acts of violence that preceded it, are greatly 
to be deplored. 

The rule which should guide the parties in 
all these situations was first expressed many 
years ago in Resolution 56 of August 19, 1948 

(S/983),i in which the Security Council 
declared that : 

Each party has the obligation to use all means at Its 
disposal to prevent action violating the Truce by in- 
dividuals or groups who are subject to its authority or 
who are in territory under its control. . . . (and) 

No party is permitted to violate the Truce on the 
ground that it is undertaking reprisals or retaliations 
against the other party. 

We deem these principles to be applicable to 
the cease-fire resolutions of June 1967,- which 
both Israel and Jordan have pledged to observe. 

No one faithful to these principles can view 
with equanimity the acts of terrorism which 
have taken place. But my Government feels 
strongly that large-scale military actions across 
cease-fire lines are not the answer. Such actions 
do not bring security; they only bring deeper 
insecurity. The wise response, the effective 
response, is to have recourse to all possible 
peaceful means of ending the provocation rather 
than seeking to match it and even outtop it. And 
there is, as I shall later point out, a peaceful 
means available on the ground : the United Na- 

Mr. President, we also view very gravely the 
peril which the recent events have created for 
the all-important peacemaking process set in 
motion by this Council last November. Under 
the Council's resolution of November 22,^ the 
Secretary-General's special representative, Am- 
bassador [Gunnar] Jarring, has been working 
tirelessly and patiently to establish and main- 
tain contacts with the states concerned and 
thereby to promote agreement and assist efforts 
to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement 
in accordance with principles unanimously ap- 

' For text, see Btili.etin of Ang. 29. 1048, p. 267. 
- For background and texts of resolutions, see ibid., 
June 26, 1967. p. 934, and July 3, 1967, p. 3. 
' For text, see ihid., Dec. 18, 1967, p. 843, 



proved by tliis Council. All recognized that this 
mandate would not be easily fulfilled ; all recog- 
nized that the June conflict had raised new emo- 
tional and psychological barriers against rapid 
progress. And similarly, all must now recognize 
that those barriers will only be further height- 
ened by violations of the cease-fire, including 
the action of earlier today. 

Our experience in the Security Council dur- 
ing the man}- months in which we have grappled 
with the Middle Eastern j^roblem has demon- 
strated that no useful purpose is served by 
calumny or name-calling. What we should try 
to do is to shore up the U.N. mechanisms 
available for peacekeeping until Ambassador 
Jarring's peacemaking efforts have succeeded, 
as we all fervently hope they will. 

In light of today's developments my Govern- 
ment believes that it is vitally necessary to 
strengthen the United Nations role in the Israel- 
Jordan sector of the cease-fire line. In contrast 
to the Israel-Syria and Israel-U.A.R. sectors, 
where a most helpful United Nations presence 
has been maintained, there have been no United 
Nations observers in the Israel-Jordan sector. 
The Chief of Staff of UNTSO [United Nations 
Truce Supervision Organization] and the 
Secretary-General have therefore been handi- 
capped in observing and supervising the cease- 
fire and in reporting on violations of it in this 
area. This situation should not be permitted to 
continue in circumstances where the main- 
tenance of the cease-fire — and the prospects for 
a more lasting peace in the entire area — are 
very much at stake. 

We believe that this Council has the right to 
expect Israel and Jordan to extend full coopera- 
tion to the Chief of Staff of UNTSO and to 
United Nations observers so that the cease-fire 
may be fully implemented and strictly observed 
by all concerned. 

Today's events demonstrate once again that 
violence is not and cannot be the answer to the 
problems of the Middle East. What is urgently 
required is this : The parties must scrupulously 
comply with the cease-fire arrangements. They 
must cooperate in strengthening the sujjervision 
of those arrangements. All concerned must re- 
dedicate themselves to the principles of the No- 
vember 22d resolution unanimously adopted by 
this Council. And all parties must cooperate 
with Ambassador Jarring to hasten the achieve- 
ment of the objective set forth by the Security 
Council — a just and lasting peace in which every 
state in the area can live in security. 

U.S. Calls for Peaceful Settlement 
of Israeli-Arab Differences 

Department Btatement ^ 

Further violence cannot bring a durable and 
stable peace to the Middle East. The Israeli mili- 
tary actions today against the territory of Jordan 
in response to terrorist attacks are damaging to 
hopes for a settlement of the real Issues involved. 
Furthermore all of the parties know that peace- 
ful channels are available. 

We recognize the problems created by terror- 
ism. We also recognize the disruptive effects of 
military action. Neither kind of action is in the 
true interests of the people of the area. Our main 
objective is to achieve a lasting peace. Israel and 
the Arab states should be adhering scrupulously 
to the cease-fire resolutions of the Security Coun- 
cil and woi'lcing with the special representative of 
the United Nations Secretary-General in accord- 
ance with the Security Council's resolution of 
last November." Any action that delays his work 
is most regrettable. 

We have made our position known repeatedly 
and as recently as 1 day ago; that is, that Arab- 
Israeli differences should be settled through 
the efforts of the United Nations and not through 
the use of force. 

' Read to news correspondents by the Depart- 
ment spokesman on Mar. 21. 

' For text, see Bulletin of Dec. 18, 1067, p. 843. 


U.S. /U.N. preBB release 47 

Ivistening to Ambassador Malik's [Soviet 
representative Yakov Malik] intervention to- 
day, which I followed with close attention, he 
made the statement which in effect amounted to 
an allegation that the United States has not 
been even-handed in its consideration of the 
problems of the Middle East. I should like, how- 
ever, to refer to the record, which is the best way 
to determine how even-handed any country is in 
considering problems before the Council. 

This Council addressed itself under my presi- 
dency to the problems of the Middle East in 
November of 1966. We had before us, first, a 
complaint of Syrian violation of its obligations 
inider prior Security Council resolutions. After 
considerable consultation, a resolution was of- 
fered by Argentina, Japan, Netherlands, New 
Zealand, Nigeria, and ITganda. That resolution, 
in the most polite fashion, invited the Govern- 

APRIL l.T, 1908 


ment of Syria to strengthen its measures for 
preventing terrorist incidents and then went on 
to call upon both Syria and Israel to facilitate 
the work of UXTSO. That resolution, mem- 
bers of the Council will recall, was defeated 
after it received the requisite number of votes — 
10 votes, in its support — by the veto of the 
Soviet Union.* 

Let us contrast that, when we consider the 
question of even-handedness, with what oc- 
curred later that month on November 25, 1966, 
when on the complamt of Jordan there was 
brought before the Council actions by Israel 
which were deemed to be a violation of Israel's 
obligations. There the Council, with the firm 
support of the United States, adopted a reso- 
lution far more drastic, deploring Israel's large- 
scale military action on that occasion.^ 

Now, Ambassador Malik has dismissed as a 
diversion and a waste of time the suggestion we 
made that the United Nations extend its super- 
visory function to the Israel-Jordan cease-fire 
Ime. In discussing this, the distinguished repre- 
sentative of the Soviet Union read from the re- 
port of the Secretary-General, S/7930 [Add. 
64:]. In the sentence immediately following what 
he read, there is a statement which, indeed, 
demonstrates the need for the extension of 
United Nations activities in this very situation. 

I shall read the sentence that Ambassador 
Malik read: "There have also been reports of 
an unusual build-up of Israel military forces 
in the Jordan valley area." 

The next sentence reads: "Unfortimately, lit- 
tle or no verified information on these develop- 
ments has been available to the Secretary-Gen- 
eral because no United Nations Observers are 
deployed in the Israel- Jordan sector as has been 
reported previously to the Council." 

It would have aided us considerably if we had 
such information, and perhaps this Council 
might then have been able to take some preven- 
tive action. 

In making the suggestion that I made in my 
original intervention, I made it in the interest 
of making progress toward the implementation 
of our prior resolutions and making progress 
toward seeing that the cease-fire is scrupulously 
adhered to by all parties concerned. 

* For background and text of the resolution, see iliid., 
Dec. 26. 1966, p. 969. 

° For background and text of the resolution, see Hid., 
p. 974. 

Now, while no one would suggest such action 
would solve the basic problems of the Middle 
East, it is clear it would help to prevent or at 
least reduce events similar to the events the 
Council is considering today, events which serve 
only to heighten the already formidable ob- 
stacles to a lasting and peaceful settlement in 
the Middle East. 

Mr. President, these are not suggestions tai- 
lored for this occasion by my Government or my 
delegation. We made a similar observation when 
we debated the complaint against Syria on No- 
vember 4, 1966, and I shall read from my inter- 
vention on that occasion: ". . . the United 
States likewise endorsed and still endorses the 
call upon both Governments to facilitate the 
work of the UNTSO in the area. . . ." And we 
made a sknilar observation in the debate which 
took place on the complaint by Jordan against 

Finally, Mr. President, I would like to say, 
as an illustration of the consistency of our posi- 
tion throughout, on November 4, 1966, 1 said on 
behalf of my Government : 

The deep concern of the United States is that peace 
be preserved in the Middle East. We trust this is a 
common concern. The responsibility of all members of 
the United Nations, and particularly the members of 
the Security Council, is to encourage restraint and to 
urge governmental action to prevent violence. 

This has been our position. This remains our 
position in the Security Council. 


The Security Council, 

Having heard the statements of the representatives 
of Jordan and Israel, 

Having noted the contents of the letters of the Per- 
manent Representatives of Jordan and Israel in docu- 
ments S/S470, S/S475, S/8478, S/S483, S/S484 and 

Baring noted further the supplementary information 
provided by the Chief of Staff of UNTSO as contained 
in documents S/7930/ Add. 64 and Add. 65, 

Recalling resolution 236 (1967)' by which the Se- 
curity Council condemned any and all violations of 
the cease-fire. 

Observing that the military action by the armed 
forces of Israel on the territory of Jordan was of a 
large-scale and carefuUy planned nature, 

'U.N. doc. S/RES/248 (1968) ; adopted unanimously 
on Mar. 24. 
' For text, see Buixetin of July 3, 1967, p. 11. 



Considering that all violent incidents and other vio- 
lations of the cease-fire should be prevented and not 
overlooking past incidents of this nature. 

Recalling further resolution 237 (1967)' which called 
upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, 
welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas 
where military operations have taken place, 

1. Deplores the loss of life and heavy damage to 
property ; 

2. Condemns the military action launched by Israel 
in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and 
the cease-fire resolutions ; 

3. Deplores all violent incidents in violation of the 
cease-fire and declares that such actions of military 
reprisal and other grave violations of the cease-fire 
cannot be tolerated and that the Security Council would 
have to consider further and more effective steps as 
envisaged in the Charter to ensure against repetition 
of such acts ; 

4. Calls upon Israel to desist from acts or activities 
in contravention of resolution 237 (1967) ; 

0. Requests the Secretary-General to keep the situa- 
tion under review and to report to the Security Council 
as appropriate. 

United Nations Force in Cyprus 
Extended Through June 1968 

Statement by William B. Bujfum ^ 

Mr. President, just briefly, the United States 
joined with all members of the Council in vot- 
ing to extend the U.X. Peacekeeping Force in 
Cyprus for 3 months.^ "We have cast this affirma- 
tive vote with a sense of gratification, encour- 
agement, and hope. We are both gratified and 
encouraged that there has been a definite im- 
provement in the situation in Cyprus since the 
Council last met to discuss this question, and we 
join in congratulating our distinguished Secre- 
tary-General, his able special representative in 


'Made in the U.X. Security Council on Mar. 18 
(U.S./U.X. press release 42). Mr. Buffum is Deputy 
U.S. Representative in the Security Council. 

'In a resolution (S/RES/24- (196S) ) adopted 
unanimously on Mar. 18. the Security Council extended 
"the stationing in Cyprus of the United Xations Peace- 
keeping Force . . . for a further period of three 
months ending 26 June 1968. in the expectation that 
by then sufficient progress towards a final solution will 
make possible a withdrawal or substantial reduction 
of the Force." 

Cyprus, and the United Nations Force for the 
important contribution that they have made to 
this process. 

The Secretary-General's report in document 
S/84i6 has stressed the beneficial effect of 
the normalization and pacification measures 
adopted by the Government of Cyprus. The 
United States welcomes this development. We 
very much hope that these positive develop- 
ments and the improved climate to which they 
have contributed will lead now to further prog- 
ress toward resolving the problems which have 
kept true peace from tliis island for too long. 
We trust and urge that all the parties involved 
will be inspired to make such progress and will 
demonstrate the spirit of compromise, good 
will, and mutual accommodation so necessary 
to move ahead. 

We have taken special note of the Secretary- 
General's support for the concept of talks be- 
tween representatives of the two Cypriot com- 
munities. The United States supports this 
concept or any other means which will permit 
the interested parties to find a mutually agree- 
able procedure for reaching a settlement, and 
we remain ready to cooperate to the best of 
our ability so that a viable solution to the 
Cyprus problem may be found. 

Finally, Mr. President, vrith regard to the 
problems of financing the U.X. Peacekeeping 
Force, which was also raised in the Secretary- 
General's report, I should like to make two very 
brief points: First, the United States will con- 
tinue to give financial support to this extremely 
important peacekeeping effort. Secondly, we 
cannot but share the Secretary-General's con- 
cern over the continued deficit in the financing 
of the Force and his appeal for actions and con- 
tributions to overcome that deficit. Despite the 
welcome and very necessary support given by 
those who contribute their forces to the U.X., 
the simple fact of the matter is that the finan- 
cial support which we have given and the gen- 
erous contributions of others — the United 
Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, 
to mention only a few — have not proved suffi- 
cient to meet the needs. Therefore, we would 
join the distinguished representative of Can- 
ada in urging those members and particularly 
those in this Council who give their political 
support to this important peacekeeping opera- 
tion to match that support in practical financial 
terms as well. 

APRIL 1.5, 1968 



Current Actions 


Narcotic Drugs 

Single convention on narcotic drugs, 1961. Done at 
New York March 30, 1961. Entered Into force Decem- 
ber 13, 1964. TI AS 6298. oa io<.a 
Accession deposited: Gabon, February 29, 19b8. 

Oil Pollution 

International convention for the prevention of pollu- 
tion of the sea by oil, with annexes, as amended. Done 
at London May 12, 1954. Entered into force for the 
United States December 8, 19G1. TIAS 4900, 6109. 
Acceptance deposited: Morocco, February 29, 1968. 

Safety at Sea 

International convention for the safety of life at sea, 
1960 Done at London June 17, 1960. Entered into 
force May 26, 1965. TIAS 5780. 
Acceptance deposited: Jamaica, February 22, 1968. 


Treaty on principles governing the activities of states 
in the exploration and use of outer space, including 
the moon and other celestial bodies. Opened for signa- 
ture at Washington, London, and Moscow January 27, 
1967. Entered into force October 10, 1967. TIAS 6347. 
Ratification deposited: Turkey, March 27, 1968. 


Protocol amending the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade to introduce a part IV on trade and de- 

velopment and to amend annex I. Done at Geneva 
February 8, 1965. Entered into force June 27, 1966. 
TIAS 6139. ,^ ^ ^ ,.-_ 

Ratifications deposited: Belgium, March 4, 1968, 
Luxembourg, March 8, 1968. 
Protocol for the accession of Poland to the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Done at Geneva 
June 30, 1967. Entered into force October 18, 1967. 
Acceptances: Czechoslovakia, March 11, 1968; South 
Africa, February 2, 1968. 
Protocol for the accession of Ireland to the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Done at Geneva 
June 30, 1967. Entered into force December 22, 1967. 
Acceptances: Czechoslovakia, March 11, 1968 ; South 
Africa, February 20, 1968; United Kingdom, 
February 5, 1968. 
Protocol for the accession of Argentina to the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Done at Geneva 
J'.uie 30, 1967. Entered into force October 11, 1967. 
Acceptances: Czechoslovakia, March 11, 1968; South 
Africa, February 2, 1968. 
Geneva (1967) protocol to the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade. Done at Geneva June 30, 1967. 
Entered into force January 1, 1968. 
Ratification deposited: Italy, February 1, 1968. 
Acceptances: Czechoslovakia, March 11, 1968; Israel, 
February 23, 1968 ;' South Africa, February 2, 1968. 
Agreement on implementation of article VI of the Gen- 
eral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Done at Ge- 
neva June 30, 1967. Enters into force July 1, 1968. 
Ratification deposited: Italy, February 1, 1968. 
.4ccep<anee.- Czechoslovakia, March 11, 1968. 
Protocol for the accession of Iceland to the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Done at Geneva 
June 30, 1967.' 
Acceptance: Czechoslovakia, March 11, 1968. 

Women — Political Rights 

Convention on the political rights of women. Done at 
New York March 31, 1953. Entered into force July 
7, 1954." ^. ^ 

Accession deposited: Italy (with a reservation), 
March 6, 1968. 

^ Subject to ratification. 

" Not in force. 

" Not in force for the United States. 



INDEX April iJ, rJU8 Vol. 



Asia. A New Step Toward Peace (Johuson) . . 481 


President Recommeuds Steps To Increase U.S. 

Exjiorts (Johnson) 504 

President Transmits Sixtb Annual Rcixirt of 

Peace Corps to Congress (Johnson) .... 505 

Cyprus. Uuitod Nations Force in Cyprus E.x- 

tcndcd Through June 1968 (Buffuui) . . . 511 

Department and Foreign Service. The Presi- 
dent's News Conference of Jlarch 22 (ex- 
cerpts) 487 

Economic Affairs 

Amhas.sador McKiniiey To Head Foreign Visitor 

Program ( Johnson ) 507 

Innovative Effects of the Alliance for Progress 

(Oliver) 501 

-■V New Step Toward Peace (Johnson) .... 481 

President Recommends Steps To Increase U.S. 

Exports (Johnson) 504 

WorldTrade Week, lOGS (proclamation) . . . 50(i 

Human Rights. President Names Mr. Tempels- 

man lo Human Rights Year Commission . . 507 


U.N. Security Council Condemns Israeli Mili- 
tary Action and Deplores All Violations of the 
Middle East Ci-ase-Fire (Goldberg, text of 
resolution) 508 

U.S. Calls for Peaceful Settlement of Israeli- 
Arab Differences (Department statement) . 509 


I'.X. Security Council Condemns Israeli Militaiy 
Action and Deplores All Violations of the Mid- 
dle East Cease-Fire (Goldberg, text of resolu- 
tion) 508 

U.S. Calls for Peaceful Settlement of Israeli- 
-Vrab Differences (Department statement) 509 

Latin America. Innovative Effects of the Alliance 
for Progress (Oliver) 501 

Military Affairs. .\ New Step Toward Peace 

(Johnson) 481 

Near East 

U.N. Security Council Condemns Israeli Military 
Action and Deplores All Violations of the Mid- 
dle East Cease-Fire (Goldberg, text of resolu- 
tion) 508 

U.S. Calls for Peaceful Settlement of Israeli- 
Arab Diffei'euces (Department statement) . .W.) 

Paraguay. President Stroessner of Paraguay 
Meets With President John.son (.Tohnson, 
Stroessner) 488 

Peace Corps. President Transmits Sixth An- 
nual Report of Peace Corps to Congress 
(Johnson) 505 

Presidential Documents 

Ambassador McKinney To Head Foreign Visitor 
Program 507 

A New Step Toward Peace 481 

The President's News Conference of March 22 

(excerpts) 487 

President Recommends Steps To Increase U.S. 
Exi)orts 504 

President Stroessner of Paraguay Meets With 

President Johnson 488 

President Transmits Sixth Annual Report of 

Peace Corps to Congress 505 

World Trade Week, 1968 506 

Trade. World Trade Week, 19GS (proclama- 
tion) 506 

Travel. Amliassador McKinney To Head Foreign 

Visitor I'rogram (Johnson) 507 

Treaty Information. Current Actions .... 512 

United Nations 

United Nations Force in Cyprus Extended 
Through .Tune 1968 (Buffuni) 511 

U.N. Security Council Condemns Israeli Military 
Action and Deplores All Violations of tlie Mid- 
dle East Cease-Fire (Goldberg, text of resolu- 
tion) 508 

U.S. Calls for Peacefid Settlement of Israeli- 
Arab Differences (Department statement) . 509 

Viet -Nam 

The Cost of Fealty (Rostov) 493 

A New Step Toward Peace (.lohnson) .... 481 
The President's Nevs'S Conference of Marcli 22 

(excerpts) 487 

Aaiiii' Indcj: 

BufCuni, William 1! 511 

Goldberg, Arthur J 508 

Johnson, President . . 487, 488. .504, 505, 50(!, 507 

McKinney, Robert M 507 

Oliver, Covey T 501 

Rostow, Eugene V 493 

Stroessner, Alfredo 488 

Temijelsman, Maurice 507 

Check List of Department of State 
Press Releases: March 25-31 

Press releases may be obtained from the Office 
I if .\ew.s, Department of State, Washington, D.C. 

Releases issued prior to March 25 which ap- 
pear in this issue of the Bulletin are Nos. 48 
of March 14 and r>5 of March 22. 

No. Date Subject 

*.j9 .'5/26 Foreign policy conference for editors 

and broadcasters, Washington, 

April 15-16. 
*(>() 3/28 Amendments to prograui for visit of 

President of Liberia. 
tOl 3/30 U.S. and Canada renew NORAD 


*\ot prinled. 

tHeld for a later issue of tlie Bulletin. 

Superintendent of Documents 
.s. government printing office 










Vol. LVIII, No. 150 A 

April 22, 1968 


Statements by President Johnson and General Westvwreland 513 


Statement hy Secretary Rush and Text of Coirmvu/nique 515 


hy Ambassador Sol M. Linowltz 532 


Statement by Secretary of the Treasury Fowler at Stockholm 
and Text of Group of Ten Communique 525 

For index see inside back cover 



Vol. LVIII, No. 1504 
April 22, 1968 

for sale by the Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 


52 issues, domestic $10, foreign $15 
Single copy 30 cents 

Use of funds for printing of this publication 
approved by the Director of the Bureau of 
the Budget (January 11, 1966). 

Note: Contents of this publication are not 
copyrighted and items contained herein may be 
reprinted. Citation of the DEPARTMENT OF 
STATE BULLETIN as the source will be 
appreciated. The BULLETIN is Inde-ied In 
the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature. 

The Department of State BULLETIN, 
a weekly publication issued by the 
Office of Media Services, Bureau of 
Public Affairs, 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 selected 
press releases on foreign policy, issued 
by the TFhite House and the Depart- 
ment, and statements and addresses 
nuide by the President and by the 
Secretary of State and other officers 
of the Department, as well as special 
articles on various pliases of interna- 
tional affairs and the functions of the 
Department. Information is included 
concerning treaties and international 
agreements to which the United 
States is or may become a party 
and treaties of general international 

Publications of the Department, 
United Nations documents, and leg- 
islative material in the field of inter- 
TUitional relations are listed currently. 

Viet-Nam Peace Efforts 


White House press release dated April 3 

Today the Government of North Viet-Nam 
made a statement which included the following 

However, for its part, the Government of the Demo- 
cratic Republic of Viet-Nam declares its readiness to 
appoint its representatives to contact the United 
States representative with a view to determining with 
the American side the unconditional cessation of the 
United States bombing raids and all other acts of war 
against the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam so that 
talks may start. 

Last Sunday night I expressed the position 
of the United States with respect to peace in 
Viet-Nam and Southeast Asia as follows : ^ 

Now, as in the past, the United States is ready to 
send its representatives to any forum, at any time, to 
discuss the means of bringing this . . . war to an end. 

Accordingly, we will establish contact with 
the representatives of North Viet-Nam. Consul- 
tations with the Government of South Viet- 
Nam and our other allies are now taking place. 

So that you niay have as much notice as I am 
able to give you on anotiier matter, I will be 
leaving tomorrow evening late for Honolulu.- 1 
will meet with certain of our representatives — 
American representatives from South Viet- 
Nam — for a series of meetings over the weekend 
in Hawaii. 

Thank you very much. 


White House press release dated April 6 

I wish to clarify the present status of our ef- 
forts to set up talks with the North Vietnamese 

On April 3 the President received word of 

the North Vietnamese response to the offer in 
the President's speech of March 31. 

The President promptly on that same day 
had a message delivered to an official of the 
North Vietnamese Government at their embassy 
in Laos. "We have indications that this message 
was received in Hanoi. 

Acting on the proj^osal of the North Viet- 
namese Government, we said that Ambassador 
[W. Averell] Harriman would be available im- 
mediately to establish contacts with representa- 
tives of the Government of North Viet-Nam. 
Geneva was proposed as the site. 

The United States Government has not yet 
received a formal reply from the Government 
of North Viet-Nam. We have received messages 
tlirough private individuals recently in Hanoi, 
but these do not appear to be a reply to our 

"We hope to receive an oiBcial reply from 
Hanoi soon. 


Wliite House press release dated April 7 
President Johnson 

General "Westmoreland has been here in 
"Washington conferring with me and my senior 
advisers, briefing us on the military situation in 
South Viet-Nam and exploring personnel and 
other matters that we desired to take up with 

• Bulletin of Apr. 15, 1968, p. 481. 

'The President's plans for the trip to Honolulu were 
later changed because of civil disturbances in Wash- 
ington and other cities following the assassination of 
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., at Memphis, Tenn., on 
Apr. 4. Arrangements were made for Gen. William C. 
Westmoreland, Commander, U.S. Military Assistance 
Command, Viet-Nam, to meet with the President at the 
White House April 6-7. 

APRIL 22, 1968 


He has spent the lunch hour and this after- 
noon with Secretary Rusk, since the Secretary 
returned from a visit to the Pacific area. 

General Westmoreland is leaving shortly to 
return to South Viet-Nam and will stop off, at 
my request, in California to brief General 
Eisenhower on the matters that we discussed 

General Westmoreland will have a brief 
statement to make to you before he goes to the 
plane. Along with Secretary [of Defense 
Clark M.] Clifford, I expect to go to the plane 
with General Westmoreland and continue our 
talks imtil his departure. 

General Westmoreland 

Yesterday and today I conferred with the 
President, the Secretary of State, Secretary of 
Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, and other officials of the Government. I 
discussed the military situation in South Viet- 
Nam, the status of enemy forces, the perform- 
ance of the Vietnamese military, mobilization 
and modernization of the Vietnamese armed 
forces, and current and future military 
operations and plans. 

I told the Commander in Chief that: 

— Despite the initial psychological impact of 
the enemy's Tet offensive, the enemy failed to 
achieve a public uprising by the people of South 
Viet-Nam, to bring about the defeat of the 
armed forces of Viet-Nam, or to achieve his 
military objectives. 

— The Vietnamese Government is proceeding 
rapidly to increase the strength of its armed 
forces by 135,000 men. 

— ^An assessment of the performance of the 

Vietnamese armed forces during the past sev- 
eral months reveals that, in general, they fought 
bravely and well. 

— The spirit of the offensive is now prevalent 
throughout Viet-Nam, with the advantage be- 
ing taken of the enemy's weakened military 
position in Viet-Nam. 

— Our troops of all services have continued 
to perform in magnificent fashion, and their 
conduct since the first of the year has been 
enhanced, and my admiration for them has 
likewise been increased, 

— Militarily, we have never been in a better 
relative position in South Viet-Nam. 

— The enemy's siege of Khe Sanh has been 
relieved by ground action. Following news 
from my command, I have sent a message to 
General [Robert E.] Cushman, congratulating 
him and the troops under his operational con- 
trol for their success in relieving the Khe Sanh 
base and wresting the initiative from the enemy. 
A copy of my message will be distributed to 

Ladies and gentlemen, in view of the sensitive 
nature of the present situation, I have nothing 
further to say. 

President Johnson 

Ladies and gentlemen, General Westmore- 
land is due to arrive back in Saigon on Tuesday. 
After his arrival Ambassador [Ellsworth] 
Bunker will come to Washington for confer- 
ences during the latter part of the week with 
the President and with his senior advisers, the 
Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense. 

' Not printed. 



SEATO Council of Ministers Meets at Wellington 

The Council of Ministers of the Southeast 
Asia Treaty Organization met at Wellington, 
New Zealand, April 2-3. Following Is a state- 
ment made by Secretary Rusk at the opening 
session an April 2, together with the text of the 
■final co7nmunlque issued at the close of the meet- 
ing on April 3. 


Press release 65 dated April B 

I congratulate my good and distinguished 
friend, the Prime Minister of New Zealand 
[Keith Holyoake], on his unanimous election as 
Chairman of our meeting. Most elections these 
days are not won so easily. I congratulate the 
rest of us on having a presiding ofBcer both so 
experienced and so genial. I am also glad to 
have this opportunity to thank the Government 
and people of New Zealand most warmly for 
their hospitality which is now extended to us. 
President Johnson asked me to bring to you his 
warm personal greetings. He can never forget 
the reception he was given here in 1966. It is in- 
deed a pleasure for me, too, to return to this 
beautiful country which I first visited 6 years 

I shall be relatively brief, Mr. Chairman, be- 
cause among other things President Johnson 
yesterday made a very important statement on 
the situation in Southeast Asia as seen by the 
United States,^ and I have made a full text of 
his remarks available to the heads of delegations 

Let me emphasize at the very beginning of 
my remarks that the sole purpose of SEATO is 
peace in Southeast Asia. That was the reason 
for its foimding, and that is the reason for its 
existence today. The largest aggression today is 

' For President Johnson'i address to the Nation on 
Mar. 31, see Bttlletin of Apr. 15, 1968, p. 481. 

against the Republic of Viet-Nam. But it is not 
only Viet-Nam that is involved in aggression in 
Southeast Asia. There is a large-scale aggression 
proceeding against Laos, in flagrant violation of 
the Geneva accords of 1962. 1 am sure we will be 
hearing in the course of our proceedings from 
our distinguished Thai colleague, Mr. Thanat 
Khoman, about the activities of insurgents 
trained outside Thailand who are operating in 
the northern parts of his own count i-y. Cambo- 
dia is faced with a Communist insurgency, 
which its Govenmaent has stated is supported 
by Hanoi and Peking. Two and a half years 
ago, in Indonesia, an attempted Commmiist 
coup came perilously close to success. All of us 
here remember the Communist threats to Ma- 
laya and the Philippines. 

Eveiy govermnent in East Asia and the West- 
em Pacific understands the stakes in this strug- 
gle — even though some of them do not make 
their views always known in public pronounce- 
ments — for most of them are nations which 
desire only to preserve their independence and 
to make economic and social progress in their 
own ways under governments of their own 
choice. It seems to me that what is happening in 
Southeast Asia poses a question for the entire 
free world. It is not just a question of whether 
one supports South Viet-Nam or, in our case, 
supports the policy of the United States in 
South Viet-Nam. The question is what kind of 
Southeast Asia there is to be. The question is : 
Are the smaller nations of Southeast Asia to 
be permitted to survive, or are they going to be 
overwhelmed simply because they live next to 
those who have unlimited appetites? 

There is no question but that successful ag- 
gression in Southeast Asia would have conse- 
quences not confined to Asia. Asian Communist 
leaders have themselves called Viet-Nam a cru- 
cial test of the teclmique of what they call, in 
their upside-down language, "wars of national 

APRIL 22, 1968 


liberation." Yet today we are hearing again, 
as new ideas in the sixties, the slogans of an- 
other day which many of us in this room can 
recall witli pain and anguisli : "It's a long way 
off, it's none of our business." "Give him anotlier 
bite, maybe he will be satisfied." "Don't pay any 
attention to what he says; he doesn't really 
mean it." 

These were some of the notions that para- 
lyzed the nations of the free world until it was 
too late to prevent the Second World War — and 
almost too late to prevent the aggressors from 
winning it. 

The costly lessons of the 1930's were reflected 
in the purposes and j^rinciples of the United 
Nations, especially article 1 of its charter. The 
first prescription for peace in that article is 
"effective collective measures for the jirevention 
and removal of threats to the peace, and for the 
suppression of acts of aggression or other 
breaches of the peace. . . ." 

Unhappily, for reasons wliich we know only 
too well, the United Nations has been miable 
to function as effectively as we liad hoped it 
would, and so the nations of the free world 
found it necessary to organize defensive alli- 
ances within the framework and in accordance 
with the provisions of the United Nations 

Mr. Chairman, it is of the utmost importance 
that both our friends and our adversaries, ac- 
tual or potential, know beyond question that 
these mutual security treaties mean what they 
say and that tlie nations which signed them have 
both the means and the will to make good on 
their pledges. 

All the governments represented here know 
that the struggle in Viet-Nam is not "just a 
civil war." Of course, there are authentic South 
Vietnamese who have taken up arms against 
the Government of the Republic of Viet-Nam. 
But they are not the reason why five members 
of SEATO and the Republic of Korea have sent 
military forces to Soutli Viet-Nam. Tliese forces 
are there because of what is coming down from 
the North. It is true that the demarcation lines 
which divide certain nations were intended to 
be temporary. But international law and the 
requirements of peace do not in the slightest 
justify efforts to try to unite these divided states 
by force. 

This Council, Mr. Chairman, has repeatedly 

declared the resolve of its members not to per- 
mit a Communist takeover by force of the Re- 
public of Viet-Nam. Four years ago, at Manila, 
the Council called the assault on the Republic 
of Viet-Nam an "aggression" and an "organized 
campaign . . . directed, supplied and sup- 
ported by the Communist regime in North 
Viet-Nam." = In 1965 and 1966 tlie Council called 
attention to the enlarging scale of the aggres- 
sion from the Nortli, and last year, using the 
precise language of article 4, paragraph 1, of 
the treaty, tliis Council called it an "aggression 
by means of armed attack." ^ 

At the end of January the war in Viet-Nam 
entered a new phase, with the coordinated Com- 
munist attack on 38 Provincial capitals and au- 
tonomous cities and some 60 district towns. We 
believe that the Communists turned to this new 
strategy because they realized they were losing 
ground rapidly under their previous strategy. 

Both sides, if we are candid, suffered damage 
in the so-called Tet offensive. Many civilians 
were killed or injured. Tens of tliousands of 
homes were desti'oyed. The pacification pro- 
gram in the count i-y side was set back — seriously 
in approximately one-third of the hamlets in 
which it was imder way and substantially in 
another third. It will take time to get this pro- 
gram moving again and to restore a sense of 
security in some of the areas from which mili- 
tary forces were withdrawn to deal with the 
attacks on the cities; and there was, of course, 
serious property damage in Hue and a few 
other cities. 

On tlie other side, several points deserve spe- 
cial note. The fact that the Communists mas- 
sively violated the most sacred Vietnamese 
holiday and the temporary cease-fire which they 
themselves proclaimed caused widespread in- 
dignation in South Viet-Nam, and this indigna- 
tion was intensified by the deliberate massacre 
by the Communists of hundreds of civil servants 
and other civilians loyal to the Government of 
the Republic. 

The deliberate attack on the cities, in the full 
knowledge that thousands of innocent men, 
women, and children would suffer grievous 
losses, exposed for all to see the true nature of 
Hanoi's program of "liberation." 

' Ibid., May 4, 1964, p. 692. 
' Ibid., May 15, 1967, p. 745. 



The Communists were unable to hold any of 
the cities which they attacked. Nowhere was 
there the jjopular uprising which they had 
promised their forces. Also contrary to the 
enemy's predictions, the armed forces of the 
Eepuhlic of Viet-Nam fought well and gallantly 
in repelling the brunt of this attack. The Gov- 
ernment of Viet-Nam was not brought down. 
Non-Communist leaders of many factions joined 
in calling for a common front against the Com- 
munists, and the Government quickly set in 
motion a recovery program to relieve the suffer- 
ing, rebuild the damage, and restore confidence. 
And the Tet offensive cost the enemy heavy 
casualties in dead, captured, and defections. 

Since we met a year ago, the people of the 
Eepublic of Viet-Nam have held elections under 
their new Constitution for President and Vice- 
President and both Houses of a National As- 
sembly. Despite much effort by the Viet Cong 
to disrupt the elections, a large majority of reg- 
istered voters went to the polls. 

President Thieu has recently announced that 
Viet-Nam is setting out to increase its armed 
forces by 1.35,000 men, by drafting 18- and 19- 
year-olds and by recalling to the colors men un- 
der 33 with less than 5 years of service. The 
drafting of 19-year-olds has already begun. The 
drafting of 18-year-olds is to begin in May. Our 
objective in Viet-Nam — as the President made 
it so clear yesterday — as it is in all of Southeast 
Asia and in the rest of the world, is peace. But 
it must be a peace under which nations and peo- 
ples can liv'e under institutions of their own 
choice, free from attack or threat by their 
neighbors. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that 
nobody in the world wants peace in Viet-Nam 
more than the chiefs of government represented 
at this table. Our efforts to move this matter to 
the negotiating table have been unremitting. 
"We have stood ready at all times to negotiate 
without conditions or about any part of the 
problem. "We have made or supported 35 to 40 
major proposals to get talks started. Hanoi has 
rejected them all. 

We have also tried to move toward reduction 
of the conflict by what might be called mutual 
example. Here again, the other side has con- 
sistently refused to respond. On eight occasions 
we have suspended bombing North Viet-Nam in 
the hope of getting talks started or of initiating 
a reciprocal deescalation of the fighting. 

Last September at San Antonio, President 
Johnson said that we would be willing to stop 
the bombardment of the North if that would 
lead promptly to productive discussions and 
that we would assume that Hanoi would not 
take advantage of our restraint.* But Hanoi, 
once again, categorically said "No." 

Last night, as you know. President Johnson 
renewed this offer, with an additional move of 
genuine importance. He announced that, until 
further notice, he was ordering our aircraft and 
naval vessels not to bombard the northern areas 
of North Viet-Nam. Our attacks are now limited 
to the southern areas of North Viet-Nam which 
provide direct support to their troops on the 
battlefield, and as the President added, if Hanoi 
responds, there can be further moves to abate 
the conflict. "We earnestly hope that the Soviet 
Union and the United Kingdom, as cochairmen 
of the Geneva conferences and as permanent 
members of the United Nations Security Coun- 
cil, will join in doing all they can to move from 
this "unilateral act of deescalation . . . toward 
genuine peace in Southeast Asia." 

I hope that we can agree, and I hope that all 
men of good will throughout the world can 
agree, that the President's offer is as fair as any 
reasonable man could ask. But if Hanoi does not 
respond, more hard fighting lies ahead. The 
President has announced steps to strengthen our 
military forces. Clearly, Hanoi has been relying 
heavily upon divisions within the free world 
and dissent within the member countries of 
SEATO itself. "We must see to it that Hanoi 
realizes how futile are its efforts to win in 
SEATO capitals what it cannot win on the 

Hanoi will realize — and the sooner the bet- 
ter — that it will not be permitted to take over 
South Viet-Nam by force. "When that time 
comes, there can be peace, and the goals of free- 
dom enunciated at the Manila Conference in 
1966 will be on their way to realization.^ 

Meanwhile, all of us can feel highly gratified 
by the economic and social progress of the free 
nations of East Asia, progress which is in strik- 
ing contrast to the poor performance of the 
Asian Comnmnist regimes. 

And I know we are all gratified by the 

* IhUL. Oct. 23, 1907, p. 519. 

' For texts of the Manila Conference documents, see 
ibid., Nov. 14, IOCS, p. 730. 

APRIL 22. 1968 


growth, under Asian initiatives, of regional and 
subregional cooperation and institutions: the 
Asian Development Bank, the Asian and Pacific 
Council, the Association of Southeast Asian Na- 
tions, the ministerial conferences on Southeast 
Asian development, and many others, including 
SEATO itself. 

These advances, both individual and collec- 
tive, would not have been possible without the 
assurance of protection against aggression. If 
we who are committed to freedom and to peace 
stand firm together, we shall continue to see, I 
am sure, wondrous progress in East Asia and 
the Pacific. I recall the words which President 
Johnson used on his return from his Pacific 
journey in November 1966 : ' 

The world of Asia and the Pacific Is moving through 
a critical transition — from chaos to security, from 
poverty to progress, from the anarchy of narrow na- 
tionalism to regional cooperation, from endless hos- 
tility, we hope, to a stable peace. 

And so, Mr. Chairman, it is a very great privi- 
lege for me to be able to join my colleagues on 
the SEATO Council to talk about this most im- 
portant of all subjects in the world today: the 
organization of a true peace in Southeast Asia, 
not a fraudulent peace but a true peace based 
upon the lessons we have learned from our re- 
cent experience, written into the language of 
article 1 of the United Nations Charter. 


PresB release 64 dated April 4 

1. The Council of the Sonth-East Asia Treaty 
Organization held its thirteenth meeting In Wellington 
from 2 to 3 April 1968 under the chairmanship of the 
Eight Honourable Keith Holyoake, C.H., M.P., Prime 
Minister and Minister of External AflEairs of New 

2. All Member Governments, except France, par- 
ticipated. The Republic of Viet-Nam, a protocol state, 
was represented by an observer. 

General Observations 

3. In Its review of the situation in the treaty area, 
the Council noted that, despite the difficulties caused 
by continued Communist aggression and efforts at 
subversion, the encouraging economic and social prog- 
ress observed when it last met had continued and, In 

' ma., Nov. 28, 1966, p. 809. 

many countries, had accelerated. The Council agreed 
that this progress was facilitated by the steady growth 
of regional cooperation. This constructive trend found 
expression during the past year most notably In the 
formation of the Association of Sonth-East Asian Na- 
tions (ASEAN). In this and in other regional and sub- 
regional groupings, SEATO members are playing a 
full part. 

4. The Council noted also that these joint and Indi- 
vidual gains would not have been possible without the 
shield which the Manila Treaty has helped to provide, 
and particularly without the effective defence of the 
Republic of Viet-Nam against overt Communist 

5. The Council noted, however, that during the past 
year the Communists have intensified their efforts 
against the governments of many free states of South- 
East Asia, using different forms of aggression — overt 
attacks, subversion, infiltration and terrorism — accom- 
panied by vicious propaganda. The Council observed 
that Communist China is encouraging all these efforts. 
While North Viet-Nam is leading the assault on some 
free nations. Communist China Is promoting the as- 
sault on others, and in attempting to subvert Thailand, 
they are operating In concert. 

6. The Council reaffirmed the convictions expressed 
at its past three meetings that : 

"History shows that the tolerance of aggression In- 
creases the danger to free societies everywhere" ; 

"The rule of law should prevail and that Inter- 
national agreements should be honoured and steps 
taken to make them operative"; and 

"The elimination of aggression is essential to the 
establishment and maintenance of a reliable peace". 

7. The Council again expressed Its conviction that 
the outcome of the struggle In South-East Asia will 
have profound effects not only in Asia but throughout 
the world and that the Communist aggression against 
independent nations of South-East Asia must not be 
allowed to succeed. It drew attention to the fact that 
these views are shared by other nations both in and 
outside the treaty area. 

The Search for Peace 

8. The Council commended the persistent efforts of 
the Republic of Viet-Nam, the United States and other 
members of the Alliance, and Interested third parties 
to bring about a peaceful resolution of the conflict in 
South-East Asia. 

9. The Council endorsed as fair and reasonable the 
formula for bringing about peace talks proposed by 
President Johnson at San Antonio in September 1967, 
and expressed disappointment that Communist North 
Viet-Nam has repeatedly rejected this and other offers 
to open discussions or negotiations. 

10. The Council endorsed unreservedly the bold and 
generous decision on Viet-Nam announced by Presi- 
dent Johnson in his statement of 31 March. It recog- 
nized that this presented an opportunity of critical im- 
portance for the opening-up of negotiations to end the 
conflict in Viet-Nam. It endorsed his appeal to the 



United Kingdom and to the Soviet Union, as Co-Chalr- 
men of tbe Geneva Conferences and Permanent Mem- 
bers of the Secnrity Council, to do their best to bring 
the parties to the conflict to the negotiating table. It 
noted with approval that the United Kingdom was al- 
ready in touch with the Soviet Union and expressed 
the hope that the Soviet Union would respond con- 
structively. The Council expressed Its earnest hope 
that North Viet-Nam would respond promptly to this 
Initiative in ways that would result in mutual reduc- 
tions in the fighting, early and productive negotiations, 
and a just and lasting peace. 

11. The Council agreed that, whatever the diffl- 
cultles, the Intensive search for a just and lasting peace 
based upon the purposes and principles of the Charter 
of the United Nations and of the Manila Treaty must 
be continued until stability and security are assured. 
The Member Nations renewed their determination to 
persevere in this search and with their efforts on all 
fronts, until all the peoples of the area, whatever their 
political beliefs, are free to devote themselves to con- 
structive efforts to achieve a better life. 

progress, and to enlarge and strengthen Its armed 

18. The Council noted with appreciation the In- 
creases during the past year in the military, economic 
and humanitarian assistance provided to the Republic 
of Viet-Nam by Member Governments In fulfillment of 
or consistent with their obligations under the South- 
East Asia Collective Defence Treaty. The Council also 
noted with appreciation the assistance given by coun- 
tries who are not members of SEATO, notably the 
Republic of Korea. 

19. The Council again recalled that Communist lead- 
ers have declared their belief that the assault on the 
Republic of "Viet-Nam is a critical test of what they 
call "Wars of National Liberation" but which in reality 
are a technique of aggression to impose Communist 
domination. It reaffirmed its conclusion at its last 
four meetings that the defeat of this aggression Is 
essential to the security of South-East Asia and would 
provide convincing proof that Communist expansion by 
such tactics will not be permitted. 


12. The Council heard with deep interest a state- 
ment by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Re- 
public of Viet-Nam. 

13. The Council noted with grave concern North 
Viet-Nam's continuing aggression by means of armed 
attack against the Republic of Viet-Nam, in patent 
violation of the principles of international law and the 
Geneva Agreements of 1954 and 19C2. It also noted 
that this aggression Is sustained by an increasing flow 
of weapons and supplies from other Communist 

14. The Council noted that during the past year 
North Viet-Nam had substantially augmented its ag- 
gression by : Increasing the infiltration of combat per- 
sonnel, including many large units of the regular army 
of North Viet-Nam ; infiltrating large quantities of more 
destructive weapons; making battlefields of the cities 
of the Republic of Viet-Nam In the knowledge that 
hundreds of thousands of Innocent civilians would 

1.5. The Council noted that the Communists had long 
and deliberately planned the TET offensive which 
violated both the most sacred Vietnamese holiday and 
the truce proclaimed by the Communists themselves. It 
noted that this further violence had failed in its major 
objectives. It deplored the additional suffering inflicted 
on the people of the Republic of Viet-Nam. 

16. The Council again expressed admiration and 
support for the people and the Government of the 
Republic of Viet-Nam in their long struggle against 
aggression. It praised their courage. It applauded their 
success in conducting national elections, despite vigor- 
ous Communist attempts to disrupt them. 

17. The Council commended the measures taken by 
the Government of the Republic of Viet-Nam to care 
for the refugees and to repair the damage caused by the 
TET attacks, to eliminate corruption, to move ahead 
with its national programmes of economic and social 


20. The Council again expressed Its grave concern 
at North Viet-Nam's continuing and open violation 
of the 1962 Geneva Agreements through such acts as: 

The maintenance In Laos of units of the regular army 
of North Viet-Nam ; 

The intensified use of these forces against the Gov- 
ernment and territory of Laos ; 

The expanded use of the territory of Laos to sup- 
ply and reinforce the Communist forces In the Republic 
of Viet-Nam and to support Insurgency in Thailand; 

The refusal to the International Control Commission 
of access to the Communist-held portions of Laos. 

21. The Council again called for the Implementation 
of the 1962 Geneva Agreements. It expressed continu- 
ing support for the efforts of Prime Minister Souvanna 
Phomna's Government of National Union to obtain 
peace and secure the sovereignty, unity and territorial 
integrity of an Independent and neutral Laos. 

22. The Council noted with appreciation the efforts of 
the United Kingdom, as Co-Chairman of the Geneva 
Conferences of 1954 and 1962, to reduce tension and 
secure respect for the Geneva Agreements of 1962. It 
expressed the hope that the Soviet Union, as the other 
Co-Chairman, would play its part by taking active 
steps to help maintain the neutrality and Independence 
of Laos. 


23. The Council noted with satisfaction the broadly- 
based efforts of the Government of the Republic of the 
Philippines, with support from other Member Nations, 
to combat Communist insnrgency, especially In Cen- 
tral Luzon. It recognized, in i)articular, the value of the 
civic action projects which play a significant role In 
this regard. 

APRIL 22. 1968 



24. The Council noted that the Royal Thai Govern- 
ment is making a continuing, major contribution to 
the defence of the Repuljlic of Viet-Nam by making 
Thai facilities available to other SEATO Powers for 
common defence purposes. In addition, during the last 
year Thailand has further increased its contribution 
to the struggle in Viet-Nam by agreeing to despatch a 
division of ground forces. It has done this despite 
the threat posed by Communist insurgency within 

25. The Council expressed satisfaction with the 
successful endeavours of the Thai Government and 
people to promote economic and social development, 
at national as well as regional levels, and with their 
determined efforts, relying on their own manpower and 
available resources, to counter Communist activities 
directed from outside. 

26. The Council noted that during the last year the 
Royal Thai Government's programme to provide greater 
security and increased development to its rural popula- 
tion had made notable progress, particularly in North- 
East Thailand. The Council reiterated its firm deter- 
mination to take all necessary measures to assist Thai- 
land in meeting the Communist threat. 


27. The Council reaflBrmed its support for SEATO 
activities designed to assist Member countries in the 
area to counter the Communist subversive threat. It 
noted with satisfaction the continuing high degree of 
effectiveness .shown by the Secretary-General in finding 
meaningful ways to provide this as.sistance. 

Co-operation in the Military Field 

28. The Council approved the report of the military 
advisers and paid tribute to the work accomplished by 
the military planning ofBee since the Twelfth Meeting 
of the Council, in particular the continuous planning 
and periodic military exercises. 

British Defence Policy 

29. The Council noted the decision of the United 
Kingdom Government to withdraw its niililary forces 
from Singapore and Malaysia Ijy the end of 1971 and 
discussed the implications of this decision for SEATO 
and for the treaty area. The Council welcomed the as- 
surance of the United Kingdom Government that it 
would continue to contribute to the progress, stability 
and security of South-East Asia through membership 
of SEATO and in other ways. 

Economic, Medical and Cultural Co-operation 

30. The Council expressed its gratification that the 
Organization had maintained steady progress in vari- 
ous projects related to economic development, cultural 
affairs and medical research. It took note of the con- 

tinuing effort of SEATO to complement work being 
done on a national or regional basis and in providing 
for the broadest regional participation in these en- 
deavours. The Council agreed that the value of the eco- 
nomic, cultural and medical activities of the Organiza- 
tion had been fully demonstrated and deserved the 
continued active support of all Members. 


31. The Pakistan Delegate wished it to be recorded 
that he did not participate in the drafting of the Com- 
munique and that the views expressed in it do not nec- 
essarily reflect the position of the Government of 

Reappointment of the Secretary-General 

32. The Council recorded its deep appreciation for 
the leadership given by Lieutenant General Jesus Var- 
gas as Secretary-General, and took pleasure in reap- 
pointing him for a further term of three years. 

Next Meeting 

33. The Council accepted with pleasure the invitation 
of the Government of Thailand to hold its Fourteenth 
Meeting in Bangkok in 1969. 

Expression of Gratitude 

34. The Council expressed gratitude to the Govern- 
ment and people of New Zealand for their generous hos- 
pitality and warm welcome and its appreciation for the 
excellent arrangements made for the meeting. 

Leaders of Delegations 

35. The leaders of the Delegations to the Thirteenth 
Council Meeting were : 

New Zealand 


United Kingdom 

United States 

Republic of Viet-Nam 

The Rt. Hon. Paul Hasluck, 
Minister for External Af- 

The Rt. Hon. Keith Holyoake, 
Prime Minister and Minis- 
ter of External Affairs 

H.E. Mr. M. Aslam Malik, 
High Commissioner in Aus- 

H.E. Mr. Jose D. Ingles, 

Under-Secretary of Foreign 

H.E. Mr. Thanat Khoman, 
Minister of Foreign Affairs 

The Rt. Hon. George Thomson, 
Secretary of State for Com- 
monwealth Affairs 

The Hon. Dean Rusk, 
Secretary of State 

H.E. Dr. Tran Van Do, 

Minister of Foreign Affairs 



Seven Asian and Pacific Nations 
Review Situation in Viet-Nam 

Following is the text of a final communique 
issued at the dose of the seven-nation meeting 
on Viet-Nam held at Wellington, Neio Zealand, 
on April 4. 

Department of State press release dated April 8 

1. The Minister of External Affairs of Aus- 
tralia, ilr. Paul Hasluck; the Jlinister of For- 
eign Affairs of the Eepublic of Korea, Mr. Kyu 
Ilah Choi ; the Prime Minister and Minister of 
External Affairs of New Zealand, jNIr. Keith 
Holyoake; the Under Secretary of Foreign Af- 
fairs of the Philippines, Mr. Jose Ingles; the 
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand, Mr. 
Thanat Khoinan; the Minister of Foreign Af- 
fairs of the Republic of Viet-Xam, Dr. Tran 
Van Do; and the Secretary of State of the 
United States of America, Mr. Dean Rusk, met 
in Wellington, at the invitation of the New Zea- 
land Go\-ernment, on 4 April 1968. This meeting 
of Foreign ilinisters was the second held in ac- 
cordance with the call for continuing consulta- 
tion made at the Manila Conference of Octo- 
ber IDGG. 


2. The central purposes of the meeting were 
to review the situation in Viet-Nam, to consider 
ways in which the Seven Nations miglit 
strengthen their efforts to help the people of the 
Republic of Viet-Nam to resist Communist ag- 
gi'ession, to review the prospects for a peaceful 
settlement of the conflict, and to examine the 
security situation in Asia. Tlie discussions 
showed a broad measure of agreement and 
strengthened the foundation for continuing con- 
sultation and cooperation among the Seven Na- 
tions. The Ministers noted that action taken in 
pursuance of their policies should be in accord- 
ance with their respective constitutional 

Situation in Viet-Nam 

3. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Re- 
public of Viet-Nam gave an account of events 
in his country during the past year, particularly 
the development of a representative system of 
government. He also described the attempt by 

the Communists, through the militai-y and ter- 
rorist campaign launched at the time of the Tet 
truce, to destroy his Government's achievements. 
He outlined the measures taken by his Govern- 
ment for the protection and relief of the popula- 
tion. He pointed out also the seriousness of the 
related situation in Laos where more than 
40,000 North Vietnamese troops are present, in 
violation of the Geneva Accords of 1962, and 
where attacks against the neutral Government 
of Laos are being intensified. 

4. The Ministers of the Seven Nations wel- 
comed the steps whereby, j^rogressively, the peo- 
ple of South Viet-Nam have been enabled to 
choose their own government. They noted that 
the elections held in the latter part of 1967 had 
demonstrated that the great majority of the 
South Vietnamese people do not wish to live 
under Communist rule. They reaffirmed their 
conviction that a broadly representative politi- 
cal system offers the best possible opportunity 
for national reconciliation. The Ministers noted 
that the political programme of the Communist 
aggressors called for abolition of the present 
constitution, the elected National Assembly, 
and the Government of the Republic of Viet- 
Nam, and for their replacement by the artificial 
organizations under Communist control. The 
Ministers agreed that, on the contrary, the 
South Vietnamese people must be assured the 
right to determine their own future through 
democratic and constitutional processes without 
cither external interference or terrorist pres- 
sure. The imposition of any form of govern- 
ment, including the spurious "coalition" advo- 
cated by the Communists and some others, 
would be incompatible with this principle and 
therefore completely unacceptable. 

5. The Ministers also received a report on 
military operations throughout the last year, 
and noted the very considerable achievements by 
the forces of the Republic of Viet-Nam, the 
United States, and the other countries allied 
with them. It was the success of these operations 
and the growing support for the Government 
that had led the Communists to change their 
tactics, as shown by the Tet offensive where they 
suffered tremendous losses and failed to gain 
their major objectives. The Ministers expressed 
their heartfelt sympathy for the people of South 
Viet-Nam who had been subjected to a wave of 
violence and terror which was unprecedented 
in its magnitude. The Ministers noted that, far 

APRIL 22, 1968 


from evoking any popular support or achieving 
their objective of a general uprising, the Com- 
munists had exposed the emptiness of their pre- 
tensions to represent the South Vietnamese 

6. The Ministers expressed their appreciation 
of the prompt action of a large number of gov- 
ernments and organizations in helping to relieve 
the distress and repair the damage caused by 
the Communist offensive. They undertook to 
continue aid for these purposes. 

7. The Ministers expressed their admiration 
for the courage and ability of the Vietnamese 
armed forces in repelling the Communists' Tet 
offensive. They noted with approval the plans 
of the Government of Viet-Nam to expand its 
armed forces by 135,000 men and to take fur- 
ther steps to mobilize increased resources for 
the defence of Viet-Nam. They expressed the 
detennination of their Governments to con- 
tinue, and where possible to increase, their ef- 
forts to meet the requirements of the struggle 
until peace is attained. They welcomed in this 
connection the decision announced by the Presi- 
dent of the United States to increase American 
forces in Viet-Nam.^ They also noted with ap- 
preciation the decision announced by the Gov- 
ernment of Thailand to send a division of addi- 
tional troops to Viet-Nam in the near future. 

8. The Ministers agreed that their Govern- 
ments would sustain their efforts to help the 
Vietnamese people defend themselves against 
aggression by armed attack, and preserve their 
independence and their right to decide their 
own future. 

Efforts for Peace 

9. The Ministers agreed that the bold initia- 
tive, on the eve of this Conference, of the Presi- 
dent of the United States in stopping the bomb- 
ing of most of North Viet-Nam, has given the 
leaders in Hanoi a new and fateful opportunity 
to enter into serious negotiations. The Ministers 
discussed the implications of this action, which 
they welcomed as an important step toward 
peace. They expressed their profound hope that 
North Viet-Nam will respond in a way that will 
permit this conflict to he settled by peaceful 
means and end the suffering of the Vietnamese 

10. The Ministers recalled also the proposal 

made by the President of the United States at 
San Antonio on 29 September 1967,^ which of- 
fered a way to peace that all reasonable men 
could accept, and they reiterated their willing- 
ness to meet without any pre-conditions to try 
to find ways to bring about a just and honour- 
able peace for all concerned. The Ministers reaf- 
firmed their commitment at the Manila Summit 
Conference on 25 October 1966 to remove the 
allied forces brought in to defend Viet-Nam 
and to evacuate their installations there as the 
other side withdraws its forces to the North, 
ceases infiltration and the level of violence thus 
subsides. The Ministers declared that the latest 
announcement of the President of the United 
States fully reflected the basic desire of all their 
peoples for a just and peaceful settlement. The 
Ministers discussed the North Vietnamese 
broadcast statement indicating that contact with 
North Viet-Nam could result from the Presi- 
dent's initiative, and agreed to keep in closest 
consultation on further developments. 


11. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the 
Republic of Korea gave an accoimt of the in- 
creasing infiltration of the Republic of Korea 
by North Korean Communist armed raidei"S. 
The Ministers recorded their concern over these 
developments and expressed particular indigna- 
tion over the recent attack directed at the official 
residence of the President of the Republic of 
Korea. They agreed that recent North Korean 
acts of aggression have a link with aggression in 
South East Asia. They agreed that such pro- 
vocative actions by the North Korean Commu- 
nists are matters of grave concern which directly 
threaten the peace and security of the Korean 
peninsula and the area surrounding it. They 
affirmed their support for the Republic of Korea 
in resisting such aggression and undertook to 
keep in close touch on this grave situation. 

12. In view of the situation in Korea and 
South East Asia, the Ministers reaffirmed their 
commitment to the Declaration on Peace and 
Progress in Asia and the Pacific promulgated at 
the Summit Conference in Manila in October 

^ Bttlletin of Apr. 15, 1968, p. 481. 
• lUd., Oct. 23, 1967, p. 519. 



ANZUS Council Meets at Wellington 

FoUoxoing is the text of a communique issued 
at the close of the 17th ANZUS {Australia, New 
Zealand, and United States Security Treaty) 
Council meeting, which was held at Wellington, 
New Zealand, on April 5. 

Department of State press release dated April 8 

1. The ANZUS Council held its Seventeenth 
Meetin<r in Welliniiton on April 5, 1968. The 
Eight Honorable Paul Hasluck, Minister for 
External Affairs, represented Australia; the 
Honorable Dean Eusk, Secretary of State, rep- 
resented the United States; and the Eight Hon- 
orable Keith Holyoake, Pi-ime Minister and 
Minister of External Affau's, represented New 

2. The Ministers exchanged views on a wide 
range of subjects, particularly those affecting 
the stability of the ANZUS Treaty area. They 
recognized the special significance for the tkree 
partnei-s of this Seventeenth Meeting of the 
ANZUS Council, which was held as the conflict 
in Viet-Nam was entering a new and possibly 
decisive stage and shortly after Britain's de- 
cision to accelerate its military withdrawal from 
Southeast Asia. 

3. The Ministers declared that at the present 
time it was in Southeast Asia that the greatest 
danger to world peace existed. The policies pur- 
sued by North Viet-Nam continued to call for 
concerted action to establish conditions in which 
the peoples of Asia and the Pacific could live in 
independence and security. The Ministers were 
unanimous in their conviction that the outcome 
of the conflict in Viet-Nam would be of critical 
importance in determining the future of the en- 
tire area. They agreed that the allied contribu- 
tion in Viet-Nam was essential to the security 
and stability of the region and observed that 
this was widely recognized in Southeast Asia 
and elsewhere. 

4. The Ministers noted with satisfaction the 
unity expressed at the SEATO and Seven Na- 
tion Viet-Nam Meetings and reaffirmed the po- 
sitions taken by those meetings. 

5. The Ministers discussed the welcome and 
rapidly developing events in the search for 
peace in Southeast Asia. They agreed that their 
governments would spare no effort to achieve a 

just and lasting peace and that they would keep 
in closest consultation on further developments. 

6. The Ministers agreed tliat the British de- 
cision to withdraw its military forces from 
Southeast Asia by the end of 1971 added new 
difficulties to the problem of regional security 
in Southeast Asia. They welcomed Britain's 
assurance that it would continue to contribute 
to the progress, stability, and security of South- 
east Asia. They noted that the implications of 
this decision were to be discussed in the near 
future by the Commonwealth countries directly 
concerned. They agreed to keep in close touch 
about this matter. 

7. Noting the continued atmospheric testing 
of nuclear weapons by Communist China and 
France, the Ministers reaffirmed their oppo- 
sition to all atmos^jheric testing of nuclear 
weapons in disregard of world opinion as ex- 
pressed in the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. 

8. The Ministers discussed the prospects for 
regional cooperation in Asia and the Pacific. 
They observed that there had been a number of 
encouraging developments during the past year, 
notably the establisliment of the Association of 
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). They 
emphasized their belief that the continued 
gi'owth of a sense of commimity among the peo- 
ples of the region was important to its welfare. 

9. The Ministers agreed that, as the process 
of constitutional and political advance con- 
tinued in the territories of the Pacific, there was 
a need for special regard for the aspirations of 
island people and for continued assistance and 
encouragement on the part of the ANZUS 

10. The Ministers agreed that the undertak- 
ings exchanged in the ANZUS Treaty retained 
their full force after more than 16 years and 
would continue to do so for the future. The 
ANZUS partners were united by common in- 
terests, common viewpoints, and common ex- 
perience. Above aD, they were united in their 
concern for the preservation of peace and the 
promotion of progress in the Pacific. The 
Treaty reflected these bonds and provided a set- 
ting in which the partnership of the three na- 
tions had steadily achieved, and would continue 
to achieve, new depth and meaning. 

11. The Ministei-s agreed to keep in close con- 
sultation on all matters affecting the security 
and stability of the Treaty Area. 

APRIL 22, 1988 


Conveying the Message of Peace 

Following are excerpts from an address made 
hy President Johnson before the National As- 
sociation of Broadcasters at Chicago, III., on 
April 1. 

White House press release dated April 1 

I took a little of your prime time last night. 
I would not have done that except for a very 
prime purpose. 

I reported on the prospects for peace in Viet- 
Nam.^ I announced that the United States is 
taking a very important unilateral act of de- 
escalation which could — and I fervently pray 
will — lead to mutual moves to reduce the level 
of violence and deescalate the war. 

As I sat in my office last evening, waiting to 
speak, I thought of the many times each week 
when television brings the war into the Ameri- 
can home. 

No one can say exactly what effect those vivid 
scenes have on American opinion. Historians 
must only guess at the effect that television 
would have had during earlier conflicts on the 
future of this nation : 

— during the Korean war, for example, at that 
time when our forces were pushed back there 
to Pusan ; 

-or World War II, the Battle of the Bulge, 
or when our men were slugging it out in Europe 
or when most of our Air Force was shot down 
that day in June of 1942 off Australia. 

But last night television was being used to 
carry a different message. It was a message of 
peace. It occurred to me that the medium may 

' For President Johnson's address to the Nation on 
Mar. 31, see Bulletin of Apr. 15, 1968, p. 481. 

be somewhat better suited to conveying the ac- 
tions of conflict than to dramatizing tlie words 
that the leaders use in trying and hoping to end 
the conflict. 

Peace, in the news sense, is a "condition." War 
is an "event." 

Part of your responsibility is simply to under- 
stand the consequences of that fact — the con- 
sequences of your own acts — and part of that 
responsibility, I think, is to try, as very best 
we all can, to draw the attention of our people 
to the real business of society in our system: 
finding and securing peace in the world, at 
home and abroad. For all that you have done 
and that you are doing and that you will do to 
this end, I thank you and I commend you. 

I pray that the message of peace that I tried 
so hard to convey last night will be accepted in 
good faith by the leaders of North Viet- Nam. 

I pray that one time soon the evening news 
show will have — not another battle in the 
scarred hills of Viet-Nam — but will show men 
entering a room to talk aliout peace. That is the 
event that I think the American people are 
yearning and longing to see. 

President Thieu of Viet-Nam and his govern- 
ment are now engaged in very urgent political 
and economic tasks, which I referred to last 
night and which we regard as very constructive 
and hopeful. We hope the Government of South 
Viet-Nam makes great progress in the days 

But some time in the weeks ahead — im- 
mediately, I hope — President Thieu will be in a 
position to accept my invitation to visit the 
United States so he can come here and see our 
people, too, and together we can strengthen 
and improve our plans to advance the day of 



International Monetary Cooperation 

The Finance Ministers and Central Bank 
Governors of the Group of Ten met at Stock- 
holm March 29-30. Following is a statement 
made at the closing session on March 30 by 
Secretary of the Treasury Henry H. Fotoler, 
who was head of the U.S. delegation to the 
meeting, together toith the text of a communique 
issued by the Ministers and Governors that day. 


Treasury Department press release dated April 1 

I wish to make a reaffirmation, on the part 
of the United States, of our own internal 
responsibilities in connection with our responsi- 
bilities to the govei-nments which have taken 
this action today and to other governments of 
the free world which are not represented at 
this meeting. 

The ability of the United States to sustain 
strong, stable, and noninflationary growth is 
now being severely challenged and tested by 
events at home and abroad — and the outcome 
is watched closely by the rest of the woi'ld. 

And for good reason. 

The manner in which we respond to this 
test will determine not only our own economic 
future but that of the entire free world as 
well. The strength of the world economy and 
the continuance of a viable international 
monetary system depend to a large extent on the 
level of economic activity in the United States 
and the maintenance of a stable dollar, stable 
in terms of prices and exchange rates. 

The United States has now entered the eighth 
year of economic expansion — the longest and 
strongest period of economic growth in our 
history. Over the past 20 years, fueled by a 
strong U.S. economy and a strong dollar as 
the principal reserve and transaction currency, 
the free world has made the greatest strides in 
trade and development in recorded history. 

But a continuation of this progress is menaced 
by twin deficits : in our internal Federal budget 
and in our international balance of payments. 
And there is an overwhelming conviction that 
this year — now — the United States should direct 

its economic and financial policy toward revers- 
ing decisively the trend toward sharp increases 
in these deficits in 1968. 

That is not just the view of the Secretary of 
the Treasury. It is shared by the President, the 
Federal Reserve Board, the Council of 
Economic Advisers, and the vast preponderance 
of economic and financial authorities, private 
and public. 

But as yet that sentiment has not been trans- 
lated into the legislative action that is necessary. 

To meet the challenge before us President 
Johnson has called on the nation to act firmly, 
promptly, and with the highest degree of 
responsibility. He has urged "a program of na- 
tional austerity to insure that our economy will 
prosper and that our fiscal position will be 
sound."' ' 

In his New Year's Day message on the balance 
of payments,^ in his state of the Union message,^ 
and in his budget message,* the President 
stressed that failure to take decisive fiscal 
action — to enact the tax increase — would raise 
strong doubts throughout the world about 
America's willmgness to keep its financial house 
in order. 

In their recent communique on IMarch 17,^ the 
Central Bank Governors noted that an under- 
lying premise for the measures taken was their 
belief that it was "the determined policy of the 
United States Government to defend the value 
of the dollar through appropriate fiscal and 
monetary measures and that substantial im- 
provement of the United States balance of pay- 
ments is a high priority objective." 

This was but a realistic recognition of the 
fact that without the restoration of stability to 
the dollar as a reserve currency, all efforts to 
preserve, maintain, and improve the interna- 
tional monetary system are endangered. 

Fortunately, I am able to report to you that 

' For an address by President Johnson made at 
Miiine.Tpolia, Minn., on Mar. 18, see Bulletin of Apr. 
8. 1908, p. 459. 

' For text, see iliid., Jan. 22, 10G8, p. 110. 

' For text, sop ibUJ., Feb. 5, lOflS, p. IGl. 

' For excerpts, see ibid., Feb. 19, 19G8. p. 245. 

■ For text, see ihid., Apr. 8, 1968, p. 464. 

APRIL 22, 1968 


there is a rising tide of feeling in the Congress 
that the time for decisive action on the fiscal 
front is approaching. There is a growing sense 
of urgency that our financial situation must be 
corrected if representative government is to per- 
form its function in meeting the necessities of 
the people rather than satisfying wishfiil 

The direct measures announced by the Presi- 
dent to achieve a $3 billion reduction in our 
balance-of-payments deficit this year — the 
restrictions upon outflows of funds for direct in- 
vestments abroad by business, a reduction in 
foreign lending by our banks and other financial 
iustitutions, actions to reduce our foreign travel 
expenditure deficit, to reduce or neutralize the 
foreign exchange costs of our govermnent ex- 
penditures abroad, and to increase foreign tour- 
ism and investment in the United States — are 
all necessary and important. Yet by themselves 
they cannot do what must be done. We also must 
have the tax increase and other internal meas- 
ures that will keep our economy on an even keel. 

The compellmg fact is that all our efforts — 
direct and indirect, short- and long-term — to im- 
prove our balance-of-payments position rim the 
risk of failure unless we reduce a highly 
stimulative budget deficit and prevent the kind 
of excessive growth and inflationary pressures 
that reduce our trade surplus and destroy con- 
fidence in the dollar. In short, unless we take 
the course of financial responsibility, all other 
efforts may be in vain. 

While the success of the action program to 
deal with our balance-of-payments deficit will 
depend largely on the support of the American 
people, it will also rest to a considerable degree 
on the cooperation we seek from other nations. 

We are asking the United States' trading 
partners, and principally the countries of West- 
ern Europe whose large balance-of-payments 
surpluses are the counterpart of our deficits, to 
accept much of the burden of adjustment result- 
ing from the U.S. program. 

The recent historic growth in international 
cooperation is evidenced also by the progress 
that has been made in creating Special Drawing 
Rights in the International Monetary Fund to 
serve as a supplement to gold and the reserve 

I am hopeful that the amendment to be sub- 
mitted shortly to the 107 member governments 
of the IMF will be ratified promptly by the 
requisite majorities. 

As a result of the decision taken in Stockholm 
today, the new IMF facility will supply addi- 

tional liquidity to the world in amounts needed 
to accommodate an increasing volmne of trade 
and capital movements. 

The adjustments we are asking other nations 
to make imder our balance-of-payments pro- 
gram — and their continued cooperation in 
strengthening the international monetary sys- 
tem — will be more easily obtained if they know 
that the United States is acting in a fiscally 
responsible manner at home. 

We must demonstrate to them — through 
deeds rather than words — the sincerity of our 
expressions of determination to hold our 
economy to steady, stable, noninflationary 
growth and in this way maintain and increase 
the strength of the dollar. 


1. The Ministers and central bank Governors of 
the ten countries participating in the General Arrange- 
ments to Borrow met in Stockholm on 29-30th March, 
1968, under the chairmanship of Mr. Krister Wickman, 
Minister for Economic Affairs of Sweden. Mr. Pierre- 
Paul Schweitzer, Managing Director of the Interna- 
tional Monetary Fund, took part in the meeting, which 
was also attended by the President of the Swiss r 
National Bank, the Secretary-General of the O.B.C.D. 
[Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop- 
ment] and the General Manager of the B.I.S. [Bank 
for International Settlements]. 

2. Ministers and Governors first discussed the inter- 
national monetary situation and, second, they con- 
sidered a report by the Chairman of their Deputies 
on a Proposed Amendment to the Articles of Agree- 
ment of the I.M.F. which has been drawn up in accord- 
ance with the Resolution of the Board of Governors 
of the I.M.F. adopted at the annual meeting of the 
Fund In Rio de Janeiro last September.' This Amend- 
ment relates to the scheme for special drawing rights 
in the Fund, the Outline of which was approved at 
that meeting, and to improvements in the present rules 
and practices of the Fund. 

3. The Ministers and Governors expressed great 
satisfaction with the action taken by the United 
Kingdom which is designed to achieve a substantial 
overall surplus in the United Kingdom's balance of 
payments by 1969. They also took note with equal satis- 
faction of the declaration made by the Secretary of 
the Treasury of the United States stressing how mnch 
the United States is conscious that early action Is 
necessary, through appropriate fiscal and monetary i, 
measures, to improve substantially its balance of pay- 
ments and that this objective is given the highest 
priority by the President of the United States in the 
Interests not only of the United States economy but 
also of the general stability of the International mon- 
etary system. 

4. The Ministers and Governors reaflSrmed their 

' For text of the resolution, see iMd., Oct. 23, 1967, 
p. 529. 



determination to co-operate in tlie maintenance of 
exchange stability and orderly exchange arrange- 
ments in the world, based on the present oflScial price 
of gold. 

5. They consider that, while the scheme to establish 
special drawing rights In the I.M.F. referred to In 
paragraph 7 on which they have now agreed will not 
provide a solution to aU international monetary prob- 
lems, it will make a very substantial contribution to 
strengthening the monetary system. 

6. Moreover, they intend to strengthen the close 
co-operation between governments as well as between 
central banks to stabilize world monetary conditions. 

7. As regards the Amendment to the Articles of the 
I.M.F., the Ministers and Governors noted with appreci- 
ation the performance of the Executive Directors 
of tlie I.M.F. in carrying out the task entrusted to 
them and agreed to give the necessary anthority to 
the Executive Directors of their countries, so that, 
in co-operation with those of other countries, they will 
be able to complete the final draft of the proposed 

In approving the changes In the rules and practices 
of the existing structure of the I.M.F., the Ministers 

and Governors agreed to co-operate with each other 
and the other members of the Fund to avoid their 
application in any unduly restrictive manner. 

They took note that this proposed Amendment will 
be attached to a Resolution which will be transmitted 
to the Board of Governors of the I.M.F. with an explan- 
atory Report and that Governors wiU be requested to 
vote by correspondence as Is the usual practice of the 

The Ministers and Governors noted that the Man- 
aging Director of the Fund was confident that the 
Executive Directors would be able to transmit these 
documents to the Board of Governors within a brief 

8. One delegation did not associate itself with para- 
graphs 2, 4, 5 and 7 above, in view of the differences 
which it has found between the Outline adopted at the 
meetings in London and Rio de Janeiro and the draft 
text now submitted by the Fund and because the 
problems which it considers fundamental have not 
been examined. 

Consequently, this delegation fully reserves Its posi- 
tion and will wait until it is in possession of the 
final texts before reporting to its government 

U.S. and Liberia ReafRrm Close and Historic Ties 

William V. S. Tubman, President of Liberia, 
made an official visit to the United States 
March 23-Ajml 6. He met with President 
Johnson and other Government officials in 
Washington March 27-29. Following are an ex- 
change of greetings between President Johnson 
and President Tubman at a welcoming cere- 
many on the South Lawn of the White House 
on March 27, their exchange of toasts at a din- 
ner at the White House that evening, and a 
joint statement released by the White House 
on April 5. 


White House press release dated March 27 
President Johnson 

There ai'e two flags flying here, each of them 
with a star and stripe in red, white, and blue. 
They speak more powerfully than any words 
of all that binds the two nations that meet here 
in friendship today. 

The flag of the Kepublic of Liberia is fash- 
ioned after our own flag. That nation's Consti- 
tution and legal system are also drawn from an 

American example. We are proud to recognize 
this evidence of an extraordinary and a very 
enduring friendship. 

It began in 1816 with a blow for freedom. The 
Congress of the United States struck the chains 
from 88 American slaves, freeing them to return 
to Africa. President Monroe and the American 
people gave funds and diplomatic aid to help 
establish a new and an independent nation. 

Liberia's first hundred years are called the 
century of survival. Big powers and hungry 
neighbors tried to swallow up that little state. 
But this was also a century of kinship between 
the Liberian people and the American people. 
In crises the two nations joined to uphold their 
common and their treasured birthright: 

— the idea of self-determination; 

— the right of every nation to live free of in- 
terference and intimidation by another nation ; 

— the duty of all nations to make common 
cause in defending the indivisible freedom and 
the inseparable peace of mankind. 

There are men today who still scorn those 
ideas; there are men who still assault those 
rights. There are still small and helpless nations 
in this world that come under vicious attack. 

But there are also men who have known the 

AFBIL 22, 1968 


fiffht for survival — who have learned the neces- 
sity for free men to unite against aggression — 
and who today accept the duty of sharing in 
the struggle for peace in the world. 

In all the years of our long partnership, 
Liberia and America have given many such 
men to each other and have given them to the 
world. One man has stood out among them for 
a quarter of a century now. I am proud to wel- 
come America's stanch friend— one of Africa's 
most senior and most respected statesmen — 
President Tubman of Liberia. 

He is no stranger to this house or to our 
hearts. This is his fourth visit to our land, and 
I can just recall his first visit some 25 years ago 
to meet with our great President Franklin D. 

President Tubman has seen the world trans- 
formed since that first visit. His leadership has 
helped to charge a most electrifying and event- 
ful period of change. President Roosevelt saw 
its promise, and he also saw its peril when he 
looked ahead just before his death. "The only 
limit to our realization of tomorrow," he said, 
"will be our doubts of today. Let us move for- 
ward with strong and active faith." 

You moved your nation and your continent 
forward, Mr. President. 

Twenty-five years ago, you stood almost alone 
as an independent nation in a largely colonial 
Africa. As we meet here today, more than 30 
African states now stand with you as masters 
of their own destiny. 

That, I think, is a reflection — a reflection of 
your own deep faith in freedom, your own be- 
lief that the nations of Africa must join as 
equals and must advance in unity. We admire 
your vital contribution to the creation of the 
Organization of African Unity. "We encourage 
your efforts to enlarge regional cooperation, and 
we liope that your forthcoming West African 
summit conference in Monrovia will add to 
your success. 

You have stabilized and you have enlarged 
the life of your own people with a unification 
policy extending the franchise and the repre- 
sentation throughout your land. 

You have made vast improvements in the 
physical, educational, and administrative struc- 
ture of your own country. 

Your open-door policy has drawn foreign cap- 
ital to greatly speed your own economic de- 

We have stood together, Mr. President, 

through all the trials as well as through all the 
triumphs of this past quarter of a century. We 
have followed Pi'esident Roosevelt's very good 
advice, moving forward with "strong and active 

So let us continue in that spirit, allowing no 
doubts of today to limit the promise of wliat we 
can achieve tomorrow. Let the flags of our two 
nations fly together, as they do here today, 
marking a place of honor and a place of hope 
where free men can rally in peaceful and always 
progressive purpose. 

Mrs. Jolmson and I are most happy and very 
honored to welcome you and Mrs. Tubman back 
to this land that is made up of your good 
friends — and always of your very firm partners. 

President Tubman 

Mr. President, it is a moment of pleasure for 
me and Mrs. Tubman to be received by you at 
this time. This is true not only in times of un- 
broken peace and serene prosperity but even 
when times are troubled and testing — as they 
are today. 

The close ties between our two nations have 
existed for more than a century and, happily, 
show no sign of slackening. 

Nevertheless, the reaffirmation on occasions 
as this serve to remind us of the vitality of the 
bounds of our relations and to demonstrate once 
more that rich dividends can flow from our tra- 
ditional association. 

The fact that the friendship has remained 
solid and secure over the years is not explained 
by the material advantages we have derived 
from it but rather by its having grown out of 
our sincere devotion and dedication to the prin- 
ciples and ideals of constitutional democracy. 

It is my conviction, Mr. President, that the 
principles asserted in your Declaration of In- 
dependence and enshrined in ours, which have 
unfailingly sustained us in the past, will con- 
tinue to be the bedrock of our policies and broad 
highway along which our two peoples will 
always travel. 

As we meet today, I am sure, Mr. President, 
that the hopes of the Liberian people are high 
and that they are listening with interest for the 
results of our meeting. This, I believe, applies 
as well to other parts of Africa. 

They have heard of your many pronounce- 
ments and have been moved by your personal 
interest in the future of Africa. They believe 



that in your heart you are looking at all times 
for the right answers to some of the problems 
facing them. 

In particular, your program for education, 
health, and general welfare as a concerted ef- 
fort in the world has deeply excited them. 

As you and your great people have in the past 
faced and overcome nimierous challenges, we 
know that America is ready to help Africa face 
and overcome the challenges of our times. 

I believe that from our meeting I will be able 
to return home and tell my people how deeply 
you and your great people are committed to 
bring about a new day^ — not only for Africa but 
for mankind. 

For the wami welcome which j-ou and the 
American people have accorded us, I thank 
you — and with my thanks go the thanks and 
good will of the Liberian people. They wish me 
to express iheir continued deep regard and sense 
of friendship with you and the people of the 
United States. 


White House press release dated March 27 

President Johnson 

While I was doing my homework for Presi- 
dent Tubman's visit, I came across a Liberian 
proverb that will serve as my text toniglit : "A 
man who is asked to talk an inch and speaks a 
yard should be given a foot.'' 

I very much appreciate the warning, Mr. 
President. In the present circimistances, I think 
it would be rather extravagant for me to encour- 
age any man to give me the foot. 

It would also be an extravagance for me to 
talk at length about our most distinguished 
guest tonight. He is one of the truly legendary 
leaders of our time. Americans have known him 
and admired him for more than a quarter of a 
century now : 

— As a symbol of the first and oldest free 
Republic in Africa ; 

— As the arcliitect of Liberian unity and the 
builder of Liberia's modern growth ; 

— As a farsighted slatesman whose influence 
today is a very powerful force for African unity 
in the world ; 

— As the stanch and dependable foe of ag- 
gression, as well as a stalwart guardian of 

— As a faithful friend who visits us often and 
never fails to leave us with the gifts of his wis- 
dom and his strength. 

We are also aware that President Tubman 
has just been elected to his sixth term in office. 
This nation is very happy to sliare the confidence 
of your people and to wish all of you good 
fortime, sir. 

I was quite pleased to ask Vice President 
Humphrey to go as my special envoy to your 
inauguration. Upon that occasion he was sup- 
posed to deliver a very personal message to you, 
and I hope that he got it straight. "Wlien I ap- 
proached the Vice President, he said: "This 
will make President Tubman's 24th year in 
office." Then he said to me : "What shall I offer 
him, Mr. President — your congratulations or 
your condolences ?" 

Mr. President, I do want to offer you my con- 
gratulations this evening — congratulations on 
your shrewd political sense. Today your party 
is known as the True Whig Party. You were 
very wise, I think, in scrapping the old title — 
the Grand Old Party. 

That party seems to be enjoymg some increas- 
mg popularity m this country — certainly here 
at this table tonight. 

Though the emphasis of your life, Mr. Presi- 
dent, has always been on deeds, I would like to 
conclude now by recalling some of your words 
for those wlio have come here from across the 
land tonight. 

You ha,ve challenged your own people and the 
peoples of Africa to avoid the pitfalls of the 
past and to seize the brightest promise of the 
future. Speaking to the Conference of Inde- 
pendent African States, you had this to say : 

We can avoid the fatal luxury of r.acial bigotry, 
class hatred, and disregard for the natural rights of 
all men to be free and independent. Our liberty and 
our resources should not be used for the political or 
economic enslavement of other peoples, but for their 
advancement and improvement; and tiereby lay for 
ourselves and our posterity an enduring foundation 
upon which our entire future may rest. 

That is a challenge that Americans can un- 
derstand. Mr. President, we accept it — in our 
own land and m every land where the promise 
of liberty has yet to be fulfilled for every human 

We accept your leadership and your partner- 
ship, IMr. President, in the faith that hits joined 
our two nations for more than a century and a 
half. We are grateful and we are proud to reach 

APRIL 22, 1968 
295-9S5— 68- 


forward with you into the next century and 
even beyond. 

So my friends, I will ask you now to toast 
that journey now and to toast that kinship that 
will brighten our way. Ladies and gentlemen, 
please join me in a toast to our faithful friends, 
the people of Liberia, President Tubman, and 
his gracious lady, who honors us with her 

President Tubman 

Mrs. Tubman and the members of my party 
join me in extending to you, Mr. President, 
Mrs. Johnson, and to the American people, sin- 
cere thanks for the very warm and cordial re- 
ception we have received everywhere since our 
arrival in your historic and great country. 

We are most grateful to you, Mr. President, 
for the high compliment you have paid us and 
for your kind references to the traditional rela- 
tionship which binds our two nations and peo- 
ple together. 

We are aware that even the most durable 
friendship can benefit from intermittent periods 
of renewal. This is especially important when 
friends share mutually cherished ideals and 
aspirations; when they can exchange ideas on 
issues of immediate and urgent concerns, not 
only to themselves but to mankind everywhere, 
and when they can together chart the course 
along which they may choose to travel. Thus 
have we come in this time of tension and im- 
rest to renew the bonds of our friendship, to ex- 
change ideas, to rest, reset our compass, and 
give new dimensions and new pi-ospectives for 
our century-old relationship. 

Much is at stake. Our own destiny is in- 
volved in the events now unfolding on the world 
scene. In some parts of this world, including 
our own continent of Africa, millions of people 
are still gi-appling with the problems of wasting 
disease, abject poverty, illiteracy, himger, and 

These peoples possess the natural resources. 
They have the will and the desire to work and 
develop those resources. But unfortunately 
they lack the capital and the teclinical know- 
how so essential to their future progress. 

They must, therefore, look to the developed 
nations for assistance in developing these 

We express the hope that working with such 

friends as you, Mr. President, and your great 
Government, the United Nations and its special- 
ized agencies — as well as other global organiza- 
tions — a new beam of sunshine will radiate 
itself on the international spectrum, dispersing 
the dark clouds of despair, and save mankind 
from the awful consequences of a world 

Your great nation, Mr. President, is — and 
must always remain — the bastion of freedom, 
the depository of democracy, and the citadel of 
hope for millions of people around the earth. 

Mainly upon your shoulders, Mr. President, 
have been thrust the weighty and awesome re- 
sponsibilities of defending liberty, of uphold- 
ing justice, and of assisting in securing the 

It would appear to me that the statement 
made by your late President Franklin Delano 
Roosevelt in his day applies — when he said: 
"This generation of Americans has a rendezvous 
with destiny." 

So it seems to continue in your day, Mr. 

We have not brought you, Mr. President, nor 
your Govermnent, any magic formula for win- 
ning the peace. But we have brought with us the 
greatest gift of our people — the reassurance of 
our firm and steadfast support, our good will, 
and our sincere wishes for the continuing prog- 
ress and success of Your Excellency and the 
people of the great United States of America. 

Ladies and gentlemen, please join Mrs. Tub- 
man and me in toasting warmly to the health 
of President Jolinson, Mrs. Joluison, the Gov- 
ermnent and people of the great United States 
of America. 


White House press release dated April 5 

President William V. S. Tubman has concluded an 
oflScial vlnit to the United States at the invitation of 
President Johnson. He was accompanied by Mrs. Tub- 
man, several members of his cabinet and other govern- 
ment officials. While in Washington, President Tubman 
met vrith President Johnson and with Secretary Rusk 
for conversations on matters of mutual interest and 

During their meetings, the two Presidents reaffirmed 
the importance they place on the close and historic 
ties between the governments and peoples of Liberia 
and the United States. President Johnson expressed 
his appreciation for the spirit of cooperation which is 



the bedrock of these relations and assured President 
Tubman of the importance which he places on a strong 
relationship with Liberia. 

In expressing Liberia's appreciation of the contribu- 
tion which A.I.D. and the Peace Corps are making to 
Liberia's development, President Tubman outlined to 
President Johnson tlie economic problems and oppor- 
tunities which lie ahead. lie emphasized in particular 
the determination of the Liberian Government to be- 
come self-sufficient In food production and thus to 
make a contribution to world food needs. This will re- 
quire assi.s-tance in production techniques and an ex- 
tension of Liberia's road s,v.stem to facilitate market- 
ing and distribution. President Tubman stressed the 
importance which his Government attaches to the de- 
velopment of the Southeast region of the coimtry 
through the establishment of transport facilities with 
special reference to the construction of a modern port 
at Ilarper. He expressed the strong hoi>e that the 
United States would consider participating in this de- 
velopment to a substantial degree. 

President Tubman also expres.sed his deep concern 
over the instability of primary commodity prices on 
world markets and in this connection made specific ref- 
erence to the serious fall in the prices of Liberia's ma- 
jor export commodities. President Tubman expressed 
the hope that the United States Government would 
take a sympathetic attitude toward proposals for the 
stabilization of primary commodity prices. 

P>resident Johnson affirmed the deep and abiding in- 
terest of the United States in the economic and social 
progress of Liberia. He appreciated in this connection 
the problem for Liberia presented by the fall in com- 
modity prices. He pledged United States support for 
the Liberian Government's effort to advance the coun- 
try's growth, and a thorough and sympathetic review 
of the projects being proposed. The United States, re- 
sponding to Liberia's agricultural needs, will assist in 
increasing rice production and in extending the road 
system. The United States and possibly interested 
third parties will study thoroughly the proposal for 

the Southeast region and the port at Harper. The 
United States also will pursue a vigorous program of 
support for general education in Liberia and will help 
to staff and train Liberians in the new medical center 
at Monrovia. 

President Tubman and President Johnson found a 
wide range of agreement on many international issues 
and reaffirmed their adherence to the worldwide ap- 
plicability of the principles of national independence 
and self-determination. President Tubman, speaking of 
Africa, outlined the progress the continent was making 
in building strong and indeijendent states. He empha- 
sized the spirit of cooperation evolving through the Or- 
ganization of African Unity and other emerging re- 
gional organizations. In this connection, he made par- 
ticular reference to the importance he attaches to the 
forthcoming conference in Monrovia of West African 
Chiefs of State to discuss regional economic questions. 

President Johnson congratulated President Tubman 
for his outstanding statesmanship in the institutional 
development of Africa and his leadership in convening 
the Monrovia conference. He expressed the deep and 
sympathetic interest of the United States in such Afri- 
can initiatives and asked President Tubman to convey 
to the African leaders at Monrovia his best wishes for 
the success of their conference. 

Mr. Clark Named Commissioner 
for Federal Exhibit at HemisFair 

The Senate on April 2 confirmed the nomina- 
tion of Edward Clark to be commissioner for 
the Federal exhibit at HemisFair 1968. (For 
biographic details, see Wliite House press 
release dated March 25.) 

APRIL 22, 1968 


The Nonshooting War in Latin America 

hy Sol M. Linowitz 

V^. Representative to the Organisation of American States ' 

I want to talk to you today about our policy in 
Latin America at a time when Viet-Nam 
urgently compels our attention and our energies. 
I do so believing that our stake in Latin 
America is vital to our future and that what 
happens there is directly related to the over- 
riding challenge of our day — the attainment of 
a lasting peace with justice everywhere. 

As a point of departure, I can think of no 
better way of summarizing our Latin American 
policy than to read to you the Charter of the 
OAS. Its goals, its hopes for the present, its as- 
pirations for the future express fully all that 
we strive for today in the Americas: a hemi- 
sphere in which all people respect their neigh- 
bors and share m the blessing of plenty that is 
the heritage of the New World. 

Obviously the OAS will not, in and of itself, 
guarantee such a future for the hemisphere. But 
it does point the way. And because it does, the 
United States commitment to it is deep and 
irrevocable. It is a commitment consistent with 
our overall international aim, one that bespeaks 
our belief in international cooperation — peace- 
ful cooperation and change — among all men 
and nations, no matter what their hemisphere. 

The OAS is the instrument of this inter- 
national aim in the Western Hemisphere; and 
as such, our membership m it well serves our 
national interest regionally even as our member- 
ship in the United Nations serves our national 
interest universally, an interest best served by 
the international rule of law and order. 

We have recently elected a new Secretary 
General of the OAS,^ a distinguished intema- 

' Address made before the Commonwealth Club of 
California at San Francisco, Calif., on Mar. 22 (press 
release 54 dated Mar. 21 ) . 

" Galo Plaza Lasso, of Ecuador. 

tional statesman and civil servant who brings 
to one of the most important posts in all inter- 
national organizations a stanchly independent 
spirit and belief m the future of the Americas. 
The experience in the election has made un- 
mistakably clear that no monolith gives the 
orders in this hemisphere and that diversity, 
freely expressed, will give us our greatest im- 
petus as we now move ahead with the tasks and 
challenges before us. Meeting them together be- 
comes our prime concern, one that extends to 
eveiy aspect of our hemispheric life. 

I know, of course, there is skepticism about 
the OAS, but I believe it stems primarily from 
a lack of information about the work it has done 
and the work it is even now doing, work that 
is deeply interwoven in the fabric of America. 

It is work that does not stop with the defense 
of the Americas and the efforts to strengthen the 
peace. It is work that advances the economic 
and social well-being of its members — work that 
runs the gamut from industrial plaraiing to 
farming, from education to public health, from 
child welfare to Indian affairs, from culture to 
hmnan rights, from science and technology to 

Twenty-two members of the OAS are today 
cooperating to build a better hemisphere. One 
country is not. We cannot ignore that one coun- 
try ; its threat is too real. Neither can we permit 
it to divert us from the basic job at hand, the 
work of peace and social justice that will be 
remembered long after Castro has been 

But even Castro must realize by now that 
extremism is not the way of the future for the 
rest of the hemisphere. The plain fact is — as he 
well knows — the people of Latin America have 
not responded to the strident call for violence 



and those who advocate such a sterile course 
have failed — failed to capture the imagination 
or support of the people, failed to achieve any 
political power outside of Cuba, failed to stop 
the steady forward movement of the Alliance 
for Progress, failed, above all, to identify with 
the real, the legitimate aspirations of the Latin 
American people. 

It wovild, therefore, be a grave mistake for 
us to focus on the Cuban problem to the 
exclusion of all others in Latin America or to 
equate the main challenge of Latin America 
with that of stopping Castro. Our main job in 
Latin ^Vmerica is to stop poverty, to stop in- 
equality, to stop hunger, to stop disease, to stop 
illiteracy — to stop all conditions that create 
a climate of despair in which a Castro or a 
Batista can flourish, in which a despotism of 
the right can provide the foundation and 
impetus for a dictatorship of the left. 

Our main job in Latin America — indeed, our 
policy in Latin America — is a constructive one, 
a job of building, a job of hope, one that does 
not believe in the force of arms but in the force 
of mutual cooperation. The Alliance gives voice 
and form to that policy. It is not aimed against 
any people or regime, but it reaches out to all 
the people of the Americas. It seeks not to dom- 
inate but to share; and the willingness to share 
is its only qualification. 

We hope the Cuban people will yet share in 
it too; for the progress of the hemisphere is 
a vast program in which every nation has its 
own part to play, the Cuban nation along with 
all the others. 

The Yearnings of Democracy 

Subversion is not the business of the hem- 
isphere. Progress is; and that should be the 
overriding concern of all of us — progress that 
will meet the just yearnings of the great mass 
of people in Latin America. 

It is in these yearnings for economic and 
social justice that the Alliance has its roots; 
and in the final analysis our policy in Latin 
America will be judged by how closely and 
successfully we identify ourselves with them. 
For these are the yearnings of democracy, of a 
people yearning to live in freedom and in 

Yet there is precious little dignity to life 
if a man can't have enough food to eat, if he 

can't educate his children, if he can't be 
healthy, if he can't provide the bare element of 
self-respect in his everyday life. 

In short, democracy cannot be true to itself 
and to its heritage of advancing the best 
interests of its citizens if the population 
cannot rise to the minimum level of a dignified 

So while we of the United States are naturally 
concerned about democracy in Latin America 
and are convinced that democracy means a 
safer world and a better world for us and for 
everyone everywhere, we are also convinced 
that we do not serve it well if we limit our con- 
cern to its bare political framework. An occa- 
sional election in a country is not in itself a 
sure sign that freedom has a firm ally — espe- 
cially when only a minority gets to vote. 

Indeed, I would say the contrary is true 
if the people are exploited, if power remains 
in the hands of a small economic oligarchy, if 
social change is not the bi'eath of their freedom. 
For whether it be Latin America or the United 
States or anywhere, the growth and strength of 
democracy must be related to basic social and 
economic factors. 

Learning From Each Other 

We do not wish Latin America to become a 
carbon copy of what we find in the United 
States. The fact remains, however, that there 
is a distinct parallel to some of the problems 
facing both of us, problems we can see clearly 
enough here in America merely by looking at 
our cities. For the problems faced by New 
York, Chicago, Boston, and Los Angeles differ 
perhaps in degree only from those confronting 
the large cities of Latin America in housing, 
public sen'ices, educational facilities — to men- 
tion a few of the more obvious. 

It is a fact of steadily growing dimensions 
and importance — one emphasizing that poverty 
knows no political frontier — that many of the 
associated crises within this continent depend 
for their solutions upon what we can learn 
from each other. And in finding these, we are 
no longer businessmen, lawyers, engineers, 
economists, doctors, professors, writers, and 
the like. We are developers all, engaged in what 
is in essence still a grand improvisation. 

The United States, for example, has reached 
a high level of industrialization, and there is 

APRIL 22, 1968 


much we have learned here over the years that 
will be of value to the countries of Latin 
America in their effort to build a firm and 
diversified industrial base. At the same time, 
Latin America is one region of the world in 
which people have the blessed ability to look 
each other in the face and see not a color but 
another man. So we in the United States can 
learn much about race relations from our neigh- 
bors in Latin America. Wliat I am saying, in 
short, is that the welfare of this continent is 
a continental problem in which we all have 
equal responsibilities and none a claim to 

But the cry of John Donne, "never send to 
know for whom the bell tolls," echoes even 
deeper into our consciousness when we see in our 
own cities those desperate citizens who have 
bypassed the democratic process as they seek 
other avenues to bring their plight to public 
attention and action. 

Urgency of the Alliance Goals 

The great lesson here is that time is not on 
our side — that while desjjerate acts demand a 
firm response in upholding the law, they demand 
equally firm measures to correct the causative 
ills. For if we want to see democracy fulfill 
its destiny, then we have a responsibility to 
see to it that conditions are created that will 
allow it to flower. We have a responsibility to 
see to it that the vicious circle of poverty, 
prejudice, lack of job opportunity, sickness, 
school dropouts, and back to poverty again 
is broken once and for all in our American 

The struggle of our neighbors in Latin Amer- 
ica to bring about social justice and create viable 
democratic regimes sensitive to the needs of the 
people is readily understandable if we view it 
in this framework. Even as all too many of our 
citizens live outside the mainstream of our 
society, masses of Latin American people are 
really not part of their nations' lives ; and there- 
fore they play no part in the democratic process. 

They are, in all too many numbers, illiterate- 
books, after all, are not edible — and they find it 
impossible to obtain adequate employment. 
Democracy, moreover, has for too long and in 
too many cases meant the participation of only 
a small minority of more affluent citizens. And 
all too often those who are most desperate to 

improve their lot in life frequently are not even 
aware an election is being held. 

la assessing the progress made by the 
Alliance, we must imderstand, therefore, that 
the average citizen — the man who will ulti- 
mately decide the future of the Alliance and of 
the continent — will not become an ardent sup- 
porter of democracy because of any statistics of 
montlily carloadings or rising figures on a 
graph. \Vhat he wants to see is improvement in 
his life and in his neighborhood. 

He will not be won over by a common market 
with its modernized economies and increased 
business opportunities unless he feels he will 
somehow share in the gains they make possible. 

He will not be won over by shiny new farm 
equipment and modern agricultural methods 
imless he has a stake in the land they tUl. 

He will not be won over by the most efficient 
factory if it justifies spreading industrial slums. 

He will not be won over by modei'n schools 
or efforts to wipe out illiteracy unless his educa- 
tion permits him to live in a society in which 
ability is the criterion for advancement. 

He will not be won over by new tax systems 
unless they are truly based on ability to pay, 
with no preference to the rich or penalties to the 

He will not be won over by economic growth 
if it serves only a fraction of the people. 

In short, economic progress alone cannot be 
the key to the future of Latin America. 
Economic progress may be the body and muscle 
of the Alliance, but social progress must be the 
heart and soul of its democracy. 

Simon Bolivar once said that the goal of the 
Americas was to be the greatest region on earth, 
"greatest not so much by virtue of her area or 
her wealth, as by her freedom and her glory." 
That '''freedom and glory" must be made pos- 
sible in a hemisphere of social justice and equity. 
And just as we caimot escape the responsibility 
for bettering the lives of our own citizens, 
neither can we escape the responsibility that is 
peculiarly ours in this hemisphere because of 
our great power and wealth. 

We have a right, of course, to be impatient 
with the vast job ahead. More important, the 
people of Latin America have a right to be im- 
patient — and they are. But impatience — ours 
and theirs — must feed our mutual determina- 
tion to get on with what is, in truth, one of 



history's great social experiments, a peaceful 
revolution to transform a continent, to telescope 
years of development and create woi-thwhile 
lives for people whose hopes and aspirations 
merit every assistance we are capable of 

There is no question that the Alliance has a 
long way to go before it accomplishes its goals. 
Potential for violent revolution still exists in 
every sordid slum in Latin America, in every 
backward village where the heritage of cen- 
turies of neglect remains greater than the effort 
to overcome it. It is this effort that the Alliance 
must now inspire with increasing urgency. 

If it does not, then the democratic process 
may be short-circuited in Latin America, as it 
has been so frequently in this century. The 
record shows that in the past 38 years there have 
been some 108 illegal and unscheduled changes 
of government, testimony both to the instability 
of life and the searching of people to find 
themselves. And we will see the increased 
violence of guerrilla movements occurring in 
direct ratio to the number of frustrated lives and 
lost opportunities — to the extent the disease of 
poverty goads desperate men to desperate acts. 

We have already seen the tragedy that can 
ensue when terrorists seize upon social issues 
as the excuse for wanton acts, as they did in 
Guatemala in recent weeks. We owe it to the 
innocent — we owe it to all who believe, even as 
we do, that economic freedom and social justice 
are the firm foundation upon which political 
democracy can, and should, rest — we owe it to 
peace — to help the people of Latin America 
eliminate any such excuse for violence and up- 
heaval in their lives. We owe it to the future of 
the hemisphere to associate ourselves with them 
in their effort to achieve these objectives. 

The success of this effort, freely undertaken 
by the people of Latin America, will be the 
true test of democracy on their continent. It is 
an effort that demands, as I say, searching social 
and economic changes — changes that may create 
temporary dislocations in Latin America. We 
must learn not only to live with this type of 
change, peaceful change, but more : to encourage 
it to its fullest expression. Only as its tempo 
increases will the potential for violence 

In saying this, let me also voice a word of 
caution. Latin America is not our home. We 
cannot and must not imdertake to do the job or 

to usurp the prerogative that belongs to the 
people of Latin America to decide for them- 
selves what and how they should do the job. We 
can but help, constructively, compassionately, 
and with the full recognition of its urgency in 
the overall panorama of our foreign policy 

We have learned, of course, that often time 
and tide move slowly in Latin America. But 
this is no ground for pessimism or any lessening 
of our will. The Alliance is moving toward its 
goals. It has already countless achievements to 
its credit. It has demonstrated that it has the 
potential to enlist to its cause the minds and the 
hearts of the people. 

Multilateralism in Hemisphere Affairs 

All in all, I believe that the progress made 
this past year by the Eepublics of the American 
Hemisphere bodes well for the future. We know 
more about each other and understand each 
other's intercontinental problems far better 
than we ever did before — a knowledge and an 
understanding we gained by standing shoulder 
to shoulder in working together to advance the 
Alliance and to find common solutions to our 
common problems. 

Moreover, the Western Hemisphere is now in 
the midst of an exciting and far-reaching ex- 
periment in the effective application of multi- 
lateral diplomacy. A common market; road and 
harbor and telecommunications projects; re- 
gional programs in education, science, and 
technology; a Latin American educational 
television network; new approaches to old 
population problems; pioneering agricultural 
programs — all these and more are now the mani- 
festation of multilateralism in hemisphere 

This development is certainly one of the most 
exciting and promising in the whole area of 
internationalism since the establishment of the 
United Nations. It spans the political, the 
economic, and the social spheres — in short, it 
encompasses every area of our hemisphere life ; 
and used judiciously, it can chart the way to the 
future in building and strengthening the forces 
of freedom and democracy throughout the 

The Charter of the Alliance for Progress 
states that it is established "on the basic prin- 
ciple that free men working through the insti- 

APRTL 22, 1988 


tution of representative democracy can best 
satisfy man's aspirations." ' It is not going too 
far to say tliat the future of the Alliance will, to 
a large extent, therefore, depend on the capacity 
of progressive democratic governments and 
their leaders to realize the full potential of 
multilateral cooperation. 

In sum, then, this is our policy: to vralk a 
careful line between assertion of principle and 
intervention in the affairs of sovereign coun- 
tries; remembering nonetheless that we have 
both the responsibility and the commitment to 
encourage the growth of representative govern- 
ment and to act always so we make clear where 
we stand on the secure future of political democ- 
racy in the hemisphere. In the words of the 
President: ". . . we shall have — and deserve — 
the respect of the people of other countries only 
as they know what side America is on." * 
Clarity, like charity, must begin at home. 

The road ahead remains difficult. How suc- 

' For background, see Bulletin of Sept. 11, 1961, p. 

* For an address by President Johnson made at 
Denver, Colo., on Aug. 26, 1966, see ibid., Sept. 19, 1966, 
p. 406. 

cessfully we negotiate it will depend entirely 
upon the ability of all the Americas, North 
and South, to overlook the petty grievances and 
keep our eyes focused on the goal that must 
be our mutual hope: a hemisphere in which 
economic and political freedom is not a promise 
of the future but a reality of the present. 

President Kennedy was reported as having 
said that the struggle for democracy and free- 
dom "is going to be won or lost right here in 
Latin America." What he meant, I think, is 
that if we cannot, through the Alliance for 
Progress, win the battle for men's hearts and 
minds in the countries of this hemisphere where 
we share common ties of history, geography, 
and tradition, tlien it is unlikely that democracy 
can fare better in other jDarts of the world. 

But all the indications are that we can win 
and that we will win. If we reject the recipes 
offered by the cynics and do-nothings — and the 
Imow-nothings — if our actions are guided by 
our faith in democracy and in the power of 
international cooperation — then I am confident 
that we can move forward toward a brighter 
tomorrow in a hemisphere and in a world free 
from war and free from want. 




International Cooperation in the Marine Sciences 

Following is the text of President Johnson's 
letter transmitting to the Congress the second 
annual report of the National Council on Marine 
Resources and Engineering Development^ to- 
gether with an excerpt from the 22S-page report. 


Washington, D.C, March 1968. 
To TiiE Congress of the United States : 

Science and technology are making the oceans 
of tlie world an expanding frontier. 

In preparing for the coming decades, we must 
turn our attention seaward in the quest for fuels, 
minerals, and food — and for the natural beauty 
of the seashore to refresh the spirit. 

Yet the sea will yield its bounty only in pro- 
portion to our vision, our boldness, our determi- 
nation, and our knowledge. 

During the past year we have taken new steps 
to strengthen the Nation's scientific and techno- 
logical base for understanding and using the 
oceans. We have made good progress but much 
remains to be done in the years ahead. 

The National Council on Marine Eesources 
and Engineering Development, chaired by the 
Vice President, has made significant progress 
in mobilizing the resources of the Federal Gov- 
ernment to meet these challenges. I am pleased 
to transmit to the Congress the Council's recom- 
mendations and annual report. 

The Fiscal Year 1969 Budget, which is now 
before the Congress, includes $516 million for 
marine science and teclmology programs. In- 
creased funding is proposed for : 

— Broadening education and research in ma- 

' Marine Science Affairs — A Tear of Plans and Prog- 
ress, transmitted to the Congress on Mar. 11 (H. Doc. 
275) ; for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, 
TJ.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 
20402 ($1.00). 

rine sciences, particularly in the Sea Grant and 
other university programs. 

— Speeding up our research for an economical 
teclmology for extracting fish protein concen- 
trate for use in the War on Hunger. 

— Development of improved ocean buoys to 
collect accurate and timely data for better pre- 
diction of weather and ocean conditions. 

— Expanding the Nai-y's advanced teclmol- 
ogy needed for work in the deep oceans, and for 
rescue, search and salvage. 

■ — Constructing a new high-strength cutter 
for the Ice Patrol and oceanographic research in 
Arctic and sub-polar areas. 

— Preventing and alleviating pollution from 
spillage of oil and other hazardous ship cargoes. 

— Continued mapping of the continental shelf 
to assist in resource development and other in- 
dustrial, scientific, and national security 

— Increased research and planning to im- 
prove our coastal zone and to promote develop- 
ment of the Great Lakes and of our i^orts and 

— Application of spacecraft teclmology in 
oceanography, and improved observation and 
prediction of the ocean environment. 

Other nations are also seeking to exploit the 
promise of the sea. We invite and encourage 
their interest, for the oceans that cover three- 
fourths of our globe affect the destiny of all 
mankind. For our part, we will : 

— Work to strengthen international law to 
reaffirm the traditional freedom of the seas. 

— Encourage mutual restraint among nations 
so that the oceans do not become the basis for 
military conflict. 

— Seek international arrangements to insure 
that ocean resources are harvested in an equi- 
table manner, and in a way that will assure 
their continued abundance. 

Lack of knowledge about the extent and dis- 

APRTL 22, 1968 


tribution of the linng and mineral resources of 
the sea limits their use by all nations and in- 
hibits soimd decisions as to rights of exploita- 
tion. I have therefore asked the Secretary of 
State to explore with other nations their in- 
terest in joining together in long-term ocean 

Such activities could : 

— Expand cooperative efforts by scientists 
fi'om many nations to penetrate the mysteries 
of the sea that still lie before us ; 

— Increase our knowledge of food resources, 
so that we may use food from the sea more fully 
to assist in meeting world-wide threats of mal- 
nutrition and disease ; 

— Bring closer the day when the peoples of 
the world can exploit new sources of minerals 
and fossil fuels. 

While we strive to improve Government pro- 
grams, we must also recognize the importance 
of private investment, industrial innovation, 
and academic talent. We must strengthen co- 
operation between the public and private 

I am pleased and proud to report that we 
have made substantial progress during the first 
full year of our marine science program, dedi- 
cated to more effective use of the sea. 

We shall build on these achievements. 

Lyndon B, Johnson 

The WnrTE House. 



The oceans from earliest times have been bonds of 
commerce and culture. Historic relationships are 
changing, however, accelerated by advances In mari- 
time technology that enable nations to conduct activi- 
ties farther from home and In deeper water, and to 
exploit previously Inaccessible resources. 

As various national interests in ocean activities 
converge, international agreements and cooperation 
will be increasingly needed to reduce conflict and 
rivalry and to advance world order, understanding, and 
economic development at home and abroad. The United 
States has accordingly intensified its efforts to pro- 
mote international cooperation to attain our major 
foreign policy goal of establishing a stable and lasting 

A multi-national approach to the peaceful uses of the 
sea Is not only desirable but necessary because of the 
Inherently International character of scientific study of 
the sea and the common property aspect of deep ocean 

resources. The very size, complexity, and variability 
of the marine environment emphasize the Importance 
of collaboration. 

As a basis for harmonious international marine ex- 
ploration and resource development, certain premises 
underlie our policies and programs : 

Our Isnowledge of the seas and their resources is 
exceedingly limited ; the necessary scientific Investiga- 
tions are so vast that international collaboration Is 
essential If knowledge of this environment is to increase 
within a meaningful period. 

Excellence, experience, and capabilities in marine 
science and technology are shared by many nations In 
addition to the United States, and cooperation In a 
number of areas can be mutually beneflciaL 

In the search for new food resources, the full po- 
tential of the seas has not been fully realized. 

While very little is known today of the richness and 
distribution of seabed resources, these resources will 
eventually be sought to meet a growing demand for 
energy and minerals. 

Technology is rapidly becoming available to permit 
accelerated marine exploration and resource exploita- 

Development of ocean resources requires major capi- 
tal investments which in turn require some protection 
of rights for development and exploitation. 

Uncertainties in the interpretation and ajiplication of 
existing international law may result in conflicts of 
Interest between nations, particularly with regard to 
the width of territorial seas, rights of innocent passage, 
and the exploitation of ocean resources. 

Underlying any legal regime is the need to preserve 
the traditional freedoms of the seas to permit their 
peaceful use by all nations. 

Our international activities in the marine sciences 
are thus characterized by : 

— encouragement of Increased cooperation among 
ocean scientists of all nations and broadened dissemi- 
nation of scientific results ; 

— support of the activities of the many bodies of the 
United Nations system and other international organi- 
zations engaged in oceanic activities and of efforts 
to improve the international organizational structure; 

— collaboration with other nations in developing 
and using new marine technologies within a frame- 
work of mutual benefit; 

— making available marine technology and other 
assistance to complement the efforts of developing 
countries in strengthening their capabilities to use the 
ocean and its resources as a pathway to economic 
progress, recognizing that aid burdens must be shared 
by other nations and international organizations ; 

— strengthening of international ijrograms and proj- 
ects which foster cooperation among neighboring na- 
tions to meet common interests and problems ; 

— pursuit of a strengthened code of international law 
which will preserve the traditional freedoms of the 
seas, insure that nations have equitable opportunities 
to participate in the development of the wealth of the 
ocean, and anticipate and prevent potential conflicts 
arising out of expanding maritime interests ; 

— development of international legal, financial, and 
political arrangements to promote Investment in ma- 
rine development and facilitate a fruitful partnership 
between public and private interests In marine matters. 



Marine Science in the United Nations 

In the United Nations, the General Assembly, the 
Economic and Social Council, and a number of special- 
ized bodies are responsible for various aspects of marine 
science affairs, as shown in Figure II.l.' In 1967, the 
General Assembly, at its twenty-second session, began 
consideration of jurisdiction over the deep ocean sea- 
bed ' and related questions. Fifty-eight countries spolje 
in the debate and assumed a wide range of positions. 
Some countries advocated that title to the seabed be 
vested in the United Nations. Others called for a mora- 
torium on unilateral exploitation of seabed resources. 
Most countries seemed to feel there should be a freeze 
on claims of national sovereignty to the seabed. Some 
maritime nations opposed any consideration now by the 

The United States, recognizing that understanding 
of the factors involved in exploiting these resources Is 
incomplete and that we are far from ready to define 
a precise legal regime at this time, supported careful 
study of the issue by the General Assembly. 

The position of the United States followed the course 
set by President Lyndon B. Johnson in July 1960 when 
he said : * 

Under no circumstances, we believe, must we 
ever allow the prospects of rich harvest and mineral 
wealth to create a new form of colonial competi- 
tion among the maritime nations. We must be care- 
ful to avoid a race to grab and to hold the lands 
under the high seas. We must ensure that the deep 
seas and the ocean bottoms are, and remain, the 
legacy of all human beings. 

The United States proposed that the General As- 
sembly establish a Committee on the Oceans which 
would be competent to examine all marine questions 
brought before the Assembly. Such a Committee would 
Btimulate International cooperation in exploration of 
the oceans. It would assist the General Assembly In 
considering questions of law and arms control and as 
a first step might develop a set of principles to govern 
states in the exploration and use of the seabed. 

At the conclusion of debate, the General Assembly 
took a preliminary step by adopting unanimously 
Resolution 2340 ' establishing an ad hoc Committee of 
thirty-five States to prepare a study on various aspects 
of the seabed beyond national jurisdiction for consid- 
eration by the Assembly next fall. The study will in- 
clude an examination of (a) activities of the United 
Nations and its specialized agencies related to the 
teahed; (b) relevant international agreements; (c) 
scientific, technical, economic, legal, and other aspects 

' Not printed here. 

'In this chapter "seabed" refers to the ocean floor 
and its subsoil seaward of the Continental Shelf as 
defined In the Continental Shelf Convention. [Footnote 
In original ; for text of the convention, see Bulletin 
of June 30, 1958, p. 1121.] 

' For remarks by President Johnson made at the 
commissioning of the Oceanographer on July 13, 1966, 
see Public Papers of the Presidents, Lyndon B. Johnson, 
1966, Book II, p. 722. 

" For a U.S. statement and text of the resolution, see 
BuLLETLN of Jan. 22, 1968, p. 125. 

of the question; and (d) suggestions regarding prac- 
tical ways of promoting International cooperation In 
the exploration, conservation, and use of the seabed and 
its resources. 

Meanwhile, pursuant to the General Assembly Marine 
Resources Resolution adopted In 1966' as a result of 
U.S. initiatives, the Secretary General Inaugurated a 
survey of International marine science activities. In- 
cluding consideration of Improved coordination between 
specialized agencies. An International group of experts, 
convened by the Secretary General, has been requested 
to outline existing programs and to suggest steps to 
strengthen International cooperation In the field. The 
completed report will be used by the ad hoc Committee 
concerned with the seabed and will be presented to 
the Assembly this fall. 

The following specialized agencies and other bodies 
of the United Nations undertook a variety of new co- 
operative programs with active participation by the 
United States: 

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 
Organization (UNESCO) and its Intergovernmental 
Oceanographlc Commission (IOC) 
World Meteorological Organization (WMO) 
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) 
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 
United Nations Development Program (UNDP) 
Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organiza- 
tion (IMCO) 
Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East 

United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) 
International Bank for Reconstruction and Develoi>- 
ment (IBRD) 

Some of the programs of particular interest are: 

— International oeeanographic surveys will be con- 
ducted in the Mediterranean and Caribbean Seas, the 
North Atlantic, and the Southern Ocean (IOC). 

— Consideration is being given to a West African ma- 
rine science center (IOC). 

— Attention is being given to the legal Impediments 
to scientific research (IOC). 

— Organizational arrangements are being developed 
for the planning of an Integrated Global Ocean Station 
System (IOC- WMO). 

— Radio frequencies were set aside for exclusive use 
in the transmission of oeeanographic data (ITU). 

— The number of UN-supported assistance programs 
in fisheries and maritime safety Is being increased 

— International measures are under consideration to 
prevent disasters involving hazardous ship cargoes such 
as the ToBKET Canyon oil pollution spill near the 
United Kingdom (IMCO). 

— Fire safety standards for new ship designs were 
adopted (IMCO). 

— Assistance is increasing to developing nations for 
their port and coastal development (IBRD). 

— Ships are being encouraged to participate In a 
voluntary weather observation program as part of the 
Worid Weather Watch (IMCO-WMO). 

— Cooperative off-shore geophysical surveys are be- 
ing expanded in East Asia (ECAFE). 

'U.N. doc. A/RES/2172 (XXI). 

APRIL 22, 1968 


— International quality standards for fish protein 
concentrate are being developed (UNICEF-WHO- 

United States contributions to tbe United Nations 
and its specialized agencies in support of marine sci- 
ence activities totalled about $3.0 million in FY 1968 
and are estimated at ?3.1 million in FY 1969. This does 
not include the activities of the International Bank for 
Reconstruction and Development. 

Other International Bodies 

A Convention is now being ratified to establish an 
International Hydrographic Organization, encompass- 
ing the present International Hydrographic Bureau 
(IHB), to improve coordinated mapping and charting. 
The United States contribution to the International 
Hydrographic Bureau was $12,500 in FY 1968 and is 
estimated at the same level in FY 1969. Additional con- 
tributions are made through participation in specific 
projects. Smaller contributions are also made to many 
of the other international organizations identified in 
Appendix E, Table E-l,' which serve as coordinating 
mechanisms in limited areas of marine sciences. 

The International Council of Scientific Unions is con- 
sidering the establishment of a Union of Marine Sci- 
ences, consolidating the diverse marine activities of 
several Unions. In the industrial sector, considerable 
attention was devoted to ofC-shore resources during the 
World Petroleum Congress. 

Bilateral Cooperation 

Marine capabilities to promote economic development 
in South Vietnam are being strengthened by such co- 
operative programs with the Vietnamese as a major 
fishery development program through the FAO, a num- 
ber of port and harbor development projects, coastal 
and riverine hydrographic surveys, and cooperative 
oeeanographic surveys. 

On its global scientific expedition, the Oceanog- 
EAPHEE, carrying the personal greetings of the Vice 
President, called at 12 ports in 11 countries. Fifty 
foreign scientists participated on portions of the voy- 
age symbolizing U.S. policy of encouraging cooperative 
use of advanced research capabilities for mutual 

Following a general policy to make technology de- 
veloped with U.S. Government funds widely available 
whenever possible, a number of actions were under- 
taken: At the invitation of the U.S. Government, 
British, Australian, and Canadian divers entered 
aquanaut training in the United States in preparation 
for their participation in Sealab III experiments next 
summer. Specialists from other nations will be invited 
to observe from the surface. In another step towards 
increased international cooperation, the Navy Naviga- 
tion Satellite System (TRANSIT) was released this 
year for civilian use, and requests for purchase of U.S. 
receivers from abroad will be considered under muni- 
tions control procedures. 

During the past year, arrangements were made to 
turn over to Italy, Korea, Liberia, and India vessels not 

needed in the United States for marine science 

Several Government agencies support marine science 
activities abroad using excess currencies available un- 
der Public Law 480. programs have been very 
effective in promoting international scientific activities 
in such countries as Israel and Tunisia. 

International Fishery Arrangements 

With more nations looking to the sea for food, some 
confiicts between nations fishing common stocks are 
inevitable. During the past year, the United States 
made special efforts to protect the rights of in-shore 
coastal fishermen and at the same time to give ample 
opportunity for high seas fishermen to explore and 
develop unused fishery stocks. The United States par- 
ticipated in the development of the following inter- 
national fishery arrangements during 1967 : 

— extension of agreements with the USSR concern- 
ing king crab fishing in the Eastern Bering Sea, fishing 
gear conflicts off Alaska, and fishing activities off the 
Washington-Oregon coast; and a new agreement con- 
cerning fishing off the mid-Atlantic states ; 

—an agreement with Japan concerning the new U.S. 
contiguous fishery zone and king crab and halibut fish- 
ing on the high seas ; 

• — an agreement with Slexico concerning fishing of 
each country in the fishery zone of the other and 
related fishery data exchanges and cooperative research 
programs ; 

— development of new conservation measures under 
the International Convention for the Northwest At- 
lantic Fisheries; 

^a new program of the International North Pacific 
Fisheries Commission of coordinated research on 
ground fish resources ; 

— designation of the Great Lakes Fishery Commis- 
sion as the coordinating agency for the alewife program 
in Lake Michigan ; 

— conclusion of a Convention on the Conduct of 
Fishing Operations in the North Atlantic. 

The United States contribution to eight international 
fishery commissions was $2.0 million in FT 1968 and 
is estimated at $2.1 million in FY 1969. These com- 
missions are responsible for research and management 
practices concerning fish stocks which provide an 
annual catch to American fishermen valued at more 
than $200 million. 

Consultation With Other Nations 

The President and Vice President discussed interna- 
tional cooperation in the marine sciences with a num- 
ber of heads of state of Latin America. Europe, and 
Asia. The President's speech during the Latin American 
Summit Meeting at Punta del Este° and the com- 
muniques following the visits to the United States of 
Premier Sato of Japan" and President Marcos of the 
Philippines " identified marine science cooperation for 

' Not printed here. 

' Bulletin of May 8, 1967, p. 
' Ibid., Dec. 4. 1967, p. 744. 
" Hid., Oct. 10, 1966, p. 531. 




emphasis. The Council's Executive Secretary met with 
senior policy officials in a number of countries to ex- 
plain U.S. policies and plans and to encourage policy- 
level attention abroad on new opportunities to derive 
benefits from ocean activities through inter-govern- 
mental cooperation. 

Federal Policy Coordination 

Early in llXi". the Secretary of State, at the request 
of the Vice President, established an ad hoc inter- 
agency Committee on International Policy for the 
Marine Environment to develop Government-wide poli- 
cies and arrangements. Several temporary panels were 
established to examine such matters as scientific co- 
operation, the exploration and use of the mineral 
resources of the seabed, underseas technology, the 
living resources of the oceans, regional cooperation in 
Latin America and Europe, and the national security 
aspects of these questions. It was this ad hoc Commit- 
tee, for example, which was the mechanism for de- 
veloping a Government-wide position on the seabed 
issue considered by the General Assembly. The ad hoc 
Committee has now been converted into a standing 

Other inter-agency committees continue to be re- 
sponsible for the development of United States positions 
at inter-governmental meetings on such specialized 
marine matters as the fishery activities of FAO, the 
fishery commissions, oil pollution, maritime communi- 
cations, and export of technology. 

To insure that new proposals for international col- 
laborative programs that involve several Federal 
agencies are thoroughly evaluated throughout the 
Government, procedures have been adopted by the 
Council whereby a lead agene.v is designated for 
evaluating, coordinating, and implementing plans. 

The Marine Resources and Engineering Develop- 
ment Act explicitly calls upon the President, with the 
advice and assistance of the Marine Sciences Council, 
to undertake legal studies concerned with the manage- 
ment, use, development, and control of marine re- 
sources. Thus, three studies by outstanding legal au- 
thorities were undertaken through Council contracts, 

" Authors of the three studies singled out the fol- 
lowing conclusions as being of particular interest. These 
have not yet been reviewed by the member agencies of 
the Council, and they will be considered together with 
other suggested approaches : 

— There should be deliberate policy decisions on the 
extent of the Continental Shelf; a precise definition of 
Its seaward boundary seems desirable. A buffer zone 
might be established to bridge the boundary between 
the Shelf and the seabed with the coastal states' in- 
terests in the ocean floor given special protection in the 

— The U.S. should seek an international legal frame- 
work which promotes freedom of oeeanographic re- 
search within waters subject to national control and 
on the Continental Shelf. 

— Consideration with regard to living resources 
might be given to establishment of a global conserva- 
tion authority which would strive to extend and im- 
prove existing international regulation of high seas 
exploitation in the interest of conservation and effi- 
ciency. [Footnote in original.] 

with guidance from the Legal Adviser of the De- 
partment of State, on international law aspects of 
off-shore petroleum, gas, and solid minerals ; oeean- 
ographic research ; and fishing. These will be made 
available by the Council early in 19G8 to facilitate 
broad examination of the issues." 

Surveys of the marine science activities of other 
nations, U.S.-funded marine science programs abroad, 
and marine activities of international organizations 
were also undertaken by the Council staff. These sur- 
veys have highlighted the large number of different 
ministries involved in marine activities in almost every 
nation, the variety of U.S.-sponsored cooperative 
projects throughout the world, and the diversity of the 
activities of the many international organizations in- 
volved in marine matters. Some of these surveys will be 
released in 1968. 

Strengthening International Arrangements 

While the previous discussion reflects our immediate 
concerns, increasing attention is being devoted to 
longer-term questions and programs, particularly : 

1. A Legal Regime for the Deep Ocean Scahed 

As inter-governmental attention focuses on the sea- 
bed, two paramount issues arise : "What should be the 
seaward limit of the Continental Shelf?" and "What 
resources are there beyond the Continental Shelf and 
who should control them?'' The work of the ad hoc 
Committee of the General Assembl.v should contribute 
to a better understanding of the issues involved while 
the programs for international ocean exploration de- 
scribed below are intended to provide new insights 
into resource distribution. 

A desirable early step in the evolution of the legal 
regime for the .seabed would be international accord 
on certain general principles. As already enunciated 
by the United States, the seabed should not become a 
stage for a new form of colonial rivalry and should 
not be subjected to claims of national sovereignty. 
Rather, the seabed should be open to exploration and 
use by all states without discrimination. International 
standards should be set to foster orderly exploration 
and use of the seabed. Cooperative scientific research 
of the seabed should be encouraged together with 
broad dissemination of results. Activities on the seabed 
should be conducted with reasonable regard for the 
activities of other states. Pollution and interference 
with the traditional freedoms of the seas should be 

2. International Ocean Exploration 

Without more scientific knowledge of the distribution 
and extent of ocean resources, no nation can optimally 
develop and utilize them. Our lack of knowledge of the 
scale and location of ocean resources also hampers the 
making of sound policy decisions, domestically and in- 
ternationally, affecting commercial, scientific, and 
political interests. This highlights the importance of 
increased scientific knowledge to fuller use of the po- 
tential of the oceans and to informed decisions con- 
cerning ocean activities. 

The United States is thus encouraging the interna- 
tional development of long-range plans for intensified 
cooperative exploration of the oceans. The co- 
operative programs developed by scientists of many na- 

APRIL 22, 1968 


tlons have already provided many valuable insights of 
benefit to these nations, and such a long-range pro- 
gram might include new efforts related to geological 
mapping of the continental margins and deep ocean 
floor and biological surveys to assess fishery stocks. 

All nations are invited to participate In this world- 
wide endeavor. If other nations Join In such an enter- 
prise, existing ocean exploration activities of interna- 
tional organizations will provide an excellent jwlnt of 

Internal planning for ocean exploration activities of 
the United States, including participation in interna- 
tional endeavors, is described in Chapter VIIL 

3. Evolving Fishery Arrangements 

The following considerations necessitate further de- 
velopment of fishery arrangements that harmonize 
broad national goals, conservation needs, and domestic 
economic concerns : 

— There has been a recent Increase of foreign fleets 
fishing in U.S. coastal waters for species which have 
long been taken by our coastal fishermen. Conflicts 
often arise because these fleets of large vessels pre- 
empt the fishing grounds or because the catch by the 
larger distant water vessels reduces the amount avail- 
able for United States fishermen. 

— The United States fishing industry is lagging be- 
hind the industries of other nations. 

— International fishery arrangements are increas- 
ingly influencing the economic aspects of fishing 

— United States distant water fishermen working in- 
tensively off the coasts of other countries occasionally 
raise fears that the local resources are being depleted. 

— There is increasing overlap in the geographic areas 
of concern to the fishery commissions. 

— Some nations are sending fishing fleets to areas 
covered by International fishery conventions to which 
they do not adhere. 

— Finally, the world hunger situation requires fur- 
ther development of the food resources of the oceans. 

To strengthen the international legal framework for 
fishing in the near term, all nations should be encour- 
aged to adhere to the Geneva Convention on Fishing 
and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High 
Seas ; " the complex Interrelationships among the many 
fishing conventions and among the conventions and the 
world hunger problem must be better understood ; and 
more attention should be given to the economic as well 
as the conservation aspects of specific international 
fishery agreements. 

4. International Marine Preserves 

As man's influence on the natural marine environ- 
ment increases, there is an urgent need to preserve 
major types of unmodified ocean habitats for research 
and education iu the marine sciences. Such areas can 
serve as ecological baselines to provide a basis for com- 
parison in future investigations of tlie oceans. There- 
fore, international consideration should be given to the 
establishment of international marine wilderness pre- 
serves. For example, characteristic marine features 
such as a deep ocean trench, a group of seamounts, and 
an uninhabited coral atoll might be set aside ex- 
clusively for research and education. 

" For text, see Buixetin of .Tune 30, 1958, p. 1118. 

5. Ocean Acres 

The concept of international ocean acres, i.e. limited 
ocean areas designated for intensive research over a 
period of many years, was also endorsed by the Coun- 
cil. Ocean acres might be established in the vicinity of 
marine preserves or could be established Independent of 
preserves such as the areas in the North Atlantic iden- 
tified by several nations as of particular Interest In 
connection with the projects of the Intergovernmental 
Oceanographic Commission. 

6. Cooperation on a Regional Basis 

Marine science and technology offer many opjwrtu- 
nities for regional cooperation which can strengthen 
scientific and economic capabilities and promote re- 
gional cohesiveness and stability. Therefore, the United 
States is emphasizing regional cooperation through 
more deliberate use of many bilateral and multi-lateral 

In carrying out the policy enunciated by the Presi- 
dent at Punta del Este to support regional marine sci- 
ence and technology activities, the United States la 
considering projects related to : 

— development of the Plate River Basin ; 
— regional marine science centers of excellence; 
— U.S. support of marine research and education In 
Latin America ; 
— cooperative Caribbean research activities. 

With regard to Europe, regional marine programs 
can contribute to strengthening Atlantic alliances, fur- 
thering the economic Integration of Western Europe, 
and quickening progress in East-West relations. The 
United States has discussed in the Organization for 
Economic Cooperation and Development the possibility 
of cooperative work in various aspects of marine sci- 
ence affairs and continues to support the activities of 
the NATO Subcommittee on Oceanography. Also the 
United States will shortly rejoin the International 
CouncU for the Exploration of the Seas. 

7. Collaboration in Oceanographic Research 

During the past year cooperation with the Soviet 
Union and other countries has increased in ocean- 
ography and fishery research. Specifically, there have 
been exchange visits of oceanographers, reciprocal calls 
by large oceanographic research vessels, and develop- 
ment of collaborative fishery research projects. A 
useful step in improving cooperation has been the 
adoption of a U.S. policy to reduce administrative 
delays In arranging for Soviet fishery research ships 
engaged in bilateral research programs to call at U.S. 
IMrts. As the tracks of United States oceanographic 
ships and ships of other nations cross more frequently, 
expansion of these very modest efforts is essential to 
eliminate unnecessary duplication and foster avail- 
ability of data to each other. Such collaboration can 
make a major contribution to international cooperation 
and understanding and to effective use of the sea. 

The seven above listed international activities pro- 
vide innumerable opportunities for our marine science 
programs to contribute to international understanding 
through (a) joint working projects, and (b) multi- 
lateral development of legal arrangements to prevent 
confiicts. Indeed, the only alternative to international 
cooperation in oceanic matters is anarchy on the seas. 




U.S. Calls for Broad Inquiry 

on Peaceful Uses of the Seabed 

Statement hy David H. Popper * 

As the Ad Hog Committee convenes its first 
session, we may well stand on the threshold of a 
journey of imiisual importance. 

The Committee begins its work against a 
background of beneficial international coopera- 
tion in the ocean sciences, directly between na- 
tions and through a number of international 
agencies, governmental and nongovernmental. 
But we realize that what was adequate in the 
past will not be sufficient for the future. New 
challenges crowd in upon us. The potential of 
the imtapped marine resources of our planet 
presents an increasingly interesting prospect. 
We have much to learn and a growing capacity 
to acquire information concerning the deep sea 
floor and its environment. We may well be able 
to turn these capabilities to great advantage, 
provided we can develop them effectively by 
fruitful cooperative methods. 

The mandate given to this Committee by the 
General Assembly last December "^ is a response 
to this situation. It is, to be sure, a preliminary 
and limited response. The Committee is directed 
to submit a study to the 23d General Assembly 
next fall. Limitations of time alone will thus 
preclude us from taking more than the first steps 
toward carrying out the purposes which the 
Genei-al Assembly had in mind in establishing 
the Ad Hoc Committee. These purposes, stated 
in the Assembly's resolution, broadly reflect an 
intention that the ocean floor environment be 
developed in the common interest of mankind. 

If we work wisely here, these first steps will 
surely lead us onward to further international 
cooperation in attacking the problems of the 

' Made on Mar. 20 before the U.N. A.A Eoo Committee 
To Study the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-bed and the 
Ocean Floor Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction 
(U.S./TJ.N. press release 43). Mr. Poi)per is Deputy 
U.S. Representative to the Ad Hoc Committee. 

'For test of General Assembly resolution A/2340 
(XXII), .^ee Bulletin of Jan. 22, imS, p. 127. 

oceans. There is good reason to hope that this 
Committee's report will result in further Gen- 
eral Assembly action to promote international 
cooperation in the exploration, conservation, 
and use of the ocean floor and its subsoil. One 
may logically hope as well that the Assembly 
will similarly move to foster soimd cooperation 
in other aspects of marine problems. 

I would suggest, therefore, that this Commit- 
tee approach its work in a spirit of broad in- 
quiry. Pursuant to the resolution, the Secretary- 
General will be furnishing us with important 
studies he has undertaken under earlier Gen- 
eral Assembly and Economic and Social Coimcil 
resolutions, as well as with information and 
suggestions submitted by many governments 
and intergovernmental organizations. All of 
this material will warrant careful examination. 
While this Committee, respecting its mandate, 
will focus upon the peaceful uses of the seabed, 
we believe it should take into accoimt related 
matters pertaining to the deep oceans which 
cannot be logically separated from the problems 
of the sea bottom itself. 

In this connection, members of the Committee 
will recall that the United States last fall pro- 
posed that the General Assembly establish a 
committee on the oceans to deal with all pro- 
posals placed before the Assembly on marine 
questions. The rationale for the creation of such 
a committee was spelled out by Ambassador 
Goldberg on November 8.^ Although the As- 
sembly did not choose to go so far at its last 
session, the present Committee, and the As- 
sembly itself, may find the considerations ex- 
pressed by Ajnbassador Goldberg to be appli- 
cable in the years ahead. 

The Committee may wish to take note of the 
proposal by President Jolinson on January 17 
that the United States "launch, with other na- 
tions, an exploration of the ocean depths to tap 
its wealth and its energy and its abundance." * 
On March 8 the President further proposed tliat 
we consult with other nations on steps that 
could be taken to launch an International 
Decade of Ocean Exploration for the 1970's.' 
We have made available to governments our 
preliminary views on the concept of a decade of 

• Ibid., Nov. 27, 1967, p. 723. 

• For exceriJts from President Johnson's state of the 
Union message, see ihid., Feb. 5, 1968, p. 161. 

• For President Johnson's conservation message to 
the Congress entitled "To Renew a Nation," see White 
House press release dated Mar. 8. 

APRIL 22, 1968 


exploration. Working together, we can utilize 
our resources to further man's quest for greater 
knowledge of his environment and for more use- 
ful and beneficial ways of extracting from it 
that which is useful in meeting human needs. 

Our thinking on this subject starts from the 
universal recognition of the need for interna- 
tional cooperation to expand the frontiers of 
knowledge. Exploration of the seabed and the 
ocean depths is necessarily multinational. It 
takes place in areas which are for the most part 
not under the jurisdiction of individual states 
and which are so vast in extent that no single 
country, however well endowed with wealth and 
talent, could possibly investigate them all 
in a systematic way. In short, the size, com- 
plexity, and variability of the marine environ- 
ment emphasize the importance of international 

Our suggestions as to the decade have not 
been made with any rigid plan or specific or- 
ganizational framework in mind. On the con- 
trary, we would hope that the general concept 
we present today will generate proposals as 
to content, method, scale, and scope which can 
be discussed between nations and in the United 
Nations and its specialized agencies as the basis 
for a full-fledged program. Organizations such 
as the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Com- 
mission of UNESCO [United Nations Educa- 
tional, Scientific and Cultural Organization], 
the Food and Agriculture Organization, and 
the World Meteorological Organization would 
obviously have an important part to play. If 
this suggestion is well received, we might logi- 
cally expect to use the period between now and 
1970 for advance planning, preparation, and 

It may be that an exchange of views on this 
subject can be undertaken in this Committee 
itself, as well as outside it, and that members 
may wish to consider the formulation of ap- 
propriate proposals for consideration by the 
United Nations General Assembly next fall. 

In our own preliminary thinking, we have 
given particular attention to projects in the area 
of the living resources and biological dynamics 
of the seas, the preparation of ocean floor and 
continental shelf maps and coring and drilling 
to contribute to geological knowledge, and the 
further investigation of basic ocean processes 
such as current systems and the interaction be- 
tween the sea and atmosphere. Others may wish 
to approach the subject in different ways. 

The ideas which ail of us put forward could. 

if governments desire, be analyzed and com- 
bined over time by a suitable expert body or 
similar vehicle. There might emerge a coopera- 
tive program based on agreed priorities and 
the coordination of efforts of individual states. 
In addition, we would insure that each of the 
intergovernmental and nongovernmental or- 
ganizations dealing with the oceans undertake 
an appropriate share of this task. Governments, 
large and small, may decide to allocate an ap- 
propriate portion of their energies to ocean- 
ographic investigation. Should these develop- 
ments take place, a vast expansion of knowl- 
edge of benefit to all men should follow. 

Let me turn now to the immediate tasks of the 
Ad Hoc Committee. I will not repeat in de- 
tail the material included in the U.S. response ' 
to the Secretary-General's inquiry of January 
5 on this subject. But I would like to emphasize 
a few specific points. 

First, while careful consideration should be 
given to general statements of policy which are 
being made at this session of the Ad Hoc Com- 
mittee, I do not believe that we ought at this 
stage to engage in prolonged debate or con- 
troversy with respect to the views expressed. 
Since all the relevant material, including the 
studies of the Secretary-General, is not yet be- 
fore us, I think it would be more appropriate 
for us to focus at present, as we have done, 
mainly on the organization of the Committee. 

The Committee was wise in establishing two 
working groups to concentrate on specific as- 
pects of our task. Each of those groups might 
be asked, in accordance with paragraph 2(c) 
of Kesolution 2340, to make practical sugges- 
tions for international cooperation within its 
particular field of expertise. 

One working group might elaborate on the 
scientific, technical, and economic aspects of 
exploration and utilization of the deep ocean 
floor. I have already indicated the general scope 
of the problems to which such a working group 
might address itself. Its report should provide 
us with a sound technical assessment of the im- 
plications of the Secretary-General's studies 
and an informed judgment as to the proposals 
of member states in these areas. This work 
should give the General Assembly a factual 
base on wjiich to build future substantive ef- 
forts. We would hope that this working group 
might give consideration to the relevance of the 
International Decade of Exploration, since it 

° U.N. doc. A/AC.135/1. 



can be a most practical manifestation of interna- 
tional cooperation. 

The working group on legal matters ■would 
concentrate on providing an account of legal 
and related problems. It might analyze the ex- 
isting law atl'ecting the deep ocean floor so as 
to clarify outstanding legal problems and point 
the way to future efforts. This group might lay 
a foundation for the development of general 
principles to guide the activities of states and 
their nationals in the exploration and use of 
tlic deep ocean floor. This would be anotlier in- 
stance of practical international cooperation. 
The importance of agreeing on such principles 
is apparent if we are to avoid conflict and 
strengthen international cooperation, scientific 
knowledge, and economic development. The re- 
port this Committee sends to the General As- 
sembly could thus be the basis for a systematic 
development of law for the deep ocean floor. 

It is well that these working groups will be 
open to all members of the Ad Hoc Committee. 
Like the Committee itself, they should carry 
on their important work on the basis of con- 
sensus. In its experience with the problem of the 
peaceful uses of outer space, the General As- 
sembly learned tliat the requirement for con- 
sensus, though not without difficulties, repre- 
sents the soundest means of making effective 
progress. Common prudence suggests that pro- 
posals which could involve national security, 
essential supplies of resources and materials, 
orderly economic development, existing and 
proposed treaty provisions, new international 
functions, and appreciable expenditures will 
require the broadest possible support. 

Mr. Chairman, we hope that these thoughts 
may strike a responsive chord in the Commit- 
tee and that they may be considered in con- 
nection with other ideas which have been or 
will be presented here. We recall that it was the 
proposal of the distinguished representative of 
Malta which gave rise to the General Assembly's 
resolution last fall and to the establishment of 
the present Committee. There is no doubt that 
the introduction of the Maltese proposal has 
vastly stimulated our discussion. There is no 
doubt whatever of its broad implications. 

It is equally clear, however, that the proposal 
raises issues of the greatest magnitude, issues 
with which the Assembly must contend over a 
period of time. Nor is there any doubt that the 
significance of a proposal of the type presented 
by the delegation of Malta rests essentially upon 

the actual extent of resources which can be eco- 
nomically exploited on the deep sea bed, as well 
as the capability and incentives we can develop 
to recover these resources at a reasonable cost. 

Thus, before we can assess the implications 
of the Maltese proposal in any definitive way, 
the ground must be prepared tlirough legal 
studies and scientific and technical assessment. 
I do not imply that we should adjourn discus- 
sion of the jNIaltese proposal while these efforts 
are in train. But it seems qiute clear tliat before 
matters can be pressed to the point where states 
will agree to accept contractual obligations, they 
will need to know a great deal more than they 
know today. 

Precisely because this process will take time, 
there is not a moment to lose. Let us begin here 
and now our effort to insure that, as President 
Johnson remarked in 1966,' we do not allow the 
prospects of rich harvest and mineral wealth 
to create a new form of colonial competition 
among the maritime nations; that we avoid a 
race to grab and to hold the lands under the high 
seas ; and that we insure that the deep seas and 
the ocean bottoms are, and remain, the legacy 
of all hmuan beings. 

Current U.N. Documents: 
A Selected Bibliography 

Mimeographed or proccxscd documents {such an those 
listed below) may he consulted at depository libraries 
in tlic United States. U.N. printed publications may be 
purchased from the Sales Section of the United Na- 
tions, United Nations Plaza, N.Y. 

Security Council 

Report by the Secretary-General on the United Nations 
Operation in Cyprus for the period December 9, 1967, 
to March 8, 1908. S/8446. March 9, 1968. 53 pp. 

General Assembly 

Report of the Conference of the Eighteen-Nation Com- 
mittee on Disarmament. A/7072. March 19, 1968. 14 

Special Committee on Peace-Keeping Operations. Let- 
ter from the representative of Sweden transmitting 
memorandum concerning the Swedish stand-by force 
for service with the United Nations. A/AC.isi/ll. 
March 20, 19G8. 22 pp. 

' For remarks by President Johnson made at the 
commi-ssioning of the Oceanograplter at Wa.shing- 
ton, D.C., on July 13, 1966, see Public Papers of the 
Presidents, Lyndon B. Johnson, 19G6, Book II, p. 722. 

APRIL 22, 1968 



United States and Greece Amend 
Cotton Textile Agreement 

Press release 41 dated February 26 


Notes were exchanged in Washington on 
February 23 amending a bUateral agreement 
governing exports of cotton textiles from Greece 
to the United States. Assistant Secretary of 
State for Economic Affairs Anthony M. Solo- 
mon signed on behalf of the United States 
Government and Ambassador Christian X. 
Palamas on behalf of the Government of Greece. 

The amendment, retroactive to September 1, 
1966, amends an agreement of July 17, 1964, 
previously amended on May 23, 1966.^ It was 
negotiated in the context of the recent extension 
of the Long-Term Arrangement Eegarding 
International Trade in Cotton Textiles. 

New provisions involve principally : 

(a) Extension of the bilateral agreement 
from August 31, 1970, to December 31, 1970. 

(b) Carryover of shortfalls, up to 5 percent 
of the respective ceilings. 

(c) An increase of the yam ceiling to 2 
million pounds in any year after 1967, barring 
a significant downturn in the United States 
cotton textile industry. 


rKBBUABT 23, 1968 

ExcEiXENOT : I have the honor to refer to the Long- 
Term Arrangement Regarding International Trade In 
Cotton Textiles, hereinafter referred to as the LTA, 
done In Geneva on February 9, 1962 and to the Protocol 
extending the LTA through September 30, 1970. I also 
refer to the agreement between our two Governments 
concerning exports of cotton textiles from Greece to 
the United States, effected by an exchange of notes 
dated July 17, 1964, as amended, hereinafter referred 
to as the 1964 agreement. The Protocol extending the 
LTA having entered into force for our two Govern- 

ments, I propose, on behalf of my Government, that the 
1964 Agreement be further amended as of September 1, 
1966, to read as follows In Its substantive provisions : 

"1. The Government of Greece shall limit exports to 
the United States In aU categories of cotton textiles 
(a) for the sixteen-month period beginning September 
1, 1966 and extending through December 31, 1967 (here- 
inafter called the 'first agreement year'), and (b) for 
the twelve-month period beginning January 1, 1968 
(hereinafter called 'the second agreement year'), In 
accordance with the following: 


Firil Agreement Year 

Second Agreement Year 

SeptembeT t, 1968 

January 1, 1968 



December SI , IBS! 

December SI, 1968 

Yam (Cats. 

2,000,000 lbs. 

1,420,125 lbs. 


Fabrics and 



made-up goods 

syds. eq. 

syds. eq. 

(Cats. 5-38, 


Apparel (Cats. 




syds. eq. 

syds. eq. 

' Treaties and Other International Acts Series 5618, 

"2. The limitation on yam may be exceeded in any 
agreement year after August 31, 1966 by the amoont by 
which exports of other cotton textiles from Greece to 
the United States are less than the sum of the limita- 
tions applicable to fabrics, made-up goods and apparel 
for that year. 

"3. Within the ceUtng for fabrics and made-up goods, 
exports in any one category shall not exceed 220,500 
square yards equivalent in any agreement year except 
by mutual agreement of the two Governments. 

"4. In the succeeding twelve-month periods following 
the second agreement year for which any limitation or 
celling is in force under this agreement, the level of 
exports permitted under such limitation or ceiling shall 
be increased by five percent over the corresponding level 
for the preceding twelve-month period. 

"5. The Government of Greece shall space exports In 
the yam categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 as evenly as practicable 
within any agreement year, taking into consideration 
normal seasonal factors. 

"6. In the event of undue concentration in exports 
from Greece to the United States of yam in categories 
2, 3 or 4, the Government of the United States of Amer- 
ica may request consultation with the Government of 
Greece In order to reach a mutually satisfactory solu- 
tion to the problem. The Government of Greece shall 
enter into such consultations when requested. Until a 
mutually satisfactory solution Is reached, the (Jovem- 
ment of Greece shall limit the exports from Greece to 
the United States of yam in the category In question 
starting with the twelve-month period beginning on the 
date of the request for consultation. This limit shaU be 
one hundred five percent of the exports from Greece to 
the United States of that category of yam during the 
most recent twelve-month period preceding the request 
for consultation for which statistics are available to our 
two Governments on the date of the request. 

"7. Each Government agrees to supply promptly any 
available statistical AaUi requested by the other Gov- 
emment. In the Implementation of this agreement, the 
system of categories and the factors for conversion into 



square yards equivalent set forth in the Annex hereto * 
sliall ai)plj'. 

"8. For the duration of this agreement, the €rOvem- 
ment of the United States of America shall not invoke 
the procedures of Article 3 of the Long-Term Arrange- 
ment Regarding International Trade in Cotton Textiles 
done at Geneva on February 9, 1962 to request restraint 
on the export of cotton textiles from Greece to the 
United States. The applicability of the Long-Term Ar- 
rangement to trade in cotton textiles between Greece 
and the United States shall otherwise be unaffected by 
this agreement. 

'•9. The Governments agree to consult on any ques- 
tions arising in the implementation of this agreement. 

"10. The agreement shall continue in force through 
December 31, 1970. As used herein, the term 'agreement 
year' means a twelve-month i)erlod from January 1 
through December 31, except for the first agreement 
year, the duration of which is specified in paragraph 1. 
Either Government may propose revisions in the terms 
of the agreement, or may terminate the agreement at 
any time, giving notice of at least 30 days prior to that 
proposed revision or termination. 

"11. The Government of the United States of Amer- 
ica, barring a significant downturn in the United States 
cotton textile industry, will annually accede to requests 
by the Government of Greece for permission to raise 
the yam celling for any agreement year after Decem- 
ber 31, 1967, to 2,000,000 pounds. The Government of 
the United States of America will resjwnd to such re- 
quests within a reasonable time. Notwithstanding the 
provision of paragraph 4 of this agreement, this 
2,000,000 pound limit shall not be increased by 5 percent 
for any succeeding twelve-month period for which It 
is In effect. 

"12. In addition, the following special provision ajv 
pllei to exports in the first agreement year, extending 
from September 1, 1966 through December 31, 1967: 
yam, categories 1 through 4, exported In excess of the 
applicable limitations In paragraphs 1 and 2, shaU be 
charged against the limits applicable to yam for the 
second agreement year. 

"13. If the Government of Greece considers that, as 
a result of limitations specified In this agreement, 
Greece is being placed In an inequitable iwsltion vls- 
a-vls a third country, the Government of Greece may 
request consultation with the Government of the United 
States of America with a view to taking appropriate 
remedial action such as a reasonable modification of 
this agreement. 

"14. (a) Beginning with shortfalls in the first agree- 
ment year, shortfalls may he carried over as follows : 

(1) For any agreement year immediately follow- 
ing a year of a shortfall (I.e., a year In which cotton 
textile exports from Greece to the United States in 
any of the groups set out in paragraph 1 were below 
the limits specified therein), the Government of Greece 
may permit exports to exceed the appropriate limits by 
carryover in an amount equal to either the amount of 
the shortfall or 5 percent of the group limit applicable 
In the year of the shortfall, whichever Is lower. The 
carryover shall be used in the same group In which 
the shortfall occurred, subject to the provisions of 
paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 of this agreement 

(11) In determining the amount of shortfall in 
the fabric and/or apparel groups for the puriwse of 
subparagraph (a)(1), the actual shortfall in this group 
or groups shall be reduced by the square yard equiva- 
lent of those yam exports made during the year of the 
shortfall that were permitted under paragraph 2 of 
tills agreement. 

(b) For the purpose of determining shortfall, the 
limits referred to in subparagraph (a) are to be thoee 
established in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 4 of 
this agreement, without the addition of any amount 
of carryover permitted under subparagraph (a). 

(c) The carryover shall be permitted in addition 
to the exports permitted under paragraph 2 of thl« 

"15. Mutually satisfactory administrative arrange- 
ments or adjustments may be made to resolve minor 
problems arising in the implementation of this arrang&- 
ment Including differences in points of procedure or 

If the foregoing conforms with the understanding of 
your Government, this note and Your Excellency's 
note of confirmation ' on behalf of the Government of 
Greece shall constitute an amendment to the cotton 
textile agreement between our two Governments. 

Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my 
highest consideration. 

For the Secretary of State : 
Anthony M. Solomon 

His Excellency 

Christian Xanthopouix)8-Palamas 

Ambassador of Greece 

Current Actions 


Nuclear Free Zone 

Additional protocol I to the treaty of Febmary 14, 
1967, for the prohibition of nuclear weapons in Latin 
America. Done at Mexico February 14, 1967.' 
Bignature: United Kingdom (with a statement), 
December 20, 1967. 
Additional protocol II to the treaty of February 14, 
1967, for the prohibition of nuclear weapons in Latin 
America. Done at Mexico February 14, 1967.' 
Signatures : United Kingdom (with a statement), 
December 20, 1967; United States (with a state- 
ment) , April 1, 1968. 

Postal Matters 

Constitution of the Universal Postal Union with final 
protocol, general regulations with final protocol, and 
convention with final protocol and regulations of 
execution. Done at Vienna July 10, 1964. Entered Into 
force January 1, 196C. TIAS 5S81. 
Ratification deposited: Jordan, February 20, 1967. 

•Not printed here. 

' Not In force. 

APRIL 22, 19 08 


Safety at Sea 

Amendments to chapter II of the international conven- 
tion for the safety of life at sea, 1960 (TIAS 5780). 
Adopted at London November 30, 1066.' 
Acceptances deposited: Norway, March 18, 1968; 
Republic of Viet-Nam, March 14, 1968. 


Protocol for the accession of Iceland to the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Done at Geneva 
June 30, 1967. Entered Into force April 21, 1968. 
Acceptances: Austria, October 23, 1967;'' Czech- 
oslovakia, March 11, 1968; Denmark, November 
14, 1967 ; European Economic Community, Jan- 
uary 17, 1968; France, January 15, 196S; Iceland, 
October 10, 1967;- Malawi, November 24, 1967; 
Netherlands, October 27, 1967 ; Norway, December 
21, 1967 ; Pakistan, September 28, 1967 ; Portugal, 
December 5. 1967 ; Spain, October 10, 1967 ; Turkey, 
September 19, 1967; United States, April 3, 1968. 
Ratification deposited: Iceland, March 22, 1968. 
Protocol for the accession of Ireland to the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Done at Geneva 
June 30. 1967. Entered into force December 22, 1967. 
Acceptance: United States, April 3, 1968. 
Protocol for the accession of Poland to the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Done at Geneva 
June 30. 1907. Entered into force October 18, 1967. 
Acceptance: United States, April 3. 1968. 
Fourth proc^s-verbal extending the declaration on the 
provisional accession of Tunisia to the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of November 12, 
1950 (TIAS 4498). Done at Geneva November 14, 
1967. Entered into force December 18, 1967. 
Acceptance: United States, April 2, 1968. 



Agreement relating to the extension of the agreement 
of May 12, 1958 (TIAS 4031), relating to the orga- 

nization and operations of the North American Air 
Defense Command (NORAD). Effected by exchange 
of notes at Washington March 30, 1968. Entered into 
force March 30, 1968. 


Agreement for sales of agricultural commodities, relat- 
ing to the agreement of August 4, 1967 (TIAS 6314). 
Signed at Washington March 29, 1968. Entered into 
force March 29, 1968. 


Agreement relating to the issuance of nonimmigrant 
visas and the reciprocal waiver of fees. Effected by 
exchange of notes at Seoul March 28, 1968. Enters 
into force April 27, 1968. 


Agreement relating to the furnishing by the Federal 
Aviation Agency of certain services and materials 
for air navigation aids. Effected by exchange of 
notes at Panama December 5, 1967, and February 22, 
1968. Entered into force February 22, 1968. 

United Arab Republic 

Agreement concerning trade in cotton textiles. Ef- 
fected by exchange of notes at Washington March 28, 
1968, between the United States and the Embassy 
of India, representing the interests of the United 
Arab Republic. Entered into force March 28, 1968. 



" Not in force. 

' Subject to ratification. 

Frederick Smith, Jr., as Deputy Administrator, 
Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, effective 
April 1. 



INDEX AprU £2, 1968 Vol. LVIII, No. 150i 


SEATO Council of Ministers Meets at Welling- 
ton (Rusk, communique) 515 

Seven Asian and Pacific Nations Review Situa- 
tion in Yiet-Nam (text of communique) . . 521 

Australia. ANZUS Council Meets at Wellington 

(text of communique) 523 


Mr. Clark Named Commissioner for Federal Ex- 
hibit at HemisFair 531 

International Cooperation iu the Marine Sciences 
(President's letter of transmittal, excerpt 
from Marine Sciences Council report) . . . 537 

Department and Foreign Service. Designations 

(Smith) 548 

Economic Affairs 

International Monetary Cooperation (Fowler. 
Group of Ten communique) 525 

United States and Greece Amend Cotton Tex- 
tile Agreement (text of U.S. note) .... 546 

Educational and Cultural Affairs. Mr. Clark 
Named Commissioner for Federal Exhibit at 
HemisFair 531 

Greece. United States and Greece Amend Cotton 
Textile Agreement (text of U.S. note) ... 546 

International Organizations and Conferences 

International Monetary Cooperation (Fowler, 
Group of Ten communique) 525 

SEATO Council of Ministers Meets at Welling- 
ton (Rusk, communique) 515 

Koresu Seven Asian and Pacific Nations Review 

Situation in Viet-Nam (text of communique) . 521 

Latin America. The Nonshooting War in Latin 
America (Linowitz) .5.32 

Liberia. U.S. and Liberia Reaffirm Close and 
Hi.storic Ties (Johnson, Tubman, joint state- 
ment) 527 

Military Affairs. Viet-Nam Peace Efforts (John- 
son, Christian, Westmoreland) 513 

New Zealand. ANZUS Council Meets at Welling- 
ton (text of communique) 523 

Presidential Documents 

Conveying the Mes.sage of Peace 524 

International Cooperation in the Marine 

Sciences 537 

U.S. and Liberia Reaffirm Close and Historic 

Ties 527 

Viet-Nam Peace Efforts 513 


International Cooperation in the Marine Sciences 
(President's letter of transmittal, excerpt 
from Marine Sciences Council report) . . . 537 

U.S. Calls for Broad Inquiry on Peaceful Uses 
of the Seabed (Popper) 543 

Treaty Information 

Current Actions 547 

United States and Greece Amend Cotton Tex- 
tile Agreement (text of U.S. note) .... 546 

United Nations 

Current U.N. Documents 545 

U.S. Calls for Broad Inquiry on Peaceful Uses 
of the Seabed (Popper) 543 


ANZUS Council Meets at Wellington (text of 

communique) 523 

Conveying the Message of Peace (Johnson) . . 524 

SEATO Council of Ministers Meets at Welling- 
ton (Rusk, communique) 515 

Seven Asian and Pacific Nations Review Situa- 
tion in Viet-Nam (text of communique) . . 521 

Viet-Nam Peace Efforts (Johnson, Christian, 

Westmoreland) 513 

Name Index 

Christian, George 513 

Clark, Edward 531 

Fowler, Henry H 525 

Johnson, President 513, 524, 527, .537 

Linowitz, Sol M 532 

Popper, David H 543 

Rusk, Secretary 515 

Smith, Frederick, Jr 648 

Tubman, William V. S 527 

Westmoreland, Gen. William C 513 

Check List of Department of State 
Press Releases: April 1-7 

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

Releases issued prior to April 1 which appear 
in this issue of the Bulletin are Nos. 41 of Feb- 
ruary 26 and 54 of March 21. 

No. Date Subject 

*62 4/1 Duke sworn in as Chief of Protocol 

(biographic details). 
*63 4/3 Visit of King Olav V of Norway. 

64 4/4 SEATO council communique. 

65 4/5 Rusk: opening .statement, SEATO 

Council meeting. 
*66 4/4 Program for visit of Chancellor Josef 

Klaus of the Republic of Austria. 
t67 4/5 .Joint U.S.-Japaneso statement on 

Bonin Island.s. 

♦ Not printed. 

t Held for a later issue of the Bulletin. 


Superintendent c 
u.s. government printing office 
washington, d.c. 20402 

9'^Z XOO d 

on onond NOiSOQ 

J 030 nso 













Remarks hy Vice President Humphrey and Text of Protocol 551). 


hy Under Secretary Rostow 559 


hy Assistant Secretary Oliver 563 

For index see inside hack cover 



Vol. LVIII, No. 1505 
April 29, 1968 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 


82 issues, domestic $10, foreign $16 
Single copy 30 cents 

Use of funds for printing of this publication 
approved by the Director of the Bureau of 
the Budget (January U, 1966). 

Note: Contents of this publication are not 
copyrighted and Items contained herein may be 
reprinted. Citation of the DEPARTMENT OF 
STATE BULLETIN as the source will be 
appreciated. The BULLETIN is Indexed In 
the Readers' Qulde to Periodical Literature. 

The Department of State BULLETIN, 
a weekly publication issued by the 
Office of Media Services, Bureau of 
Public Affairs, 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 selected 
press releases on foreign policy, issued 
by the White House and the Depart- 
ment, and statements and addresses 
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 interna- 
tional affairs and the functions of the 
Department. Infornuition is included 
concerning treaties and international 
agreements to which the United 
States is or may become a party 
and treaties of general international 

Publications of the Department, 
United Nations documents, and leg- 
islative nuiterial in the field of inter- 
national relations are listed currently. 

President Johnson Confers on Viet-Nam Peace Talks 
With Ambassador Bunker and Other Advisers 

Follotoing are statements made by President 
Johnson at the White House and at Camp 
David {Thurmont, Md.) on April 8 and 9, the 
transcript of a news conference held hy the 
President and American Ambassador to the Re- 
public of Viet-Nam Ellsworth Bunker at Camp 
David on April 9, and a stateinent on negotia- 
tion sites made hy George Christian. Press Sec- 
retary to the President, at a White House news 
'briefing on April 11. 


White House press release dated April 8 

Tonight I will be going to Camp David, at 
the conclusion of the day, with certain staff 

Tomorrow morning, I will have breakfast 
there with Ambassador Bunker, Secretary 
Rusk, and Secretary [of Defense Clark M.] 

Ambassador Bunker will arrive at Andrews 
in the early morning, somewhere around 7 
o'clock. He will pick up the two Secretaries and 
come on to Camp David for a meeting there 

I have a message from Hanoi replying to our 
message of April 3d.^ We have taken steps to 
notify our allies. 

We shall be trying to work out promj^tly a 
time and a place for talks. 

Any other announcements will have to come 
from Mr. Christian, if there is anything else to 

'For background, see Bulletin of Apr. 22, 19G8, 
p. 513. 


White House press release (Thurmont, Md.) dated April 9 

Ambassador Bunker arrived here a little 
before 8 from South Viet-Nam. He flew from 
Tokyo nonstop. We had breakfast together, 
those of us here at the table. Ambassador 
Bunker has given us a rather complete review 
of the developments in South Viet-Nam since 
his last personal visit here, witli emphasis on 
the period since the Tet offensive. 

We will be meetmg here throughout the day 
and will be joined for a 1 o'clock lunch by Am- 
bassador [W. Averell] Harriman and Secretary 
Bundy [Assistant Secretary of State for East 
Asian and Pacific Affairs William P. Bund}']. 

Later today or tomorrow, either here or in 
Washington, I will meet with Admiral 
[U.S.G.] Sharp, Commander in Cliief of the 
Pacific area. 

Ambas.5ador Bunker will be returning to 
South Viet-Nam when our meetings here are 

Since I saw you yesterday in the Cabinet 
Room, we have consulted with our allies about 
the message that I referred to yesterday and 
alternative sites. We are back in touch with 
Hanoi and discussing a number of alternative 
locations which could be convenient to both 
sides. We are in agreement with our allies and 
are prepared for ambassadorial contacts just as 
soon as arrangements can be completed. 

I will ask Mr. Christian to keep in touch with 
j'ou, and if there are any other announcements 
during our stay here, he will relay them to you 
as well as keep you infonned of any other 

APRIL 29, 1968 



White House press release (Thurmont, Md.) dated April 9 

President Johnson 

These gentlemen are returning to Washing- 
ton tonight. Ambassador Bunker will be my 
guest while he is there, at the White House. I 
will be seeing him tomorrow. He will probably 
be returning Thursday. 

We spent the afternoon hearing from Ambas- 
sador Bunker and going over a series of ques- 
tions that we raised with him largely relatmg 
to the relationship between our Government and 
the South Vietnamese Government. We talked 
to him about what progress had been made since 
he had been there and what his general observa- 
tions were. 

His review was on the political front — diplo- 
matic and economic fronts-very similar to what 
General Abrams= and General Westmoreland 
and Admiral Sharp will go over with us on the 
military matters. 

I don't know if this is the place for any press 
conference, but I asked the Ambassador if he 
would point out some of the high points and 
give you his judgments for such consideration 
as you may care to give them or pass on to the 
American people on the situation there from a 
political and economic standpoint. 

I think I need not recall to you that Ambas- 
sador Bunker is one of our most experienced 
and trusted and most highly regarded ambas- 
sadors in the entire service. He has held a num- 
ber of the most critical assignments that any 
ambassador has ever vmdertaken. 

His recent assignment was the Dominican Re- 
public, where he went and spent many months 
seeing a new government born and helping it 
through its early stages. 

I thought I knew most of what was happen- 
ing in Viet-Nam and felt very encouraged about 
the relationship between our Government and 
their Government and their people; but Ambas- 

^ Gen. Creighton W. Abrams is deputy to Gen. Wil- 
liam C. Westmoreland, Commander, U.S. Military 
Assistance Command, Viet-Nam. President Johnson an- 
nounced at his news conference on Apr. 10 that he had 
named General Abrams to succeed General Westmore- 
land, who has been nominated to be Chief of Staff of 
the Army (for background, see Bulletin of Apr. 15. 
1968, p. 487). 

sador Bunker's report today uncovered a lot of 
things that I had not realized or recognized or 

So maybe he will want to touch on some of 
those things for your general edification. 

Ambassador Bunker 

As the President said, I have come to report 
on the situation, as I see it, after Tet. If Tet 
was a psychological and a political success 
abroad, it certainly was a resounding military 
defeat for them in Viet-Nam. 

I am beginning to think it was also a psy- 
chological and political defeat as well. It did 
create, obviously, many thousands of refugees 
and much economic damage. But there are other 
elements of strength which have developed and 
become evident there since the Tet oifensive. 

Although the Vietnamese forces, for example 
—many of them— were only at half strength, 
nevertheless with our assistance they did smash 
the attacks. They inflicted very heavy casual- 
ties and drove the Communists from every city 
in the country. 

The Government did not collapse but turned 
to— with great will and determination— its re- 
covery program. The ARVN forces did not de- 
fect. The people, after the initial shock, 
emerged strengthened in their anger and their 
hatred for Communists and their determination 

to resist. 

The rate of volunteers for the forces rose dra- 
matically. The Government is drafting IS- and 
19-year-olds and has more than doubled the 
number of men it is going to take into the armed 
forces this year. Students are flocking to the 
training centers— certainly in a very surprismg 
turnaround of attitude. 

There is a new sense of danger, of urgency, 
and patriotism taking hold in the country. The 
leo-islature is behaving in a responsible way. The 
President is going about improving the govern- 
mental administration and machinery, attack- 
ing corruption, and has replaced some 14 pro- 
vincial chiefs since Tet. 

Finally, I may say that Klie Sanh has not 
turned into another Dien Bien Phu. The news, 
as you know, has come in that the siege has been 
lifted. This will certainly have a very dramatic 
and favorable impact throughout South ^ let- 

Nam. ,j. 

So, I think the Government is much more seii- 



confident than before Tet, and tliere is much 
greater unity in the country today than ^ve have 
ever seen before — a turning-to with the will. I 
tliink it lias made very substantial progress 
since this Tet offensive. 

As you know, also, our forces now are on the 
offensive — our forces and the Vietnamese — 
througliout the country. 

President Tliieu is in the process of reorganiz- 
ing the Govermnent and making many improve- 
ments so that I am very much encouraged with 
what has liappened there and look to tlie future 
with a good deal of confidence. 

Questions and Answers 

Q. May we ask some questions? 

Ambassador Bunker: Yes. 

Q. Mr. Ambassador, what impact psycho- 
logically has the possibility of talks looking 
toioard negotiations had on the people and the 
Government? Are they disturbed by this or fa- 
vorably impressed by it? 

Ambassador Bunker: No. I don't tliink they 
are disturbed by it. Their position on talks on 
negotiations, as you know, has been similar to 

Q. Mr. President, has anything new come in 
on what you told us about earlier today? 

The President: No. 

The press: Thank you. 



We learned this morning from reading a Tass 
dispatch that the North Vietnamese Govern- 
ment has proposed Warsaw as a possible loca- 
tion for contacts. This was later confirmed by 
a message received through our Embassy at 
Vientiane, Laos. 

The United States Government has proposed 
a number of neutral countries as possible sites 
for contacts, and we have not j'et had any re- 
sponse to this proposal. 

On serious matters of this kind, it is im- 
portant to conduct talks in a neutral atmos- 
phere fair to both sides. The selection of an ap- 
propriate site in neutral territory, with adequate 
communication facilities, should be achieved 
promptly tlirough mutual agreement, and those 
acting in good faith will not seek to make this 
a matter of propaganda. 

APRIL 29, 1968 


Secretary Clifford's News Conference of April 11 

FoUoio'mg are excerpts from the transcript of 
a news conference held hy Secretary of Defense 
Clark M. Clifford on April 11. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, is the calling of additional 
reserves under active study now? 

A. It is not at the moment, because the Pres- 
ident has indicated that this is all of the call he's 
going to make at the present time. 

I believe on a routine basis that there will in 
this Department be a continuing study so that 
in the event at some future time he should make 
a decision to call more, we would be ready for 
him. But he gave us no indication that he has 
any such intention in mind. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, the units of the Selected 
Reserve Force are equipped with World War II 
or older equipment. Wliat is going to he done 
to supply these men loith M-16^s, and new per- 
sonnel carriers, and so on? 

A. For training purposes, some of the older 
weapons will be used. At the jJresent time, we 
are building up the production of the M-16 rifle 
so that as troops are deployed to South Viet- 
Nam, they will be given our most modern arms. 

In that regard, I might add that as part of 
the plan of the increase of the M-16's, we are 
turning more and more of them over to the 
ARVN [Army of the Eepublic of Viet-Nam] 
forces so that they also will be better armed as 
they take an increasingly important and active 
part in the combat there in South Viet-Nam. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, could you tell us what the 
status of the bombing of North Viet-Nam is 
now, and perhaps you could tell us tohat it 
might be in its staged deescalation? 

A. On the evening of March 31st, the Pres- 
ident indicated that he was going to discontinue 
the bombing in the North, in Viet-Nam.^ He 
stated he would discontinue it in that area that 

consisted of ajaproximately 90 percent of the 
population of North Viet-Nam and some 76 per- 
cent of the territoi-y of North Viet-Nam. 

Two or three days later, the Defense Depart- 
ment gave out a statement which said that what 
the President had in mind was that he would 
not permit the bombing north of the 20th paral- 
lel. There has been no change in any Presiden- 
tial statement since that time. 

Q. There is no bombing north of the Wth 

A. There is no bombing taking place today 
north of the 20th parallel. 

Q. Has there been since the President's state- 

A. There has been no bombing north of the 
20th parallel since the President's statement. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, in the event that we had a 
complete cessation of the bombing of North 
Viet-Nam, ivould the United States be prepared 
to allow Hanoi to infiltrate certain amounts of 
men and supplies southward? How tcould we 
determine how nvuch they should supply in the 

A. It is a question that obviously is very much 
on our minds and your minds. My comment will 
have to be general in nature. 

I take you back to the President's San An- 
tonio speech,^ at which time he said that if the 
time came for us to order a cessation of the 
bombing in North Viet-Nam, we would assiune 
that the North Vietnamese would not take ad- 
vantage of it. 

My answer would be if we did order a cessa- 
tion of the bombing in North Viet-Nam and 
found that they were taking advantage of it, 
then we would have to make a policy decision 
then as to what we would do m view of their 
decision not to comply with the formula that is 
in our minds. 

" Bulletin of Apr. 1.5, 1968, p. 481. 

' For text, see ihid., Oct. 23, 1967, p. 519. 



Q. Sir, you said in response to an earlier ques- 
tion that a policy decision had been m-ade to 
turn over gradually the major effort to the 
South Vietnamese. Could you tell us when that 
decision was made and how it might relate to 
General Ahrams' appointment? ^ 

A. Well, it has been in the process of being 
made. I don't know that it occurred on any one 
date. But for some months that I have been 
aveare of, consultations have been taking place 
between our military leaders and the South 
Vietnamese leaders, and plans in this regard 
have been in tlie process of formulation. 

I noted a comment by President Thieu within 
the last week in which he stated that his hope 
was that sometime in the foreseeable future 
their forces could be developed to the point 
where they could start in and take over areas 
that our forces occupied so that our forces could 
be relieved and be drawn back. That is the pro- 
gram and that is the one we are looking toward. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, hmo do you interpret the 
situation, around. Khe Sanh? Do you regard the 
puUhaeh of the enemy forces there as an effort 
on their part to demonstrate deescalation in re- 
turn for the President's limited halt of the 
iomhing, or do you think that there are other 
circumstances which led to the lifting of the 

K. I do not interpret it as a deescalation on 
their part. Tlie President's speech was the 
evening of March 31st. The major withdrawal 
from the Khe Sanh area by the enemy started 
March 12th. So for a period of over 2 weeks 
before he made his speexili, they were in the proc- 
ess of withdrawing. 

I believe we have sufficient information now 
to indicate to us that the reason they were with- 
drawing was because they were in the process 
of being destroyed. One division we know of re- 
tired after a while in Laos at only a small per- 
centage of its former strength. 

We got a number of prisoner statements that 
indicate that the area around Khe Sanh from 
the enemy standpoint was becoming increas- 
ingly untenable, that the casualties they were 

' At his news conference on Apr. 10 President John- 
son announced that he had named Gen. Creighton W. 
Abrams to .succeed Gen. William C. Westmoreland as 
Commander, U.S. Military Assistance Command, Viet- 
Xam. (The President has nominated General We.«t- 
moreland to be Chief of Staff of the Army ; for back- 
ground, see Bulletin of Apr. 15, 1968, p. 4<S7.) 

taking w?re prolubitive and they had no 
alternative but to withdraw. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, we are dealing with a vew 
policy situation in South Viet-Nam. As you say, 
President Thieu says that his forces could fake 
over more of the fighting so that our forces 
could be drawn hack. What role, then, do you 
see the American forces playing? What does 
'■'■drawn back'''' tnean? 

A. I think no one can give the details at this 

By my answer, I do not mean to suggest that 
there was any immediate plan for that. It is a 
long-range plan, and I would visualize that 
when the South Vietnamese troops were ready, 
that they could be moved into areas where the 
combat was taking place so that they could sup- 
plant some of the American troops. 

It might be that the American troops could 
be used elsewhere. They might be drawn back 
in reserve. There is going to have to be a period 
of tasting to ascertain whether such a system 
will work. But it seems to me that it is the ulti- 
mate aim that we have for a final determination 
there; that is, work ourselves into a posture 
where the South Vietnamese will take over the 

This is part and parcel, I believe, of the Pres- 
ident's decision to place a limitation at tliis time 
upon our troop level at a point not exceeding 

I will take three more questions, because we 
are already over our time. 

Q. Mr. Secretary, could yoti, characterize the 
war and this period we are going through naiv 
of probing for peace? How do you personally 
feel about it? 

A. My remarks, obviously, would have to be 
exceedingly guarded. We are starting on a new 
course of action. The President made an offer 
to Hanoi to start a planned program of de- 
escalation, the theory being that he would take 
a step, they might then take a step, he would 
take another, and over tlie course of time it 
could lead to a substantial deescalation of the 

We are just in the very early stages. After a 
rather halting beginning in which there was 
difficult}' in getting messages back and forth, 
that has smoothed out and the messages are go- 
ing back and forth now effectively. 

I might say the tone is quite formal. As of 

APKEL 29, 1968 


now, the contact is being made with a view to 
agreeing on the time and the place. I am sure 
it would be inappropriate, at this sensitive stage, 
for me to give some private opinion as to what 
my hopes were that might ultimately result. 

Q. Mr. Secretary., one of the things that is 
a little confusing in trying to figure this tohole 
business out is the statement that the infiltration 
has suhstantially increased over the last months 
and you have no information whatsoever to say 
that it has receded at all. But since that time^ 
there have ieen reports out of Saigon that we 
have j)erhaps dropped the level of hovibing the 
range from- the 20th to the 19th [parallel^. Is it 
logical to assume that there wouldn't be any 
decision like that unless there was some positive 
indication of a step on the other side to 

A. I think, if you permit me to say, I believe 
it is too hypothetical to answer. The fact is tliat 
as you are familiar with the map of North Viet- 
Nara, our efforts south of tlie 20th parallel en- 
coimter the narrowest part of the panhandle. 
We also are able, south of the 20th, to direct our 
attention to the Mu Gia Pass and other areas. 
So that I believe we can maintain imder pres- 
ent circmnstances quite an active effort with ref- 
erence to the flow of men that are coming down 
south of the 20tli parallel. 

If some indication is given by them of an 
effort to start talks, then I believe that the 
negotiators, or the conferees, will want to look 
at what they are doing and what we are doing. 
I am sure that will be one of the subjects dis- 
cussed — as to whether if we do tliis, if we make 
move A, what will their move be? I am sure 
that will be one of the early subjects to be dis- 
cussed after the time and place are agreed on. 

I will have one more question. We are 10 
minutes over. 

Q. Mr. Secretary., you stated earlier that you 
are supplying tlie commander in the field with 
the forces lie has told us he needs. Is that all he 
told you he needs? 

A. Yes. 

I might say at this time that at one stage I 
tliink there was substantial misundei-standing 
about what the request was. A very large fig-ure 
was given at one tune with reference to what the 
field commander needed. That particular memo- 
randvun or series of memoranda merelv referred 

to what he anticipated his needs might be over 
a very substantial period of time, nmning to 
a year or a year and a half, under certain condi- 
tions. Those would be conditions in which i>er- 
haps maximum effort would be made on our 
part. The present increment that is being sent 
over has been discussed in detail with Abrams, 
has been discussed in detail with Westmoreland, 
and they have both expressed their satisfaction 
with this increment of troops that are being 
sent over. 
Our time has run out. I thank you. 

The press : Thank you. 

United States Signs Protocol \\ 
to Treaty of TSateloIco 

Vice President Humphrey signed protocol II 
to the Treaty for tlie Prohibition of Nuclear 
Weapons in Latin America {Treaty of Tlate- 
lolcoY on behalf of the United States at Mexico 
City on. April 1. Following are remarhs he made 
at the signing ceremony, together with the texts 
of protocol II and a statement accompanying 
the U.S. signature. 


On behalf of the Govermnent of the United 
States, I am honored to sign protocol II to the 
Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons 
in Lathi America. 

It is appropriate that we hold this ceremony 

No nation has done more than Mexico to con- 
vert this hope into reality. And no leader has 
contributed more to the successful negotiation 
of this treaty than President Diaz Ordaz. 

It is a special privilege for me to sign on be- 
half of my country. 

Over a decade ago, while serving as chairman 
of the Disarmament Subcommittee of the For- 
eiffn Relations Committee of the United States 

' The United States was not a signatory to the treaty, 
which was signed by 14 Latin American nations at 
Mexico City on Feb. 14, 1967 ; for bacliground, see Bul- 
letin of Mar. 13, 19C7, p. 436; for a statement made by 
President Johnson on Feb. 14, 1968, see iWd., Mar. 4, 
1968, p. 313. 



Senate, I proposed that a regional arms agree- 
ment should be negotiated by the nations of our 

Our support for this regional treaty parallels 
our support for a woi-ldwide treaty which would 
halt the dissemination of nuclear weapons. 

The protocol which we sign today calls upon 
the powers possessing nuclear weapons to re- 
spect the statute of denuclearization in Latin 
America, not to contribute to violations of the 
basic provision of the treaty, and not to use or 
threaten to use nuclear weapons against the 
Latin ^Vjnerican states parties to the treaty. 

Upon ratification of protocol II, the United 
States is prepared to assume these obligations 
with respect to those comi tries in the region 
which undertake and meet the treaty's require- 

I wish to emphasize the willingness of the 
United States to make nuclear-explosion serv- 
ices for peaceful purj^oses available to Latm 
American countries under appropriate interna- 
tional arrangements. 

This offer will be reinforced under the pro- 
posed uonproliferation treaty, under which such 
coimtries as the United States will undertake 
to cooperate in contributing to the development 
by other states of the many other peaceful ap- 
plications of nuclear energy. 

We hope this treaty will also give new impetus 
to the efforts of Latin American governments 
to reach agreement on other limitations on the 
acquisition of military equipment. 

If Latin American nations could agree that 
there are certain costly and sophisticated non- 
nuclear weapons they do not need — and will not 
buy — tliis alone would be an important contri- 
bution to economic and social gi-owth and politi- 
cal harmony. 

For so long as such weapons are considered 
the best guarantee of security in any one nation, 
the security of all nations has no guarantee. Aiid 
precious resources are diverted from the works 
of peace. 

My o%vn country is prepared to cooperate with 
its neighbors in meeting this problem. 

With the successful negotiation of this treat}-, 
the inter- American system, the oldest function- 
ing regional system in the world, has once again 
demonstrated its capacity to advance the iieace 
and security of the peoples of this hemisphere. 

Our presence here today affirms our continued 
support for that cause. 


Tbe undersigned Plenipotentiaries, furnished with 
full powers by their resiiective Governments, 

Convinced that the Treaty for the Prohibition of 
Nuclear Weapons in Latin America, negotiated and 
signed in accordance with the recommendations of 
the General Assembly of the United Nations in Resolu- 
tion 1911 (XVIII) of 27 November 1963, represents an 
important step towards ensuring the non-proliferation 
of nuclear weapons, 

Aware that the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons 
is not an end in itself but, rather, a means of achieving 
general and complete disarmament at a later stage, and 

Desiring to contribute, so far as lies in their power, 
towards ending the armaments race, especially in the 
field of nuclear weapons, and towards promoting and 
strengthening a world at peace, based on mutual respect 
and sovereign equality of states. 
Have agreed as follows: 

Article 1. The statute of denuclearization of Latin 
America in respect of warlil^e purposes, as defined, 
delimited and set forth in the Treaty for the Prohibition 
of Nuclear V^^eapons in Latin America of which this 
instrument is an annex, shall be fully respected by 
the Parties to this Protocol in all its express aims and 

Article 2. The Governments represented by the un- 
dersigned Plenipotentiaries undertake, therefore, not 
to contribute in any way to the performance of acts 
involving a violation of the obligations of article 1 of 
the Treaty in the territories to which the Treaty applies 
in accordance with article 4 thereof. 

Article 3. The Governments represented by the un- 
dersigned Plenipotentiaries also undertake not to use 
or threaten to use nuclear weapons against the Con- 
tracting Parties of the Treaty for the Prohibition of 
Nuclear Weapons in Latin America. 

Article 4. The duration of this Protocol .shall be the 
same as that of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nu- 
clear Weapons in Latin America of which this Protocol 
is an annex, and the definitions of territory and nu- 
clear weapons set forth in articles 3 and 5 of the 
Treaty shall be applicable to this Protocol, as well as 
the provisions regarding ratification, reservations, de- 
nunciation, authentic texts and registration contained 
in articles 26, 27, 30 and 31 of the Treaty. 

Article 5. This Protocol shall enter into force, for 
the States which have ratified it, on the date of the 
deposit of their respective instruments of ratification. 

In witness whereof, the undersigned Plenipotenti- 
aries, having deposited their full powers, found to be 
in good and due form, hereby sign this Additional Pro- 
tocol on Ix'half of their respective Governments. 

Statement Accompanyixo Signature fob the United 
States of America of Puotocol II to the Treaty 



In signing Protocol II of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, 
the United States Government makes the following 
statement : 

APRIL 2 9, 19 68 


The United States understands that the Treaty and 
its Protocols have no effect upon the international 
status of territorial claims. 

The United States takes note of the Preparatory 
Commission's interpretation of the Treaty, as set forth 
in the Final Act, that, governed by the principles and 
rules of international law, each of the Contracting 
Parties retains exclusive povper and legal competence, 
unaffected by the terms of the Treaty, to grant or 
deny non-Contracting Parties transit and transport 

As regards the undertaking in Article 3 of Protocol II 
not to use or threaten to use nuclear vs'eapons against 
the Contracting Parties, the United States would have 
to consider that an armed attack by a Contracting 
Party, in which it was assisted by a nuclear-weapon 
State, would be incompatible with the Contracting 
Party's corresponding obligations under Article 1 of 
the Treaty. 


The United States wishes to point out again the fact 
that the technology of making nuclear explosive de- 
vices for peaceful purposes is indistinguishable from 
the technology of making nuclear weapons and the fact 
that nuclear weapons and nuclear explosive devices 
for peaceful purposes are both capable of releasing 
nuclear energy in an uncontrolled manner and have the 

common group of characteristics of large amounts of 
energy generated instantaneously from a compact 
source. Therefore we understand the deiinition con- 
tained in Article 5 of the Treaty as necessarily en- 
compassing all nuclear explosive devices. It is our 
understanding that Articles 1 and 5 restrict accord- 
ingly the activities of the Contracting Parties under 
paragraph 1 of Article 18. 

The United States further notes that paragraph 4 of 
Article 18 of the Treaty permits, and that United 
States adherence to Protocol II will not prevent, col- 
laboration by the United States with Contracting 
Parties for the purpose of carrying out explosions of 
nuclear devices for peaceful purposes in a manner 
consistent with our policy of not contributing to the 
proliferation of nuclear weapons capabilities. In this 
connection, the United States reaffirms its willingness 
to make available nuclear explosion services for peace- 
ful purposes on a non-discriminatory basis under 
appropriate international arrangements and to join 
other nuclear-weapon States in a commitment to do so. 


The United States also wishes to state that, although 
not required by Protocol II. it will act with respect to 
such territories of Protocol I adherents as are within 
the geographical area defined in paragraph 2 of Arti- 
cle 4 of the Treaty in the same manner as Protocol II 
requires it to act with respect to the territories of 
Contracting Parties. 

Chancellor Klaus of Austria Visits the United States 

Josef Klaus, Federal ChancelJor of the Re- 
jmhlic of Austria, visited the United States 
April 8-13. He met loith President Johnson and 
other Governm.ent officials in WaJihington April 
10-12. Following are texts of an exchange of 
greetings between President Johnson and 
Chancellor Klaus at a welcotning ceremony on 
tlie South Lawn of the White House on April 
10, their exchange of toasts at a dinner at the 
White House that evening, and a joint state- 
ment released hy the White House April 11. 


White House press release dated April 10 

President Johnson 

We welcome you to the beautiful Washington 
spring, Mr. Chancellor, at a time of turbulence 
and hope in our nation. 

As it is for us here in America, so it is around 

the world. There is turbulence today in America 
and in Eastern Europe and in Southeast Asia — 
and there is hope, as well, in all of those places. 
So our aim at this season is to sift the hope 
from the turbulence so that hope may grow 
unfettered. As we go about that business, our 
hopes ride upon compassion, upon our sense 
of national purpose, and upon our feeling of 
responsibility in the time of challenge and upon 
what an earlier era called self-discipline. These 
times demand, too: 

— self -discipline between the rac«s; 

— self-discipline to persevere in the healing 
tasks of our nation; 

— self-discipline in the long and hard work of 
finding and seeking and bringing about a just 
and lasting peace. 

In any society, men of good will and moder- 
ation are in the majority. The cynics — and there 
are always some of them — are in the minority. 
Those in the majority are the proportions that 



God set out when He made us all. It is the task 
and the test of democracy to assure that the 
moderate and goodwilled majority prevails and 
has its way. 

Mr. Chancellor, tlie experience of your na- 
tion tells us that it can. Austria was formed upon 
that democratic impulse for peace and for sta- 
bility. A new society was forged from a four- 
power occupation force in what was then the 
most turbulent area of the entire world. 

You give us additional cause to believe that 
hope can coexist with turbulence and that free- 
dom and order will — in time — prevail. We ex- 
pect this spring day in Wasliington that this 
will happen in our country, in America, and that 
it will happen in Southeast Asia and it will hap- 
pen wherever men of good will necessarily seek 
and pursue peace and equity and justice for all. 
Mr. Chancellor, we are so glad that you could 
come here and honor us by your visit. We wel- 
come you as a friend, sir, and we look forward 
with pleasurable anticipation to our exchanges 

Thank you very much. 

Chancellor Klaus 

Mr. President, may I thank you, also on be- 
half of Mrs. Klaus, most sincerely for having 
invited me officially to meet you and to visit 
your great country. 

I highly appreciate the fact that I can meet 
you in spite of the difficult time when you are 
confronted with grave problems and difficult 
decisions which are of a particular bearing not 
only for the future of the United States but of 
the whole world. 

I am glad to be here and to have the oppor- 
tunity to renew the ties of friendship which so 
happily exist between our two countries. 

The Austrian people will never forget the 
help of the United States, which was decisive 
for the overcoming of the postwar difficulties. 
It has been especially since then that my coun- 
try is particularly attached to your generous 

I am looking forward with great pleasure to 
my talks with you, Mr. President, and with the 
distinguished members of your Government and 
the United States Congress. 

I am pleased that my schedule provides for an 
extensive tour across your country. 

Again, my sincerest thanks for having in- 
vited Mrs. Klaus and me to the United States. 


White House press release dated April 10 

President Johnson 

111 the dark days before World War II, the 
writer Stefan Zweig said of the disappearance 
of Austria from the map of Europe : "Nobody 
saw that Austria was the cornerstone of the wall 
and that Europe must break down when it was 
torn out." 

Tonight, ladies and gentlemen, we celebrate 
what the Austrian people and their leaders have 
done to put that cornerstone back into the wall — 
so solidly that all of Europe is much stronger. 

A native Austrian, Justice Felix Frank- 
furter, who became one of America's wisest men 
of law, liked to say that "there is no inevita- 
bility in history — except as men make it." 

Perhaps never in the recorded ages of man 
has that been truer than in the era that we now 
live in. And perhaps that is both the greatness 
as well as the trial of our age. 

We have seen in our era that men can make 
their own destiny. 

We have seen men shape their destiny in coun- 
tries that were once only colonies. 

We see today the young people everywhere 
restlessly seeking to have a voice in their own 

We have seen on every continent the un- 
quenchable thirst for self-determination. 

Nowhere has this appeared more clearly than 
in Austria, where a free and a proud i^eople 
willed themselves a new nation out of the ruins 
of war. 

Our guest this evening has played a leading 
part in showing that history is not inevitable, 
but rather responsive to the highest goals of 
the human spirit. He is a seeker of peace and 
harmony throughout Europe and around the 

Mr. Chancellor, I can assure you that your 
efforts have not gone unappreciated in this city. 

Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to join me 
this evening in a toast to the people of Austria, 
the President of the Republic of Austria, and 
to our most distinguished guest and his lady — 
Chancellor Josef Klaus. 

Chancellor Klaus 

Thank you very much, Mr. President, for 
your kind words. We have been all the more 
delighted to accept your invitation to pay a 

APRIL 29, 1968 



visit to the United States since we knew that 

this is indeed a visit to friends. Between the 
United States and Austria there are, happily, 
no unsolved political problems. 

Already one of my predecessors, the late 
Chancellor Raab, emphasized during a visit to 
the White House our gratitude to the American 
people for the help which was given to us in 
difficult times. In the extremely difficult postwar 
years when we were suffering from tiie conse- 
quences of the war, it was the unselfish help of 
the American people which enabled us to pre- 
serve our freedom and reconstruct our country. 

We understand, Mr. President, America's 
problems. We know how heavy the responsibili- 
ties are that you have to bear. 

Despite our neutrality we are well aware that 
we are not living in an isolated island and that 
international conflicts do affect our country also. 

We are, therefore, always prepared to par- 
ticipate actively in all efforts for maintaming 
peace in the world. We are always ready to offer 
our good offices wherever they are needed. 

I have had the opportunity to inform you, 
Mr. President, of our countless little problems; 
the general slowdown of economic activity in 
Europe has not spared us, although results have 
perhaps not been so strong as in some other 
countries. But its effects were nevertheless rein- 
forced by a strong movement of protectionism 
in many parts of the world. 

May I take the opportunity to thank you, Mr. 
President, and your administration for having 
shown so much understanding for our problems, 
and may I thank you for your efforts to promote 
world trade. 

Your statement, Mr. President, of this 
morning was encouraging indeed, to pursue in 
the future a policy of easing the tensions and 
a policy of promoting the cooperation among 
all nations. 

I don't have to say how much I appreciate 
your kindness, Mr. President, in asking me to 
come to Washington in a time when you are con- 
fronted with most important decisions not only 
for your country but for the whole world. 

May I assure you that the people of Austria 
follow very closely the events in East Asia 
as well as in the United States. The Austrian 
people welcome your most recent decisions 
as an essential step toward peace in Viet-Nam. 

I would like to ask you to toast with me to the 
health of the President of the United States, 
to Mrs. Johnson, and to the j:)eople of the United 
States. To the President. 


White House press release dated April 11 

President Jolmson and Austrian Chancellor 
Klaus conferred at the White House on April 

The President and the Chancellor had a broad 
exchange of views on the international situa- 
tion. Developments in Southeast Asia were re- 
viewed and hope was expressed that an equitable 
solution to the present conflict would be reached. 
The Middle East question was also discussed. 
The Chancellor reviewed the situation in Eu- 
rope with emphasis on Austria's relationship 
with her neighbors and with the members of 
the European Communities. The President and 
the Chancellor stressed the essential role of the 
United Nations in the maintenance of peace. 
They also agreed that the proposed Non- Pro- 
liferation Treaty would greatly strengthen the 
foundations of peace and would be a significant 
step toward halting the arms race and the 
achievement of general and complete disarma- 

The President and the Chancellor underlined 
the common desire of their countries to create an 
atmosphere of cooperation and to bring about 
relaxation of tensions all over the world. The 
importance of strengthening the international 
monetary system and of promoting interna- 
tional trade was also discussed. To this end it 
was agreed that international cooperation will 
continue to be necessary. They also noted the 
helpfulness of expanded East-West trade in 
peaceful goods as a means of improving inter- 
national relations — a development in which 
Austria has played a significant role. 

The President and the Chancellor expressed 
great satisfaction over the excellent relations be- 
tween the United States and Austria. They 
agreed that high-level consultations greatly 
contribute to further strengthening the exist- 
ing friendship between the two countries. 



The United States and Turkey, Partners in World Security 

hy Under Secretary Eostow^ 

I am very pleased to be at this 18th annual 
luncheon of tlie American-Turkish Society, to 
join vi-'ith you in celebrating the longstanding 
friendship between Turkey and America. 

The friendship goes back 170 years, to the be- 
ginnings of our history as an independent coun- 
try. The first official American visit to Turkey 
occurred in the year 1800 with the visit to Istan- 
bul of the American frigate George Washing- 
fon, commanded by Captain William Bain- 
bridge. I am happy to recall that the George 
Washington was given a friendly reception. She 
was brought into the inner harbor and, on pass- 
ing the palace, fired a 21-gim salute to the Sul- 
tan. The Sultan is said to have admired the new 
flag. It was, by all accounts, a cheerful occasion. 

The voyage of the George Washington sig- 
naled the first entry of American naval power 
into the Eastern Mediterranean. It reminds one 
of the visit of the battleship Missouri to Istan- 
bul in 1946, carrv'ing the remains of Ambas- 
sador Ertegun, a distinguished Turkish states- 
man and a friend of both our countries. The 
coming of the Missouri, the symbolic postwar 
reentry of American power in the Eastern 
Mediterranean, constituted the visit not only of 
a friendly power but of an ally. 

The world has changed a great deal in the 
interval, but the amicable relations between 
Turkey and the United States have continued. 
To be sure, for a long time Turkey was a strange 
and exotic country for Americans. But the lure 
of commerce soon drew us together. Above all, 
there was Turkey's famous tobacco, always 
much favored by us; and American vessels soon 
became a common sight in the harbors of Istan- 
bul and Izmir. 

Other interests developed as well. American 
educational and religious institutions were 

' Address made before the American-Turkish Society, 
Inc., at New York, N.Y., on Apr. 4. 

given a kind welcome in Turkey. No American 
professor can discuss Turkish-American friend- 
ship without mentioning that remarkable in- 
stitution, Robert College, whoso many distin- 
guished graduates have contributed so much 
both to Turkey's progress and to America's 
understanding of the outside world. It has been 
a most productive partnership between two 

Americans, like most Westerners, greatly ad- 
mired the magnificent efforts of Kemal Ataturk. 
Ataturk welcomed closer relationships between 
our countries. In 1927 he addressed the Ameri- 
can Ambassador in prophetic phrases: 

Tou are the oldest democracy of the New World. We 
are the youngest democracy of the Old World. You, 
the great democracy of the New World, should take 
due note of your new sister democracy and should 
conceive its Import. We are friends now, and we will 
be much closer friends In the future. 

Ataturk foresaw the future with perceptive 
insight. Twenty years later, with the Truman 
doctrine, the United States and Turkey had en- 
tered into a close relationship, hard to have 
imagined in 1927, let alone in the days of the 
frigate George Washington. 

The Truman Doctrine 

The Truman doctrine, inspired in part by our 
friendship for Turkey and our concern for her 
independence, marked for America a new era 
in foreign policy : We had finally come to ac- 
cept our inescapable duties as a great world 
power. In the aftermath of the Second World 
War, we had come to realize that American sup- 
port was indispensable to help free peoples 
maintain their independence within a stable 
world order. Two World Wars had destroyed 
the old world system. Without American help 
and leadership, the free people could not hope 
to replace the old order with a new system of 

APRU, 29, 1968 


peace that combined stability with freedom. 
Absent American backing, there would be only 
the brutal dictatorship of the Communists, ex- 
panding their dismal system indefinitely, crush- 
ing the pride and vigor of free peoples in widen- 
ing circles. 

In announcing the Truman doctrine, we re- 
solved to engage our nation in building a new 
world order to replace what war had destroyed. 
This new construction was not to be an empire, 
American rather than Russian, but a great coali- 
tion, or rather a series of regional coalitions, 
each built around the magnetic center of Ameri- 
can power. It was to be a coalition of free peo- 
ples seeking to preserve, through reasonable co- 
operation, the freedom to build their own na- 
tions in their own way. 

Thus American power became a shield against 
the Communist thrust, a shield behind which 
our allies could gather their strength and build 
their economies and societies upon firm founda- 
tions. That was what we did with NATO in 
1949; that is what we did in Korea in 1950-52; 
this is what we are doing in Viet-Nam today. 

We Americans were fortunate to have begun 
with Turkey as our ally in this world task. No 
people could have been more firm in their re- 
solve to remain free nor more cooperative in 
supporting the common policies and institutions 
needed to do so. 

Turkey and the TTnitcd States came together 
in the gloomiest and most threatening days of 
the cold war. Americans will not soon forget 
the comrades who stood with them on the cold 
landscape of Korea to defend another brave 
people determined to remain free. 

A Time of New Challenges and Tests 

But the world moves on. Friendships remain, 
but the relationships of friends must inevitably 
change. No one can live in the past, finding 
comfort in old triumphs and blindly refusing 
to face present challenges. Neither the America 
of today nor the Turkey of today is that sort 
of country. 

For America, the past few years have been a 
time of new challenges and new tests. We have 
faced urgent problems at home. Abroad we 
have been confronted with the necessity of using 
military power once more to enforce the Truman 
doctrine and prevent a change in the borders of 
the free world. To allow such change to be ac- 
complished by force we know — above all, where 
an American treaty is in issue — would reduce 

the security of many countries threatened by so- 
called wars of national liberation and protected 
by American treaties or other commitments. 
Thus Viet-Nam involves not a local conflict 
without significance but the general balance of 
power, the credibility of all American conmiit- 
ments, and our own national interests. 

Do these new challenges before iVmerica mean 
that we no longer value Turkey's friendship, 
that we have lost interest in her welfare and 
independence ? 

Those who pose these questions, if I may say 
so, betray a naivete about American foreign 
policy. American foreign policy rests on deep 
and well-imderstood national interests which do 
not change. Does anyone really doubt the im- 
portance to us of Turkey's continued independ- 
ence? Can anyone doubt that we support 
Turkey's wish to remain militarily strong, fac- 
ing as it does ancient adversaries to the north? 
Can anyone doubt the significance of Turkey's 
stability and calming influence at the edges of 
the dangerous turbulence in the Near East? 
Does anyone doubt that America rejoices in 
Turkey's remarkable economic and social 
progress ? 

Promoting the Independence of Our Allies 

But we know that these accomplishments, in 
which we Americans can take such satisfaction, 
are not the achievements of the United States; 
they are the achievements of Turkey. True, we 
have helped in some respects. Doubtless, with- 
out our help in certain critical moments Tur- 
key's progress would not have been so rapid. 
That was especially true in the early days of 
the postwar period, when Western strength had 
not yet tempered Russian appetites and when, 
in the earlier stages of Turkey's economic 
growth, a sizable transfer of resources was es- 
sential to set in motion the country's own poten- 
tial for development. 

America's aim in this assistance was not to 
create a relationship of dependency. Our whole 
objective has been to promote the genuine inde- 
pendence of our allies. We know that self-deter- 
mining independence is the only real foundation 
for genuine partnership between the United 
States and a nation as proud and vigorous as 
Turkey. It is the only kind of relationship we 
want with an ally. Hence, we would never plan 
to extend our assistance beyond what was neces- 
sary to help our friends set to work vigorous 
forces in their own economy. 



Such would be our policy even if the United 
States had unlimited resources. But, of course, 
we do not. And we do have commitments both 
to the rest of the world and to our own society. 
No one needs to be reminded of our commitment 
to the security of free nations in Southeast Asia. 
It has become fashionable to see these commit- 
ments as somehow opposed to our commitments 
to our NATO allies, as if, in fact, they were not 
part and j^arcel of the same fundamental world 
policy. It is not possible, as Secretary Rusk has 
said, to defend alliances in one part of the world 
while betraying them in another. 

No Risk of a Return to Isolationism 

There are those who pretend that the United 
States will soon, in a mood of weariness, shrug 
off all its foreign commitments and devote its 
energies instead to its own pressing domestic 
problems. Certainly we have our problems at 
home, and we are trying to meet their challenge. 
America, like Turkey and like any other free 
nation, knows that the foundation of its strength 
lies in its own people, in the moral vitality and 
economic prosperity of its own society. A coun- 
try that ignores its domestic needs will lose its 
influence abroad. The friends of America's 
power in the world should rejoice to see her 
concern with domestic needs. Some suggest that 
in attacking these problems the United States 
will become isolationist and thus forget the les- 
sons so painfully learned in the past. 

There is no risk of such a course. Our alli- 
ances remain firm. And they are evolving. We 
know that we ourselves cannot expect to live in 
freedom and security unless we take our part in 
building a reasonably stable world of wide hori- 
zons, a world where others can confidently en- 
joy freedom and hope. As the years pass and 
our friends grow in strength, they will surely 
continue to bear an increasing part of the load 
as responsible partners in the task of peace. We 
have not and we will not abandon the course to 
which we committed ourselves with the Ti'uman 
doctrine over 20 years ago. 

But our effectiveness, like everyone else's, de- 
pends upon the wise use of our resources, which, 
though great, are not unlimited. We have 
gigantic military burdens in the common de- 
fense. We continue to give large amounts of 
economic aid. The need for this aid, in many 
parts of the world, becomes daily more urgent. 
We have special responsibilities for the struc- 
ture of world monetary stability. As a result. 

we have not been able to do all that we might 
have wished in fostering economic growth 
among countries, like Turkey, that are already 
enjoying rapid development. Fortunately, our 
bilateral arrangements fill a large pipeline, and 
we can all hope that more resources again be- 
come available before all assistance already 
agreed upon is actually in place. At the same 
time, as allies share in their common tasks, our 
European friends are taking an increasing 
share of the load. 

At anj' rate, our friends understand. We have 
ample reason to feel gratified by the attitude of 
the Turkish Government in these matters. We 
know who our friends are. They are covmtries 
like Turkey, which in their pride and vigor 
want partnership and not dependence. 

Turkey's Postwar Achievements 

Turkey's purposeful sense of movement is not 
going to be slowed, whatever the obstacles. Its 
progress springs from within, not from without. 
It is no accident that the gross national product 
of Turkey has been rising by more than 7 per- 
cent each year. The establislunent of new indus- 
tries and the rapid expansion of existing ones 
are now everyday occurrences in Turkey. Your 
Government's 15-year program for economic 
development, organized in close cooperation 
with the OECD [Organization for Economic 
Cooperation and Development] Consortium for 
Turkey, is now one-third completed. 

I hardly need tell many of you in this very 
room how Turkey is now on the threshold of 
achieving a revolution in wheat production. 
Your Government has, with admirable fore- 
sight, joined in the cooperative regional activi- 
ties set in motion by the Greek-Turkish Eco- 
nomic Cooperation Project of the NATO 

With each passing year, as Turkey's economic 
infrastructure expands and modern skills be- 
come more widespread among her people, Tur- 
key becomes more and more independent of out- 
side help and a more and more prominent 
partner in the great coalition of freedom-loving 

Indeed, we can all, Americans no less than 
Turks, take great satisfaction in the achieve- 
ments of postwar Turkey. For Turkey demon- 
strates, with impressive force, that a proud and 
ancient people can find the leadership and vital- 
ity to transform their society to meet the radi- 
cal changes forced upon it by the modern world. 

APRIL 2 0, 19 68 


That Turkey has been able to do so and evolve 
strong institutions of political and economic 
freedom is great cause for pride and encourage- 
ment, both among Turks and among their old 
friends, and indeed among all men who dream 
of a free and prosperous world. 

The Lesson of Vief-Nam 

I should, in closing, say a few words about 
the dramatic events of the past few days. 

The decisions of the President have touched 
deep springs of national feelmg. By removing 
the issues of war and peace from the realm of 
politics, he has reached beyond faction to the 
shared memories which make our people one. 

The purpose and elfect of these extraordinary 
acts do not signal a change in foreign policy, 
but the mobilization of the sober national will 
behind our foreign policy of firmness and peace. 
They should be a message to all — to our friends 
and to those who oppose us — that the quiet re- 
solve of the American people is being concen- 
trated on the essential tasks while we put aside 
purely factional views. 

The lesson of these events is clear. I said a 
few months ago that American foreign policy 
since 1947 has been dynamic and changing. Of 
necessity, we took the lead in holding the line 
of peace in the years since the war because there 
was no one else to do so. Belli nd that line, we 
have songlit for 20 years to build regional coali- 
tions of peace that could presei-ve order and 
organize the conditions of progress. That proc- 
ess must go on at an accelerating pace, as those 
who can take more and more responsibility with 
lis in the great tasks of peacekeeping and aid. 
Strong as we are, we cannot keep the peace 

It would be foolish to ignore the isolationist 
feelings in my country. They rest on a nos- 
talgic yearning to return to the 19th century, 
the period which shaped our view of ourselves 
in the world community. Most Americans know 
that the 19th century is gone beyond recall. But 
the isolationist dream persists. It is a minority 
view in America today, but it could grow, and 
it will grow if we do not all take responsible 
action to remove its cause. Isolationism on one 
side of the Atlantic breeds isolationism on the 
other. Irresponsibility begets irresponsibility. 

The United States has no enthusiasm for the 
glories and burdens of empire. Our history 
makes it impossible for us to accept such an idea 
for ourselves. We are not the world's sheriff. 

We have canied such heavy burdens since 
World War II because providence spared us 
from the destruction which fell upon so many 
others, and there was no one else to take the 
lead. We have always acted so as to restore 
others as rapidly as possible to their own in- 
dependence and dignity. In many parts of the 
world that restoration is complete. A new and 
stable system of peace is in our own national 
interest. But so is it in the national interest of 
othei-s. The American people expect a greater 
sharing of the burdens of peacekeeping and aid 
in the future on the part of their allies. 

We have made real progress in tliis direction 
during the last few years. Europe and Japan 
now share the costs of aid to the developing 
nations with us as full partners in a number of 
aid consortia all over the world. The gi-eat eco- 
nomic problems of the last few years — the 
Kennedy Round, the monetary problem, the 
balance of payments — have all been met by en- 
lightened and effective cooperation among the 
Atlantic nations and Japan. At this moment, 
these nations are considering unilateral tariff 
reductions as a means of helping to reduce the 
American balance-of-payments deficit, a splen- 
did example of wise solidarity. 

We have made progress, too, in developing 
our Alliance partnership as a political force. 
An excellent start was made through last year's 
study of future political tasks of the NATO 
alliance and the unanimous declaration of com- 
mon purposes that resulted last winter.^ Now 
we must translate those promising resolutions 
into programs of concerted action. 

For our part, we do not press any particular 
pattern of cooperati^'e arrangements. We are 
willing to renounce what may appear to be any 
undue preponderance that stemmed from the 
unnatural conditions that followed the war. 
There is nothing we are not willing to discuss 
fully and frankly with our allies. 

The moral of the President's recent decisions, 
and of the strains they measure, is that we 
should continue, and continue urgently, with 
the creative task of building genuinely coopera- 
tive systems of regional security, which together 
could become a system of world security. That 
is the lesson of Viet-Nam for us all, and it 
should be heeded carefully by all responsible 
men who love peace. 

'For texts of a communique and annex released at 
the close of the meeting of the North Atlantic Council 
at Brussels on Dec. 14, 1967, see Bulletin of Jan. 8, 
196S, p. 49. 



Political Development and Institution-Building 
Under the Alliance for Progress 

hy Covey T. Oliver 

Assistant Secretary for Inter- American Affairs ^ 

We who spend most of our waking lives 
deiiling directly with the problems of hemi- 
spheric development under the Alliance for 
Progress, both in this country and in Latin 
America, are often taken to task for constantly 
measuring our success or failure in economic 
terms. It is said that the Alliance has lost its 
way in a maze of figures that are irrelevant to 
the disinherited millions the Alliance was de- 
signed to help. We are accused of ignoring the 
primary task, which is to bring to every Latin 
American a better life in a free and representa- 
tive society. 

Let us look at a few of the good reasons for 
our apparent preoccupation. First, national 
economic progress is an integral part of broad 
human development. As such, it deserves close 
scrutiny and analysis. Secondly, economic indi- 
cators are among the few tools we have for de- 
termining where we stand and where we are 
going in the largely undoctrinaire field of hemi- 
spheric human development. And thirdly, 
critiques of progress when phrased in emotion- 
ally neutral economic terms allow our countries 
to deal with potentially volatile internal na- 
. tional affairs yet avoid unnecessary inflamma- 
tion of national pride. This last is no small 
attribute considering that more than 20 divei'se 
nations are now working in close quarters on 
the delicate task of reconstructing the very basic 
structures of society. 

Despite the good reasons for using the "num- 
bers approach" to development, some still con- 
tend that this approach is emphasized to allow 
us to ignore or to hide the human problems we 
are unable or unwilling to solve. Unfortunately 

'Address made before the Los Angeles TVorld Affairs 
Council at Los Angeles, Calif., on Apr. 8 (press release 

for our peace of mind, the reverse is more often 
the case. Far from allowing us to forget the 
human goals of the Alliance, the statistics we 
compile so assiduously give us a clearer view 
mto the vastness and complexity of the work to 
be done. They remind us of the millions who 
have yet to feel the changes our nations have 
managed to bring about under the Alliance. 
And they serve as constant reminders that 
greater awareness and hope in growing numbers 
of men leave us with less time to accomplish 
what we set out to do 7 years ago. So I cannot 
apologize for looking at the great issues of the 
hemisphere in what the politicians call bread- 
and-butter terms. 

But having defended the statistical approach, 
I now intend to abandon it. Tonight I would like 
to put aside my book of numbers and the story 
of real economic progress it tells and discuss 
with you the concurrent and related political 
growth in the hemisphere and a political devel- 
opment tool we call institution-building. 

We are forced to abandon the statistical ap- 
proach when discussing these problems, because 
few of the statistics we can compile are relevant 
to the task of increasing the number of Latin 
Americans who participate actively in the polit- 
ical life of their societies. The problems in- 
volved in this task are human problems. They 
are far too subtle and complex to yield to mathe- 
matical analysis. To understand these problems 
we must see them in terms of people, not figures. 
To solve them we must work with people, not 

At first glance, efforts of the Alliance nations 
to achieve and maintain political stability seem 
to contradict the stated intention of the /Vlliance 
to reform societal structures. 

Most enlightened men in our home hemisphere 
generally agree that many of Latin .iVmerica's 

^PRIL 29, 1968 


basic structures need to be reformed and that 
a prerequisite of transition to a more just so- 
ciety is iDolitical stability. Some critics of the 
Alliance contend, however, that political stabil- 
ity, once achieved, will merely uisure continu- 
ance of the status quo. This contention is valid 
only when a govermnent equates stability with 
stagnation. This is simply not the case in many 
Alliance governments, despite the condescend- 
ing statements we often hear in this country 
that pass for intelligent comment on Latin 

Cooperative Effort 

A growing number of Latin American leaders 
today have little or nothing in common with 
the stereotype Latin American dictator or pawn 
of the oligarchy. These men, and the officials 
who have gathered under them to give shape 
and substance to the Alliance for Progress, are 
men of vision and intelligence, firmly dedicated 
to the basic changes called for in the Alliance 
Charter: - to bring to all men in the hemisphere 
"maximum levels of well-being, with equal op- 
portunities for all, in democratic societies 
adapted to their own needs and desires." These 
men are also convmced that this tremendous job 
can be done in peace. 

Others, many of them belonging to the ex- 
treme left and including the self-defined Com- 
munists, do not believe in the efficacy of peace- 
ful change. 

A much greater number are sincerely troubled 
by what they regard as the snail's pace of pi'og- 
ress brought about in the first 7 years of the 
Alliance. Some of these men and women have 
learned at first hand the complexities and vast- 
ness of the problems that stand in the way of a 
better life for the poor of Latin America, and 
they have despaired. For various reasons, per- 
sons of widely different backgrounds and 
divergent aims and creeds sometimes come to 
share an almost mystical belief in blood as a 
panacea of social ills. 

It is said that when Father Miguel Hidalgo, 
the father of Mexican independence, left the 
town of Dolores to begin his uprising, a woman 
of the village called to him : "Where are you 
going, Serior Cura?" 

"To free you of your yoke," Father Hidalgo 

"Worse if you lose even the oxen," the woman 

Undoubtedly human freedom is a value of 

the highest order. When, as in Father Hidalgo's 
time, there is no other way to attain it, the sacri- 
fice of life itself can be justified. Indeed, as our 
own Thomas Jefferson pointed out: "The tree 
of liberty must be refreshed from time to time 
with the blood of patriots and tyrants." But 
those of our time who do not consider alterna- 
tives to bloodshed would do well to remember 
this anecdote. Those who would have the poor 
give up their lives to become free must be ab- 
solutely certain that some other way is not 
available. And because of the Alliance, another 
way does exist in Latin America today. 

One reason I believe the Alliance for Prog- 
ress, if we persevere, will succeed where so 
many other revolutions have failed to bring 
lasting change is that the Alliance does not 
demand a blood sacrifice from those it would 
help. The Alliance requires something just as 
human but more humane: intense cooperative 
effort. The Alliance rests upon the traditional 
American belief that free men, given the right 
tools, can build their own societies without 

Mass Support Essential to Progress 

We can see increasing material evidence that 
many Latin American govermnents today are 
truly committed to the Alliance way. As we 
move forward from the mobilization and stabi- 
lization phase of the Alliance and into the re- 
form and institution-building phase, more and 
more governments are coming under growing 
pressure from the oligarchies. This, I contend, 
is proof that formerly sacrosanct sectors are be- 
ing made to contribute their fair share to the 
nation's development effort. The rising hysteria 
that marks the Castro regime's intense efforts 
to induce "one, two, three Viet-Nams" in our 
hemisphere also indicates that the atmosphere 
of hojDeless poverty, so necessary for the success 
of Communist insurgency, is finally being re- 
placed by hope and expectation. 

And yet, the enlightened leaders of the Amer- 
icas know that good govermnent dedicated to 
change and development cannot by itself insure 
lasting improvement in the lives of all its citi- 
zens. Through the ages Latin America has pro- 
duced leaders who were humane and dedicated 
men of the people. Most of them, unfortunately, 
failed to transform the impoverished, politically 
mute majority into active participants in so- 

' For text of the Charter of Punta del Este, see Bul- 
letin of Sept. 11, 1961, p. 463. 



ciety. Despite great, popularity, many were 
thrown from office by traditional forces opposed 
to change with little protest from those they 
were trying to help. Even in modern tunes, 
freely elected popular leaders who dedicated 
themselves to change the neglect of centuries 
could be and were hustled from office in full 
view of thousands without fear of public 

Despite all the Alliance has brought about, 
this could happen today. It could happen be- 
cause tJie forces of reaction and tliose who op- 
pose peaceful change are still powerful, wliile 
too many Latin Americans still believe they 
have nothing to gain from any government, and 
having little to begin with, believe they have 
nothing to lose. 

Today's progressive Latin American leader 
knows that lasting improvement camiot be im- 
posed from the top. He knows he must be able 
to count on the active support of the great mass 
of people he represents if the changes he would 
introduce are to flourish. He knows that before 
the government can adapt itself to the needs and 
the desires of the people, the people must first 
be able to identify and then communicate those 
requirements to their leadere. Today's leader in 
the Alliance effort knows that this democratic 
function cannot take place until all citizens have 
an economic and political stake in their society 
and until they have learned to protect this stake 
against the incursions of others. 

This is the single most important and diffi- 
cult task facing Latin America today: to tear 
do\^^l unjust societal structures and to establish 
institutions comprised of men and women from 
a broad spectrum of society determined to 
achieve a common goal. 

It is difficult for a foreigner to speculate on 
the exact form and nature of the institutions 
that are required by other people. From our own 
evolving experience in this country, however, 
we can hypothesize that some certainly will take 
the form of trade unions and professional socie- 
ties. Others will resemble the rural cooperatives 
that brought electric power to our most isolated 
mountain valley, to the very end of every rutted 
path in this country. 

As communities become aware of their own 
potential to help themselves by cooperating, 
overcentralized and rigid government power 
should disappear. Local governments more at- 
tuned to individual wishes and local conditions 
will be able to respond more quickly to meet the 
people's changing requirements and desires. 

Once these institutions have been established, 
the needs of those who are poor today will be 
less vulnerable to the whims of more tradi- 
tional powers. 

This is the major development we expect to 
see in Latin America during the coming years. 

U.S. Must Move With Delicacy 

An unportant question — perhaps the most dif- 
ficult this country has yet faced in its close co- 
operation and support of our neighbors to the 
south under the Alliance for Progress — is the 
correct role of the United States in Latin Amer- 
ican institutional development. 

It is a fact of life that the institutions that 
must be established if democratic procedures 
and traditions are to flourish throughout the 
home hemisphere all have an inherent political 
nature. Groups that have formed to improve a 
community or to secure better wages or working 
conditions must deal, at some point, with gov- 
ernments. Few will be effective unless their pro- 
gi-ams are suj^ported and protected by new 
legislation. The institutions that are successful 
and effective will attract greater national and 
perhaps even regional memberships. Some in- 
stitutions may even evolve into full-blown na- 
tional parties with platforms that far transcend 
the immediate aims of the original organiza- 
tion. It is also possible that a few groups may 
become too powerful for the good of the rest of 
society, forcing the government and other in- 
stitutions to delimit their operations. 

I think you can all see the great delicacy with 
which the United States must move in this hy- 
persensitive area of institution-building in 
Latin America. Despite the claims of the super- 
nationalists in our hemisphere, this delicacy is 
not born of a covert back-door imperialism by 
which we will attempt to graft our own form 
and style of politics on others. This delicacy is 
born from a clear understanding that other na- 
tions and other peoples have a right to dignity 
and the wherewithal to find their own solutions 
to their own problems. 

The institutions that have grown up in this 
country, from the smallest town council to the 
largest trade union, can be justly proud of their 
role in our development. The energy and imagi- 
nation that is the hallmark of an active member 
of our society has carried many of these gi'ouns 
into the realm of international affairs. Many in- 
stitutions are among the strongest supporters of 
the Alliance for Progress. "Working through 

APRIL 29. 196f 


such groups as the Partners of the Alliance and 
the American Institute for Free Labor Devel- 
opment, or through sister-State and sister-city 
arrangements, members of institutions in this 
country have added a large and vital human di- 
mension to our macroeconomic and multina- 
tional development programs. This, aft«r all, is 
the true end of our Alliance for Progress: to 
improve the lives of people, not just increase 
the wealth of nations. 

Yet for all our experience, despite all we 
could offer, and despite the natural driving 
force to help others that is inherent in the mem- 
berships of all democratic institutions, it is 
here that we must move with the greatest care 
and be ready to understand if our offers to 
assist are rebuffed. 

Not everyone in our home hemisphere is con- 
vinced that the growth of democratic institu- 
tions is a desirable goal. Many point to the times 
Communists have subverted basically demo- 
cratic institutions and used their power to dis- 
rupt and overthrow other societies. The old 
guard in Latin America, who still think they 
can resist the growing pressure for change, use 
these examples to justify their efforts to keep 
sucli institutions from being established. 

But we have come too far along the road 
to development to turn back now. The seeds 
of democratic institutions have already been 
planted in most Alliance nations. Efforts to 
deny them nourishment can only result in 
twisted growths. 

Each Alliance nation must decide for itself 
what kind of institutions are needed and what 
kind of role they will play in the future. Some 
may wish to draw on our experience or the ex- 
periences of the rest of the free world. Others 
may decide that only new forms can fit their 

We in this country must be prepared to help 
when and if our help is I'equested, and we must 
be willing to stand quietly if our allies decide to 
seek original solutions to their problems. Al- 
though we are vitally concerned with the out- 
come of their endeavors, we must not be over- 
anxious or impatient. As President Johnson has 
pointed out : "The United States has no man- 
date to interfere wherever government falls 
short of our specifications." ^ He went on to 
point out, however, that we must let them know 

what side we are on : the side of those who want 
constitutional goverimients. 

Many in this country will probably feel a 
great sense of frustration with Latin America 
during the coming decade. We are an extremely 
active people, ill suited to the role of interested 
bystanders. We find it much easier to open our 
treasuries and to work rather than wait while 
others struggle alone. We find an inactive role 
particularly amioying when the quality of hu- 
man life lies in the balance. 

Nevertheless, throughout this crucial period 
of reform and institution-building now under- 
way in Latin America, we in the United States 
must practice patience and show much under- 
standing. We must constantly remind ourselves 
that we and our neighbors to the south are com- 
mitted to total hemis^Dheric development. Our 
nations agree on the goals we are striving for. 

We must show the courage of our conviction 
that democracy, not tyranny, is the true wave 
of the present and future m Latin America. We 
must exercise our common belief that free men, 
working through democratic mstitutions, are 
the best insurance that every man, woman, and 
child in our home hemisphere will soon feel at 
least the beginning of a more prosperous and 
just existence. 

Pan American Day 

and Pan American Week, 1968 


A year ago, the Presidents of the American Repub- 
lics and tlie Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago 
met at Piinta del Este — to chart the course of the 
Alliance for Progress for the next "Decade of 

They proclaimed "their decision to achieve to the 
ftillest measure the free, just, and democratic social 
order demanded by the peoples of the Hemisphere".' 

This demand calls for revolutionary change — within 
a democratic frameworli — of economic, social and po- 
litical institutions to permit tie full participation of 
the people in all aspects of national life. 

In aifirmiug their dedication to such change the 
Presidents at Punta del Este said : 

"We will modernize the living conditions of our rural 
populations, raise agricultural productivity in gen- 
eral, and increase food production for the benefit of 
both Latin .Vmerica and the rest of the world. 

" For an address by President Johnson made at Den- 
Ter, Colo., on Aug. 26, 1966, see ibuL, Sept. 19, 1966, 
p. 406. 

' No. 3844 ; 33 Fed. Reg. 5575. 

" For text of the Declaration of the Presidents of 
America signed at Punta del Este, Uruguay, on Apr. 14, j 
19G7. see Bulletin of May 8, 1967, p. 712. 



"We will vigorously promote education for develop- 

"We will harness science and technology for the 
service of our peoples. 

"We will expand programs for improving the health 
of the American peoples. 

"We will lay the physical foundations for Latin 
Americ;m economic integration through multinational 

"Ijatiu America will create a common market. 

"We will join in efforts to increase substantially 
Latin American foreig:n-trade earnings. 

"Latin America will eliminate unnecessary military 

We have been true to these resolves : 

— The Inter-American Cultural Council has approved 
a program and Special Fund to modernize teaching 
methods in Latin America, and to forge regional co- 
operation in science and technology for development. 

— Food production in Latin America during 1967 
showed an overall increase of 6 percent over 1966. 

— The International Coffee Agreement, further 
strengtiiened by the creation of a Coffee Diversifieation 
Fund, holds the promise of protection against dis- 
astrous price fluctuations. 

— Additional resources for the Inter-American De- 
velopment Bank and the Central American Bank for 
Economic Integration has enabled these institutions 
to finance more roads, power projects and telecom- 
munications to draw the people of Latin America 
closer together. 

— With the organization of the Andean Development 
Corporation, the Governments of Bolivia, Chile, Colom- 
bia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela have taken an im- 
portant step toward a common market for all of 
Latin America. 

— The Central American Common Market and the 
Latin American Free Trade Area have established a 
consultative mechanism looking toward gradual com- 
bination of the two trading areas into the Latin Ameri- 
ca u Common Market. 

— The Inter-American Export Promotion Center, by 
stimulating the sale of Latin American manufactured 
products, will increase foreign-trade earnings and thus 
provide more jobs and higher income for more people. 

These and other dynamic advances tell the story of 
common action to make the promise of a better life 
a reality for more people — in more jobs, increased 
educational opportunities, higher income, expanding 
food supplies, fuller participation in the political 
process, and greater human dignity. 

The promise of the Americas is to establish in this 
Hemisijhere societies free from the fear of want, igno- 
rance, prejudice and disease. AVe know from what 4.50 
million Americans have accomplished to date that this 
vision is within the reach of our generation. To make 
it a reality, we must rededicate our energies, our skills 
and our commitments to the process of iwaeeful — but 
revolutionary — change. 

So I ask the people of the United States to ally 
themselves firmly with their Government in these 
crucial years, and to become active partners and par- 
ticipants in the continuing fulfillment of the historic 
pledge of Punta del Este to the Hemisphere that is our 

Now, THEREFORE, I, Lyndon B. Johnson, President 
of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim 
Sunday, April 14, 1908, as Pan American Day, and 
the week beginning April 14 and ending April 20 as 
Pan American Week ; and I call upon the Governors 
of the fifty States of the Union, the Governor of the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the oflScials of all 
other areas under the flag of the United States to issue 
similar proclamations. 

Further, I call upon this Nation to rededicate itself 
to the fundamental goal of the inter-American system, 
embodied in the Charter of the Organization of Ameri- 
can States, the Charter of Punta del Este, and the 
Declaration of American Pi-esidents : social justice and 
economic progress within the framework of individual 
freedom and political liberty. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand 
this eighth day of April in the year of our Lord nine- 
teen hundred and sixty-eight, and of the ludeiiendence 
of the United States of America the one hundred and 


President Approves Plan To Reduce 
Government Employment Abroad 

White House Announcement 

White House press release dated March 30 

President Johnson on March 30 appro\-ed a 
plan for an initial 12-percent reduction in over- 
seas Government personnel. Additional reduc- 
tions vpill be made later this year. 

The cutback plan was submitted by the Sec- 
retary of State and the Director of the Bureau 
of the Budget in response to the President's in- 
structions in January for substantial reduction 
in overseas employment to offset the current un- 
balance of international payments.^ The Presi- 
dent had requested a minimum of a 10-percent 
reduction in overseas employees as a first step. 

Immediately afi'ected will be Americans and 
foreign nationals presently employed by 21 
Federal agencies and working under the juris- 
diction of the ambassadors in every country 
except Viet-Xam. It is estimated that full- 
year savings in expenditures abroad resulting 
from this action will run between $20 and $22 
million. In fiscal year 1969, which starts July 1, 
1968, the transitional year, these savings will 
amount to between $12 and $15 million. 

' For background, see Bulletin of Feb. 12, 1968, 
p. 215. 

APRIL 29, 1968 


Of the 22,757 U.S. citizens now employed 
abroad, 2,779 and their families will no longer 
be stationed abroad. Of the 26,293 foreign na- 
tionals employed by American embassies, 3,177 
will be separated from employment. Also, there 
are 2,800 Americans abroad who are contract 
employees ; about 13 percent will be returned to 
this country. 

The reductions will be effected as rapidly as 
possible without disrupting operations. The 
reductions are expected to be completed by the 
end of the next fiscal year. 

The plan results from a job-by-job analysis 
by tlie ambassadors and agency representatives 
in the U.S. missions overseas. Their proposals 
were reviewed by the agency heads in Washing- 
ton, by the regional Assistant Secretaries of 
State, and by the Senior Interdepartmental 
Group to achieve balance in terms of agency 
missions and regional and worldwide foreign 
policy objectives. 

The reductions will be achieved by belt- 
tightening, bringing functions back to the 
United States, and streamlining operations. 
Washington agencies are currently evaluating 
388 suggestions for improvements forwarded 
by ambassadors. 

Examples of the improvements now being 
implemented are : 

— Elimination of 10 percent of lower priority 
repetitive economic and commercial reports 
from overseas posts. 

— Amalgamation of Defense attache and em- 
bassy administrative support operations ini- 
tially at 23 posts, with eventual savings of 2.50 
American and foreign-national personnel when 
extended worldwide. 

— Relocation to the United States of an initial 
15 Americans engaged in regional administra- 
tive support activities. 

A further improvement will be made possible 
by congressional enactment of the President's 
proposal to eliminate the requirement for most 
nonimmigrant visas for 90-day business and 
tourist visits to the United States.^ Passage of 
the bill would not only facilitate travel to this 
country but would save both American and 
foreign-national positions overseas. 

The President has directed the Secretary of 
State and the Budget Director to press ahead 
with the remaining steps in the program. Special 
intensive reviews will be undertaken in 24 

-For background, see ibid., Apr. 8, 1968, p. 472. 

selected countries with the larger U.S. missions, 
with the aim of proposing additional sub- 
stantial cutbacks. Also, work will continue 
through fimctional studies to reduce the work- 
load burdens on overseas posts. Further reduc- 
tion results will be reported to the President 
August 1. 


President Reports to Congress 
on Food for Freedom Program 

Letter of Transjivittal 

White House press release dated April 3 

To the Congress of the United States: 

I am pleased to transmit to the Congress the 
1967 report on the Food for Freedom program.^ 

The bounty of America's farms have long 
given hope to the human family. 

For the pioneers, who first plowed our fertile 
fields, their harvest brought liberation from the 
age-old bondage of hunger and want. 

For the victims of two world wars, our food 
nourished the strength to rebuild with purpose 
and dignity. 

For millions in the developing nations, our 
food continues to rescue the lives of the starving 
and revive the spirit of the hopeless. 

We share our bounty because it is right. But 
we know too that the hungry child and the des- 
perate parent are easy prey to tyranny. We 
know that a grain of wheat is a potent weapon 
in the arsenal of freedom. 

Compassion and wisdom thus guided the Con- 
gress when it enacted Public Law 480 in 1954. 
Since then, the productivity of the American 
farmer and the generosity of the American 
people have combined to write an epic chapter 
in the annals of man's humanity to man. 

In 1966, I recommended that Congress alter 
Public Law 480 to reflect new conditions both 
at home and abroad.^ The Congress accepted 

' H. Doe. 296, 90th Cong., 2d sess. 
° For background, see Bulletin of Feb. 28, 1966, 
p. 336. 



my major recommendations, and added pro- 
visions of its own to strengthen the Act. I am 
proud to report that in 1967 we successfully ful- 
filled the letter and spirit of these new pro- 

Congress directed that the Food for Freedom 
program should encourage international trade. 

— In 19G7 world trade in agricultural prod- 
ucts reached an all-time high of $33.9 billion, 
nearly 20 percent higher than in 1966. 

Congress directed that the Food for Freedom 
program should encourage an expansion of 
export markets for our own agricultural 

— In the past two years, this nation has en- 
joyed unparalleled prosperity in agricultural 
exports. Since 1960 our agricultural exports 
have grown from $3.2 billion to $5.2 billion — 
a gain of 62 percent. 

Congress directed that we shoiUd continue to 
use our abundance to wage an unrelenting war 
on hunger and malnutrition. 

— During 1967 we dispatched more than 15 
million metric tons of food to wage the war on 
hunger — the equivalent of 10 pounds of food 
for every member of the human race. 

Congress determined that our Food for Free- 
dom program sliould encourage general eco- 
nomic progi-ess in the developing countries. 

— Our food aid has helped Israel, Taiwan, 
the Philippines, and Korea l)uild a solid record 
of economic achievement. With our help, these 
nations have now moved into the commercial 
market, just as Japan, Italy, Spain and others 
before them. 

Congress determined that our food aid should 
help lirst and foremost those countries tliat help 

— Every one of our 39 food aid agreements in 
1967 committed the receiving country to a far- 
reaching program of agricultural self-help. 
Many of these progi-ams ore already bringing 
record results. 

Congress directed that we should move as 
rapidly as possible from sales for foreign cur- 
rency to sales for dollars. 

— Of the 22 countries participating in the 
Food for Freedom program in 1967, only four 
had no dollar payment provision. Last year, six 
countries mo^•ed to payments in dollai's or con- 
vertible local cun-encies. 

Congress directed that we should use Food 
for Freedom to promote the foreign policy of 
the United States. 

Statistics alone cannot measure how Food for 
Freedom has furthered America's goals in the 
world. Its real victories lie in the minds of mil- 
lions who now know that America cares. Hope 
is alive. Food for Freedom gives men an alter- 
native to despair. 

Last year was a record year in world farm 
output. With reasonable weather, 1968 can be 
even better. New agricultural technology is 
spreading rapidly in the developed coimtries. 
New cereal varieties are bringing miexpectedly 
liigh yields in the developing lands. An agricul- 
tural revolution is in the making. 

This report shows clearly how much we have 
contributed to that revolution in the i^ast year. 
But the breakthrough is oiily beginning. The 
pride in accomplislunents today will seem small 
beside the progress we can make tomorrow. 

Lyndon B. Johnson 

The WiirrE House, 
Ajml 3, 1968 

Congressional Documents 
Relating to Foreign Policy 

90th Congress, 2d Session 

Annual Ivoport (if Activities of the National Advisory 
Council on International Monetary and Financial 
Policies. Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, 
Chairman of the Council, transmitting the report. 
H. Doc. I'OO. .Tanuary l.">, 106.S. 11.5 pp. 

Annual Report of the National Science Foundation for 
the Fiscal Year 1967. Message from the President 
transmitting the report. H. Doc. 284. March 20, 1968. 
219 pp. 

Scientific Brain Drain From the Developing Countries. 
Report by the House Committee on Government 
Operations. H. Rept. 12ir.. March 28, 1968. 18 pp. 

Amending the Act Creating the Atlantic-Pacific Inter- 
oceanic Canal Study Commission. Report to accom- 
pany U.R. 15190. II. Rept. 1222. March 28, 1968. 11 pp. 

Extension of Public Law 480, 83d Congress. Report to 
accompany S. 2986. S. Rept. 1066. March 29, 1968. 
8 pp. 

Extra Long Staple Cotton Imi>ort Quota. Report to 
accompany S. 1975. S. Rept. 1009. March 29, 1968. 

Tax on Transportation by Air; Customs Rules for 
Tourist Exemptions, Etc. Report to accompany H.R. 
16241. H. Rept. 1264. April 1, 1968. 12 pp. 

APRIL 29, 1968 



Bonin Islands To Be Returned 
to Japanese Administration 

Following is a statement made at Tohyo on 
April 5 ly U. Alexis Johnson, U.S. Ambassador 
to Japan, together with the texts of a joint U.k .- 
Japanese statement issued at Tokyo that day 
and a letter from Japanese Foreign Mtnister 
Takeo Mihi to Ambassador Johnson dated 
April 5. 


Thank you, Mr. Minister, for your welcome 
and for your thoughtful words on the signifi- 
cance of this historic occasion. 

President Johnson and Prime Minister bate 
agreed in Washington last November that it 
would be possible to accommodate the mutual 
security interests of Japan and the United 
States within the context of a return of the 
Bonin and related islands to Japanese adminis- 
tration.^ Iwas pleased, Mr. Minister, that you 
and I were able so quickly to reach an under- 
standing on the principles to be embodied m this 
ao-reement. Since then, our representatives have 
worked out together all of the multitudinous 
and detailed questions which arise when the ad- 
ministration of territory changes hands. In this 
task we have enjoyed the splendid cooperation 
of your very able staff. We have also been grati- 
fied to see the considerate way in which your 
Government is approaching the complicated 
problem of reintegrating into Japanese society 
the 200 Japanese nationals who have been living 
on Chichi Jima. I was also very pleased to learn 
from you the plans of the Japanese Government 
with respect to the preservation of the Marine 
Corps Memorial on Iwo Jima. I believe that the 
results of our labors are good and meet the cri- 

teria which were outlined for us by the leaders 
of our two nations. 

What we are doing today demonstrates, as 
did the return of Amami Oshima,^ the good 
faith of the United States in relinquishing 
stewardship of Japanese territory when both 
our govermnents agree that circumstances 


Mr. Minister, the ease and speed with wHicIi 
this agreement was worked out is to me further 
evidence of that confidence and understanding 
which forms such a firm basis for the relations 
between our two countries and peoples. 


Press release 67 dated AprU 5 

Foreign Minister Miki and Ambassador 
Johnson signed today in Tokyo an agreement 
for the return to Japanese administration of the 
Bonin and Volcano Island gi'oups (together 
with Rosario Island, Parece Vela and Marcus 
Island) which had been administered by the 
United States under the provisions of Article 3 
of the peace treaty with Japan.^ Upon comple- 
tion by Japan of its legal procedures necessary 
for the entry into force of the agreement, the 
actual turnover of administration wiU take 
place after a thirty-day transitional period. 

President Johnson and Prime Minister Sato 
agreed in November of 1967 in Washington that 
the two governments should enter immediately 
into consultations regarding the specific ar- 
rangements for accomplishing the early restora- 
tion of these islands to Japan without detnment 
to the security of the area. Today's agreement is 
the result of negotiations conducted withm the 
framework of the President and Prime Mmis- 
ter's understanding. 

After the entry into force of today's agree- 

' For text of a joint communique issued at Washing- 
ton on Nov. 15, 1967, see Bulletin of Dee. 4, 1967, p. 744. 

= For a statement by Secretary Dulles, see iUA., 

Jan. 4, 19.54, p. 17. , . ^ o -...o.qo- 

' Treaties and Other International Acts Senes -49" . 
for text, see Bulletin of Aug. 27, 1951, p. 349. 



ment, tho United States will continue the use of 
LOILrVN navigational stations on Iwo Jima and 
Marcus under the terms of the Status of Forces 
Agreement ■• between the two countries, but all 
other installations and sites will be transferred 
to Japan. 

The Government of Japan has under consid- 
eration measures to facilitate the reintegration 
of the slightly over two hundred Japanese na- 
tionals who are now living on Chichi Jima into 
Japanese life, as well as the return of the former 
residents of the islands evacuated during the 


Apkil 5, 1968 
Dear ^Ir. Ambassador, The return to Japan 
of the administration over the Bonin and other 
islands which the United States Government 
has exercised under the terms of Article 3 of 
the Treaty of Peace with Japan has filled me 
with great satisfaction. Amongst the islands 
that are being returned, one of the hardest 
battles was fought on tho island of I wo- Jima 
in the course of the Pacific war. There is a 
memorial on top of Suribachi-Yama dedicated 
to the United States Marines who fought with 
great valor. I imderstand well the American 
desire to long preserve this memorial. At the 
same time this battlefield is one where our 
Japanese soldiers fought also with great cour- 
age. Thus, it is my hope, on the occasion of the 
return of Iwo-Jima, that there will be erected 
a memorial in memory of the Japanese soldiers, 
and that these two memorials will long remain 
on this spot as a prayer for eternal peace be- 
tween the two nations, and as a reminder of the 
valor and dedication of the brave men on both 
sides. Therefore, I wish to inform you that it 
is the intention of my Government to assure the 
United States that the memorial dedicated to 
the United States Marines will be preserved on 
Suribachi-Yama and that United States per- 
sonnel may have access thereto. 
Yours sincerely, 

Takeg Miki 

Minister for Foreign Affairx 
of Japan 

United States and Canada Renew 
NORAD Agreement 

Press release 61 dated March 30 

Tlie Governments of the United States and 
Canada on March 30 agreed to renew the 
NORAD [North American Air Defense Com- 
mand] agreement ^ for a period of 5 years when 
it expires on May 12. 

The renewed agreement may be reviewed at 
any time at the request of either party and may 
be terminated by either Government after such 
review following a period of notice of 1 year. 


Text of U.S. Note 

March 30, 1968 
Excellency : I have the honor to refer to dis- 
cussions in the Permanent Joint Board on 
Defense and elsewhere regarding the mutual in- 
terest of the United States and Canada in tlie 
continued cooperation between the two coun- 
tries in the strategic defense of the North 
American continent. In particular, these dis- 
cussions have concerned themselves with the 
North American Air Defense Command estab- 
lished on August 1, 1957 in recognition of the 
desirability of an integrated headquarters exer- 
cising operational control over assigned air 
defense forces. The principles governing the 
organization and operation of this Command 
were set forth in the Agreement between our 
two Governments dated May 12, 1958. That 
Agreement provided that the North American 
Air Defense Command was to be maintained in 
operation for a period of ten years. 

The discussions recently held between the rep- 
resentatives of our two Governments have con- 
firmed the need for the continued existence in 
peacetime of an organization, including the 
weapons, facilities and command structure, 
which could operate at the outset of hostilities in 
accordance with a single air defense plan ap- 

* TIAS 4.510 ; for text, see Bulletin of Feb. 8, 1960, 
p. 1&5. 

' For text of the agroement, nee Bulletin- of .Tune 9, 
1958, p. 979. 

APRIL 29, 1968 


proved in advance by the national authorities of 
both our countries. In the view of the Govern- 
ment of the United States, this function has 
been exercised effectively by the North Ameri- 
can Air Defense Command. 

My Government, therefore, proposes that the 
Agreement on the North American Air Defense 
Command effected by the exchange of notes, 
signed at Washington, D.C. on May 12, 1958, be 
continued for a period of five years, from May 
12, 1968, it being understood that a review of 
the Agreement may be undertaken at any time 
at the request of either party and that the Agree- 
ment may be terminated by either Government 
after such review following a period of notice of 
one year. 

It is also agreed by my Government that this 
Agreement will not involve in any way a Ca- 
nadian commitment to participate in an active 
ballistic missile defense. 

If the Govermnent of Canada concurs in the 
considerations and provisions set out above, I 
propose tliat this note and your reply to that 
effect shall constitute an agreement between our 
two Governments, effective from the date of 
your reply. 

Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of 
my highest consideration. 

For the Secretary of State: 

John M. Leddt 

[Assistant Secretary 
for European Affairs^ 

His Excellency 


Ambassador of Canada. 
Text of Canadian Note 

No. 115 

Washington, D.C, 
March 30, 1968. 

Sir, I have the honour to refer to your note of 
March 30, 1968 setting out certain considera- 
tions and provisions concerning the con- 
tinuation of the agreement between our two 
Governments on the North American Air De- 
fence Command by the excliange of notes of 
May 12, 1958. 

I am pleased to inform you that my Govern- 
ment concurs in the considerations and provi- 
sions set out in your note, and further agrees 
with your proposal that your note and this 
reply, which is authentic in English and French, 

shall constitute an agreement between our two 
Governments effective today. 
Accept, Sir, the renewed assurances of my 

A. E. Ritchie 

highest consideration. 

The Honourable 
Dean Rusk, 
The Secretary of State, 
Washington, D.C. 

Current Actions 


Consular Relations 

Vienna convention on consular relations. Done at 
Vienna April 24, 1963. Entered into force March 19, 
Ratification deposited: Czechoslovakia, March 13, 


Postal Matters 

Conistitution of the Universal Postal Union with final 
protocol, general regulations with final protocol, and 
convention with final protocol and regulations of 
execution. Done at Vienna July It), 1964. Entered 
into force January 1, 1966. TIAS 5881. 
Ratification deposited: Israel, February 29, 1968. 


Treaty on principles governing the activities of states 
in the exploration and use of outer space, including 
the moon and other celestial bodies. Opened for sig- 
nature at Washington, London, and Moscow January 
27, 1967. Entered into force October 10, 1967. TIAS 

Ratifications deposited: Pakistan, April 8, 1968; 
Romania, April 9, 1968. 



Agreement for sales of agricultural commodities under 
title I of the Agricultural Trade Development and 
Assistance Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 454, as 
amended; 7 U.S.C. 1691-1736D), with annex. Signed 
at Amman April 4, 1968. Entered into force April 
4, 1968. 


Agreement amending the agreement of May 26, 1955, 
relating to investment guaranties, with memorandum 
of understanding (TIAS 3269). Effected by exchange 
of notes at Rawalpindi and Islamabad March 27, 
1968. Entered into force March 27, 1968. 

' Not in force for the United States. 



INDEX ^pril 29, 1968 Vol LVIII, No. 1605 

Austria. Chancellor Klaus of Austria Visits the 
United States (Johnson, Klaus, joint state- 
ment) 556 

Canada. United States and Canada Renew 
NORAD Agreement (exchange of notes) . . 571 


President Reports to Congress on Food for Free- 
dom Program (Johnson) 568 

Congressional Documents Relating to Foreign 
Policy 567 

Department and Foreig^n Service. President Ap- 
proves Plan To Reduce Government Employ- 
ment Abroad 567 

Disarmament. United States Signs Protocol II 
to Treaty of Tlatelolco (Humphrey, texts of 
protocol and U.S. statement) 554 

Economic Affairs. President Approves Plan To 
Reduce Government Employment Abroad . . 567 

Foreign Aid. Pre.sident Reports to Congress on 
Food for Freedom Program (Johnson) . . 568 

Japan. Bonin Islands To Be Returned to Jap- 
anese Administration (U. Alexis Johnson, 
joint statement, Japanese letter) 570 

Latin America 

Pan American Day and Pan American Week, 

1968 (proclamation) 566 

Political Development and Institution-Building 

Under the Alliance for Progress (Oliver) . . 563 
United States Signs Protocol II to Treaty of 

Tlatelolco (Humphrey, texts of protocol and 

U.S. statement) 554 

Military Afff irs 

Secretary Clifford's News Conference of April 
11 (exCL-rpts) 552 

United States and Canada Renew NORAD 
Agreement (exchange of notes) 571 

Presidential Documents 

Chancellor Klaus of Austria Visits the United 

States 556 

Pan American Day and Pan American Week, 
1968 566 

President Johnson Confers on Viet-Nam Peace 
Talks With Ambassador Bunker and Other 
Advisers 549 

President Reports to Congress on Food for Free- 
dom Program 568 

Treaty Information 

Bonin Islands To Be Returned to Japanese Ad- 
ministration (U. Alexis .Tohnson, joint state- 
ment, Japanese letter) 570 

Current Actions 572 

United States and Canada Renew NORAD 
Agreement (exchange of notes) 571 

United States Signs Protocol II to Treaty of 
Tlatelolco ( Humphrey, texts of protocol and 
U.S. statement) 554 

Turkey. The United States and Turkey, Partners 

in World Security (Rostow) 559 


President Johnson Confers on Viet-Nam Peace 

Talks With Ambassador Bunker and Other 

Advisers (Johnson, Bunker, Christian) . . 549 
Secretary Clifford's News Conference of April 11 

(excerpts) 552 

The United States and Turkey, Partners in 

World Security (Rostow) 559 

Name Index 

Bunker, Ellsworth 549 

Christian, George 549 

Clifford, Clark M 552 

Humphrey, Vice President 554 

Johnson, President 549, 556, 566, 568 

Johnson, U. Alexis 570 

Klaus, Josef 556 

Miki, Takeo 570 

Oliver, Covey T 563 

Rostow, Eugene V 559 

Check List of Department of State 
Press Releases: April 8-14 

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

Releases issued prior to April 8 which appear 
in this issue of the Bulletin are Nos. 61 of March 
30 and 67 of April 5. 

No. Date Subject 

68 4/8 Oliver : "Political Development and 
Institution-Building Under the 
Alliance for Progress." 

t69 4/8 Oliver: "Integration and Trade in 
the Alliance for Progress." 

t70 4/9 Final communique of the fourth 
U.S.-Japan Conference on Cul- 
tural and Educational Inter- 

t71 4/10 Oliver: Portland Committee on 
Foreign Relations, Portland, 

•72 4/10 Llnowitz: National Planning As- 
sociation, New York. 

•73 4/11 Oliver : "Education in the Alliance 
for Progress." 

• Not printed. 

t Held for a later issue of the BtTLLETiN. 


Superintendent of Documents 

u.s. government printing office 

washington, d.c. 20402 

9'^2 XOO d 

an DHond NOisoQ 

J 030 OSO 









Vol. LVIII, No. 1506 

May 6, 1968 


AddrcHS by Secretary Euvk o!9 


by Assistant Secretary Oliver 584 

Statement by Janus P. Giant 591^ 


Article by Fred II. Sanderson 590 


For index see inside hack cover 



Vol. LVIII, No, 1506 
May 6, 1968 

For sale by the Superintendent of Docimients 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 


62 Issues, domestic $10, foreign $16 
Single copy 30 cents 

Use of funds for printing of this publication 
approved by the Director of the Bureau of 
the Budget (January 11, 1966). 

Note: Contents of this publication are not 
copyrighted and items contained herein may be 
reprinted. Citation of the DEPARTMENT OF 
STATE BULLETIN as the source will be 
appreciated. The BULLETIN is indexed in 
the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature. 

Tlie Department of State BULLETIN, 
a weekly publication issued by the 
Office of Media Services, Bureau of 
Public Affairs, 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 selected 
press releases on foreign policy, issued 
by the White House and the Depart- 
ment, and statements and addresses 
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 interna- 
tional affairs and the functions of the 
Department. Information is included 
concerning treaties and international 
agreements to which the United 
States is or may become a party 
and treaties of general international 

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

President Johnson and President Chung Hee Park of Korea 
Confer at Honolulu, Hawaii 


Honolulu International Airport 

White House press release (Honolulu, Hawaii) dated April 15 

I am very grateful for your coming out to 
welcome us to this wonderful State. During the 
past few weeks I have been meeting with our 
senior military and diplomatic officers from 
Viet-Nam — Ambassador [Ellsworth] Bunker, 
General [William C] Westmoreland and his 
successor, General [Creighton W.] Abrams.' 

I have come to Hawaii this time principally 
to meet with President Park, the leader of our 
brave ally South Korea. I came a few days early 
so that I might review the situation in Viet- 
Xam with Admiral [U. S. G.] Sharp and his 
ad\isers and with his successor as Conunander 
in Chief of the Pacific, Admiral [John S.] 

I hope that the next President of our country 
will be able to come to Hawaii during his term 
of office solely in order to discuss the peaceful 
ilcvelopment of Asia and the Pacific. 

In the coming months I am going to do every- 
thing within my power to try to bring that 
ibout and to make that possible. Today, part 
■t' our search for peace lies through the proc- 
esses of diplomacy. Another lies in the ability 
of our Allied forces to meet every challenge 
that may confront them on the battlefield. 

Here in Honolulu we shall be discussing both 
i^jjccts of tliis search for peace during the next 

\ eral days when we are here among you. 

' For baekgronnd, see Bulletin of Afir. 22, 190S;. 
513, and Apr. 29, 1968, p, .^49. 

My friends, I thank you very much for ofi'er- 
ing us once again the hospitality that is so much 
a part of the Hawaiian tradition. I always en- 
joy coming here. 

Thank you. 

lolani Palace 

White House ijress release (Honolulu, Hawaii) dated April 15 

With a greeting such as this from people such 
as you, I am abnost inclined to reassess my 
decision to go home on next Thursday. I have 
been tempted many times to come here to Hawaii 
and to stay. There are few places in our country 
tliat can match the natural beauty of Hawaii, 
tlie cordiality of its people, the harmony of its 
many races, its great economic potential, and by 
no means least, the quality of its Governor, its 
congressional delegation, and its public officials. 

My friends, I have come back to Hawaii to 
meet with a leader of one of America's bravest 
allies — President Park of South Korea. I have 
come to review tlie military situation in South 
Viet-Nam with xYdmiral Sharp and with liis 
successor Admiral McCain. 

During the next few days we shall be dis- 
cussing our goal of peace in Asia. And we shall 
be discussing the twin paths we are taking to 
reach that goal : the path of diplomacy and the 
path of military preparedness. 

We shall be discussing our diplomatic initia- 
tive in seeking talks with North Viet-Nam. We 
shall be discussing the readiness of our Allied 
foi-ccs to meet every challenge on the battlefield 
of South Viet-Nam. 

Both of these paths are essential to our quest 
for an honorable and secure peace in South Viet- 

MAT 6, 1968 


I know how concerned you are, as I am, that 
this time, after years of fruitless pauses and 
proposals, the two sides may get down to serious 
talks about ending this bi-utal war. 

I announced 2 weeks ago that we would 
sharply limit our bombing of North Viet- Nam 
and that we were willing to meet at any suitable 
place to begin talks.^ Very promptly we pro- 
posed four neutral sites— Vientiane, Tvangoon, 
Djakarta, and New Delhi— where both sides 
have representatives and adequate communica- 

All of these are readily accessible to Hanoi. 
All of these are located in the regions which have 
the most direct and vital interest in the achieve- 
ment of a stable peace. 

Hanoi has given us two messages and has sug- 
gested two locations. We have responded by 
pointing out certain obvious reasons why each 
of the two sites was not suitable. As of now we 
have had no response or comment from Hanoi, 
other than radio statements, about any one of 
the locations that we have suggested. 

For us, this is not a propaganda exercise. "We 
have sent serious and considered messages aimed 
at bringing about the earliest possible contact. 
Ambassador [W. Averell] Harriman and Am- 
bassador [Cyms R.] Vance are ready. What is 
needed today is an equally serious reply react- 
ing to our proposals for neutral sites or offering 
ad'ditional suggestions of neutral capitals 
where both of us have representatives and 

It is now 2 long weeks since I restricted our 
bombing and urged North Viet-Nam to come to 
the conference table. 

We are eager to get on with the task of peace- 
making. Precious time is being lost. Asians and 
Americans alike are ready to let diplomacy go 
to work — now— without any further delay. 

There will come a time — and I am sure of it — 
when the guns will be silent in Viet-Nam, when 
Asians will know not only peace but freedom to 
manage their own affairs, when the realities of 
Asia's prosperity match the richness of Asia's 

We have contributed much to bringing that 
day nearer, and we and the world will gain 
from it the only prize worth gaining : security 
for ourselves and our children, the chance to 
be free, the chance to live in peace. 

- For President Johnson's address to the Nation on 
Mar. 31, see ihid., Apr. 15, 1968, p. 481. 

I know that many sons of these islands have 
paid the price of freedom in this conflict as in 
others before it. If we are steady now in our 
quest for an honorable settlement, we shall 
redeem their sacrifice in a great Pacific at peace 
with itself and with all others. 

Thank you, my dear friends in Hawaii, for 
your warmth, for your hospitality, and for your 
contribution to a great Nation. 


Remarks by President Johnson 
at the Korean Consulate 

White House press release (Honolulu, HawaU) dated April 17 

I am delighted to be able to join President 
Park on this occasion, not only because I wish 
to share his pleasure in this meeting but be- 
cause this occasion tells us so mivch of our past 
and our future. Today we had a most pleasant 
and productive discussion. 

When I say "us," I mean all the peoples of 
tlie Pacific, who are determined to live as inde- 
pendent nations and free human beings. 

You Americans here tonight of Korean de- 
scent know that this State has demonstrated to 
the rest of our Union — and to the entire world, 
for that matter — that America's concern for 
human dignity reaches out across the Pacific 
as well as across the Atlantic. 

Our ties across the Pacific go back a long 
way— at least a century and a quarter— to the 
time when we became involved in Qiina and 
then a little later in Japan. But it is only in 
the past 27 years that we have learned that the 
destiny of the United States is — once and for 
all—bound up with the fate of the peoples of 
Asia and the Pacific. 

Until the end of the Second World War, we 
in America gave little thought to the history 
and the problems of our neighbors in Korea. 
Then, suddenly, we found ourselves caught up, 
as we have with many other peoples, in Korea's 
emergence from colonialism to independence. 

Through no fault of their own, the people 
of Korea have had to bear more suffering and 
challenge than any other nation emerging from 
colonialism — with the possible exception of the 
people of Viet-Nam. 

Together we have seen through a terrible war 



and a period of uncertainty and confusion. To- 
gether we have had the privilege of sharing in 
the adventure of a new nation moving forward 
in a miracle of progress. 

These ties, these memories, are important. 
They are as much a part of our history as they 
are of Korea's. 

But equally important is the fact that this 
new nation and this free South Korea, of whom 
President Park is the spokesman — and a very 
able one — is now helping to build a new struc- 
ture of cooperation in Asia. 

As we face now in Viet-Xam, hopefully, a 
mov-ement from war to peace, I wish to tell all 
of you, my fellow citizens — and you, my dear 
friend President Park — what I deeply believe. 

I deeply believe that this nation will continue 
to play its part in helping to protect and to de- 
velop the new Asia. 

I deeply believe that my successor, whoever 
he may be, will act in ways that will reflect 
America's abiding interest in Asia's freedom 
and in Asia's security. 

The commitments of America in Europe and 
Asia — all made by Congresses and Presidents 
before my administration — are colorblind. They 
run with the security of the Nation and with 
our basic hmnan values. They will remain firm 
in the years ahead. Because we know that peace 
among our neighbors of Asia is just as impor- 
tant to America as peace among our neighbors 
in Europe. Dignity, independence, and freedom 
are universal aspirations of men — East and 
West, Xorth and South. 

The days are long gone when Americans 
could say that Asians are not our kind of 
people. People who love peace and freedom, 
whatever their color or their religion or their 
national origin, are our kind of people. The 
fight against racism and bigotry knows no in- 
ternational dateline. 

"We wish to see Asia, like Europe, take an 
increasing responsibility for shaping its own 
destiny. And we intend and we mean to help it 
do so. 

We look eagerly, even impatiently, to the day 
when the real battle of Asia can be joined with 
all of our resources: 

— The struggle against poverty and liunger, 
illiteracy and disease; 

— To increase the supply of food and to assist 
those who are trying to plan the size of families ; 

— To exploit to the hilt the fantastic possi- 

bilities for developing the Mekong Valley, and 
all the other great conservation works of this 

In these works of peace the United States of 
America will take its fair share along with the 
other responsible nations of the industrial 

And in their benefits all the nations of South- 
east Asia should participate, not just our present 
allies but North Viet-Nam and all human be- 
ings in that great region who long for freedom 
and dignity and liberty. 

America will remain the friend and the ally 
and the partner of Europe. But America will 
also remain the friend and the ally and the 
partner of free men in Asia. 

This is my faith. This is my belief. This is my 

I came here tonight to salute that great and 
gallant leader of the Korean people, whose 
friends of Korean descent have gathered here, 
to say that we applaud your leadership, we ad- 
mire your progress, and we in Ajnerica feel that 
we are not only an Atlantic nation but we are 
equally a Pacific nation. 

In this part of the world, almost two-thirds 
of all humanity live. If that is what we are in- 
terested in — and that is all that really justifies 
our survival, a desire to better humanity — if 
that is what we are interested in, it is going to 
take at least more than half of our efforts, and 
we pledge to you sincerely tonight those efforts. 

Good night and God bless you. 

U.S.-Korea Joint Communique 

White House press release (Honolulu, Hawaii) dated April 17 

At the invitation of President Lyndon B. 
Jolmson of the United States, President Chimg 
Hee Park of the Kepublic of Korea visited 
Honolulu on April 17 and 18 to exchange views 
on the current international situation and mat- 
ters of common interest and mutual concern. 

Korean Scttjation 

Tlie two Presidents reviewed in detail the 
serious threat to the security of the Republic of 
Korea and to peace in East Asia resulting from 
the increasingly belligerent and aggressive ac- 
tions of the north Korean communists during 
the past eighteen months, including the attack 
directed at the official residence of the President 

MAT 6, 1968 


of the Republic of Korea and the seizure of 
U.S.S. PueUo in international waters in Janu- 
ary. They reviewed the plans of their two gov- 
ernments for dealmg with the grave situation 
created by these north Korean acts of aggres- 
sion. President Park expressed liis deep sym- 
pathy for the families and relatives of the crew 
of the U.S.S. PueUo and sincerely hoped that 
they will soon regain their freedom from the 
hands of the north Korean commimists. 

The two Presidents agreed that further ag- 
gressive actions by the north Korean commu- 
nists would constitute a most grave threat to 
peace. In that event, their two govenunents 
would inunediately determine the action to be 
taken to meet this threat vmder the Mutual De- 
fense Treaty between the United States and the 
Republic of Korea. In accordance with this 
Treaty President Johnson reaffirmed the readi- 
ness and determmation of the United States to 
render prompt and effective assistance to repel 
armed attacks against the Republic of Korea. 
President Johnson reaffirmed the adherence 
of his government to the Jomt Policy Declara- 
tion wliich was signed on July 27, 1953 by the 
sixteen nations which supported the Republic 
of Korea during the Korean War.^ 

The two Presidents reviewed the extraordi- 
nary measures which have been taken to 
strengthen Korean and American forces in the 
Republic of Korea. They agreed that these ef- 
forts should be continued in order that the 
Armed Forces of their countries would be able 
to deal effectively and swiftly with all contin- 
gencies in Korea. 

The two Presidents recognized the need for 
strengthening security of the Republic of Ko- 
rea as important not only for Korea but for the 
security of the general area. President Johnson 
recognized the need for continuing moderniza- 
tion of the armed forces of the Republic of Ko- 
rea and the two Presidents reviewed the contri- 
bution which U.S. military assistance would 
make to such modernization and to the strength- 
ening of the effective counter-mfiltration pro- 
grams which have already been developed by 
the Republic of Korea. They agi-eed that the first 
meeting between their respective Defense Min- 
istries at ministerial level should be held in 
Washington in May to discuss and deliberate 
these matters further. 

President Park outlined and discussed the 
various measures being taken by his government 
to ensure public safety and to thwart, north Ko- 

rean attempts at infiltration and sabotage. Pres- 
ident Johnson expressed his satisfaction with 
and support for those measures, including the 
organization of the Homeland Reserve Force, 
which he felt were wise and far-seeing. 

President Johnson expressed liis admiration 
for the rapid economic progress of the Repub- 
lic of Korea, which has continued without pause 
despite the attempts of the north Korean regime 
to disrupt public order and confidence in the 
South. The two Presidents agreed that contm- 
ued private investment from the United States 
and other friendly comitries was desirable, and 
should be encouraged. 


The two Presidents reviewed in detail the situ- 
ation in South Vietnam where Korean and 
American forces are fighting shoulder-to-shoul- 
der to assist the Republic of Vietnam to defend 
agamst aggi-ession and to assure the right of 
the South Vietnamese people to determine their i 
own futui-e without external interference or ter- j 
rorist pressure. 

The two Presidents noted the vigorous ac- 
tions taken by the South Vietnamese Govern- 
ment to strengthen and mcrease its armed forces 
and to improve government effectiveness. 

The two Presidents agreed that the common 
goal of an honorable and secure peace required 
the earnest pursuit of a diplomatic solution 
coupled with continued resolution and military 
firmness. They expressed the policy of their 
goverimients to sustain their efforts to meet the 
requirements of the struggle in all respects un- 
til peace is attained. 

President Jolmson reviewed the developments 
in the past two weeks, initiated by his decision— 
in consultation with the Republic of Vietnam 
and with the nations contributing military 
forces to its support— to reduce the area of | 
bombing in North Vietnam. President Park ex- 
pressed his satisfaction with these developments. 
President Jolmson explained in detail the cur- 
rent status of efforts to set a time and place for 
early contacts between American and North 
Vietnamese representatives. He reviewed with 
President Park the position that American rep- 
resentatives would take in contacts, reaffirmmg 

' For text of the declaration, which is included in 
the foreword of a special report of the Unified Com- 
mand on the armistice in Korea, see iUd., Aug. 24, l.tod. 
p. 247. 



that the United States Government would con- 
tinue to consult fully with the Republic of Ko- 
rea and other allies concerning negotiating 
developments and positions to be taken on the 
allied side at each stage. 

Looking forward to their common hope that 
serious talks on the substance of peace could be- 
gin in the near future, the two Presidents re- 
aflirmed that the allied position would contmue 
to be based on the Manila Communique of 1966.* 

The two Presidents also reaffirmed the po- 
sition stated in the Seven-Nation Foreign Min- 
isters Meeting of April 1967 ' — that a settle- 
ment in Vietnam, to be enduring, must re- 
spect the wishes and aspirations of tlie Vietnam- 
ese people; that the Republic of Vietnam should 
be a full participant in any negotiations de- 
signed to bring about a settlement of the con- 
flict; and that the allied nations which have 
helped to defend the Republic of Vietnam 
should participate in any settlement of the 

Asia and the Pacific 

President Park highly commended the great 
role and persistent efforts of the United States 
to bring about freedom, peace and prosperity in 
Asia and the Pacific. He expressed his convic- 
tion that a continued United States presence in 
this region is essential to a just and lasting 

President Johnson expressed determination 
that the United States should continue its ef- 
forts for stability and security in the region, in 
accordance with the desires and aspirations of 
Asian peoples themselves. 

In this regard, the two Presidents reaffirmed 
their commitment to the "Declaration on Peace 
and Progress in Asia and the Pacific" ^ issued 
at the Summit Conference in Manila in Octo- 
ber, 1966. 


President Park expressed his deep apprecia- 
tion to President Johnson and to the Governor 
and citizens of Hawaii for the warmth of their 
reception and for the many courtesies extended 
to him during the visit. 

' For text, see t6i<f., Nov. 14, 1966, p. 730. 

' For text of a communique issued at the close of the 
eeven-nation meeting on Apr. 21, 1967, see ibid., May 15, 
1967, p. 747. 

• For text, see ibid., Nov. 14, 1966, p. 734. 

U.S. Suggests Suitable Sites 
for Viet-Nam Negotiations 

Statement hy Secretary Rusk ^ 

As we have said repeatedly, we are ready to 
enter into contacts and negotiations to end the 
war in Viet-Nam — without further delay. Our 
concern is to save lives — to serve the cause of 
humanity — not to make propaganda. 

On March 31, the President ordered a limita- 
tion of the bombing of North Viet-Nam and 
announced that our representatives were pre- 
pared to meet with those of North Viet-Nam "at 
Geneva or any other suitable place just as soon 
as Hanoi agrees to a conference." ^ 

Hanoi responded by proposing Phnom 
Penh, in Cambodia, as "an appropriate loca- 
tion." A public statement of the North Viet- 
namese Foreign Minister said tliat "the place of 
contact may be Phnom Penh or another place 
to be mutually agreed upon." I emphasize "or 
another place to be mutually agreed upon." 

Obviously, negotiations must take place in a 
setting fair to both sides — fair in terms of 
communications, fair in terms of access by the 
world's press, fair in the very atmosphere sur- 
rounding the talks. We would not recommend 
sites such as Washington, Seoul, or Canberra — 
and we could not accept sites such as Hanoi, 
Peking, or Moscow. But there is no shortage of 
places where each side could find good com- 
munications and an atmosphere conducive to 
serious negotiations. 

We have proposed four coimtries in Asia, 
which we are inclined to believe is tlie proper 
region for discussions of peace in that area. We 
have proposed Laos, Burma, Indonesia, and 
India. In Europe, we have suggested Switzer- 
land. These five countries do not exhaust the list 
of possibilities. If their governments are willing, 
we are prepared to meet as soon as our repre- 
sentatives, Ambassador [W. Averell] Harriman 
and Ambassador [Cyrus R.] Vance, can get to 
Ceylon, Japan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, 
or Malaysia. 

If the other side prefers a European site, we 
are ready to meet them in Italy, Belgium, 
Finland, or Austria. 

Some of these sites are being proposed by 
third parties. 

' Read to news correspondents at the Department of 
State on Apr. 18 (press release 77) . 
' Bulletin of Apr. 15, 1968, p. 481. 

MAT 6, 1968 


Any one of these 15 suggested locations would, 
in our opinion, offer an atmosphere conducive 
to serious negotiations. 

It has been 18 days since the President 
ordered our planes to restrict their bombard- 
ment of North Viet-Nam. It has been 15 days 
since the President acknowledged Hanoi's re- 
sponse to his offer of talks.^ 

Our restraint was meant to inspire discussions 
about ending this war — not to provide an ex- 
cuse for jjropaganda warfare while the battle 
raged on. 

It is time for a serious and responsive answer 
from Hanoi. The world is waiting — with grow- 
ing concern — for such an answer. The Ameri- 
can people, in whose name this restraint and 
offer of talks were made by the President, have 
a right to expect such an answer promptly. 

President Johnson Hails 
U.S.-Mexican Friendship 

Folloioing are remarks Tiiade iy President 
Johnson at Honolulu on A-pril 15 at a recep- 
tion given by Gov. John A. Bums of Hawaii in 
honor of the delegates to the eighth Mexico- 
United States Interparliamentary Conference. 

White House press release (Honolulu, Hawaii) dated April 15 

Thank you so much for thinking of me and 
asking me to come by and visit with you and 
enjoy some of this veiy colorful atmosphere 
and this exchange between friends. 

Since the first meeting of this group in Mex- 
ico City, you have met alternately in Mexico 
and the United States. This parliamentary 
group, I am informed, does not make binding 
decisions or even pass resolutions. But you do 
promote communication, miderstanding, and 
friendship between the people of the United 
States and the people of our beloved sister Ee- 
public, Mexico. 

I have met five times since I have been Presi- 
dent with your President of Mexico : first at my 
home in Texas; then at our nation's home in 
Washington ; at President Diaz Ordaz' home in 
Mexico; in the Chamizal and at Amistad; and 
with all of our colleagues in this hemisphere, at 
Punta del Este. 

We have always talked about how we could 
build together— how we could help each other— 

^For a statement made by President Johnson on 
Apr. 3, see iUd., Apr. 22, 1968, p. 513. 

how we could help other nations achieve the 
cooperation and the great mutual respect that 
we have known between ourselves, Mexico and 
the United States. 

We have built much together. In the years 
ahead, there is even much more remaining to 
be done. We must work along our border to im- 
prove beautification, on public woi-ks, on jobs, 
on schools, on health, on the way that we treat 
our neighbor — whether he lives on one side of 
the border or the other side. 

We must strengthen our trade ties and try to 
remove the remaining frictions that exist be- 
tween us. We must look increasingly at our 
national economic i^roblems to see liow we can 
reinforce and how we can help each other. 

So I think meetings like this are very good 
because we can resolve here to press forward to 
move ahead and to move ahead together. 

We are fortunate to share a continent and a 
common boundary. We share a common hope for 
our people and a common future. 

I want to meet with your President later this 
year. At that time, we will do more than ex- 
change pleasantries ; we will review the progress 
that we have made together. I hope that we can 
see together what is happening along our bor- 
der — not just the monuments of steel and ce- 
ment such as Falcon and Amistad Dams but the 
monuments of friendship in the hearts of both 
of our peoples. 

There is a new dimension of friendship that 
is born of the common trial in the floods of the 
lower Kio Grande Valley and of hope, as your 
President and I raised our flags at Chamizal 
last October. 

I ai^preciate so much getting a wire from you 
yesterday asking me to come by briefly to say 
a word to you. I liope your meeting here is fruit- 
ful in this great State of Hawaii because Hawaii 
has much to teach all of us — and all the world — 
about the different races living together and liv- 
ing together in prosperity and in harmony. 

The one big problem that faces all human- 
kind, all 3 billion of us, is how can we learn to 
live together in prosperity and in harmony, 
without friction and without war. 

I say to my friends from across the border — ■ 
and to my friends of Hawaii — we do so much 
appreciate all of you being here together and it 
has been a delightful chance for me to bring 
you my best wishes and to join with you in the 
prayer that is in the hearts of both of our coun- 
tries — and for that matter, I think — people 
everywhere in the world : Peace on earth, good 
will to men. 



The Business of Building a Peace 

Address hy Secretary Rusk '■ 

I think we can all agree that this is a time of 
testmg for our country, both at home and 
abroad. During such periods, it is important for 
us to think soberly and honestly about our ma- 
jor premises — the major premises which come 
out of the kind of people we are, the aspirations 
we have for our coimtry and our society, and our 
views about a tolerable world. 

It is not for me to go into detail about the 
major premises we build upon in our society here 
at home. You have had a very stimulating dis- 
cussion of just that subject here this morning. I 
should like to pay my respects in this comment 
to the very men in this room who liave exposed 
these basic needs of our society here at home and 
have discussed them with responsibility and 
vision in their own columns. 

But the President, Vice President, and other 
Cabinet officers and Governors and local officials 
and private citizens in all ranks of our society 
are now thorouglJy discussing these major 
premises. We know what they are and what they 
ought to be. We know tliem from the commit- 
ments of our Constitution and our Declaration 
of Independence. We know them from our de- 
sire to be one people, richly rewarded by diversi- 
ties of racial and national origin and of cultural 
and religious tradition. We know what they 

But we have not yet fully mobilized the per- 
sonnel and tlie conmiunity and the national ef- 
fort to bring them into full realization. It is an 
urgent task, but time is running out. 

I do not want to emphasize here the impor- 
tance of a solution to these problems to our na- 
tional image, because the needs of our society 
here at home, our own basic commitments, go 
far beyond t\\Q rather secondary considerations 
of national image outside of our own country. 
But nevertheless there is no more urgent task. 

' Made before the American Society of Newspaper 
Editors at Washington, D.C., on Apr. 17. 

Turning now to my own primary responsi- 
bility in the field of foreign affairs, I must first 
express to you regret that I am not able to add 
to your information today about the prospect 
for contact between ourselves and the authori- 
ties of North Viet-Nam — a prospect opened up 
by the President's important address to the Na- 
tion on March 31.^ 

I say that I cannot add to your information, 
because the President and the White House and 
the State Department spokesmen have kept you 
and the public up to date on developments thus 
far. And as of this morning we have not yet had 
what we considered to be an official reply to our 
latest eifort to find a mutually agreeable site for 
such a contact. 

The most important single fact about the 
present situation is the major unilateral act of 
deescalation which President Jolinson an- 
nounced on March 31 as a part of a serious effort 
to begin a move toward peace. We are holding 
our hand from bombing attacks in an area 
representing at least 78 percent of the land area 
of North Viet-Nam, in which about 90 percent 
of their people live. And some peojjle forget 
that this is despite the fact that there is not a 
single square mile of South Viet-Nam which 
has been declared by the Viet Cong or the North 
Vietnamese forces to be immune from their 
rockets, mortars, or other forms of attack. 

Now, the President took this step in order to 
open the door both to a scaling-down of the 
violence and to political contacts or discussions 
which could explore honestly and fully the pos- 
sibilities of peace in Southeast Asia. We shall 
continue to make a responsible and serious ef- 
fort to find a mutually acceptable site for such 
contacts and to proceed from any initial contact 
to productive discussions about the possibilities 
of peace. 

Surely I need not add here that the unilateral 

' For text, see Bulletin of Apr. 15, 1968, p. 481. 

MAT 6, 1968 


efforts of one side alone cannot bring this 
process to a successful conclusion. We do need 
a serious interest in peace on the part of our 
adversaries. If that is forthcoming, we and our 
allies will do our full part. 

I urge the authorities in Hanoi, therefore, not 
to lose this opportunity by retreating mto po- 
lemics or by replies miscalculating what the 
President said in his March 31 address. It needs 
to be read as a whole, and it needs to be read 
carefully and soberly and more than once by 
friends, adversaries, neutralists. 

It offered a giant step toward peace; but it 
also made it clear that, in the President's words, 
"the United States will never accept a fake solu- 
tion to this long and arduous struggle and call 
it peace." 

Alternatives of Postwar National Policy 

The present discussion of Viet-Nam here and 
abroad engages several of the major premises 
of our foreign policy since the end of World 
War II. 

Today I should like to urge that we include 
these major premises in our debate. I do not sug- 
gest that these major premises are immune to 
change. I do suggest that if they are to be 
changed, tliis should be done deliberately and 
with full understanding of the consequences 
and not by inadvertence or default. 

Somewhat more attention to fundamentals 
may remind us that how we act in one situation 
affects many another situation, actual or poten- 
tial. And it may help us to penetrate some of the 
cobwebs of complication which conceal the 
relatively simple but basic issues of policy and 
conduct which are involved. 

As World War II began to draw to a close, 
we faced three major alternatives of national 
policy. The first was to return to the traditional 
isolation which had dominated much of our his- 
tory. That was tempting because it held out the 
illusion of comfort and unconcern about the dis- 
couraging events of the world around us. But 
this we rejected. 

We seemed to understand that we ourselves 
had not played a significant role in preventing 
the catastrophe of World War II and that isola- 
tion had given us no place in wliich to liide. 

Tlie second alternative was offered by the un- 
paralleled power which we possessed at the end 
of that war. It was to exploit that power for an 
American empire, imposing our will upon other 
nations simply because we were capable of doing 

so. But that unique power did not, as Lord Ac- 
ton might have suggested, corrupt the Ameri- 
can people. We could mobilize our power well 
beyond the point of wisdom. And we tried to 
put the beast of nuclear war forever in its cage 
through the Baruch proposals of 1946. 

The third alternative was to organize collec- 
tive security on a reliable basis — in the words 
of the U.N. Charter, "to save succeeding genera- 
tions from the scourge of war." 

We placed our bets on this alternative, look- 
ing behind us to the lessons of experience and 
into the future toward the necessity for prevent- 
ing the sort of catastrophe from which we were 
just emerging. We did so on the basis of a na- 
tional decision, nonpartisan in character, and 
supported by the overwhelming majority of the 
publications represented here today. 

But it became apparent even before tlie U.N. 
Charter was finally ratified that the complete 
answer to collective security could not be found 
in common action by the permanent members 
of the Security Council. Joseph Stalin pressed 
what came to be known as the cold war, and the 
shadow of a paralyzing veto fell upon the pri- 
mary responsibility of the Security Council for 
maintaming international peace and security. 

It seemed necessary, therefore, for nations to 
organize themselves under appropriate articles 
of the U.N. Charter in regional arrangements 
and for individual and collective self-defense. 

U.S. Commitments to Defensive Alliances 

The United States under Presidents Truman 
and Eisenliower, and with almost unanimous bi- 
partisan support, entered into a series of mutual 
defense treaties in this hemispliere, in the North 
Atlantic area, and in the Pacific area. We did 
so on the basis of the vital national security in- 
terests of the United States, not out of a sense 
of pliilanthroi^y or altruism. There was no lack 
of discussion and debate as we did so. 

These alliances were purely defensive in 
character, and they remain so today. They 
threaten no one and remain inoperative so long 
as others are prei^ared to live in pe^ice. 

Now, our several alliances do not mean that 
the United States has assumed the role of world 
policeman or that it is our task to impose a pax 
Americana. Our own people would not accept 
such a role, nor have we been elected to it by 

We are directly engaged in those security 
commitments which we consider vital to our 



own national security. I remind you that Presi- 
dents Kennedy and Johnson have not proposed 
the expansion of our treaty commitments. We 
do not go around looking for business by inter- 
vening in the dozens of quarrels which disrupt 
the scene in many parts of the world. 

The weight of our influence is thrown behind 
the efforts of the United Nations, regional orga- 
nizations, and the processes of diplomacy to find 
a pea^^eful solution enjoined by the U.N. 

If we accept responsibility in those matters 
we have determined to be vital to our own secu- 
rity, we do not inject ourselves into every other 
dispute which might arise anywhere else in the 

Now, why have I taken a few moments to 
remind you in this highly digested form of what 
ought to be a familiar story ? Partly because it 
is so easy to forget, and partly it is because many 
of our young people have had no chance to 
remember. But more particularly it is to say 
very simply that the issues posed in Southeast 
Asia do very much affect the structure of col- 
lective security organized in this postwar 

Those who would abandon Southeast Asia 
must seriously address themselves to the effect 
which such action would have upon our other 
treaties of alliance. The credibility of these 
treaties is vital to their deterrent capability, and 
surely we could all agree that the deterrence 
of war must be a major objective in a world in 
which the danger of miscalculation is the great- 
est of all dangers. 

Now, these are not questions which can be 
brushed aside by a phrase or can be forgotten 
on the theory that somehow tomorrow will take 
care of itself. They lie at the very heart of the 
primary necessity facing all of mankind; 
namely, the organization of a reliable peace. 

A Time of Rapid Change 

Now, preoccupation with organizing a peace 
does not mean indifference to change. Quite the 
contrary, it means that we must adjust to rapid 
change, help activate and shape and guide it, 
and anticipate it to the best of our ability. 

Let me just mention three or four examples. 

We believe that we must try to put behind us 
the sense of across-the-board hostility which 
dominated certain periods of tlie cold war and 
try to find agreement where possible with those 
with whom we have serious and even dangerous 

differences. Despite the most severe crises over 
Berlin and the Cuban missiles, President Ken- 
nedy presented to our Senate the partial nuclear 
test ban treaty. President Johnson completed 
the civil air agreement and the consular agree- 
ment with the Soviet Union, and he presented 
to tlie Senate a space treaty bringing the activi- 
ties of man in outer space under a regime of law. 

We have worked closely with the Soviet 
Union at the Geneva disarmament conference, 
where the two of us are cochairmen, to shape 
up a nonproliferation trea/ty shortly to be con- 
sidered by a special session of the General 

President Johnson has suggested legislation 
to the Congress which would enable us to nego- 
tiate bilateral trade agreements with individual 
countries of Eastern Europe. We would ear- 
nestly like to engage in serious discussions with 
the Soviet Union on offensive and defensive 
missiles in an effort to put a ceiling on an arms 
race which threatens to move into new plateaus 
of expenditure and danger. 

Despite occasional discouragements, we are 
trying with patience to continue to develop cul- 
tural and scientific exchanges across ideological 
frontiers. These things we have done despite 
considerable criticism from those who say that 
we should not have such traffic with those who 
contribute so much to our difficulties. But the 
underlying purpose is once again to help build 
a peace through small steps and large, wherever 
an opportunity presents itself for constructive 

Common Interests of Mankind 

A second example can be found in the notion 
of tlie human family and the common interests 
which men share simply by being Homo 
sapiens, for there are problems which are gen- 
uinely common despite the large and well- 
known hostile backgi'ounds. 

I am thinking of the war on hunger, in 
which most encouraging strides have been made 
even during the past year. I am thinking of 
water for peace, the control of disease, the 
sharing of knowledge about family planning, 
and common action in the face of the hazards 
which the family of man encounters in his 
natural environment. 

This is why we have taken up with the au- 
thorities in Peking the possibility of exchanges 
of doctors and scientists and plant materials 
and the basic food crops and why we have re- 

MAT 0, 1968 


gretted that they have responded that there is 
nothing which they can discuss until we are 
prepared to surrender Taiwan and the people 
on that island. 

Advances in Science and Technology 

The third example derives from the dramatic 
changes being brought about by advances in 
science and technology. Within 10 years after 
the launching of the first sputnik, activities in 
outer space have been brought within a regime 
of law, and we expect soon to be signing a sec- 
ond space treaty, on assistance to astronauts. 

Now, 10 years may seem like a long time; but 
in the processes of diplomacy and international 
action, bringing outer space imder a regime of 
law within 10 years is pretty good speed. 

So we are trying to expand as rapidly as pos- 
sible the range of international cooperation in 
all activities involving outer space. Today we 
are seriously engaged in trying to shape a 
regime of law for the deep oceans, since the 
prospect is that these areas are becoming 
accessible to possible exploration and possible 

Further on the horizon is the possibility of 
weather modification. Hence, we are already 
examining the international issues which must 
be dealt with if weather modification is to be- 
come operationally feasible. 

The senior officers of the Department of State 
meet from time to time with leading scientists 
in one or another field in order that we might 
be fully briefed on the leading edges of the sci- 
ence, in order that we might be able to antici- 
pate problems arising on the near or far hori- 
zon for which we must be prepared. We believe 
we are gearing up our resources to anticipate 
these problems and try to deal with them as 
we did in Antarctica and in space and in other 
such fields. 

New Approaches to Foreign Aid 

Then, in the field of foreign aid, we have been 
able to turn away from the vast efforts to bind 
up the wounds of World War II and are now 
concentrating upon the problem of the develop- 
ing countries. We know that human misery will 
not be passively endured by the himdreds of 
millions who are living on the barest edge of 
survival. But we know, too, that external 
sources alone cannot import economic and social 
development into any coimtry and that the bur- 

den of providing external resources must be 
borne by all of the developed countries on a fair 
and equitable basis. 

And this is why there is such heavy empha- 
sis in recent years upon self-help. Because at 
best external resources can provide only 1 or 2 
percent of the total resources of the coimtry 
being assisted. Tlie performance of the 98 per- 
cent, therefore, is obviously crucial to economic 
and social advancement. 

This is also why we have been shifting stead- 
ily to multilateral means of providing aid — to 
take advantage of the growing capacity of 
others to join m providing such aid. 

And so we expect the World Bank and the 
International Monetary Fund and the regional 
banks and other groupings to play key roles in 
this urgent and compelling effort. 

From the point of view of maintaining the 
peace, various fonns of so-called "wars of lib- 
eration" may well be the principal instrument 
of aggression in the next decade. And a most 
important defense is that societies themselves, 
the possible victims of such aggression, have 
strong and resilient internal institutions, with 
the confirmed loyalties of their own people, so 
that such attempts of penetration cannot be 

And so the business of building a peace goes 
on, despite danger and pain and tragedy, iluch 
of it is generally unnoticed, for it is in the na- 
ture of news, apparently, according to one of 
your committees this morning, to feature con- 
troversy and violence rather than serenity or 
agreement. But the work goes on. During the 
last session of Congress, despite a sharp debate 
on Viet- Nam, 25 treaties were approved by the 
Senate, ranging from the space treaty to a cus- 
toms convention on containers. 

Serious Effort for Responsible Discussions 

I wish vei-y much that I could tell you when 
peace will come to Southeast Asia. I can tell you 
that no one wants peace in that area more than 
President Jolmson. In his recent major address, 
he called upon President Ho Clii Minh to re- 
spond positively and favorably to this new step 
toward per^ce. 

Surely there ought to be room in President 
Johnson's phrase, "Geneva or any other suitable 
place," and Hanoi's phrase, "Phnom Penh or 
another place to be mutually agreed upon," for 
an early agreement on a site where serious con- 
tact can take place. 



"We are not at the present time exchanging 
polemic for polemic with Hanoi, despite the 
fact that m the process we are probably taking 
some hunps in the propaganda field. We do be- 
lieve tliat seriousness of purpose requii-es us to 
proceed with discretion, taking account of the 
delicacy of the situation, and make a serious 
effort through private contact and in other ways 
to get agreement on a site and to get responsible 
discussions started if we can possibly do so. 

The free nations of Asia, allied and neutral, 
are deeply concerned about a genuine peace in 
Southeast Asia. May we recall that there are 
more non-American fighting men in Viet-Nam 
than were present in Korea. And those who do 
not have troops in Viet-Nam have a full under- 
standing of their stake in the outcome. And 
when we think about the attitude of world 
opinion, we ought to give some special weight 
to the attitude of the free nations of Asia who 
are on the firing line and who have such a deep 
stake in what happens there. 

But outside of Asia itself, there are nations 
who feel themselves remote from Southeast 
Asia as such but who at the same time know 
what their fundamental stakes are in the struc- 
ture of collective security erected in this postwar 

A genuine peace cannot come merely by wish- 
ing for it. Allied forces in Viet-Nam expect 
further hard fighting as enemy ranks receive 
increased replacements from North Viet-Nam. 
But the rapidly increasing forces of South 
Viet-Xam and tlieir allies are confident that 
fresh assaults will be repulsed. 

Now, we would like to see the fighting end 
through serious and reasonable negotiations. 
But, in the President's words, "if peace does 

not come now through negotiations, it will come 
when Hanoi understands that our conmion re- 
solve is unshakable and our common strength 
is invincible." 

In that address to which I have referred 
many times today, the President reviewed the 
major elements of a fair and reasonable peace 
in Southeast Asia. There is no national appetite 
on the part of the United States which stands 
in the way. We want no bases there. In accord- 
ance with the Manila declaration,^ we are pre- 
pared to withdraw our forces within 6 months 
after the North Vietnamese forces are returned 
to the North and the level of violence in the 
South subsides. We are prepared to have the 
Southeast Asian nations detennine their own 
future as far as alliance or neutralization is 
concerned. We are prepared to have them de- 
termine by their own decision what they want 
to do about such a question as unification. But 
what is needed is a common understanding that 
small nations as well as large have a right to 
their existence and to live umnolested by their 
neighbors. If that simple notion, which is cen- 
tral to the United Nations Charter, should dis- 
appear, then the chances for peace in a nuclear 
world would be very dim indeed. 

Now, I suppose I should be called old- 
fashioned. I suppose tliat it is easy to brush aside 
the bases of policy wliich we have constructed 
with such effort in this postwar period. But I do 
believe most sincerely that the prospects for 
peace in this world are determined by the effec- 
tiveness of collective security and that the possi- 
bilities of collective security turn in a crucial 
sense upon the fidelity of the United States. 

'Ibid., Nov. 14, 1966, p. 730. 

M.\T C. 1968 


Integration and Trade in the Alliance for Progress 

hy Covey T. Oliver 

Assistcmt Secretary for Inter-American Affairs^ 

As a nation, we decided some years ago that 
it was in our own interest to work with other, 
less developed American nations for their prog- 
ress in peace and freedom. Adopting a Pan- 
American ideal, the United States became a part 
of a hemisphere-wide effort known as the Al- 
liance for Progress. 

Since 1961, when the member nations of the 
Organization of American States formally 
pledged the close cooperation and intensive ef- 
fort, required to bring a better life to all Ameri- 
cans, the countries of the Alliance have made 
great advances. This success enabled the Ameri- 
can Presidents, meeting last April in Punta del 
Este, to consider new stimulants to increase the 
development pace. 

Among the stimulants pledged were: 

— ^to speed industrialization ; 

— to promote trade and increase the volume 
and value of Latin American exports ; 

— to harness modem science and technology 
to the development effort ; and 

— to create a Latin American Common 

Tonight, I would like to discuss with you two 
of these decisions : the decision to improve trade 
within and outside this hemisphere and the de- 
cision to create a common market according to a 
fixed timetable — the latter among the most im- 
l^ortant decisions ever taken collectively by the 
nations of this hemisphere. 

Foreign trade is of major importance to 
Latin American countries. On an annual aver- 
age, the sum of regional exports and imports 
accounts for over one-quarter of the total of 
Latin American national incomes. 

' Address made before a combined meeting of the 
San Francisco World Affairs Council, Pan American 
Society, and Council for Latin America at San Fran- 
cisco, Calif., on Apr. 9 (press release 69 dated Apr. 8). 

Some of you may have read recently of two 
of the measures Alliance and other nations are 
now taking to improve international trade pros- 
pects of the Latin American countries. One of 
these was the discussion that took place at the 
recent meetings of the United Nations Confer- 
ence on Trade and Development concerning a 
formula by which all the industrialized countries 
would grant temporary' nondiscriminatory tariff 
preferences for the manufactured and semiman- 
ufactured products of all developing coimtries. 
Up to now, these discussions have only led to 
agreement on the general principle and a pro- 
posed timetable for developing the scheme. We 
have, however, learned quite a bit about some 
of the complexities involved. 

The tariff reductions which such a preferen- 
tial system might bring about are, of course, 
less than they would have been before the Ken- 
nedy Kound and previous negotiations mider 
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
greatly reduced average tariff levels. 

As a result, no one should expect that tremen- 
dous economic changes will result from the 
granting of preferences at this time. But such 
preferences should still assist the flow of private 
investment capital to new and expanded plants 
in the developing world. Finally, the agreement 
on such preferences would do much to convince 
the underdeveloped nations that developed 
countries are interested in their progress, even 
to the 2)oint of sacrificing traditional trade phi- 
losophy to help bring it about. 

The second measure which has been in the 
news recently was the recently concluded Inter- 
national Coffee Agreement, which is to come 
into effect this October. The previous agreement 
proved that violent price fluctuations could be 
significantly modified to the advantage of pro- 
ducers and consumers alike. In addition, the in- 
creased income received allowed producing na- 
tions to finance a significant part of their own 



development programs. The agreement did not, 
however, generate much progress on the prob- 
lem of overproduction of coffee. 

Under the new agreement, participating na- 
tions will establish a coffee diversification fund 
whicli over the life of the agreement should gen- 
erate about $150 million. This money will help 
coffee-producing countries to develop or expand 
other exports and reduce their overdependency 
on coffee. The United States has indicated its 
willingness to lend $15 million to the fund. 

Tlirough these and other arrangements, the 
United States is cooperating closely with Latin 
America in hemispheric and world formns to 
achieve a better distribution of trade advan- 
tages throughout the world. 

Success of Regional Economic Organizations 

Xow let us turn to the plans for the Latin 
American Common Market. 

First, a short review of recent history might 
be appropriate. 

After the Second World War, some countries 
of Latin America made considerable progress in 
expanding their industrial base. Much of this 
industn,-, however, was designed primarily to 
replace imports from other countries. As a re- 
sult, local markets, as poor as most of them 
were, were jealously guarded behind high pro- 
tective trade barriers. Too often the local indus- 
tries that were established were qualitatively 
and quantitatively incapable of competing out- 
side the country in which they were located. Pro- 
tected as they are from the invigorating winds 
of competition and having access to markets too 
small to encourage the economies of large-scale 
production, many Latin American industries 
are high in cost and thus debilitate rather than 
strengthen national economies. 

Many Latin Americans were aware of these 
shortcomings; and following considerable dis- 
cussion in the 1950-s, two regional economic 
organizations were established in 19G1 : the Cen- 
tral American Common Market and the Latin 
American Free Trade Association. 

Tlie beneficial effects of the cooperation and 
regional planning made possible by these orga- 
nizations were immediately apparent. Markets 
expanded, attracting new investments which 
were fimneled into complementary industries 
within the trade blocs. More people were put 
to work to fill the growing demand for goods. 
The quality of manufactured goods improved 
as inefficient industries were replaced. 

The growth in intraregional trade in the five- 
nation Central American mai-ket surprised even 
the most optimistic. That trade has increased 
over 400 percent since the market began. The 
Latin American Free Trade Association, which 
has grown to includfa all South American Al- 
liance nations plus Mexico, expanded its re- 
gional trade by 125 percent. Central America's 
trade with the rest of the world today is 60 per- 
cent above the figure in 1961 ; and the Free Trade 
Association's grew 25 percent in the same period. 

Building the Latin American Common Market 

Against this background of success for partial 
integration, the American Presidents at their 
meeting in Punta del Este 1 year ago decided 
"to create progressively, beginning in 1970, the 
Latin American Common Market, which shall 
be substantially in operation in a period of no 
more than fifteen years." ^ 

As projected in the Presidents' Action Pro- 
gram, the conmion market will be built by im- 
proving the two existing integration systems, 
the Central American Common Market and the 
Latin American Free Trade Association; en- 
couraging temporary subregional arrangements 
to allow countries to integrate their economies 
more rapidly if they wish to do so ; and finally 
by fusing the two major organizations into one 

This ambitious plan will, of course, be carried 
out by the Latin Americans themselves. The 
United States will not be a member of the mar- 
ket. One reason for this is that our industries are 
so highly developed and experienced by years 
of competition in world markets that they would 
swamp the smaller, more protected industries in 
Latin America. This being the case, why did 
this country pledge to provide financial support 
to help attenuate the problems of temporary 
economic imbalances, industrial readjustments, 
and retraining of labor that will arise as the 
barriers fall ? 

First of all, as I said, we have already con- 
cluded that the development of our neighbors 
to the south is vital to the continued peace and 
security of this nation. We also are convinced 
that economic integration is the biggest step our 
neighbors could take to accelerate that develop- 
ment. It is obvious, then, that we are serving our 
own national interest by helping our allies dur- 
ing the difficult years ahead. 

" For text of the Declaration of the Presulents of 
America, see Bulletin of May 8, 1967, p. 712. 

MAT 6, 1968 

297-335 — 68- 


Furthermore, although we will not be a mem- 
ber of the Latin American Common Market, we 
will certainly realize important trade benefits 
once the market comes into effect. This country 
has already benefited handsomely from the 
trade-creating efi'ects, particularly in producer 
goods, brought about by the evolution of the 
European Economic Community and the Euro- 
pean Free Trade Association. As long as the 
Latin American Coimnon Market is equally 
outward-looking — and it appears to be develop- 
ing along these lines — we can expect comparable 
benefits as our neighbors to the south put their 
own trade on a more solid footing. 

Preliminary Steps Toward Integration 

Although the timetable for integration has 
been fixed and the various steps by which it will 
come into operation delineated, many obstacles 
stand in the way of Latin American success. For 
example : 

— Latin American Free Trade Association 
members must adopt a programed elunination 
of duties and other trade restrictions and estab- 
lish a common external tariff to convert their 
organization into a true common market. Con- 
sidering the great disparities among member 
economies, tliis will be no mean feat. 

— Some way must be found to insure that the 
less developed Latin American countries receive 
a fair share of the benefits of integration. 

— Physical integration — building and linking 
together national and regional transportation, 
power, and communications networks — must 
keep pace with and even precede economic 

— A tremendous education program must be 
undertaken to familiarize Latin American busi- 
nessmen with the trading opportunities that 
now exist and with those that will evolve as in- 
tegration moves forward. 

— The already short supply of private capi- 
tal, both local and foreign, must be increased to 
finance the great cost of industrial growth. 

— And finally, much missionaiy work must 
be done to convince many Latin Americans that 
the benefits expected from economic integration 
far outweigh t he temporary inequalities and dis- 
locations integration will bring. Those who have 
never had to compete for markets have little 
confidence they can survive — a defeatist attitude 
which, if allowed to proliferate, can hamper or 
stop entirely any government move toward freer 
regional trade. 

None of these problems has an easy solution. 

I do not expect them to be overcome without 
considerably more cooperation and good will 
than many Latin Americans have shown in the 

As difficult as the road to integration is bound 
to be, however, some of the preliminary steps 
taken by Latin American nations give good 
groimds for optimism that the schedule will be 
adliered t«. 

For one thing, the flourishing Central Ameri- 
can Common Market stands as a good small- 
scale example of what can be expected of total 
regional integration. 

A forward-looking group of six Andean na- 
tions, all members of the Latin American Free 
Trade Association, has received approval from 
the Association to move more quickly toward 
merging their economies as a preliminary step 
toward wider integration. The treaty that will 
govern their move toward rapid subregional 
trade liberalization and the establishment of a 
conunon external tariff' is now being drafted. As 
a first step, the six nations involved in the An- 
dean group have already proposed to eliminate, 
over a 5-year period, all trade barriers affecting 
Andean petrochemicals. Potential annual trade 
in petrochemicals among the Andean group is 
estimated at about $60 million. Li addition, the 
members have formed a subregional bank, the 
Andean Development Corporation, capitalized 
at $100 million, which will help finance infra- 
structure and industrial projects within the par- 
ticipant countries. 

There are reports that other Latin American 
nations are now considering similar subregional 
arrangements. If these moves are successful, 
Latin America may only have to integrate four 
or five diverse economies as a penultimate step 
rather than more than 20. 

The tremendous work that must be done to 
achieve physical integration is also moving 
apace. Recent contributions to the Inter- Ameri- 
can Development Bank will enable that organi- 
zation to finance a minimum of $300 million 
worth of multinational development projects 
over a 3-year period. Among the possible proj- 
ects being studied are the development of vast 
river basins; improving and expanding air, 
water, and land transportation networks; a 
Pan-American communications network that 
will depend on satellites; and expanding and 
coordinating regional electric power grids. 

At this point, it is true that much of the work 
that has gone into integrating Latin America 
has been on paper. We must remember, though, 
that the decision to integrate — a great psyclio- 



logical step forward — was made only 1 year ago 
this month. We must remember that it took 2 
years for the European Economic Community 
to move from a similar declaration of interest 
to agreement on the Treaty of Rome — and Latin 
Americans face many fonnidable obstacles to 
integration that were not so important in 

These hard facts, however, should not be used 
by Latin Americans to justify delay or over- 
caution. Nor should they lead us — we in the 
United States, who are partnere in Latin Ameri- 
can development and who have so much to offer 
in terms of finances and experience in world 
trade — to despair when the integration move 
appears to falter. 

From the advances toward development that 
have already been made as a result of close co- 
operation and intensive effort, I believe that a 
totally developed home hemisphere, including 
regional integration, is within grasp. To attain 
this goal, we and our allies have but to practice 
a virtue for which we are not particularly fa- 
mous : patient perseverance. 

If we persevere, we will have realized the age- 
old dream of the Americas. If we persevere, 
American children throughout our home hem- 
isphere today will receive from our hands the 
legacy of a strong, just, democratic, and peace- 
ful totally New World. 

U.S.-Japan Cultural Conference 
Discusses Educational Systems 

The fourth Vnlted States- Japan Conference 
on Cultural and Educational Interchange met 
at Washington April 3-8. FoUotoing h tlie text 
of a final communique issued at the close of the 
conference on April 8. 

Press release 70 dated AprU 9 

Six years after the first United States-Japan 
Conference on Cultural and Educational Inter- 
change met in Tokyo and nearly seven years 
after this series of binational discussions was 
brought into being by the decision of Prime 
Mini.ster Ikeda and President Kennedy,' the 
Fourth Conference convened in Washington, 
D.C. from April 3 to 8, 1968. General discus- 
sion of cultural problems in the first two 

' For text of a joint communique Issued at TVa.shing- 
ton on June 22. 1961, see Bulletin of July 10, 1061. p. 

Conferences had led to a more specific concen- 
tration on the role of universities in mutual 
understanding at the Third Conference, making 
it appropriate to devote the fourth meeting to 
the broader educational systems of the two 
countries. The subject was made particularly 
significant by the fact that Japan and the 
United States share world leaderehip in mass 
education and so have come to confront similar 
problems. Discussion at the Fourth Conference 
benefitted greatly from the atmosphere of 
cordiality which has developed in the course 
of previous Cultural Conferences. 

Education and Development 
in Advanced Societies 

Recognizing that accelerated industrializa- 
tion and modernization impose an unprece- 
dented rate of change in the educational systems 
of advanced societies, the Conference examined 
the economic, structural, and philosophical fea- 
tures wliich currently characterize the Japanese 
and American systems. 

The delegates noted similarities in their 
educational systems as well as differences 
which reflect the environment and historical in- 
dividuality of each nation. In both countries 
education has become a major industry, calling 
for evaluation of its position within the total 
economy. In both coimtries the administrative 
and financial role of government has become in- 
creasingly important, necessitating a reconsid- 
eration of the relationship of government to 
education. Among the problems coimnon to both, 
the delegates identified the rising enrollments 
and increased demands for education ; the diffi- 
culties of keeping educational research, tech- 
nology and philosophy abreast of the needs of 
a rapidly changing modern society; the rela- 
tionship of education to the surpluses and short- 
ages of human resources created by the chang- 
ing needs of a modem society. Both countries 
share the problem of providing adequate sup- 
port for private educational institutions. In 
contrast, both countries have, for example, ap- 
proached the problem of democratizing educa- 
tion in different ways. The heterogeneity of the 
United States and the homogeneity of .Japan, as 
well as the diversity of their cultural heritages, 
lead to different approaches and different 

Other differences were identified, for example, 
tlio degree of emphasis placed on primary and 
secondaiy education as against higher educa- 
tion. There was general consensus, however, that 

MAT ki, 1968 


study of these and other ditferences is fruitful 
and that each country can benefit from closer 
examination of the other's system. 

Accordingly the Conference recommended as 
a priority activity for the near future a pro- 
gram of: (1) exchange of information on the 
educational systems at all levels, (2) increased 
exchanges of educational administrators and 
teachers, (3) jomt binational research projects 
on comparative education, educational plamiing 
and technology, and studies including third 
countries, and (4) sharing the experience of 
Japan and the United States in the educational 
development of other nations. 

General Review 

The Conference turned then to a general re- 
view of the curi-ent status and a consideration 
of possible new emphases in the cultural and 
educational interchange between Japan and the 
United States. In view of the ever increasing 
importance of Japan and the United States to 
each other, and of the central value of cultural 
and educational interchange to the advancement 
of learning, the enrichment of life, and the deep- 
ening of understanding between the two coun- 
tries, the Conference noted with deep satisfac- 
tion the continued growth in tlie number of stu- 
dents, scholars, and artists crossing tlie Pacific. 
It also noted with satisfaction that research 
projects have recently been undertaken with fi- 
nancial support from both governments and 
under the joint auspices of the Social Science 
Research Council and the American Council of 
Learned Societies in the United States and the 
Society for the Promotion of Science in Japan. 

At the same time, it pointed out tliat this 
intercliange had not yet reached a level com- 
mensurate with its importance. The flow, it was 
felt, has been too one-sided. Effort should be 
made to bring more Americans to Japan and 
to have Japanese scholarship and cultural ex- 
perience better understood in America. Lack of 
financial support was recognized to be a major 
factor inliibiting balanced and adequate inter- 
change. Additional funds need to be sought on 
both sides if the relationship is to be sustained 
and expanded as both desire. The Conference 
also called attention to the still existent barriers 
to understanding created by the differences in 
language and cultural baclvground of the two 
comitries. And it was pointed out especially that 

a joint effort is needed to study and reduce these 
underlying intellectual barriers derivuig from 
differences in cultural heritage. 

Establishment of a Permanent Joint Committee 

In line with the requirements of the adopted 
agenda, an overall review and evaluation of the 
current status of United States-Japan educa- 
tional and cultural relations was conducted. The 
conferees concluded that the dimensions of mu- 
tual interests and common problems in the edu- 
cational and cultural life of the two countries 
require constant discussion in depth by dis- 
tinguished Japanese and American leaders. The 
experience of this and the preceding three con- 
ferences since 1962 and the growing importance 
of these relations in modem societies imderline 
the need to continue these biennial conferences 
and to provide a more permanent basis for the 
work of the Conferences. 

Accordingly, the Conference resolved that a 
Pennanent Joint Committee be established to 
replace tlie temjwraiy sister committees and 
working groups created by the Third Confer- 
ence. Such a committee, it was felt, could pro- 
vide greater continuity to the work of coordi- 
nating the broad and varied range of cultural 
and educational activities, and could serve as a 
primary planning agency for the biennial 

The Conference adopted the following resolu- 
tion : 

Resolution Adopted by the Foubth 

DNiTBa) States-Japan Conference 

ON Cultural and Educational Intesbchanqe 

April 8, 1968 


the delegates to the Fourth United States-Japan 
Conference on Cultural and Educational Interchange, 
meeting at Washington, D.C., April 3-8, 1968 recognize 
the substantial progress achieved by earlier Confer- 
ences through bilateral consideration and open dis- 
cussion of common problems affecting the educational 
and cultural relations of Japan and the United States, 
and wheeeas 

the delegates consider that the diversified nature and 
scope of educational and cultural relations between the 
two countries demand periodic review and evaluation, 
continuing support and encouragement, and more con- 
stant and consistent initiatives, 
and whereas 

botli countries have joint responsibilities for ensuring 
that the channels of artistic and intellectual communi- 
cation continue to be developed and fully utilized. 




hinational solutions must be found for the still 
existent barriers to free interchange in the arts and 


that this Conference recommend to the Prime Min- 
ister of Japan and to the President of the United 
States that the two Governments continue to convene 
these Conferences biennially, alternating their sites be- 
tween the two countries, and that a single Permanent 
Joint Committee on United States-Japan Cultural and 
Educational Cooperation be appointed, replacing the 
separate sister committees and working groups created 
by the preceding Conference ; 


that the Permanent Joint Committee on United 
States-Japan Cultural and Educational Cooperation 
(a) follow up on recommendations made at previous 
conferences; (b) constantly review activities affecting 
the cultural and educational relations between the two 
countries; (c) explore and recommend new initiatives 
and new fields of activity referred to in (b) above; 
and (d) submit plans for succeeding Conferences; 


that the co-chairmen of this Conference hereby ap- 
point an ad hoc working group from both countries to 
draw up specific recommendations on the size, composi- 
tion, mode of operation, staffing and other requirements 
of the Permanent Committee, to be submitted to both 
governments for consideration. (End of Resolution) 

Specific Needs 

Certain specific needs were singled out for 
priority consideration by the Permanent Joint 
Committee whose establisliment was recom- 
mended. These included the following: 

In the hiterchange of students, teachers, and 
researchers generally, the need to strengthen the 
role of the social sciences, the humanities, and 
the arts ; 

In the social sciences, the need to encourage 
more joint research activities of the kinds that 
have been so fruitful in the natural sciences; 

In the Fulbright Program, the desirability 
of finding additional new resources to enable it 
to continue its jiresent individual grant pro- 

gram and, if possible, to expand its activities 
to support joint research projects, binational 
seminars and conferences, and to perform for 
a larger body of students and scholars such 
facilitative services as counselling, orientation, 
language testing and the like ; 

In the field of library development and the 
exchange of published materials, the desira- 
bility in each country to work toward the es- 
tablishment of one or more comprehensive 
libraries of materials published in the otlier 
country, to enrich a nimiber of smaller collec- 
tions primarily for undergraduate study, to es- 
tablish an effective clearing-house to assist 
libraries in both coimtries with bibliographical 
information and with acquisitions problems, 
particiilarly of official publications and other 
materials not available in regular commercial 
channels, to advance cooperative cataloging, to 
exchange library consultants and in-ser\ice 
trainees ; 

In English-language teaching for Japanese, 
recognized by every Cultural Conference as a 
matter of highest concern, the need to keep un- 
der constant review the many serious efforts 
now being made ; 

In Japanese-language teaching for Ameri- 
cans, the need to recruit a greater niunber of able 
instructors, to de\'ise teaching materials par- 
ticularly for advanced work in specialized fields, 
and to improve and expand the facilities in 
Japan for instruction ; 

In translation and abstracting, the need to 
locate or train a greater number of competent 
translators, particularly in the social .sciences, 
to find greater financial support for translation, 
and to work together to identify works worthy 
of translation ; 

In the arts, the need to heighten the apprecia- 
tion and increase the possibility for enjoyment 
of the traditional and contemporary arts of 
both countries. 

SLVT 6, 1968 


On January 25 President Johnson submitted the International 
Grains Arrangement of 1967 to the Senate for advice and 
consent to ratification. In this article., Mr. Sanderson, who is 
Director of the Office of Food Policy and Programs in the 
Defartinenfs Bureau of Economic Affairs., discusses the prin- 
cipal features and background of the new agreement. 

The International Grains Arrangement 

by Fred H. Sanderson 

The basic elements of the International 
Grains Arrangement are an outgrowth of the 
Kennedy Round trade negotiations. The final 
text was developed and negotiated at the Inter- 
national Wheat Conference in Rome July 12- 
August 18, 1967. 

The new arrangement, which will i-eplace the 
International Wheat Agreement of 1962, con- 
sists of two parts — a Wlaeat Trade Convention 
and a Food Aid Convention — with a common 

Substantial benefits to both exporting and 
importing countries should be realized under 
the Wheat Trade Convention. It will help sta- 
bilize wheat prices at a level which insures re- 
munerative returns to efficient suppliers. Wliile 
it is unlikely to increase the uonnal level of 
wheat prices significantly, it should help to 
prevent price wars, such as the 1965-66 "wheat 
war," which are costly to all exporting coun- 
tries. For the United States, it should bring 
budgetary savings through reduced export sub- 
sidies and increased dollar earnings. Import- 
ing countries will have assurance of supplies at 
no more than the maximum price. 

The Food Aid Convention is a significant 
step forward in the war on hunger. Never be- 
fore have other nations joined with the United 
States in a food aid effort on this scale. The 
4.5-million-ton program provided by the con- 
vention represents an annual value of about 
$300 million, five times the annual rate of ship- 

ments under the U.N.-FAO-sponsored World 
Food Program. This is the first time that food 
aid provisions have been included in an inter- 
national commodity agreement. 

Botla conventions were open for signature at 
Washington from October 15 to November 30, 
1967, and both were signed on behalf of the 
United States on November 8, 1967.' The two 
conventions, comprising the International 
Grains Arrangement, were submitted to the 
Senate by President Johnson on January 25, 

The Wheat Trade Convention 

The Wheat Trade Convention provides new 
and improved procedures for stabilizing world 
wheat prices, building on the administrative 
and institutional structure of the Intei'national 
WHieat Agreement of 1962.^ 

^ For a statement made by President Johnson on 
Nov. 8, 1967, see Bulletin of Nov. 27, 1967, p. 716. 

= Ihid.. Mar. 4, 1968, p. 329. 

° Treaties and Other International Acts Series 5115, 
5844, 6057, and 6315. The International Wheat Agree- 
ment was first negotiated in 1949, renegotiated in 1953, 
1956, 1959, and 1962, and extended by protocol in 
1966. The substantive economic provisions of the agree- 
ment expired on July 31, 1967, but the administrative 
provisions were extended for another year to Insure 
the continued existence of the International Wheat 
Council and of its secretariat until the new agreement 
goes into effect. 



The principal new features of the Wheat 
Trade Convention are a more precise definition 
of the price range, spelled out in terms of 14 
major wheats moving in world trade, and more 
effective procedures to be followed when prices 
reach the extremes of the range. The level of the 
minimum and maxunum prices is about 20 cents 
per bushel (12 percent) higher than that im- 
plied in the 1962 Wheat Agreement, to take ac- 
count of increased production costs and to 
insure adequate supplies in the futui'e. 

The convention continues the obligation of 
importing countries to purchase specified mini- 
mum percentages of their commercial import 
requirements from member countries and the 
joint obligation of exporting countries to sup- 
ply the normal commercial requirements of im- 
porting member countries at no more than the 
maximum price. Exporters are, however, free to 
price above the maximum at any time to non- 
members, and once supply obligations are met, 
to members as well. New provisions require 
minimum prices to be respected on sales to non- 
members and purchases from nonmembers. 

Since virtually all major wheat exporters in- 
tend to accede to the new agreement, the floor 
price will henceforth apply to at least 85-90 
percent of total commercial world trade, as com- 
pared with only about 55-60 percent under the 
International Wlieat Agreement. 

In the International Wheat Agreement, a 
price range was established for only one type 
and grade of wheat, Canadian Manitoba No. 1 
in store at Fort William/Port Arthur, Ontario. 
The agreement, however, did not define the qual- 
ity differentials between Manitoba No. 1 and 
other wheats. Determination of these differen- 
tials was left a matter of agreement between the 
exporting and importing countries concerned, 
with any disputes to be decided by the Execu- 
tive Committee in consultation with the Ad- 
visory Committee on Price Equivalents. This 
procedure was never tested, and as a result it 
was generally impossible to tell when the prices 
of wheats other than Alanitoba No. 1 were 
reaching the extremes of the range. (The 1962 
agreement did provide, however, that no maxi- 
mum price could be set at a level higher than 
the maximum for Manitoba No. 1.) 

Article 6 of the "Wheat Trade Convention 
establishes the following schedule of minimum 
and maximum prices : 





(U.S. dollar > 

per bushel) 


Manitoba No. 1 



Manitoba No. 3 



United States of America 

Darlv Northern Spring 



No. 1, 14 percent 

Hard Red Winter No. 2 




Western White No. 1 



Soft Red Winter No. 1 



A rgentina 




A ustralia 

Fair Average Quality 



European Economic 












Fine Wheat 



Common Wheat 






With the exception of Mexican wheat, which 
is listed f.o.b. Mexican Pacific ports or border 
points, this schedule is stated in terms of f.o.b. 
position at U.S. gulf ports. (These ports, unlike 
the Fort William/Port Arthur base in the 1962 
agreement, are open to year-round navigation.) 
The base prices are translated to other positions 
by using prevailing freight rates. In the Liter- 
national ^Vlieat Agreement, this was done by 
adding freight from the base to the United 
Kingdom and then subtracting the freight from 
the United Kingdom to the port of loading. In 
the new agreement, the reference point for cal- 
culating price equivalents for major wheats has 
been changed from the United Kingdom to 
Antwerp/Eotterdam and Yokohama to take 
account of shifts in the pattern of trade. 

Minimum and maximum prices for the spec- 
ified Canadian and U.S. wheats at ports in the 
Pacific Northwest are fixed at 6 cents less than 
corresponding f.o.b. gulf port prices. Prices for 
wheats not listed in article 6 may be established 
by the new Prices Review Committee. 

It was recognized during the negotiations that 
the agreed price relationships will not be ap- 
propriate in all circumstances. Article 8 there- 
fore provides for the possibility of adjusting 
these relationships temporarily in a minimum 
price situation if they are out of line with pre- 
vailing market conditions. 

The Prices Review Committee will also be re- 

MAY 6, 1068 


sponsible for agreeing on any other measures 
whicli may be necessary to maintain prices with- 
in the price range. If agreement is not reached 
on action to be taken to restore market stability, 
an exporting country may price below the sched- 
ule of minimum prices to maintain its competi- 
tive position. In that event, the International 
Wlieat Comicil will be asked to decide whether 
ceilaia provisions of the Wlieat Trade Conven- 
tion shall be suspended. However, this possibil- 
ity should constitute a strong incentive for 
exporters to reach agreement. 

The convention continues with some modi- 
fications the commercial purchase and supply 
commitments of the International Wheat 
Agreement. Article 4 obligates each importing 
country to import a specified minimum percent- 
age of its conunercial requirements from mem- 
ber countries. It also requires all member coun- 
tries when exporting wheat to other member or 
nonm ember countries to do so at prices consist- 
ent with the price range. Tliis means that ex- 
ports to nonmembers are now subject to the 
minimum price provisions. Another new feature 
is the obligation of member countries when im- 
porting from nomnember countries to do so only 
at prices consistent with the price range. 

Article 5 continues the provisions of the In- 
ternational Wlieat Agreement which assure im- 
porting member countries of specified "datum" 
quantities of wheat, based on average imports 
during a recent period, at no more than the 
maximum price. An innovation is the upward 
adjustment of datum quantities to take account 
of the rapid growth of import requirements of 
countries like Japan (article 15, paragraph 1). 
The European Economic Community, which is 
both a major exporter and importer, was un- 
willing to make a quantitative supply commit- 
ment but gave equivalent assurances to the ex- 
tent it has supplies available for export (article 
10, paragraph 2) . 

Article 24 of the convention establishes 
guidelines on concessional transactions which 
restate and strengthen the previously recog- 
nized principle that transactions on conces- 
sional terms should avoid harmful interference 
with normal patterns of production and inter- 
national conunercial trade. It reaffirms the 
global principle in establishing usual marketing 
requirements for wheat and the procedures for 
prior consultation of countries whose commer- 
cial sales might be affected by concessional 

The provisions for administering the Wlieat 

Trade Convention follow the pattern set down 
in the International Wlieat Agreement except 
for the establishment of the Prices Review 
Committee. The Coimcil and secretariat will 
have essentially the same functions as in the 
past. Council decisions will be by majority vote 
of exporters and importers voting separately; 
important decisions will require a two-thirds 
majority in each group. Importing and export- 
ing countries will each hold a total of 1,000 
votes. Their allocation among individual coun- 
tries will be decided by agreement in the im- 
porter and exporter groups acting separately. 
The European Economic Community will have 
votes both in the exporter and importer groups. 

The Food Aid Convention 

The Food Aid Convention provides for a 
program of 4.5 million metric tons of grain an- 
nually as aid to developing countries. 4.2 mil- 
lion tons of this have already been subscribed by 
both exporting and importing member coun- 
tries. The United States agreed to contribute 
42 percent of the total (1.9 million tons) ; the 
European Economic Community, 23 jjercent 
(somewhat over a million tons) ; Canada, 11 
I^ercent (500,000 tons) ; Austi-alia, the United 
Kingdom, and Japan, 5 percent each; with 
smaller contributions from the four Scandina- 
vian coimtries, Switzerland, and Argentina. 
Contributions can be in the form of wheat, 
coarse grains suitable for human consumption, 
or cash to purchase grain. Japan signed the con- 
vention with a reservation which would permit 
it, under certain circumstances, to substitute 
other agi'icultural materials for grain. It is ex- 
pected that the great bulk of the contributions 
will be in the form of wheat, although some 
grain deficit countries may contribute cash. The 
cash contributions will be used with special re- 
gard to facilitating grain exports of developing 
participating countries. 

Food aid under this program will be supplied 
on very favorable terms^as outright grants or 
for local currency which will, as a rule, not be 
available for use by the contributing country. 

This program should be of substantial bene- 
fit to developing countries since it will be addi- 
tional to existing programs. All developing 
countries, whether members of the arrangement 
or not, will be eligible to receive food aid under 
this program. Contiibuting countries have the 
right to specify the receiving country or they 



may channel part or all of their contributions 
throngh an international organization such as 
the World Food Program. 

Beyond its benefits to the recipient countries, 
the program should help to stabilize and 
strengthen commercial markets by increasing 
total grain consumption. 

A Food Aid Committee consisting of repre- 
sentatives of the contributing countries will be 
established to review the fulfillment of the ob- 
ligations under the convention. 

Negotiations Leading Up to the Agreement 

The principal provisions of the International 
Grains Arrangement were negotiated in Greneva 
during the Kemiedy Eound trade negotiations 
and are an integral part of the agreements 
reached in May-June 1967. The negotiations 
were carried on in a special GATT [General 
Agreement on Tai'ifTs and Trade] group on 
cereals which was established in 1962 and sub- 
sequently charged with developing a general 
arrangement that would create "accei^table con- 
ditions of access to world markets." The group 
defined its task to include consideration of na- 
tional policies of support and protection, inter- 
national prices, access to markets, assurance of 
supplies to importing countries, and food aid. 

Expansion of trade opportunities, or at a 
minimum, assurance of prevailing conditions 
of access to markets, was a major objective of 
these negotiations. Much time was spent in ex- 
amining the possibilities of limiting and reduc- 
ing levels of support and protection. One ap- 
proach, favored by the European Economic 
Community, envisaged a temporary standstill 
on agricultural price and income supports. An- 
other approach would have put a ceiling on the 
rates of self-sufficiency of grain-importing 
countries; any production in excess of these 
ceilings would be stored or contributed to food 
aid. But in the end, it proved to be impossible 
to negotiate limitations on the self-sufficiency 
and support policies of the major importing 
countries which would be considered meaning- 
ful and effective by the exporting countries. 

Wlien it became apparent in the final negoti- 
ating session that there was no hope for any 
meaningful market-access assurances by the 
EEC or the United Kingdom and lack of prog- 
ress on grains was slowing progress in other sec- 
tors of the negotiations, the exporting countries 
decided to abandon their efforts in this area. 
The exporting countries succeeded, however, in 

negotiating satisfactory provisions to meet their 
other objectives. 

The wheat pricing provisions are of obvious 
and substantial benefit to the exporting 

Throughout the negotiations, the United 
States was concerned to insure that the new 
agreement should provide for an equitable shar- 
ing of the responsibility for maintaining wheat 
prices within the range and that it should fully 
protect the competitive position of the United 
States when prices are at the minimum. Various 
formulas for regulating supplies for export 
when prices approach the minimum levels were 
considered, but in the end all participants shied 
away from solutions involving automatic price 
adjustments or export quotas. Agreement was 
reached instead on the flexible consultation 
procedures embodied in article 8. It is hoped 
that these procedures, with their built-in induce- 
ment for mutual accommodation, will be ade- 
quate to maintain market equilibrium without 
imposing an unfair burden on any exporter. 

The agreement on food aid will also make a 
significant contribution to the joint sharing of 
responsibilities for managing supplies. To the 
extent that other countries divert excess produc- 
tion to food aid, the program will tend to make 
room for commercial imports or reduce the 
pressure on export markets. In addition to its 
contribution to a more equitable sharing of the 
food aid burden and its benefits to the recipient 
countries, the program will thus have a signifi- 
cant role in strengthening the commercial 

On June 30, the Kennedy Round phase of the 
gi'ains negotiations was concluded with the 
signing of a memorandum of agreement by the 
Governments of Argentina, Australia, Canada, 
Denmark, Finland, Japan, Norway, Sweden, 
Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United 
States, and the EEC and its six member states. 
In so doing, each signatory government agreed 
to the negotiation of a world grains agreement, 
on as broad a basis as possible, containing the 
basic elements negotiated in Geneva. 

Representatives of 52 governments and the 
European Economic Community met at the In- 
ternational Wheat Conference in Rome from 
July 12 to August 18, 1967, and developed 
the final text of the International Grains 

Both the Wheat Trade Convention and the 
Food Aid Convention were open for signature 
in Washington Octoljer 15-November 30, 1967. 

MAT 0, 1968 


Both conventions have been signed by the 17 
countries which are parties to the Kemiedy 
Round memorandum of agi'eement on cereals of 
June 30, 1967. 

Fourteen other countries^Greece, India, Ire- 
Land, Israel, Korea, Lebanon, Mexico, Pakistan, 
Portugal, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Spain, 
Tunisia, and the Vatican — have signed only the 
Wlieat Trade Convention. The 31 countries sig- 
natories to the "VVlieat Trade Convention 
accounted m 1965-66 for some 45 percent of the 
world's commercial wheat imports and nearly 
all commercial wheat exports. 

The U.S.S.R., although a member of the In- 
ternational Wheat Agreement of 1962, did not 
sign either of these conventions. That country 

and 43 other coimtries which were eligible to 
sign the Wheat Trade Convention may join be- 
fore June 18, 1968, by depositing an instrument 
of accession. Any member of the United Nations 
or its specialized agencies may join the Wheat 
Trade Convention subject to approval by the In- 
ternational "VVlieat Council, and the Food Aid 
Convention on such terms as may be approved 
by the present signatories of that convention. 

Each convention is now subject to ratification, 
acceptance, or approval by the signatories in ac- 
cordance with their respective constitutional 
procedures. The parties to the Kennedy Round 
memorandum must ratify both conventions, 
which will then enter into full force on July 1, 
1968, for a period of 3 years. 


aid's Proposed Program for Viet-Nam in Fiscal Year 1969 

Statement hy James P. Grant ' 

I appreciate the privilege of appearing be- 
fore this committee today to present the fiscal 
year 1969 Viet-Nam program of the Agency for 
International Development. Our effort in Viet- 
Nam is the largest and most intensive undertak- 
ing in one country in the history of AID. This is 
an unprecedented program combining direct 
support of a war effort and relief of human suf- 
fering along with an attempt to achieve nation- 
building and economic development in the midst 
of war. 

The detailed program for FY 1969 described 
in the congressional presentation book was pre- 
pared before the recent Viet Cong coimter- 
offensive. The amount requested for Viet-Nam 
for FY 1969 is $480 million, which is in the same 

'Made before the House Committee on Foreign Af- 
fairs on Mar. 26. Mr. Grant is Assistant Adminis- 
trator for Viet-Nam, Agency for International Devel- 

general magnitude as the $470 million previous- 
ly estimated to be required for FY 1968. 

I returned last week from South Viet-Nam, 
where I visited 12 Provinces. It is still too early 
to assess the full impact of the VC Tet offensive 
on either the FY 1968 or the FY 1969 program. 
Quite possibly the changes required in the FY 
1969 program will be modest. With respect to 
the FY 1968 jirogram, it is already clear that 
the demand for relief and reliabilitation sup- 
plies, such as cement and roofing, will be sub- 
stantially higher than originally projected. The 
great majority of the owners of the more than 
70,000 dwellings destroyed during Febniary in 
urban areas are receiving 10 bags of cement, 10 
sheets of galvanized roofing, and a modest pias- 
ter cash payment equivalent to between $42 and 
$95 to help in reconstruction. The requirement 
for such rural investment items as small power 
pumps and sewing machines will be far less than 



pre\-iously expected. The temporary drop in 
the demand for consumer investment goods was 
ilhistrated in my conversation with a merchant 
in a provincial capital in the delta who told of 
his treadle sewing machine sales having dropped 
from approximately 15 a day pre-Tet to some 
two or three a day in recent weeks. 

As you know from earlier testimony, the AID 
funds are used in Viet-Nam for four principal 
purposes : 

First, maintaining economic stability and 
controlling inflation. The largest part of the 
AID program is the commercial import pro- 
gram, estimated at $220 million for FY 1969. 
Materials brought in under this program have 
enabled industrial production to increase by 
more than 40 percent and fertilizer use to more 
than double since early 1964. 

Seco7id, alleviating the economic and social 
consequences of military operations. Nearly a 
million refugees and evacuees will receive as- 
sistance in FY 1968. In 1967 nearly 4 million 
people, including nearly 50,000 civilian war 
casualties, received medical assistance from the 
AID-supported free-world medical personnel 
serving in Viet-Nam. 

Third, assisting the Revolutionary Develop- 
ment Program to provide security and growth 
in the rural areas and win the active support, of 
tlie people for the Government. In 1967 AID 
provided assistance for some 25,000 self-help 
projects in the rural areas and support for the 
70,d00-man National Police. 

Fourth, supporting national development 
programs. These programs are intended to gen- 
erate a sense of national cohesion and dynamism 
ovei' the next several years through economic 
and social progress and reforms. By the end of 
1067 local elections had been held in over 1,000 
villages and 5,000 hamlets, and over two-thirds 
of tlie cliildren of elementary- school age were en- 
rolled as opposed to 5 percent during the last 
French colonial years. Also during the year the 
Vietnamese Government initiated an ambitious 
agrarian development program, including ac- 
celerated rice and hog production, plus stepped- 
up distribution of land titles to former tenants. 

Since the testimony before this committee 
last spring, two major changes have been made 
in the administration of the AID-funded activi- 
ties for Viet-Nam. 

In 'Slay 1967 a new organization was estab- 
lislied in General [William C] Westmoreland's 

Military Assist^ance Command (MAC/V) to 
integrate U.S. military and civilian programs 
in support of the Vietnamese Eevolutionary 
Development Program and to provide a central 
point of supervision for all U.S. programs out- 
side of Saigon. This new organization. Civil 
Operations and Eevolutionary Development 
Support (CORDS), is, as you know, under the 
direction of Ambassador Robert Komer, Deputy 
to General Westmoreland. Certain AID-funded 
projects — refugees, Chieu Hoi, public safety, 
and material support of the work of the RD 
teams, were transferred to CORDS direction 
while retaining their AID funding. In addition, 
the coordination of all U.S. civilian staffs in the 
provincial areas was placed imder CORDS. 
These included the U.S. AID medical teams, 
educators, and agriculturalists operating in the 
Provinces. The U.S. AID Mission in Saigon re- 
tained the reponsibility for the commercial im- 
port program, financial policy, and all national 
programs which require close working relation- 
ships with the regular ministries in Saigon, such 
as education, health, and agriculture — espe- 
cially those projects associated with increasing 
rice production. 

Also in May 1967 AID Washington estab- 
lished a separate bureau for Viet-Nam to insure 
that this costly and complex aid program for 
Viet-Nam with its special problems receives the 
best possible management. The bureau combines 
into one organizational imit almost all the AID 
functions concerned with the Washington di- 
rection and support of the Viet-Nam program. 
This bureau works closely with those entities in 
State, Department of Defense, USIA, and the 
White House which are directly concerned with 
operations in Viet-Nam. 

By the end of 1967, the AID role in Viet-Nam 
had changed substantially from the dark days 
of near defeat in 1965. The buildup of Ameri- 
can troops in 1965 and 1966 saved the day but 
caused severe inflationary pressures and major 
dislocations in the Vietnamese economy. More- 
over, the intensification of the war led to addi- 
tional flows of refugees and civilian casualties. 
Saigon port facilities were swamped with ships 
and cargo to supply U.S. forces and to meet 
the surging import demands of the Vietnamese 
war economy. In 1966 consumer prices rose by 
68 percent. At one point the port congestion 
was such that approximately 3 months was 
sometimes required for the turnaround of low- 
priority cargo ships in Saigon. 

MAT G, 1968 


AID turned all its efforts toward these criti- 
cal problems, and by the middle of 1967 the 
logistics, inflation, refugees, and medical cas- 
ualty problems were under relative control : 

— Inflation was reduced from 68 percent in 
1966 to 34 percent in 1967, a vastly better per- 
formance than we had been able to accomplish 
in Korea during the comparable war years. 

— Saigon moved up from one of the worst to 
one of the best ports in the Far East, with ships 
requiring a turnaround time of less than 1 week. 

— U.S. medical personnel were treating some 
300,000 patients monthly as compared to less 
than 50,000 per month in 1965. AID was sup- 
porting more than 1,200 U.S. and other foreign 
medical personnel providing assistance to the 
Vietnamese — a sixfold increase in 3 years. 

— Some 400 refugee centers had been estab- 
lished as against only a handful in 1965. There 
had been a fivefold increase in the AID and vol- 
untary agencies personnel engaged in support- 
ing the Vietnamese Government's refugee pro- 

Progress on the Economic and Social Fronts 

Because of these developments, a new environ- 
ment of promise was created in which we and 
the Vietnamese could turn our attention to na- 
tional development programs. Spurred on by 
wartime demand and agricultural expansion in 
the countryside, 1967 turned out to be a year of 
great economic progress. 

Indeed, by late 1967 economic and social prog- 
ress was so marked in many fields that the VC 
were being confronted by the same problems 
posed to the East Germans by the economic and 
social progress of West Germany, which led to 
the building of the Berlin wall. It was the prog- 
ress on this economic front, together with the 
marked progress on the political and military 
fronts, which apparently led the Viet Cong to 
decide that they must make a coimteroffensive 
under a markedly different strategy if they were 
to avoid gradual defeat. 

This progress in 1967 in the economic areas 
came as a surprise to many, given the conven- 
tional image of destruction and dislocation in 
Viet-Nam that occupies so much of television 
and news reporting. Though there had been de- 
struction in the countryside, particularly in the 
Provinces near North Viet-Nam, most of the 
population centers escaped serious war damage 

and enjoyed visible economic and social prog- 
ress during 1967. This was particularly true in 
the delta, which contains over half of the rural 
population of Viet-Nam, and in the cities. In 
Saigon and most urban areas the war economy 
was providing full employment and a steadily 
increasing standard of living for most, includ- 
ing hundreds of thousands from the riiral areas 
who came seeking security and a rising standard 
of living. While housing conditions were fre- 
quently miserable, the standard of living on 
other fronts — food, clothing, consumer goods 
such as radios — was markedly up for most urban 

It was in the winter of 1966-67 that the Gov- 
ernment of South Viet-Nam had taken the 
politically difficult decision of raising the price 
of rice in the cities to enable the price paid to 
the farmer for his rice to double. In addition, 
the price of pork and vegetables was allowed 
to rise to a very attractive level for the farmer. 
During the same period the price of the goods 
the farmer bought increased by less than one- 

This surge of increased income to farmers 
who had access to the market economy came at 
a time when a payoff was beginning on much of 
the extension work done with farmers in earlier 
years. As already noted, fertilizer use has more 
than doubled in recent years. In November 1967 
for the first time, both the Farmers Co-ops and 
the Tenant Farmers Union began buying fer- 
tilizer in shipload lots of 8,000 to 10,000 tons. 
The Tenant Farmers Union, with its more than 
100.000 members, distributed some 30 percent 
of the more than 200,000 tons of AID-financed 
fertilizer used in 1967. More than 40,000 irriga- 
tion pumps powered by AID-financed small en- 
gines were sold in 1967 alone, probably 10 times 
the nixmber that existed in the entire country 
less than 5 years before. The sale of treadle sew- 
ing machines increased very greatly in 1967, by 
the tens of thousands, to the point where in some 
secure hamlets 30 percent of the families owned 


This economic progress in the more secure 
rural areas was accompanied by marked social 
progress. In 1966 and 1967 more than one-third 
of the villages and hamlets installed their first 
locally elected councils in many years. Some 70 
percent of all the children of elementary school 
age in the delta were attending school, the bene- 
ficiaries of the more than 2,000 classrooms which 
had been built each year since 1963. 



The new government installed in November 
19()7 has formulated its plans for an mtensifi- 
cation of the agrarian development effort. It 
has again increased the retail price of rice in 
Saigon, this time by more than 10 percent, m 
order to provide a better price to the farmer for 
his paddy. A goal of "universal" elementary 
education has been set for 1970, by which time 
it is expected that, security conditions permit- 
ting, more than 85 percent of the children will 
be in school. A greatly stepped-up program for 
land title distribution and enforcement of land 
rent ceilings is being initiated. Possibly of great- 
est longrun significance, the new government has 
launched a tightly scheduled program, centered 
on the ''miracle" strains of rice, designed to in- 
crease rice production 50 percent by 1971. 

Effect of Tet Offensive on AID Program 

There is no clear answer yet to the question of 
what effect the VC Tet offensive will have on 
the AID-supported programs m Viet-Nam for 
the balance of FY 1968 and for FY 1969. The 
principal aims of the Tet counteroffensive in- 
cluded the collapse of GVN governmental ma- 
chinery, the destruction of the sense of security 
that had developed in the urban areas, and the 
crippling of the economy through constant har- 
assment of the cities along with the interdiction 
of the main roads connecting the cities with the 
countryside. For example, since Tet there have 
been some 650 minings, shootings, and other 
incidents along Route 4, the mnbilical cord from 
Saigon to the delta. Continued progress of the 
nation-building programs depends on the res- 
toration of an adequate level of security by U.S. 
and GVN forces in the face of a major step-up 
in YC efforts. 

The program to build 1,250 new hamlet 
schools during the first 6 months of 1968 is obvi- 
ously a major casualty. Some will be built but 
far fewer than planned. The great majority of 
schools were closed in February : Many became 
refugee centers, and many were damaged. 
Numerous schools have reopened and all are 
scheduled to be open by early April ; however, 
the evacuation of refugees and reconstruction 
undoubtedly will be delaying factoi-s in some 

The accelerated rice production program is 
proceeding apace, but the goal of 44,000 hectares 
of miracle rice to be planted this spring has 
been reduced to 26,700 following post-Tet con- 

sultation by the Ministry of Agriculture with 
each of its provincial offices. The attached chart ' 
gives the changes in the plan since Tet. The 
downward revisions reflect, primarily, deterio- 
rated security conditions in the countryside. 
However, the accelerated military manpower 
mobilization undertaken since Tet has also 
forced cutbacks in civil programs. In Phu Yen 
Province the entire agricultural staff has been 

The priority that the GVN is continuing to 
give to this rice program is indicated by the fact 
that the reduced 26,700-hectare goal still repre- 
sents one of the more ambitious programs of its 
type ever undertaken by any country, quite 
apart from the war conditions prevailing in 

The post-Tet VC attacks on the cities and the 
lines of communication have greatly reduced im- 
port demand for the moment. Not only are peo- 
ple reluctant to buy major investment durables, 
such as pumps and trucks, after the trauma 
of the recent attacks against the cities, but im- 
porters are reluctant to hold large inventories 
imder such conditions. In addition and despite 
the week-by-week improvement in highway con- 
ditions, the still insecure driving conditions 
on many major routes have made it more difficult 
for goods to move in large quantities and, in 
many instances, doubled and trebled shipping 

Despite the reduction in imports and the con- 
tinuing VC interdiction efforts on the one hand 
and the continued deficit spending by the GVN 
on the other, prices have returned to about pre- 
Tet levels. Merchants and farmers with goods 
have been eager to reduce their inventories, but 
persons with income have been reluctant to buy 
investment goods. Cash holdings, therefore, are 
growing rapidly. These present a serious infla- 
tionary danger for later in 1968 and will lead 
to an increased demand then for imports. 

Assessment of Property Damage 

The fighting resulting from the VC attack 
against the cities resulted in substantial prop- 
erty damage. The U.S. Mission completed its 
first assessment last week of property damage 
in all of Viet-Nam, other than I Corps, where 
Hue is located. As can be seen from the attached 
cliart,^ the replacement cost of physical dam- 

' Not printed here. 

MAT 6, 1968 


age outside of I Corps is estimated at the dollar 
equivalent of $120 million. Approximately one- 
half of this is for private housing. The great 
majority of these are susceptible to restoration 
imder the self-help housing program whereby 
the owner is provided with a small sum of mon- 
ey from the GVN and cement and roofing ma- 
terials from AID. This program is well under- 
way and by now materiel sliould have reached 
all provincial centers, including those accessible 
only by air. 

Tpti days ago during my visit, some Prov- 
inces had not started distribution yet, even 
though supplies had begun to arrive. In others, 
reconstruction was well along. In Pleiku, for 
example, on March 16 more than a third of the 
houses had already been rebuilt or were in the 
process of reconstruction. In most cities the 
overwhelming majority of the structures de- 
stroyed were shanties on the edge of town. Only 
in Saigon and Hue is the Government itself un- 
dertaking housing constr\iction because of the 
requirement to replace multistory buildings. In 
Saigon, for example, tlie GVN has contracted 
for the construction of 2,000 units in multistory 
dwellings, and already footings are being 

Destruction of private industrial facilities 
was considerable, totaling some $33 million. 
The most significant loss was Viet-Nam's big- 
gest industrial facility: a large modern textile 
mill lying just off the end of the Tan Son Nliut 

We estimate the foreign exchange consequen- 
ces of the reconstruction effort to total more 
than $50 million. These figures do not include 
the cost of personal property, such as clothing 
and radios lost in the course of the fighting. 

The damage to physical property in Febru- 
ary was substantial. It is important, however, to 
keep this in context. Damage in Saigon was 
probably less than 2 percent of property vahie. 

Problems of Corruption and Mobilization 

Another consequence of the Tet offensive is 
that for the first time many nongovernmental 
leaders have spoken out vigorously in support 
of the Government's efforts against the VC. 
GVN leaders also have stepped up their efforts 
on many fronts, including military mobiliza- 
tion and attacks on corruption. 

Widespread corruption within the Govern- 

ment of Viet-Nam has been a serious hindrance 
to rapid progress in many areas. Botli President 
Thieu and Prime Minister Loc have been direct- 
ing increasing attention to the matter of corrup- 
tion during recent months and have spoken 1 
publicly and at length on the subject during 
the past 2 weeks. President Thieu has called 
corruption a "national shame" and has taken a 
series of bold actions designed to bring signifi- 
cant improvement. In the last 6 months the Gov- 
ernment has sentenced 46 military and civilian 
officials for corruption, three of whom received 
death sentences. In the past month the President 
relieved two of his powerful regional military 
commanders and six of his Province chiefs for 
illegal dealings or poor performance. Both the 
President and the Prime Minister have pledged 
themselves to unceasing efforts to bring this 
problem under control. AID on its part has 
taken numerous measui'es in the past year, with 
considerable success, to reduce diversion and loss 
of U.S.-fbianced goods. 

The stepped-up mobilization effort to increase 
the armed forces by 135,000 men in 1968 is caus- 
ing problems for many AID funded j^ro- 
grams. More than 20,000 volunteers and draftees 
are now being inducted each month, and in many 
key agencies a third or more of the critically es- 
sential personnel are subject to immediate draft. 
Thus, in the Vietnamese equivalent of our FAA, 
50 highly trained Vietnamese, one-third of its 
critical staff, now face imminent draft. This 
compares with a loss of 46 people with critical 
skills in the past 3 years, of which 40 were 
drafted. Their departure would seriously jeop- 
ardize the vital air]^5ort network in Viet-Nam, 
including Tan Son Nhut. We are working with 
the Vietnamese Government on an improved 
critical skills-deferment plan to soften the im- 
pact on key civilian ministries of the otherwise 
commendable military mobilization effort. Un- 
fortunately, in a country which as recently as 
1950 only had 300 college students, there is a 
shortage of personnel with enough educational 
background to meet both key civilian needs and 
the Vietnamese army's needs for officer candi- 
date material and skilled personnel for such 
units as helicopter squadrons. 

In conclusion, I should describe the AID- 
funded programs as indispensable elements in j 
a total program for success in Viet-Nam. Ob- II 
viously, they are onlj' part of a larger effort in 
which security has a primaiy role. 




Congressional Documents 
Relating to Foreign Policy 

90lh Congress, 2d Session 

A Report on Federal Arctic Research. Prepared by the 
Legislative Reference Service for the Senate Com- 
mittee on Appropriations. S. Doc. 71. December 1, 
1967. 313 pp. 

Authorizing Appropriations for the Saline Water Con- 
version Program for Fiscal Year 1969. Report to 
accompany S. 2912. H. Rept. 1247. April 1, 1908. 
10 pp. 

International Weather Programs. Report to accom- 
pany H. Con. Res. 723. H. Rept. 1273. April 2, 1968. 
14 pp. 

.■^rms Control and Disarmament Act Amendments, 
196S. Report, together vrith individual views, to ae- 
c-ompany H.R. 14940. S. Rept. 1088. April 10, 1968. 


Current Actions 


Load Lines 

International convention on load lines, 1966. Done at 
London April .'>, 1966. Enters into force July 21, 1968. 
TIAS 6331. 
Acceptance deposited: Norway, March 18, 1968. 

Postal Matters 

Con.stitution of the Universal Postal Union with final 
protocol, general regulations with final protocol, and 
convention with final protocol and regulations of 
execution. Done at Vienna July 10, 1964. Entered into 
force January 1, 1966. TIAS 5881. 
Ratification deposited: United Kingdom, for the ter- 
ritories the international relations of which the 
United Kingdom is responsible, March 6, 1968. 


Convention concerning the international exchange of 
publication.s. Adopted at Paris December 3, 1958. 
Enters into force for the United States June 9, 1968. 
TIAS 6438. 
Acceptance deposited: Malta, February 26, 1968. 


Treat.v on principles governing the aetivitie.s of states 
in the exploration and use of outer space, including 
the moon and other celestial bodies. Opened for sig- 
nature at Washington, London, and Moscow Jan- 

uary 27, 1967. Entered into force October 10, 1967. 

TIAS 6347. 

Ratification deposited: Tunisia, April 17, 1968. 


International telecommimicatlon convention with an- 
nexes. Done at Montreux November 12, 1965. Entered 
into force January 1, 1967 ; as to the United States 
May 29, 1967. TIAS 6267. 

Accession deposited: Botswana, April 2, 1968. 
Ratifications deposited: Czechoslovakia, January 3, 
1968; ■ -' Overseas Territories for the International 
relations of which the United Kingdom is respon- 
sible [Antigua, Ascension Island. Bahamas, Ber- 
muda, British Antarctic Territory (including 
South Orkney Islands, South Shetland Islands, 
and Graham Land), British Honduras. British 
Solomon Islands Protectorate, British Virgin Is- 
lands, Brunei, Cayman Islands, Central and South- 
em Line Islands, Dominica, Falkland Islands 
(Colony and dependencies, including South 
Georgia and South Sandwich Islands), Fiji, 
Gibraltar, Gilbert and EUice Islands, Grenada, 
Hong Kong, Mauritius, Montserrat, New Hebrides 
(Anglo-French Condominium), Pitcairn Islands, 
St. Christopher-Nevis and Anguilla, St Helena, 
St. Lucia. St. Vincent, Seychelles, Swaziland, 
Tonga, Tristan da Cunha, and Turks and Caicos 
Islands], March 7, 1968.' 
Partial revision of the radio regulations (Geneva, 
1959), as amended (TIAS 4893, 5603). to put into 
effect a revised frequency allotment plan for the 
aeronautical mobile (R) service and related infor- 
mation, with annexes. Done at Geneva April 29, 1966. 
Entered into force July 1, 1967; as to tie United 
States August 23, 1967, except the frequency allot- 
ment plan contained in appendix 27 shall enter into 
force April 10, 1970. TIAS 0332. 

Xotifieations of approval: Byelorussian Soviet So- 
cialist Republic," Ukrainian Soviet Socialist 
Republic,' Union of Soviet Socialist Republics," 
January 31, 1968; Niger, February 29, 1968. 


1967 protocol for the further extension of the Interna- 
tional Wheat Agreement, 1962 (TIAS 5115). Open 
for signature at Washington May 15 through June 1, 
1967. inclusive. Entered into force July 16, 1967 
TIAS 6315. 

Approval deposited: United Arab Republic, April 12. 


Federal Republic of Germany 

Agreement amending the agreement of July 7, 1955, 
relating to air transiwrt (TIAS 3536). Effected by 
exchange of notes at Washington April 5, 1968. 
Entered into force April 5, 1968. 


Agreement concerning Nanpo Shoto and other islands. 
Signed at Tokyo April 5, 1968. Enters Into force 30 
days after the date of receipt by the United States of 
a note stating that Japan ha.«i approved the agree- 
ment in accordance with its legal procedures. 

' With declarations. 
" With a statement. 

JLST fi, 1968 


Trinidad and Tobago 

Parcel post agreement, with regulations of execution. 
Signed at Port of Spain and Washington March 9 
and 18, 1968. Enters into force May 1, 19CS. 


Agreement amending the agreement of February 13, 
1967, as extended, on certain fishery problems in the 
northeastern part of the Pacific Ocean ofC the coast 
of the United States. Effected by exchange of notes 
at Moscow February 27 and April 9, 19(38. Entered 
into force April 9, 1968. 


Recent Releases 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. 
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 
20402. Address requests direct to the Superintendent 
of Documents. A 25-percent discount is made on orders 
for 100 or more copies of any one publivation mailed 
to the same address. Remittances, payable to the Su- 
perintendent of Documents, must accompany orders. 

World Meteorological Organization. Amendments to 
certain articles of the convention of October 11, 1947. 
Adopted by the Fifth Congress of the World Meteoro- 
logical Organization, Geneva, April 11 and 26, 1967. 
Entered into force April 11, 1967, with respect to arti- 
cles 4(b) and 12(c) ; entered into force April 26, 1967, 
with respect to article 1.3(a), French text; entered into 
force April 28, 1967, with respect to certain other arti- 
cles. TIAS 6364. 9 pp. 10^. 

Geodetic Satellite Observation Station. Agreement 
with Mexico, amending the agreement of Januarj' 27 
and 28, 1967. Exchange of notes— Signed at Mexico 
and Tlatelolco October 20, 1967. Entered into force 
October 20, 1967. TIAS 63G6. 3 pp. 5i. 

Agricultural Commodities. Agreement with Brazil, 
amending the agreement of December 31, 1956, as cor- 
rected and amended. Exchange of notes — Signed at 
Rio de Janeiro October 5, 1967. Entered into force 
October 5, 1967. TIAS 6367. 3 pp. 5<*. 

Agricultural Commodities. Agreement with Brazil, 
amending the agreement of May 4, 1961. Exchange of 
notes — Signed at Rio de Janeiro October 5, 1967. En- 
tered into force October .5, 1967. TIAS 6368. 3 pp. 5(*. 

Agricultural Commodities. Agreement with Brazil, 
amending the agreement of March 15, 1962, as amended. 
Exchange of notes— Signed at Rio de Janeiro October 5, 
1967. Entered Into force October 5, 1967. TIAS 6369. 
3 pp. 5<t. 

Agricultural Commodities. Agreement with Ghana. 
Signed at Accra October 27, 1967. Entered into force 
October 27, 1967. TIAS 6370. 3 pp. 50. 

Trade in Cotton Textiles. Agreement with Yugoslavia. 
Exchange of notes — Signed at Belgrade September 26, 
1967. Date of entry Into force January 1, 1968. TIAS 
6371. 9 pp. 10(t. 

Air Service — Lease of Equipment. Agreement with the 
Federal Republic of Germany, extending the agreement 
of August 2, 1955, as extended. Exchange of notes — 
Dated at Bonn September 26 and October 24, 1967. 
Entered into force October 24, 1967. Effective August 2, 
1967. TIAS 6373. 3 pp. 5(t. 

Geodetic Survey. Agreement with Upper Volta. Ex- 
change of notes — Signed at Ouagadougou June 28 and 
August 21, 1967. Entered into force August 21, 1967. 
TIAS 6374. 5 pp. 5(f. 

Double Taxation— Taxes on Estates of Deceased Per- 
sons. Protocol with Greece, modifying and supple- 
menting the convention of February 20, 1950. Signed at 
Athens February 12, 1964. Proclaimed by the President 
of the United States of America November 3, 1967. 
Entered into force October 27, 1967. TIAS 6375. 8 pp. 

Mutual Defense Assistance. Agreement with Norway, 
amending annex C to the agreement of January 27, 
1950. Exchange of notes — Dated at Oslo November 1 
and 9, 1967. Entered into force November 9, 1967. 
TIAS 6376. 3 pp. 5(f. 

Alien Amateur Radio Operators. Agreement with 
Austria. Signed at Vienna November 21, 1967. Entered 
into force December 21, 1967. TIAS 6378. 2 pp. 5^. 



INDEX ^ay 6, 196S Vol. LVIII, No. 1606 

Agriculture. The International Grains Arrange- 
ment (Sanderson) 590 

Asia. President Johnson and President Chung 
Hee Park of Korea Confer at Honolulu, 
Hawaii (JoLilsou, joint comuiuni(iue) . . . 573 


AID'S Proposed Program for Viet-Nam In Fiscal 

Year 1969 (Grant) 594 

Congressional Documents Relating to Foreign 

Policy 599 

Economic Affairs 

Integration and Trade in the Alliance for Prog- 
ress (Oliver) 584 

The International Grains Arrangement (Sander- 
son) 590 

Educational and Cultural Affairs. U.S.-Japan 
Cultural Conference Discusses Educational 
Systems (text of communique) 587 

Europe. The Business of Building a Peace 

(Rusk) 579 

Foreign Aid. AID's Proposed Program for Viet- 
Nam in Fiscal Year 1969 (Grant) .... 594 

Japan. U.S.-Japan Cultural Conference Dis- 
cusses Educational Systems (text of com- 
munique) 587 

Korea. President Johnson and President Chung 
Hee Park of Korea Confer at Honolulu, 
Hawaii (Johnson, joint communique) . . . 573 

Latin America. Integration and Trade in the 
AUiance for Progress (Oliver) 584 

Mexico. President Johnson Hails U.S.-Mexican 

Friendship (Johnson) 578 

Presidential Documents 

President Johnson and President Chung Hee 
Park of Korea Confer at Honolulu, Hawaii . 573 

President Johnson Hails U.S.-Mexican Friend- 
ship 578 

Publications. Recent Releases 600 

Trade. Integration and Trade in the Alliance 
for Progress (Oliver) 584 

Treaty Information 

Current Actions 599 

The International Grains Arrangement ( Sander- 
son) 590 


AID'S Proposed Program for Viet-Nam in Fiscal 

Year 1969 (Grant) 594 

The Business of Building a Peace (Rusk) . . 579 

I'resident Johnson and President Chung Hee 
Park of Korea Confer at Honolulu, Hawaii 
(Johnson, joint communique) 573 

U.S. Suggests Suitable Sites for Viet-Nam Ne- 
gotiations (Rusk) 577 

Name Index 

Grant, James P 594 

Johnson, President 573, 578 

Oliver, Covey T 584 

Rusk, Secretary 577, 579 

Sanderson, Fred H 590 

Check List of Department of State 
Press Releases: April 15-21 

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

Releases issued prior to April 15 which appear 
in this issue of the Bulletin are Nos. 69 of 
April 8 and 70 of April 9. 





Date Subject 

4/16 Human Rights Year Commission 

resolution in tribute to the late 

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 
4/18 Battle : Chartered Life Underwriters, 

Cincinnati, Ohio. 
4/18 Regional foreign policy conference, 

Knoxville, Tenn., May 17. 
4/18 Rusk : statement on Viet-Nam peace 

talk sites. 
4/19 Program for visit of King Olav V of 


* Not printed. 

t Held for a later issue of the Bdixetin. 


Superintendent of Documents 

u.s. government printing office 

washington, d.c. 20402 




!• 1 

(rtn) dUro(^ 







Address by Vice President Humphrey 601 


Statements by President Johnson and Ambassador Linowitz 6II1. 


Address by Secretary Clifford {Excerpt) 605 


by Assistant Secretary Battle 608 

For index see inside hack cover 



Vol. LVIII, No. 1507 
May 13, 1968 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Oovemment Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 


62 issues, domestic $10, foreign $15 
Single copy 30 cents 

Use of funds for printing of this publication 
approved by the Director of the Bureau of 
the Budget (January 11, 1966). 

Note: Contents of this publication are not 
copjTighted and items contained herein may be 
reprinted. Citation of the DEPARTMENT OF 
STATE BULLETIN as the source will be 
appreciated. The BULLETIN is indexed in 
the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature. 

The Department of State BULLETIN, 
a weekly publication issued by the 
Office of Media Services, Bureau of 
Public Affairs, 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 selected 
press releases on foreign policy, issued 
by the White House and the Depart- 
ment, and statements and addresses 
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 interna- 
tional affairs and tlie functions of the 
Department. Information is included 
concerning treaties and international 
agreements to which the United 
States is or may become a party 
and treaties of general international 

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


Constructive Initiatives for Freedom and Peace 

Address ly Vice President Humphrey 

Ours is the century of emancipation. At home 
and abroad, the convulsive, turbulent processes 
of freedom are at work— processes that are 
rarely quiet, seldom orderly or refined. Few 
people have ever gained— and held— their free- 
dom without torment, difficulty, ferment, and 

World War II mileashed the great forces of 
liberation in the 20th century, even as, para- 
doxically, it fastened a new type of tyranny 
upon vast numbers of people and many nations. 
But even in tliose nations the seeds of emanci- 
pation—the seeds of liberation— were there. 
And they are beginning, at long last, to sprout. 
I believe the ferment in China will lead 
toward a different China in the next decade— 
hopefully, a freer China, a China which will be 
a better neighbor. 

In Eastern Europe the monolith of commu- 
nism has been fractured. People are demand- 
ing—and getting— emancipation from rigid, 
inflexible state control. 

In America, World War II required the par- 
ticipation of all Americans, and a quest for full 
freedom for all Americans has dominated our 
domestic history ever since. 

Once that process was started, you could not 
stop it, nor should you try. 

The cries of "Freedom Now," of "We Shall 
Overcome," have been the rallying force for 
millions of deprived and underprivileged 
Americans who are today asking the right to be 
citizens— in the fullest sense of the word. This, 
m a very real sense, is the continuing American 
Revolution. The amazing thing is that it has 
come as peacefully as it has. 

The test of our society will be whether or not 
we can make the necessai-y changes witliout de- 
stroying tlie good in what we have already 
built- whether we can have change amidst 
order, and order that permits change. 
I think we can. I think the Ameiican political 

MAT 13, 1968 

and social system lias the flexibility and dura- 
bility to accommodate these powerful forces of 
emancipation and freedom. 

Yes, the same forces of emancipation and 
freedom are at work throughout the world— 
restlessly, at times violently, fitfully. The pages 
of histoiy a hundred years from now will surely 
reveal that the last half of the 20th century saw 
the greatest move toward freedom that the 
world has ever known, and we will be very much 
part of that story. 

^^^The chapter headings for our times will be 
"Self-Determination," "Development," "Libera- 
tion," "Nationhood," "National Development." 
This is the language of a new epoch in human 
development, an epoch when tyranny has a 
terminal disease. 

The idea of freedom can no longer be sup- 
pressed. The members of the human race, in- 
creasingly, can read and write. They will 
communicate and interchange ideas. 

That is the world as it is today— turbulent 
dangerous, hopeful. And that is the world as 
it will be for some time to come. 

Jolm F. Kennedy said it : ^ "Peace and free- 
dom do not come cheap, and we are destined, all 
of us here today, to live out most if not all of 
our lives in micertainty and challenge and 
peril." "= 

In such a world America's role is a demanding 
one. ° 

We must do our part to protect world security 
by maintaining whatever strength is necessary 
to meet our commitments to the U.N. Charter 
and the regional treaties to which we are 

But we a re also obliged to concentrate on the 

■ Made before the Overseas Press Club at New York 
N. v., on Apr. 23. 

^For an address by President Kennedy made at the 
University of North Carolina on Oct. 12 1961 see 
Bulletin of Oct. 30, 1961, p. 699 


arts of peace. Through affirmative action to 
meet human needs, we can build security and 

Today -we seek peace in Asia. 

I look forward to the day when all the peo- 
ples of Southeast Asia will be participants and 
partners in economic development and will 
share in the aid we are able to offer. 

I look forward to the day when the great 
Chinese people, no longer victimized from 
within, take their place in the modern world. 
Surely, one of the most exciting and enriching 
experiences to which we can look forward is 
the building of peaceful bridges to the people of 
mainland China. I believe the power of the free 
idea will in time infiltrate mainland China, as it 
has infiltrated and is infiltrating the Soviet 
Union and Eastern Europe. 

There will be frustrations. We shall be re- 
buffed, no doubt, time and again. But we must 
keep trying. For continued national isolation 
breeds growing national neurosis — in China as 

Achieving Control of Nuclear Weapons 

Among our highest priorities as we look 
ahead is acliievmg greater control over weapons 
of mass destruction and taking steps that lead 
us away from the madness of the arms race. 

These have been top priorities of mine 
throughout my career in public service — as 
sponsor and chairman of the Senate Special 
Subcommittee on Disarmament, as the sponsor 
of legislation creating the Arms Control and 
Disarmament Agency, as a leader in the fight 
in the Senate for the nuclear test ban treaty. 

The danger to human survival that we face 
in nuclear weapons may have bred some pessi- 
mists and fatalists. But it has also called forth 
devoted and creative statesmanship. I believe 
that we are today witliin sight of effective con- 
trol. We have certainly demonstrated that prog- 
ress toward nuclear disarmament is at least 

Let us not overlook the record of recent years. 

The first breakthrough came in 1963 when we 
agreed with the Soviet Union and Britain to 
end nuclear testing in the air, in the sea, and in 
outer space. Tlius, the threat of radioactive 
pollution, once the terror of whole populations, 
was halted. 

Last year, the United States and the Soviet 
Union signed a treaty in wliich each promised 
not to station nuclear or other weapons of mass 
destruction in outer space. 

The most urgent immediate need is for con- 
trol of nuclear proliferation. 

Just 3 weeks ago, a notable start was made in 
Mexico City to meet this threat. Acting for the 
President of the United States, I affirmed our 
commitment to a treaty — ^the first of its kind — 
in which 21 Latin American countries banned 
nuclear weapons and explosives below the 35th 

And just 2 days from now, the General As- 
sembly of the United Nations will begin consid- 
eration of a draft treaty to halt the prolifera- 
tion of nuclear weapons. 

We urge its approval as a way of hastening 
international cooperation. 

We urge its approval as a way of preventing 
the spread of new and increasingly destructive 
nuclear weapon systems. 

In the end the treaty will have to depend in 
part on the self-discipline of nations and on their 
willingness to have faith in each other. 

We have already offered to discuss with the 
Soviet Union limitations on both offensive and 
defensive weapons systems. 

We must achieve full control not only of the 
weapons we have now but also of those which 
science and tecluiology may develop in the fu- 
ture. Our political ingenuity must match our 
teclinological ingenuity, or we can all become 
the victims of a spiraling escalation of destruc- 
tive capacity. 

A Joint Assault on Want 

There is another dangerous escalation in the 
world — the escalation of already rising expecta- 
tions wliich are going unfulfilled. 

We see clear evidence, on all sides, that 
poverty and injustict. in even the most remote 
nation can lead to the small disorder which 
causes the large conflict which spreads to the 
major conflagration which can engulf all of us. 

And we see — indeed, as in ovir own America — 
that people living trapped and impoverished in 
a wider society of mobility and affluence are 
easy victims of demagoguery, incitement, and 

We have been trying to deal with this chal- 
lenge. Through their own efforts, and with some 
outside help, the developing nations are find- 
ing their feet. They are producing more food 
and more goods. 

And we are beginning to learn. We are be- 
ginning to transform the old and uncomforta- 

'/6i(i., Apr. 29, 1968, p. 554. 



ble civer-receiver relationship into a joint 
assault on a mutual eneni}' — want — where\er it 

The imiovations and experiments of recent 
years do point the way for the future : 

— family planning, but on a scale many times 
larger than what is now being considered; 

— overwhelming emphasis in the developing 
nations — and in our assistance programs — on 
food production and the building of agricul- 
tural infrastructure ; 

— worldwide commodity agi-ecments which 
stabilize prices enough so that the producing 
nations may have at least an even chance of 
earning their own way; 

• — international agreements and guarantees to 
produce a manifold increase in the flow of con- 
stnictive private investment to the developing 
nations ; 

— multilateralism in aid programs along with 
a limited amount of fvmds for bilateral use in 

— greater reliance on such institutions as the 
"World Bank, the U.N., and African, Asian and 
Latin American institutions for investment and 
development ; 

— economic and political regionalism so that 
others may enjoy the benefits of large units of 
people, resources, and markets such as the 
United States and the European Commimity 
now possess ; 

— the unleashing of our scientific and tech- 
nological knowledge about our own earth that 
we can gain from our new capabilities in space; 

— the use of the transistor radio and com- 
munications satellite, which can bring iilst- 
centuiy skills and education to even the most 
remote rural villager; 

— the modernization of an international 
monetary system which must be able to provide 
the capital needed to finance the developing as 
well as the developed; 

— the steady removal of barriers to ti-ade 
among the. prosperous nations and the establish- 
ment of a global preference system for the goods 
of the underdeveloped. 

These constnictive initiatives are the nutrients 
of freedom and peace. They are the things we 
Americans must be ready to do if we hope to 
keep our nation safe and free in a world of 
growth and change, rather than threatened and 
isolated in a world of strife. 

A secure world, with past difi^erences recon- 
ciled, in which men can determine their own 
destinies, a world free of nuclear peril, a world 

without starvation and poverty, a world in con- 
trol of science, not victimized by it — these are 
objectives worthy of a great people. Are they 
beyond our power to achieve? 

We shall never know imless we try. And try 
we must, with perseverance and determination. 

Whether we like it or not, we live in a world 
so intricately interdependent that the possi- 
bility of withdrawal or isolation simply does 
not exist. 

The Positive Uses of Power 

It is fashionable today to discuss foreign pol- 
icy in terms of American power — the limits, 
dangers, price, discipline of power. It is a use- 
ful discussion, carried forward on a high level 
by thoughtful and patriotic men. 

But in the process of emphasizing the alleged 
abuses of national power, they have left us in 
some danger of denying its positive uses. 

We must choose our policies and priorities 
carefully — yes. But let us not delude ourselves 
into believing that we are not influencing devel- 
opments in the world by not exercising our 
power. And I mean national power of all 
kinds — economic, militai-y, diplomatic, moral. 
An American failure to participate would itself 
have enormous and, in my view, very dangerous 
consequences in the world. 

It has been my observation over 20 years of 
public service that we have used our power the 
way we have because of the kind of world we 
live in and because of the kind of people we are. 
We have not shrunk from the bitter necessity 
of helping to repel armed aggression with our 
armed might. 

But the basic use of American strength has 
been in the peaceful and constructive pursuits 
of mankind. This is our imique contribution. 
We may play our role imperfectly. But it must 
not be confused with the imperialist posturhig 
of a dead past. 

We are the nation that has helped bind up the 
wounds of our former enemies, that has helped 
Europe rebuild after a shattering war, that has 
sought to expand horizons of hmnan welfare in 
every corner of the world, that has helped to 
liquidate Western colonialism and to contain 
Communist imperialism. 

And we need not apologize for it. 

Facing the problems, and looking at our 
chances, what may the future ultimately hold 
for us? 

A few months ago, at Fulton, Missouri, I 
looked ahead toward the time when a world of 

MAT 13, 19G8 


Iron Curtains might be succeeded by a world of 
Open Doors.^ 

That need not be a distant goal if we use our 
strength wisely both at home and in the world, 
if we deal maturely with the real opportunities 
and real perils before us on a scale which 
promises success. 

Our policy and our ultimate vision could be 
no better than those set forth in the earliest 
and most dangerous days following World War 
II by Winston Churchill: 

"If we adhere faithfully to the Charter of 
the United Nations and walk forward in sedate 
and sober strength, seeking no one's land or 
treasure, seeking to lay no arbitrary control 
upon the thoughts of men . . . the high roads 
of the future will be clear, not only for us, but 
for all, not only for our time, but for the cen- 
tury to come." 

Let us get on with our work. 

The President's News Conference 
of April 25 

Following are excerpts jrom the transcript of 
a. news conference held hy President Johnson at 
the White House on April 25. 

The President : I have today accepted with re- 
gret the resignation of Arthur Goldberg as 
U.S. Representative to the United Nations. 
Ambassador Goldberg has expressed to me his 
desire to leave this position for personal reasons. 
He will continue at the United Nations, proba- 
bly until around the early part of Jime, while 
certain matters that he now has underway are 
being handled and disposed of. 

Ambassador Goldberg has, in conversations 
over the last several months, assured me that he 
would be available to the Govermnent to consult 

and help out with any problems that we might 
feel he was equipped to help us handle. 

To replace Ambassador Goldberg, I am ap- 
pointing the Honorable George Ball. He is a 
distinguished public servant who has held many 
important positions, includmg Under Secretary 
of State, and who serves me unofficially in many 
advisory capacities at the present time. 

Mr. Ball will be available to take over when 
Mr- Goldberg leaves. We anticipate a smooth 

I will answer questions if you have any. 

Q. What do you hear from Hanoi? 

The President: I have no comment. I have 
nothmg new really to add to what you have 
been told in the official briefing. 

Q. Mr. President, luis Ambassador Goldherg 
informed you as to what his future plans are? 
Is he going into pri/vate law practice? 

The President: Ambassador Goldberg will 
have a statement, I tliink, later in the day.^ That 
is a matter for him to handle. 

Q. Sir, can you give u^ any new advice on the 
military situation in Viet-Nam? There have 
been conflicting reports out of the Embassy in 
Saigon about what is happening. Can you give 
us something more authoritative? 

The President: I don't think so. You have re- 
porters out there. The information I have avail- 
able to me is not much different than what you 
have. I don't know what conflicts you are talk- 
ing about. 

Q. Stories about an impending attack and 
then reports to the contrary. 

The President: We do have reports like that. 

' ma.. Mar. 27, 1967, p. 486. 

' For a statement made by Ambassador Goldberg at 
his news conference at New York, N.T., on Apr. 25, see 
U.S./U.N. press release 58. 



The Problems and Prospects in Southeast Asia 

ly Clark M. CUiford 
Secretary of Defense ^ 

Tlie diij" before yesterday I returned from my 
first meeting with the defense ministers of 
the Nuclear PLinning Group of the NATO 
coimtries, held at The Hague. 

This was an exceedingly valuable experience 
for me personally, for it constituted a dramatic 
illustration of the effectiveness with which we 
can work together with our allies in planning a 
joint defense against possible future aggression. 

I was impressed by the open and free discus- 
sion among nations that have a common aim in 
finding solutions to problems in an atmosphere 
of mutual confidence and trust. 

It was clear to me that from this meeting 
there emerged a better collective understanding 
of the role that various nuclear weapon systems 
could play in the event of an emergency. The 
presence of both nuclear weapons and conven- 
tional forces constitutes a flexible response 
which presents a strong deterrent to any 
would-be aggressor. 

Apart from the formal agenda, I had the 
opportunity to talk privately both with my de- 
fense colleagues and with other Europeans who 
had no official status. I found that many Euro- 
peans had questions similar to those that are 
raised in this countiy. And their questions, 
sometimes asked obliquely and sometimes quite 
directly, centered upon this one basic subject: 
Is America really in trouble? Thoy wondered 
whether somehow we had become a stumbling 
giant, unable to cope either with our own most 
pressing domestic problem or with our most 
acute international involvement. 

Our European friends were troubled, as our 

' Excerpt from an address made before the annual 
luncheon of the Associated Press at New York. N.Y., 
on Apr. 22 (Department of Defense press release). 

own people at home are troubled, by the current 
strife in our cities and the status of our efforts 
in Viet-Nam. 

They are asking whether we have lost the 
formula for continuing oiu- social progress with- 
out unleashing a volatile and fiery inferno of 
civil disorder. 

They are asking there, as many are asking 
here, whether we are bogged down in Viet-Nam, 
struggling m a conflict that we can neither win 
nor abandon, at the expense of our ability to 
cope with our other obligations and responsi- 
bilities throughout the world. 

I gave them the answer I want to give to you 
today. America is not m trouble. It is steadj' on 
its course. It is making progi-ess. Of course we 
have not yet solved all our problems, either for- 
eign or domestic, in Viet-Nam or in the cities. 

I find this a source of neither humiliation nor 
embarrassment. No nation in history has ever 
solved all the problems of humanity. We in the 
United States have every reason to be proud of 
our record. This nation has never been, and is 
not now, a stumbluag giant. Throughout our 
history, it has had the faith and the courage and 
the willingness and the ability to face its prob- 
lems, to meet its challenges and work toward 
solutions of its difficulties. 

The problems of the past have not been over- 
come without a price and without pain. 

The problems of today — those facing us both 
in the jungles and rice paddies in Viet-Nam and 
in the aging and crowded centers of American 
cities — will cost us dearly. 

But let the pessimists and the doubtei-s always 
remember this: We have the resources and 
detennination to surmount these obstacles. 

You are due a progress report on our prob- 
lems, and I would like today to begin with a 
report on Viet-Nam. 

MAT 13, 1968 


In Europe and here at home, some people 
continue to ask why we have concerned our- 
selves in what they term the "backwaters" of 
Asia. And tliey wonder whether this involve- 
ment in what they regard as an internal Viet- 
nam conflict is inconsistent both with our tra- 
ditions and with our overall national interest. 

They ask questions which are even more basic. 
They ask whether we can ever win or ever dis- 
engage from Southeast Asia with our national 
honor intact. 

My first answer is that I believe deeply in the 
necessity for our presence in Viet-Nam. We are 
assisting that brave and beleaguered nation to 
fight aggression, vmder the SEATO Treaty — 
and for the same reasons that we extended our 
aid to Greece and Turkey over 20 years ago. 

This is in the tradition of the Truman doc- 
trine, which announced 20 years ago that we 
would help defend the liberty of peoples who 
wished to defend themselves. 

Where, some ask, is the America of the Mar- 
shall Plan? 

It is in South Viet-Nam today carrying on 
the same tradition. It is providing economic aid 
to help put that resolute country back on its 
feet. The Marshall Plan performed precisely 
the same mission for the war-shattered coun- 
tries of Europe. And I might stress that some 
of those countries have no larger a population — 
and indeed some are even smaller — than the 
country of South Viet-Nam. 

We went into South Viet-Nam in force in 
1965, when it was on the verge of being cut m 
half by Hanoi's intervention. We went in to 
save the people of South Viet-Nam, wlien other 
nations would not, and they could not. 

We went into South Viet-Nam in force to 
provide a shield behind which the people of 
South Viet-Nam could gradually strengthen 

And they are doing so. 

They are calling up another 135,000 troops. 
And they are going to take over more and more 
of the fighting. 

The America that brought NATO into being 
is the same America supporting freedom in Asia 
today— and for the Asians, not for the 

There is not a square foot of South Viet-Nam 
that we want to keep. There is not a bag of rice 
in South Viet-Nam that we need. There is not 
a base nor a port nor a landing field in South 

Viet-Nam that is going to remain American. 
Our aim there is identical with that which we 
had, and will continue to have, in NATO. We 
want only to assist the people of the area to ac- 
quire the ability to insure their own security. 

Of course, there are those who say that the 
prospects are bleak and that the situation is 

This is not the first time in history that those 
on the sidelines have been without hope. 

There were many who were fainthearted 
about Berlin when the Soviets blockaded it. 
They said that the odds were agamst the United 
States position there, that the city was not really 
defensible, that it would be cut off and strangled 
no matter what we did — and they said that it 
was best to give up gracefully and just get out. 

Some of the comment I hear about South 
Viet-Nam has the same ring of despair. 

Other critics, both here and overseas, ask why 
it is that we, with all our military might, can- 
not defeat North Viet-Nam. But they overlook 
the point that we are not attempting to conquer 
North Viet-Nam. We are not trying to destroy 
the government in the North. We just want the 
North Vietnamese to stop their aggression 
against the South. 

This nation is interested in a free Asia, just 
as we are interested in a free Europe. But this 
does not mean that we see ourselves as the police- 
men of the world. 

We have no illusions that we have the ability 
or the duty or the right to attempt to settle all 
the problems of the world by ourselves. 

But there are areas of particular American 
concern, because of the threat they present to 
the stability of the world upon which depend 
our own peace, our prosperity, and our contin- 
ued opportunities for progress. 

So I have no apologies to make to our Euro- 
pean friends or to our American critics for the 
policy of the United States with respect to 

Let us meet another question head on. Some 
ask whether we in fact have any policy in Viet- 
Nam. They question whether there is anything 
other than the dismal prospect of more men, 
more money, more fighting, and more death. 

At the time I assumed office, the President 
ordered a comprehensive review of United 
States policy and programs in Viet-Nam. 

A major part of my time during these past 
weeks has been occupied with that review. The 



results were clear, and the results were en- 
couraging. They disclosed that Hanoi could not 
bend South Viet-Nam to its will by militaxy 

We concluded that Americans will not need 
always to do more and more but rather that the 
increased effectiveness of the South Vietnamese 
Govermnent and its fighting forces will now 
permit us to level off our effort — and in due time 
to begin the gradual process of reduction. 

The review established to our satisfaction 
that Southeast Asia is not for us a "bottomless 

The review confirmed the judgment, already 
reached by President Thieu, that the South Viet- 
namese were ready to take on more of the re- 
sponsibility and to cari-y more of the military 

As we level off our contribution of men, we 
are accelerating our delivery to the South Viet- 
namese armed forces of the most modern weap- 
ons and equipment. 

We are increasing their supply of M-16 rifles. 
By July of this year all combat elements of the 
regular South Vietnamese ground forces are to 
be equipped with the lM-16. By November 1968, 
100.000 more M-16's will have been provided 
to the Eegional and Popular Forces. In addition, 
the South Vietnamese expanded airborne divi- 
sion is receiving M-60 machineguns, M-79 
grenade launchers, and M-29 mortars. The 
shipment of about 2,000 trucks and more than 
6,000 radios is being expedited. 

As the South Vietnamese gain in militai-y 
strength and as the enemy continues to sustain 
losses, we still hope, however, for a peaceful 
settlement instead of a military solution. A 

stable peace is the only true victory for Viet- 
Nam. As a result of the President's actions and 
at least a minimal response from Hanoi, there 
is some reason for hope. America has always 
held out its hand in peace, hoping our adver- 
saries would grasp it. We continue to hold out 
our hand today, and perhaps the fingertips will 
soon touch. 

But if Hanoi would rather fight than talk or 
elects both to talk and fight, the record of the 
success we have already achieved shows that 
military victory in South Viet-Nam is beyond 
Hanoi's reach. 

The attempt of the North to take over the 
South by force of arms has been prevented. The 
South Vietnamese have acquired the capacity 
to begin to insure their own security through 
their own efforts. We will continue to help the 
South exploit these successes, even as we strive 
for peace through other means. 

In summary, we are fulfilling our commit- 
ment ; we have helped save South Viet-Nam 
from being overwhelmed by Communist aggres- 
sion; we have helped provide the people of 
South Viet-Nam an opportunity for self-gov- 
ernment ; and we have helped give all the popu- 
lation of non-Communist Asia reason to hope 
for the continued security essential to their free- 
dom. And freedom — like aggression — is con- 
tagious. The more there is elsewhere, tlie greater 
the chances of saf egTiarding your own. 

I suggest that many present critics someday 
will applaud our stand in Southeast Asia. But 
we do not seek their applause. We only ask their 
realism about the problems and prospects in 
Southeast Asia. 

MAT 13, 196 8 


The Common Threads Linking the Countries 
of the Near East and South Asia 

&y Lucius D. Battle 

Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs ^ 

I realize that recent dramatic events in this 
counti-y and in the Far East have perhaps 
focused public attention almost exclusively on 
these two areas in recent days. I am here today, 
however, to talk to you about the part of the 
world in which I am specifically responsible for 
the conduct of United States relations; my re- 
sponsibilities begin with Greece, Turkey, and 
Iran, move through the Arab-Israeli world and 
over to South Asia through India and Pakistan, 
and end with Ceylon. 

At the moment, events in this part of the 
world are not as dramatic as they are in the Far 
East or indeed here at home. However, it is a 
troubled area searching for identity, seeking 
solutions to problems that try the soul and chal- 
lenge the mind of man even in an age of un- 
paralleled scientific and teclmological advance- 
ment. Perhaps there is no area in the world that 
is as diverse or as complex as that for which I 
find myself responsible. One could even argue 
that my area of responsibility does not represent 
a rational geographic division but that the 
divergency of its problems is such that it repre- 
sents little more than a bureaucratic stew made 
up of leftovers from other areas of the world. 
But on closer examination, it seems to me that 
there are tlireads that run through this vast 
geographic area and which, to a degi'ee, tell the 
story of all of the world's problems. 

The area of my cognizance can be separated 
into three vast groups: Greece, Turkey, and 
Iran, forming one sort of northern tier; the 
Arab-Israeli countries, with their recent war 
and its aftermath, form another; and then the 
vast area of the subcontinent — India, Pakistan, 
Ceylon, and Afghanistan. These three group- 

^ Address made before the Cincinnati Chapter of 
Chartered Life Underwriters at Cincinnati, Ohio, on 
Apr. IS (press release 75). 

ings range from a country — Kuwait — with the 
highest per capita income in the world to coun- 
tries with some of the lowest standards of living 
that this globe has yet encoimtered. 

As I said, I believe that there are strands that 
connect and flow througli the entire area. 

Wliat are the characteristics in the area of 
my responsibility that are common to the diverse 
countries and areas I liave mentioned ? 

First and foremost is the problem of political 
instability. In the years that I have held my 
present assignment there have been in my area 
one full-scale war, numerous border skirmishes, 
a major coup d'etat in Greece, a serious crisis 
on Cyprus that nearly led to another major war, 
broken diplomatic relations with several coun- 
tries, and conditions dangerous enough to re- 
quire the emergency evacuation of 25,000 Ameri- 
can citizens — ^the protection of whom is a key 
part of American diplomacy abroad. 

Wliy, we ask, this instability ? First, there is 
the abject poverty in some parts of the Near East 
and South Asia. Just keeping people alive in 
India, Pakistan, and Egypt is a major under- 
taking. India, with a population of 515 million 
which is increasing by 12 million per year, has 
to import 8 to 12 million tons of grain each year 
to prevent starvation. Pakistan has a similar 
problem as far as the needs per caj^ita of its 
people are concerned. One of Egypt's prime 
difficidties is to find sources of hard currency 
earnings to permit it to spend $100 million a 
year or more to feed one of the most rapidly 
growing populations in the world. 

In some countries, poverty and the ever- 
present threat of actual mass starvation create a 
situation in which stability on the political 
front becomes difficult to maintain. These needs 
force the countries affected to look outside for 
help. They create awkward relationships of 



dependency with countries that help meet these 
requirements. These relationships themselves 
can be unsettlinc; and add to instability. They 
increase the temptation for leaders of impover- 
ished and starving countries to blame someone 
else for their troubles in order to provide out- 
side diversion for the misery of their millions. 

Another major phenomenon that sweeps 
through the area of my responsibility is a burn- 
ing sense of nationalism, often irrational by our 
standards and frequently having a distinctly 
anti-Western undertone. The reason for this 
desire for a national identity is not hard to 
understand. Many of these coimtries are newly 
indeijendent. ilany have seen foreign domina- 
tion removed only since the Second "World "War. 
The Arab countries, particularly Egypt, have 
sought to fuid a national identity and a place 
in the sim for millions of Arabs. In the process 
there have been sharp attacks on the former 
"Western relationships rejected since the war. 
This is ti-ue of India, Pakistan, Cyprus, and 
others. Turkey and Iran have both gone through 
similar rebirths as modern nationalistic states 
only in the yeare since the end of "World "War I. 

This new awakening sense of national iden- 
tity and pride, understandable but bringing 
problems, contributes enormously to instability 
in tlie area. Inexperience and uncertainty as to 
how a nation should proceed add their part. 

Roots of the Arab-Israeli Conflict 

The Arab world has sought to remove the 
foreigner or limit his presence in the area and 
has made of the presence of foreigners a politi- 
cal whipping boy. This is one of the roots of the 
Arab-Israeli conflict, even though its origins 
sweep back to Biblical times. 

The attachment of Israelis to Palestine has 
deep emotional roots in the historical memories 
of the Jewish people, the Zionist vision of a Jew- 
ish homeland, and the genocidal policies of 
Nazi Germany in the 1930's and 1940's. Modern 
Israelis live in the psychological atmosphere of 
a state under siege. Fierce pride in the success- 
ful establishment of a viable Jewish state 
against great odds is combined with a sense of 
being surrounded and greatly outnumbered by 
Arabs whose professed goal is to return to Arab 
hands the territory on which the State of Israel 
is situated. 

The Arabs, too, have the closest historical and 
religious ties to Palestine. They formed the 
bulk of its population from the time of Moham- 
med in the 7th century up through the days of 

the mandate under Britain between the two 
"World "Wars. The quick switch from British 
rule to Jewish domination of the new State of 
Israel in the late 1940's has always seemed to 
Arabs to be an act of "Western perfidy. In their 
eyes Israel has become the new incarnation of 
former "Western colonial rule of the area. The 
nationalistic anti-AVestern fight for independent 
nationhood, which we must remember was only 
achieved by these countries in the late 1940's, 
was easily transmuted into an unrelenting feel- 
ing of hatred and state of belligerency against 

Israel's vei-y success in creating a prosperous 
modern "Western society which has proven it- 
self able to defeat all Arab comers in modern 
warfare three times within 20 years despite a 
population ratio against it of at least 20 to 1 
constitutes a final thorn in Arab flesh. It serves 
as a constant reminder to them that they have 
been much less successful in mastering modem 
technology. The latest such humiliation for the 
Arabs occurred in the 6-day war last June. 

These, then, are some of the reasons for the 
lasting bitterness which has poisoned relations 
between Arabs and Israelis over the past two 

Is there any hope for a break in this impasse 
between the Arabs and Israel ? 

I believe that there is. I believe that the 
result of last June's war carries a clear lesson 
for both sides of the danger and futility of 
carrj'ing on the pattern of the past 20 years. 
For the Arabs the disadvantages of the old 
pattern seem fairly obvious. Jordan finds 
roughly a fifth of its former territory and a 
tliird of its population under Israeli occupation. 
The West Bank was the granary for all of 
Jordan. It also produced substantial foreign 
exchange reserves from tourism. 

In Egypt the war resulted in the occupation 
of the Sinai Peninsula and the closing of the 
Suez Canal. The canal formerly brought in 
over $200 million per year in sorely needed 
foreign exchange. 

Both countries had to undergo the shock and 
humiliation of another major military defeat, 
with all of the attendant political and economic 
dislocation which such a defeat implies. 

Israel would seem to be in a better strategic 
position than before last June. But I am 
certain that farseeing Israelis realize the basic 
long-term precariousness of their position. 
Occupation of presently held Arab lands is 
bound in time to result in increasing friction 

MAT 13, 1968 


between Arab inhabitants and Israeli admin- 
istrators. But far more important is the bitter- 
ness which continued occupation would cause 
to fester in the hearts of all Arabs. 

What Israel really needs and wants is 
permanent security — the acceptance of its right 
to exist by its Arab neighbors. 

The real needs of both sides for an end to 
the past cycle of provocation, retaliation, escala- 
tion, and all-out war by any logic make a settle- 
ment possible. We have no detailed blueprint 
for such a settlement. We believe that those 
directly involved are more likely to abide by 
a settlement which they work out among 

Certain basic ingredients will have to be 
involved in any settlement. The President first 
stated these June 19 of last year,^ a few days 
after the end of the war. In brief, these are: 

— Every nation in the area has a fundamental 
right to live and to have this right respected 
by its neighbors. 

— The refugee problem must be attacked with 
new energy by all, primarily by those who are 
inamediately concerned. 

— The right of free maritime passage through 
international waterways must be respected. 

- — The arms race must be ended. 

— The political independence and territorial 
integrity of all states in the area must be 

At this moment the U.N. Secretary-General's 
special representative, Mr. Gimnar Jarring, is 
still traveling from capital to capital in the 
area trying to put the countries involved in 
motion toward a settlement. It is our fervent 
hope that this mission will be successful. 

Nationalistic Tensions on Cyprus 

The near-major war that I referred to a few 
minutes ago involving Cyprus derives from 
nationalism focused on the island of Cyprus, 
whose population is 80 percent Greek and 18 
percent Turkish with a few other minorities 
present. Cyprus has been a siimnering kettle 
for many years. On several occasions in recent 
years the nationalistic tensions between the 
Greeks and the Turks on the island have 
come near to embroiling Greece and Turkey in 
serious fighting. 

The heart of the problem on Cyprus lies in 
the ratio of people of Greek origin to those of 

Turkish origin and more specifically to the fact 
that there are no Cypriots. Although most of 
the population has lived there for centuries, peo- 
ple on Cyprus think of themselves as Greek 
Cypriots or as Turkish Cypriots. Greek 
Cypriots have a mixed sentimental-political at- 
tachment to the idea of enosis or union with 
Greece ; they recognize the unlikelihood of early 
achievement of enosis and meanwhile seek to 
dominate affairs on Cyprus on the basis of ma- 
jority rule. Turkish Cypriots look to Turkey, 
which is only 40 miles away, to prevent enosis 
and to protect them from domination on the 
island by the 80 percent Greek majority. 

Greece and Turkey have had a history of 
mutual antagonism which dates back to the pe- 
riod when Greece was part of the Ottoman Em- 
pire and to its successful war of independence 
from it 1821 to 1830. In recent years this antag- 
onism has focused increasingly on the explosive 
Cyprus situation. 

The British, who ruled Cyprus from 1878 
until 1960, were quite successful in mediating 
the differences between the two communities on 
the island or at least in keeping the lid on the 
cauldron. Wlien Cyprus gained its independence 
in 1960, the restraining influence of British rule 
was removed and Cyprus became at once a pawn 
and a catalyst in the regional politics of the 
Eastern Mediterranean. 

A delicate governmental structure of checks 
and balances for the new state broke down after 
only a little over 3 years of independence in late 
1963, and nearly a year of commmial fighting 
ensued. Turkey very nearly intei-vened, even- 
tually being restrained by United Nations ac- 
tion and diplomatic efforts by our Government 
and others. 

Despite the presence of a peacekeeping force 
of some 4,000 troojis under United Nations com- 
mand since the 1963-64 fighting, an incident in 
November of last year once again resulted in 
Greek and Turkish mobilization and again very 
nearly brought Turkish intervention on the 
island. It took 2 weeks of whirlwind and excep- 
tionally skillful diplomacy by United Nations 
and NATO representatives, and particularly by 
United States special envoy Cyrus Vance, to de- 
fuse the immediate crisis. 

A lasting settlement is still not in sight. 
Cyprus remains a highly charged potential 
trouble spot. 

^ For an address by President Johnson made at 
Washington, D.C., on June 19, 1967, see Bm-LETIN of 
July 10, 1967, p. 31. 



The force of nationalism has been a kej' force 
in relations between India and Pakistan since 
their independence in 1947. The rivalry between 
these two countries has focused on Kaslunir, 
where fighting between Indian and Pakistani 
forces flared up again in 1965 when these two 
countries went to war over the issue of Kaslunir. 

Common Problems of the Area 

A large number of the countries in my area 
lie on or near the perimeter of a powerful and 
ambitious country, the Soviet Union. As West- 
ern influence, particularly British, has been 
withdrawn from the area and as further with- 
drawals are contemplated by the British in the 
years ahead, the temi^tation on the part of the 
Soviets to fill a vacuum or to at least maneuver 
in troubled waters is very great. Soviet interest 
in the entire area goes back over many years, but 
its opportunities to take advantage of imstable 
situations have increased and represent a real 
danger to many of these countries as well as a 
threat to Western interests. In other countries 
the Chinese Communists are meddling. 

Throughout the Near East and South Asia 
there is a pattern of arms races, difficult and per- 
plexing and highly dangerous. For a new nation 
emerging as a free and independent entity, there 
is always an immediate concern for self-defense 
and for arms to signify both nationhood and in- 
dependent self-reliance. The Soviet Union has 
played upon this desire for arms along with the 
instability growing out of poverty and hunger 
in an eflfoi-t to increase its influence in the area. 
Today we are faced with massive shipments of 
Soviet arms into a number of countries, but par- 
ticularly into the Arab countries whose losses 
of planes and tanks and other equipment were 
very great in the June war. 

These, then, are some of the common threads 
that run through the national fabric of coun- 
tries in the Near East and South Asia : political 
turbulence spawned by poverty, heightened na- 
tionalism, and the efforts of the Soviet Union to 
expand its influence over them. These are the 
forces we have to contend with. They represent 
the darker side of the picture. 

Let me now turn to the question of what we 
are trying to do to make the picture brighter. To 
begin with, there seem to be limits to Soviet am- 
bitions in the area. I do not believe, for example, 
that the Russians wish a resumption of hot war 
in the Near East. Every indication is that they 
do not and that they do not wish to see an East- 

West confrontation in that area. Wliat they ap- 
pear to want is to keep conditions unstable 
enough to increase the expansion of Russian in- 
fluence where possible at Western expense with- 
out the risk of an all-out confrontation with us. 

The northern-tier states and the Arab coun- 
tries and Israel lie across traditional trade and 
military routes between East and West and form 
a buffer between the Soviet Union and the new 
nations of Africa. It is in the interest of the 
United States to see that these coimtries are 
strong enough, prosperous enough, and stable 
enough to stand on their own feet without undue 
dependence on any outside power. A basic requi- 
site for prosperity and stability is an atmosphere 
of peace. Resources and energies sapped by in- 
ternal disorders and chronic squabbles with 
neighbors delay or make impossible develop- 
ment into strong, self-reliant nations. Our ef- 
forts in the area are aimed at the goals of sta- 
bility, economic development, and ability of in- 
dividual coimtries to resist outside pressures. 

There are other common threads in the Near 
East and South Asia. With few exceptions each 
government is seeking and some finding remark- 
able success in bettering the lot of their citizens. 
The difficulties are incredible. Most of them lack 
the trained manpower, the capital, and the ex- 
perience to cope with the problems and oppor- 
tunities brought about by the industrial and 
technological revolution of the past 150 years. 
Without this combination the gap between these 
countries and the West will surely widen, with 
an almost certain increase in bitterness, fi-ustra- 
tion, instability, tension, and misunderstanding. 
These efforts should receive our full under- 
standing. We must help in every way that we 
can, not merely on humanitarian grounds but 
because United States interests are involved and 
rest upon the need for stable economies and 
stable political structures. 

Some Progress Toward Self-Sufficiency 

Some of the countries are having impressive 
success in filling their own needs. The Shah of 
Iran has made impressive headway in land re- 
form and political and economic reform. Iran's 
annual growth rate is now a healthy 10 percent. 
We played a considerable part in helping to 
get this growth rate started. From 1952 until 
the end of 1967, U.S. economic assistance to 
Iran totaled $605 million in loans and grants. 
The bulk of this assistance was extended in the 
early years of this period. By the end of 1967, 

MAT 13, 1968 


Iran's progi-ess was so impressive that our 
economic assistance progi-ams were ended. In 
the preceding years, as we were phasing out our 
aid, Iran herself was taking up the slack, in- 
vesting more tlian $3 billion in public programs 
over the 1952-67 period at an accelerating rate 
toward the end of the period. 

In the 10 years from 1958 through 1967, Iran's 
industrial production, under the stimulus of our 
efforts and her own, increased 88 percent, and 
its exports by more than one-third. 

Ceylon, Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan 
have made progress toward food self-sufficiency. 
Their use of new seeds, modern teclmiques of 
fertilizing, and other technical advances is be- 
ginning to modernize the agricultural segment 
of their societies. 

We have helped and are continuing to help 
bring these developments about through teclmi- 
cal assistance. In the meantime, to fill a poten- 
tially disastrous food gap in India and in Paki- 
stan, we have furnished enormous quantities of 
grains and other foods to these two countries. 

In the case of India we have supplied over 
50 million tons of food grams in the past 10 
years. On any given day over this period, there 
have been up to 25 ships laden with American 
grain bound for Indian ports. Most of this grain 
has been paid for in Indian rupees to be spent in 
India on other agreed upon assistance projects, 
so that in a way the economic benefits to India 
are doubled. 

Fortunately, nature as well as technical as- 
sistance has begun to swing the starvation 
balance in India. 

India's food grain crop is expected to exceed 
100 million tons this year, over 12 percent 
higher than the previous record crop. Self- 
sufficiency in food grains is within India's grasp 
in the early 1970's. Ceylon, which previously 
imported nearly half of its food, is vigorously 
promoting a grow-more-food campaign, with 
the result that imports have been cut by 40 per- 
cent. This i^rogress is the result of more ferti- 
lizer, more irrigation, the introduction of high- 
yielding seeds and modern techniques. 

The magnitude of our gi-ain shipments to 
Pakistan in recent years has been comparable to 
that to India, or in fact even greater if calcu- 
lated on a per capita basis. We are actively help- 
ing the Pakistan Government to achieve self- 
sufficiency in food by 1970. As in India, we are 
helping the Pakistanis get at the underlying 
causes of the problem by building new fertilizer 

plants, by better utilizing fertilizers, and by in- 
troducing new, more productive seed strains. A 
substantial start, too, has been made in the field 
of birth control. 

Although India is tlie world's largest func- 
tioning democracy and its viability is therefore 
of particular significance to the free world, there 
are more kings and potentates in the area as a 
whole than in any other region of the world. 
Many of these kings, however, are leading their 
people toward social, political, and economic 

The status of women is changing rapidly in 
many of these countries. We have a woman 
Prime Minister in India, the world's largest 
democracy. There are women Cabinet members 
in several countries. India has made much prog- 
ress in eliminating the centuries-old degrada- 
tion of the caste system. 

The search for education is astonishing. Col- 
leges and universities exist whei'e there were 
none a few years ago. Through the Educational 
and Cultural Exchange Progi-am of the U.S. 
Govermnent and through private institutions, 
we have received thousands of undergraduate 
and graduate students from all over the world. 
Education, these countries recognize, is the key 
to a country's ability to cope with the problems 
of the second half of the 20th century. We must 
recognize that the presence of many foreign 
students in our own country is an opportunity 
and a challenge. Let us hoiie that the knowledge 
and experience of our country can benefit 
through the development of these young brains 
and obtain the goals we seek. One of the most 
important exports that we and the British have 
given the world is the English language. This 
language is a major bridge in countries that 
have no common native language. The next gen- 
eration of scholars, statesmen, scientists, and 
teachers need a common language that permits 
knowledge to flow from one country to another. 
Let that language be English and not Russian 
or Chinese. 

There is another thread that links the coun- 
tries of the Near East and South Asia. It is a 
common sense of pride and of dignity — pride in 
the culture, the religion, and the pattern of life 
developed in these countries. At the same time, 
these nations seek development, they seek to 
maintain their own patterns of life and religion. 
Many of the world's great philosophies and re- 
ligions have come from this area. Christianity, 
Buddhism, Judaism, and Islam were born in 



these countries. The contribution of these coun- 
tries to science, architecture, and civilization 
are profoimd. 

Years ago as a student I saw the destiny of 
the people in this area and the people in our 
country as somewhat independent and unre- 
lated. I now know that our own destiny is closely 
tied to that of the world. We have a responsibil- 
ity to understand and to help — a responsibility 
that reflects our own interest as a great power 
in the world. The essence of American civiliza- 
tion, the administrative and technical excel- 
lence, the progressive ideas of our society, 
coupled with the great material and political 
power that we represent in the world, combine 
to make us a nation magnificently equipped to 
understand and to help bring economic and 
l^olitical stability to the countries of the Near 
East and South Asia. 

CENTO Council Meets at London 

Following is the text of a fivial communique 
issued at London on April 2^ at the close of the 
16th session of the Ministerial Cou/ncil of the 
Central Treaty Organisation. Under Secre- 
tary Katzeniach was chairman of the U.S. ob- 
server delegation to the meeting. 

Press release 80 dated April 25 

The 15th Session of the Central Treaty Or- 
ganization was held at Lancaster House April 
23 and April 24. 

Leading national delegations from five 
CENTO countries were: 

H.E. Mr. Ardeshir Zahedi (Iran) 

H.E. Mr. S. K. Dehlavi, S.Pk. (Pakistan) 
H.E. Mr. Ihsan Sabri Caglayangil (Turkey) 
Rt. Hon. Michael Stewart, M.P. (U.K.) 

The Hon. Nicholas de B. Katzenbach (U.S.A.) 

As host, the Chairman for the meeting was 
the United Kingdom Secretaiy of State for 
Foreign Affairs. Following an address from 
the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, 
the Et. Hon. Harold Wilson, in which he con- 
veyed a message from Her Majesty, the Queen, 
Oldening statements were made by the leader 
of the host delegation and the Secretary Gen- 
eral of CENTO. 

Reviewing the current international situa- 
tion, the Council devoted particular attention 
to those aspects bearing upon responsibilities 
of the Central Treaty Organization. They also 
dealt with other matters of concern to the five 
participating coimtries. They observed that de- 
spite disturbances in many parts of the world 
since their last meeting, maintenance of peace 
and stability in the CENTO region had made 
possible continuing increase in the pace of na- 
tional development of Iran, Pakistan and 
Turkey. The Council reaffirmed their deter- 
mination to promote and accelerate economic 
and social development in the CENTO region 
and continue to work for peace and security 
in the area. 

The Council noted the report of the Military 
Committee, the progress made and the military 
training exercises which had taken place dur- 
ing the past year as well as the exercises 
planned for the coming year. 

The Council expressed satisfaction at the 
steady progress maintained on CENTO road 
and rail projects as reported by the Economic 
Committee and endorsed proposals to continue 
emphasis on programmes concerned with agri- 
cultural development in Iran, Pakistan and 
Turkey. The Council also approved steps be- 
ing taken to explore how CENTO might play 
its part in the industrial development of the 
region and in promoting close cooperation in 
the economic field. 

The Council decided to hold their next meet- 
ing in Tehran next April. 

MAT 13, 1968 


United States Ratifies OAS Charter Amendments 

At a White House ceremony on A-pnl 23 
President Johnson signed the U.S. instrument 
of ratification of the Protocol of Amendment 
to the Clmrter of the Organization of Amerwan 
States."- Following are texts of a statement made 
by the President on that occasion and a state- 
ment by Sol M. Linowitz, U.S. Amba.%sador to 
the OAS, made on April 26 at the Pan American 
Union upon depositing the U.S. instrument of 
ratification, together with a White House sum- 
mary of the amendments. 


White House press release dated AprU 23 

Twenty years ago, our American Republics 
met in Bogota to cliarter the Organization ot 
American States.^ Our goal was to consolidate 
peace and solidarity among our nations m the 
Western Hemisphere. 

Eioht years ago, we broadened and deepened 
our commitment. With the Act of Bogota => and 
the Alliance for Progress, we joined forces to 
create a social and economic revolution on these 

It was 1 year ago that our countries went back 
to Punta del Este to review our progress— and 
to declare a new decade of urgency.* For we 
found that, while we had achieved much m the 
20 years and in the 8 years, the basic human 
problems still demanded many new commit- 

The program that we approved a year ago 
rested on three main pillars : more food, better 
education, and closer economic integration. 

' For text of the protocol, see Exec. L, 90th Cong., 

1st S6SS 

= For text of the Charter of the Organization of 
American States, see Bulletin of May 23, 1948, p. 666. 

' For text, see ihid., Oct. 3, 1960, p. 537. 

*For statements by President Johnson and text of 
the Declaration of the Presidents of America signed 
at Punta del Este, Uruguay, on Apr. 14, 1967, see ihid., 
May 8, 1967, p. 706. 

I asked you to come here this morning so I 
could tell you that we are encouraged by tiiese 
beginnings : 

—Last year Latin American farms produced 
food at twice the rate of new mouths to feed. 
—Since Punta del Este, funds for education 
in Latin America have increased by more than 
6 percent, to $2 billion. . t, , 

—The Inter-American Development Banl£ 
has loaned $81 million in Latin America just to 
build new roads and industries and to mcrease 
electric power across national boundaries. 

—Throughout Latin America manufactur- 
ing production has increased by about 7 percent. 
—The Andean Development Corporation has 
ioined together six nations— Bolivia, Chile, 
Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela-m 
a new step to develop a common market tor all 
of Latin America. 

Today we take another step toward perfect- 
ing the OAS. The charter amendments we ratify 
will streamline the political, economic, and cul- 
tural machinery of our organization. They will 
enable the OAS to meet its greatly increased 
responsibilities— and to meet them far more 
promptly and efficiently. 

Despite all that we have accomplished over 
these past two decades, no one knows better than 
those in this room how far we have yet to go. 
As I said only a year ago at Punta del Este : 
The pace of change is not fast enough. It will remain 
too slow unless you join your energies, your skiUs and 
commitments, in a mighty effort that extends into the 
farthest reaches of this hemisphere. 

The time is now. The responsibility is ours. 

I believe that we are moving forward in this 
hemisphere. The dimensions of poverty, 
icrnorance, and disease to be overcome in our 
Americas are quite sobering-but they are not 
crushing. Our confidence in what the Alliance 
can, and will, do should spring from what has 

been done. .„ • i i. a 

At Punta del Este my fellow Presidents and 

I called for a bold plan to overcome the physical 



barriers to Latin American unity. The Latin 
American countries have too long been isolated 
from each other. They have looked across the 
seas to Europe and the United States. They 
have neaflected the sinews of transportation and 
couununications which can bind together a con- 
tinent — as happened here in the United States. 
For example: - 

— The man in Lima, Peru, who wishes to talk 
to a man in Rio de Janeiro must do so through 
the telephone exchange in Miami or New York. 

— The traveler from southern Brazil to 
Buenos Aires — roughly the same distance, I 
think, as Boston to Washington — may take as 
much as 2 to 3 days for that route. 

— Most of all, the nations throughout the 
continent have great natural resources which 
their neighbors cannot or do not use. Locked be- 
hind the high mountain ranges and rain forests, 
forbidding deserts, that divide South America, 
we find many unknown resources. 

Central America has already demonstrated 
what can be accomplished when such resources 
are made freely available by an interlocking sys- 
tem of roads and communications. "Without these 
systems, the achievements of the Central Amer- 
ican Common Market would have never been 
made possible. 

The new frontiers of the South American 
heartland beckon to the daring and the deter- 
mined. A start has already been made. I should 
like to cite three examples : 

A satellite for Latin America will be launched 
this fall, capable of bringing fast communica- 
tions for the first time to the entire hemisphere. 
Chile, Panama, and Mexico will be the first to 
join the satellite network. Next year Argentina, 
Brazil. Peru, and Venezuela will join the 

The marginal liighway on the eastern slopes 
of the Andes is opening a vast new frontier that 
is offering work and opportunities for hundreds 
who are living in crowded seaboard cities. 

A large dam and powerplant is rising on the 
Acaray River between Paraguay and Brazil. 
It will bring electricity into thousands of homes 
and factories in three coimtries. 

Now, these are just some of the illustrations 
of what can be done and what is being done. 
I believe the time is here and the time is now for 
us to prepare a plan, a specific blueprint for 
carrying forward this gigantic enterprise — an 
enterprise that is capable of uniting the conti- 

nents with roads and river systems, with power 
grids and pipelines, and with transport and 
telephone conmiunications. 

In order to do this, I would suggest to my 
fellow Presidents and to those who direct our 
Alliance for Progress that they establish a high- 
level task force, the finest collection of planners 
that we can bring together, under the leadership 
of a distinguished Latin American, to prepare 
a 5-year plan for speeding up the physical inte- 
gration of our own hemisphere. I assure you that 
the United States will lend its full cooperation 
and support. 

I am reminded of some famous words of 
Simon Bolivar to the leaders of his own day, 
when he said : 

IX) not forget that you are about to lay the founda- 
tions of a new people, which may some day rise to the 
heights that Nature has marked out for it, provided you 
make those foundations. . . . 

After almost a century and a half, we are still 
building the foundations of progress for all of 
the Americas. But I hope and I believe and I 
want us to be building them togetlier. 

This morning I would observe: Let us con- 
tinue in the spirit of Bolivar who dreamed of an 
America "sitting on the throne of liberty . . . 
showing the old world the majesty of the new." 

Thank you vei-y much. 


Press release 85 dated April 26 

It gives me great pleasure to deposit my 
country's instrument of ratification of the 
Protocol of Amendment to the Charter of the 
Organization of the American States. 

"VVliat is contained herein is far more than 
approval by my Government of a technical 
change to modernize the machinery of the 
Organization of the American States. It con- 
tains a reaffirmation of the LTnited States com- 
mitment to the Organization of American 
States and to the hemisphere of peace and law 
and order to which it is dedicated. 

We take pride in the fact that the Organiza- 
tion of American States is the world's oldest 
international organization. But it does not live 
in the past. Its eyes are on the future, and it 
well laiows that the political security of the 
Americas can be assured only in a hemisphere 
of economic and social justice. This is the aim 
of the Alliance for Progress, and the charter 

MAT 13, 1968 


amendments to which the United States now 
oiEcially subscribes make it possible for the ma- 
chinery of the Organization of American States 
to better work for the attainment of its goals 
and aspirations. In so doing the Organization 
of American States will advance the entire 
cause of international cooperation — peaceful 
cooperation and change — and a better life for 
all men and nations no matter what their 

I am particularly pleased to deposit this in- 
strument of ratification with Secretary General 
Jose A. Mora who has long worked for a strong 
and an effective Organization of American 
States. It is fitting that we do so m the closing 
days of his office, for we could wish him no 
more meaningful farewell than to assure him 
that we, the members of the Organization of 
American States, will labor in the future, as in 
the past, to convert the words and the intent 
of the charter into reality. 

It is fitting, too, that we deposit this instru- 
ment before the arrival of the new Secretary 
General whose leadership will guide us in the 
effort to help the peoples of our respective coun- 
tries enter into a new era of dynamic progress 
within a hemisphere of peace and freedom. 

In saying this let me express the hope that 
all member states will soon have ratified this 
protocol so that no precious time will be lost 
in putting its provisions fully into effect. The 
tasks before us are great, and we must meet 
their challenge. 


White House press release dated April 23 

The charter amendments (which are the first 
to be adopted since the charter was signed in 
1948) provide needed streamlining of the 
Organization of American States. The amend- 
ments modernize the machmery of the OAS. 
They grant certain fuller responsibilities, as in 
the field of peaceful settlement. They also in- 
corporate the principles of the Alliance for 
Progress in the charter. 

Among the more significant changes called 
for by the amendments are: 

1. Replacement of the Inter- American Con- 
ference, which meets every 5 years, by a General 
Assembly, which will meet annually. 

2. Redesignation of the OAS Council as the 
Permanent Council, and the granting of addi- 
tional responsibilities to the Inter-American 
Economic and Social Council and the Inter- 
American Council for Education, Science, and 
Culture. The Economic and Cultural Councils 
become directly responsible to tlie General As- 
sembly, as is the Permanent Council. These 
changes are designed to augment the importance 
given in the OAS structure to economic, social, 
educational, and scientific activities. 

3. Elimination of the Inter- American Coun- 
cil of Jurists and the upgrading of the Inter- 
American Juridical Committee. 

4. Assignment to the Permanent Council and 
its subsidiary body (the Inter-American Com- 
mittee on Peaceful Settlement) a role in assist- 
ing member states in resolving disputes between 

5. Incorporation of the Inter- American Com- 
mission on Human Rights in the OAS Charter. 

6. Inclusion of a procedure for the admission 
of new members. 

7. Election of the OAS Secretary General 
and Assistant Secretary General by the General 
Assembly for 5-year terms, rather than by 
the Council for 10-year terms, as presently 

8. Incorporation in the Charter of the prin- 
ciples of the Alliance for Progress in the form 
of expanded economic and social standards 
covering self-help efforts and goals, cooperation 
and assistance in economic development, im- 
provement of trade conditions for basic 
Latin American exports, economic integra- 
tion, and principles of social justice and equal 

The Protocol of Amendment to the OAS 
Charter was signed at the Third Special Inter- 
American Conference in Buenos Aires on Feb- 
ruary 27, 1967. The amendments will enter into 
force among the ratifying states when the pro- 
tocol has been ratified by two-thirds of the 
members. To date, Argentina, Guatemala, 
Mexico, and Paraguay have deposited their 
instruments of ratification. 



The Human Dimensions of the Alliance for Progress 

hy Covey T. Olwer 

Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs ' 

Very often, we who speak about this coun- 
try's forei^ relations, especially those of us 
who discuss our supporting role in the develop- 
ing world, are forced to adopt the role of eco- 
nomic and political strategists — men who fit the 
day-to-day successes and failures of a country's 
improvement efforts into a "big picture." 

This approach, of course, is very useful. For 
only by comparing the particidar against a gen- 
eral background can we hope to gam a fair idea 
of our overall progress. By adding small items 
into roimd figures, by merging these round fig- 
ures into gi-oss products, and by throwing gross 
products into a regional average, we gain a bet- 
ter perspective. Perhaps some of our once bril- 
liant successes are less evident ; but then, a lot of 
our failures are toned down a bit, too. 

Xevertheless, the fact remains that the "big 
picture" approach often leaves much to be de- 
sired. The econometric and sociometric tools 
that have been developed during this centuiy 
are not delicate enough to measure many of the 
effects a nation's development efforts are having 
on its society. 

For example, we have learned much about 
the tecliniques involved in carrying out a success- 
ful literacy campaign. "We know much less, how- 
ever, about the way to raise the level of a 
student's critical ability. Both tools are ex- 
tremely important. A student without the abil- 
ity to judge tlie merits of the printed or spoken 
word is sometimes easily swayed by those who 
talk the loudest and the longest. And thanks to 
the miracle of the transistor radio, even the 
most isolated person in our home hemisphere 
can spend the day listening to the mterminable 
flow of words from Radio Havana or the yellow 

'Address made before the Portland Committee on 
Foreign Relations at Portland. Oreg., on Apr. 10 (press 
release 71). 

journalism presented as news by some of the 
other Latin American stations. 

What is the best way to increase the critical 
capability of a man who is just beginning to 
enter a more active and productive life in his 
society ? As with so much that we do in the un- 
doctrinaire field of hemisphere-wide human de- 
velopment, we begin with faith and proceed by 

Thanks to the great amoimt of work that has 
been done since the end of the Second World 
War to develop new tools with which to measure 
economic, political, and social development, we 
may someday have the ability to quantify much 
of what is intangible today. Until such time, 
however, we must make do with what we have. 

Tonight I would like to try to redress a little 
of the imbalance that is inherent in the broad 
picture of progress in our home hemisphere by 
isolating a few of the incidents that have taken 
place in Latin America but which seldom make 
the headlines in our newspapers or even get 
honorable mention in our yearly reviews. I 
speak of "isolating" these incidents because 
each is extremely ]3ai-ticular. Limited as they are 
to a few men and women located away from 
metropolitan centers, these incidents resist 
generalization. Yet, more than any progress re- 
port on a vast hydroelectric project, more than 
any yearend regional wrap-up, these incidents 
tend to sliow more clearly just what the Al- 
liance for Progress is all about. They indicate 
that the Alliance is ultimately concerned with 
people — the little people in our hemisphere who 
have been crushed by the neglect of centuries. 

First a little history. As many of you know, 
the political structure of Latin American coun- 
tries is highly centralized. Traditionally, "run- 
ning the country" is the concern of a relatively 
small number of men located in the capital city. 
Local autonomy, even in large countries, is un- 

MAT 13, 196S 


heard of; and oftentimes the equivalent of 
State Governors must look to the central au- 
thority for the approval and wherewithal to 
undertake the smallest project. 

Obviously, this atmosphere has not been con- 
ducive to the growth of local initiative nor, 
most importantly, the development of what are 
called grass-roots democratic institutions. 

The nations that pledged themselves to in- 
tensive cooperative effort 7 years ago in Punta 
del Este, Uruguay, at the inception of the Al- 
liance for Progress and the new nations that 
have become our allies since that time realize 
that unless the great mass of Americans 
throughout our hemisphere who are politically 
mute today are given a voice in their society, all 
our great effort to expand and merge national 
economies and to generate political stability 
will come to naught. The charter we have 
signed puts us on record as believing that "no 
system can guarantee true progress unless it 
affirms the dignity of the individual which is 
the foimdation of our civilization." ^ Through 
our efforts all Alliance members seek "to im- 
prove and strengthen democratic institutions 
through application of the principle of self- 
determination by the people." 

In the Foreign Assistance Act of 1966, the 
United States Congress reaffirmed our nation's 
commitment to this endeavor by including a 
new section in the act. This section is known as 
title IX, and it reads as follows : 

In carrying out programs authorized in this chapter, 
emphasis shall be placed on assuring maximum par- 
ticipation in the task of economic development on the 
part of the people of the developing countries, through 
the encouragement of democratic private and local 
government institutions. 

How are the developing nations of the 
Alliance for Progress fulfilling their commit- 
ment to the people, and how is this country 
carrying out its mandate? 

A Village Water System 

First let us go to a small village located near 
the capital city of Tegucigalpa, Honduras. The 
name of the village is La Travesia — "The 
Crossroads," in English. La Travesia is build- 
ing its own water system. 

Last September, community leaders from La 
Travesia came to our AID mission in the coun- 
try with a request for help in finishing a water 
system the town had begun. They had already 
borrowed the equivalent of $1,750 from a local 

bank and had dug a well and set in the casing. 
The money had not stretched far enough, how- 
ever, and they needed additional funds for a 
reservoir and a pipe network. 

After investigation, the AID Special Projects 
Fund Committee agreed to contribute up to 
$1,450 to the community if the village would 
build soil-erosion check dams in the gullies 
and on the slopes around the village. It was 
finally decided that in return for each running 
meter of wall the community built, the AID 
Special Project Committee would give the 
equivalent of $3.50 toward the water system. 

Even before AID had completed the official 
documents of the contract, the community 
leader returned with a report that 131 meters 
of check dams had been built. Since that time 
the community has built enough check dams 
to earn the total $1,450 that AID had allocated. 
But they did not stop there. Villagers planted 
banana trees and small gardens in the rich 
sediment that collected behind the small dams. 

The water project is progressing and the 
necessary pipe has been ordered. The community 
plans to invite AID officials to the inaugura- 
tion of the village's water system. 

A Housing Cooperative 

In October 1965, 17 farmers from the com- 
munity of Los Pocitos, Panama, met with tech- 
nicians from the Government of Panama and 
our AID mission to discuss a new program they 
had heard of called "cooperative housing." This 
interest, in itself, was a new development; for 
it indicates that plans and promises are now 
greeted with a little less skepticism than for- 
merly. Perhaps the new school the community 
had built with the help of the Alliance for 
Progress had helped to change traditional at- 
titudes. The meeting between the local farmers 
and the technicians, in fact, took place in that 

During that first meeting, the farmers learned 
that the Panamanian Government and AID 
were indeed willing to provide initial financing 
and advice to help them begin a housing project. 
They found out, however, that they themselves 
would have to accept the responsibility for mak- 
ing project decisions and carrying out the actual 
construction. The technicians told them they 

- For texts of the declaration and charter signed at 
Punta del Este, Uruguay, on Aug. 17, 1961, see Bul- 
letin of Sept. 11, 1961, p. 459. 



should start a cooperative savings program and 
gather wliat material they could find to build 
the houses. 

Over the next 6 montlis, the farmers estab- 
lished various committees to oversee the con- 
struction, savings, and education programs. 
Committee heads were elected by adherence to 
the basic cooperative principle of one member, 
one vote. Decisions regarding the designs and 
sizes of the houses to be built were made by all 
participating members, often voting on several 
alternatives. Once a week, members of the co- 
operative attended a training program spon- 
sored by the Panamanian Groverimient. 

"Wliile building tlie first group of 10 houses, 
the members learned how to buy materials, how 
to select membei-s who would get the loans, how 
to build the houses, and how to keep the books 
necessary to keep track of montlJy loan pay- 
ments and control the revolving fimd by which 
the cooperative would expand. 

The first gi-oup of 10 houses cost, on the av- 
erage, about $300. The recipients would pay for 
these houses over a 10-year period at the rate of 
$4.00 each month. 

The housing cooperative of Los Pocitos has 
grown and flourished with veiy little outside 
assistance. By last November, a total of 22 
houses had been built. 

Los Pocitos was only the beginning. Eight 
similar projects are now underway in other 
towns and villages. 

Cooperation in Agriculture 

Finally, let us return to a small valley in 
southern Honduras called Papalon. Six years 
ago, the campesinos of Papalon, encouraged by 
the Alliance for Progress, began to work to- 
gether to improve their lives. Various commu- 
nity projects were completed over the years 
through the coordinated efforts of the valley's 
inhabitants, and gradually the idea of self-help 
and cooperation became an integral part of 
community life. 

A few montlis ago, 17 campesinos decided 
that the methods that had proved so successful 
for the community as a whole could be applied 
to their own lives. These 17 men studied a num- 
ber of experimental farm plots and attended 
preparatory courses directed by a Peace Corps 
volunteer and AID. Then, as a group, the farm- 
ers bought 22 acres of land with a loan from 
the Honduran Savings and Loan Federation 
and AID. They borrowed an additional $l7r> 

from the Food and Agriculture Organization 
of the United Nations to pay for two kinds of 
rice seed and some fertilizer. They themselves 
pooled a total of $80 to rent oxen to plow their 

Just as the men began their work, the rainy 
season ended early. Undiscouraged, the farmers 
obtained an emergency loan from the Honduran 
Department of Agriculture to rent a pump and 
sprinkler system to irrigate the drying fields. 
They saved most of the rice crop, but their other 
food crops failed in the drought. In order to 
have enough to eat imtil the rice crop came in, 
the farmers negotiated another loan to buy corn, 
this time with the National Development Bank 
of Honduras. 

Finally the first 10 acres of rice were ready. 
The harvest yielded almost 12 tons of rice. With 
the money received from the sale of that rice, 
the farmers paid off their loans to the Food and 
Agriculture Organization and the National De- 
velopment Bank. They made their payment on 
the loan they had received to buy the land, pur- 
chased new seed, fertilizer, and insecticide to re- 
plant the 10 acres while the other 12 acres of rice 
were ripening. They decided to take no money 
for the 1,940 man-days they had put into pro- 
ducing the first crop and to get another loan to 
buy their own irrigation equipment to enable 
them to plant rice the year round. 

As a result of their determination and 
patience, the farmers in their second year 
realized an increase of earnings of some 1,700 
percent. The local AID mission is now helping 
the group become a formal agricultural service 

Of course, the farmers have not solved all 
their problems or learned all there is to know 
about modern farming methods, but they are 
progressing. Twenty other farmers in the valley 
want to join the cooperative that in its small 
way has added an increment to the Honduran 
economy and a totally new dimension to the 
quality of life in Valle Papalon. 

Community Action and Mass Benefits 

These are three of the little steps by which 
our home hemisphere is nearing the goal of in- 
suring a better life for all Americans in free 
and democratic societies. Projects such as these, 
some of them including hundreds of towns and 
thousands of citizens, are scattered throughout 
Latin America. I have deliberately chosen to 
tell of relatively small projects in small coun- 

MAT 13, 1968 


tries in order to sliow the first stirrings of what 
is becoming a hemisphere-wide movement away 
from traditional total dependence on a central 
government for improvement and toward self- 
reliance and cooperative self-help. 

How well these little steps generate ever- 
increasing prodnctive activity can be seen when 
we return to the more familiar "big picture." 

In the Dominican Eepublic, for example, sus- 
tained and intelligent goverimient support for 
community development projects has stimulated 
self-help that has directly benefited more than 
40 percent of that country's population. This 
has been done with less than 2 percent of the 
total government budget. Since 1963, approxi- 
mately 6.5 million dollars' worth of community 
projects have been completed, with the com- 
munities themselves contributing more than 
half the total cost. In the first 11 months of 
1967 alone, 36 miles of farm-to-market roads, 
187 schoolrooms, and 316 miles of irrigation 
canals were among the 281 projects completed. 
These projects involved nearly 76,000 man-days 
of voluntary labor by the people themselves. 

For an even bigger picture, we can cite the 
recent growth of the cooperative movement 
throughout the hemisphere. Our own AID jjro- 
grams have contributed to the development of 
some 17,000 cooperatives in the region, which 
now include almost 7 million members. By the 
end of 1967 membership in credit unions alone 
had increased to more than 630,000. Credit union 
loans increased over 40 percent from 1965 to 
1967, and savings grew by 23 percent to some 
$49 million. 

Another example is the assistance given Latin 
America's trade union movement by the Amer- 
ican Institute for Free Labor Development. The 
AIFLD was established in 1962 as a nonprofit 
organization fimded by U.S. management and 
labor organizations to strengthen democratic 
trade unions and improve the living standards 
of Latin American workers. Associated labor 
groups in Latin America now have a combined 
membei-ship of about 20 million workers. Among 
other projects, the AIFLD helped to provide 
5,000 livmg units for workers and their fam- 
ilies in seven countries by mid-1967. 

As Oregonians, you all share the benefit of 
the tremendous cooperative efforts made by the 
first settlers to tame and develop this beautiful 
State. From common defense to community 
"cabin-raising" your ancestors implanted a 
strong tradition of working together to achieve 

a common goal. As President Joluison once 
pointed out, although we remember and praise 
the heroes of the West, the gi-eat work of fron- 
tier development was really accomplished by 
millions of unknown and unsung men and 
women who came together to build homes and 
churches and schools — ^to raise communities on 
the edge of conflict. 

Countless small exploits not too different from 
the tliree I have mentioned tonight have been 
forgotten in your unceasing efforts to keep grow- 
ing and improving. Pride of place and commu- 
nity action, here and throughout this nation, are 
accepted as a matter of course. Many of the 
stories of how it all started in the towns and 
cities of Oregon are filed away, perhaps to be 
dusted ofl' at intervals to serve as an interest- 
ing footnote to anniversary celebrations. 

If our nations are successful in realizing the 
dream of the Alliance for Progress our three 
stories of Latin American community action 
may someday share the same fate. 

National Maritime Day, 1968 


To sustain our Nation's strength through trade and 
to fulfill our international commitments throughout 
the world, we rely heavily on the men and ships of 
the American Merchant Marine. 

Our merchant ships are an essential part of the 
transportation bridges that extend from communities 
in America to those in Europe and Asia — and to our 
servicemen and women wherever they stand in free- 
dom's defense. 

They have carried more than 20 million tons of 
food, weapons, and supplies to our fighting men in 

Last year alone, they delivered about 4 million tons 
of wheat to our friends in need in foreign lands. 

In the same year, they transported 12 million tons 
of our products to our trading partners abroad — and 
returned with 10 million tons of their goods for our 
people's use. 

America's present position as the world's greatest 
trading power grows from its early tradition, when a 
strong merchant fleet carried the commerce of a young 
nation to the seaports of the old world. 

The imagination, daring and farsightedness of that 
fleet was exemplified by the SS Savannah, which in 
1819 became the first steamship to cross the Atlantic. 

It is in honor of that historic voyage that the Con- 
gress in 1933 designated May 22 as National Mari- 
time Day and requested the President to issue a proc- 
lamation annually in observance of that day, to remind 

' No. 3847 ; 33 Fed. Reg. 6281. 



Americans of the importance of the merchant fleet 
to our national life. 

of the United States of America, do hereby urge 
the people of the United States to honor our American 
Merchant Marine on Wednesday, May 22, 1968, by 
displaying the flag of the United States at their 
homes and other suitable i)laces, and I request that 
all ships sailing under the American flag dress ship 
on that day in tribute to the American Merchant 

In wrrNESS wniatEOF, I have hereunto set my hand 
this twenty-.second day of April, in the year of our 
Lord nineteen hundred and sixty-eight, and of the 
Independence of the United States of America the 
one hundred and ninety-second. 

Air Fares Reduced for Families 
Traveling to the United States 

Department Statement ^ 

The Department is pleased to note that, ef- 
fective today [April 24], all United States and 
foreign scheduled airlines operating over the 
North Atlantic are offering substantially re- 
duced fares for family members traveling from 
Europe and the Middle East to the United 

Tliese reduced fares will provide an addi- 
tional incentive for travel to the United States 
and will thus contribute to improving the 
travel portion of the United States balance of 

The action of the international airlines is in 
keeping with the President's balance-of-pay- 
ments program and the recommendations of 
the Presidential Commission on Travel headed 
by Ambassador Robert M. McKinney. 

Adoption of these fares was made possible by 
unanimous agreement among more than 80 air- 
lines which are members of the International 
Air Transport Association (LA.TA) and by the 
approval of the fares by the United States Civil 
Aeronautics Board, and the aeronautical au- 
thorities of the otiier govermnents concerned. 

^ Read to news correspondents by the Department 
spokesman on Apr. 24. 

The family membere of a person traveling 
from Eurojje or the Middle East to the United 
States will receive reduction of approximately 
50 percent in the price of normal round trip 
economy or first class tickets. 

For example, a family of four, which would 
normally pay $1,600 for round-trip economy 
class tickets from London to New York, will 
now, under the reduced fares, have to pay oirly 
$1,030. This substantial reduction is designed to 
make possible travel of families who otherwise 
would find tlie total cost of transportation 

U.S. To Test Simplified 
Port-of-Entry Procedures 

'White House Announcement 

White House press release (Austin, Tex.) dated April 21 

The White House announced on April 20 that 
a one-stop inspection system designed to cut 
port-of-entry red tape for incoming travelers 
by about 50 percent will be given a trial test at 
the John F. Kennedy International Airport in 
New York. 

Training of personnel from the four agencies 
involved in the experiment will begin immedi- 
ately. The new timesaving setup will be in 
operation no later than June 15. The speedup 
system will enable travelers to pass tlirough 
U.S. Customs, Public Health, Immigration, and 
Agriculture inspection in record time. If suc- 
cessful, the system may be extended to otlier 
international airports in the United States. The 
second experimental site will probably be at 
San Antonio, where the HemisFair exposition 
and tlie October summer Olympics in Mexico 
City will mean an increased rate of interna- 
tional visitors. 

The accelerated clearance program for air 
passengers arriving from abroad at Jolm F. 
Kennedy is expected to remove many of the ir- 
ritations growing out of the complex tradi- 
tional agency-by-agency inspections at tlie port 
of entry. The new setup will apply to Ameri- 
cans returning to this country, as well as to 
foreign tourists, whose travel to the United 
States is being encouraged to help the balance 
of payments. 

Under the one-stop inspection concept, all 

M.\T 13, 1968 


passengers and carry-on baggage will be 
checked through by a single officer represent- 
ing all four Federal agencies, Lnmigration, 
Customs, Agriculture, and Public Health. The 
one-man multiagency inspection will be rein- 
forced with a system of monitoring by spe- 
cialists fi-om each agency, plus computerized 
information, to provide the existing level of 
overall security without, in most cases, slowing 
down the new speedup process. A certain per- 
centage of incoming travelers will be subject 
to normal baggage inspection. 

The new inspection plan was worked out by 
the four Federal inspection agencies, with co- 
ordination by the Bureau of the Budget. The 
task force has been working on the project for 
4 months. A one-stop inspection for incoming 
travelers was among the recommendations in 
the recent report to President Johnson of the 
Industry-Government Commission on Travel. 

Facilities at most U.S. international airports 
are presently overburdened, and conditions are 
expected to become more difficult as larger air- 
planes are introduced and international travel 
increases. The new system seeks to simplify 
clearance procedures to meet the new problems 
without a significant increase in costs to the 
Federal Government. 

It is estimated that the new system will re- 
duce by 50 percent the average time required 
for passengers to clear the Federal inspection 
area. It is also expected that it will allow the 
agencies to absorb additional workloads with- 
out equivalent increases in manpower. 

Over 9 million air passengers arrived from 
foreign countries at U.S. airports in 1967. 16.7 
million are expected by 1970 and 47.6 million 
by 1980. At the John F. Kennedy Airport in 
New York last summer, facilities were over- 
taxed, with peak loads of more than 16,000 in- 
ternational passenger arrivals daily. 

Edward Clark Confirmed 
as [DB Executive Director 

The Senate on April 19 confirmed the nomi- 
nation of Edward Clark to be Executive Direc- 
tor of the Inter- American Development Bank 
for a term of 3 years and until his successor has 
been appointed. (For biographic details, see 
Wliite House press release dated March 25.) 


U.N. Security Council To Keep 
Middle East Situation Under Review 

Statement hy Arthur J. Goldberg 

U.S. Representative in the Security Cou/ncW^ I 

The United States Government is gravely con- { 
cemed and distressed by the new eruption of i 
violence in the Middle East — the second within • 
a period of 2 weeks — that has made it necessary 
for this Council to meet again on an urgent basis, j 
We are distressed by the tragic loss of life and ' 
the suffering on both sides that this violence 
has caused, and we are profoimdly disturbed 
by the inevitable damage that this recurring vio- \ 
lence is doing to the peacekeeping efforts and | 
peacemaking efforts this Council set in motion i 
last November. 

In commenting on the most recent incidents i 
of yesterday, I wish to reaffirm the longstand- 
ing position of the United States, which I ex- 
pressed most recently in our meeting on March 
21.^ The United States Government opposes vio- 
lence in the Middle East from wherever it 
comes and whatever form it takes. We oppose 
military actions in violation of the cease-fire, 
and we likewise oppose acts of terrorism in vio- 
lation of the cease-fire. And in this connection, 
let me express emphatic agreement with the 
wise observation which our distinguished friend 
and colleague Lord Caradon made during the 
debate last week, when he said that to attempt 
to deal with last week's events in isolation would 
have meant that we failed to recognize the 
realities of the situation as a whole. 

Once again our experience demonstrates that 
calunmy or name-calling or striving to put 
somebody else m the wrong in the f oriun of this 
Council is not the answer. It is time for the 
members of the Council, whatever our various 
views on underlying issues may be, to work 
together urgently to prevent what could be a 

' Made In the U.N. Security Council on Mar. 30 
(U.S./U.N. 52). 
= Bulletin of Apr. 15, 1968, p. 508. 



<?atastrophe— the collapse of Ambassador [Gun- 
nar] Jarring's peacemaking efforts and another 
round of war and bloodshed in the Middle East. 
^ Last Sunday afternoon [^March 2-i] this Coim- 
cil adopted a resolution, number 248,^ express- 
ing its concern in the gravest terms with all vio- 
lations of the cease-fire resolutions of June 1967 
and declaring that such violations "cannot be 
tolerated." Yet yesterday, only days later, that 
new resolution has already been grossly vio- 
lated—and so have the cease-fire resolutions of 
1967 which it explicitly recalled and sought to 

Mr. President, the statements from the parties 
which we have just heard give very different 
accounts of these latest incidents of violence. In 
evaluating them, this Council, as well as the 
Secretary-General and his representatives in the 
area— and, indeed, the cause of peace itself— 
are severely handicapped by the absence of im- 
partial international observers at the time of 
the trouble. 

And we have just been handed the report of 
the Secretary-General to which we should take 
note and with respect to which we are obligated 
to take appropriate action. The Secretary- 
General recites in his latest report, S/7930/ 
Add.66, March 30, 1968, that accounts have been 
presented by both sides. And he says : 

This new outbreak of fighting, coming so soon after 
the Security Council's resolution of 24 March ... is 
greatly deplored. Mindful of paragraph 5 of that reso- 
lution, railing upon the Secretary-General to "keep the 
situation under review and to report to the Security 
Council as appropriate", I especially regret my inability 
to submit to the Council a helpful report on yesterday's 
fighting. Reports by me on incidents of fighting must 
be based on verified information from objective sources. 
As I have previously pointed out to the Council (and 
he cites the past reports which likewise made this wise 
observation) no UNTSO [United Nations Truce Super- 
vision Organization] Observers are stationed in the 
Israel-Jordan sector. Therefore, with regard to this 
most recent fighting, the Chief of Staff of UNTSO, Lt. 
General Odd Bull, has had to advise me that "it is 
practically impossible for me to report on the develop- 
ments in the Israel-Jordan cease-fire sector due to the 
fact that no United Nations observation is operating 
in the area". 

I may take this occasion to point out that the presence 
of United Nations Observers in an area can be helpful 
in preserving a cease-fire in ways other than reporting. 
The mere fact of their watchful presence can be some- 
thing of a deterrent to military activity. They can be 
in position to report on indications of the build-ups 
which often precede military action. When fighting 

' For text, see ilHd., p. .'ilO. 

does break out they can quickly intervene on the spot 
with the opposing local commanders to arrange imme- 
diate cease-fires. It may be noted that, largely because 
of the presence of United Nations Observers, the Se- 
curity Council resolutions are better served 
and maintained in the Suez Oinal and Israel-Syria 
sectors than in the Israel-Jordan sector. 

There is nothing one could add to this perti- 
nent and wise report by the Secretary-General 
except to give it some effect, as he has previously 
indicated it is vitally necessary to do. 

Now, for ourselves and for my Government, 
I wish to make this observation. The first point 
is that neither side can find security m violence. 
It has been true from time immemorial that 
those who live by the sword are in danger of 
dying by the sword, that violence solves no prob- 
lems but simply feeds on itself. The history of 
the Middle East conflict for a whole generation 
is a tragic demonstration of this bitter truth. 
And yet the violence still goes on. It continues 
to inflict its steady toll of death and injury and 
desolation on combatants and on innocent civil- 
ians as well. And pertinent to our consideration 
of the problem is not only this; but as I have 
said, it is damaging to the all-important peace- 
making work of the U.N.'s able emissaiy. Am- 
bassador Jarring. 

My second point is that the Security Coimcil 
has not yet by any means exhausted the possibili- 
ties of practical action to curtail, if not to stop, 
these tragic events. In last Sunday's resolution, 
which we adopted unanimously, the Council 
served notice not only that actions of military 
reprisal and all other grave violations of the 
cease-fire are intolerp.ble but also that the Coun- 
cil would have to consider effective steps to in- 
sure against their repetition. 

In the judgment of my delegation, Mr. Presi- 
dent, the time is manifestly at hand for the 
Coimcil to heed the Secretary-General's wise ad- 
vice and to consider and adopt such a step. And 
despite the conflicting claims made by the par- 
ties, we believe this new eruption of violence 
has made clear the step that now is most im- 
mediately required : the stationing, as soon as 
possible, of United Nations observers in the 
Israel-Jordan sector of the cease-fire area. 

Again, as the Secretary-General pointed out, 
this is the only sector governed by the cease-fire 
where there are no such observers. The opposing 
sides in the Israel-Jordan sector confront each 
other directly with no impartial authority be- 
tween them, no one to patrol the cease-fire area, 
investigate charges and countercharges, estab- 

SIAT 13, 1968 


lisli disputed facts, and take immediate steps to 
stop incidents if they occur and prevent them 
from snowballing. 

Surely, Mr. President, tlie lesson cannot be 
lost upon this Council, or upon the parties, that 
the violence of yesterday might well have been 
brouglit to an earlier end and prevented from 
reaching the proportions it did if there had 
only been on the spot, available for immediate 
action, United Nations observers. U.N. observ- 
ers have — ^time and time again — ^rendered such 
services in other cease-fire sectoi-s; and we be- 
lieve arrangements should be made so they can 
render such services in the Israel-Jordan cease- 
fire sector to the benefit of both parties without 
prejudice to their positions and to the benefit 
of peace. 

There is, in short, a serious deficiency in the 
cease-fire machinery. But it is within this Coun- 
cil's power to remedy this deficiency. Now, we 
are all aware that both parties have not wel- 
comed this type of initiative, but this Council 
has its responsibilities and this Council ought 
to take an action which is in the interests of 
both parties and in no way, as I have said, prej- 
udices the respective positions of the parties on 
fundamental issues between them. 

In the discussion last week, my delegation was 
prepared for the Council to take this necessary 
action, and we are prepared today in any appro- 
priate manner — by resolution, consensus, or 
otherwise — to call upon the parties to cooperate 
fully with the Chief of Staff of UNTSO in mak- 
ing arrangements, as rapidly as possible, for 
the placing of United Nations observers in the 
Israel- Jordan cease-fire sector. 

In making this proposal, we are very much 
concerned about the recurring nature of the vio- 
lations of the cease-fire which have taken place. 
Indeed, it is surely in the interests not only of 
the parties but of every nation represented in 
the Council that does not want another war in 
the Middle East — and I believe no nation here 
wants another war in the Middle East — that 
whatever the differences are which may divide 
us, we unite on this necessaiy action. 

Mr. President, there is another tiling we ought 
to do. Ambassador Jarring's mission is im- 
periled by wliat has been going on. In our dis- 
cussion last week, my delegation proposed that 
we indicate our confidence in Ambassador Jar- 
ring and that we call upon the parties to co- 

operate wntli him in the conduct of liis mission. 
All concerned must rededicate themselves to the 
principles of the November 22 resolution * unan- 
imously adopted by this Council. All the parties 
must cooperate with Ambassador Jan-ing in his 
important mission to hasten the achievement of 
a just and lasting peace in which every state in 
the area can live in security. It is in the fulfill- 
ment of the Jarring mission, not by a succession 
of acts of violence, that the way to peace can be 

Mauritius Admitted 
to the United Nations 

Statement hy Richard F. Pedersen'^ 

It is indeed a pleasure to speak to this Coun- 
cil in support of the application of Maui-itius 
for membership in the United Nations and to 
welcome the Mauritian delegation here today. 

We welcome the interest, of Mauritius in par- 
ticipating in efforts at the United Nations to 
achieve the goals of our charter. The path to- 
ward the reconciliation of international differ- 
ences and toward world peace is long and ar- 
duous. Membership in the United Nations offers 
to Mauritius, on the one hand, the prospect of 
hard work in the service of hopes and ideals as 
yet only partially realized; on the other, mem- 
bership also offers Mauritius the prospect of sat- 
isfaction in our achievements and a sense of 
responsible participation in and contribution to 
the world community. We are convinced that 
Mauritius will accejit tliis challenge with the 

' For text, see ihid.. Dec. 18, 1967, p. 843. 

^ At the conclusion of the meeting of the Council on 
Apr. 4, the President of the Council read the following 
statement on the results of consultations held on this 

Having heard the statements of the parties in regard 
to the renewal of the hostilities, the members of the Se- 
curity Council are deeply concerned at the deteriorating 
situation in the area. They, therefore, consider that the 
Council should remain seized of the situation and keep 
it under close review. 

^ Made in the Security Council on Apr. 18 (U.S./U.N. 
press release 54). Mr. Pedersen is U.S. Deputy Repre- 
sentative in the Security Council. 



same spirit of determination, wisdom, and mod- 
eration that it demonstrated during the years 
leading to its independence. 

This distant isle has long phiyed a role in 
world commercial and political affairs. Among 
its population of three-quaxters of a million 
persons are i-epresentatives of many races, re- 
ligions, and nationalities. As Lord Caradon 
mentioned, our two U.N. working languages are 
spoken there. While a cro\vn colony of Great 
Britain. Mauritian authorities steadfastly di- 
rected their efforts toward economic and social 
development and increasingly participated in 
their own government before Mauritius ob- 
tained full independence on ]\Iarch 12, 1968. 

In crediting their accomplishments and ef- 
forts, we believe also that due acknowledgment 
should be given to the Government of the 
United Kingdom, mider whose aegis advances 
were made toward democratic self-government 
and complete indei^endence. 

The United States believes that the people 
of Mauritius and their Prime Minister, Sir 
Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, share with us the 
strong conviction that governments, to be stable 
and effective, must be representative of, and 
based upon the confidence of, those whom they 
govern. My Govermnent is well aware of the 
many obstacles Mauritius has overcome, and of 
tliose that it still faces, in its praiseworthy 
drive to build a nation where man's dignity and 
worth are not determined by his race, his re- 
ligion, or his place of origin. In its efforts Mau- 
ritius will be taking part in a worldwide cru- 

|i sade toward the achievement of equal rights 
and opportunities for all. 
The United States looks forward to strength- 

1 1 ening relations with Mauritius. Our consular 
contacts with that lovely island date back over 
100 j-ears. Our experiences have convinced us 
that Mauritius can and will make continuing 
and meaningful contributions toward solving 
the problems that lie before it and before us 
all. My Government will gladly vote for the 
resolution before this Cotmcil reconmiending 
approval of the application of Mauritius for 
admission to membership in the United 
i Nations.^ 

°The Council on Apr. 18 unanimously recom- 
mended that Mauritius be admitted to membership 
in the United Nations. On Apr. 24 the General As- 
sembly admitted Mauritius by acclamation. 

Current U.N. Documents: 
A Selected Bibliography 

Mimeoyraphcd or processed documents (such as those 
listed below) may he consulted at depository libra- 
ries in the United States. V.N. printed publications 
may be purchased from the Sales Section of the 
United Nations, United Nations Plaza, N.Y. 

General Assembly 

Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space : 
Information furnished by the U.S.S.R. on objects 
launched into orbit or beyond. A/AC.105/INF.181, 
January 8, 1968; A/AC.105/INF.183, February 
20, 1968. 
Information furnished by the United States on ob- 
jects launched into orbit or bevond. A/AC.10.5/ 
INF.182, January 8, 1968; A/AC.105/INF.184, 
February 20, 1968. 
The Succession of States to Multilateral Treaties. 
Studies prepared by the Secretariat for the 20th ses- 
sion of tlie International Law Commission. A/CN.4/ 
200. February 21, 1968. 133 pp. 

Economic and Social Council 

Commission on Human Rights : 

Study of Apartheid and Discrimination in Southern 

Africa. Report of the Special Rapporteur. E/CN.4/ 

949. November 22, 1967. 173 pp. 
Report of the 20th session of the Subcommission on 

Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of 

Minorities, Geneva, September 25-October 12, 19(57. 

E/CN.4/947. December 4, 1967. 91 pp. 
Commission for Social Development : 

Implementation of United Nations Social Develop- 
ment Programmes During the Year 1967. Report 

of the Secretary-General. E/CN.5/423. December 

10, 1967. 5.5 pp. 
1967 Report on the World Social Situation. E/CN.5/ 

417/Summary. December 1.5, 1067. 19 pp. 
Economic Commission for Latin America. Latin Amer- 
ica and tlie Second Session of UNCTAD. E/CN.12/ 
803. January 5, 1908. 214 pp. 
Statistical Commission : 

Progress Report on Improvement in Demographic 

Statistics. Report of the Secretary-General. E/ 

CN.3/377. January 5, 1968. 54 pp. 
The Statistics of Research and Development. Report 

of the Secretary-General. E/CN.3/387. January 

9, 1908. 48 pp. 
Recent Activities in the Field of Population. Report 

of the Sec-retary-General. E/CN.3/386. January 

12, 1968. 14 pp. 
Commission on the Status of Women : 
Status of Women in Private Law. Report of the 

Secretary-General. E/CN.6/492. January 12, 1968. 

25 pp. 
Report of the Inter-American Commission of Women. 

E/CN.6/.504. January 12, 1968. 43 pp. 
Resources of the Sea (beyond the continental .shelf). 
Report of the Secretary -General. Introduction and 
Summary. K/4449. February 21, 19(58. 20 pp. 
Questions Relating to Science and Technology. En- 
vironmental Pollution and Its Control. Report by 
the World Health Organization. E/4457. February 28, 
19(58. 11 pp. 

MAT 13, 196S 



Current Actions 

43 Nations Sign Agreement 
on Return of Astronauts 

The Department of State announced on April 
22 (press release 79) that at a ceremony that 
day in the Department of State 43 countries had 
signed the Agreement on the Rescue of Astro- 
nauts, the Eeturn of Astronauts and the Return 
of Objects Launched Into Outer Space, which 
the U.N. General Assembly unanimously com- 
mended on December 19, 1967.^ Secretary Rusk 
signed the agreement for the United States. 
Similar ceremonies opening the agreement for 
signature were held that day in London and 
Moscow, the capitals of the two other depositary 

Secretary Rusk remarked at the ceremony 
that the agreement was the result of efforts to 
develop and give further concrete expression to 
the basic humanitarian duties recognized in the 
Outer Space Treaty to assist and return rescued 
astronauts. "In signing this agreement," he 
said, "we take another important step in the 
process of applying the rule of law to the chal- 
lenging realm of space. . . . The conclusion of 
the present agreement gives good reason to hope 
that the years ahead will be marked by increas- 
ing cooperation between nations in the explora- 
tion and use of space." 

Plenipotentiaries of the following govern- 
ments, in addition to the three depositary gov- 
ernments, signed the agreement at Washington. 

Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bolivia, Bulgaria, 
Chile, Republic of China, Democratic Republic of the 
Congo, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, 
Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, Ghana, Haiti, Hungary, 
Iceland, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Laos, Lebanon, 
Maldlve Islands, Morocco, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, 
Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rvcanda, Somali 
Republic, Switzerland, Tunisia, Uruguay, Venezuela, 



Measures relating to the furtherance of the principles 
and objectives of tie Antarctic treaty. Adopted at 
the Fourth Consultative Meeting, Santiago, Novem- 
ber 18, 1966." 

Notification of approval: United States, recommen- 
dations IV-20— IV-28, March 23, 1968, except for 
the French text. 

Consular Relations 

Vienna convention on consular relations. Done at Vi- 
enna April 24, 1963. Entered into force March 19, 

Accessions deposited: Mall, March 28, 1968; Somali 
Republic, March 29, 1968. 

Diplomatic Relations 

Vienna convention on diplomatic relations. Done at 
Vienna April 18, 1961. Entered into force April 24, 

Accessions deposited: Mali, March 28, 1968; Somali 
RepubUe, March 29, 1968. 


Convention on the International Hydrographlc Orga- 
nization, with annexes. Done at Monaco May 3, 1967. 
Ratifications deposited: Argentina, France, April 4, 

Organization of American States 

Protocol of amendment to the Charter of the Organiza- 
tion of American States. Signed at Buenos Aires 
February 27, 1967.' 
Senate advice and consent to ratification: April 10, 

Ratified ly the United States: April 23, 1968. 
Ratification deposited: April 26, 1968. 

Racial Discrimination 

International convention on the elimination of all 
forms of racial discrimination. Adopted at New York 
December 21, 196.5.' 
Signatures: Ireland, March 21, 1968; Italy (vrith a 

declaration), March 13, 1968. 
Ratification deposited: Brazil, March 27, 1968. 


Agreement on the rescue of astronauts, the return of 
astronauts, and the return of objects launched into 
outer space. Opened for signature at Washington, 
London, and Moscow April 22, 1968. Enters into 
force upon the deposit of instruments of ratification 
by five governments, including the United States, tie 
United Kingdom, and the Union of Soviet Socialist 

' For background and text of the agreement, see 
Bulletin of Jan. 15, 1968, p. 80. 

' Not in force. 

"Not in force for the United States. 



Siffiwtitrcs: Argentina. Australia. Austria, Bolivia, 
Bulgaria, April 22, 1968; Canada, April 25, 1968; 
Chile, China, April 22. 196S; Colombia, April 23, 
1968; Congo (Kinshasa), April 22, 1968; Costa 
Rica. April 24. 1968 ; Czechoslovakia, Denmark, 
Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fin- 
land, Ghana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Iran, Ire- 
land, Israel, Italy. Laos, Lebanon. Maldive Islands, 
Morocco, Nepal, April 22, 196S ; New Zealand, April 
24, 1968 ; Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, April 22, 
1968 ; Philippines, April 24, 1968 ; Poland, Portugal, 
Romania, Rwanda, Somali Republic, Switzerland, 
Tunisia, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 
United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Vene- 
zuela, Yugoslavia, April 22, 1968. 
Treat.v on principles governing tie activities of states 
in the exploration and use of outer space, including 
the moon and other celestial bodies. Opened for sig- 
nature at Washington, London, and Moscow January 
27, 1967. Entered into force October 10, 1967. TIAS 
Accession deposited: Uganda, April 24, 1968. 


Geneva (1967) protocol to the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade. Done at Geneva June 30, 1967. 
Entered into force January 1, 1968. 
Acceptances: Iceland. March 29. 1968; India, March 
27, 1968; Yugoslavia, March 29, 1968." 

Agreement on implementation of article VI of the Gen- 
eral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Done at 
Geneva June 30, 1967. Enters into force July 1, 
Acceptance: Yugoslavia, March 2t), 1968.' 

Protocol for the accession of Argentina to the Gen- 
eral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Done at 
Geneva June 30, 1967. Entered into force October 
11, TIAS 6427. 

Acceptances: Chad, March 15, 1968; India, March 
27. 1968. 

Protocol for the accession of Iceland to the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Done at Geneva 
June 30. 1967. Entered into force April 21, 1968. 
TIAS 6428. 
Acceptance: India, March 27, 1968. 

Protocol for the accession of Ireland to the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Done at Geneva 
June 30. 1967. Entered into force December 22, 1967. 
TIAS 6429. 
Acceptance: India. March 27, 1968. 

Protocol for the accession of Poland to the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Done at Geneva 
June 30, 1967. Entered into force October 18, 1967. 
TIAS 6430. 
Acceptance: India, March 27, 1968. 

Fourth proc&.s-verbal extending the declaration on the 
provi.'^ional accession of Tunisia to the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of November 12, 
19.59 (TIAS 4498). Done at Geneva November 14, 
1967. Entered into force December 18, 1967; for 
the United States April 2, 1968. 
Acceptances: Australia, March 15, 1968; United 
States, April 2, 1968. 

Third proc^s-verbal extending the declaration on the 
provisional accession of the United Arab Republic 

to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 

November 13, 1962 (TIAS 5309). Done at Geneva 

November 14, 1967. Entered into force December 27, 


Acceptance: Australia, March 15, 1968. 



Agreement for the development of water resources of 
Iran. Signed at Tehran March 19, 1968. Entered into 
force March 19, 1968. 


' Subject to approval. 

' Not in force for the United States. 

Department To Close Consulate 
at Port Elizabeth, South Africa 

The Department of State announced on April 26 
(press release 83) that as part of the U.S. program 
for conservation of overseas expenditures and the re- 
sultant requirement to reduce overseas staffs, the De- 
partment will close its consulate at Port Elizabeth, 
Republic of South Africa, on June 1. Port Elizabeth 
is included among a number of other posts to be closed 
throughout the world. 

Jlodern rapid communications and simpliiied visa 
procedures have made it possible to consolidate and 
concentrate functions at fewer jposts. Therefore, the 
services offered to the public at Port Elizabeth will be 
transferred to other oflBces ; All functions with respect 
to areas in the Eastern Cape Province to the west of 
and including the magisterial districts of Barkly East, 
Maclear, Elliot, Indwe, Glen Gray, Queenstown, Cath- 
cart, Stutterheim, and Komga will be transferred to 
the consulate general in Cape Town ; areas now in the 
Port Elizabeth consular district lying to the east of 
the above magisterial districts will be transferred to 
the consulate general in Durban. 


The Senate on April 19 confirmed the following 
nominations : 

Henry Cabot Lodge to be Ambassador to the Federal 
Republic of Germany. 

George C. McGhee to be Ambassador at Large. 

Robert Sargent Shriver, Jr., to be Ambassador to 

MAT 13, 1968 



Fourth Volume in Foreign Relations 
Series for 1945 Released 

On April 22 the Department of State released For- 
eign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 
1945, Volume III, European Advisory Commission; 
Austria; Germany (vi, 1,624 pp.). 

This volume, the fourth of the numbered volumes to 
be published for 1945, covers the last months of World 
War II and the beginning of the postwar era in Central 

The European Advisory Commission (representing 
the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet 
Union) was charged with preparing tripartite policy 
papers on the treatment of defeated Germany, includ- 
ing surrender terms, control machinery, and zones of 
occupation. The documents on Germany and Austria 
cover both the formulation and the early implementa- 
tion of these EAC plans, including U.S. participation in 
the Allied Control Council for Germany and in the 
Allied Commission for Austria. The subjects treated 
in this volume were among the more important topics 
discussed at the summit conferences at Malta, Yalta, 
and Potsdam. This volume is thus an important sup- 
plement to the volumes of these 1945 conferences which 
were published some years ago in the Foreign Relations 

Copies of this volume (Department of State pub- 
lication 8364) may be obtained from the Superintend- 
ent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, 
Washington, D.C. 20402, for $5.25 each. 

Recent Releases 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. 
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20^02. 
Address requests direct to the Superintendent of Docu- 
ments. A 25-percent discount is made on orders for 
100 or more copies of any one publication mailed to 
the same address. Remittances, payable to the Super- 
intendent of Documents, must accompany orders. 

Background Notes. Short, factual summaries which 
describe the people, history, government, economy, and 
foreign relations of each country. Each contains a map, 
a list of principal government officials and U.S. diplo- 
matic and consular officers, and, in some cases, a se- 
lected bibliography. Those listed below are available 
at 5 cents each. 

Pub. No. 

Austria 7955 

Bahrain S013 

Colombia 776T 

Congo (Kinshasa) 7793 

Guyana . . .: 8095 

Iran 7760 

Ireland 7974 

Jordan 7956 

Kuwait 7855 

Macao 83.^2 

Netherlands 7967 

Paraguay 8098 

Southern Yemen 8368 

United Kingdom 8099 

Fisheries — Certain Fishery Problems on the High Seas 
in the Western Areas of the Middle Atlantic Ocean. 

Agreement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Repub- 
lics. Signed at Moscow November 25, 1967. Entered into 
force November 25, 1967. TIAS 6377. 14 pp. 10<>. 

Loan of Additional Long Range Aid to Navigation 
(LORAN-A) Equipment. Agreement with Canada. Ex- 
change of notes — Signed at Ottawa July 27 and Octo- 
ber 25, 1967. Entered into force October 25, 1967. TIAS 
6386. 2 pp. 5<^. 



INDEX May 13, 196S Vol. LVIII, No. 1507 

American Principles. Constructive Initiatives 

for Freedom and Peace (Humplirey) . . . COl 

Asia. The Common Threads Linking the Coun- 
tries of the Near East and South Asia 
(Battle) 608 


Edward Clark Confirmed as IDB Executive 

Director 622 

Confirmations (Lodge, McGhee, Shriver) . . . 627 

Department and Foreign Service 

Confirmations (Lodge, McGhee, Shriver) . . . C27 
Department To Close Consulate at Port Eliza- 
beth. South Africa 627 

Disarmament. Cimstructive Initiatives for Free- 
dom and Peace (Humphrey) 601 

Economic .\ffairs 

Air Fares Reduced for Families Traveling to the 

United States 621 

Edward Clark Confirmed as IDB Executive Di- 
rector 622 

Constructive Initiatives for Freedom and Peace 

(Humphrey) 601 

National Maritime Day, 1968 (proclamation) . 620 

Foreign Aid 

The Common Threads Linking the Countries of 

the Near East and South Asia (Battle) . . 608 

Constructive Initiatives for Freedom and Peace 

(Humphrey) 601 

The Human Dimensions of the Alliance for 

Progress (Oliver) 617 

France. Shriver confirmed as Ambassador . . 627 

Germany. Lodge confirmed as Ambassador . . 627 

International Organizations and Conferences 

CENTO Council Meets at London (communi- 
que) 613 

United States Ratifies OAS Charter Amendments 

(Johnson, Linowitz) 614 

Israel. U.N. Security Council To Keep Middle 

East Situation Under Review (Goldberg) . . 622 

Jordan. U.N. Security Council To Keep Middle 
East Situation Under Review (Goldberg) . . 622 

Latin America 

Edward Clark Confirmed as IDB Executive Di- 
rector 622 

The Human Dimensions of the Alliance for 
Progress (Oliver) 617 

United States Ratifies OAS Charter Amendments 

(Johnson, Linowitz) 614 

Mauritius. Mauritius Admitted to the United 
Nations (Pedersen) 024 

Military Affairs. The Problems and Prospects in 
Southeast Asia (Clifford) 605 

Near East 

CENTO Council Meets at London (communi- 
que) 013 

The Common Threads Linking the Countries of 
the Near East and South Asia (Battle) . . 008 

U.N. Security Council To Keep Middle East Situ- 
ation Under Review (Goldberg) 622 

Presidential Documents 

National Maritime Day, 1968 020 

The I'resident's News Conference of April 25 . 00^1 

United States Ratifies OAS Charter Amend- 
ments 614 


Fourth Volume in Foreign Relations Series for 
1945 Released 628 

Recent Releases 628 

South Africa. Department To Close Consulate at 
Port Elizabeth, South Africa 627 

Space. 43 Nations Sign Agreement on Itcturn of 

Astronauts 620 


Air Fares Reduced fivr Families Traveling to the 

United States 021 

U.S. To Test Simplified Port-of-Entry Pro- 
cedures 021 

Treaty Information 

Current Actions 026 

43 Nations Sign Agreement on Return of Astro- 
nauts 020 

Uuited States Ratifies OAS Charter Amendments 

(Johnson, Linowitz) 014 

United Nations 

Current U.N. Documents 025 

Mauritius Admitted to the Uuited Nations 

(Pedersen) 624 

The President's News Conference of April 25 . 604 

U.N. Security Council To Keep Middle East Situ- 
ation Under Review (Goldberg) 622 


The President's News Conference of April 25 . 604 

The Problems and Prospects in Southeast Asia 

(Clifford) 005 

Xante Index 

Battle, Lucius D 608 

Clark, Edward 622 

Clifieord, Clark M 605 

Goldberg, Arthur J 622 

Humphrey, Vice President 601 

Johnson, President 604, 614, 620 

Linowitz, Sol M 614 

Lodge, Henry Cabot 627 

JIcGhee, George C 627 

Oliver, Covey T 017 

Pedersen, Richard F . 624 

Shriver, Robert Sargent, Jr 027 

Check List of Department of State 
Press Releases: April 22-28 

Press releases may be obtained from the Office 
of News, Department of State, Washington, 
D.C. 20520. 

Releases issued prior to April 22 which appear 
in this issue of the Bulletin are Nos. 71 of April 
10 and 75 of April 18. 

No. Date Subject 

79 4/22 Signing of agreement on assistance 

to and return of astronauts (re- 

80 4/25 CENTO communique. 

fSl 4/26 Wilkins : International Conference 
on Human Rights, Tehran. 

*82 4/25 Revised program for visit of King 
Olav \' of Norway. 
83 4/20 Closure of American consulate, Port 
Elizabeth, Republic of South 
Africa (rewrite). 

t84 4/26 Katzeubach : American Society of 
International Law, Washington, 
85 4/26 Linowitz: deposit of U.S. instrument 
of ratification of protocol of 
amendment to OAS Charter. 

t86 4/28 Katzenbach to visit Dominican Re- 

* Not printed. 
t Held for a later 

sue of the BtiLLETi.v. 

r.S. 60Veft*(MENT PRINTING OFFICE^ 1368 

P OOX 2o6 
i'aSTON KA ' 

Superintendent of Documents 

u.s. government printing office 

v^ashington. d.c. 20402 











Vol. LVIII, No. 1508 

May 20, 1968 



Address hy Secretary Rusk 632 


Statement hy Ambassador Goldberg ami Text of the Treaty 635 


by Under Secretary Katzenbach 61^ 



Statement by Roy Wilkins at Tehran Conference on Human Rights 661 

For index see inside back cover 



Vol. LVIII, No. 1508 
May 20, 1968 

For sale by tbe Superintendent of Documents 

U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 


52 issues, domestic $10, foreign $15 
Single copy 30 cents 

Use of funds for printing of this pubUcation 
approved by the Director of the Bureau of 
the Budget (January 11, 1966). 
Note: Contents of this pubUcatlon are not 
copyrighted and items contained herein may be 
reprinted. Citation of the DEPABTMENT OF 
STATE BULLETIN as the source will be 
appreciated. The BULLETIN is indexed in 
the Eeaders' Guide to Periodical Literature. 

The Department of State BULLETIN, 
a weekly publication issued by the 
Office of Media Services, Bureau of 
Public Affairs, provides the public and 
interested agencies of the Governnu^nt 
with information on developments m 
the field of foreign rehitions and on 
the work of the Department of State 
and the Foreign Service. 
The BULLETIN includes seUcted 
press releases on foreign policy, issued 
by the White House and the Depart- 
ment, and statements and addresses 
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 interna-i 
tional affairs and the functions of thei 
Department. Information is mcluded 
concerning treaties and international 
agreements to which the United 
States is or may become a party 
and treaties of general international 

Publications of the Department 
United Nations documents, and leg 
islative material in the field of inter 
national relations are listed currentlr 


President Johnson's News Conference of May 3 

Following are excerpts from the transcript of 
a news conference held hy President Johnson in 
the East Room of the White House on May 3. 

The President: Good morning, ladies and gen- 
tlemen. I was informed about 1 o'clock this 
morning that Hanoi was jirepared to meet in 
Paris on :May 10th, or several days thereafter. 

As all of you know, we have sought a place 
for these conversations in which all of the par- 
ties would receive fair and impartial treatment. 
France is a country where all parties should ex- 
pect such treatment. 

After conferring with the Secretaries of State 
and Defense, Ambassadors Goldberg and Ball 
[Arthur J. Goldberg, U.S. Representative to the 
United Nations, and George W. Ball, U.S. Rep- 
resentative-designate], Mr. Harriman and Mr. 
Vance [Ajnbassador at Large W. Averell Har- 
riman and Cyrus R. Vance, who will represent 
the United States at the Paris talks] , I have sent 
a message informing Hanoi that the date of May 
10th and the site of Paris are acceptable to the 
United States. 

We will continue in close consultation at all 
stages with our allies, all of whom I would re- 
mind you now have representation in the French 

We hope this agreement on initial contact will 
prove a step forward and can represent a mu- 
tual and a serious movement by all parties 
toward peace in Southeast Asia. 

I must, however, sound a cautionary note. This 
is only the very first step. There are many, many 
hazards and difficulties ahead. I assume that 
each side will present its viewpoint in these 

ily point of view was presented in my televi- 
sion statement to the American people on March 

I have never felt it was useful for public offi- 
cials to confuse delicate negotiations by detail- 
mg personal views or suggestions or elaborating 
positions in advance. I know that all of you, 
therefore, will understand that I shall not dis- 
cuss this question fuither at this conference. 

I am delighted to have with us this morning 
the Chairmen of the Mexican-United States 
Border Commission between our two countries, 
which is meeting here in Washington. I espe- 
cially welcome Sefior [Jose] Vivanco and Mr. 
[Raymond] Telles, the American Chairman. I 
am glad that discussions have been fruitful here. 

I will be glad to take any questions that you 
may have. 

Q. Mr. President, without trying to contra- 
vene your desire not to discuss this further, I 
would like to refer to your March 31st statement, 
when you expressed the hope that after we cut 
hack our bomhing, you hoped that this looxdd 
also lead to additional restraints on hoth sides. 
Since March 31st, has there been any detectable 
military restraint on the part of the North? 

Tlie President: We have been quite concerned 
with the developments since my March 31st 
statement, and we have been following them 
very closely. You may be sure that we are aware 
and will at all times protect the American 

Q. Mr. President, you have had some talks 
with your diplomatic and military leaders from 
Y let-Nam recently, both here and in Honolulu. 
Can you comment on the state of affairs in V let- 
Nam and wliether or not the South Vietnamese 
Government and army are prepared to take over 
more of the burden of the war? 

^ Bulletin of Apr. 15, 1968, p. 481. 

MAT 20, 1968 


The President: We think that they are work- 
ing to that end. We think that they are making 
progress. We have detected increased efforts 
there and among our other allies, and certainly 
in this country, to expedite our equipment so 
that they may be able to effectively cany a 
larger share of the burden. 

As you know, they have taken certain actions 
in connection with their own draft, drafting 19- 
year-olds and drafting 18-year-olds. They have 
substantially increased their callup of forces. I 
think they are doing about all that we could ex- 
pect them to do under the circumstances. 

Q. Air. President., referring to your state- 
ment here., you syohe of the delicate nature of 
these negotiations that are going to take place 
in Paris. Would you go far enough to say that 
perhaps it would he a good idea to declare a 
moratoriwn in our political campaign and pub- 
lic discussion of these negotiations lohile they 
are taking place? 

The President: No, I would not urge that. 
I think my viewpoint, Mr. Davis, was presented 
about as effectively as I knew how in my March 
31st statement. 

I do not think we do justice to our country 
and keep faith with our people when we spend 
our time pursuing personal ambitions that re- 
sult in dividing our people. I think we must be 
very careful not to do that. That does not mean 
that we must put a stop to expressing individual 

In my own judgment, we still have too much 
division in this country and too many people 
thinking of self and too few people thinking 
of country. 

I would remind everybody of President Ken- 
nedy's statement in his inaugural address with 
regard to that. I don't think we have put an 
end to all the division since March 31st, al- 
though I do think that some of the personal 
criticism has been more restrained and has 

I do think that our country has benefited 
from it. I think it will continue to benefit by 
individuals recognizing what their individual 
duties are and permitting the Executive, the 
Secretary of State, and the Secretary of De- 
fense to discharge their proper constitutional 

We frequently confuse the world in our demo- 

cratic system, which has been a part of o\ir 
history, by a clamor of voices, individuals as- 
suming to speak for the United States — or at 
least other nations assume they do speak for 
the United States — when it does not represent 
the official Government position. 

So I would not say that we should stop dis- 
cussing these very important problems, but I 
do say everyone should measure what he has 
to say and the public generally should size up 
the man who is free to comment on any given 
occasion on any given subject, most of which 
he may not have all the details on or may per- 
haps not have enoiigh information to justify 
the decisions or judgments he reaches. 

We in the White House, in the State Depart- 
ment, and in the Defense Department try to 
constantly develop this information with our 
ambassadors from throughout the world, with 
our ambassadors to the United Nations — Am- 
bassador Goldberg and Ambassador Ball — who 
met with us this morning — Ambassador Gold- 
berg, whom I talked to at length — and try to 
take a careful reading and evaluate all the con- 
flicting reports. 

Now, there are just no other people who have 
that information available to them. While we 
always are anxious and welcome suggestions 
from any source — private, editorial, congres- 
sional, judicial, or whatnot — we do think that 
our nation's best interests are sei-ved some- 
times if those suggestions are made privately, 
even though they don't make a headline, to the 
Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense 
or to the President. 

Q. You have invited Mr. Thieu of South 
Viet-Na7n to the United States. Can you say 
anything today about the imminence of that 


The President : Yes. We expect it to be in the 
next few weeks. We expect to have visits with 
various of our allies — the Prime Minister of 
Australia, representatives from Thailand, rep- 
resentatives of South Viet-Nam. We expect 
them to come here. 

We just finished a very successful, productive 
meeting with the very able President of South 
Korea.^ We will be meeting with representa- 
tives from these countries in the days ahead. ' 

' For background, see iMd., May 6, 1968, p. •573. 



Q. Mr. President, could you give us your 
fresent assessment of the Puehlo situation? 
Have you evaluated these confessions, sir, tliat 
have been coining from there? 

The President: We have nothing, Mr. Rey- 
nolds, to report that is new. Secretary Katzen- 
bach, the day before yesterday, and Secretary 
Eusk, yesterday, reported all of the information 
we have in connection with the Puehlo situation. 

We have made it clear to the North Korean 
authorities that we think these people should 
not be held; that they should be released; that 
we will carefully examine all of the evidence 
following their release. If there is any indica- 
tion that we have acted improperly or have vio- 
lated their boundaries, we will take appropriate 

That is where the matter stands. We think 
the next step is up to them. 

We hope that upon careful reflection, they 
will release the men. Then the United States 
will fairly and impartially look at all the facts 
available and take a position in keeping with 
those facts. 

either sending the dependents home and short- 
ening the tours of the troops there, or even 're- 
ducing the troop level a little more than you 

The President: I can assure you that we have 
given all the thought of which we are capable 
to the balance-of -payments situation and all of 
its ramifications. We are taking every prudent 
step that we feel we can take to improve our 
balance-of-payments situation. 

That does involve the rotation of troops. That 
does involve efforts on the part of the Govern- 
ment to reserve our expenditures, not only de- 
pendents but in all other fields. 

We know of few questions that are as im- 
portant to us as the improvement of our balance- 
of-payments situation. 

The press: Thank you, Mr. President. 

Letters of Credence 

Q. Mr. President, in 1960 President Eisen- 
hower directed that no more dependents accom- 
pany U.S. military personnel to Europe because 
of the balance-of-payments problem,. The bal- 
ance-of-payments problem, of course, is much 
more serio'us now. 

I wonder if you have given any thought to 


The newly appointed Ambassador of the Ee- 
puljlic of the Philippines, Salvador P. Lopez, 
presented his credentials to President Johnson 
on April 23. For texts of the Ambassador's re- 
marks and the President's reply, see Depart- 
ment of State press release dated April 23. 

MAT 20, 1968 


Gaining the Full Measure of the Benefits of the Atom 

Address hy /Secrefa?^ Rusk ' 

I am deeply honored to receive this award 
commemorating a man of unusual vision. Al- 
though he was a useful public servant in many 
other ways, Brien McMahon made his most en- 
during contributions as a pioneer statesman of 
the atomic age. When the awesome force of the 
atom brought the Second World War to an end 
in 1945 he was a 41-year-olcl lawyer serving his 
first term as a Senator from Connecticut. He had 
little scientific knowledge. But he immediately 
grasped the momentous implications of the 
atomic age and was the first Senator to outline 
policies and propose legislation to deal with 

Tlie central problem, as he saw clearly, was 
how to assiire that this revolutionary new source 
of energy would be used for the betterment of 
man rather than for his destruction. He intro- 
duced the bill which under his persistent guid- 
ance developed into the basic law wliich bore 
his name: the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, 
which established our nuclear programs under 
civilian control. 

At the same time, Senator McMahon proposed 
that we make available through the Security 
Council of the United Nations all that we knew 
about atomic energy on condition that other na- 
tions likewise make available all they knew 
about weapons of war. And he proposed that 
the Security Comicil should have the power to 
inspect all plants and laboratories and opera- 
tions in every coimtry in the world. 

For he was among those who realized, first, 
that our atomic monopoly would not last long, 
and secondly, that any attempt to use our mo- 
mentary superiority "as a club"' would, as he 
put it, "develop those very prejudices and pas- 
sions and hates which would burst into flame 
as soon as the war-making power became equal- 

ized by other nations' application of the secret." 
Therefore he urged that we follow a third 
course: of leading the way in "turning atomic 
energy to the production of higher living stand- 
ards for the peoples of the world. . . ." 

These sound ^jerceptions, which he was one of 
the first to articulate, underlay the Acheson- 
Lilienthal proposals - and, in turn, the Bainich 
l^lan : ^ the comprehensive plan to share atomic 
knowledge and, by international control of all 
atomic enterprises throughout the world, to as- 
sure that this knowledge would be used only 
for peaceful purposes. The submission of this 
proposal to the United Nations was a monu- 
mental act of f arseeing statesmanship. After ex- 
tensive study and debate and some modification, 
that plan won the approval of all the members 
of the United Nations except the Soviet bloc. 
Failure to adopt the Baruch plan wixs an appall- 
ing tragedy. Had it been accepted, there would 
have been no atomic arms race — and mankind 
today would not have to wori-y about tlie pos- 
sibility of a holocaust which in a few houi-s 
could wipe out much of the ci\dlized world and 
perhaps endanger the human species itself. 

Steps Toward Control of Nuclear Weapons 

Under four successive Presidents it has been 
the policy of the United States to control the 
use of nuclear energy for weapons purposes 
while promoting its use for the benefit of 

In 19.53 President Eisenhower proposed the 
formation of the International Atomic Energj' 
Agency with the dual task of promoting peace- 
ful nuclear programs and providing safeguards 
against these programs being used as stepping- 
stones to nuclear- weapons systems.^ Tliis 
Agency came into being in 1957. It now has 98 

^ Made before the Fordham University Club of Wash- 
ington, D.C., on May 2 (press release 89) upon receiv- 
ing the Senator Brien McMahon Memorial Award for 
Distinguished Public Service. The Secretary also made 
extemporaneous remarks. 

" For background, see Bulletin of Apr. 7, 1946, p. 553. 
' For background, see iUd.. June 23, 1946, p. 1057. 
' For President Eisenhower's address before the U.N. 
General Assembly, see ibid., Dec. 21, 1953, p. 847. 



meinbci-s. Although initiall}- skeptical, the So- 
viet Uiiiou has become a sti-ong supporter of 
the IAEA and its safeguards s_ystem. 

The Uuited States lias bilateral arrangements 
witli 30 countries for cooperation in the civil 
uses of atomic energy'. Initially the safeguards 
for these were also bilateral, but this fimction is 
gradually being transferred to the International 
Atomic Energj' Agency. Indeed, for several 
years the IAEA has been safeguarding several 
nuclear facilities in the United States. And last 
December President Jolmson oU'ered to place 
IAEA safeguards on nearly 200 of our nuclear 
facilities when such safeguards come into effect 
under the nonproliferation treaty.^ Only nuclear 
activities directly connected with our national 
security would be excluded. The United King- 
dom has made a similar offer. 

A first step toward controls on nuclear wea- 
pons was taken in the limited test ban treaty, 
which prohiI)its all nuclear tests in the atmos- 
phere, under water, and in outer space. More 
than 100 countries have adhered to this treaty. 

We also negotiated two treaties to prevent the 
spread of nuclear weapons into new environ- 
ments : Antarctica and space. The Space Treaty, 
which was concluded last year, is especially im- 
portant because it prohibits a potential arms 
race in space, with all the added tension and fear 
that could cause. 

In addition, through the commendable initia- 
tive of our Latin American neighlwrs, a treaty 
has been negotiated to prevent the spread of 
nuclear weapons in that part of the world. 

The Nonproliferation Treaty 

The next step, we hope, will be the nonprolif- 
eration treaty. Early this year, after long and 
arduous efforts, the United States and Soviet 
,Cochairmen of the Eighteen-Nation Disaniia- 
ment Committee at Geneva submitted a com- 
plete draft treaty to prevent the furtlier spread 
of nuclear weapons. This draft was forwarded 
by the Conunittee to the General Assembly of 
the United Nations, which is now discussing it 
in Xew York at a special session.'' This treaty 
would not only curb the spread of nuclear 
weapons but would also extend international 
[Safeguards for peaceful atomic facilities to 
nany additional countries. 

We regard the nonproliferation treaty as ex- 
remely important, for several related reasons : 

' Ibid.. Dec. 2.5, 1967, p. 862. 
" See p. 635. 

— Already five nations are producing nuclear 
weapons. Many more have, or could quickly 
acquire, the technical capabilities for making 

— Nuclear proliferation could add a danger- 
ous dimension to existing disputes between na- 
tions. The decision of one countrj' to acquire 
nuclear weapons could stimulate an adversary 
to "go nuclear" or to take hostile action to de- 
stroy in their infancy the nuclear facilities of 
the first country. 

— Every additional nation with the capacity 
to make and use nuclear weapons would add 
greatly to the difficulty of preserving peace. We 
can all think of nations which, in our time, have 
had leaders who were reckless, if not mad. And 
we can think of others which have not enjojed 
stable governments. 

— Each additional nuclear arsenal would in- 
crease the difficulty of negotiating international 
agreements to control nuclear arms. 

— Each additional nuclear areenal would in- 
crease the chances of accidents or of unauthor- 
ized use. 

— The spread of nuclear weapons would ag- 
gravate our difficulties in maiirtaining friendly 
relations with parties to a continuing dispute. 
If one party "went nuclear" we might have to 
decide whether to help the other party, directly 
or through security assurances, whether to se^'er 
economic aid to the comitry acquiring atomic 
weapons, or whether to stand aside even though 
the result might be a war which woidd be hard 
to contain. 

— Finally, the building of nuclear arsenals by 
developing countries would divert major re- 
sources needed for economic growth. 

So we hope most earnestly that the nonpro- 
liferation treaty will receive widespread 

^Miat next? 

We attach very great importance to achieving 
an understanding with the Soviet Union to halt 
the strategic missile arms race. President John- 
son has proposed meetings with the Soviets to 
discuss control of both offensive vehicles and 
antiballistic missiles.' While expressing interest, 
the Soviets to date have not indicated a spe- 
cific time for such a meeting. But we have not 
given up hope. 

Among other next steps which we would fa- 
vor are these : 

— A cutoff on the production of fissionable 
materials for weapons. We have proposed such 

' For background, see ihid., Mar. 20, 1!)C7, p. 44.o. 

AT 20, 1968 


a treaty for many years and have offered to 
transfer fissionable material from weapons now 
in existence to peaceful uses. 
— A comprehensive nuclear test ban. 

We must continue to work incessantly and 
resourcefully toward a supreme essential: the 
control, reduction, and eventual elimination of 
atomic weapons. 

Progress in Peaceful Applications 

Meanwhile, peaceful applications of atomic 
enerjjy are expanding at accelerating speeds. In 
the United States alone more than 60 nuclear 
powerplants representing more than 50 million 
kilowatts of electrical energy are either built, 
under construction, or on order. At present, 
however, the United Kingdom is still the num- 
ber-one nation in production of electricity by 
nuclear power. 

Sizable nuclear power programs are under- 
way in other countries, including Canada, 
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Sweden, Switz- 
erland, Sixain, and the Soviet Union. 

It has been estimated that, by the end of the 
century, half the electricity in the United 
States — and much of the electricity elsewhere — 
will be generated by the atom. 

One of the most important future applications 
of nuclear energy on a world scale is likely to be 
in desalting water. This is already economic in 
some cases. I have been told that, when more 
advanced nuclear powerplants come into oper- 
ation, it may be possible to lower the cost of de- 
salted water to the point where it would be eco- 
nomic for irrigating farmlands. This might 
make possible the production of crops on coastal 
desert lands where temperatures and soil con- 
ditions are favorable but rainfall is inadequate. 

The importance of peaceful nuclear explo- 
sive devices in the exploitation of hitherto im- 
tapped earth resources is still imdetermined. 
However, the potential is great. Moreover, the 
vast explosive power of these devices may give 
man an earthmoving capability that vsdll make 
possible projects beyond the scope of conven- 
tional technology. 

The scientists tell us that nuclear power will 
play an important role in space: in operating 
the equipment in space capsules and perhaps 
someday in propelling rockets. 

The scientists see an indispensable role for 
nuclear energy in weather forecastmg and 
worldwide commimications. They tell us of 
synchronous earth satellites, powered by small 
nuclear reactors, becommg part of a worldwide 

television system that would send signals di- 
rectly into homes throughout the globe. They 
foresee thousands of nuclear-powered sensing 
devices located on land and sea, together with 
nuclear-powered weather satellites in space, all 
feeding their information into computerized 
forecasting centers that would make accurate 
long-range weather predictions for any place on 
the globe — a service that would probably save 
billions of dollars each year. 

They tell us nuclear energy wiU also probably 
be an invaluable source of power for transporta- 
tion, scientific investigations, and many support- 
ing activities in exploring and developing the 
vast resources of the oceans. 

They see radiation and radioisotopes contin- 
uing to make significant contributions to allevi- 
ating hunger and suffering. Tracer studies using 
radioisotopes and mutations induced by radia- 
tion could lead to the development of improved 
strains of agricultural plants. Losses of food 
crops will be avoided by using radiation to eradi- 
cate pests, and many types of fresh foods will I 
be saved from spoilage by irradiation. In medi- | 
cine, a growing variety of radioisotopes are be- I 
ing used to study, diagnose, and treat diseases ,' 
and disorders. 

These applications of nuclear energy, together 
with many many more than I have the time or 
the expert knowledge to discuss, offer an almost 
unimaginable potential for economic progress 
and human well-being. 

The potentialities of nuclear energy have fired 
the hopes of people all around the world. And I 
am glad to say that the United States is trying 
to play its full part in helping to turn these 
vaulting hopes into realities. In addition to 
agreements for cooperation with 30 countries 
and two international organizations, we have : 

— received more than 4,500 scientists and en- 
gineers in our laboratories for visits and as- 
signments ; 

— established and maintain 78 complete nu-i 
clear libraries in 60 coimtries ; 

— committed ourselves to the transfer abroad 
of about half a million kilograms of U-235 con- 
tained in enriched uranium. 

But to gain the full measure of the benefits of 
the atom, the world must make certain that it 
will be used only for peaceful purjioses. So, I 
accept your award with the fervent hope that tht 
work begun by Brien McMahon at the begin 
ning of the nuclear age will some day liberatt 
the hiunan race from the dread of a nucleai 



U.S. Calls for Prompt Endorsement by the U.N. General Assembly 
of the Draft Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons 

Folloioing is a statement hy Arthur J. Gold- 
berg, U.S. Representative to the General As- 
sembly, made in Committee I {Political and 
Security) on April 26, together loith the text of 
the draft treaty on the nonproliferation of nu- 
clear weapons. 


U.S. /U.N. press release 59, Corr. 1 

This is indeed an important moment in the 
history of the United Xations. We are now about 
to consider what may prove to be one of the 
most significant and hopeful steps toward world 
peace that we have ever taken together : the draft 
treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear 

This draft treaty has been negotiated in re- 
sponse to repeated and overwhelming mandates 
of the General Assembly. It will serve three 
major purposes : 

First, it is designed to assure that control over 
nuclear weapons, with their catastrophic power 
of destruction, shall spread no further among 
the nations of the earth. 

Second, it is designed to facilitate the way for 
all nations, particularly those in the earlier 
stages of economic development, to share in the 
peaceful blessings of nuclear energy — without 
arousing fear lest that energy be diverted to 
nuclear weapons. 

And third, it is designed to establish a new 
and solemn treaty obligation, especially upon 
the nuclear-weapon powers, to press forward 
the search for nuclear disarmament and thereby 
to create a much more favorable atmosphere in 
which to progress toward our long-sought goal 
of general and complete disarmament. 

This treaty will do more than any treaty of 
our time to push back the fearful shadow of 
nuclear destruction. It will brighten the hopes 
of all nations, great and small, for a more peace- 
ful world. 

I do not ask that these assertions be accepted 

uncritically by any delegation. The United 
States, as a major participant in the negotia- 
tions, is convinced that the substantial new obli- 
gations which we shall assume as a party to this 
treaty are far outweighed by the degree to which 
it will serve our national security and our na- 
tional interests. We fully expect that every 
sovereign state represented here, in deciding its 
own attitude, will measure the treaty by the 
same yardstick: its own enlightened national 
interest and its national security. And we expect 
tliat the draft treaty will pass the test of such a 
measurement, for the purposes it serves are com- 
mon to tlie entire world— purposes of peace, 
with which the fundamental interests of every 
nation and people are deeply in harmony. 

As this process of measurement and evalua- 
tion proceeds during the present debate, many 
points will undoubtedly be raised concerning 
the detailed provisions of the draft treaty, whose 
text is contained in the report that lies before 
us.^ Other points will likewise be raised con- 
cerning the related matter of security assur- 
ances, M'hich is also treated in the same report. 

In this opening statement I shall concentrate 
on certain broad questions which are important 
to us all, and particularly important to the non- 
imclear- weapon states, which make up the over- 
whelming majority of the nations of the world. 
These questions are as follows : 

1. Does this treaty sufficiently reflect the par- 
ticipation and the ideas of both nuclear-weapon 
and non-nuclear- weapon states ? 

2. Will this treaty increase the security of 
both nuclear-weapon and non-nuclear-weapon 
states ? 

?>. Will this treaty promote the application of 
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, espe- 
cially in the developing nations? 

4. Will this treaty help bring nearer an end 
to the nuclear arms race and actual nuclear dis- 
armament by the nuclear-weapon states, and 
will it help achieve general disarmament ? 

■ U.N. doc. A/7072. 

MAY 20, 1968 


5. Does this treaty, in all its provisioiis and 
in its historical setting, contribute to a fair bal- 
ance of obligations and benefits as between the 
nuclear and nonnuclear states? 

6 Finally, will the interests of all nations be 
best served by prompt action on the treaty at 
this resumed session of the General Assembly i 

In this statement I shall present in brief form 
the considered answers of my Govermnent to 
these important questions. 

All Nations Involved in Creating the Treaty 

1. Does this treaty sufficiently reflect the 
participation and the ideas of loth nuclear- 
weapon and non-nuclear- weapon states? 

The answer is "Yes." 

In tracing the origin of this treaty, the first 
point to recall is that the General Assembly it- 
self gave us our first mandate for a nonprolifer- 
ation treaty more than 6 years ago, in Resolution 
1665 (XVI), proposed by Ireland and adopted 
unanimously on December 4, 1961. 

In that same year the Assembly also endorsed 
the creation of a new negotiating forum for 
disannament— the Eighteen-Nation Committee 
on Disarmament or ENDC— comprising not 
only the then nuclear-weapon powers and cer- 
tain of their allies in NATO and the Warsaw 
Pact but also eight nations which are not m 
these alliances, which do not possess nuclear 
weapons, and which represent every region ot 
the world. That representative committee, meet- 
ing in Geneva, became the main negotiating 
f orimi for disannament measures, including the 
present treaty. 

In 1964, after the successful conclusion of the 
limited nuclear test ban treaty, nonprolifera- 
tion became a principal subject of discussion m 
the ENDC. Despite wide diiierences of view 
among the nuclear- weapon powers, the negoti- 
ators were encouraged to press on with this 
project by the widespread concern wliich a great 
many nonnuclear nations expressed over the 
danger of the further spread of nuclear weap- 
ons. That concern was manifested, for example, 
in the Declaration on the Denuclearization of 
Africa, adopted by the Summit Conference of 
the Organization for African Unity on July 21, 
1964, which reads in part as follows : 

We, African Heads of State and Government, . . . 

1. Solemnly declare that we are ready to undertake, 
through an international agreement to be concluded 
under United Nations auspices, not to manufacture or 
control atomic weapons ; 


2. Appeal to all peace-loving nations to accept the j 
same undertaking; i 

3. Appeal to all the nuclear Powers to respect this 
declaration and conform to it. , 

The same concern was further manifested in 

the Declaration by the Second Conference of j 

Heads of State or Government of Nonaligned | 

Countries, issued in Cairo on October 10, 1964, | 

which reads in part as follows : ! 

The Conference requests the Great Powers to abstain ; 
from all policies conducive to the dissemination of I 
nuclear weapons and their by-products among those 
States which do not at present possess them. It under- 
lines the great danger in the dissemination of nuclear 
weapons and urges all States, particularly those pos- 
sessing nuclear weapons, to conclude non-dissemination 
agreements and to agree on measures providing for the 
gradual liquidation of the existing stockpiles of nuclear 

Then on June 15, 1965, the same concern was 
voiced by the United Nations Disannament 
Connnission, when it recommended by a vote of 
83 to 1 that the ENDC "accord special priority 
to a nonproliferation treaty. 

When the General Assembly met in the fall 
of 1965, the nonaligned eight members of the 
ENDC oifered a resolution calling on the 
ENDC to meet as early as possible to negotiate 
a nonproliferation treaty. It also set forth five 
basic principles to guide the negotiations : 

a. The treaty should be void of any loop- 
holes for the direct or indirect proliferation of 
nuclear weapons in any form ; 

b It should embody an acceptable balance 
of 'obligations of nuclear and nonnuclear 

powers ; , . ^ 

c. It should be a step toward disarmament, 
particularly nuclear disarmament ; 

d. There should be acceptable and workable 
provisions to insure its effectiveness ; 

e. It should not adversely affect the right ot 
states to join in establishing nuclear free zones. 

This important General Assembly resolu- 
tion— 2028 (XX)— was adopted by a vote of 
93 to 0. My Government voted for it,- and our 
representatives in Geneva have kept its pnnci- 
ples in mind throughout these 21/2 years ot 
negotiation. We believe that the draft treaty 
fully embodies those principles. 

Again in 1966 and 1967 the Assembly ad- 
dressed itself to this subject in resolutions 
adopted with virtual unanimity. Most recently, 

^For U.S. statements in Committee I and text of, 
the resolution as adopted in that committee on Nov. »,l 
196.5, see Bulletin of Nov. 29, 1965, p. 873. 


last December 19, Kesolution -lUG (XXII) 
reaffirmed "that it is imperative to make fur- 
iflier etVorts to conclude such a treaty at the 
earliest possible date." For this purpose the 
resolution called on the ENDC "urgently to 
continue its work" and to report to the Assem- 
bly not later than March 15 so that the Assem- 
bly could meet in resumed session to give fur- 
ther consideration to this important question. 

That timetable was met. On March 14, 6 
weeks ago, the ENDC sulmiitted a full report 
on the negotiations regarding a draft treaty on 
the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, to- 
gether with the pertinent documents and rec- 
ords. That report lies before us in Documents 
AH)72 and A/7072/Add. 1, dated March 19, 

The report contains the text of a complete 
draft treaty, jointly submitted by the United 
States and the Soviet Union as cochairnien of 
the EXDC. This treaty text incorporates a 
number of views and proposals made by vari- 
ous members of tlie committee. The report also 
includes the specific proposals made by various 
delegations to amend the text, as well as a list 
of the verbatim records setting forth the views 
of various delegations, indicating the extent to 
which thej' support or remain at variance with 
the text presented. J'inally, the report includes 
an important related proposal on security as- 
surances, sponsored by the ENDC's nuclear- 
weapon participants. 

It is to consider that report that the Assembly 
has now resumed its ^2d regular session. 

Thus it is clear that from its very beginning 
this treaty project has corresponded to the 
repeated, virtually unanimous, and increasingly 
urgent resolutions of the General Assembly, in 
which the nonnuclear states are, of course, in 
the overwhelming majority. 

It is equally significant that the nonnuclear 
states have played a prominent part throughout 
the actual negotiation of this treaty. This is 
particularly true of the nonaligned eight mem- 
bers of the EXDC, whose ideas have at many 
points strengthened the treat}' draft and in- 
sured its proper balance of obligations and 
benefits. This is not to say that all of the sug- 
gestions those members made have been incor- 
porated in the treaty text. Indeed, all partici- 
pants, including the nuclear-weapon states, had 
to modify some of their concepts as the negotia- 
tions developed. The vei-y important changes 
from the text submitted last August 24 ' by the 

United States and the Soviet Union, to the 
extensively revised text of January 18,* and 
finally to the text of March 11 which is now 
before us, demonstrate that this is a compro- 
mise text to which all participants, nuclear and 
nonnuclear alike, made their contributions. In 
addition, many nonnuclear nations not mem- 
bers of the ENDC were able to make important 
contributions to the present text as a result of 
intensive consultations by the nuclear powers. 
Let there be no mistake : The nonproliferation 
treaty, in the form in which it lies before us in 
this committee today, is not a creation of the 
ITnited States. It is not a creation of the Soviet 
Union. It is not a creation of the United States 
and the Soviet Union. It is the creation of all 
nations, large and small, which share the knowl- 
edge and the determination that man can, and 
must, and will control these cosmic forces which 
he has unleashed. 

Comprehensive Provisions on Security 

'2. W/N this treaty Increase the security of 
hotli nuclear-veapon and non-nuclear- 
weapon states? 

The answer is "Yes." 

The main provisions of the treaty bearing on 
this question are articles I, II, and III. The first 
two articles, taken together, are designed to lock 
the door to nuclear-weapons proliferation from 
both sides. To this end, article I prescribes for 
each nuclear-weapon party, and article II for 
each non-nuclear-weapon party, certain corre- 
sponding prohibitions. 

First, article I forbids each nuclear- weapon 
party to transfer nuclear weai>ons, or control 
over them, directly or indirectly to any recipient 
whatsoever, whether that recipient be a party to 
the treaty or not. Article II locks the same door 
from the other side by forbidduig each non- 
nuclear-weapon party to receive the transfer of 
nuclear weapons, or of control over them, direct- 
ly, or indirectly from any transferor whatsoever, 
whether that transferor be a party to the treaty 
or not. 

Second, article I forbids each nuclear- weapon 
party to assist, encourage, or induce any non- 
nuclear- weapon state, whether a party to the 
treaty or not, to manufacture or otherwise ac- 
quire nuclear weapons or control over them; 
and article II, conversel}', forbids non-nuclear- 
wea])on parties to manufacture or otherwise ac- 

'For text, see ihiil.. Sept. 11, YXu, p. .319. 

'For text, see ihid., Feb. 5, 1968, p. 165. (For a cor- 
rection, see p. 64.5. ) 

MAY 2 0, 19 68 


quire these weapons or to seek or receive any 
assistance in doing so. 

Finally, all that articles I and II forbid as 
regards nuclear weapons, they likewise forbid 
as regards other nuclear explosive devices. This 
provision is essential, because every nuclear ex- 
plosive device contams the same nuclear com- 
ponents as a nuclear weapon. I shall return to 
this point in discussing article V. 

These prohibitions are so comprehensive that, 
in the judgment of my Government, they fully 
meet the criterion established by the General 
Assembly in its Resolution 2028 (XX) of 1965, 
that "the treaty should be void of any loop-holes 
which might permit nuclear or non-nuclear 
Powers to proliferate, directly or indirectly, nu- 
clear weapons in any form." 

Having thus locked the door to nviclear- 
weapons proliferation from both sides, the 
treaty then proceeds in article III to make sure 
that the door will stay locked. It does this by 
prescribing international safeguards which 
have but one function ; to verify the treaty obli- 
gation that nuclear material shall not be di- 
verted to nuclear weapons. These safeguards 
are to be governed by agi'eements to be negoti- 
ated and concluded with the International 
Atomic Energy Agency, which already operates 
an extensive safeguards system covering peace- 
ful nuclear activities in over 25 countries and 
is in an excellent position to adapt that system 
to the requirements of the treaty. 

Those are the essential provisions of this 
treaty in regard to the security of the parties. 
There are other provisions which are also im- 
portant to this major goal ; notably, article VII, 
which gives explicit recognition to the concept 
of nuclear free zones, in which the Latin Amer- 
ican states have given the world such an im- 
portant lead in the treaty recently concluded. 

My Government believes that this strict and 
reliable ban on the proliferation of nuclear 
weapons will enhance the security of nations, 
and especially of non-nuclear- weapon states. Let 
me now submit to the judgment of the members 
of this committee the essential reasoning by 
which we have reached this conclusion. 

This reasoning is quite simple and, in my 
view, incontrovertible. He who acquires nuclear 
weapons does not thereby gain any lasting secu- 
rity, because the situation which enables him to 
acquire them also enables his neighbor — perhaps 
his unfriendly neighbor — to acquire them also. 
In this way all the points of friction and hostil- 
ity among nations, large and small, could one 
after another be escalated to the nuclear level. 

Thus, at enormous expense, the commimity of 
nations would purchase the most dangerous in- 
security in human history. 

No one knows these truths better than my 
comitry, which was the first to develop these 
awesome weapons. They were born in an age 
of global war — a tragic age on which, with the 
establishment of the United Nations, we hope 
and pray that man has turned his back forever. 
It is not a privilege to be a nuclear-weapon 
power. It is a heavy burden — one which my 
country has sought for 22 years to lay down in 
safety, by agreement with the other powers that 
also carry it; and as I shall show later in this 
statement, we believe this treaty will help us 
greatly to move in that direction, a direction 
which would be welcomed by the whole com- 
munity of nations. 

It would be idle to pretend that the nonpro- 
liferation treaty will in itself confer perfect 
security on any nation. But it will make all of 
us more secure than we would be in the absence 
of such a treaty. 

If any nonnuclear power still cherishes the 
theory that the option of some day "going nu- 
clear" somehow gives it additional secuiity, I 
suggest that that jjower should consider the so- 
bering report which our Secretary-General sub- 
mitted last fall to the General Assembly on the 
effects of the possible use of nuclear weapons 
and the security and economic implications for 
States of the acquisition and further develop- 
ment of these weapons." ^ That report makes 
eloquently clear, among other things, that the 
spread of nuclear weapons to stdl more states 
"would lead to greater tension and greater in- 
stability in the world at large" and that these 
weapons require a very large and continuous 
teclinological and economic investment. And 
this, on behalf of my Government, I can verify 
with the greatest certainty. The Secretary-Gen- 
eral's report also stated as follows: 

It is hardly likely that a non-miclear-weapons coun- 
try, living in a state of hostility with a neighbour, could 
start to furnish itself with a nuclear arsenal without 
either driving its neighbour to do the same or to seek 
protection in some form or other, explicit or implicit, 
from an existing nuclear weapons Power or Powers. 

Finally, I wish to refer to one other aspect 
of this matter: the security implications of the 
relation between nonnuclear and nuclear 
powers. The United States fully appreciates the 
desires of the many non-nuclear-weapon states 
that appropriate measures be taken to safeguard 

' U.N. doc. A/6858. 



their security in conjunction with their adher- 
ence to the nonprolifenition treaty. This is a 
difficuU- and complicated problem. It is one to 
which the three nuclear-weapon participants in 
the EXDC have given their most earnest atten- 
tion ; and as a result they have proposed a solu- 
tion which we believe to be of major importance. 
This solution takes the form of a draft resolu- 
tion on security assurances,' to be sponsored in 
the Security Council by the United States, the 
Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom. The 
text of this draft resolution can be found in the 
report of the EXDC which we have all received 
and to which I have already referred. 

The matter of security assurances is too im- 
portant a subject for me to discuss definitively in 
this statement today. I do wish to emphasize, 
however, that, in the view of the United States, 
aggression with nuclear weapons or the threat 
of such aggression against a nonnuclear state 
would create a qualitatively new situation — a 
situation in which the nuclear-weapon states 
which are permanent members of the United 
Nations Security Council would have to act 
immediately through the Security Council to 
take measures necessary to counter such aggres- 
sion or to remove the threat of aggression in 
accordance with the United Nations Charter. 
Later in the course of this debate my delegation 
expects to set forth in more detail the position 
of the United States on this highly imfMrtant 

Promoting the Benign Use of the Atom 

3. Will this treaty promote the applica- 
tion of nuclear energy for peaceful pur- 
poves, especially in the developing nations? 

The answer is "Yes." 

This aspect of the treaty is covered in articles 
IV and V, which reached their present form 
chiefly as a result of the efforts of several of the 
nonnuclear and nonaligned members of the 
ENDC. In addition, the safeguards provisions 
in article III have a most important and con- 
structive bearing on this aspect of the treaty, 
as I shall show in a moment. 

Perhaps the most significant provision of 
article IV is contained in paragraph 2, which 
lays a specific, positive obligation on parties to 
the treaty that are in a position to do so to con- 
tribute to the peaceful applications of nuclear 
energy, especially in the territories of the non- 

nuclear-weapon parties, among which are nota- 
bly the developing nations. The promotion of 
such peaceful applications was one of the major 
considerations underlying our proposal, 15 
years ago, to establish the International Atomic 
Energy Agency.^ We arc very glad to see this 
obligation embodied in this multilateral treaty. 
We are well aware of what its implementation 
can mean for the building of new industries, the 
lighting of cities, the manufacture of chemical 
fertilizers, the desalting of sea water, and many 
other aspects of economic development requir- 
ing large inputs of energy. 

On behalf of the United States, and with the 
full authority of my Government, I pledge un- 
reservedly in this open forum and before tliis 
important committee of the Assembly that, in 
keeping with the letter and spirit of this treaty 
provision, we will appropriately and equitably 
share our knowledge and experience, acquired 
at great cost, concerning all aspects of the peace- 
ful uses of nviclear energj' with the parties to the 
treaty, particularly the nonnuclear parties. This 
is not only a promise; when tliis treaty takes 
effect it will become an obligation under a treaty 
which, when approved by our Congress and 
President, will be, under our Constitution, a 
part of the supreme law of the land. 

However, the importance of this treaty to the 
peaceful uses of the atom is by no means con- 
fined to article IV. Many people do not realize 
that there is an extremely practical reason why, 
when we close the door to the proliferation of 
nuclear weapons, we thereby also help to open 
wider the door to the benign use of the atom 
throughout the world — particularly as a source 
of peaceful power. 

The reason for this is rooted in a basic fact 
of nuclear reactor technology'. It has been esti- 
mated that before the end of this century nu- 
clear power stations may be supplying as much 
as half of the world's fast-growing require- 
ments for electrical energy. But these same 
power stations would produce as a byproduct 
plutonimn, which can be used in nuclear weap- 
ons. And it has been fiirther estimated that long 
before the end of the centurj' — by 1985, in fact, 
a date close at hand — the world's peaceful nu- 
clear power stations alone will be turning out 
as a byproduct enough plutonium for the pro- 
duction of 20 nuclear bombs every day. 

Faced with this awesome prospect, we have 
only three choices : 

' For background and text, see Bulletin of Mar. 2r>. 
196S. p. 401. 

' For President Eisenhower's address before th<> U.X. 
General Assembly, see ihid., Dec. 21, 1953, p. 847. 

MAT 20, 1D68 


First, we could allow this loroduction of plu- 
tonium, with its terrible potential for destruc- 
tion, to grow unchecked and unsafeguarded in 
nuclear power stations throughout the world. 
This is clearly an unacceptable choice to people 

Second, we could decide that the non-nuclear- 
weapon states of the world, despite their fast- 
growing energy needs, must do without the 
benefits of this extremely promising energy 
source — nuclear power — simply because we 
lack an agreed means of safeguarding that 
power for peace. This, too, is an unacceptable 
choice; indeed, it is unthinlvable. 

Third, wc can agree on safegiuvrds that will 
help insure against the diversion of nuclear 
materials into nuclear weapons, yet will not im- 
pede the growth of peaceful nuclear power 
among nations that desire it for their develop- 
ment. On the contrary, the safeguards will 
create the very atmosphere of confidence that is 
so essential to that beneficial growth. This is 
precisely the course of action embodied in article 

I have gone into this point at some length 
because there has been in some quarters an 
understandable concern lest the safeguards be- 
come an actual obstacle to peaceful nuclear de- 
velopment. As a matter of fact, paragraph 3 
of article III directly meets this concern by stip- 
ulating that the safeguards shall not hamper 
peaceful developmeiit. As proof of my country's 
confidence in tliis provision, the President of 
the United States annomiced last December 2 ** 
that when safeguards are applied under the 
treaty, the United States — above and beyond 
what the treaty will require of us as a nuclear- 
weapon power — will pennit the International 
Atomic Energy Agency to apply its safeguards 
to all nuclear activities in the United States, 
except those with direct national security 

Moreover, for the reasons I have given, we 
believe the safeguards will prove to be a great 
spur to the spread of nuclear power. We look 
forward to the clay when the International 
Atomic Energy Agency will not only serve as 
the responsible agency for safeguards under 
this treaty but will also, while performing that 
function, make a vital contribution to the shar- 
ing of peaceful nuclear teclmology. 

Turning to article V, we come to an aspect of 
peaceful nuclear technology which is still in the 
development stage; namely, x^eaceful nuclear 

explosions. This technique promises one day to 
yield valuable results in recovering oil, gas, and 
minerals from low-grade or otherwise inacces- 
sible deposits in the earth and also for large- 
scale excavations. The problem, however, is 
how to make these benefits available to all 
parties without defeating the treaty's main 
purpose of nonproliferation, since there is no 
essential diti'erence between the technology of 
peaceful nuclear explosive devices and that of 
nuclear weapons. 

Article V solves this problem by requiring 
that benefits from this technology shall be made 
available to the non-nuclear-weapon parties 
without discrimination through appropriate in- 
ternational procedures and at the lowest possi- 
ble charge, excluding any charge for the very 
costly process of research and development. 

My country has a large and expensive re- 
search and development program in the field of 
peaceful nuclear explosions. Again, on behalf 
of my Government and with its full authority, 
I state categorically to this committee that the 
United States will share with the parties to the 
treaty, in conformity with article V, the benefits 
of this program. Insofar as the United States is 
concerned, when this treaty goes into effect this 
obligation, too, will become, under our Consti- 
tution, the supreme law of the land. 

No country outside the United States, under 
tliis commitment, will be asked to pay one cent 
more for this service than our own nationals. 
Moreover, all indications are that when this 
teclmology is perfected, there will be no scarcity 
of explosive devices and therefore that all re- 
quests can be handled without raising problems 
of priority. 

Let me add that, whether such services are 
provided through multilateral or bilateral 
channels, the United States intends — in order 
to insure compliance with articles I and II of 
the ti-eaty — that they shall be provided under 
appropriate international observation. 

Tliis entire subject of '"programs for the 
]^>eaceful uses of nuclear energy" is on the 
agenda of the scheduled Conference of Non- 
Nuclear States which will convene this coming 
August. Last December 18 I gave in this very 
committee a categorical assurance that the 
United States would support that conference.' 
I reaffirm that assurance in the same categorical 

Without prejudging any decision of that con- 

' Ibid., Dee. 25, 1067, p. 862. 

' For text of Ambassador Goldberg's statement, see 
U.S./U.N. press release 249 dated Dec. IS. 



ferenee, in my \ie\v it could perforin a useful 
service, anioiii;: others, by j^iving consideration 
to the question of the best means of jnittinij arti- 
cles IV and V of the treat}' into effect so as to 
meet the needs of the non-nuclear-weapon states 
wliicli are the beneficiaries of them. 

Arms Control and Disarmament 

■1. Wi// th'iK trtattj help bring nearer an 
end to the nuclear arms race and actuul 
nuclear diiarmanient by the nuclear- 
weapon states, and lolll It help achieve gen- 
eral disarmament? 

Again, the answer is "Yes." 

Once again, it was chiefly at the initiative of 
the nonnuclear states that this problem was di- 
rectly addressed in the operative section of the 
treaty by the insertion of article VI. In that ar- 
ticle all parties undertake "to pursue negotia- 
tions in good faith" on these further measures. 
This is an obligation which, obviously, falls 
most directly on the nuclear-weapon states. 

Ideally, in a more nearly perfect world, we 
might have tried to include in this treaty even 
stronger provisions — even, perhaps, an actual 
agreed program — for ending the nuclear arms 
race and for nuclear disarmament. But it was 
generally realized in the EXDC that if we were 
to attempt to achieve agreement on all aspects 
of disai'mament at this time, the negotiating 
difficulties would be insurmountable and we 
shoulil end by achieving nothing. 

However, this treaty text contains, in article 
W, the strongest and most meaningful under- 
taking that could be agreed upon. Moreover, the 
language of this article indicates a practical 
order of priorities — which was seconded in the 
statement read on behalf of the Secretary- 
General — headed by "cessation of the nuclear 
arms race at an early date," and proceeding 
next to "nuclear disarmament," and finally to 
"general and complete disarmament under 
strict and effective international control" as the 
ultimate goal. 

Let me point out that further force is im- 
parted to article VI by the provision in article 
VIII for periodic review of the treaty at inter- 
vals of 5 years to determine whether the pur- 
poses of the preamble and the provisions of the 
treaty are being realized. My country believes 
that the permanent viability of this treaty will 
depend in large measure on our success in the 
further negotiations contemplated in article 

The commitment of article VI should go far 
to dispel any lingering fear that when the non- 
proliferation treaty is concluded, the nuclear- 
weapon parties to it will relax their efforts in 
the arms control field. On the contrary, the 
treaty itself requires them to intensify these 
efforts. The conclusion of it will do more than 
any other step now in prospect to brighten the 
atmosphere surrounding all our arras control 
and disarmament negotiations. Conversely, its 
failure would seriously discourage and compli- 
cate those negotiations, esi>ecially if the num- 
ber of nuclear-weapon powers should increase 
still further. 

Following the conclusion of this treaty, my 
Government will, in the spirit of article VI and 
also of the relevant declarations in the pre- 
amble, pursue further disai-mament negotia- 
tions with redoubled zeal and hope — and with 
promptness. And we anticipate that the same 
attitude will be shown by others. 

As President Johnson told Congress last 
P^ebruary in discussing the significance of this 
pledge : " 

No nation is more aware of the perils in tlie increas- 
ingly expert destructiveness of our time than the United 
States. I believe the Soviet LTnion .shares this aware- 

This is why we have jointly pledged our nations to 
negotiate towards the cessation of the nuclear arms 

This is why the United States urgently desires to 
begin discussions with the Soviet Union about the 
buildup of offensive and defensive missiles on both 
sides. . . . 

Our hopes that talks will soon begin reside in our 
conviction that the same mutual interest reflected in 
earlier agreements is present here — a mutual interest 
in stopping the rapid accumulation and refinement of 
these munitions. 

The obligations of the non-proliferation treaty will 
reinforce our will to bring an end to the nuclear arms 
race. The world will judge us l)y our performance. 

Fair Balance of Obligations and Benefits 

5. Does this treaty, in all its provisions 
ami in its historical settifig, contribute to 
a fair balance of obHgatio7ifs and benefits as 
between the nuclear and nonnuclear states? 

The answer again is "Yes." 
This question is sometimes asked in a way 
which seems to assume tliat the right of a state 

" Kor text of President .Johnson's letter transmitting 
to the Congress the 7th annual report of the U.S. Arms 
Control and Disarmament Agency, see White House 
press release dated Feb. 12. 

MAY 20, 1968 


to possess and further develop nuclear weapons 
is something greatly to be prized and that the 
giving up of that right, or any part of it, is a 
great loss. As I have already indicated, in view 
of the burdensome, perilous, and almost self- 
defeating character of the arms race and the 
very tenuous security that nuclear weapons con- 
fer, this is at best a dubious premise. But for the 
sake of argument, let me for the moment grant 
it and see whether even on that basis the obli- 
gations and benefits of this treaty are in or out 
of balance. 

The major obligation which this treaty will 
impose on the non-nuclear- weapon states is, of 
course, not to acquire nuclear weapons. 

A second obligation is to accept the safe- 
guards procedures in article III. 

Against those obligations by the nonnuclear 
powers, the nuclear powers will assume — or have 
already assumed by virtue of treaties already in 
force — the following obligations: 

1. Not to carry out test explosions of nuclear 
weapons in the atmosphere, in the oceans, or in 
outer space. 

2. Not to place nuclear weapons m orbit 
around the earth, or on the moon or any other 
celestial body, or anywhere else in outer space, 
or in Antarctica. 

Those obligations are already in force. Under 
the nonproliferatiou treaty the nuclear- weapon 
powers will assume several further obligations, 
lengthening the list as follows : 

3. Not to transfer nuclear weapons, or control 
over them, to any I'ecipient whatsoever. This is 
a most substantial restraint in both strategic and 
ixjlitical terms and in connection with the sover- 
eignty of the nuclear-weapon states. 

4. To contribute to the peaceful nuclear de- 
velopment of non-nuclear-weapon states. 

5. To provide peaceful nuclear explosion sei-v- 
ices at prices far below their true cost. 

6. To pui'sue negotiations to divest them- 
selves of large arsenals of existing and potential 
nuclear and other armaments. 

Such is the balance of obligations. But we 
should also bear in mind — indeed, it cannot be 
emphasized too strongly — that the benefits of 
articles IV and V on the peaceful uses of nu- 
clear energy, including peaceful nuclear explo- 
sive devices, will flow primarily to the non- 
nuclear- weapon states. 

I have listed these items in order to show that 

even if we were to look on the negotiation of this 
treaty as some sort of adversary proceeding, 
with no element of common interest but only a 
balancing of ojiposing mtei-ests, then the bal- 
ance in this text would not necessarily or ob- 
viously be in favor of the nuclear-weapon 
powers. In fact, it would be to the contrary. 

But that is not the way in which my country 
views this treaty. To be sure, the interests of all 
powers are not identical, and where they differ 
some equitable balance must indeed be found; 
and we believe it has been. But in a larger sense, 
the balance of opposing interests in this great 
enterprise is of quite minor importance when it 
is placed beside the overriding common interest 
of all nations in the sheer survival of the human 
race. Make no mistake, members of this com- 
mittee: Sheer human survival is the elemental 
common interest that imperatively requires us 
all to work together to bring the nuclear arms 
race under control. This treaty is a great step 
in that vital elfort. If we are to go forward 
toward the goal of general and complete dis- 
armament, this step must be taken and taken 1 
now ; and we can only take it together. Our com- i 
mon interest in domg this outbalances all other | 

A Call for Prompt Action 

6. Will the interests of all natloTis he best 
served by prompt action on the treaty at 
this reswmed session of the General 

Again my answer is "Yes" — defuiitely yes. 

Time is not on our side. As we at the United 
Nations well know, this is a dangerous world, 
with many points of international tension and. 
conflict. Many nations possess the technical ex- 
l^ertise necessary to develop nuclear weapons; 
and in a world without treaty restramts and 
safeguards, they may soon be tempted to do so, 
notwithstanding the extraordmai-y drain on 
their resources which this effort would impose. 

There is a further reason which impels us 
urgently to endorse this treaty at this very ses- 
sion. At this moment this troubled world needs 
above all, to be reassured that detente^ rathei 
than discord, will be the prevailing atmosphen 
in world affairs in order that other points o 
conflict may be resolved by the preferred char 
ter means of negotiated peacefid settlements 
The endorsement of this treaty now will be i 



major contribution to this detente and ^vilI im- 
prove the atmospliere for peaceful settlement 
of other conllicts, the resolution of which brooks 
no delay. 

Time indeed is not on our side. Every addi- 
tion to the number of nuclear-weapon powers 
will multipl)' once again the difficulties of 
stopping this step-by-step proliferation. The 
longer we wait, the more difficult our task will 
become — until, perhaps, a day arrives when it 
will have become impossible. 

We must master our fate, or fate will master 

My country is deeply convinced that tliis 
treaty will accomplish its great purposes — if 
we act in time. 

The immediate necessity is that we should 
take the next step: the endorsement of the 
treaty by the General Assembly at this session. 
In this resumed session, as I said at the be- 
ginning of my statement, we stand at an his- 
toric point of decision. From this point, we 
survej' not merely the immediate subject matter 
of this treaty but a much wider vista, embrac- 
ing the long struggle of modern man to con- 
quer the demon of fratricidal war among the 
nations of the earth. It is a point at which we 
cannot stand still, for events will not permit us 
to stand still. From this point, we must move 
either forward or back. 

If we insist upon a perfect treaty — each 
member with its different ideas of perfection — 
then we shall be unable to move forward, for 
there is no perfection in this world. 

If after careful deliberation we insist that the 
last grain of uncertainty be removed, then we 
shall be unable to move forward, for there is no 
complete certainty in this world. 

We are at the moment when all of us, united 
i)y our common interest in peace and sheer 
human survival, must together summon the 
courage to take this long stride forward. We 
must always remember the excellent advice 
given by the greatest of British poets, a poet 
who is the property of all mankind : 

There is a tide in the affairs of men. 
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune ; 
Omitted, all the voyage of their life 
Is bound in shallows and in miseries. 

Fellow representatives, this fateful tide is at 
the flood now. Let us take it now while we have 
the opportunity. It may never recur. 


Test of Draft Treatt on the 

n0n-e*k0liferation of nuclear weapons 

Submitted by the United States 

AND THE Soviet Union 


ON March 11, 196S 

The States concluding this Treaty, hereinafter re- 
ferred to as the "Parties to the Treaty", 

Considering the devastation that would be visited 
upon all mankind by a nuclear war and the consequent 
need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a 
war and to take measures to safeguard the security of 

Believing that the proliferation of nuclear weapons 
would seriously enhance the danger of nuclear war. 

In conformity with resolutions of the United Na- 
tions General Assembly calling for the conclusion of an 
agreement on the prevention of wider dissemination 
of nuclear weapons, 

Undertaking to cooperate in facilitating the applica- 
tion of International Atomic Energy Agency safe- 
guards on peaceful nuclear activities, 

Expressing their support for research, development 
and other efforts to further the application, within 
the framework of the International Atomic Energy 
Agency safeguards system, of the principle of safe- 
guarding effectively the flow of source and special fis- 
sionable materials by use of instruments and other 
techniques at certain strategic points, 

AflBrming the principle that the benefits of peaceful 
applications of nuclear technology, including any tech- 
nological by-products which may be derived by nuclear- 
weapon States from the development of nuclear 
explosive devices, should be available for peaceful pur- 
poses to all Parties to the Treaty, whether nuclear- 
weapon or non-nuclear-weapon St.ites, 

Convinced that in furtherance of this principle, all 
Parties to this Treaty are entitled to participate in 
the fullest possible exchange of scientific information 
for, and to contribute alone or in cooperation with 
other States to, the further development of the appli- 
cations of atomic energy for peaceful purposes. 

Declaring their intention to achieve at the earliest 
possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race. 

Urging the cooperation of all States in the attain- 
ment of this objective. 

Recalling the determination expressed by the Parties 
to the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 in its Preamble 
to seek to achieve the discontinuance of all test ex- 
plosions of nuclear weapons for all time and to con- 
tinue negotiations to this end. 

Desiring to further the easing of international ten- 
sion and the strengthening of trust between States in 
order to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of 
nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing 
stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals 
of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery 

" Submitted to the U.N. General Assembly on Mar. 14 
as annex I to the report of the Conference of the 
Bighteen-Xation Committee on Disarmament (U.N. 
doc. A/7072). 

MAT 20, 1968 


pursuant to a treaty on general and complete disarm- 
ament under strict and effective international control, 
Have agreed as follows : 

Article I 

Each nuclear-weapon State Party to this Treaty 
undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever 
nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or 
control over such weapons or explosive devices direct- 
ly, or indirectly: and not in any way to assist, en- 
courage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to 
manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or 
other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such 
weapons or explosive devices. 

Article II 

Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to this Treaty 
undertakes not to receive the transfer from any trans- 
feror whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear 
explosive devices or of control over such weapons or 
explosive devices directly, or indirectly ; not to manu- 
facture or otherwise acquire nuclear weaiwns or other 
nuclear explosive devices ; and not to seek or receive 
any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons 
or other nuclear explosive devices. 

Article III 

1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the 
Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth 
in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with 
the International Atomic Energy Agency in accord- 
ance with the Statute of the International Atomic 
Energy Agency and the Agency's safeguards system, for 
the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment 
of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a 
view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from 
peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear ex- 
plosive devices. Procwhires for the safeguards requiretl 
by this Article shall be followed with respect to source 
or special fissionable material whether it is being pro- 
duced, processe<l or used in any principal nuclear facil- 
ity or is outside any such facility. The safeguards re- 
quire<l by this Article shall be applied on all source 
or special fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear 
activities within the territory of such State, luider its 
jurisdiction, or carrie<;l out under its control anywhere. 

2. Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not 
to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, 
or (b) equipment or material especially designed or 
prepared for the processing, use or production of 
special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon 
State for peaceful purposes, uidess the source or special 
fissionable material shall be subject to the safeguards 
required by this Article. 

3. The safeguards required by this Article shall be 
implemented in a manner designed to comply with 
Article IV of this Treaty, and to avoid hampering the 
economic or technological development of the Parties 
or international cooperation in the field of peaceful 
nuclear activities, including the international exchange 
of nuclear material and equipment for the processing, 
use or production of nuclear material for peaceful pur- 
poses in accordance with the provisions of this Article 
and the principle of safeguarding set forth in the Pre- 

4. Non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty 
shall conclude agreements with the International 

Atomic Energy Agency to meet the requirements of this 
Article either individually or together with other 
States in accordance with the Statute of the Inter- 
national Atomic Energy Agency. Negotiation of such 
agreements shall commence within 180 days from the 
original entry into force of this Treaty. For States 
depositing their instruments of ratification after the 
180-day period, negotiation of such agreements shall 
commence not later than the date of such deposit. 
Such agreements shall enter into force not later than 
eighteen months after the date of initiation of ne- 

Article IV 

1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as af- 
fecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the 
Treaty to develop research, production and use of nu- 
clear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimina- 
tion and in conformity with Articles I and II of this 

2. All the Parties to the Treaty have the right to 
participate in the fullest possible exchange of scientific 
and technological information for the peaceful uses of 
nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to 
do so shall also cooperate in contributing alone or to- 
gether with other States or international organizations 
to the further development of the applications of nu- 
clear energy for i)eaceful purposes, especially in the 
territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the 

Article V 

Each Party to this Treaty undertakes to coorierate 
to insm-e that potential benefits from any peaceful 
applications of nuclear explosions will be made avail- 
able through appropriate international procedures to 
non-nuclear-weapon States Party to this Treaty on a 
non-discriminatory basis and that the charge to such 
Parties for the explosive devices<l will be as low 
as possible and exclude any charge for research and 
development. It is understood that non-nuclear-weapon 
States Party to this Treaty so desiring may, pursuant 
to a special agreement or agreements, obtain any such 
benefits on a bilateral basis or through an appropriate 
international body with adequate representation of 
non-nuclear-weapon States. 

Article VI 

Each of the Parties to this Treaty undertakes to pur- 
sue negotiations in good faith on effective measures 
relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an 
early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty 
on general and complete disarmament under strict and 
effective international control. 

Article VII 

Nothing in this Treaty affects the right of any group 
of States to conclude regional treaties in order to as- 
sure the total absence of nuclear weaixjns in their 
respective territories. 

Article VIII 
1. Any Party to this Treaty may proiwse amend- 
ments to this Treaty. The text of any proiwsed amend- 
ment shall be submitted to the Depositary Goveniments 
which shall circulate it to all Parties to the Treat.v. 
Thereupon, if requested to do so by one-third or more of 



the Parties to the Treaty, the Dopositary Governments 
shall convene a conference, to which they shall invite 
all the Parties to the Treaty, to consider such an 

2. Any amendment to this Treaty must he ai)i)roved 
by a majority of the votes of all the Parties to the 
Treaty, including the votes of all nuclear-weapon 
States Party to this Treaty and all other Parties which, 
on the date the amendment is circulated, are members 
of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic 
Energy Agency. The amendment shall enter into force 
for each Party that deposits its instrument of ratifica- 
tion of the amendment ujjon the deposit of instruments 
of ratification by a majority of all the Parties, includ- 
ing the instruments of ratification of all nuclear- 
weapon States I'arty to this Treaty and all other 
Parties which, on the date the amendment is circulated, 
are members of the Board of Governors of the Inter- 
national Atomic Energy Agency. Thereafter, it shall 
enter into force for any other Party upon the deposit 
of its instrument of ratification of the amendment. 

3. Five years after the entry into force of this 
Treaty, a conference of Parties to the Treaty shall be 
held in Geneva, Switzerland, in order to review the 
operation of this Treaty with a view to assuring that 
the purjwses of the Preamble and the provisions of the 
Treaty are being realized. At intervals of five years 
thereafter, a majority of the Parties to the Treaty 
may obtain, by submitting a proposal to this effect to 
the Depositary Governments, the convening of further 
conferences with the same objective of reviewing the 
operation of the Treaty. 

Article IX 

1. This Treaty shall be open to all States for signa- 
ture. Any State which does not sign the Treaty before 
its entry into force in accordance with paragraph 3 of 
this Article may accede to it at any time. 

2. This treaty shall be subject to ratification by 
signatory States. Instruments of ratification and in- 
struments of accession shall be deposited with the 

Governments of , which are hereby designated 

the Depositary Governments. 

3. This Treaty shall enter into force after its rati- 
fication by all nuclear-weapon States signatory to this 
Treaty, and 40 other States signatory to this Treaty 
and the deposit of their instruments of ratification. 
For the purposes of this Treaty, a nuclear-weapon 
State is one which has manufactured and exploded a 
nuclear weai)on or other nuclear explo.sive device prior 
to January 1, 1967. 

4. For States whose in.struments of ratification or 
accession are deposited subsequent to the entry into 
force of this Treaty, it shall enter into force on the 
date of the deposit of their instruments of ratification 
or accession. 

5. The Depositary Governments shall promptly in- 
form all signatory and acceding States of the date of 
each signature, the date of deposit of each in.strument 
of ratification or of accession, the date of the entry into 
force of this Treaty, and the date of receipt of any 
requests for convening a conference or other notices. 

6. This Treaty shall be registered by the Depositary 
Governments pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter 
of the United Nations. 

Article X 

1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sover- 
eignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if 
it decides that extraordinary events, related to the sub- 
ject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the 
supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice 
of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty 
and to the United Nations Security Council three 
months in advance. Such notice shall include a state- 
ment of the extraordinary events it regards as having 
jeopardized its supreme interests. 

2. Twenty-five years after the entry into force of 
the Treaty, a Conference shall be convened to decide 
whether the Treaty shall continue in force indefinitely, 
or shall be extended for an additional fixed period or 
periods. This decision shall be taken by a majority of 
the Parties to the Treaty. 

Article XI 

This Treaty, the English, Russian, French, Spanish 
and Chinese texts of which are equally authentic, shall 
be deposited in the archives of the Depositary Govern- 
ments. Duly certified copies of this Treaty shall be 
transmitted by the Depositary Governments to the