Skip to main content

Full text of "Department of State bulletin"

See other formats 


\\ 


n 

h.. 

I 


Superintendent  of  Documents 
U.S.  government  printing  office 

WASHINGTON.  D.C.     20402 


OFFICIAL  BUSINESS 


POSTAGE    AND    FEES    PAID 
U.S.  GOVERNMENT    PRINTING  OFPICtl 


Cnytr  Os-^zm. 


THE  OFFICIAL  WEEKLY  RECORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POLICY 


THE 

DEPARTMENT 

OF 

STATE 

BULLETIN 


SEVENTH  ANNIVERSARY  OF  THE  ALLIANCE  FOR  PROGRESS 

Address  by  Vice  President  Uumphrey     ^29 

NATIONAL  SECURITY  OR  A  RETREAT  TO  ISOLATION? 

THE  CHOICE  IN  FOREIGN  POLICY 

by  Under  Secretary  Rostow     431 

THE  HEARTLANDS  OF  THE  HOME  HEMISPHERE 

by  Assistant  Secretary  Oliver     J^Ifi 

FREEDOM  OF  INFORMATION,  A  BASIC  HUMAN  RIGHT 

Statement  by  Ambassador  Goldberg     452 


THE  FOREIGN  AID  PROGRAM  FOR  FISCAL  1969 
Statement  by  Secretary  Rusk     445 


For  index  see  inside  hack  cover 


THE   DEPARTMENT   OF  STATE 


BULLETIN 


Vol.  LVIII,  No.  1501 
April  1, 1968 


For  sale  by  tlJe  Superintendent  of  Documents 

U.S.  Qovemment  Printing  Office 

Washington,  D.C.  20402 

PEICE: 

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 
interest. 

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 
total. 

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 
change. 

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 


429 


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 
Continent. 

— 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 
areas. 

— 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. 

Paraguay 

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. 


430 


DEPAETMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 


431 


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- 
created. 

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- 


432 


DEPARTMENT   OP   STATE  BULLETTN 


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 
woi'ld. 

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 
asking. 

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 


4.3.: 


their  feet  so  that  they  could  look  after  their  own 
affairs. 

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 
violence. 

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 
rule. 

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 
transformations. 

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. 


434 


DEPAETMENT  OF  STATE  BUIXBTIN 


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 
Peking. 

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 


435 


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 
Peking. 

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, 


436 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BTJLLETIN 


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 
themselves. 

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 


437 


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 
America. 

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. 


438 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BtTLLHTm 


"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 
man. 

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 


439 


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 
facts. 

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- 


440 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE  BCTiLETIN 


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 
assistance. 


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 
America. 

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 
England. 

— 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 

293-821—68- 


441 


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 
nation. 

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 


DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE  BULLETIN 


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 
future. 

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 
help. 

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 


443 


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- 
mended. 


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


444 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE  BULLETIN 


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  CONGRESS 


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 


445 


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 
poor. 

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 
Charter. 

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 
progress. 

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 
interest. 

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

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, 


4A6 


DEPAKTMENT   OF   STATE   BUIiliBTDf 


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 


447 


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- 
ment. 

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 
countries. 

— 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 
countries. 

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 
well-being. 

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. 


448 


DEPARTMENT  OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATIONS  AND  CONFERENCES 


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 

Trades. 
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 

Statistics. 

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 
Organization. 


APRIL    1.    1968 


449 


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 

ernors. 

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 

Hygiene. 

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 

Session. 

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 


450  DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 

Operations. 

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 

Council. 

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 

Czechoslovakia 

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 

AmpriPA 

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 
rights. 

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 
peace. 

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 
right. 

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


452 


DEPARTMENT   OF    STATE   BULLETIN 


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 


453 


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 
policies. 

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- 
poses. 

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- 
fectant." 

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- 
tion. 

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 


454 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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. 


TREATY  INFORMATION 


Current  Actions 


MULTILATERAL 


Diplomatic   Relations 

Vienna  convention  on  diplomatic  relations.  Done  at 
Vienna  April  18,  1961.  Entered  into  force  April  24, 
1964.' 
Accession  deposited:  Honduras,  February  13,  1968. 


'  Not  in  force  for  the  United  States. 


iPRIL    1,    1968 


455 


Grains 

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, 
1956. 
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. 


BILATERAL 


Etiiiopia 

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. 


PUBLICATIONS 


Confirmations 

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.) 


Designations 

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. 


456 


DEPAETMENT   OF   STATE   BTTLLl 

U.S.   60VERNUEHT  PRtHTINS  OFP)CEil99B 


ETD*  d 


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


Americaii    Principles.    "Our    Goal    Is    Peace" 

(Jobnson) 439 

Congress 

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 

Viet-Nam 

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. 
20520. 

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 
Committee. 

t48    3/14     Oliver:    "Innovative   Effects   of    the 

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

*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. 


1 M  20      VW      NOISOQ 
<^'^Z  XOO  0   d 

sidi303y-s"iviy3s 

on    Onond   NOiSOQ 
J      030  QSO 


Superintendent  of  Documents 
u.s.  government  printing  office 

WASHINGTON.   D.C.     20402 


AND    FEES    PA 
U.S.  GOVERNMENT  PRINTING 


ID 
OFFICE 


OFFICIAL  BUSINESS 


f 


THE  OFFICIAL  WEEKLY  RECORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POLICY 


THE 

DEPARTMENT 

OF 

STATE 

BULLETIN 


"FOREIGN  POLICY  IS  THE  PEOPLE'S  BUSINESS" 
Addvesa  iy  President  Johnson     IfBl 

SECURITY  COUNCIL  CENSURES  SOUTH  AFRICA 

FOR  DEFIANCE  OF  U.N.  AUTHORITY 

Statement  hy  Ambassador  Goldberg  and  Text  of  Resolution    ^7^ 

LEGAL  ASPECTS  OF  CONTEMPORARY  WORLD  PROBLEMS 

by  Leonard  C.  Meeker,  Legal  Adviser     ^65 


For  index  see  inside  back  cover 


THE   DEPARTMENT   OF  STATE 


BULLETIN] 


Vol.  LVIII,  No.  1502 
April  8,  1968 


For  sale  by  the  .Superintendent  of  Documents 

U.S.  Government  Printing  Office 

Washington,  D.C.  20402 

PRICE: 

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 
interest. 

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 
people." 


"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 
destiny. 

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 


457 


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 
represent. 

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 
future. 

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 
itself. 

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 
prevail. 

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 
Guam. 

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. 


458 


DEPARTMENT  OF   STATE  BULLETIN 


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 
soil. 

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 
known. 

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 
sound. 

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 


459 


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- 
Nam. 


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 
answer. 

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.  * 


460 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BTILLETIN 


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 
trying. 

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 
occurred. 

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 
paying. 

"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 
cities. 

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, 
too. 

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 
doing. 

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 
globe. 

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


APRIL    8.    1968 


461 


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 
commitments. 

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 
home. 

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- 


462 


DEPAHTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
must. 

"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 
mission. 

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 
goal. 

Let  no  one  mistake  our  resolve :  Peace  will  be 
won. 

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 
peace. 

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


APRIL    8,    1988 


463 


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 
meeting. 

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 
markets. 

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 


464 


DEPARTMENT   OF    STATE   BTTLLETDT 


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 
concluded. 

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 
race. 

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- 


465 


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 
announcement. 

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. 


466 


DEPAKTMENT   OF   STATE  BTJLLETIN 


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 
started. 

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 
transit.* 

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 


467 


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

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- 
cil. 

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. 


468 


DEPARTMENT   OF    STATE  BULLETIN 


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 
sphere. 

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 


469 


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. 


EXCHANGE  OF  GREETINGS 

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 
season. 

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 


470 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN' 


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 
race. 

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. 


EXCHANGE  OF  TOASTS 

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 
definition. 

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 
Africa. 

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 


471 


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 
America. 


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- 
ton. 

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. 


472 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
ineligibility. 

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. 
397. 


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. 
Sincerely, 

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 


473 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATIONS  AND  CONFERENCES 


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. 


STATEMENT  OF  FEBRUARY   16 

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- 
eign. 

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 
inhabitants. 

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 
delay. 

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 


474 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BUIiLETIN 


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 
possibility. 

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 
charged. 

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 


475 


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 
all." 

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. 


STATEMENT  OF  MARCH    14 

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. 


4Tr, 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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. 


TEXT  OF  RESOLUTION 


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 
independence, 

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 
forces. 


UNITED  STATES  NOTE 

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 


477 


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. 


CANADIAN  NOTE 


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 


Attachment 

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. 


Annex 

Type  of  Movement  Initial 

and  Clearance  AuthoritD 

FORMAL  CLEARANCE 

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 
required.) 


Detailed 
Arrajigemenis 


a.  /nffiaZ— arranged 
by  State  Depart- 
ment or  Depart- 
ment of  External 
Affairs  with  early 
advice  to  Customs 
and  Immigration 
autliorltles. 

b.  Customs — advice  to 
customs  is  to 
include  assurance 
that  equipment  to 
be  Imported  is  and 
will  remain  the 
property  of  the 
government 
concerned. 

c.  Immigration — per- 
sonnel require  an 
official  movement 
order  and  Identifl- 
cation. 

d.  Detailt— arranged 
ttirough  military 
channels. 


478 


DEPARTMENT  OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


Typt  of  ilotemtnt  Initial  Detailed 

and  Clearance  AuUioritu  AmngemenU 

INFOR>UL  CLEARANCE 


I.  Eiercises  Involving 

Through  military 

a.  />«faW5— arranged 

less  than  battalion 

channels 

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 

required.) 

migration  ofBcials 

territory. 

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- 

viduals. 

perty  of  the  gov- 

6. Movement  for  test 

ernment  con- 

purposes of  small 

cerned. 

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- 

IdentiGcation. 

stallation  of  the 

other  country. 

OPERATIONAL  MOVEMENTS 

1.  Military  Emergency. 


2.  Military  support  of 
civil  emergencies  re- 
sulting from  enemy 
attack. 


3.  .Military  support  of 
civil  authorities  in 
disasters  other  than 
those  resulting  from 
enemy  attack  as  in  2, 
above. 

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- 
clared. 

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 
required. 

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- 
vised. 

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- 
cerned. 

c.  Immigration— no 
special  arrange- 
ment required; 
personnel  require 
an  official  move- 
ment order  and 
identilicatioiu 


ganization,  with  annexes.  Done  at  Monaco  May  3, 

1967." 

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. 

Sugar 

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. 

Telecommunications 

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. 
IOCS. 

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 


MULTILATERAL 

Consular  Relations 

Vienna   convention    on    consular   relations.    Done   at 

yrl^S?*^  ^'^^""'^  -■*•  '^^^^-  Entered  into  force  March  19, 
1!*67.' 

Accession  deposited:  Honduras,  February  13,  1968. 
Hydrography 
Convention   on   the  International   Hydrographlc   Or- 


BILATERAL 

Barbados 

Agreement  relating  to  investment  guaranties.  Signed 
at  Bridgetown  March  11,  1968.  Entered  into  force 
March  11,  1968. 

Viet-Nam 

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 


479 


PUBLICATIONS 


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. 
10<t. 

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. 


DEPARTMENT  AND  FOREIGN  SERVICE 


Designations 


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. 


480 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE  BULLETIN 


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 

Congress 

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 

Viet-Nam 

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. 
20520. 

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- 
ment. 

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 

WASHINGTON,  D.C.     20402 


OFFICIAL  BUSINESS 


POSTAGE   AND    FEES    PAID 
U.S.  GOVERNMENT   PRINTING   OFFICE 


THE  OFFICIAL  WEEKLY  REC^ORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POLICY 


THE 

DEPARTMENT 

OF 

STATE 

BULLETIN 


Vol.  LVIII,  No.  1503 


April  15, 1968 


THE  COST  OF  FEALTY 

1)1/  Under  Secretary  liostoio     493 

INXOVATIVE  EFFECTS  OF  THE  ALLIANCE  FOR  PROGRESS 

by  Afitslistant  Secretary  Oliver     501 

U.N.  SECURITY  COUNCIL  CONUExMNS  ISRAELI  MILITARY  ACTION 

AND  DEPLOP.ES  ALL  VIOLATIONS  OF  THE  MIDDLE  EAST  CEASE-FIRE 

Statements  by  Ambassador  Goldberg  and  Text  of  Resolution     508 


A  NEW  STEP  TOWARD  PEACE 

Address  to  tlie  Nation  by  President  Johnson     1^81 


For  index  see  inside  back  cover 


THE   DEPARTMENT   OF  STATE 


BULLETIN 


Vol.  LVIII,  No.  1503 
April  15, 1968 


For  sale  by  the  Superintendent  of  Documents 

U.S.  Government  Printing  OlBce 

Washington,  D.C.  20402 

PRICE: 

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 
interest. 

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- 
Nam. 

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- 
ualties. 

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 


481 


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 
once. 

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 

exists. 

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 
conference. 

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 
depend. 

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 


482 


DEPARTMENT   OP   STATE  BtTLLETIN 


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 
invaders. 

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 
world. 

Last  week,  at  the  monetary  conference  in 
Stockholm,  the  major  industrial  countries  de- 


APRIL   15,    1968 


483 


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 


484 


DEPAKTMENT   OF   STATE  BtTLLBTIN 


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- 
sides.' 

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 
ever. 

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 
tonight. 

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 


485 


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 
tliis: 

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 
only. 

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 
people. 

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. 


486 


DEPARTMENT   OP   STATE   BUI.LETIN 


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 
Westmoreland. 

Q.  Mr.  President,  when  would  you  anticipate 


General   Westmoreland  coming   back  to   this 
country? 

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 


487 


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 
evening. 


EXCHANGE   OF   GREETINGS 


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. 


488 


DEPARTMENT   OF    STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
tapped. 

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 
peoples. 

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- 
Americanism. 

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 
leader. 

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 


489 


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 
people. 


EXCHANGE  OF  TOASTS 


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 
hemisphere. 

As  your  representative  of  your  country  sits 
on  the  Security  Council  of  the  United  Nations 


490 


DEPARTJIENT  OF  STATE  BULLETIN 


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 
guests.] 

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 
liberty. 

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 


491 


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 
law. 

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. 


492 


DEPARTMENT   OF    STATE    BULLETIN 


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 
will. 

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 


493 


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 
functioning. 

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 


494 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BTJLLETIN 


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 
world. 

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 
them. 

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 


495 


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 
alternative. 

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 
shield. 

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 
allies? 

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.  .  .  . 


496 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 


497 


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 


498 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
productive. 

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 
them. 

"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 
subversion. 

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 


499 


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 
attamed. 

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. 


500 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
opportunities. 

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 


501 


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 
succeed. 

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 


502 


DEPARTMENT   OF    STATE   BUXLETIN 


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 


50.3 


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- 
resentatives. 

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 
system. 

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 
Bank. 

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- 


504 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
overseas. 

— 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 
Service. 

— Remove  the  outmoded  and  unnecessary 
gold  cover,  in  legislation  which  I  signed  yester- 
day. 

— Reach  an  agreement  with  our  six  active 
gold  pool  partners  to  halt  speculative  attacks 
on  gold  reserves. 

Further  measures  await  Congressional 
action. 

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. 
Sincerely, 

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 
life. 

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 


505 


field.  By  1980,  the  Agency  estimates  200,000  of 
them  will  be  involved  in  every  level  of  our 
society. 

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    PROCLAMATION' 

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- 
ance. 

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 
markets. 

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 
achieve. 

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^ — 


506 


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 
agencies. 

— 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 
tourists. 

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 
travelers. 

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 


507 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATIONS  AND  CONFERENCES 


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^. 


FIRST  STATEMENT  OF  MARCH  21 

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- 
tions. 

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, 


508 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BTJLLETIN 


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. 


SECOND  STATEMENT  OF  MARCH  21 

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 


509 


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 
Israel. 

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. 


TEXT  OF  RESOLUTION  8 

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 
S/^S6, 

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. 


510 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 


'Hid. 

'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 


511 


TREATY  INFORMATION 


Current  Actions 


MULTILATERAL 


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. 

Space 

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. 

Trade 

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. 


512 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BtJLLETIN 


INDEX     April  iJ,  rJU8      Vol. 


LVIII,  No. 


1503 


Asia.  A  New  Step  Toward  Peace  (Johuson)     .     .      481 

Congress 

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 

Israel 

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 

Jordan 

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    .     .    4.sl.  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. 
20."i2(). 

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 

agreement. 


*\ot  prinled. 

tHeld  for  a  later  issue  of  tlie  Bulletin. 


Superintendent  of  Documents 
.s.  government  printing  office 

WASHINGTON,  D.C.     20402 


OFFICIAL  BUSINESS 


POSTAGE   AND    FEES    PAID 
U.S.  GOVERNMENT   PRINTING   OFFICE 


THE  OFFICIAL  WEEKLY  RECORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POLICY 


THE 

DEPARTMENT 

OF 

STATE 

BULLETIN 


Vol.  LVIII,  No.  150 A 


April  22,  1968 


VIETNAM  PEACE  EFFORTS 

Statements  by  President  Johnson  and  General  Westvwreland     513 

SEATO  COUNCIL  OF  MINISTERS  MEETS  AT  WELLINGTON 

Statement  hy  Secretary  Rush  and  Text  of  Coirmvu/nique     515 

THE  NONSHOOTING  WAR  IN  LATIN  AAIERICA 

hy  Ambassador  Sol  M.  Linowltz    532 

INTERNATIONAL  MONETARY  COOPERATION 

Statement  by  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  Fowler  at  Stockholm 
and  Text  of  Group  of  Ten  Communique     525 


For  index  see  inside  back  cover 


THE   DEPARTMENT   OF  STATE 


BULLETIN 


Vol.  LVIII,  No.  1504 
April  22,  1968 


for  sale  by  the  Superintendent  of  Documents 

U.S.  Government  Printing  Office 

Washington,  D.C.  20402 

PRICE: 

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 
interest. 

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 


STATEMENT  BY  PRESIDENT  JOHNSON, 
APRIL  3 

White  House  press  release  dated  April  3 

Today  the  Government  of  North  Viet-Nam 
made  a  statement  which  included  the  following 
paragraph: 

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. 


STATEMENT   BY   GEORGE   CHRISTIAN, 
WHITE   HOUSE   PRESS   SECRETARY,  APRIL  6 

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 
Government. 

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 
proposal. 

"We  hope  to  receive  an  oiBcial  reply  from 
Hanoi  soon. 


MEETING  WITH  GENERAL  WESTMORELAND, 
APRIL  7 

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 
him. 


•  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 


513 


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 
here. 

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 
you.' 

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. 


514 


DEPARTMENT  OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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. 


STATEMENT  BY  SECRETARY  RUSK,  APRIL  2 

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 
ago. 

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 
present. 

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 


515 


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 
Charter. 

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. 


516 


DEPARTMENT   OF  STATE  BULLETIN 


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 
battlefield. 

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 


517 


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. 


TEXT  OF  FINAL  COMMUNIQUE,  APRIL  3 

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 
Zealand. 

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 
aggression. 

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 


518 


DEP.MJTMENT   OF   STATE   BTILIiETrN' 


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 
forces. 

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. 


Viet-Nam 

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 
regimes. 

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 
suffer. 

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 


Laos 

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; 
and 

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. 


Philippines 

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 


519 


Thailand 

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 
Thailand. 

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. 


Counter-Subversion 

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. 


Pakistan 

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 
Pakistan. 


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 : 


Australia 
New  Zealand 
Pakistan 

Philippines 

Thailand 
United  Kingdom 

United  States 

Republic  of  Viet-Nam 
(Observer) 


The  Rt.  Hon.  Paul  Hasluck, 
Minister    for    External    Af- 
fairs 

The  Rt.  Hon.  Keith  Holyoake, 
Prime  Minister  and  Minis- 
ter of  External  Affairs 

H.E.  Mr.  M.  Aslam  Malik, 
High  Commissioner  in  Aus- 
tralia 

H.E.  Mr.  Jose  D.  Ingles, 

Under-Secretary  of  Foreign 
Affairs 

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 


520 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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. 

Purposes 

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 
processes. 

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 


521 


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 
people. 

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 
people. 

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. 

Korea 

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 
1966. 


^  Bttlletin  of  Apr.  15, 1968,  p.  481. 
•  lUd.,  Oct.  23, 1967,  p.  519. 


622 


DErARTMENT   OF   ST.\TE   BULLETIN 


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 
Zealand. 

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 
partners. 

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 


523 


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 
ahead. 

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 
peace. 


524 


DEPAKTMENT  OF   STATE   BtrLLEnN 


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. 


STATEMENT  BY  SECRETARY  FOWLER 

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 


525 


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 
thinking. 

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 
currencies. 

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. 


TEXT  OF  COMMUNIQUE 

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. 


526 


DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
Amendment. 

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 
Fund. 

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 
period. 

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. 


EXCHANGE  OF  GREETINGS 

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 


527 


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. 
Roosevelt. 

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- 
velopment. 

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 
faith." 

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 


528 


DEPAKTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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. 


EXCHANGE  OF  TOASTS 

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 
peace; 


— 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 
being. 

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- 


529 


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 
presence. 

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 
underdevelopment. 

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 
resources. 

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 
conflagration. 

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 
peace. 

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. 
President. 

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. 


TEXT  OF  JOINT  STATEMENT 

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 
concern. 

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 


530 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 


531 


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 
jurisprudence. 

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 
forgotten. 

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 


532 


DEPAKTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
dignity. 

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 
existence. 

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 


533 


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 
superiority. 

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 
society. 

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 
poor. 

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 


634 


DEPARTMENT  OF   STATE   BtTLLETTN' 


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 
rendering. 

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 
decrease. 

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 
priorities. 

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 
affairs. 

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 
hemisphere. 

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 


535 


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. 
462. 

*  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. 


536 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


THE  CONGRESS 


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. 


LETTER  OF  TRANSMITTAL 

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 
purposes. 

— 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 
harbors. 

— 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 


537 


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 
exploration. 

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 
sectors. 

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. 


CHAPTER  II  OF  REPORT 

EXPANDINO    INTEBNATIONAI.    COOPERATION 
AND   UnDEBSTANDINO 

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 
peace. 

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- 
tion. 

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. 


538 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
Assembly. 

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 

(ECAFE) 
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 
( IBRD-UNDP-FAO-IMCO ) . 

— 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 


539 


— International  quality  standards  for  fish  protein 
concentrate  are  being  developed  (UNICEF-WHO- 
FAO). 

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 
benefit. 

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 
activities. 

Several  Government  agencies  support  marine  science 
activities  abroad  using  excess  currencies  available  un- 
der Public  Law  480.  The.se  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. 


708. 


540 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
committee. 

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 
Zone. 

— 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 
avoided. 

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  pa.st  co- 
operative programs  developed  by  scientists  of  many  na- 


APRIL    22,    1968 


541 


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 
departure. 

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 
activities. 

— 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 
channels. 

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. 


542 


DEPARTJIENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATIONS 
AND  CONFERENCES 


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 


543 


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 
collaboration. 

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 
organization. 

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. 


5M 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
pp. 

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 


545 


TREATY  INFORMATION 


United  States  and  Greece  Amend 
Cotton  Textile  Agreement 

Press  release  41  dated  February  26 

DEPARTMENT  ANNOUNCEMENT 

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. 

TEXT  OF  U.S.  NOTE 

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: 


a. 


Firil  Agreement  Year 

Second  Agreement  Year 

SeptembeT  t,  1968 

January  1, 1968 

through 

through 

December  SI ,  IBS! 

December  SI,  1968 

Yam  (Cats. 

2,000,000  lbs. 

1,420,125  lbs. 

1-4) 

Fabrics  and 

1,488,375 

1,157,625 

made-up  goods 

syds.  eq. 

syds.  eq. 

(Cats.  5-38, 

64) 

Apparel  (Cats. 

297,675 

231,525 

39-63) 

syds.  eq. 

syds.  eq. 

'  Treaties  and  Other  International  Acts  Series  5618, 
6009. 


"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 


646 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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« 
agreement 

"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 
operation." 

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 


MULTILATERAL 


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 


647 


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. 

Trade 

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. 


BILATERAL 


Canada 

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. 

Israel 

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. 

Korea 

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. 

Panama 

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. 


DEPARTMENT  AND   FOREIGN  SERVICE 


Designations 


"  Not  in  force. 

'  Subject  to  ratification. 


Frederick  Smith,  Jr.,  as  Deputy  Administrator, 
Bureau  of  Security  and  Consular  Affairs,  effective 
April  1. 


548 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE  BXJLLETIN 


INDEX     AprU  £2,  1968     Vol.  LVIII,  No.  150i 


Asia 

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 

Congress 

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 

Science 

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 

Viet-Nam 

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. 
20520. 

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. 


a.S.   COVERKUENT  PRINTING   OFFICE;  t9S8 


Superintendent  c 
u.s.  government  printing  office 
washington,  d.c.    20402 


Ll IZO     W     NOiSOO 
9'^Z  XOO  0  d 

on    onond   NOiSOQ 

J    030  nso 


POSTAGE  AND    FEES    PAID 
U.S.  GOVERNMENT   PRINTING  OFFICE 


OFFICIAL  BUSINESS 


THE  OFFICIAL  WEEKLY  RECORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POLICY 


Gr^^ 


THE 

DEPARTMENT 

OF 

STATE 

BULLETIN 


PRESIDENT  JOHNSON  CONFERS  ON  VIET-NAM  PEACE  TALKS 
WITH  AMBASSADOR  BUNKER  AND  OTHER  ADVISERS     dlfi 

SECRETARY  CLIFFORD'S  NEWS  CONFERENCE  OF  APRIL  11   (Excerpts)     552 

UNITED  STATES  SIGNS  PROTOCOL  II  TO  TREATY  OF  TLATELOLCO 

Remarks  hy  Vice  President  Humphrey  and  Text  of  Protocol     551). 

THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  TURKEY,  PARTNERS  IN  WORLD  SECURITY 

hy  Under  Secretary  Rostow     559 

POLITICAL  DEVELOPMENT  AND  INSTITUTION-BUILDING 
UNDER  THE  ALLIANCE  FOR  PROGRESS 

hy  Assistant  Secretary  Oliver     563 


For  index  see  inside  hack  cover 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE 


BULLETIN 


Vol.  LVIII,  No.  1505 
April  29,  1968 


For  sale  by  the  Superintendent  of  Documents 

U.S.  Government  Printing  Office 

Washington,  D.C.  20402 

PRICE: 

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 
interest. 

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. 


STATEMENT  BY   PRESIDENT  JOHNSON, 
APRIL   8 

White  House  press  release  dated  April  8 

Tonight  I  will  be  going  to  Camp  David,  at 
the  conclusion  of  the  day,  with  certain  staff 
members. 

Tomorrow  morning,  I  will  have  breakfast 
there  with  Ambassador  Bunker,  Secretary 
Rusk,  and  Secretary  [of  Defense  Clark  M.] 
Clifford. 

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 
tomorrow. 

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 
announce. 


'For  background,   see   Bulletin   of  Apr.   22,   19G8, 
p.  513. 


STATEMENT   BY   PRESIDENT  JOHNSON, 
CAMP   DAVID,  APRIL  9 

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 
concluded. 

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 
developments. 


APRIL    29,    1968 


549 


NEWS  CONFERENCE,  CAMP   DAVID, 
APRIL  9 

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 
appreciated. 

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- 


550 


DEPARTMENT   OF    STATE   BtTLLETIN  ' 


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 
oureJ. 


Q.  Mr.  President,  has  anything  new  come  in 
on  what  you  told  us  about  earlier  today? 

The  President:  No. 

The  press:  Thank  you. 


STATEMENT  BY  MR.  CHRISTIAN, 

WHITE   HOUSE   NEWS   BRIEFING,  APRIL   11 

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 


551 


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 
parallel? 

A.  There  is  no  bombing  taking  place  today 
north  of  the  20th  parallel. 

Q.  Has  there  been  since  the  President's  state- 
ment? 

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 
South? 

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. 


552 


DEPARTMENT  OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
siege? 

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 
time. 

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 
war. 

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 
550,000. 

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 
fighting. 

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 


553 


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 
deescalate? 

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. 

REMARKS   BY  VICE   PRESIDENT   HUMPHREY 

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 
here. 

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. 


554 


DEPARTBIENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


Senate,  I  proposed  that  a  regional  arms  agree- 
ment should  be  negotiated  by  the  nations  of  our 
hemisphere. 

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- 
ments. 

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. 


PROTOCOL  II  AND  U.S.  STATEMENT 

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 
provisions. 

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 

FOB  THE  PEOHIBITION  OF  NUCLEAB  WEAPONS  IN  LATIN 

America 

In  signing  Protocol  II  of  the  Treaty  of  Tlatelolco, 
the  United  States  Government  makes  the  following 
statement : 


APRIL    2  9,    19  68 


555 


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 
privileges. 

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. 

II 

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. 

Ill 

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. 


EXCHANGE  OF  GREETINGS 

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 


556 


DEPARTMENT   OF    STATE   Btn.LETIN 


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 
together. 

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 
people. 

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. 


EXCHANGE  OF  TOASTS 

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 
future. 

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 
world. 

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 

296-685—68- 


557 


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. 


JOINT  STATEMENT 

White  House  press  release  dated  April  11 

President  Jolmson  and  Austrian  Chancellor 
Klaus  conferred  at  the  White  House  on  April 
10. 

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- 
ment. 

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. 


558 


DEPARTMENT  OF   STATE   BUIXETtN' 


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 
cultures. 

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 


559 


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. 


660 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
Parliamentarians. 

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 
nations. 

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 


561 


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 
alone. 

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. 


562 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BTrLLETIK 


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 
18). 


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 
statistics. 

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 


663 


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 
America. 

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 
replied. 

"Worse  if  you  lose  even  the  oxen,"  the  woman 
said. 

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 
bloodshed. 

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. 


564 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
outcrj^. 

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 


565 


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 
requirements. 

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     PROCLAMATION! 

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 
Urgency". 

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. 


566 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


"We  will  vigorously  promote  education  for  develop- 
mont- 

"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 
projects. 

"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 
expenditures." 

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 
home. 


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 
ninety-second. 


Yf— 


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 


567 


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. 


THE  CONGRESS 


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. 


568 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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- 
visions. 

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 
commodities. 

— 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 
tliemselves. 

— 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. 
Gpp. 

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 


569 


TREATY  INFORAAATION 


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. 

STATEMENT  BY   AMBASSADOR   JOHNSON 

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 

perniit. 

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. 

TEXT    OF    JOINT    U.S.-JAPANESE    STATEMENT 

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. 


570 


DEPARTMENT   OF    STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
war. 


TEXT  OF   JAPANESE   LETTER 

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 
DEPARTMENT  ANNOUNCEMENT 

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. 

EXCHANGE  OF  NOTES 

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 


571 


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 

A.  E.  ElTCHIE, 

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 


MULTILATERAL 

Consular  Relations 

Vienna    convention    on    consular    relations.    Done    at 
Vienna  April  24,  1963.  Entered  into  force  March  19, 
1967.' 
Ratification   deposited:   Czechoslovakia,    March   13, 

1968. 

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. 

Space 

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 
6347. 

Ratifications    deposited:   Pakistan,    April    8,    1968; 
Romania,  April  9,  1968. 


BiLATERAL 


Jordan 

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. 

Pakistan 

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. 


572 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 

Congress 

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 

Viet-Nam 

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. 
20520. 

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- 
change. 

t71  4/10  Oliver:  Portland  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations,  Portland, 
Oreg. 

•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. 


us      GOVERNMENT   FRIMINC    OFFICE     litM 


Superintendent  of  Documents 

u.s.  government  printing  office 

washington,  d.c.    20402 


III  20     VW     NOiSOa 
9'^2  XOO  0   d 

Sidl303y-sivly3s 
an  DHond  NOisoQ 

J     030  OSO 


OFFICIAL  BUSINESS 


Li: 


THE  OFFICIAL  WEEKLY  RECORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POLICY 


THE 

DEPARTMENT 

OF 

STATE 

BULLETIN 


Vol.  LVIII,  No.  1506 


May  6,  1968 


THE  BUSINESS  OF  BUILDING  A  PEACE 

AddrcHS  by  Secretary  Euvk    o!9 

INTEGRATION  AND  TRADE  IN  THE  ALLIANCE  FOR  PROGRESS 

by  Assistant  Secretary  Oliver     584 

AID'S  PROPOSED  PROGRAxM  FOR  VIET-NAM  IN  FISCAL  YEAR  1969 
Statement  by  Janus  P.  Giant    591^ 

THE  INTERNATION.VL  GRAINS  ARRANGEMENT 

Article  by  Fred  II.  Sanderson    590 


PRESIDENT  JOHNSON  AND  PRESIDENT  CHUNG  HEE  PARK  OF  KOREA 
CONFER  AT  HONOLULU,  HAWAII     573 


For  index  see  inside  hack  cover 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE 


BULLETIN 


Vol.  LVIII,  No,  1506 
May  6,  1968 


For  sale  by  the  Superintendent  of  Docimients 

U.S.  Government  Printing  Office 

Washington,  D.C.  20402 

PRICE: 

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 
interest. 

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 


REMARKS  BY  PRESIDENT  JOHNSON  ON  ARRIVAL 
IN  HONOLULU,  APRIL  15 

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.] 
-McCain. 

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- 
Xam. 


MAT    6,    1968 


5Ta 


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- 
tions. 

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 
communications. 

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 
potential. 

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. 


MEETING  WITH   PRESIDENT  PARK, 
APRIL   17 

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 


574 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
continent. 

In  these  works  of  peace  the  United  States  of 
America  will  take  its  fair  share  along  with  the 
other  responsible  nations  of  the  industrial 
world. 

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 
judgment. 

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 


575 


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. 

Vietnam 

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. 


576 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
conflict. 

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 
peace. 

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. 

Conclusion 

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 


577 


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. 


578 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
are. 

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 


579 


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 
others. 

We  are  directly  engaged  in  those  security 
commitments  which  we  consider  vital  to  our 


580 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BT7LLETIN 


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. 
Charter. 

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 
world. 

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 
period. 

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 
Assembly. 

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 
action. 

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 


581 


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 
exploitation. 

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 
successful. 

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. 


582 


DEPARTMENT  OF   STATE   BTTLLETIN' 


"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 
period. 

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 


583 


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 
Market. 

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 


584 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
market. 

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- 


585 


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 
integration. 

— 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 
past. 

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- 


586 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
Europe. 

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. 
444. 


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 
solutions. 

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 


587 


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 
Conferences. 

The  Conference  adopted  the  following  resolu- 
tion : 

Resolution  Adopted  by  the  Foubth 

DNiTBa)  States-Japan  Conference 

ON  Cultural  and  Educational  Intesbchanqe 

April  8,  1968 

WHEREAS 

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. 


588 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE  BULLETIN 


AND  WHEREAS 

hinational  solutions  must  be  found  for  the  still 
existent  barriers  to  free  interchange  in  the  arts  and 
scholarship, 

BE  rr  HEEEBT  BESOL\'ED 

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 ; 

AND  BE  IT  EECOMMENDED 

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; 

AND   BE   IT  FUBTHEB   BECOMMENDED 

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 


589 


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 
preamble. 

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, 
1968.= 

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. 


590 


DEPARTMENT    OF   STATE   BUIiLETIN 


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 : 


Minimum 

Mazimum 

Price 

Price 

(U.S.  dollar > 

per  bushel) 

Canada 

Manitoba  No.  1 

1.95M 

2.35K 

Manitoba  No.  3 

1.90 

2.30 

United  States  of  America 

Darlv  Northern  Spring 

1.83 

2.23 

No.  1,  14  percent 

Hard  Red  Winter  No.  2 

1.73 

2.13 

(ordinary) 

Western  White  No.  1 

1.68 

2.08 

Soft  Red  Winter  No.  1 

1.60 

2.00 

A  rgentina 

Plate 

1.73 

2.13 

A  ustralia 

Fair  Average  Quality 

1.68 

2.08 

European  Economic 

Community 

Standard 

1.50 

1.90 

Sweden 

1.50 

1.90 

Greece 

1.50 

1.90 

Spain 

Fine  Wheat 

1.60 

2.00 

Common  Wheat 

1.50 

1.90 

Mexico 

1.55 

1.95 

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 


591 


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 
transactions. 

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 


592 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
countries. 

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 
market. 

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 
Arrangement. 

Both  the  Wheat  Trade  Convention  and  the 
Food  Aid  Convention  were  open  for  signature 
in  Washington  Octoljer  15-November  30,  1967. 


MAT    0,    1968 


593 


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. 


THE  CONGRESS 


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- 
opment. 


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 


594 


DEPARTMENT   OE   STATE   BtTLLETIN 


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 


595 


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- 
gram. 

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 
groups. 

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- 
quarter. 

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 


one. 


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. 


596 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BTTLLETIN 


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 
areas. 

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 
drafted. 

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 
Viet-Nam. 

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 
rates. 

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 


597 


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 
poured. 

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 
runway. 

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. 


4 


598 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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. 
8pp 


TREATY  INFORMATION 


Current  Actions 


MULTILATERAL 


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. 

Publications 

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. 

Space 

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. 

Telecommunications 

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. 

Wheat 

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. 
1968. 


BILATERAL 

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. 

Japan 

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 


599 


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. 

U.S.S.R. 

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. 


PUBLICATIONS 


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. 
10<f. 

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^. 


ROO 


DEPARTMEN'T   OF   STATE   BtrLt.ETIN 


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 

Congress 

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 


Viet-Nam 

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. 
20.520. 

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. 


No. 

*T4 

t75 
*76 


*78 


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 

Norway. 


*  Not  printed. 

t  Held  for  a  later  issue  of  the  Bdixetin. 


U.S.   SOVERNMEKT  PRINTINS  OFFICE.  1968 


Superintendent  of  Documents 

u.s.  government  printing  office 

washington,  d.c.   20402 


POSTAGE   AND    FEES    PAID 
U.S.  GOVERNMENT   PRINTJNG  OTFICEi 


OFFICIAL  BUSINESS 


4 


!•    1 


(rtn)  dUro(^ 

THE  OFFICIAI.  WEEKLY  RECORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POLICY 


THE 

DEPARTMENT 

OF 

STATE 

BULLETIN 


CONSTRUCTIVE  INITIATIVES  FOR  FREEDOM  AND  PEACE 
Address  by  Vice  President  Humphrey     601 

UNITED  STATES  RATIFIES  OAS  CHARTER  AMENDMENTS 

Statements  by  President  Johnson  and  Ambassador  Linowitz     6II1. 

THE  PROBLEMS  AND  PROSPECTS  IN  SOUTHEAST  ASIA 

Address  by  Secretary  Clifford  {Excerpt)      605 

THE  COMMON  THREADS  LINKING  THE  COUNTRIES 
OF  THE  NEAR  EAST  AND  SOUTH  ASIA 

by  Assistant  Secretary  Battle     608 


For  index  see  inside  hack  cover 


THE   DEPARTMENT   OF  STATE 


BULLETIN 


Vol.  LVIII,  No.  1507 
May  13, 1968 


For  sale  by  the  Superintendent  of  Documents 

U.S.  Oovemment  Printing  Office 

Washington,  D.C.  20402 

PRICE: 

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 
interest. 

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


I 


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 
sacrifice. 

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 
signatory. 

But  we  are  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 


601 


arts  of  peace.  Through  affirmative  action  to 
meet  human  needs,  we  can  build  security  and 
peace. 

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 
elsewhere. 

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 
possible. 

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 
parallel.^ 

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 
hate. 

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. 


602 


DEPAETMENT  OF  STATE  BULLETrU' 


ble  civer-receiver  relationship  into  a  joint 
assault  on  a  mutual  eneni}' — want — where\er  it 
exists. 

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 
emergencies; 

— 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 


603 


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 
transition. 

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. 


604 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE    BULLETIN 


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 


605 


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 
themselves. 

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 
Americans. 

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 
hopeless. 

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 
Viet-Nam. 

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 


606 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


results  were  clear,  and  the  results  were  en- 
couraging. They  disclosed  that  Hanoi  could  not 
bend  South  Viet-Nam  to  its  will  by  militaxy 
force. 

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 
pit." 

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 
burden. 

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 


607 


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 


608 


DEP.\RTMENT   OF    STATE   BXTLLETIN 


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. 

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 
decades. 

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 


609 


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 
themselves. 

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 
respected. 

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. 


610 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 


611 


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 
reform. 

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 


612 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BUI.LETIN 


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 


613 


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. 


STATEMENT  BY  PRESIDENT  JOHNSON 

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 
continents. 

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- 
ments. 

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 


611 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE  BTJIXETIN 


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 
system. 

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. 


STATEMENT  BY  AMBASSADOR  LINOWITZ 

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 


615 


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 
hemisphere. 

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. 


SUMMARY  OF  AMENDMENTS  TO  OAS  CHARTER 

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 
them. 

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 
provided. 

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 
opportunity. 

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. 


616 


DEPAETMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
instinct. 

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 


6ir 


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 
school. 

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. 


618 


DEPARTMENT  OF   STATE  BTJLLETIN 


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 
land. 

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 
cooperative. 

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 


619 


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 

A   PROCLAMATION^ 

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 
Vietnam. 

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. 


620 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


Americans  of  the  importance  of  the  merchant  fleet 
to  our  national  life. 

Now,  THEREFORE,  I,  LYNDON  B.  JOHNSON,  President 
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 
Marine. 

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 
States. 

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 
payments. 

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 
prohibitive. 


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 


621 


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.) 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATIONS 
AND  CONFERENCES 


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 

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.  pre.ss  relea.se  52). 
=  Bulletin  of  Apr.  15, 1968,  p.  508. 


622 


DEPARTMENT   OP   STATE   BULLETIN 


<?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 
reinforce. 

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  cea.se-fire  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 


623 


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 
found.^ 


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 
item: 

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. 


624 


DEPARTMENT   OF   ST.\TE   BULLETIN 


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 


625 


TREATY  INFORMATION 


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 
governments. 

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, 
Yugoslavia. 


MULTILATERAL 


Antarctica 

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, 
1967.' 

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, 
1964.= 

Accessions  deposited:  Mali,  March  28,  1968;  Somali 
RepubUe,  March  29,  1968. 

Hydrography 

Convention  on  the  International  Hydrographlc  Orga- 
nization, with  annexes.  Done  at  Monaco  May  3, 1967. 
Ratifications  deposited:  Argentina,  France,  April  4, 
1968. 

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, 

1968. 
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. 

Space 

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 
Republics. 


'  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. 


626 


DEPARTMENT   OF    STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
6347. 
Accession  deposited:  Uganda,  April  24,  1968. 

Trade 

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, 
1968. 
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, 

1967.* 

Acceptance:  Australia,  March  15,  1968. 


BILATERAL 


Iran 


Agreement  for  the  development  of  water  resources  of 
Iran.  Signed  at  Tehran  March  19,  1968.  Entered  into 
force  March  19,  1968. 


DEPARTMENT  AND   FOREIGN  SERVICE 


'  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. 


Confirmations 

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 
France. 


MAT    13,    1968 


627 


PUBLICATIONS 


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 
Europe. 

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 
series. 

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<^. 


628 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE  BULLETIN 


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 

Congress 

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 

Publications 

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 

Travel 

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 

Viet-Nam 

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- 
write). 

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, 
D.C. 
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- 
public. 


*  Not  printed. 
t  Held  for  a  later 


sue  of  the  BtiLLETi.v. 


r.S.    60Veft*(MENT   PRINTING    OFFICE^  1368 


OOSTGN  PUBLIC   L|D 
SERIALS- RECEIPTS 
P    0  OOX  2o6 
i'aSTON     KA        ' 

Superintendent  of  Documents 

u.s.  government  printing  office 

v^ashington.  d.c.    20402 


POSTAGE    AND    FEES    PAID 
U.S.  GOVERNMENT   PRINTING  OFFICE 


OFFICIAL  BUSINESS 


i 


THE  OFFICIAL  WEEKLY  RECORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POLICY 


I 


THE 

DEPARTIVIENT 

OF 

STATE 

BULLETIN 


Vol.  LVIII,  No.  1508 


May  20,  1968 


PRESIDENT  JOHNSON'S  NEWS  CONFERENCE  OF  MAY  3  (EXCERPTS)      029 

GAINING  THE  FULL  MEASURE  OF  THE  BENEFITS  OF  THE  ATOM 

Address  hy  Secretary  Rusk     632 

.  U.S.  CALLS  FOR  PROMPT  ENDORSEMENT  BY  THE  U.N.  GENERAL  ASSEMBLY 
)F  THE  DRAFT  TREATY  ON  THE  NONPROLIFERATION  OF  NUCLEAR  WEAPONS 

Statement  hy  Ambassador  Goldberg  ami  Text  of  the  Treaty     635 

THE  NUCLEAR  NONPROLIFERATION  TREATY— A  VITAL  STEP 
IN  BRINGING  THE  ATOM  UNDER  CONTROL 

by   Under  Secretary  Katzenbach     61^ 

IMPLEMENTING  HUMAN  RIGHTS— NEW  UNDERSTANDING, 

NEW  ATTITUDES,  AND  NEW^  WILL 

Statement  by  Roy  Wilkins  at  Tehran  Conference  on  Human  Rights     661 

For  index  see  inside  back  cover 


THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE 


BULLETIN 


Vol.  LVIII,  No.  1508 
May  20,  1968 


For  sale  by  tbe  Superintendent  of  Documents 

U.S.  Government  Printing  Office 

Washington,  D.C.  20402 

PRICE; 

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 
interest. 

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 
capital. 

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 
contacts. 

ily  point  of  view  was  presented  in  my  televi- 
sion statement  to  the  American  people  on  March 
31st.^ 


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 
interests. 

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 


629 


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 
viewpoints. 

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 
abated. 

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 
duties. 

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 

visit? 

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. 


630 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BUTXETIN 


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 
action. 

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 
have. 

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 


Philippines 

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 


631 


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 
them. 

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 
mankind. 

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. 


632 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
them. 

— 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 
support. 

^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 


633 


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 
holocaust. 


634 


DEPAKTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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. 


STATEMENT  BY  AMBASSADOR  GOLDBERG 

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 
weapons. 

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 


635 


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 ; 


636 


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 
weapons. 

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. 

DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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, 
1968. 

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 


637 


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. 


638 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
subject. 

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 


639 


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 
everywhere. 

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 
III. 

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 
significance. 

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 
terms. 

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. 


640 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
VI. 


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- 
ness. 

This  is  why  we  have  jointly  pledged  our  nations  to 
negotiate  towards  the  cessation  of  the  nuclear  arms 
race. 

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 


641 


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  | 
considerations. 

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 
Assembly? 

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 


642 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BtTLLETII 


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 
us. 

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. 


TEXT  OF  DRAFT  TREATY" 

Test  of  Draft  Treatt  on  the 

n0n-e*k0liferation  of  nuclear  weapons 

Submitted  by  the  United  States 

AND  THE  Soviet  Union 

TO  THE  EIQHTEEN-NaTION  COMMITTEE  ON  DISARMAMENT 

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 
peoples, 

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 


643 


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- 
amble. 

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- 
gotiations. 

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 
Treaty. 

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 
Treaty. 

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  u.se<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 


644 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


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 
amendment. 

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 
Governments  of  the  signatory  and  acceding  States. 

In  witness  whereof  the  undersigned,  duly  authorized, 
have  signed  this  Treaty. 

Done  in  at  this  . 

of . 


Correction 

The  Editor  of  the  Bulletin  wishes  to  call  at- 
tention to  a  printer's  error  which  appears  In  the 
issue  of  February  5, 1968,  p.  166. 

In  the  text  of  the  Draft  Treaty  on  the  Non- 
Proliferation  of  Nuclear  Weapons  which  was 
submitted  to  the  Geneva  Disarmament  Confer- 
ence on  January  18,  1968,  paragraph  3  of  article 
III  should  read : 

"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  co- 
operation in  the  field  of  peaceful  nuclear  activi- 
ties, including  the  international  exchange  of 
nuclear  material  and  equipment  for  the  process- 
ing, use  or  production  of  nuclear  material  for 
peaceful  purjwses  in  accordance  with  the  provi- 
sions of  this  Article  and  the  principle  of  safe- 
guarding set  forth  in  the  Preamble." 


MAT    20,    1968 

208-711—68- 


645 


The  Nuclear  Nonproliferation  Treaty — A  Vital  Step 
in  Bringing  the  Atom  Under  Control 

hy  Under  Secretary  Katzenhach  ^ 


Some  of  the  major  victories  for  peace  in  the 
postwar  era  have  been  v,on  through  interna- 
tional law.  This  evening  I  would  like  to  talk 
about  some  of  the  most  important — the  victories 
won  and  the  victories  that  remain  to  be  won  in 
man's  efforts  to  use  nuclear  energy  for  peace 
rather  tlian  war. 

It  was  easy  for  the  law  to  play  with  fire.  In 
only  a  few  millemiia  lawmakers  have  evolved  a 
number  of  ways  of  coping  with  its  destructive 
potential  while  not  interfering  with  its  bene- 
ficial use.  We  have  laws  of  arson  to  deter  and 
punish  the  willful  use  of  fire  to  destroy  the 
property  of  others,  laws  of  negligence  to  make 
the  careless  user  liable  for  his  failure  to  handle 
it  with  care,  insurance  to  compensate  victims  of 
accidental  destruction  by  fire,  and  the  doctrine 
of  nuisance — and  more  recently,  antipollution 
laws — to  help  protect  a  user's  neighbors  against 
smoke  and  other  harmful  byproducts  of  fire. 

But  while  even  these  laws  have  their  limita- 
tions, they  are  as  child's  play  when  comjjared 
with  the  legal  problems  posed  by  nuclear 
energy.  Its  destructive  potential  must  be  meas- 
ured not  in  terms  of  neighboring  buildings,  but 
of  neighbormg  countries.  Its  economics  are  far 
more  expensive.  The  relationship  between  its 
destructive  and  beneficial  uses  is  entirely  differ- 
ent and  infinitely  more  complex.  And  we  do  not 
have  millennia  to  work  out  the  answers.  As  the 
Bulletm  of  Atomic  Scientists  points  out  rather 
dramatically,  it  is  7  minutes  to  midnight. 

The  magnitude  of  the  problems  was  realized 
almost  from  the  moment  the  late  Enrico  Fermi 
and  his  colleagues  set  off  the  first  nuclear  reac- 
tion at  Chicago  a  quai-ter  of  a  century  ago.  And 


since  the  United  States  submitted  the  Baruch 
plan  for  international  ownership  and  control  of 
fissionable  materials  -  to  the  U.N.  shortly  after 
the  war,  there  have  been  numerous  attempts  to 
deal  Avith  them  on  an  international  basis.  The 
Baruch  plan  soon  foundered  on  the  rocks  of  the 
cold  war,  and  other  similar  efforts  also  aborted. 

But  gradually,  and  on  a  very  measured  basis, 
progi-ess  to  limit  the  dangers  of  nuclear  destruc- 
tion and  to  foster  peaceful  development  has 
been  made.  The  Atoms  for  Peace  proposal  ^  led 
to  the  establislmient  of  the  International  Atomic 
Energy  Agency.  Shortly  thereafter  the  six  Com- 
mon Market  countries  established  EURATOM, 
which  represented  an  important  step  in  the 
integration  of  Europe. 

The  Antarctic  Treaty,  signed  in  1959,  specifi- 
cally prohibited  nuclear  explosions  or  the  dis- 
posal of  radioactive  wastes  and  permitted  m- 
spections  of  facilities  in  the  continent  to  make 
sure  its  provisions  were  being  carried  out.  The 
limited  test  ban  treaty,  concluded  in  1963,  has 
already  dramatically  reduced  levels  of  radio- 
activity in  the  atmosphere.  Last  year's  Outer 
Space  Treaty  prohibits,  among  other  things,  the 
stationing  of  nuclear  weapons  in  orbit. 

A  treaty  for  the  prohibition  of  nuclear  weap- 
ons in  Latin  America,  already  signed  by  21 
comitries,  also  came  into  being  last  year.  On  the 
first  of  this  month,  the  United  States  joined  the 
United  Kingdom  in  signing  a  protocol  *  to  tliis 
treaty  providing  that  we  will  respect  its  aims 
and  jDrovisions  and  that  we  will  not  use  or 


'  Address  made  before  the  annual  meeting  of  the 
American  Society  of  International  Law  at  Washington, 
D.C.,  on  Apr.  26  (press  release  84). 


^  For  background,  see  Bulletin  of  .Tune  23,  1JM6, 
p.  10.57. 

'  For  President  Eisenhower's  address  before  the 
U.N.  General  Assembly  on  Dec.  8,  1953,  see  il)i<h,  Dec. 
21,  19.j3,  p.  847. 

*  For  text,  see  iyuh,  Apr.  29, 1968,  p.  555. 


646 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


tlireaten  to  uso  nuclear  weapons  against  its 
parties. 

The  U.N.  General  Assembly  now  has  before 
it  a  draft  treaty  which  is  clearly  the  next  urgent, 
necessaiy  step  in  bringing  the  atom  under  con- 
trol :  a  worldwide  treaty  on  the  nonproliferation 
of  nuclear  weapons.^ 

The  current  draft  ti-eaty  is  the  fruit  of  at  least 
7  years  of  evolution.  Its  ancestry  can  be  traced 
directly  back  to  a  1961  resolution  sponsored  by 
Ireland  and  luianimously  adopted  by  the  U.N. 
General  Assembly.*^  It  called  on  all  states,  par- 
ticularly the  nuclear  powers,  to  seek  "an  inter- 
national agreement  containing  provisions  under 
which  tlie  nuclear  States  would  undertake  to  re- 
frain from  relinquishing  control  of  nuclear 
weapons  and  from  transmitting  the  information 
necessarj-  for  their  manufacture  to  States  not 
possessing  such  weapons,  and  provisions  under 
which  States  not  possessing  nuclear  weapons 
would  undertake  not  to  manufacture  or  other- 
wise acquire  control  of  such  weapons." 

While  these  basic  undertakings,  with  their 
focus  entirely  on  nuclear  weapons,  are  still  the 
core  of  the  complete  draft  treaty  now  before 
the  General  Assembly,  a  great  deal  has  been 
added. 

Lord  Coke  explained  that  the  purjwse  of 
cross-examination  was  to  "beat  and  boult  out 
the  truth."  The  treatj''s  elaboration  of  the  Irisli 
resolution,  and  its  inclusion  of  a  number  of  ex- 
tremely important  additional  provisions,  are 
the  product  of  3  years  of  intensive  beating  and 
boulting  out  the  truth  on  a  worldwide  basis. 

I  would  like  to  discuss  in  some  detail  three 
features  of  the  proposed  treaty — the  provisions 
relating  to  safeguards ;  those  dealing  with  peace- 
ful uses  of  nuclear  explosions;  and  those  calling 
for  further  progress  toward  disarmament  by  the 
nuclear  powers — because  I  believe  all  are  ex- 
tremely important.  They  represent  a  great  and 
indispensable  step  forward. 

International   Safeguards 

Efi'ectivo  safeguards  against  the  spread  of  nu- 
clear weapons  require,  fii-st  of  all,  that  fission- 
able materials  be  kept  close  track  of.  The  task 
is  complicated  by  the  fact  that  nuclear  reactors 
used  for  peaceful  purposes  (such  as  the  gener- 
ation of  electric  power  or  the  desalination  of 


'  See  p.  635. 

'U..\.  doc.  A/Ri:S/1663  (XVI). 


water)  produce  plutonium  as  a  byproduct,  and 
plutonium  can  be  used  to  make  nuclear  weapons. 

Seven  yeai-s  ago  when  the  Irish  resolution  was 
passed,  this  was  not  a  major  problem,  since  rel- 
atively few  reactors  were  in  operation.  It  is 
now  a  very  large  one.  In  this  country  alone, 
plans  for  99  new  nuclear  power  imits,  to  gener- 
ate 69  million  kilowatts  of  electricity,  have  been 
annomiced  to  date.  This  is  expected  to  increase 
to  150  million  kilowatts  by  1980.  A  comparable 
upsurge  is  taking  place  on  a  worldwide  basis. 
By  conservative  projections,  nuclear  power  re- 
actors in  operation  worldwide  by  1985 — while 
creating  electricity  for  millions  and  turning 
deserts  into  arable  land — will  also  l:>e  producing 
enough  plutonium  to  make  20  bombs  a  day. 

With  the  emergence  of  nuclear  power  gener- 
ation on  such  a  dramatic  scale,  mandatory  safe- 
guards have  become  an  indispensable  part  of  a 
nuclear  nonproliferation  treaty.  Only  through 
safeguards  will  all  parties  to  the  treaty  have 
confidence  that  it  is  bemg  ob.served.  At  the  same 
time,  countries  expected  to  renounce  nuclear 
weapons  must  obviously  be  assured  that  neither 
their  i-enunciation  nor  the  concomitant  safe- 
guards would  jeojiardize  their  full  opportunity 
to  exploit  the  atom's  peaceful  uses. 

I  am  fully  satisfied  that  the  draft  treaty  takes 
care  of  any  worries  along  this  line.  Article  III 
provides  that  safeguards  must  be  administered 
"for  the  exclusive  purpose"  of  verifying  com- 
pliance with  the  treaty's  provisions  against  nu- 
clear weapons  or  other  nuclear  explosive  devices. 
It  requires  safeguards  to  be  so  administered  as 
to  avoid  hampering  any  nation's  development  of 
peaceful  nuclear  activities  or  international  co- 
operation in  the  field. 

Article  IV  explicitly  protects  "the  inalien- 
able right  of  all  the  Parties  to  the  Treaty  to 
develop  research,  production  and  use  of  nuclear 
energy  for  peaceful  purposes  without  discrimi- 
nation." It  states,  also,  that  all  parties  to  the 
treaty  "in  a  position  to  do  so  shall  also  co- 
operate in  contributing  ...  to  the  further  de- 
velopment of  the  applications  of  nuclear  energy 
for  peaceful  purposes,  especially  in  the  terri- 
tories of  non-nuclear-weapon  States  Party  to 
the  Treaty." 

"\^lule  our  experience  indicates  that  "indus- 
trial espionage"  is  not  really  a  problem  in  this 
field,  the  treaty  also  expresses  support  for  re- 
search, development,  and  other  efforts  to  fur- 
ther the  application,  within  the  IAEA  system, 
of  "the  principle  of  safeguarding  effectively  the 


STAT    20,    1968 


647 


flow  of  source  and  special  fissionable  materials 
bv  use  of  instruments  and  other  techniques  at 
certain  strategic  pomts."  The  United  States 
is  hard  at  work  on  research  to  implement  this 
provision.  To  demonstrate  that  we  are  neither 
askincr  the  non-nuclear-weapon  states  to  accept 
'any  burdens  that  we  are  unwilling  to  accept  for 
ourselves  nor  seeking  any  commercial  advan- 
tages from  the  treaty,  we  have  offered  to  subject 
our  own  facilities  which  are  not  of  direct  na- 
tional security  significance  to  the  same  safe- 
guards.  The   United   Kingdom   has   made   a 

similar  ofi'er. 

The  extensive  application  of  treaty  sate- 
o-uards  by  relieving  concerns  about  providing 
non-nuclear-weapon  states  with  nuclear  ma- 
terials, equipment,  and  information,  should 
give  a  significant  push  to  nuclear  research  and 

industry.  , 

For  these  reasons,  we  think  this  treaty  can  do 
more  to  advance  the  goals  of  the  International 
Atomic  Energy  Agency— worldwide  promo- 
tion and  development  of  the  peaceful  uses  ot 
nuclear  energy  under  safeguards— than  all  the 
years  of  patient,  preliminary  piecemeal  work 
done  in  this  field  to  date.  . 

A  nonproliferation  treaty,  quite  obviously, 
cannot  do  much  about  a  nuclear  war  that  has 
already  broken  out.  It  is  preventive  law.  Ihe 
safeguards  are  designed  to  spot  trouble  at  an 
early  stage,  when  it  is  not  too  late  to  do  some- 
thing about  it.  And  this  capability  is  needed  as 
soon  as  we  can  get  it. 

Nor  will  conclusion  of  the  treaty  complete  the 
task.  For  one  thing,  agreements  with  the  IAEA 
will  have  to  be  worked  out,  on  a  bilateral  or 
multilateral  basis.  , 

Second,  the  safeguards  capabilities  ot  the 
IAEA  will  have  to  be  expanded  to  meet  the 
need.  Its  staff  of  trained  inspectors  will  have  to 

Third,  the  safeguards  system  must  be  further 
perfected,  through  research  and  development 
on  instruments  and  other  means  of  checking  the 
flow  of  material  through  types  of  facilities  not 
yet  covered  and  greater  automation. 

Further  steps  of  this  kind  will  require  a  high 
degree  of  international  cooperation,  ingenuity, 
patience,  and  dedication  to  the  goal.  If  accom- 
plished, the  result  would  strengthen  interna- 
tional institutions  and  international  law, 
improve  collaboration  among  the  nations,  and 
bring  about  a  safer  world. 


Peaceful  Uses  of  Nuclear  Explosions 

The  second  aspect  of  the  treaty  I  want  to  take 
up  is  the  way  it  deals  with  the  peaceful  uses  ot 
nuclear  explosions. 

Despite  the  big  bang  out  in  Nevada  today,  the 
peaceful  application  of  nuclear  explosives  is 
still  in  a  relatively  experimental  stage.  Its 
technical  and  economic  feasibility  has  not  yet 
been  fully  demonstrated,  its  collateral  effects 
are  not  completely  known,  and  it  is  too  early  to 
judge  whether  it  will  achieve  broad  political 
acceptability.  •     u  i. 

Several  things  are  clear,  however.  One  is  that 
even  an  optimistic  assessment  of  its  potential 
uses  would  not  justify  the  enormous  expendi- 
ture of  time,  money,  and  scientific  and  technical 
talent  required  to  develop  nuclear  devices  for 
this  purpose  alone. 

A  second  inescapable  fact^brought  to  light 
durin<^  the  development  of  the  draft  treaty- 
was  that  a  treaty  against  the  proliferation  of 
nuclear  weapons  would  be  unsatisfactory  if  it 
did  not  cover  all  nuclear  explosive  devices,^  in- 
cluding those  intended  for  peaceful  uses.  This  is 
because  there  is  not  now,  and  we  caimot  con- 
ceive that  there  ever  will  be,  any  type  of  peace- 
ful nuclear  device  which  would  be  incapable  of 
being  used  for  destructive  purposes. 

Faced  with  these  facts,  the  treaty  negotiators 
evolved  what  we  believe  is  a  fair,  sensible,  and 
workable  approach  to  the  problem  of  peaceful 
nuclear  explosions.  They  coupled  nuclear  weap- 
ons with  other  nuclear  explosive  devices  in  the 
treaty's  basic  provisions.  At  the  same  time,  rec- 
ooTiizing  both  the  economic  absurdity  of  a  coun- 
try's developing  nuclear  explosives  solely  for 
peaceful  purposes  and  the  inequity  of  giving 
any  commercial  advantage  to  nuclear-weapon 
states,  they  inserted  an  article  requirmg  all  par- 
ties to  cooperate  in  insuring  that  potential  bene- 
fits be  made  available  on  a  nondiscriminatory 
basis  to  non-nuclear- weapon  parties. 

The  treaty  makes  clear  that  the  charge  for  the 
explosive  devices  used  will  be  as  low  as  possible 
and  exclude  any  charge  for  research  and  de- 
velopment. Services  are  made  available  through 
an  appropriate  international  body  with  ade- 
quate representation  of  non-nuclear-weapon 
states.  It  does  not,  however,  rule  out  bilateral 
arrancrements  for  such  services  so  long  as  there 
is  no  resulting  discrimination.  Thus  it  avoids 
premature  decisions  on  just  how  this  future 


648 


DEPARTMENT  OF   STATE  BtTLOlTrN 


teclinology  M-ill  be  regulated,  while  assuring 
non-nuclear-weapon  states  wlio  are  party  to  it 
that  they  will  not  be  discriminated  against  if 
and  when  it  proves  technically  and  economically 
feasible. 

It  did  not  at  first  seem  appropriate  to  include 
a  treaty  obligation  requiring  nuclear-weapon 
parties  to  furnish  explosive  services  to  non- 
nuclear-weapon  parties.  During  the  course  of 
the  negotiations,  however,  some  countries,  nota- 
bly Brazil,  argued  that  the  treaty  must  not  de- 
prive them  of  the  full  benefits  of  the  application 
of  nuclear  explosives  for  peaceful  purposes. 
Article  V  was  added  to  explicitly  recognize  that 
such  benefits  would  not  be  denied  to  non-nuclear- 
weapon  parties.  We  believe  the  article  makes 
the  treaty  both  equitable  and  widely  acceptable. 

In  this  field,  too,  the  treaty  will  constitute  a 
major  step  forward.  But  it  is  a  step  which  will 
have  to  be  promptly  followed  up  by  further 
action. 

"We  are  already  giving  the  most  serious 
thought  to  what  will  be  needed  to  implement 
the  treatA-'s  provisions  on  this  subject.  These 
provisions  deal  only  with  the  actual  nuclear 
services.  The  explosive  device  would  at  all  times 
remain  in  the  custody  of  the  country  supplying 
it  and  handling  its  detonation.  Choice  of  the 
construction  or  engineering  organization  to  per- 
form any  other  aspect  of  the  work  for  the  proj- 
ect involved  would  not  be  affected,  however. 
Such  other  aspects  are  expected  to  account  for 
a  much  larger  portion  of  the  total  cost  of  these 
projects  than  the  nuclear  services  themselves. 

Within  this  framework,  we  are  considering 
what  sort  of  international  procedures  will  be 
needed.  Clearly,  they  must  include  the  applica- 
tion of  appropriate  health  and  safety  standards. 
They  must  also  provide  assurance  that  the  ex- 
plosion is  in  fact  being  carried  out  for  genu- 
inely peaceful  purposes.  And  they  must  insure 
that  all  non-nuclear-weapon  states  party  to  the 
treaty  have  an  equal  opportunity  to  obtain  such 
services,  without  discrimination.  They  must 
provide  for  the  consent  of  the  government  on 
whose  territory  the  explosion  will  take  place. 
Appropriate  provisions  will  also  have  to  be 
made  to  cover  liability  for  accidental  or  other 
consequential  damages.  It  may  even  bo  desira- 
ble to  establish  in  advance  how  the  project  is  to 
be  financed  to  completion. 

There  will  also  naturally  be  differences  in 
how  soon  various  applications  will  prove  eco- 


nomically and  teclinicaUy  feasible.  For  example, 
there  will  undoubtedly  be  differences  in  the 
handling  of  fully  contained  underground  ex- 
plosions (such  as  those  associated  with  the 
extraction  of  gas  and  oil  reserves)  and  nuclear 
excavations,  which  involve  breaking  the  surface 
of  the  ground.  The  former  may  be  freely  con- 
ducted under  the  limited  test  ban  treaty,  while 
the  latter  must  be  conducted  within  its  con- 
straints ;  that  is,  in  a  manner  that  does  not  cause 
radioactive  debris  to  be  cast  outside  the  country 
where  the  exjjlosions  take  place.  Certain  exca- 
vation applications  may  even  require  an  appro- 
priate amendment  to  that  treaty.  Such  an 
amendment  was  anticipated  and  was  one  of  the 
reasons  for  that  treaty's  liberal  amendment 
provisions. 

These  problems,  though  complex,  are  clearly 
solvable.  By  starting  now,  we  shall  be  able  to 
work  out  satisfactory  solutions  by  the  time  full- 
scale  peaceful  applications  of  nuclear  explosions 
become  technically  and  economically  feasible. 
Some  of  these  matters  may  also  require  new 
domestic  legislation.  Others  will  require  inter- 
national negotiations.  The  first  important  step, 
however,  is  conclusion  of  the  nonproliferation 
treaty. 

Progress  Toward  Disarmament 

I  turn  now  to  the  third  aspect  of  the  non- 
proliferation  treaty:  further  progi'ess  toward 
disarmament.  During  the  course  of  the  negotia- 
tions the  non-nuclear-weapon  states,  expressing 
the  view  that  they  are  more  seriously  con- 
strained by  this  treaty  than  the  nuclear  powers, 
have  demanded  assurances  that  the  latter  would 
get  on  with  the  business  of  disarmament. 

The  nonproliferation  treaty  must,  however,  be 
viewed  in  the  entire  context  of  postwar  disar- 
mament proposals.  The  large  majority  of  these, 
including  the  limited  test  ban  treaty,  place 
greater  restraints  on  the  nuclear- weapon  states 
than  on  others.  We  are  pei-suaded,  nonetheless, 
that  the  durability  of  any  nonproliferation 
treaty  will  depend  upon  further  progress  toward 
disarmament. 

The  draft  treaty  now  before  the  General  As- 
sembly reflects  this  conviction  as  far  as  we  be- 
lieve possible  without  hopelessly  complicating 
the  treaty. 

The  treaty's  prcambular  paragraphs  include 
a  declaration  of  intention  by  the  signers  to 


MAT    20,    1968 


649 


achieve  a  cessation  of  the  nuclear  arms  race  at 
the  earliest  possible  moment.  They  recall  the  de- 
termination expressed  by  the  signers  of  the  par- 
tial test  ban  treaty  to  achieve  the  permanent 
discontinuation  of  all  nuclear-weapons  test  ex- 
plosions and  to  continue  negotiations  to  this  end. 
They  also  express  a  desire  to  bring  about  an  end 
to  manufacture  of  nuclear  v^eapons,  to  liquidate 
existing  stockpiles,  and  to  eliminate  nuclear 
weapons  from  national  arsenals  via  a  treaty  on 
general  and  complete  disarmament  imder  strict 
and  effective  international  control.  Article  VIII 
provides  for  review  conferences  beginning  5 
years  after  the  treaty's  entry  into  force,  "with 
a  view  to  assuring  that  the  purposes  of  the  Pre- 
amble and  the  provisions  of  the  Treaty  are  being 
realized." 

The  treaty  also  contains  an  operative  article 
on  this  subject.  In  article  VI,  each  of  the  parties 
"undertal^es  to  pursue  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  effec- 
tive international  control." 

The  United  States,  for  one,  is  ready,  willing, 
and  able  to  negotiate  significant  restrictions  on 
the  strategic  arms  race  and  other  important  dis- 
annament  measures.  We  believe  that  the  non- 
proliferation  treaty  will  serve  to  spur  on  such 
negotiations  and  to  place  a  still  greater  premium 
on  their  early  and  successful  conclusion. 

It  will  not  be  easy  for  the  law  to  deal  with 
the  many  complexities  and  problems  existmg  in 
the  nuclear  field.  Political  divisions  continue, 
national  rivalries  go  on,  doubts  linger,  sus- 
picions persist. 

For  these  reasons,  it  would  be  a  very  grave 


error  to  insist  that  everything  be  done  at  once. 
All  the  outstanding  problems  of  disarmament 
and  nuclear  energy  cannot  be  solved  in  one  docu- 
ment. A  nuclear  nonproliferation  treaty  is  the 
logical  and  vital  next  step.  It  will  significantly 
strengthen  the  foundation  already  set  in  place 
by  the  limited  test  ban  and  outer  space  treaties. 

In  some  ways,  it  can  be  compared  to  tlie  U.N. 
Charter;  for  it,  too,  establishes  principles,  obli- 
gations, and  relationsliips  as  a  basis  for  later 
more  specific  international  law. 

The  United  States  fervently  hopes  and  be- 
lieves the  obstacles  in  the  way  of  the  treaty  can 
be  overcome.  The  U.N.  General  Assembly  is  now 
meeting  in  New  York.  We  intend  to  do  every- 
thing we  possibly  can  to  achieve  a  treaty  before 
its  session  is  over. 


Dr.  Lawrence  Named  to  U.S.  Section 
of  Great  Lakes  Fisheries  Commission 

President  Johnson  on  April  24  (Wliite  House 
press  release)  aimounced  his  appointment  of 
W.  Jlason  Lawrence,  of  New  York,  as  a  Com- 
missioner of  the  United  States  Section  of  the 
Great  Lakes  Fishery  Commission.  Dr.  Law- 
rence will  fill  the  new  position  created  by  the 
89th  Congress  when  it  amended  article  II  of  the 
Convention  on  Great  Lakes  Fisheries  between 
the  United  States  and  Canada  to  provide  that 
both  countries'  representation  be  expanded 
from  three  to  four  Commissioners. 

Dr.  Lawrence  has  served  as  Deputy  Commis- 
sioner of  the  New  York  Conservation  Depart- 
ments since  1964.  (For  biographic  details,  see 
"Wliite  House  press  release  dated  April  24.) 


650 


DEPARTMENT   OF    STATE   BULLETIN 


Assistant  Secretary  Bundy  Interviewed  on  "Face  the  Nation" 


Following  is  the  transcript  of  an  interview 
with  William  P.  Bundy,  Assistant  Secretary  for 
East  Asian  and  Pacific  Affairs,  on  the  Columbia 
Broadcasting  System's  television  and  radio  pro- 
gram ^'Face  the  Nation"'  on  April  Z8.  Inter- 
viewing Mr.  Bundy  were  Martin  Agronsky  of 
CBS  iVeu'S,  Saville  Davis  of  the  Christian  Sci- 
ence Monitor,  and  Marvin  Kalb  of  CBS  Neios. 

Mr.  Agronsky:  Mr.  Secretary,  U.S.  and  North 
Vietnamese  rei^resentatives  met  yesterday  in 
Laos  for  tlie  second  time  in  3  days.  Did  they 
make  any  progress  on  deciding  on  a  phice  to 
hold  peace  talks? 

Mr.  Buiidy:  ]Mr.  Agronsky,  there  has  been 
no  mutual  agreement  yet  on  a  site  for  contacts 
to  go  aliead  under  the  President's  speech  ^  and 
the  North  Vietnamese  reply  of  April  3.-  There 
are  private  discussions  continuing  between  rep- 
resentatives of  the  two  coimtries,  and  I  can't 
take  it  further  than  that  at  this  moment. 

Mr.  Agransky:  Mr.  Secretaiy,  you  say  }'ou 
can't  take  it  any  further  than  that  they  are 
conducting  private  talks  in  Laos.  Now,  the  only 
thiug  that  we've  had  from  anyone  on  what  goes 
on  there  is  that  at  some  pomt  they  drink  tea 
i     together,  '\\niat  do  they  do  m  these  talks  ? 

Mr.  Bundy:  Well,  I  don't  think  there  is  any 
useful  way  to  describe  it  other  than  that  they 
meet  together  and  exchange  messages  and  views. 
I  don't  think  there  is  any  other  thing  I  can  use- 
fully say.  It  is  a  normal  kind  of  private  diplo- 
matic exchange,  Mr.  Agronsky. 

Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Bimdy,  has  the  United 
States,  in  the  course  of  these  or  any  earlier 
talks,  dehnitely  and  officially  turned  Warsaw 
and  Phnom  Penh  down?  Have  we  closed  out 
President  Johnson's  statement  that  he  would  go 
anywhere  or  would  send  his  representatives 
1 1    anywhere  ? 

Mr.  Bundy:  Let's  take  it  in  two  parts.  Yes, 


we  have  made  it,  I  think,  quite  clear  that  we 
simply  don't  regard  Plmom  Penh  or  Warsaw 
as  suitable  for  tlie  kind  of  contacts  that  are  now 
clearly  envisaged  on  both  sides.  Now,  the  Presi- 
dent's past  statements  were  made  at  a  time  when 
there  simply  wasn't  any  contact  whatsoever. 
The  prasent  phase — and  even  those  statements, 
as  I  think  Secretary  [of  Defense  Clark  M.]  Clif- 
ford has  pointed  out,  had  to  be  read  as  a  rea- 
sonable place  and  a  reasonable  time,  and  so  on — 
but  the  point  is,  really,  that  this  cuiTent  ex- 
cliange  has  been  clearly  recognized  on  both  sides 
as  related  to  a  desire  to  find  what  the  President 
in  his  March  31st  speech  referred  to  as  a  "suit- 
able place,''  "Geneva  or  any  other  suitable 
place."  And  the  response  from  the  other  side, 
made  public  in  the  Foreign  Minister  of  North 
Viet-Nam's  interview  with  Mr.  [Charles]  Col- 
ling wood,  was  that  they  referred  initially  to 
Phnom  Penh  or  "another  mutually  agreed  site." 
In  other  words,  both  sides  seriously  recognize 
that  you  have  got  to  have  mutual  agreement  and 
certain  basic  considerations  of  suitability  and 
convenience,  and  so  on.  In  our  view,  this  boils 
down  to  one  simple  thing,  an  impartial  atmos- 
phere ;  and  that  is  all  we  ask. 

31  r.  Kalb:  Mr.  Bundy,  have  the  North  Viet- 
namese in  the  course  of  the  last  3  days  given  us 
what  the  State  Department  calls  a  piece  of 
paper,  any  form  of  official  response  to  our  sug- 
gestions of  15  different  places?  ^ 

Mr.  Bundy:  Mr.  Kalb,  it  just  doesn't  heljD,  in 
these  exchanges,  to  try  to  characterize  them  or 
to  say  whether  pieces  of  jjaper  are  given  or 
taken,  and  all  the  rest.  It  just  doesn't  help.  I 
just  ]:)refer  not  to.  I  don't  want  to  be  negative 
but  this  is  a  time  when,  if  you  are  going  to  get 
results — and  that  is  what  we  are  after,  and  I 
l>elieve  that  they  wish  to  move  on  to  these  con- 
tacts— the  best  thing  is  not  to  charactei-ize  what 
takes  place  at  all. 

Mr.  Kalb :  Mr.  Bundy,  in  the  first  3  weeks  of 


'  For  President  Johnson's  address  to  the  Nation  on 
Mar.  31,  see  Bcxletin  of  Apr.  15,  19GS,  p.  481. 
'  For  background,  see  ihid.,  Apr.  22,  19C8,  p.  513. 


^For    a    statement    by    Secretary    Rusk    made    on 
April  18,  see  ibid.,  May  6,  1968,  p.  577. 


MAT    20,    1968 


Col 


this  search  for  a  peace  site  the  State  Department 
was  not  bashful  or  sliy  about  giving  out  infor- 
mation or  telling  about  messages  going  back 
and  forth,  except  that  in  the  past  3  days,  since 
Thursday  or  the  meeting  that  the  North  Viet- 
namese called  with  us  in  Laos,  suddenly  there  is 
this  great  desire  for  secret  diplomacy.  Wliat's 
happened  ? 

Mr.  Bundy :  Well,  it  just  seems  the  most  use- 
ful way  at  this  stage — let  me  conunent  on  part 
of  your  question  and  say  that  one  of  the  things 
that  did  mildly  concern  us  was  that  one  North 
Vietnamese  message,  the  one  proposing  War- 
saw— we  heard  about  it  on  a  Tass  broadcast 
before  we  ever  actually  had  the  note  out  of  the 
code  room.  Now,  the  point  is  that  serious  di- 
plomacy has  best  go-ahead  on  its  own  steam, 
and  apparently  these  exchanges  in  Vientiane 
are  physically  visible  so  that  the  press  knows 
they  are  taking  place,  so  be  it.  But  what  takes 
place  beyond  that  I  just  don't  think  it  is  wise 
to  go  into. 

Mr.  Agronsky :  Well,  can  you  carry  it  this 
far  for  us :  Everybody  is  concerned  about  get- 
ting peace  as  quickly  as  possible.  Now,  when 
they — 

Mr.  Bundy :  We  are,  certainly. 

Mr.  Agronsky :  Certainly.  You  are,  we  all 
are.  Now,  when  they  have  these  talks,  are  they 
confined  at  this  point  to  the  site?  Can  you  tell 
us  anything  at  all  about  the  mood,  about  the 
atmosphere,  about  the  approach?  Does  what 
is  happening  give  you  any  cause  for  being  op- 
timistic that  these  are  going  to  be  fruitful  in 
the  end  ? 

Mr.  Bundy:  Well,  I  think  I  can  say  this 
much :  The  mood  is  serious,  it  is  that  of  serious 
exchanges  among  people  hoping  to  reach  an 
agreement  on  a  matter  which  should  be  capable 
of  being  agreed. 

Impartial  Atmosphere  Sought 

Mr.  Davis:  Why,  in  that  case,  Mr.  Bimdy, 
wasn't  it  serious  from  the  outset  ?  I  say  serious, 
there  has  been  a  great  deal  of  criticism  that  this 
was  a  public  haggle — some  people  have  called  it 
a  rather  indecent  one — over  the  problem  of  the 
site.  In  a  sense  we  started  it,  didn't  we?  That 
is,  President  Johnson  in  his  March  31st  address 
suggested  Geneva,  which  we  might  have  antici- 
pated would  be  unacceptable  to  Hanoi.  And 
then  he  made  a  statement  that  Hanoi — he 
warned  that  Hanoi  might  suggest  fake  solu- 
tions, as  the  President  put  it,  and  some  people 


interpreted  that  as  a  kind  of  propaganda  point 
on  his  part,  although  it  may  not  have  been.  If 
we  staited  off  this  way,  wasn't  it  expectable  that 
Hanoi  would  respond  in  kind  and  that  we 
would  have  a  public  propaganda  battle? 

Mr.  Bundy:  I  just  don't  see  how  you  can  say 
that  to  mention  Geneva,  which  has  been  men- 
tioned in  all  quarters  of  the  world  and  by  all 
leading  statesmen  on  tliis  subject  over  many, 
many  years  and  has  a  long  histoiy  of  association 
with  negotiations  and  discussions  on  this  sub- 
ject, could  be  in  the  slightest  regarded  as  a 
propaganda  move,  Mr.  Davis.  I  just  don't  see 
how  you  could  possibly  draw  that  conclusion. 

Mr.  Davis:  Well,  I  thought,  Mr.  Bundy,  that 
it  was  more  or  less  taken  for  granted  that,  on 
the  basis  of  several  statements  that  President 
Ho  Chi  Minli  had  made,  that  he  felt  that  he  had 
been  cheated  by  having  accepted  a  temporary 
division  of  South  Viet-Nam  itself  back  in  the 
Geneva  conferences  on  the  assumption  and  on 
the  assurance  that  there  would  be  national  elec- 
tions, which  we  then,  through  Secretary  of  State 
John  Foster  Dulles,  declmed  to  go  thi-ough  with. 

Mr.  Bvmdy :  Now,  that  is  a  long  piece  of  his- 
toiy,  Mr.  Davis.  I  don't  agree  with  your  state- 
ment about  it.  The  1956  elections  question  boiled 
down,  as  I  think  every  sober  comment  at  the 
time  indicated,  including  that  of  Senator  John 
F.  Kennedy  and  Plans  Morgenthau  and  who- 
have-you,  to  the  question  of  whether  there  was 
the  slightest  chance  of  anything  that  could  be 
called  a  free  election  in  North  Viet-Nam  and 
perhaps  even  in  South  Viet-Nam  at  that  time. 

Now,  getting  back  to  the  substance  of  your 
question,  whatever  may  be  the  feelings  in  North 
Viet-Nam  about  the  1954  agreements,  we  hon- 
estly have  had  no  indication  that  Geneva  as  a 
place  for  holdmg  any  serious  discussions  is  an 
anathema  or  something  they  won't  accept.  I 
simply  don't  know  whore  you  get  that  idea. 

Mr.  Agronsky:  Mr.  Secretary,  let's  finish  up 
this  site  thing  if  we  can.  Let's  begin  with  the 
President  saying  he  would  meet  with  Hanoi 
anywhere,  any  place,  any  time.  Now,  can  you 
explain  why  we  now  add  on  to  that  "any  place 
that  suits  us"  ? 

Mr.  Bundy:  Mr.  Agi'onsky,  as  I  say,  we're 
talking  about  something  that  will  be  publicly 
known  to  be  taking  place,  that  is  intended  to  be 
the  opening  move  in  a  really  serious — talks,  as 
the  Nortli  Vietnamese  call  it,  leading  on,  as  they 
also  call  it,  to  negotiations.  The  atmosphere  for 
this  kind  of  a  publicly  known  discussion — call 
it  what  you  will — should  be  an  impartial  one 


652 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


and  Tlmt  is  wliy,  as  I  say,  lx)th  sides — we  refer 
to  "Geneva  or  a  suitable  place";  they  referred 
to  "Phnom  Penh  or  a  mutually  agreed  site." 
In  other  words,  they  envisaged  from  the  outset 
that  we  would  have  to  reach  agreement.  I 
frankly  say  it  didn't  seem  to  us,  and  perhaps 
doesn't  still  seem  to  us,  a  particularly  ditticidt 
matter  to  tiiul  the  site  that  has  an  impartial 
atmosphere. 

Mr.  Agransky:  "Well,  it  may  not  seem  it,  but 
obviously  this  has  been  going  on  for  a  month 
now  and  we  have  no  site. 

Mr.  Bmid/y:  Well,  it  may  be  that  tliere  are 
reasons  on  the  other  side — I  wouldn't  want  to 
say  this  categorically — for  not  wishing  to  agree 
rapidly.  "We  have  tried  to  move  it  along  in  every 
])Ossible  way.  And  the  best  way  to  do  it  seems 
to  be  to  have  these  private  exchanges  that  are 
taking  place  and  see  if  we  can  work  it  out,  and 
that  is  what  we're  doing. 

Mr.  KaJli:  Air.  Bmidy,  both  sides  have  care- 
fully avoided  saying  "No"'  to  the  possibility  of 
Paris  being  a  compromise  site.  What  is  our  atti- 
tude toward  that  possibility  I 

Mr.  Biindy:  Well,  I  don't  want  to  comment 
on  any  of  the  sites  that  haven't  been  raised  at 
all.  Man-in.  I  just  don't  think  it  helps  for  me  to 
do  that. 

Mr.  KaJh:  Ha.sn't  U  Thant  raised  Paris? 

Mr.  Bundy:  He  has  raised  it  recently — 

Mr.  Knih:  He  has  raised  it  in  public  anyway. 

Mr.  Bundy:  — but  that  doesn't — as  I  say,  I 
think  this  is  going  to  be  handled  quietly  and 
discreetly.  I  see  no  reason  to  believe  that  we 
can't  reach  agreement.  I  just  don't  think  it  helps 
to  comment  on  it. 

Mr.  Agrorunky:  Well,  this  will  be  the  la,st  ques- 
tion that  we're  going  to  lead  you  to  on  this :  Is 
there  any  chance  whatsoever  of  our  accepting 
"Warsaw  or  Phnom  Penh? 

Mr.  Bundy:  I  think  I  have  made  it  clear  we 
simply  do  not  regard  them  as  suitable,  Mr. 
Agronskv'.  I  think  the  reason — let  me  explain, 
in  the  case  of  Warsaw,  perfectly  clearly  the 
Polish  Government  is  on  very  clear  record  as 
giving  grant  militaiy  assistance  to  the  North 
Vietnamese.  That  is  really  point  1 :  A  country 
with  that  ven,-  strong  position,  I  think,  is  not 
re^illy  in  a  position  to  provide  an  impartial  at- 
mosphere. I  am  not  questioning  their  good  faith 
or  anything  of  the  sort;  I  am  just  saying  that 
as  a  clear  conclusion. 

Mr.  KaJh:  Mr.  Bundy,  for  the  Ijetter  part  of  a 
month  now  the  United  States  has  avoided  bomb- 
ing north  of  the  19th  parallel  in  North  "\^iet- 


Nain  in  an  effort  to  get  these  talks  going.  We 
ha\e  heard  reports  from  Saigon  in  the  last  2  or 
3  days  that  there  has  been  a  very  substantial 
increase  in  the  flow  of  supplies  and  men  from 
north  to  south.  And  just  the  question,  which  I 
sui)pose  is  a  natural  one,  how  long  can  we  con- 
tinue in  this  search  for  a  site  while  the  other 
side  continues  to  obviously  take  advantage  of, 
to  use  the  President's  words,  this  limitation? 

Continued   Military  Action 

Mr.  Bundy:  I  won't  want  to  characterize 
what  they  are  doing.  It  is  the  fact  that  there 
has  been  a  very  heavy  infiltration  flow  all 
through  the  winter  and  that  there  is  some  evi- 
dence, some  good  deal  of  evidence  in  fact,  the 
truck  sightings  and  all  the  rest,  indicate  that  it 
is  going  very  heavily  now,  has  been  in  March, 
and  perhaps  has  been  increasing  in  April.  Now, 
this  is  in  a  nonnal  seasonal  pattern,  in  a  sense; 
but  the  levels  all  the  way  along  have  been  con- 
siderably' higher  than  in  past  years,  and  we  are 
concerned  by  it.  It  puts  them  in  a  position  to 
launch  major  military  actions,  and  so  on,  and 
that  is  the  fact.  But  we  are,  nonetheless,  going 
ahead  seriously  to  try  to  get  agreement  and  to 
move  the  whole  process  forward  just  as  rap- 
idly as  we  can. 

Mr.  Davis:  Mr.  Bundy,  it  looks  as  if  both 
sides  are  "fighting  and  negotiating"  at  the  same 
time.  I  believe  that  is  a  phrase  that  Hanoi 
started,  but  it  seems  to  be  more  or  less  inevi- 
table that  both  sides  should  keep  their  military 
operations  going  until  we  either  do  or  don't 
reach  some  kind  of  an  agreement  on  a  cease-fire. 
Is  this  a  dangerotis  path  to  an  agreement,  or  is  it 
a  necessary  path  to  an  agreement? 

Mr.  Bundy:  Well,  it  is  very  difficult  to  see 
how  you  can  avoid  it.  We  have  cut  down  the 
bombing  very  drastically.  We  have  indicated 
that  we  were  prepared  to  move  to  a  cessation 
of  tlie  bombing.  Then  we  have,  for  many 
months,  of  course,  had  the  San  Antonio  for- 
mula "'  and  our  view  on  that.  Now,  if  you  look 
l>eyond  that,  it  seems,  as  we've  often  said,  that 
reduction  of  hostilities  or  a  cease-fire,  cessa- 
tion of  hostilities  tiirougliout  South  "Viet-Nam, 
is  certainly  one  of  the  topics  that  would  come 
up  at  an  early  stage  in  talks. 

Now,  whether  agreement  will  be  possible  on 


*  F(ir  nil  iuldress  by  rrcsident  Johnson  made  at  San 
Antonio,  Tex.,  on  Sept.  20,  1!M57,  i?ee  ihid.,  Oct.  23,  1967, 
p.  519. 


MAY    20,    1968 


653 


that  is  much  more  difficult  to  see.  It  is  a  very 
complex  problem.  It  doesn't  lend  itself  to  the 
normal  kind  of  cease-fire,  certainly.  And  so  I 
think  that  unless  and  until  one  can  reach  agree- 
ment on  tliat,  one  must  look  forward  to  a  situa- 
tion wliere  the  other  side,  as  this  infiltration 
indicates,  is  putting  itself  in  a  position  to  con- 
tinue military  action  on  a  major  scale  in  the 
South.  I  think  we  have  no  choice  but  to  stand 
finn  militarily  on  our  side. 

No  Imposed  CoaliMon 

Mr.  Agronsky :  Mr.  Bundy,  let's  address  our- 
selves to  another  really  vital  problem  that  faces 
us  in  the  eventual  peace  negotiation :  this  busi- 
ness of  a  coalition  government.  Now,  just  yes- 
terday Truong  Dinh  Dzu,  who  was  a  runner-up 
in  last  fall's  presidential  elections,  was  ar- 
rested by  the  Saigon  government  because  he 
was  quoted  as  having  said:  "Only  a  coalition 
govermnent  with  the  Communists  is  a  realistic 
solution  to  tlie  Viet-Nam  war."  Now,  Saigon 
has  flatly  said  it  will  not  accept  a  coalition  gov- 
ermnent. Now,  there  can  be  no  peace  negotia- 
tion which  can  end  successfully,  in  the  opinion 
of  everyone  who  has  studied  this  situation,  that 
does  not  end  in  a  coalition  govenmient. 

Mr.  Bundy:  I  dispute  that  statement  very 
strongly,  Mr.  Agronsky.  It  seems  to  me  a  great 
deal  too  flatfooted.  I've  talked  to  a  great  many 
experts  over  a  long  period  of  time.  This  issue  is 
a  very  serious  one,  perhaps  the  critical  issue  in 
the  negotiations. 

Mr.  Kail):  It  is  the  nub  of  the  whole  thing. 

Mr.  Bundy :  Yes,  I  think  it  is.  If  you  look  at 
the  issues,  when  we  get  to  the  substantive  talks, 
our  position  can  be  described  very  simply: 
The  Geneva  accords  of  1954  should  form  a  base, 
and  there  should  be  the  principle,  a  free  politi- 
cal choice  among  the  South  Vietnamese.  That's 
a  very  simple,  straight  position.  Now,  on  their 
side,  verbally  they  often  appear  to  accept  the 
Geneva  accords  of  1954.  They  claim  that  the 
program  of  the  Liberation  Front  is  in  accord 
with  the  Geneva  accords ;  in  fact,  it  has  no  foun- 
dation whatsoever  in  the  accords.  And  their  po- 
sition is  stated  that  we  must  accept  the  program 
of  the  Liberation  Front,  which  is  a  program 
for  coalition  and  a  program,  as  they  have  ex- 
pounded it  to  their  own  people  in  South  Viet- 
Nam,  of  the  utmost  authority,  is  a  program 
for  taking  over  power.  It  is  a  coalition  between 


them  and  what  they  describe  as  "patriotic  ele- 
ments." That  doesn't  need  a  decoding  machine. 
And  they  tell  the  people  who  they — they  tell 
their  own  people :  "Don't  worry,  we  take  power 
in  this  way."  Now,  that  is  a  very  serious  dif- 
ference. 

Mr.  Agronsky:  Well,  how  can  you  ever  bring 
these  peace  talks,  then,  to  a  successful  conclu- 
sion if  their  position  is  adamant  on  this  and  they 
are  not  going  to  retreat  ? 

Mr.  Bundy :  If  tlieir  position  is,  in  fact,  ada- 
mant, I  think  it  will  be  most  difficult  to  reach 
agreement ;  because  I  do  not  see,  consistent  with 
the  principle  of  free  political  choice,  that  one 
can  accept  an  imposed  coalition,  and  that  is  ob- 
viously what  they  are  talking  about.  Now,  what 
might  be  worked  out  between  the  Saigon  gov- 
ernment and  elements  now  in  the  NLF  is 
another  matter,  something  that  Saigon  is  inter- 
ested in.  There  may  be  an  answer  that  lies  in 
that  direction.  Obviously,  you  have  got,  in  the 
end,  to  have  a  political  structure  in  the  South 
in  which  there  is  a  normal  political  process  and 
competition  for  power.  But  a  coalition  imposed 
doesn't  meet  that  specification  in  principle,  and 
most  certainly  it  is  intended  by  the  other  side  to 
take  over  power;  and  the  elements  of  the  situa- 
tion in  South  Viet-Nam  are  such  that  any  rea- 
sonable person — and  I  would  be  universal  on 
this  one  with  confidence — would  say  that  it 
would  be  likely  to  follow  the  East  European 
pattern  of  the  simple  takeover  on  the  other  side, 
without  regard  to  what  percentage  of  popular 
support  they  have,  which  I  would  reckon  to  be 
perhaps  in  the  neighborhood  of  15  to  25  percent. 

U.S.   Participation   in   East  Asia 

Mr.  Kalh :  Mr.  Bundy,  does  the  current  rheto- 
ric in  this  presidential  campaign  impose  new 
kinds  of  burdens  on  the  administration's  de- 
fense of  its  policy?  There  has  been,  at  least  in 
the  Wellington  meetings,  a  certain  amount  of 
private  anxiety  raised  by  allies  about  what 
might  hai^pen  after  January — is  the  United 
States  in  the  early  phase  of  a  pullout? 

Mr.  Bundy:  Well,  I  think  there  is  a  concern 
among  our  allies  and  among  other  Asian  na- 
tions whether  the  United  States  will  continue 
to  participate  in,  to  me,  a  vastly  exciting  de- 
velopment of  East  Asia.  This  is  a  tremendously 
exciting  story  of  what  has  happened  in  the  last 
23  years,  and  we've  played  a  very  considerable 


654 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BTJLLETIN 


and,  I  think,  a  very  creditable  part  in  it — in 
security  and  in  helping  them  on  economic  de- 
velopment and  all  the  i-est.  And  I  think  there 
is  a  deep  concern  in  Asia  that  we  continue  with 
those  basic  i)olicies. 

Now,  1  mj'self  believe  that  we  will.  I  think 
that  the  American  people  understand  the  vital 
importance  of  peace  and  stability  in  Asia  and, 
in  the  long  run,  a  reconciliation  and  peace  that 
takes  in  Communist  China.  And  that  is  what 
we're  after.  I  think  we  have  got  to  stay  engaged. 
I  think  momentarily  there  has  been  this  concern 
that  you  speak  of.  I  think  you  were  at  Welling- 
ton. I  don't  think  it  is  deep  seated ;  and  I  think 
the  record  of  our  performance,  positions  of 
those  who  might  be  in  the  role  of  the  President 
next  year  will  be  reassuring  over  a  period  of 
time,  too,  then. 

Mr.  Davh :  Mr.  Bundy,  do  I  gather,  coming 
back  to  coalition  again  for  a  moment,  that  you're 
suggesting  a  way  aroimd  the  difficulties  of  coali- 
tion, that  if  we've  got  equal  and  opposite  de- 
mands by  both  sides,  they  want  to  control  South 
Viet-Nam,  we  will  not  permit  it;  that  under 
those  circumstances,  instead  of  trying  to  fit  the 
two  demands  together  by  some  form  of  accom- 
modation, you're  suggesting  that  we  should 
simply  present  the  people  with  a  choice  at  the 
ballot  box  and  say  "You  choose  between  this 
system  or  that  system"  ? 

Mr.  Bundy:  Essentially  that's  it,  Mr.  Davis, 
surely.  There  is  clear  agreement;  and  it  is  the 
South  Vietnamese  position  that  the  political 
process  should  be  open  to  those  who  accept  a 
peaceful  means  of  working  it  out,  and  that 
means  all  South  Vietnamese. 

Mr.  Agronsky:  That's  very  interesting.  Have 
you  got  an  agreement  from  the  South  Viet- 
namese Government  to  accept  that  ? 

Mr.  Bvndy:  That  is  their  own  public  state- 
ment I  was  paraphrasing,  Mr.  Agronsky. 

Mr.  Agronsky :  Now,  carrying  it  beyond  that, 
if  they  accept  it,  is  there  any  indication  from 
Hanoi  that  they  would  accept  it  ? 

Mr.  Bundy:  That  I  can't  say  there  is. 

Mr.  Agronsky :  Well,  you  remember  in  1954, 
to  go  back  to  Mr.  Davis'  original  point,  when 
the  Geneva  conference  was  held  and  the  promise 
was  made  that  there  would  be  a  national  elec- 
tion and  it  was  not  fulfilled,  Ho  Chi  Minh  at 
that  point  took  the  position  that  they  had  to  go 
to  war,  they  had  to  achieve  by  force  what  they 
couldn't  achieve  by  agreement  at  Geneva.  Now, 


I  can't  conceive  that  they  would  have  changed 
that  position. 

Mr.  Bundy :  You  make  some  interesting  fac- 
tual statements,  Mr.  Agronsky. 

Mr.  Agronsky :  Yes. 

Mr.  Bundy:  I  challenge  you  to  go  back  to  the 
1956  record  and  see  if  you  can  find  one  single 
statement  by  anybody  in  North  Viet-Nam  in 
favor  of  a  free  political  election.  I  don't  believe 
you  will.  No,  let's  take  that  out  of  the — 

Mr.  Agronsky :  Well,  was  it  not  proposed  that 
there  would  be  a  national  election  ? 

Mr.  Bundy:  I  don't  think  there  is  vast  en- 
thusiasm, to  put  it  gently,  in  Communist 
regimes — and  Ho's  is  certainly  no  exception  and 
may,  indeed,  be  the  most  totalitarian  Commu- 
nist regime  now  in  existence — for  free  elections. 

Mr.  Agronsky:  Eight. 

Mr.  Bundy:  Now,  if  they  raise  this  issue  and 
it  comes  up,  this  is  a  question  we  could  certainly 
discuss.  But  I  have  never  detected  the  slightest 
interest  in  this  method  of  deciding  who  shall 
run  a  country. 

Mr.  Kalh:  Mr.  Bundy,  you  talked  about  the 
eventual  reconciliation  in  terms  of  long-range 
policy  with  Communist  China.  Was  there  an 
effort  made  on  the  part  of  the  administration 
several  montlis  ago  to  persuade  Formosa  to  pull 
back  from  Matsu  and  Quemoy  as  a  step  in  that 
direction  ? 

Mr.  Bundy:  No.  We  have  always  had  a  dis- 
cussion with  them,  of  course,  about  our  military 
assistance  program ;  but  the  stories  of  that  sug- 
gestion had  no  foundation. 

Mr.  Agronsky:  Was  the  suggestion  of  the 
Vice  President,  Mr.  Humphrey,  that  the  even- 
tual entrance  of  Communist  China  into  the 
United  Nations  discussed  with  the  State  De- 
partment, and  did  it  have  its  approval? 

Mr.  Bundy:  Do  that  again,  I'm  sorry,  Mr. 
Agronsky. 

Mr.  Agronsky :  Wlien  Mr.  Humphrey  pro- 
posed that  we  look  forward  to  the  entrance  of 
Ciiina  into  the  family  of  nations,^  was  that 
covered  by  the  State  Department? 

Mr.  Bundy:  Oh,  this  was  a  position  that  we 
have  long  taken.  We  do  look  forward  to  that. 
Now,  the  difficulties  are  very  clear,  and  I  think 
there  would  be  general  agreement  that  that  will 


^  For  an  address  by  Vice  President  Humphrey  made 
l)efore  the  Overseas  Press  Club  at  New  York,  N.Y.,  on 
Apr.  23,  see  md..  May  13. 19C8,  p.  GOl. 


MAT    20,    1968 


655 


be  speeded  up  rather  than  slowed  if  the  rest  of 
the  nations  of  Asia  maintain  their  independence 
against  any  tactic  that  Communist  China  might 
ever  be  tempted  to  use  against  tliem. 

Mr.  Agromhy:  Is  there  anything  new  that 

we  are  doing?  •    •     i        i 

Mr  Bundy:  But  most  certainly  it  is  tlie  ul- 
timate goal.  We  have  made  clear  that  this  is 
our  objective.  I  think  that  is  an  important  thing 
to  do  perioclically.  We  have  made  clear  that  we 
don't  threaten  Communist  China.  We  have 
opened  up  possibilities  of  contacts,  none  of 
which  have  ever  been  taken  up.  These  are  the 
things  that  we  have  done,  Mr.  Agi-onskry-,  and 
we  cTo  look  fonvard  to  this.  This  is  what  the 
Manila  conference*'  said,  reconciliation  and 
l^eace  throughout  the  area.  Now,  I  don't  think 
it  can  come  Realistically,  that  there  can  be  live- 
and-let-live  on  their  part,  unless  they  are  per- 
suaded that  tliey  are  a  major  power  but  that 
they  are  not  going  to  be  allowed  to  subvert  or 
otherwise  pressure  or  take  over  the  other  na- 
tions around  East  Asia. 

Mr.  Agromky:  Mr.  Bundy,  what  about  the 
situation  of  the  PuehJo?  It  has  now  been  pro- 
posed by  the  Senate  majority  leader  that  some 
effort,  be  made— by  Mr.  [Mike]  Mansfield— to 
get  a  delegation  in  there  just  to  talk  to  our  peo- 
ple of  the  Puehlo.  Have  we  made  any  effort  to  do 
that  with  the  North  Koreans  ? 

Mr.  Bundy:  Well,  we've  carried  on  these  dis- 
cussions that  we  have,  and  we  think  that  is  the 
proper  forum  to  do  it.  We  have  not  made  the 
effort  you  speak  of.  I  think  the  kind  of  thing 
we  have  proposed  would  be  to  get  an  impartial 
view  of  the  facts  and  then  we  would  conduct 
ourselves  accordingly.  I  haven't  really  examined 
that  particular  suggestion,  but  the  short,  answer 
to  your  question  is  "No." 

Mr.  Agromky:  There  is  nothing  new  on  that  ? 
Mr.  Bundy:  The.r&  is  nothing  new  to  report 
on  that  at  this  time. 

31  r.  Kalh:  Could  we  get  back  to  the  peace 
site  for  a  moment?  Is  there  any  arrangement 
with  our  Saigon  allies  that  they  actually  be 
present  in  the  city  where  these  preliminary  talks 
begin? 

Mr.  Bundy:  We  want  to  have  that  possibility 


clearly  open,  Mr.  Kalb.  Just  what  each  nation 
might  wish  to  do  is  not  fully  decided  yet.  We 
would  have  to  let  that  work  itself  out  as  soon 
as  we  get  the  site  and  the  date  for  contacts 
worked  out. 

Mr.  Kalh :  Hasn't  Saigon  said  it  wished  to  be 

present? 

Mr.  Bundy:  There  have  been  suggestions  that 
they  might  wish  to  be.  I  just  don't  know  of  any 
firm  and  definite  conclusion  on  how  it  will  be 
done.  Obviously,  we  will  be  in  the  closest  con- 
sultation with  them  in  any  event,  but  the  oppor- 
tunity to  have  liaison  people  at  the  site  seems  to 
us  one  of  the  elements  that  must  be  taken  into 
accoiuit. 

Mr.  Davis :  Mr.  Bundy,  should  we  brace  our- 
selves for  a  period  of  hard  bargaining,  such  as 
has  been  the  case  in  most  major  East -West  ne- 
gotiations during  the  cold-war  period?  And  if 
this  is  the  case,  how  can  the  press  report,  this 
kind  of  hard  bargaining  constructively  so  that 
just  the  shock  of  the  bargaining  tactics  will  not 
enflame  public  opinion  on  both  sides? 

Mr.  Bundi/:  I  think  that  is  a  very  good  ques- 
tion, and  I  think  it  is  going  to  be  a  tough  proc- 
ess. I  don't  see  how  it  can  be  otherwise,  ^o 
negotiation  with  issues  of  the  gravity  and  with 
the  differences  that  exist  could  be  otherwise.  I 
don't  think  there  is  any  reason  to  predict  other- 
wise. We  will  try  to  move  it  along  as  rapidly 
as  we  can  and  present  our  position  as  reason- 
ably as  we  can,  but  that  is  what  we  have  got  to 
expect.  Now,  the  press  role  in  all  this  is  some- 
thing you  gentlemen  know  more  about  than  I 
do,  in  a  sense.  I  have  lived  through  one  long 
diplomatic  conference  in  Geneva,  on  Berlin  in 
1959 ;  and  the  role  of  the  press  is  very  impor- 
tant. And  the  responsibility  of  the  press,  whicii 
is  its  continuing  responsibility,  to  try  to  under- 
stand the  issues  and  present  them  as  soberly 
and  reasonably  as  it  can  and  fully,  you  know 
better  than  I  how  to  carry  that  out,  Mr.  Davis. 
Mr.  Agromky:  Well,  I  regret,  Mr.  Secretary, 
that  we  have  run  out  of  time.  We  wish  we  could 
pursue  this.  Again,  thank  you  very  much  for 
being  here  to  "Face  the  Nation." 


"  For  bacUground,  see  ibid..  Nov.  14,  1966.  p.  730. 


656 


DEPARTMENT   OF    STATE   BTTLLETIN 


King  Olav  V  of  Norway  Visits  the  United  States 


King  Olav  V  of  Norway  made  a,  state  visit 
to  the  United  States  April  2^-May  1,  foUowed 
hy  a  private  visit  lasting  through  May  10. 
While  in  Washington  April  £5-26,  he  met  with 
President  Johnson  and  other  Govermnent  offi- 
cials. Following  is  an  exchange  of  greetings  be- 
tween President  Johnson  and  King  Olav  at  a 
welcoming  ceremony  on  the  South  Lawn  of  the 
White  House  on  April  25,  together  tcith  tlieir 
exchange  of  toasts  at  a  state  din/ner  at  the  White 
House  that  evening. 


EXCHANGE   OF   GREETINGS 

White  House  press  release  dated  April  25 

President  Johnson 

It  liiis  been  said  that  "America  is  the  half 
Iji'olher  to  the  world." 

XnA  certainly  that  is  time,  Your  Majesty,  of 
Norway  and  Xorwcgians.  Tlicre  are  almost  as 
many  Xorweguan-Americans  as  there  are  Nor- 
weo;ians  in  your  country. 

Here  in  our  country-,  Americans  of  Norwegian 
descent  number  moi-e  than  3  million.  Tliey  in- 
iliide  many  of  our  most  distinguished  Ameri- 
cans. Our  verj-  able  Vice  President  is  among 
them. 

Your  ^lajesty,  it  was  just  21  years  ago  that 
President  Truman  spelled  out  America's  fam- 
ily relationship  with  Europe. 

1947  was  the  year  of  the  Tnunan  doctrine 
and  the  Marshall  Plan.  It  was  also  the  year  that 
postwar  isolationism  in  the  United  States  was 
finally  buried.  President  Truman  understood 
I  lie  implications  of  America's  involvement  in 
European  affairs.  He  said : ' 

This  is  a  serious  course  upon  which  we  embark. 
I  would  not  recommend  it  exceirt  that  the  alterna- 
tive is  much  more  serious. 

Today  there  is  no  doubt  that  Europe  is  once 
again  a  vei-y  vital  and  prospering  center  of  the 
world.  Tliere  should  also  be  no  doubt  that  the 


I'nited  States  remains  as  closely  bound  to  our 
North  Atlantic  partners — closely  joined  in  com- 
mon history,  culture,  ideals,  and  endeavors. 

The  real  question  today  is  not  whether  Amer- 
ica and  Europe  are  still  partners.  Of  course  we 
are  partners.  But  the  real  question  is  what  will 
we  be  partners  for. 

President  Truman  said  back  there  in  1947: 
".  .  .  we  must  assist  free  peoples  to  work  out 
their  own  destinies  in  their  own  way." 

If  there  is  evidence  anywhere  in  the  world 
today  that  a  small,  free  nation  can  become  a 
great  and  creative  and  independent  nation,  that 
example  is  surely  to  be  found  in  your  country — 
Norway. 

I  belie\'e  that  Americans  and  Europeans  must 
rededicate  themselves  to  the  purposes  of  part- 
nership that  united  us  and  has  united  us  for 
21  years. 

The  original  concepts  of  the  Truman  doc- 
trine and  the  Marshall  Plan  are  valid  today, 
as  we  stand  here.  They  are  valid  all  over  the 
world. 

So,  working  together,  I  think  there  is  noth- 
ing that  we  cannot  do  together.  We  can  make 
every  continent  of  tiiis  world  a  better  and  safer 
place  for  tlie  children  and  the  grandchildren 
of  our  world.  We  can  better  humanity  wherever 
humanity  exists. 

It  will  not  be  easy.  It  will  take  us  decades.  It 
will  require  energy  and  talent  and  resources 
and  treasure. 

But  as  President  Truman  so  wisely  and  cou- 
rageously observed,  the  alternative  is  harder 
to  accept. 

Your  Majesty,  we  celebrate  the  joint  efforts 
of  our  past.  AVe  look  forward  to  future  coop- 
eration for  human  dignity.  I  welcome  you  to 
America  as  an  old  friend  of  this  counti-y. 

I  thank  you  again  on  belialf  of  Mrs.  Jolrn- 


'  For  President  Truman'.s  message  delivered  before 
a  joint  session  of  Congress  on  Mar.  12,  1947,  see  Bul- 
ij:tin  Supplement  of  May  4,  lt>47,  p.  829. 


MAT    2  0,    19G8 


657 


son  and  myself  for  the  cordiality  with  which 
your  people  received  us  and  for  the  warm  ex- 
changes we  had  in  your  country  in  our  most 
pleasant  visits  with  you. 

We  are  so  happy  to  have  you  in  our  country. 
The  simshine  now  is  coming  out  to  welcome 
you. 

King   Olav 

I  would  like  to  thank  you  for  the  very  warm 
and  friendly  words  which  you  have  just  di- 
rected to  my  country  and  to  myself.  I  accept 
these  kind  words  as  a  token  of  the  exception- 
ally close  relationship  and  strong  sense  of  com- 
munity which  have  for  so  many  years  existed 
between  our  two  nations. 

Let  me  in  my  turn  tell  you  how  happy  I  am 
to  be  here  and  to  bring  greetings  from  Norway 
to  you,  Mr.  President,  and  to  the  people  of 
America. 

The  strong  friendship  and  admiration  which 
we  Norwegians  feel  toward  the  American  peo- 
ple is  indeed  deep  rooted.  These  sentiments  go 
all  the  way  back  to  the  great  American  Revolu- 
tion when  Norwegians  themselves,  a  dependent 
nation  at  that  time,  came  to  regard  this  new 
union  of  the  13  States  on  the  other  side  of  the 
Atlantic  as  an  inspiring  example  and  as  a  bold 
people's  exercise  of  self-determination  in  the 
ideals  of  freedom  and  of  human  rights. 

To  the  initial  feeling  of  admiration  was 
added  the  new  sense  of  kinship  and  community 
based  on  the  thousands  of  family  bonds  when, 
during  the  19th  century,  more  than  half  a 
million  Norwegians  came  to  this  country  to 
build  a  new  future  and  make  their  contribution 
to  the  growth  of  the  American  nation  and  to 
the  development  of  the  United  States. 

Needless  to  say,  I  am  today  looking  forward 
with  expectation  and  pride  to  meet  again  a 
great  number  of  their  descendants,  during  my 
trip  across  this  vast  continent. 

During  the  Second  World  War,  when  our 
two  countries  became  allies,  a  new  fundamental 
dimension  was  added  to  Norwegian-American 
relations.  The  rise  of  the  United  States  of 
America  to  what  it  represents  today  has  indeed 
been  a  great  and  breathtaking  adventure. 

But  hardly  in  any  period  of  this  great  na- 
tion's history  has  there  been  so  many  dramatic 
events  and  such  an  unparalleled  progress  and 
affluence  as  the  three  decades  which  have  lapsed 


since  I,  as  Crown  Prince  of  Norway,  toured 
this  country  for  more  than  2  months. 

I  am,  therefore,  deeply  grateful,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, for  your  kind  invitation  to  revisit  the 
United  States,  to  renew  my  acquaintances  with 
you  personally  and  with  other  distinguished 
leaders  of  this  great  nation,  and  to  take  stock 
of  the  tremendous  developments  in  all  fields 
of  human  endeavor  which  have  taken  place 
here  since  my  first  visit. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  President. 


EXCHANGE  OF  TOASTS 

White  House  press  release  dated  April  25 

President  Johnson 

Neither  the  man  nor  the  nation  nor  the  tradi- 
tions that  we  salute  this  evening  are  strangers 
to  America.  The  man  and  his  family  have  been 
here  before.  The  nation  is  one  of  the  great  na- 
tions that  helped  make  America.  The  traditions 
have  influenced  our  own. 

Still,  this  is  the  first  time  that  a  reigning  Nor- 
wejrian  monarch  has  visited  here.  This  gives  us 
a  very  special  occasion  to  express  the  gratitude, 
as  well  as  the  admiration,  that  has  been  in  all 
of  our  hearts  so  long. 

Last  night  I  went  to  dinner  in  Chicago  with 
7,800  politicians  and  partisans.  Tonight  I  dine 
with  a  King.  There,  Your  Majesty,  is  democ- 
racy— with  a  little  "d."  It  is  really  a  wonderful 
system  when  the  President  of  our  country,  in  an 
election  year,  can  attend  two  consecutive  din- 
ners on  two  consecutive  nights  and  deliver  two 
nonpolitical  speeches.  You  don't  know  how 
grateful  I  am  because  I  do  need  the  practice. 

I  think  I  must  also  say  that  I  very  much  envy 
our  distinguished  guest.  He  is  that  rarest  of  all 
visitors  to  this  house — a  man  who  is  nonpoliti- 
cal by  law.  I  think  some  of  you  might  suspect 
the  very  special  pleasure  that  we  had  in  meet- 
ing today,  how  much  of  common  interest  that 
we  had  to  talk  about — just  the  two  of  us  non- 
politicians. 

Sitting  here  in  the  White  House  listening  to 
His  Majesty,  I  began  thinking  of  the  life  of 
Kings.  Then  I  got  some  ideas  about  my  own  re- 
tirement plans.  I  have  not  forgotten  that  the 
kind  people  of  a  small  South  Pacific  island  once 
upon  a  time  offered  me  their  throne.  But  per- 
haps I  might  just  as  well  forget  it  now  because 


658 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE    BULLETIN 


someone  might  Siij'  that  I  was  tliinking  of  es- 
tablishin<r  the  31st  State  and  phinning  to  crown 
everytliing  witli  tlie  "comeback." 

Your  Majesty,  our  admiration  for  Norway 
lias  never  been  more  substantial  than  it  is  now. 
As  you  may  know,  sir,  I  come  from  a  section  of 
our  country  known  for  its  modest  restraint  in 
describing  its  own  merit.  I  know  you  will  ob- 
serve that  when  you  visit  us  in  the  days  ahead. 

But  I  must  admit  that  even  I  am  in  total  awe 
of  your  modesty  and  your  restraint.  I  know  that 
if  I  could  speak  for  Norway  following  the  Win- 
ter Olympics,  I  don't  think  that  I  could  ever 
stop  talking  about  it.  However,  what  transpired 
during  the  Winter  OljTnpics  was  really  not  out 
of  character  for  Norwegians.  The  world  has  al- 
ways admired  the  courage  and  the  ability  and 
the  hearty  endurance  of  the  people  of  Norway. 
Their  courage  during  the  dark  days  of  World 
War  II  is  legendary.  Their  ability  as  artists  and 
statesmen  is  no  less  so. 

Let  us  remember  that  Norway  was  the  home 
of  Ibsen,  Grieg,  and  more  recently,  of  Trygve 
Lie. 

The  sons  of  Norway  endured  in  the  bitter 
winds  of  the  open  prairie  to  find  a  new  prosper- 
ity in  our  own  land  and  to  give  new  strength  to 
our  own  society. 

Of  the  sons  of  Norway  in  America,  Hubert 
Humphrey  has  shown  all  of  these  qualities. 
They  have  already  led  him  to  the  seconcl  highest 
ofEce  in  this  land. 

Your  Majesty,  Americans  know  that  Norway 
is  a  friend  of  dignity  all  around  the  world.  We 
know  that  Norwegians  have  built  a  fine  life  at 
home  that  is  based  on  freedom  and  based  on 
equality. 

We  celebrate  the  fact  that  Norway  and  the 
United  States  are  allied  in  the  causes  of  peace 
and  the  causes  of  progress.  We  work  together  in 
the  United  Nations,  at  Geneva,  at  the  OECD 
[Organization  for  Economic  Cooperation  and 
Development]  in  Paris,  and  many  other  major 
international  forums.  In  the  Atlantic  alliance 
Norway  stands  courageously  on  NATO's  north- 
em  flank. 

Your  Majesty,  you  mentioned  to  me  this 
morning  that  we  share  a  sense  of  community — 
and  that  is  so.  I  know  that  you  will  feel  at  home 
as  you  visit  throughout  our  country  in  the  weeks 
ahead.  And  we  are  so  pleased  that  you  could 
come  here  and  spend  some  time  with  us. 

I  believe  that  your  presence  will  further  in- 


tensify that  sense  of  community  of  which  you 
spoke. 

Ladies  and  gentlemen,  I  would  like  to  ask 
you  to  join  me  in  a  toast  to  His  Majesty  the 
King  of  Norway,  to  the  people  of  Norway,  and 
always  to  the  Norwegian-American  enduring 
friendsliip. 

King  Olav 

I  thank  you,  Mr.  President,  for  the  kind 
words  you  have  just  spoken  to  me  and  for  the 
cordial  welcome  I  have  received  in  the  United 
States. 

As  you  are  aware,  Mr.  President,  I  know 
your  country  from  a  nimiber  of  previous  visits. 
The  first  time  I  came  to  the  United  States  was 
in  1939.  On  that  occasion,  the  Crown  Princess 
and  I  stayed  here  for  over  2  months  and  visited 
many  of  the  individual  States. 

I  returned  seven  times  during  the  Second 
World  War,  when  my  wife  and  my  children 
had  the  good  fortune  to  enjoy  the  hospitality 
of  America,  and  there  have  been  later  occasions 
in  which  I  revisited  your  great  country. 

The  common  feature  of  all  these  visits,  Mr. 
President,  is  the  great  understanding  and  hos- 
pitality which  the  American  people  have 
shown  and  which  I  have  appreciated  most 
deeply. 

Over  the  years,  strong  ties  have  been  knit 
between  our  two  countries.  Since  the  latter  half 
of  the  last  century  a  large  number  of  Nor- 
wegians have  settled  in  the  United  States.  It  is 
highly  gratifying  to  us  to  see  how  the  descend- 
ants of  our  immigi-ants  still  cherish  their  con- 
nection with  the  land  of  their  forefathers. 
Many  of  these  people  keep  in  touch  with  and 
seek  out  their  relatives  in  Norway,  and  we  are 
happy  to  know  that  the  valuable  bonds  of  kin- 
ship are  consequently  kept  intact. 

Our  two  countries  are  also  firmly  united  by 
our  respective  Constitutions  and  by  the  com- 
mon view  of  freedom  and  democracy  which 
they  express.  We  Norwegians  are  proud  of  our 
Constitution — as  the  American  people  are  of 
theirs.  It  is  well  known  that  when  the  Consti- 
tution of  Norway  was  drafted  in  1814  the 
^Vmerican  Declaration  of  Independence  and  the 
American  Constitution  were  a  great  inspiration 
to  us  at  that  time. 

Norway  and  the  United  States  were  joined  by 
even  closer  ties  during  the  Second  World  War. 


MAT    20,    1968 


659 


I  welcome  this  oi)portuiiity  to  convey  to  the 
American  people  the  warm  gi-atitude  that  all 
Norwegians  feel  for  the  exertions  made  by  the 
United  States  to  help  us,  as  well  as  other  na- 
tions, to  regain  our  liberty. 

We  know  what  sacrifices  were  demanded  of 
you.  I  and  my  countrymen  will  always  honor 
tlie  memory  of  those  brave  sons  of  America  who 
gave  their  lives  that  we  might  live  as  free  men 
in  a  free  Norway. 

Allow  me,  too,  to  tell  the  American  people 
how  grateful  we  are  for  tlie  financial  help  we 
received  after  the  Second  World  War.  The 
war  had  devastated  large  areas  of  Europe.  The 
economic  systems  had  collapsed  and  the  vari- 
ous countries  lacked  the  stability  and  the  in- 
ternational cooperation  which  were  needed  to 
get  reconstruction  going. 

To  Norway — as  to  other  countries — the  Mar- 
shall aid  was  of  immeasurable  importance  in 
helping  us  to  overcome  the  ravages  of  war  and 
in  paving  the  way  for  further  progi-ess. 

In  the  effort  to  build  a  better  world  after  the 
war,  our  two  lands  have  worked  side  by  side 
within  the  United  Nations.  The  United  States 
and  Norway  have  attached  decisive  importance 
to  the  United  Nations  as  a  preserver  of  peace 
and  an  organization  for  the  furthering  of  eco- 
nomic and  social  progress  and  international 
understanding. 

There  is  now  much  more  contact  between  na- 
tions of  the  world  than  ever  before.  The  need 
for  an  active  ]iarticipation  in  international  af- 
fairs is  constantly  increasing. 

We  consider  it  a  very  important  part  of  our 
foreign  policy  to  see  to  it  that  the  principles  of 
the  ITnited  Nations  always  remain  the  guiding 
light  in  international  relations.  It  is  our  hope 
that  active  and  earnest  cooperation  within  the 
United  Nations  will  help  to  put  mankind  on  the 
road  to  a  better  and  more  confident  future. 

The  recently  drafted  nonproliferation  agree- 
ment concerning  nuclear  weapons  is  a  con- 
spicuous example  of  the  usefulness  of  getting 
together  to  secure  peace.  The  Nonvegian  people 
warmly  welcome  this  agreement  which  the 
United  States  has  so  greatly  helped  to  bring 
aboiit. 

In  international  and  economic  relations,  Nor- 
way considers  the  results  of  the  Kennedy 
Round — initiated,  Mr.  President,  by  your  pred- 
ecessor— as  an  important  step  toward  the  lib- 
eralization of  world  trade. 

In  accordance  with  our  principles  in  these 


matters,  we  think  it  particularly  important  to 
extend  and  develop  the  initiative  provided  by 
these  negotiations  and  to  safeguard  the  results 
that  were  achieved. 

Since  time  immemorial,  the  sea  has  been  vital 
to  our  existence  and  a  highway  between  my 
country  and  other  nations.  Norway  has  no  great 
fertile  land  and  has  little  national  wealth.  But 
in  the  ocean,  we  ha\'e  developed  a  specialty 
which  has  proved  important  to  the  free  world, 
both  in  peace  and  in  war. 

At  an  early  date,  Norwegian  shipping  was 
able  to  offer  its  services  based  on  open  competi- 
tion to  most  other  countries.  Our  merchant  navy 
at  present  ranks  with  the  largest  and  most 
highly  modernized  fleets  in  tlie  world.  And  I  am 
glad  to  know  that  Norwegian  ships  are  frequent 
callers  in  most  American  ports. 

So,  ]VIr.  President,  the  Atlantic  Ocean  is  no 
bai-rier  between  us  but  serves,  on  the  contrary, 
to  unite  us.  I  hope  Norwegian  shipping  will  al- 
ways be  able  to  continue  this  valuable  inter- 
course. 

A  large  ninnber  of  young  Norwegians  come 
to  the  United  States  to  study  at  American  in- 
stitutions of  learning.  Many  Norwegian  stu- 
dents benefit  from  American  scholarships  and 
thus  become  acquainted  witli  your  great  society 
and  the  American  system  of  education.  In  this 
way,  additional  contacts  are  made  between  our 
two  countries. 

On  behalf  of  all  these,  my  countrymen,  I  here 
extend  my  cordial  thanks  to  the  United  States 
and  the  American  people. 

I  do  not  wish  to  conclude,  Mr.  President, 
without  emphasizing  relief  and  pleasure  which 
we,  too,  experienced  in  my  country  at  the  news 
of  the  initial  negotiations  for  peace  in  Viet- 
Nam.  I  know  that  I  speak  for  all  my  country- 
men when  I  expi-ess  my  fervent  hope  that  these 
negotiations  may  be  attended  with  success  and 
lead  to  a  peaceful  settlement. 

I  also  express  to  you,  Mr.  President,  my  deep 
sympathy  in  connection  with  the  tragic  death 
of  Dr.  Martin  Luther  King.  The  people  of  Nor- 
way share  the  grief  of  America  at  his  passing 
away. 

I  thank  you  again,  Mr.  President,  for  the 
friendly  reception  I  have  been  accorded  in  your 
country  and  your  Capital. 

I  propose  a  toast  to  the  President  of  the 
United  States  and  Mrs.  Jolmson,  to  the  United 
States,  and  to  the  American  people. 


660 


DEPAr.TJIEXT   OF    STATE    BULLETIX 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATIONS  AND   CONFERENCES 


Implementing  Human  Rights — New  Understanding, 
New  Attitudes,  and  New  Will 


The  United  Nations  International  Confer- 
ence on  Human  Rights  convened  at  Tehran  on 
A-prll  22.  Following  is  a  statement  made  before 
the  conference  on  April  24  by  Roy  Wilklns, 
chairman  of  the  U.S.  delegation,  together  with 
a  White  House  announcement  of  the  U.S.  dele- 
gation dated  April  19. 


STATEMENT   BY   MR.   WILKINS 

Press  release  SI  dated  April  2G 

In  a  world  which  is  round,  there  is  no  center. 
History,  however,  has  central  jwints;  and  cer- 
tainly a  great  many  of  these  focus  on  this 
ancient  land  of  Iran. 

We  are  grateful  for  the  opportunity  to  meet 
here  and  to  enjoy  the  hospitality  of  a  wise  and 
progressive  sovereign,  to  see  the  great  material 
achievements  of  his  reign,  and  to  know  first- 
hand of  his  dedication  to  the  principles  of 
human  rights.  The  Shahanshah's  "white  revo- 
lution" has  brought  new  meaning  to  human 
rights  in  Iran,  through  his  vast  campaign  for 
literacy,  through  rights  for  women,  through 
social  and  economic  development,  land  reform, 
and  other  progressive  programs. 

We  are  certain  that  the  President  of  this  con- 
ference, Her  Imperial  Highness  Princess  Ash- 
raf,  will  preside  with  efficiency  and  fairness  and 
that  under  her  leadership  we  shall  do  useful 
work. 

During  the  darkest  days  of  the  last  World 
War,  President  Franklin  D.  Roosevelt,  whose 
wife  became  one  of  the  principal  architects  of 
the  Universal  Declaration  of  Human  Rights, 
met  with  Prime  Minister  Churchill  and  took  a 
long  look  beyond  the  war  toward  peace  and  re- 
construction. The  President  and  the  Prime 
Minister  proclaimed  the  four  freedoms:  free- 
dom of  speech,  freedom  of  religion,  freedom 


from  want,  and  freedom  from  fear.  Every  hu- 
man right  enumerated  since — political,  civil, 
economic,  social,  including  the  30  articles  of 
the  Universal  Declaration — is  embodied  within 
these  four  freedoms. 

One  may  wonder  why  in  the  midst  of  a  total 
war,  whose  outcome  was  then  in  doubt,  and  long 
before  these  same  leaders  met  in  this  dynamic 
city,  Roosevelt  and  Churchill  shoidd  proclaim 
not  a  call  to  war  but  a  call  for  human  rights  and 
fmidainental  freedoms.  No  doubt  these  states- 
men then  recognized  the  truth  President  John 
F.  Kennedy  later  stated  a  few  months  before 
his  death :  ^  "Aiid  is  not  j^eace,  in  the  last  analy- 
sis, basically  a  matter  of  human  rights  .  .  .  V 

It  was  in  1911,  and  it  is  today,  a  fact  of  inter- 
national life  that  most  of  the  hot  ware  and  un- 
certain peaces  are  caused  by  deprivations,  actual 
or  threatened,  of  basic  human  rights,  '\^^arm  and 
secure  i>eace  can  only  be  founded  on  the  confi- 
dence and  satisfaction  generated  by  I'espect  for 
human  dignity,  which  is  the  foundation  of  hu- 
man rights. 

Tlie  authors  of  the  four  freedoms  did  not  en- 
gage in  the  sterile  and  useless  debate  over  the 
relative  merits  and  priorities  of  civil  and  politi- 
cal as  compared  with  economic  and  social  rights. 
They  knew  that  all  of  these  freedoms  were  inter- 
dependent, just  as  all  of  the  30  articles  of  the 
Universal  Declaration  are  interrelated  and  are 
all  priority  items  on  mankind's  agenda. 

Nor  were  these  author-statesmen  naive.  Surely 
they  did  not  assume  that  a  woi'ld  striving  to  re- 
lease Hitler's  grip  would  soon  be  prepared  for 
a  human  rights  millennium.  They  sought,  as  the 
United  Nations  did  7  years  later  in  the  Uni\er- 
sal  Declaration,  to  hold  a  goal  before  the  world 
as  an  inspiration  and  a  prod.  In  1941  my  coun- 

'  For  President  Kennedy's  address  at  American  Uni- 
ver.sit.v,  Washington,  D.C..  on  June  10,  106:5,  see 
Bulletin  of  .Tul.v  1, 1003,  p.  1. 


MAT    20,    19GS 


661 


try  was  apt  to  expi'ess  an  unbounded  and,  I 
would  say,  an  unjustified  pride  in  its  human 
rights  record.  Measured  by  that  of  most  other 
states,  the  United  States  did  have  then  a  fair 
record ;  but  it  was  below  the  ideal.  The  United 
States  ix)ssessed  in  1941  the  political  and  civil 
framework  within  which  injustice,  then  confi- 
dently in  force  in  a  dismaying  number  of  ai'eas, 
would  not  permanently  endure;  but  it  was  not 
the  framework  which  it  is  now  becoming  and 
will  someday  be. 

The  deficiencies  of  the  United  States  have 
largely  been  the  result  of  a  false  sense  of  per- 
ception. The  vision  of  the  Universal  Declaration 
and  our  association  in  the  United  Nations  sys- 
tems have  been  very  helpful  in  expanding  our 
sights. 

It  may  be  very  much  in  point  for  me  to  out- 
line the  tortuous  path  by  which  the  United 
States  has  corrected  its  past  myopia  about  hu- 
man rights,  often  by  pain  and  once  by  a  Civil 
War. 

We,  of  all  people,  should  now  know  that  the 
fabric  of  human  rights  is  woven  in  many 
strands,  many  of  which  are  broken  in  a  i^rocess 
which  is  tiring  and  unending. 

In  1787,  when  the  United  States  Constitution 
was  written,  the  charter  was  very  advanced  for 
its  age,  but  its  protections  were  limited  to  civil 
and  political  rights.  From  most  of  these,  one- 
quarter  of  the  population  was  excluded  as  slaves 
and  one-half  as  women.  The  fabric  was  certainly 
not  complete. 

In  the  1860's  a  terrible  war  erupted  over 
slavery — that  supreme  denial  of  human  rights. 
Following  the  war  the  Constitution  was  amend- 
ed to  abolish  slavery,  to  guarantee  equality  to 
the  f reedman,  and  to  enfranchise  him.  Elaborate 
supplementary  legislation  was  enacted.  The 
black  man  soon  found  that  the  promises  of  con- 
stitution and  law,  as  in  so  many  other  countries, 
were  illusory.  Segregation,  inequality,  and  dis- 
crimination persisted  in  other  forms.  The  fabric 
was  not  complete — the  American  ideal  remained 
a  dream  for  the  black  man. 

From  1876,  the  date  of  the  last  post-Civil  War 
civil  rights  bills,  mitil  1947,  the  Nation  slept  and 
the  new  Negi-o  American  citizen  suffered.  In 
1947,  a  very  short  time  before  the  U.N.  pro- 
claimed the  Universal  Declaration,  President 
Truman's  Civil  Eights  Commission  gave  the 
Nation  its  report.  It  contained  the  then  revolu- 
tionary sentence:  "Racial  segregation  must  be 
eliminated  from  American  life."  President  Tru- 
man led  the  way  by  abolishing,  through  an  Ex- 


ecutive order  on  July  26, 1948,  racial  segregation 
in  all  branches  of  the  U.S.  armed  services. 

From  that  date  on,  the  Nation  has  moved  from 
apathy  to  action.  In  1954,  our  Supreme  Court, 
in  a  unanimous  decision  in  a  historic  case,  out- 
lawed differentiation  between  citizens  on  the 
basis  of  race  and  thus,  at  last,  brought  black 
Americans  under  the  umbrella  of  the  U.S.  Con- 
stitution. From  1957  to  1968,  the  Congress,  over- 
coming opposition,  filibuster,  and  other  obstruc- 
tions, has  enacted  five  civil  rights  bills.  After 
each,  too  many  thought  the  fabric  was  com- 
pleted. But  many  wise  men  knew  otherwise. 
These  acts  were  each  forward  leaps  and  were 
accomplished  after  the  American  public  was 
outraged  by  what  it  learned  from  a  free  press, 
radio,  and  television  or  from  arousal  by  public 
protests. 

Many  complain  that  the  press  and  broadcast 
media  in  the  United  States  focus  excessively  on 
the  bad  points  in  the  country  and  not  enough  on 
its  virtues.  Nevertheless,  the  Birmingham  police 
dogs,  the  murder  of  my  coworker  Medgar  Evers, 
and  the  creative  protest  of  Dr.  Martin  Luther 
King,  excoriating  our  society — all  reported  on 
television — have  destroyed  apathy,  excited  the 
American  conscience,  and  have  spelled  the  even- 
tual doom  of  discrimination  in  the  United 
States.  Given  freedom  of  speech,  of  press,  of 
assembly,  and  total  access  to  the  ballot  box,  any 
other  reading  of  the  American  future  is  as  false 
as  it  is  cynical. 

By  1964,  when  Federal  law  opened  up  places 
of  ijublic  accommodation  to  all  Americans, 
many  thought:  "Now  the  battle  is  over — the 
human  rights  fabric  has  been  completed."  It 
was  not  so.  For  Americans  have  discovered  that 
poverty — often  the  end  product  of  discrimina- 
tion— cripples  men.  It  often  cripples  so  much 
that  its  victims  cannot  use  newly  gained  eco- 
nomic and  social  rights.  President  Lyndon  B. 
Johnson  said  it  best :  ^  "Thus  it  is  not  enough 
just  to  open  the  gates  of  opportunity.  All  of  our 
citizens  must  have  the  ability  to  walk  through 
these  gates."  We  Americans  are  nierely  begin- 
ning to  implement  a  full  panoply  of  economic 
and  social  rights  which  will  validate  the  promise 
of  American  life. 

There  is  not  the  slightest  doubt  in  my  mind 
about  my  country's  glittering  future  for  all 
Americans — black    men    and    white,    Indians, 


"  For  President  Johnson's  address  at  Howard  Uni- 
versity, Washington,  D.C.,  on  June  4,  1965,  see  Public 
Papers  of  the  Presidents,  Lyndon  B.  Johnson,,  1965, 
Book  II,  p.  635. 


662 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BUIXETIN' 


Protestants,  Catholics,  Jews,  and  nonbelievers. 
Sucli  a  statement  is  justified  by  the  confidence 
that  tlie  President  of  the  Nation,  its  court  sys- 
tem, and  belatedlj'  its  National  Legislature,  are 
fully  committed  toward  this  ideal — and  the 
country  will  surely  follow. 

However,  I  confess  my  own  myojjia  as  I  have 
my  vision  extended  by  the  young  people  whose 
sights  embrace  more  opportunities  for  self-ex- 
pression and  self-development  than  I  ever 
dreamed  for  my  generation.  And  other  gener- 
ations to  follow  will  further  expand  the  range 
of  vision.  The  fabric  of  human  rights  is  never 
completed — and  may  its  borders  never  be  lim- 
ited by  the  sight  of  one  group,  one  system,  or  one 
generation. 

In  the  international  field,  we  have  proclaimed 
more  human  rights  than  we  have  implemented. 
The  Universal  Declaration  is  properly  named. 
Its  ideals  are  universally  accepted,  but  it  re- 
mains a  declaration  and  not  a  fact. 

In  part  the  problem  is  the  unlimited  claim  of 
national  sovereignty.  I  submit  that  under  the 
United  Nations  Charter  no  nation  is  entitled  to 
wrong  its  own  citizens.  Either  the  charter  pro- 
visions dealing  with  human  rights  have  mean- 
ing or  they  are  a  cruel  fraud.  If  these  provisions 
are  meaningful,  they  must  cany  their  trust  into 
the  boundaries  of  member  states.  Human  rights 
violations  on  his  planet  (except  in  Antarctica  or 
outer  space)  occur  in  the  territories  of  states. 

Some  contend  that  the  U.N.  system  is  incom- 
petent to  discuss  human  rights  violations  ex- 
cept in  southern  Africa  or  in  association  with 
hostilities.  This  is  an  artificial,  contrived,  and 
unbalanced  view — unsupported  by  the  charter 
or  the  principles  of  the  United  Nations.  The 
United  States  has  benefited  by  criticism  in  the 
United  Nations  forum.  Much  of  this  has  been  ill 
informed — some  even  mischievous — but  no 
actual  harm  is  done  and  much  good  has  been 
accomplished.  TVTiat  I  have  said  does  not  detract 
from  the  efforts  of  the  United  Nations  to  modify 
and,  hopefully,  to  obliterate  colonialism  where 
it  still  exists  and  apartheid  and  other  disgraces 
in  southern  Africa.  Some  day  this  discrimina- 
tion by  a  minority  against  the  majority  must 
yield,  even  more  certainly  than  that  of  a  major- 
ity against  a  minority  in  my  own  country.  I  pre- 
dict here  the  end  of  apartheid  in  South  Africa — 
if  South  Africa  is  to  survive. 

However,  the  U.N.  system  lacks  the  machinery 
to  implement  its  human  rights  standards.  We 
have  been  great  on  production  and  deficient  in 
distribution.  Admittedly,  in  the  present  state  of 


the  art,  the  most  effective  implementation  tool 
is  the  spotlight  of  international  conscience  and 
concern.  However,  this  useful  principle  needs 
to  be  institutionalized  in  order  to  be  focused  for 
maximum  effect.  This  is  why  we  have  been 
deeply  interested  in  the  Costa  Kican  proposal 
for  a  U.N.  High  Commissioner  for  Human 
Eights.  We  meet  on  the  20th  anniversary  of  the 
U.N.  Declaration  of  Human  Rights.  What  will 
be  the  state  of  human  rights  around  the  world 
20  years  hence  ?  How  will  the  U.N.  system  con- 
tribute to  this  development  ?  I  have  no  answer, 
but  I  can  be  forgiven  a  flight  of  imagination :  a 
rising  standard  of  living;  a  revolution  in  com- 
munications and  teclmology;  the  escalation  of 
expectations,  material  and  spiritual.  All  these 
will  excite  populations  everywhere. 

No  state  in  any  system  will  be  able  to  fence  out 
ideas  or  fence  in  people.  All  shall  learn  from 
all,  and  mankind  will  enjoy  a  communality  now 
unrealized.  There  will  be  national  differences, 
but  there  will  be  aspirations  for  expression  and 
opportunity  which  will  overleap  all  boundaries. 
States  of  every  system  must  prepare  to  accept 
freedoms^with  South  Africa  included — or  ac- 
cept the  fate  of  states  which  cannot  live  with 
liberty  and  with  change.  Change,  domestic  and 
international,  will  require  a  commitment  to  ac- 
tion. As  the  President's  National  Advisory 
Commission  on  Civil  Disorders,  of  which  I  was 
a  member,  stated :  "A  commitment  to  action — 
compassionate,  massive  and  sustained — new  at- 
titudes, new  understanding,  and  above  all,  new 
will." 

We  in  the  United  States  are  not  completely 
changed,  but  the  tortuous  record  I  have  re- 
viewed shows  that  we  have  worked  for  change, 
inch  after  excruciating  inch.  This  commitment 
and  will  of  which  I  have  spoken,  now  bright, 
now  grim,  must  mark  the  way  internationally 
if  the  world  is  to  fulfill  the  promise  of  the  un- 
precedented step  by  the  United  Nations  in  1948. 

The  Universal  Declaration  points  the  way  for 
ordered  liberty.  It  encompasses  two  of  the  abid- 
ing principles  of  the  great  Iranian  teacher, 
Zoroaster :  "Good  thoughts,  good  words." 

My  country's  flags  are  still  at  half-mast — 
mourning  the  assassination  of  my  friend  Martin 
Luther  King,  Jr.  He  used  the  freedoms  of  my 
land  to  free  it  of  the  dreadful  heritage  of  slav- 
ery and  its  aftermath.  His  life  had  purpose,  and 
his  death  will  have  meaning  if  we  adopt  all 
three  of  Zoroaster's  principles  which  I  now 
leave  with  you:  "Good  thoughts,  good  words, 
ffood  deeds." 


MAT    20,    1968 


663 


WHITE   HOUSE  ANNOUNCEMENT 

The  White  House  announced  at  Austin,  Tex., 
on  April  19  the  appointment  of  tlie  U.S.  delega- 
tion to  the  United  Nations  Intei'national  Con- 
ference on  Human  Rights,  which  convened  at 
Tehran,  Iran,  on  April  22.  The  chairman  of  the 
U.S.  delegation  is  Roy  Wilkins,  executive  di- 
rector of  the  National  Association  for  the 
Advancement  of  Colored  People. 

The  conference  represents  a  major  United 
Nations  observance  of  the  International  Year 
for  Human  Rights  (1968).  This  year  marks  the 
20th  anniversary  of  the  adoption  by  the  United 
Nations  of  the  Universal  Declaration  of  Human 
Rights.  The  conference  will  review  progress 
achieved  during  the  past  20  years  in  the  human 
rights  field  and  will  consider  the  outlines  of  a 
possible  human  rights  program  for  the  future. 

The  conference  will  provide  a  forum  for  an 
exchange  of  views  on  the  problems  confronting 
participating  governments  in  the  area  of  human 
rights  and  the  steps  they  consider  helpful  in 
dealing  with  these  problems.  The  problems  to  be 
considered  include  apartheid^  other  forms  of 
racial  discrimination,  slavery,  women's  rights, 
and  individual  i-ights  and  freedoms.  The  con- 
ference will  consider  ways  to  broaden  the  enjoy- 
ment of  fundamental  human  rights  and 
freedoms. 

Other  members  of  the  U.S.  delegation  are : 

Alternate  Chairman 

David  H.  Popper,  Deputy  Assistant  Secretai-y  of  State 
for  International  Organization  Affairs 

licpresentatives 

Morris  B.  Abrani,  Representative  of  the  United  States 

on  the  ECOSOC  Commission  on  Human  Rights 
Bruno  V.  Bitlcer,  member,  President's  Commission  for 

the  Obser\-ance  of  Human  Rights  Year  1908 
John  J.  Grogan,  I'resident  of  the  Industrial  Union  of 

Marine  and  Shipbuilding  ft'orkers  of  America,  AFL- 

CIO 

Alternate  Representative 

Armin  H.  Meyer,  American  Ambassador  to  Iran 

Advisers 

Donald  McHenry,  Office  of  United  Nations  Political 

Affairs,  Department  of  State 
Mrs.  Rachel  C.  Nason,  Office  of  International  Economic 

and  Social  Affairs,  Department  of  State 
Mrs.  Kirsten  C.  Paulos,  United  States  Mission  to  the 

United  Nations,  Nevp  York,  N.Y. 
Larry  W.  Semaki,  American  Embassy,  Tehran 
David  P.  Squire,  United  States  Mission  to  the  United 

Nations,  New  York,  N.Y. 


THE  CONGRESS 


President  Johnson  Urges  Renewal 
of  International  Coffee  Agreement 

Follcnoing  Is  the  text  of  President  Johnson's 
letter  of  April  23  transmitting  the  Internation- 
al Coffee  Agreement,  1968^  to  the  Se7iate,  to- 
gether with  the  text  of  Viuler  Secretary  Katzen- 
hacKs  letter  of  April  3  submitting  the  agree- 
ment to  tlie  President. 


LETTER   FROM   PRESIDENT  JOHNSON 

WbUe  House  press  release  dated  April  23 

To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States: 

A  year  ago  this  month,  I  met  with  the  lead- 
ers of  the  American  states  in  Punta  del  Este, 
Uruguay.  In  that  historic  meeting  we  rein- 
forced the  bonds  of  friendship  that  link  this 
Nation  with  our  230  million  neighbors  to  the 
South.  We  pledged  to  continue  and  extend 
hemisphere  cooperation. 

Today  I  recommend  that  the  Senate  renew 
and  strengthen  one  of  the  most  important  eco- 
nomic agreements  of  our  time — the  Internation- 
al Coffee  Agreement,"  which  expires  in  Septem- 
ber 1968. 

The  Coffee  Agreement  was  born  in  1962  as  a 
first  fulfillment  of  the  Alliance  for  Progress. 
More  than  60  nations  joined  together  in  that 
Agreement.  President  John  F.  Kennedy  hailed 
it  as  "a  heartening  example  of  international  co- 
operation to  resolve  a  vitally  important  eco- 
nomic problem."  ^ 

That  j^roblem,  in  its  broad  dimension,  was 
to  stabilize  world  coffee  prices  to  benefit  lx)th 
the  coffee  producer  and  coffee  consumer.  For 
years,  wide  price  swings  had  wasted  the  re- 
sources and  hindered  the  growth  of  developing 
nations  who  depend  so  heavily  on  coffee  ex- 
ports. 

Coffee  is  the  economic  lifeblood  of  more  than 


'  For  text  of  the  agreement,  see  Exec.  D,  90th  Cong., 
2d  sess. 

'  Treaties  and  Other  International  Acts  Series  5505. 

''  For  a  statement  by  President  Kennedy  made  on 
Sept.  28,  1962,  see  Bulletin  of  Oct.  29,  1962,  p.  668. 


664 


DEPARTMENT   OF    STATE    BULLETIN 


■iO  developinof  nations — from  plantations  to 
small  cooperatives,  spanning  Latin  America, 
Africa  and  Asia.  Second  only  to  petroleum  as 
a  source  of  forei<;n  exchaufje  for  developing 
countries,  coffee  exports  yielded  over  $2.3  bil- 
lion in  19()(i.  These  exports  have  helped  to  build 
schools,  hospitals,  factories  and  roads — the  pil- 
lars of  peace  and  progress.  And  they  have  pi'o- 
vided  the  funds  for  the  growing  nations  to  buy 
the  products  of  ^^nerica's  farms  and  incUistries. 

America  is  a  nation  of  coffee  drinkers.  We 
consume  about  half  the  supply  of  traded  coffee. 
Our  coffee  industry  is  the  world's  largest.  We 
must  assure  the  American  consumer  all  the  cof- 
fee he  wants  at  fair  and  reasonable  prices. 

The  1962  agi'eement — which  the  Senate  rati- 
fied in  196.'5 — has  done  the  job  of  promoting 
price  stabilit)-  for  coffee  consumers  and  produc- 
ers alike : 

— Coffee  import  prices  have  been  fair.  They 
are  almost  25  percent  lower  than  the  average 
jirice  l)etween  1953  and  1902,  and  10  peixent 
hisrher  than  during  the  world  coffee  slump  of 
1962. 

— The  sharp  price  fluctuations  that  plagued 
the  world  coffee  market  in  past  years  have  been 
avoided. 

— Coffee  consumers  and  roasters  have  been 
assured  steady  supplies  at  predictable  and  stable 
prices. 

The  1968  agreement  I  propose  will  extend  this 
record  of  success.  It  builds  on  the  experience 
we  have  gained  over  the  last  several  years  by : 

— Assuring  that  different  types  of  coffee  will 
l>e  available  at  fair  prices  to  meet  changes  in 
consumer  tastes  and  preferences. 

— Providing  fair  treatment  in  trade  for  all 
forms  of  coffee. 

— Attacking  the  problem  of  coffee  surpluses 
by  production  control  and  by  creating  a  Diver- 
sification Fuiul  to  encourage  shifts  to  other 
crops. 

W(K)di-ow  Wilson  once  said  that  "the  highest 
and  l)est  form  of  efficiency  is  the  spontaneous 
cooperation  of  a  free  people."  Nothing  so  em- 
bodies that  philosophy  as  the  International  Cof- 
fee Agreement.  It  shows  that  large  industrial 
nations  and  small  developing  nations — guided 
by  the  principles  of  self-help  and  harmony — 
can  work  together  for  the  Ijenefit  of  all. 

That  good  work  has  been  carried  on  for  the 
past  five  years.  Through  the  International  Cof- 


fee Agreement  the  machinery  of  economic  co- 
operation is  now  in  place — tested  over  the  years 
and  now  improved. 

Without  that  machinery,  we  could  return  to 
the  days  of  ruinous  coffee  2)rice  swings,  disinipt- 
ing  the  economies  of  many  friendly  nations, 
imjiairing  world  coffee  trade,  and  endangering 
the  continued  ffow  of  coffee  at  reasonable  prices 
to  the  tables  of  American  families. 

I  urge  the  Senate  to  give  this  instrument  of 
international  cooperation  its  early  and  favor- 
able consideration. 

The  Secretary  of  State  will  shortly  submit 
legislation  to  implement  the  agreement. 

Lyndon  B.  Johnson 

The  White  House 
Aitt'il  23,  1968 


LETTER  FROM  UNDER  SECRETARY  KATZENBACH 

Department  of  State, 
Wmh  ingfon,  A  pril  3, 1968. 
The  Presioent, 
The  White  House: 

I  have  the  honor  to  submit  to  you,  with  a  view 
to  its  transmission  to  the  Senate  for  advice  and 
consent  to  ratification,  the  International  Coffee 
Agreement,  1968,  open  for  signature  at  New 
York  through  March  31, 1968,  and  signed  in  be- 
half of  the  United  States  of  America  on  March 
21,  1968.  This  Agreement  would  extend  the  In- 
ternational Coffee  Agreement,  1962  for  a  fur- 
ther five  year  period  beginning  October  1,  1968. 

Coffee  is  of  vital  importance  to  a  number  of 
friendly  developing  Latin  American  and 
African  countries.  In  1966  their  export  earnings 
from  the  sale  of  coffee  amounted  to  $2.3  billion 
and  for  many  such  countries  accounted  for 
major  proportions  of  their  total  foreign  ex- 
change earnings.  Colombia,  for  example,  de- 
rived 67  percent  of  its  total  foreign  exchange 
revenues  from  the  sale  of  coffee;  Uganda — 56 
percent ;  Brazil — 45  pei-cent.  For  such  comitries 
signficant  fluctuations  in  coffee  prices  have  dam- 
aging consequences  on  their  economies  and  pro- 
grams of  economic  development.  We  buy  about 
50  percent  of  the  world's  coffee  traded  interna- 
tionally, and  United  States  policy  in  the  coffee 
field  is  of  critical  significance  to  our  relations 
with  the  coffee  producing  countries.  Thus  the 
creation  and  maintenance  of  the  International 


M.\T    20,    1968 


665 


Coffee  Agreement  has  been  a  key  element  in  our 
overall  policy  towards  these  countries.  As  you 
will  recall  you  joined  with  other  Hemisphere 
Presidents  at  Punta  del  Este  in  agreeing  "to 
combine  efforts  to  strengthen  and  perfect  .  .  . 
the  International  Coffee  Agreement."  * 

Under  the  1962  Coffee  Agreement,  the 
American  consumer  has  had  adequate  supplies 
of  coffee  at  reasonable  prices.  As  we  consume 
about  half  of  the  world's  coffee,  we  have  a  real 
interest  in  contmuing  policies  which  will  assure 
dependable  sources  of  coffee  for  our  consumers 
at  fair  and  equitable  prices. 

The  new  Agreement  is  similar  to  the  1962 
Agreement  to  which  the  Senate  gave  its  advice 
and  consent  in  1963  and  which  has  been  in  full 
operation  since  the  enactment  of  the  United 
States  International  Coffee  Agreement  Act  of 
1965.  Since  the  full  implementation  of  the 
Agreement  by  the  United  States  it  has  worked 
well  in  helping  to  stabilize  the  prices  of  coffee 
moving  in  international  trade.  During  the 
period  since  1965,  prices  have  trended  down  and 
the  sharp  price  fluctuations  of  earlier  years  have 
been  avoided.  Coffee  prices  under  the  Agree- 
ment have  been  fair  to  consumers ;  indeed,  the 
price  levels  have  been  substantially  lower  than 
the  average  price  of  green  coffee  in  the  fifties. 
Nevertheless,  prices  have  been  stable  enough  to 
permit  producing  countries  to  plan  on  the  basis 
of  a  dependable  source  of  foreign  exchange 
earnings,  second  only  to  petroleum  as  a  source 
of  sucli  earnings  for  developing  countries. 

The  basic  mechanism  for  stabilizing  the 
market  under  the  Agreement  is  the  quota  sys- 
tem. The  principal  governing  body  established 
by  the  Agreement,  the  International  Coffee 
Council,  meets  each  summer  to  estimate  world 
import  demand  for  coffee  in  the  12-month 
period  beginning  October  1.  In  the  light  of  that 
estimate  and  an  estimate  of  non-quota  exports, 
the  Council  sets  the  total  annual  export  quota. 

The  total  annual  export  quota  is  divided 
among  the  exporting  country  members  gen- 
erally in  accord  with  their  percentage  of  the 
market  represented  by  their  basic  quotas  set 
forth  in  Annex  A  of  the  Agreement.  There  are 
no  annual  export  quotas  for  a  given  coffee  year, 
unless  the  Comicil  adopts  them  by  a  two-thirds 
majority  of  both  producing  and  consuming 
country  votes.  Thus  consummg  countries  can 


*For  text  of  the  Declaration  of  the  Presidents  of 
America,  see  ibid..  May  8, 1967,  p.  712. 


prevent  the  establishment  of  imrealistically  low       ! 
annual  quotas. 

Under  the  1962  Agreement,  it  was  found  that 
occasionally  price  developments  during  the  year 
demonstrated  that  the  demand  for  particular 
types  of  coffee  (Milds,  Robusta,  etc.)  differed,       , 
and  thus  the  supply  of  a  particular  type  of  cof-       | 
fee  might  not  be  entirely  adequate  within  the       ' 
total  supply  made  available  mider  the  annual 
quota  system.  To  correct  that  situation  a  system 
was  inaugurated  to  jarovide  for  adjustment  in       ] 
the  amount  of  coffee  an  exporting  country  was 
permitted  to  export  when  there  was  a  significant      | 
price  movement  in  the  particular  type  of  coffee      ' 
that  country  produced.  The  adjustment  takes 
place  automatically  imless  the  Executive  Board 
considers  that  particular  market  circumstances 
warrant  some  modification.  The  new  Agreement 
specifically  authorizes  the  continuation  of  this 
selective  system  of  quota  adjustment.  Practice 
has  demonstrated  the  importance  of  such  flexi- 
bility to  consumers. 

A  second  feature  of  the  Agreement  designed 
to  add  to  the  stability  of  prices  in  international 
trade  in  coffee  relates  to  provisions  designed  to 
bring  production  more  into  line  with  demand. 
Although  there  were  a  few  provisions  included 
in  the  1962  Agreement  relating  to  this  objective, 
they  could  not  be  implemented  in  a  manner  to 
assure  a  concerted  attack  on  the  problem  of 
overproduction.  Under  the  new  Agreement  the 
requirement  to  establish  production  goals  is 
strengthened  by  providing  that  a  country  will 
not  enjoy  any  increase  in  its  export  entitlement 
above  the  level  in  effect  on  April  1.  1969  until 
its  production  goals  for  1972-73  are  approved 
or  established  by  the  Council.  Moreover,  a  Di- 
versification Fund  is  established  to  further  the 
objective  of  limiting  the  production  of  coffee  by 
making  financing  available  for  projects  to  cut 
down  on  unneeded  surplus  coffee  production 
and  substitute  the  production  of  badly-needed 
food  crops.  The  Diversification  Fund  is  unique. 
Financed  largely  by  producer  contributions,  it 
marks  an  encouraging  first  step  towards  mutual 
self-help  by  the  producers.  Although  the  specific 
rules  to  govern  the  Fund  are  still  to  be  worked 
out  by  the  Council,  the  participation  of  all  ex- 
porting countries  having  an  export  entitlement 
of  over  100,000  bags  is  compulsory.  Contribu- 
tions to  the  Fimd,  including  at  least  20  percent 
in  freely  convertible  currency,  are  to  be  started 
by  February  23,  1969  and  the  failure  of  an  ex- 
porting participant  to  meet  its  obligations  can 


666 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


result  ill  the  suspension  of  voting  rights  and  in- 
eligibility for  increases  in  its  export  entitlement. 

A  third  aspect  of  the  Agreement  of  im- 
portance to  the  United  States  is  the  entirely  new 
provision  concerning  "Measures  Relating  to 
Processed  Coffee."  During  the  past  two  years,  a 
problem  arose  under  the  1962  Coffee  Agreement 
all'ecting  those  parts  of  the  United  States  in- 
dustry either  trading  in  green  coffee  for  resale 
to  processors  of  soluble  (instant)  coffee,  or 
manufacturing  soluble  coffee.  The  problem  was 
caused  bj'  certain  governmental  policies  in 
Brazil  which  resulted  in  more  favorable  treat- 
ment for  exports  of  soluble  coffee  as  compared 
with  exports  of  green  coffee.  Since  the  quota  sys- 
tem under  the  Agreement  limits  the  availability 
to  industry  in  importing  countries  of  other  suit- 
able supplies  of  green  coffee  if  Brazilian  green 
coffee  is  not  available  on  equitable  terms,  a  new 
provision  was  incorporated  in  the  Agreement 
obligating  governments  not  to  discrimmate 
against  the  exports  of  green  coffee  in  favor  of 
the  exports  of  processed  coffee.  Furthermore,  a 
procedure  is  specified  for  use  if  the  Article  is  not 
complied  with.  Under  the  procedure  a  com- 
plaining member  may  convoke  an  impartial 
fact-finding  panel  to  determine  the  extent  of 
such  discriminatory  treatment.  If  the  exporting 
country  has  not  eliminated  the  discriminatory 
advantage  within  thirty  days  after  a  finding  of 
discrimination  bj^  the  panel,  an  importing  coun- 
try may  take  measures  to  offset  the  discrimi- 
natory treatment. 

Other  changes  in  the  new  Agreement  include 
changes  in  the  export  quotas  assigned  individual 
countries,  and  a  strengthening  of  the  quota  con- 
trol mechanisms  to  assure  compliance  with  the 
export  quota  levels  established  annually  by  the 
Council.  The  changes  in  relative  shares  of  world 
trade  represented  by  the  export  entitlements 
will  put  the  quotas  more  in  line  with  the  exist- 
ing trade  patterns  for  coffees  of  the  various 
types.  A  strengthened  control  system  will  deter 
over-quota  shipments  and  thus  protect  those 
who  are  fully  complying  with  the  Agreement 
from  any  mifair  advantages  that  would  accrue 
to  those  circumventing  the  Agi-eement. 

Since  the  United  States  constitutes  50%  of 
the  world  coffee  market,  as  a  practical  matter, 
the  Agreement  could  not  enter  into  force  with- 
out the  United  States.  If  the  Agreement  does 
not  enter  into  force  on  October  1,  1968,  the  cof- 
fee price  picture  will  be  extremely  uncertain, 
thereby  threatening  the  economies  of  several  de- 


veloping countries  and  increasing  the  business 
risks  of  American  businessmen.  United  States 
failure  to  jom  and  implement  the  new  Agree- 
ment promptly  would  undercut  our  other  efforts 
to  cooperate  with  the  developing  comitries  in 
helping  them  meet  their  special  trade  and  eco- 
nomic problems.  It  is  therefore  hoped  that  the 
Senate  will  give  timely  consideration  to  the  In- 
ternational Coffee  Agreement,  1968  and  that 
the  Congress  will  promptly  act  on  the  imple- 
menting legislation  which  will  be  submitted 
separately. 

The  Departments  of  Agriculture  and  Com- 
merce concur  in  the  submission  of  this  Agree- 
ment to  the  Senate. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

Nicholas  deB  Ivatzenbach. 


TREATY  INFORMATION 


Current  Actions 


MULTILATERAL 

Automotive  Traffic 

Customs  couveutiou  on  the  temporary  importation  of 

private  road  vehicles.  Done  at  New  Yorlj  June  4, 

1954.  Entered  into  force  December  l.j,  1957.  TIAS 

3943. 

Accession  deposited:  Iran,  April  3, 1968. 
Convention  concerning  customs  facilities  for  touring. 

Done  at  New  Yorii  June  4,  1954.  Entered  into  force 

September  11, 1957.  TIAS  3879. 

Accession  deposited:  Iran,  April  3, 1968. 

Disputes 

Convention  on  the  settlement  of  investment  disputes 
between  states  and  nationals  of  other  states.  Done 
at  Washington  March  18,  1965.  Entered  into  force 
October  14,  1966.  TIAS  6090. 
llatification  deposited:  Denmark,  April  24,  1968. 

Exhibitions 

Convention  regarding  international  exhibitions.  Signed 
at  Paris  November  22, 1928.  Entered  into  force  Janu- 
ary 17, 1930;' 

Protocol  modifying  the  convention  of  1928  relating  to 
international  exhibitions.  Signed  at  Paris  May  10, 
1&48.  Entered  into  force  May  5,  1949 ; ' 


'  Not  in  force  for  the  United  States. 


MAY    20,    1968 


667 


Protocol  modifying  article  IV  of  the  convention  signed 
at  Paris  November  22, 1928,  as  modified,  dealing  with 
international  exhibitions.  Done  at  Paris  November  16, 
1966.'' 
Senate  advice  and  consent  to  accession:  April  30, 1968. 

Finance 

Articles  of  agreement  of  the  International  Finance  Cor- 
poration. Done  at  Washington  May  25,  1955.  Entered 
into  force  July  20,  1906.  TIAS  3620. 
Readmitted  as  memher:  Indonesia,  April  23,  1968. 

Grains 

International  grains  arrangement,  1967,  with  annexes. 

Open  for  signature  at  Washington  October  15  until 

and  including  November  30, 1967.^ 

Ratification  to  the  Food  Aid  Convention  deposited: 
Switzerland,  April  29,  196S. 

Ratification  to  the  Wheat  Trade  Convention  depos- 
ited: Switzerland,  April  29,  1968. 

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,  1966.^ 
Acceptance  deposited:  Republic  of  China,  April  16, 
1968. 

Space 

Agreement  on  the  rescue  of  astronauts,  the  return  of 
astronauts,  and  the  return  of  ob.iects  launched  into 
outer  space.   Opened  for  signature  at  Washington, 
Loudon  and  Moscow  April  22, 1968.'' 
Signature:  Nigeria,  May  3, 1968. 

United   Nations 

Charter  of  the  United  Nations  and  Statute  of  the  In- 
ternational Court  of  Justice.   Signed  at  San  Fran- 
cisco June  26,  1915.  Entered  into  force  October  24, 
194.5.  59  Stat.  1031. 
Admission  to  memJ)ership:  Mauritius,  April  24,  1968. 

Wheat 

1967  protocol  for  the  further  extension  of  the  Interna- 
tional Wheat  Agreement,  1962.  Open  for  signature 
at  Washington  May  15  through  June  1,  1967,  inclu- 
sive. Entered  into  force  July  16.  1967.  TIAS  6315. 
Approval  deposited:  Switzerland,  April  29,  1968. 


BILATERAL 


Canada 

Agreement  amending  the  agreement  of  April  13,  1967, 
as  amended  (TIAS  6252,  6352),  governing  the  coor- 
dination of  pilotage  services  on  the  Great  Lalies  and 
the  St.  Lawrence  Seaway,  with  amendment  to  memo- 
randum of  arrangements.  Effected  by  exchange  of 
notes  at  Washington  April  26,  1968.  Entered  into 
force  April  26,  1968. 

Dominican   Republic 

Agreement  for  sales  of  agricultural  commodities  under 
title  I  of  the  Agricultural  Trade  Development  and 
Assistance  Act  of  19.54,  as  amended  (68  Stat.  4.'>4,  as 
amended;  7  U.S.C.  1691-1736D),  with  annex.  Signed 
at  Santo  Domingo  April  1,  1968.  Entered  into  force 
April  1,  1968. 

Greece 

Amendment  to  the  agreement  of  August  4,  1955,  as 
amended  (TIAS  3310,  4837,  52.50,  5251),  for  coopera- 
tion concerning  civil  uses  of  atomic  energy.  Signed 
at  Washington  June  8, 1964. 
Entered  into  force:  April  19,  1968. 

Mexico 

Agreement  establishing  a  United  States-Mexico  com- 
mittee for  assistance  in  cases  of  disasters.  Effected 
by  exchange  of  notes  at  Washington  May  3,  1968. 
Entered  into  force  May  3,  1968. 


DEPARTMENT  AND   FOREIGN  SERVICE 


'  Not  in  force. 


Appointments 

Dean  Freeman  Peterson  as  Director,  OflSce  of  Water 
for  Peace,  effective  April  29.  (For  biographic  details, 
see  Department  of  State  press  release  92  dated  May  3.) 


m 


668 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BTJIiLETIN 


INDEX     May  W,  1008     Vol.  LVII/,  No.  1508 


Atomic  Energy 

Gainiujc  the  Full  Measure  of  the  Benefits  of  the 
Atom   (Rusk) G32 

The  Nuclear  Nonproliferation  Ticaty — A  Vital 
Step  in  Briuging  the  Atom  Under  Control 
(Kataenbath) 646 

U.S.  Calls  for  Prompt  Endorsement  by  the  U.N. 
General  Assembly  of  the  Draft  Treaty  on  the 
Nonproliferation  of  Nuclear  Weapons  ( Gold- 
be  rg,  text  of  draft  treaty) 635 

Canada.  Dr.  Lawrence  Named  to  U.S.  Section  of 
Great  Lakes  llsheries  Commission     ....       650 

China.  Assistant  Secretary  Buudy  Interviewed 
on  "Face  the  Nation"  (transcript  of  Interview)       651 

Congress.  President  .Johnson  Urges  Renewal  of 
International  Coffee  Agreement  (Johnson, 
Katzenbach)       6(>4 

Department  and  Foreign  Service.  Appointments 

(Peterson) 668 

Disarmament 

Gaining  the  Full  Measure  of  the  Benefits  of  the 
Atom   (Rusk) 632 

The  Nuclear  Nonproliferation  Treaty — A  Vital 
Step  in  Bringing  the  Atom  Under  Control 
(Katzenbach) 646 

U.S.  Calls  for  Prompt  Endorsement  by  tie  U.N. 
General  Assembly  of  the  Draft  Treaty  on  the 
Noiiin-oliferation  of  Nuclear  Weapons  (Gold- 
berg, text  of  draft  treaty) 635 

Economic  Affairs 

Dr.  Lawrence  Named  to  U.S.  Section  of  Great 

Lakes  Fisheries  Commission 650 

President  Johnson's  News  Conference  of  May  3 

(excerpts) 629 

President  Johnson  Urges  Renewal  of  Interna- 
tional Coffee  Agreement  (Johnson,  Katzen- 
bach)      664 

Human  Rights.  Implementing  Human  Rights — 
New  Understanding,  New  Attitudes,  and  New 
Will     (Wilkins) 661 

Korea 

Assistant  Secretary  Bundy  interviewed  on  "Face 

tie  Nation"'  (transcript  of  interview)     .     .     .       651 

President  Johnson's  News  Conference  of  May  3 

(excerpts) 629 

Norway.   King   Olav   V   of   Norway   Visits    the 

I'nited  States  (Johnson,  King  Olav)  ....       657 

Philippines.  Letters  of  Credence   (Lopez)     .     .      631 

Presidential  Documents 

King  Olav  V  of  Norway  Visits  the  United 
States 657 

President  Johnson's  News  Conference  of  May  3 

(excerpts) 629 

President  Johnson  Urges  Renewal  of  Interna- 
tional Coffee  Agreement 6(V4 

Treaty  Information 

Current  Actions 667 

The  Nuclear  Nonproliferation  Treaty — A  Vital 
Step  in  Bringing  the  Atom  Under  Control 
(Katzenbach) 640 

r.S.  Calls  for  Prompt  Endorsement  by  the  U.N. 
Gener.Ql  Assembly  of  the  Draft  Treaty  on  the 
Nonproliferation  of  Nuclear  Weapons  (Gold- 
berg, test  of  draft  treaty) 035 


United  Nations 

Implementing  Human  Rights — New  Understand- 
ing, New  Attitudes,  and  New  Will  (Wilkins)    .       661 

The  Nuclear  Nonproliferation  Treaty — A  Vital 
Slop  in  Bringing  the  Atom  Under  Control 
(Katzenbach) 646 

U.S.  Calls  for  Prompt  Endorsement  by  the  U.N. 
General  Assembly  of  the  Draft  Treaty  on  the 
Nonproliferation  of  Nuclear  Weapons  (Gold- 
berg, text  of  draft  treaty) 635 

Viet-Nam 

Assistant  Secretary  Bundy  Interviewed  on  "Face 

the  Nation"  (transcript  of  interview)  .     .     .     .       651 

President  Johnson's  News  Conference  of  May  3 

(excerpts) 629 

Water  for  Peace.  Appointments  (Peterson)    .    .      668 

Name  Index 

Bundy,  William  P 651 

Goldberg,  Arthur  J 635 

Johnson,  President 629,  657,  664 

Katzenbach,  Nicholas  deB 646,664 

Lawrence,  W.  Mason 650 

Lopez,  Salvador  P 631 

King  Olav  V 657 

Peterson,  Dean  Freeman 668 

Rusk,  Secretary 632 

Wilkins,  Roy 661 


Check  List  of  Department  of  State 
Press  Releases:  April  29-May  5 

Press  releases  may  be  obtained  from  the  OflSce 
of  News,  Department  of  State,  Washington,  D.C. 
20520. 

Releases  issued  prior  to  April  29  which  appear 
in  this  issue  of  the  Bulletin  are  Nos.  81  and  84 
of  April  26. 


No. 

t87 


t88 
( rev. ) 

89 


too 


•91 


•92 


t93 


Date 

4/30 


4/30 


5/2 


5/3 


5/3 


5/3 


5/3 


Subject 

Katzenbach :  signing  ceremony, 
Tavera  Dam  project,  Santo 
Domingo. 

2d  plenary  session  of  U.S.-Mex- 
ico  Commission  for  Border  De- 
velopment and  F^riendship. 

Rusk :  acceptance  of  Brien  Mc- 
Mahon  Memorial  Award  (ex- 
cerpt). 

Rostow  :  "Europe  and  the  United 
States — The  Partnership  of  Ne- 
cessity." 

Program  for  the  visit  of  Prime 
Minister  Thanom  Kittikaehorn 
of  Thailand. 

Peterson  sworn  in  as  Director, 
OflSce  of  Water  for  Peace  (bio- 
graphic details). 

Rusk :  Law  Day  address  at  Uni- 
versity of  Georgia. 


•Not  printed. 

tHeld  for  a  later  issue  of  the  Bulleti.\. 


U.S.    COVERNHeNT    PRINTING    OFFICE     l^flB 


Superintendent  of  Documents 

u.s.  government  printing  offici 

washington,  d.c.    20402 


LWzo    vw    Noisoa 

9'^2  yoa  0  d 

sid!303a-siviy3s 

an  onand  noisoq 

J      030   QSO 


GE   AND    FEES    PAID 
..NMENT    PRINTING  OFFICI 


OFFICIAL  BUSINESS 


THE  OFFICIAL  WEEKLY  RECORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POLICY 


THE 

DEPARTMENT 

OF 

STATE 

BULLETIN 


Vol.  LVIII,  No.  1509 


May  27,1968 


CONSOLIDATING  THE  RULE  OF  LAW  IN  INTERNATIONAL  AFFAIRS 

Address  by  Secretary  Rusk     669 

STRENGTHENING  THE  INTERNATIONAL  MONETARY  SYSTEM 
President  Johnsori's  Message  to  the  Congress     696 

HOW  TO  MAKE  PEACE  WITH  THE  RUSSIANS 

by  Ambassador  Harlan  Cleveland     687 


EUROPE  AND  THE  UNITED  STATES— THE  PARTNERSHIP  OF  NECESSITY 

by  Under  Secretary  Rostow     680 


THE   DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE 


BULLETIN 


Vol.  LVIII,  No.  1509 
May  27,  1968 


For  sale  by  tbe  Superintendent  of  Documents 

U.S.  Government  Printing  Office 

Washington,  D.G.  20402 

PRICE: 

82  Issues,  domestic  $10,  foreign  $16 
Single  copy  30  cents 

Use  of  funds  for  printing  of  this  publication 
approved  by  the  Director  of  tbe  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  rela  tions  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 
truide  by  the  President  and  by  the 
Secretary  of  State  and  other  officers 
of  the  Department,  as  well  as  special 
articles  on  various  pluises  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 
interest. 

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


Consolidating  the  Rule  of  Law  in  International  Affairs 


Address  hy  Secretary  Rusk^ 


Each  year  at  this  time  we  as  a  nation  pause 
to  consider  the  impact  of  law  upon  our  lives  and 
the  efforts  we  must  make  if  the  family  of  man 
is  to  achieve  an  ordered  society  based  upon  jus- 
tice and  peace.  "We  celebrate  law  as  liberator — 
law,  which  expands  the  range  of  freedom  by 
makmg  it  possible  to  predict  with  reasonable 
assurance  the  conduct  of  others.  Law  is  the 
guardian  of  the  presumption  of  good  faith 
which  is  the  cement  which  holds  oTir  society  to- 
gether. It  permits  us  to  pursue  our  o^vn  eccen- 
tric orbits  with  the  minimum  risk  of  collision 
with  each  other.  In  international  afTairs  the 
steady  consolidation  of  the  rule  of  law  is  the 
alternative  to  the  law  of  the  jungle  and  is  an 
essential  condition,  in  this  nuclear  age,  for  the 
smrival  of  man. 

When  we  turn  our  attention  to  domestic  prob- 
lems, the  role  of  law  is  clear.  Our  own  country 
has  long  been  attuned  to  the  intellectual  con- 
cepts of  equal  justice  and  opportunities  for  all 
citizens.  They  are  embedded  in  the  very  founda- 
tion of  oTir  legal  system. 

On  the  world  scene,  the  role  of  the  law  is 
often  less  clear.  Unused  as  we  are  to  a  legal 
system  functioning  without  police  or  a  court- 
house, we  tend  to  view  law  in  the  international 
framework  as  more  of  a  hope  than  a  reality. 

I  think,  however,  that  the  law  plays  a  vastly 
more  important  role  in  world  aftaire  than  occurs 
to  most  people.  Just  as  the  law  provides  us  with 
the  ultimate  objectives  at  home,  it  provides  in- 
ternational goals  to  which  we  must  bend  our 
national  efforts.  Law  forms  the  basis  for  collec- 
tive action  by  which  nations  guard  the  peace. 
It  knits  together  coimtries  in  an  ever-stronger 
fabric  of  agreements  about  common  policies  and 
goals.  Finally,  it  provides  the  tools  with  which 
mankind  can  deal  with  the  utterly  new  problems 

'  Made  at  the  University  of  Georgia.  Athens,  Ga.,  on 
Law  Day.  May  4  (press  release  93).  The  Secretary  also 
made  esteaiporaneous  remarlis. 


we  encounter  on  the  earth  and  in  space  around 
it. 

In  examining  any  legal  system,  the  most  sensi- 
ble point  of  departure  is  its  basic  constitutional 
structure.  The  community  of  nations  has  a 
constitution — the  United  Nations  Charter.  In 
its  very  first  article,  the  charter  amiounces  as  a 
purpose  of  the  organization :  "To  maintain  in- 
ternational peace  and  security,  and  to  that  end: 
to  take  effective  collective  measures  for  the  pre- 
vention and  removal  of  threats  to  the  peace, 
and  for  the  suppression  of  acts  of  aggression  or 
other  breaches  of  the  peace " 

This,  then,  is  one  of  the  basic  tenets  of  our 
international  structure. 

This  is  a  purpose  firmly  supported  by  the 
United  States  because  we  believe  world  order 
cannot  exist  without  collective  security.  This 
purpose  has  not  changed  with  the  comuig  and 
going  of  political  events  in  the  United  States  or 
with  the  ever-shifting  pattern  of  developments 
on  the  world  scene.  It  has  represented  a  basic 
continuity  in  American  foreign  policy  that  has 
api^lied  regardless  of  who  has  been  President 
and  regardless  of  which  party  has  controlled  the 
Congress. 

It  is  in  the  context  of  collective  security  as  a 
fundamental  element  of  world  law  that  the 
policy  of  this  country  regarding  Viet-Nam 
should  be  understood. 

American  assistance  to  South  Viet-N"am  is 
rooted  in  our  belief  that  only  by  cooperation  in 
the  community  of  nations  to  resist  and  suppress 
aggression  can  peace  be  established  and  freedom 
survive  and  flourish  in  the  world.  This  simple 
idea  was  specifically  applied  to  Southeast  Asia 
by  solemn  treaty,  approved  with  only  one  dis- 
senting vote  in  the  Senate. 

Second,  our  suspension  of  bombing  in  the 
greater  part  of  North  Viet-Nam  and  the  agree- 
ment on  a  time  and  site  for  contacts  between 
Washington  and  Hanoi  represent  the  latest  ef- 


MAT 


19C8 


669 


forts  to  achieve  a  peaceful  solution  to  the  Viet- 
nam conflict.  The  United  States  believes  in  the 
responsibility  of  all  nations  to  settle  their  prob- 
lems by  peaceful  means,  and  the  record  in  Viet- 
nam is  filled  with  efforts  on  our  side  to  take  the 
conflict  from  the  battlefield  to  the  conference 
table.  "We  seek  a  negotiated  settlement  of  the 
Vietnamese  conflict  in  the  hope  that  we  can 
convince  North  Viet-Nam  that  its  better  future 
lies  in  peaceful  cooperation  in  development  of 
the  entire  Southeast  Asian  region  rather  than  a 
costly  and  wasteful  effort  to  overcome  the  South 
by  force. 

I  suspect  that  some  of  you  would  like  to  hear 
me  speak  in  more  detail  today  about  the  prob- 
lem of  Viet-Nam,  but  I  hope  you  will  under- 
stand when  I  simply  refer  you  to  the  President's 
statement  of  yesterday  ^  and  to  his  important 
address  to  the  Nation  of  March  31.^  In  Ecclesi- 
astes  we  are  told  "To  every  thing  there  is  a 
season,  and  a  time  to  evei-y  purijose  under  the 
heaven.  ...  A  tune  to  keep  silence,  and  a  tune 
to  speak."  We  are  in  a  period  where  it  is  impor- 
tant that  serious  efforts  be  made  quietly  to 
establish  an  honorable  peace  in  Southeast  Asia. 

Let  me  remmd  you  that  peace  in  Southeast 
Asia  is  not  a  matter  of  Viet-Nam  alone.  Laos  is 
entitled  to  full  compliance  by  all  parties  to  the 
1962  accords  on  Laos.  This  means  the  removal 
of  all  foreign  troops,  the  cessation  of  infiltration 
of  North  Vietnamese  forces  through  Laotian 
territory,  the  recognition  of  the  authority  of  the 
Laotian  Government  throughout  the  coimtry, 
and  access  to  all  parts  of  the  countiy  by  the  In- 
ternational Control  Commission.  Surely  Thai- 
land is  entitled  to  live  at  peace  without  the 
infiltration  of  arms  and  agents  trained  outside 
its  own  borders.  Surely  Cambodia  and  Burma 
are  entitled  to  live  at  peace  without  the  same 
kind  of  interference. 

Major  Points  of  Potential  Conflict 

Since  1945  the  community  of  nations  has  met 
many  challenges  to  world  peace.  Our  most  suc- 
cessful efforts  have  been  based  on  collective  ac- 
tion in  which  each  participating  country  has 
accepted  its  responsibility  to  work  toward  the 
common  goal.  Some  persons  would  now,  how- 
ever, consider  tliat  collective  action  has  done  its 
job  and  is  somehow  obsolete  and  unnecessai-y  in 
the  contemporary  world. 

Are  we  entitled  to  be  so  sanguine  ? 

In  Europe  cooperative  efforts  have  given  en- 
couraging results.  Common  Market  and  EFTA 


[European  Free  Trade  Association]  comitries 
have  enjoyed  remarkable  economic  recovery, 
and  their  efforts  toward  integration  will  give 
them  further  strength.  Today  those  who  are 
committed  to  what  they  call  their  world  revo- 
lution understand  that  the  dynamism  of  West- 
ern Europe  precludes  any  kind  of  Conunmiist 
takeover  from  withm  such  as  they  might  have 
hoped  for  in  the  dark  days  following  World 
War  11. 

In  the  nations  of  Eastern  Europe  there  is  fer- 
ment in  almost  every  comitry  as  the  need  ap- 
pears to  find  a  better  place  for  the  individual 
human  being. 

Along  with  these  encouraging  developments, 
relations  between  East  and  West  have  evolved 
in  the  direction  of  greater  reasonableness.  Prob- 
lems, nevertheless,  remain;  and  incidents  are 
still  created  and  agitated  by  those  who  seem- 
ingly remain  unpersuaded  that  the  good  of  the 
future  lies  in  friendly  relations  and  not  in 
hostility. 

In  other  parts  of  the  world,  too,  problems 
continue.  In  Latin  America,  despite  the  efforts 
of  the  Alliance  for  Progress,  much  remains  to 
be  done  to  provide  the  economic  ingi'edients  es- 
sential to  stable  political  development.  The 
efforts  of  the  American  Republics  to  cany  on 
a  peaceful  revolution  are  the  targets  of  Cuban 
disciples  of  violence  who  broadcast  programs 
and  material  for  insurrection. 

In  the  Near  East,  imeasy  truce  has  been  pmic- 
tuated  by  the  third  war  in  two  decades.  Each 
has  become  more  dangerous  for  world  peace. 

And  in  Asia,  the  achievement  of  peace  in 
Southeast  Asia  would  not  automatically  solve 
all  the  problems  of  security.  All  the  free  nations 
of  East  Asia — and  of  South  Asia,  too — eye  with 
concern  developments  in  mainland  China.  And 
despite  heartening  progress  in  some,  many 
of  tlie  less  developed  nations  of  Asia  have  not 
yet  overcome  the  problems  of  poverty  and 
malnutrition. 

This,  then,  is  a  brief  summary  of  the  major 
points  of  potential  conflict  in  the  world.  With 
this  picture  before  us,  is  it  reasonable  to  speak 
of  a  relaxation  of  our  commitment  to  the  con- 
cept of  collective  action  for  peace  and  security? 
I  think  the  answer  is  plain  for  all  Americans: 
that  we  and  otlier  nations  are  going  to  have  to 
continue  to  carry  a  collective  responsibility  for 
order  and  law  in  the  world. 


=  BuiiETiN  of  May  20, 1968,  p.  629. 
"  Hid.,  Apr.  15, 1968,  p.  481. 


670 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BtriXETIN 


Joint  Action  for  a  Stable  World 

In  a  world  beset  by  violence,  unrest,  and  at 
best,  uneasy  peace,  the  burden  of  maintaining 
world  security  must  be  shared.  The  United 
States  will  always  do  its  part,  but  this  country 
will  not  and  can  not  be  the  world's  policeman. 
Joint  action  has  pi'otected  freedom  in  Europe, 
in  Latin  xVmerica,  in  Korea,  and  in  Viet-Nam ; 
and  only  jomt  action  can  offer  hope  for  the 
future. 

Yet,  frankly,  we  have  been  disappointed  by 
the  absence  of  affirmative  and  constructive  re- 
sponse by  some  who  are  able  to  make  significant 
contributions  to  world  peace.  And  the  record  of 
the  United  Nations,  mankind's  foremost  effort 
to  establish  peacekeeping  machinery,  has  in 
many  cases  been  unsatisfactory. 

Tliat  organization  does  have  the  potential  to 
be  an  effective  keeper  of  the  peace.  However,  its 
record  shows  tolerance  of  obstructionism.  Re- 
luctance to  make  the  hard  choice  has  all  too  often 
resulted  in  acquiescence  in  a  dangerous  status 
quo  that  forebodes  ill  for  the  long-range  search 
for  peace.  If  the  United  Nations  is  to  succeed 
m  its  most  important  task,  all  its  members,  and 
especially  the  middle  and  smaller  powers,  must 
recognize  their  stake  in  international  peace- 
keeping. They  must  accept  and  act  upon  the 
proposition  that  the  common  good,  including 
the  welfare  of  all  members  of  the  world  com- 
munity, requires  attention,  effort,  and  sometimes 
sacrifice. 

We  are  talking  about  an  essentially  political 
problem — a  matter  of  conscience  and  responsi- 
bility rather  than  technique.  Yet  there  are  a 
nmnl)er  of  specific  steps  that  could  be  taken  to 
heighten  the  prospects  for  a  stable  world.  The 
most  important  of  these  is  the  continued  and 
diligent  pursuit  of  new  steps  in  disarmament. 

Five  years  ago  we  brought  into  effect  the 
limited  test  ban  treaty.  It  has  already  resulted  in 
a  drastic  decrease  of  harmful  radioactive  ele- 
ments in  the  air  we  breathe  and  the  food  we  eat. 
Our  children  are  protected  from  what  could 
have  developed  into  a  scourge  of  mankind. 

Soon  we  hope  to  bring  into  effect  a  new  dis- 
armament treaty  to  check  the  proliferation  of 
nuclear  weapons.*  In  many  areas  of  the  world, 
daily  tensions  could  well  make  control  of  nu- 
clear weapons  impossible.  Yet,  without  an  agree- 
ment calling  for  restraint,  many  countries  in 
these  areas  could  soon  have  a  nuclear  capacity. 

'  For  background  and  text  of  the  draft  treaty,  see 
'6i(?..  May  20,  1968,  p.  635. 


Wlien  it  comes  into  effect,  the  noni^roliferation 
treaty  will  be  our  greatest  stride  in  the  disar- 
mament field. 

Am  important  adjunct  of  the  treaty  will  be 
the  security  assurances  accorded  by  the  nuclear- 
state  signatories  to  nonnuclear  signatories.^ 
These  will  assure  that  the  machinery  of  the 
United  Nations  will  be  invoked  promptly  to  aid 
any  victhn  of  nuclear  threat  or  aggression.  This 
factor  will  make  much  easier  the  restraint  many 
countries  must  exercise  m  forgoing  the  nuclear 
option. 

Both  the  test  ban  and  nonproliferation  trea- 
ties have  been  made  possible  by  cooperation  be- 
tween East  and  West.  But  the  nuclear  powers 
have  a  continuing  responsibility  to  the  world  to 
employ  their  greatest  efforts  to  check  the  momit- 
ing  threat  of  nuclear  armament.  The  problem 
of  "vertical  proliferation"  has  for  two  decades 
forced  the  nuclear  powers  to  devote  greater  and 
greater  resources  to  the  engines  of  war — re- 
somxes  that  could  surely  be  better  employed  for 
other  ends.  And  it  maintains  in  the  hands  of 
frail  human  beings  the  capacity  to  destroy  in  a 
few  hours  most  of  civilization  and  perhaps  to 
doom  the  human  race. 

The  United  States  will  continue  to  work  for 
an  end  of  the  spiraling  arms  race. 

"The  Common   Law  of  Mankind" 

Today,  the  ability  of  nations  to  act  in  concert 
to  preserve  peace  is  gravely  challenged.  I  be- 
lieve the  challenge  can  be  met  successfully.  One 
basis  for  my  optimism  is  the  pervasive  role  the 
law  has  been  playing  in  developing  and 
strengthening  world  order. 

All  too  often,  we  view  the  world  as  a  group 
of  independent  countries  each  pursuing  its  own 
policies  and  follo^ving  its  own  interests,  like  so 
many  stars  hurtling  through  space  away  from 
one  another.  However,  this  explosive  view  of 
world  politics  neglects  to  take  into  account  the 
important  ways  nations  have  tied  themselves 
together  and  continue  to  do  so. 

The  United  States  belongs  to  more  than  70 
international  organizations  and  institutions  and 
each  year  takes  part  in  approximately  600 
multilateral  international  conferences.  Most  of 
these  conferences  receive  little  or  no  attention  in 
the  general  news  media. 

Before  1945,  the  United  States  was  a  party 
to  some   1,.300  international   agreements   with 


'For  background,  see  ihi<!..  Mar.  25,  1968,  p.  401. 


MAT 


■'? 


671 


other  countries.  Since  that  time,  we  have  en- 
tered into  4,000  more.  Our  annual  catalog, 
Treaties  in  Force,  discloses  that  we  have  agree- 
ments with  over  150  other  coimtries  and  inter- 
national organizations.  We  and  others  have  de- 
cided on  joint  action  on  subjects  ranging  from 
fisheries  to  post  offices,  from  the  control  of 
epidemics  to  collisions  at  sea. 

Tliis  compilation  indicates  the  degree  to 
which  this  country  has  tied  its  economy,  its  de- 
fenses, and  its  political  outlook  to  the  concept 
of  community  action.  This  multitude  of  agree- 
ments, even  those  treating  rather  prosaic  sub- 
jects, represents  the  roots  that  bind  us  tightly 
to  the  fertile  soil  of  world  order.  It  is  healthy,  I 
believe,  that  the  coimtries  of  tlie  world  show 
signs  of  recognizing  that,  no  matter  how  much 
they  wish  to  live  alone,  they  must  live  together. 

The  ever-expanding  network  of  international 
arrangements  comprises  what  Sir  Wilfred 
Jenks  has  called  "the  common  law  of  mankind." 

A  major  share  of  the  activity  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  State  is  concerned  with  the  quiet  busi- 
ness of  ordering  and  facilitating  the  affairs  of 
men  that  reach  across  international  frontiers. 

New  Environments  and  New  Techniques 

Cooperation  among  nations  must  play  still 
another  role,  for  today  man  is  about  to  enter 
new  enviroiunents  and  to  apply  new  techniques 
in  dealing  with  old  problems.  Science  and  tech- 
nology continue  to  disclose  new  vistas  of  oppor- 
tunity, and  we  shall  be  required  to  use  the  full 
resources  of  mankind  if  we  are  to  enjoy  their 
most  beneficial  utilization. 

Perliaps  the  most  dramatic  of  the  new  en- 
vironments is  space  beyond  our  planet.  Only 
shortly  after  the  first  sputnik  opened  tlie  space 
age,  the  community  of  nations  went  to  work  to 
establish  a  legal  framework  in  which  space  ex- 
ploration could  take  place.  Taking  full  advan- 
tage of  experience  as  it  developed,  work  in  the 
United  Nations  progressed,  and  the  Space 
Treaty  was  signed  and  brought  into  force  in 
1967.  It  calls  for  the  exploration  and  use  of 
space  for  the  benefit  of  all  countries,  and  it  pro- 
vides that  no  nation  shall  claim  sovereignty  over 
celestial  bodies.  It  also  establishes  limitations 
on  the  use  of  weapons  in  space  and  on  celestial 
bodies. 

The  Space  Treaty  was  soon  followed  by  the 
Astronaut    Rescue    and    Return    Asrreement, 


which  was  opened  for  signature  on  April  22 
of  this  year.  This  agreement  implements  article 
V  of  the  Space  Treaty,  which  called  for  assist- 
ance to  astronauts  in  distress  and  for  their 
prompt  and  safe  return  when  rescued. 

Currently,  we  are  attempting  to  negotiate  a 
third  space  treaty,  to  deal  with  questions  of  lia- 
bility for  damage  caused  by  space  ventures.  Un- 
fortunately, our  efforts  have  been  slowed  by  a 
continuing  disagreement  over  impartial  settle- 
ment of  claims  for  damages  arising  under  the 
agreement.  It  is  indeed  regrettable  that  an 
agreement  dealmg  with  one  of  mankind's  new 
frontiers  has  thus  far  been  hampered  by  one  of 
the  most  reactionary  of  considerations :  a  resist- 
ance to  third-party  adjudication  of  disputes. 

The  second  new  environment  that  man  is  on 
the  verge  of  exploring  and  utilizing  is  the  deep 
ocean  floor.  In  1958  several  conventions  on  the 
law  of  the  sea  were  agreed  to  in  Geneva.  At 
that  time  the  best  estimate  was  that  for  some 
time  the  seabed  would  be  exploitable  only  at  a 
depth  of  around  200  meters.  Now  technology 
permits  certain  extractive  activities  at  10  times 
that  depth. 

This  rapid  increase  in  man's  ability  to  utilize 
resources  of  the  ocean  floor  has  laid  bare  many 
possibilities  ranging  from  a  new  gold-rush  ap- 
proach to  sensible  plans  for  increasing  the 
wealth  of  the  whole  world.  President  Jolinson 
stated  the  position  of  this  counti'y  when  he  dis- 
avowed any  intention  to  permit  a  new  land  grab 
of  the  ocean  bottom's  resources.*  Instead,  the 
United  States  is  working  through  the  commu- 
nity of  nations  to  develop  an  acceptable  legal 
system  for  handling  the  deep  seabed  resources. 
During  the  last  session  of  the  United  Nations 
General  Assembly,  an  ad  hoc  committee  was 
established  to  look  into  the  problems  of  the 
ocean  depths  and  to  submit  its  recommendations. 
We  hope  that  the  work  of  this  committee,  like 
that  of  its  predecessor  dealing  with  space,  will 
lead  to  a  consensus  on  principles  to  be  applied 
to  the  deep  ocean  floor. 

As  its  work  develops,  we  expect  the  commit- 
tee to  contribute  to  the  consideration  of  two 
major  problems:  the  question  of  arms  control 
on  the  ocean  bottom  and  tlie  utilization  of  the 


*  For  remarks  by  President  Johnson  made  at  the 
commissioning  of  the  Oceanographer  at  Washington, 
B.C.,  on  July  13,  1966,  see  PuUic  Papers  of  the  Presi- 
dents, Lyndon  B.  Johnson,  1966,  Book  II,  p.  722. 


672 


DEPARTM:E>rT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


ocean  floor's  resources  to  assist  in  international 
economic  development. 

It  is  too  early  to  foresee  the  outcome  of  these 
discussions.  Nonetheless,  it  is  clear  that  success 
can  come  only  by  mutual  cooperation  and  a  fair 
assessment  of  the  interests  of  all  countries. 

In  one  area  there  has  already  been  a  <j:reat 
degree  of  cooperation  to  utilize  a  new  environ- 
ment for  the  benefit  of  mankind.  In  1964  inter- 
national arrangements  were  signed  creating  a 
consortium  of  comitries  for  the  purpose  of  estab- 
lishing a  global  system  of  commimication  satel- 
lites. Today  we  have  communication  by  satellite 
between  the  United  States  and  Eurojje  and  the 
Far  East.  Shortly,  satellite  services  will  provide 
global  coverage. 

The  potential  of  satellite  communications  is 
still  being  discovered.  '\^niat  is  important  is  that 
the  exploitation  of  this  new  resource  be  done  on 
a  cooperative  basis.  Next  year  we  will  enter  into 
negotiations  looking  toward  a  definitive  set  of 
arrangements.  These  will  determine  whether  we 
can  preserve  international  cooperation  in  this 
field  and  whether  we  can  expand  the  member- 
ship of  this  international  institution  to  include 
all  members  of  the  world  community. 

Another  frontier  we  continue  to  face  is  on  the 
wasteland  of  worldwide  poverty.  For  over  two 
decades  this  country  has  conducted  its  foreign 
policy  in  the  belief  that  a  successful  world  order 
cannot  be  achieved  while  vast  divisions  exist  be- 
tween rich  and  poor  nations.  Despite  all  efforts 
over  these  years,  malnutrition  remains  and  dis- 
ease lingers  and  the  environment  of  human 
misery  continues  to  provide  a  culture  for  the 
growth  of  malcontent  and  unrest. 


Feeding,  clothing,  and  housing  the  masses  of 
the  world  is  another  venture  in  which  success 
can  be  attained  only  by  international  cooper- 
ation. Ilumanitarianism  should  suffice  as  a  rea- 
son for  all  industrialized  countries  to  join  in 
making  the  world  fit  for  human  life.  But  even 
those  whose  hearts  may  be  hardened  to  the  plight 
of  others  must  recognize  that  the  bell  is  tolling 
for  them  as  well.  No  industrial  country  can  fail 
to  comprehend  the  dangers  to  world  order 
caused  by  burgeoning  populations,  by  shortages 
of  food,  and  by  the  great  numbers  of  people 
living  in  abject  misery. 

We  have  made  many  effective  efforts  to  handle 
development  problems  on  a  multilateral  basis. 
The  World  Bank  and  its  progeny  are  excellent 
examples.  Wliat  is  required  is  further  stress  on 
a  multilateral  approach  to  all  economic  develop- 
ment problems  so  that  all  countries  able  to  help 
are  drawn  into  the  international  campaign 
against  poverty. 

Today,  science  and  technology  have  projected 
the  world  of  nation-states  into  a  world  where 
cooperation  is  essential  for  survival.  Contempo- 
rary problems  of  security  and  development,  and 
the  opportunities  we  face  in  new  environments 
and  in  old,  require  cooperation  among  all  coun- 
tries. Like  so  many  other  luxuries  of  the  past, 
narrow  nationalism  is  one  the  world  can  no 
longer  afford. 

As  we  engage  our  efforts  to  build  a  world 
based  on  law,  we  have  to  see  that  we  are  entering 
a  new  phase  of  the  world's  history.  It  is  a  phase 
in  which  the  nations  of  the  world  must  recog- 
nize their  shared  interests  and  accept  their 
shared  responsibilities. 


MAT    2  7,    1968 


673 


Prime  Minister  of  Thailand  Visits  the  United  States 


Prime  Minister  Thanotn  KHtikachoni  of 
Thailand^  accompanied  hy  his  wife,  Thanjmying 
C'hongkol,  and  party ^  visited  the  United  States 
May  2-13.  The  Prims  Minister  met  with  Presi- 
dent Johnson  arid  other  Government  officials  in 
Washington  May  8-10  during  the  official  por- 
tion of  his  visit.  Folloioing  are  texts  of  an  ex- 
change of  greetings  between  President  Johnson 
and  Prime  Minister  Thanom  at  a  welcoming 
ceremony  on  the  South  Lawn  of  the  White 
House  on  May  8,  their  exchange  of  toasts  at  a 
dinner  at  the  White  House  that  evening,  and  a. 
joint  communique  issued  on  May  9  following 
their  talks. 


EXCHANGE   OF  GREETINGS 

WliitP  House  press  release  dated  May  8 

President  Johnson 

Welcome  to  the  United  States. 

It  has  been  many  months  since  we  began  phm- 
ning  tliis  visit.  Yet,  because  of  the  events  of  the 
last  few  days,  your  ari-ival  today  is  especially 
timely. 

There  is  a  fresh  breeze  of  liope  circulating 
around  the  world.  It  concerns  both  of  our  na- 
tions, as  well  as  many  other  nations. 

Thus  it  is  a  good  time  for  men  to  meet  and  to 
reflect.  It  is  a  time  to  set  oar  long-term  aims  and 
our  aspirations  for  the  days  aliead. 

Mr.  Prime  Minister,  America's  aims  are  sim- 
ple and  straightforvrard. 

We  believe  that  freedom  and  peace  in  Amer- 
ica can  only  be  secured  if  America  remains  in- 
volved m,  and  concerned  with,  the  future  of 
human  freedom  throughout  the  world. 

We  believe  that  the  cause  of  freedom  and 
progress  can  be  worked  for  Ijoth  economically 
and  politically. 

The  experience  of  Thailand  over  recent  years 
shows  that  great  economic  progress  is  possible 


when  a  motivated  people  seek  it,  and  work 
toward  it,  m  freedom.  The  Thai  economic 
growth  rate  over  the  last  7  years  has  surpassed 
7  percent  j)er  year — one  of  the  highest  rates  in 
all  the  world. 

We  believe  that  human  freedom  thrives  best 
when  men  have  the  right  to  determine  their  own 
political  destiny. 

That  has  been  our  aim  in  Viet-Nam :  to  help 
a  nation  in  its  struggle  to  determine  its  own 
destiny.  As  that  simple — but  very  difficult — 
objective  becomes  secure,  the  American  role  in 
Viet-Nam  will  diminish  and  disappear.  I  stated 
that  in  Manila  in  1966 ;  it  was  stated  by  General 
Westmoreland  [Gen.  William  C.  Westmoreland, 
Coimnander,  Military  Assistance  Command, 
Viet-Nam]  again  in  late  1967 ;  it  has  been  stated 
by  our  Secretary  of  State:  and  Secretary  [of 
Defense  Clark  M.]  Clifford  restated  it  just  a 
few  weeks  ago. 

In  Bangkok  in  1966,  at  your  beautiful  univer- 
sity there,  I  said  to  the  leaders  in  Hanoi :  ^ 

Let  us  lay  aside  our  arms  and  sit  down  ...  at  the 
table  of  reason.  .  .  .  Enough  of  this  sorrow.  Let  us 
begin  the  work  of  healing.  .  .  . 

There  is  hope  now,  finally,  some  hope  that 
that  offer  will  bear  fruit  and  that  an  honorable 
peace  could  come. 

The  world  laiows  that  the  brave  Thai  people 
have  been  in  the  front  rank  of  those  who  fought 
the  good  fight  for  freedom  in  Southeast  Asia. 
Thailand  was  the  first  nation — the  first  nation — 
to  join  with  America  in  the  successful  U.N. 
effort  in  Korea  in  1950.  Thailand  was  the  first 
member  to  ratify  the  SEATO  Treaty.  Thai 
troops  today  stand  and  fight  shoulder  to 
shoulder  with  us  in  South  Viet-Nam. 

Mr.  Prime  Minister,  it  is  good  to  have  such 
a  stanch  ally  by  one's  side  as  we  begin  this 
time  of  hope  and  recommitment  to  our  prin- 
ciples. 


'  Bulletin  of  Nov.  21,  1966,  p.  7 


'68. 


674 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE    BtHXETIN 


Welcome  again.  We  look  forward  with  great 
pleasure  to  the  time  that  you  can  spend  here 
with  us  and  to  the  profitable  exchanges  that  we 
sincerely  believe  will  take  place. 

Prime  Minister  Thanom 

May  I  express  my  heartfelt  appreciation,  Mr. 
President,  for  your  generous  words  of  greeting. 

My  wife  and  I  have  been  happy  to  accept 
your  kind  invitation  to  visit  the  United  States 
and  to  bring  with  us  for  you,  Mr.  President,  and 
for  ilrs.  Jolmson  and  the  American  nation,  the 
greetings  and  good  wishes  of  Their  Majesties 
the  King  and  Queen,  as  well  as  those  of  the 
Thai  people. 

We  also  vividly  remember  your  visit  to  our 
country,  the  first  official  visit  ever  paid  by  a 
President  of  the  United  States  to  Thailand. 
The  Thai  people  greatly  rejoiced  in  welcoming 
you  as  the  chief  of  state  of  a  country  we  in 
Thailand  hold  to  be  our  great  friend  and  ally. 

Mr.  President,  while  some  people  may  not  be 
clear  in  their  thinking,  as  their  minds  are  be- 
clouded by  doubts,  we  in  Thailand  fully  realize 
and  appreciate  how  much  the  United  States 
and  its  gallant  soldiers  have  done  and  are  still 
domg  to  help  defend  small  nations  against  ag- 
gression and  thus  to  preserve  the  delicate  peace 
in  the  world. 

We  know  the  extent  of  sacrifices  such  a  deci- 
sion involves,  but  the  lesson  of  the  recent  past 
tells  us  that  they  are  smaller  than  those  which 
would  have  to  be  borne  if  the  aggressors  were 
allowed  to  strengthen  themselves  with  the  spoils 
of  tlieir  victims. 

The  Thai  nation  and,  indeed,  the  free  nations 
of  Asia,  will  always  remember  you,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, as  the  courageous  defender  of  freedom  in 
Asia  and  as  the  man  who  has  spared  the  United 
States  and  the  world  from  another  holocaust. 

Thailand,  on  its  part,  has  accepted  to  shoulder 
its  share  of  sacrifices  and  responsibility.  At 
the  same  time,  the  Thai  nation  and  people  are 
with  you  and  those  enlightened  Americans  in 
your  incessant  quest  for  a  lasting  and  meaning- 
ful peace,  a  genuine  i^eace  which  is  not  a  facade 
covering  a  surrender  but  a  peace  which  guaran- 
tees freedom  and  the  right  for  small  nations  to 
exist  with  dignity  and  independence. 

With  this  purpose  in  mind,  we  have  come  to 
Washington  to  join  with  you,  Mr.  President, 
in  our  unrelenting  search  for  a  peaceful  and 
progressive  future  in  Southeast  Asia. 


EXCHANGE  OF  TOASTS 

White  House  press  release  dated  May  8 

President  Johnson 

Mr.  Prime  Minister,  your  visit  today  is  his- 
toric and  very  pleasing  in  more  ways  than  one. 
Right  after  we  finish  this  dinner,  you  and  I  will 
go  upstairs  to  the  Treaty  Room  in  the  "Wliite 
House.  We  will  place  a  telephone  call  to  Bang- 
kok. Together  we  will  talk  to  your  Acting  Prime 
Minister  and  thus  we  will  inaugurate  a  new  and 
a  direct  telephone  service  between  our  two  na- 
tions that  are  so  many  thousands  of  miles  apart. 

I  have  already  assured  the  Prime  Minister 
that  I  will  not  abuse  the  jirivileges  of  this  new 
Thai  line.  His  personal  phone  number  will  con- 
tinue to  remain  imlisted. 

As  we  meet  here  tonight,  our  nations  are 
Imked  closer  together  in  another  way.  Your  ar- 
rival at  the  Wliite  House  this  morning,  Mr. 
Prime  Minister,  is  being  telecast  to  Thailand. 
This  is  the  first  direct  telecast  from  the  United 
States  across  the  Pacific  to  the  new  Asian  main- 
land. Your  Government,  sir,  has  helped  to  make 
this  miracle  possible.  You  have  had  the  vision, 
the  imagination,  and  the  courage  to  go  ahead 
and  build  the  ground  station  that  is  now  receiv- 
ing signals  from  an  American  satellite  which  is 
orbiting  far  out  over  the  Pacific. 

This  telecast  is  evidence  of  a  tremendous  and 
recent  leap  in  man's  ability  to  communicate 
with  man — to  see,  to  speak,  and  to  learn  about 
the  world  in  which  he  lives — to  better  under- 
stand all  the  peoples  of  the  earth  and  all  the 
truths  that  can  join  us  as  one  human  family  on 
one  i^eaceful  planet. 

It  is  our  space  teclmology  that  has  given  ns 
the  miracles  of  satellites  and  these  worldwide 
telecasts.  Most  of  us  never  recognize  that  at  all. 
It  is  the  millions  of  dollars  and  the  many  mil- 
lions of  man-hours  that  are  invested  in  our  space 
program  tliat  give  America  and  Thailand  a  new 
link  tonight — just  as  this  technology  draws  all 
men  closer  in  understanding  and  the  partner- 
ship that  can  come  from  it. 

That,  I  think,  is  the  real  message  that  should 
go  out  over  the  airwaves  tonight.  I  hope  that  it 
will  be  heard — and,  Mr.  [Hale]  Boggs,  I  hope  it 
will  be  heeded  in  the  Congress — when  the  critics 
of  the  space  progi-am  sit  down  to  do  their 
budget  calculations. 

Personally  I  am  delighted  that  we  have  al- 
ready slipped  under  this  wire. 


MAT    27,    19G8 


675 


Speaking  of  telecasts,  I  am  tempted  to  ask  the 
Prime  Minister  for  equal  time  tonight,  because  I 
understand  that  he  made  a  very  special  side  trip 
on  his  recent  visit  to  Florida.  He  requested — 
and  I  tliink  was  granted — a  special  tour  of 
the  hall  where  the  Republican  Party  will  evolve 
its  plans  to  defeat  us  and  where  it  will  hold 
its  convention  a  little  later  this  year. 

Mr.  Prime  Minister,  should  you  choose  to  visit 
Chicago,  I  think  there  are  some  people  who 
would  be  delighted  to  serve  as  your  guide.  The 
Vice  President  has  a  very  crowded  schedule 
these  days,  but  he  has  never  failed  me  in  any 
request  I  have  made.  I  am  sure  if  you  put  Chi- 
cago on  your  itinerary  and  you  desire  to  go  and 
take  a  look  at  the  convention  hall,  we  could  call 
upon  tlie  Vice  President  to  go  and  show  you 
through  it. 

I  have  some  doubt,  Mr.  Prime  Minister,  as 
to  who  is  going  to  be  the  star  of  the  telecast  that 
you  will  see.  As  you  and  I  were  making  some 
veiy  solemn  speeches  this  morning,  according 
to  the  press,  out  here  on  the  South  Lawn,  Mrs. 
Johnson  noticed  that  the  cameras  kept  looking 
away  from  us.  She  told  me  later  that  they  missed 
what  we  had  to  say  because  they  were  focused 
on  a  very  happy  little  boy  in  the  White  House 
doorway.  He  had  a  Thai  flag  in  one  hand  and 
an  American  flag  in  the  other  hand,  and  every 
time  he  saw  a  camera  your  grandson  looked 
directly  into  the  eye  of  it  and  waved  both  flags 
so  the  camera  could  see  them. 

I  learned  to  admire  your  little  grandson  this 
morning,  Mr.  Prime  Minister.  He  is  a  fast  run- 
ner, and  I  predict  he  has  a  great  public  future. 
I  believe  he  is  only  2  years  old.  He  seems  to  have 
done  something  that  I  have  been  unalile  to  do  in 
60  years — he  has  mastered  the  very  difficult  art 
of  charming  the  American  press 

Luckily,  I  did  not  bring  my  own  grandson 
along  this  morning.  If  I  had,  Mr.  Prime  Min- 
ister, I  don't  think  that  either  of  us  would  have 
lieen  in  any  pictures  at  all. 

Mrs.  Johnson  and  I  know  that  this  visit  is 
your  first  o))]-)ortimity  to  see  two  of  your  grand- 
children. We  know  from  personal  experience 
how  delightful  that  must  be  for  you  and  your 
wife.  We  are  very  pleased  to  share  with  all  of 
you  that  joy. 

Our  families  mean  much  to  both  of  us.  We 
both  know  in  very  personal  terms  what  it  means 
to  have  members  of  our  immediate  family  away 
from  home  fighting  in  Viet-Nam— you  through 
your  own  son,  and  me  through  both  of  my  sons- 


in-law.  The  hope  that  sustains  us,  and  the 
things  which  make  our  burdens  easier,  is  the 
hope  that  our  sons  have  seen  their  duty — and 
they  are  going  to  succeed  in  it. 

These  young  men — and  the  many  hundreds 
of  thousands  like  them — are  our  guardians  to- 
night. I  believe  in  all  faith  and  in  great  pride 
that  these  young  men  are  also  the  builders  of  a 
greater  and  a  better  world.  They  are  the  build- 
ers of  a  more  secure  and  a  prospering  new  Asia, 
a  peacefid  and  a  progressive  partnership 
among  men. 

All  of  us  know  and  value  the  contributions 
that  the  Royal  Thai  Government,  under  your 
own  wise  and  strong  leadership,  is  making  daily 
to  that  dream. 

Your  role  in  SEATO  is  fundamental  to  the 
collective  security  and  growth  of  Southeast 
Asia.  You  stand  steadfast  with  us  and  our  al- 
lies, holding  up  the  shield  behind  which  a  new 
Asia  is  building  tonight.  By  helping  to  mediate 
old  and  outworn  quarrels  you  are  inspiring 
your  neighbors  to  come  and  reason  together  and 
to  work  in  new  and  creative  enterprises. 

By  working  through  the  United  Nations,  you 
are  helping  to  harness  the  mighty  Mekong 
River  for  the  benefit  of  literally  millions  of 
your  own  people  and  millions  of  your  neigh- 
bors. By  creating  and  encouraging  a  host  of 
new  cooperative  institutions,  you  are  laying 
the  foundations  of  a  system  where  Asians  can 
work  out  their  own  destinj^  in  their  own  way. 

These  are  the  goals^and  these  are  the 
stakes — of  our  common  commitment  in  South- 
east Asia.  These  are  the  reasons  why  I  take 
those  commitments  so  seriously,  why  we  are 
pledged  to  honor  them  scrupulously.  We  seek 
nothing  more  than  an  honorable  settlement  of 
conflict  and  difficulty.  But,  Mr.  Prime  Minister, 
we  are  determined  to  accept  nothing  less. 

We  will  negotiate  in  good  faith,  but  we  will 
never — we  will  never — abandon  our  commit- 
ments nor  will  we  ever  compromise  the  future 
of  Asia  at  the  negotiating  table.  We  will  sit 
down  in  Paris  as  cordial,  fainninded,  and  open- 
handed  men.  However  hard  or  however  long  the 
labor,  we  will  not  tire  in  keeping  our  public 
trust. 

I  hope  that  our  own  people,  all  of  them,  and 
and  our  adversaries  as  well,  will  realize  that 
increased  infiltration,  sending  new  ^HG's  to 
new  airfields  south  of  the  20th  parallel,  will  not 
go  imnoticed,  even  when  we  have  summoned  all 


M 


676 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


of  our  patience  and  our  fairness  in  an  attempt 
to  peacefully  sit  do^vn  at  the  table  and  be  fair 
with  our  fellow  men. 

Mr.  Prime  Minister,  it  is  as  I  described  it  the 
other  evening.  We  want  to  move  from  enmity 
to  brotherhood,  from  destruction  to  comjnon 
efforts  on  behalf  of  the  men,  women,  and  chil- 
dren of  Southeast  Asia. 

In  this  we  ask  the  prayers  of  all  of  our  fellow 
men  tonight  throughout  the  world,  because  this 
is  tlie  eve  of  our  delegation's  departure  for 
what  I  liope  with  all  of  my  heart  will  be  the 
table  of  peace. 

Let  us  toast  their  going.  Let  us  toast  their 
success  and  to  the  precious  gift  that  they  may 
bring  us  on  their  return. 

But  let  us  never  enjoy  the  illusion  for  a  mo- 
ment that  the  road  is  not  going  to  be  long, 
hard,    and   difficult;    that   it   -will   try   men's 
patience  and  men's  souls. 
I  Let  us  remember  and  toast  tonight  others 

whose  mission  is  peace,  to  the  gallant  and  the 
magnificent  soldiers  of  Thailand  whose  cour- 
age and  whose  sacrifices  give  their  South  Viet- 
namese and  American  comrades  so  much  heart. 
These  brave  men  and  their  families  give  us  all 
so  much  confidence  that  the  day  of  reconciliation 
must  come  some  day,  and  we  hope  it  will  come 
soon. 

Ladies  and  gentlemen,  those  of  you  who  have 
come  from  throughout  the  breadth  of  this  land, 
from  most  of  the  50  States,  I  should  lilie  to  ask 
you  to  toast  now  to  all  that  we  share  with  the 
people  of  Thailand  and  all  of  our  wai-m  regards 
for  Their  Majesties  the  King  and  the  Queen  of 
Thailand. 

Prime   Minister  Thanom 

May  I  think  you,  Mr.  President,  most  sin- 
cerely for  your  generous  words  of  welcome  and 
for  your  gracious  hospitality  extended  to  all  of 
us.  I  am  indeed  grateful  to  you,  Mr.  President, 
for  your  heartening  expression  of  friendship 
toward  Thailand  and  its  people. 

We  highly  value  the  opportunity  given  by 
this  visit  to  meet  and  exchange  views  with  you, 
Mr.  President,  and  with  other  distinguished 
leaders  of  your  Government  on  many  matters 
of  mutual  interest  and  concern. 

I  feel  highly  gratified  that  on  the  vital  ques- 
tion of  peace  and  stability  of  Southeast  Asia, 
with  particular  relation  to  Viet-Nam,  the  United 
States   and   Thailand   share   the   same   views 


that  aggression  must  not  be  allowed  to  succeed 
and  that  smaller  nations  must  not  be  subjected 
against  their  will  to  alien  domination  by  the 
sheer  use  of  force,  terror,  and  subversion.  For  if 
such  conquest  were  allowed  to  take  place,  the 
seeds  of  wider  conflict  would  be  sown,  with  dire 
consequences  for  our  nations  and  the  rest  of 
mankind. 

With  keen  realization  of  this  great  danger, 
you  have  taken,  Mr.  President,  a  courageous 
stand  to  forestall  the  dreadful  event  and  pre- 
vent grievous  sacrifices  which  otherwise  would 
befall  your  great  nation  and  the  rest  of  the 
world. 

For  this  wise  and  farsighted  decision,  the 
Thai  people  and  the  free  nations  of  Asia  are 
forever  grateful  to  you  and  will  always  keep  in 
their  memory  the  name  of  Lyndon  Baines  John- 
son as  a  benefactor  who  has  gallantly  upheld 
the  cause  of  their  freedom  and  independence. 

They  fully  realize  how  difficult  and  painful 
it  must  have  been  for  you,  Mr.  President,  as  a 
man  of  peace,  to  reach  such  a  momentous  deci- 
sion which  would  involve  the  well-being  and 
the  lives  of  many  brave  young  men,  especially 
your  sons-in-law. 

If  any  vindication  were  to  be  needed,  it  will 
be  by  history  that,  in  accepting  the  present 
heavy  and  grievous  burden,  many  more  lives 
will  have  been  spared  for  this  great  nation  and 
the  rest  of  the  world. 

Already  the  course  that  the  United  States 
and  its  allies  have  taken  is  proven  to  be  a  correct 
one,  as  our  firm  resolve  has  convinced  the  ag- 
gressors tliat  they  cannot  overcome  free  na- 
tions by  violence  and  conquest. 

A  grave  and  important  task,  however,  re- 
mains to  be  accomplished,  namely,  that  of  pre- 
venting the  enemy  of  freedom  from  reaping 
at  the  conference  table  the  victory  they  could 
not  achieve  on  the  battlefield,  for  otherwise  the 
costly  sacrifices  of  our  gallant  soldiers  would 
have  been  in  vain. 

You,  Mr.  President,  and  the  American  na- 
tion, may  rest  assured  that  Thailand  and  its 
people,  who  have  braved  the  risk  of  war  and 
destruction,  stand  with  you  and  the  United 
States  in  forging  a  firm  and  meaningful  peace 
which  will  insure  that  free  peoples  will  always 
remain  free. 

Conscious  of  its  duty,  the  Thai  Government 
and  people  have  not  remained  idle.  As  fighting 
goes  on,  they  have,  by  themselves,  and  in  con- 


MAT    27,    19G8 


677 


junction  with  some  of  their  neighbors,  laid  the 
foundations  for  peace  and  future  progress  of 
Southeast  Asia. 

We  shall  need  you,  as  perhaps  you  will  need 
us,  to  join  together  in  constructive  endeavors  in 
building  a  better  and  more  harmonious  world 
in  whicli  free  men  can  engage  without  fear  of 
death  and  destruction  in  the  pursuit  of  their 
happiness. 

It  will  always  be  our  fond  hope,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, that  the  great  American  nation  and  the 
small  Thai  nation  will  always  join  hands  in  such 
a  practical  and  mutually  beneficial  partnership 
for  peace,  for  freedom  and  progress. 

I  should  like  now  to  propose  a  toast  to  the 
President  of  the  United  States  and  to  the  ever- 
lasting friendship  between  the  American  na- 
tion and  the  Thai  nation. 


JOINT  COMMUNIQUE 

White  House  press  release  dated  May  9 

At  the  invitation  of  President  Lyndon  B. 
Johnson  of  the  United  States,  Prime  Minister 
Thanom  Kittikachorn  of  the  Kingdom  of  Thai- 
land paid  an  official  visit  to  Washington  on 
May  8  and  9.  This  visit  afforded  the  President 
and  the  Prime  Mmister  and  several  of  his 
senior  Cabinet  colleagues  an  opportunity  to  ex- 
change views  on  current  developments  in  Thai- 
land and  on  the  situation  in  Southeast  Asia. 

Thailand 

Tlie  Prime  Minister  described  the  dynamic 
economic  expansion  currently  taking  place  in 
Thailand.  He  mentioned  the  major  role  played 
by  private  initiative  and  emphasized  Thai  in- 
terest in  promoting  foreign  investment  in  his 
country.  He  also  referred  to  the  forthcoming 
promulgation  of  a  new  Constitution  by  His 
Majesty  the  King. 

The  President  and  the  Prime  Minister  dis- 
cussed the  externally-supported.  Communist- 
directed  subversion  and  insurgency  in  Thailand, 
especially  in  the  northern  and  northeastern  re- 
gions. In  this  connection,  the  Prime  INIinister 
described  his  Government's  programs  for  pro- 
viding security  to  the  rural  popidation  and  im- 
proving their  social  and  economic  conditions. 
He  also  noted  that  while  welcoming  foreign 
assistance  in  the  form  of  training,  equipment 


and  advice,  the  Koyal  Thai  Government  re- 
garded defeating  the  insurgency  as  a  Thai  re- 
sponsibility to  be  carried  out  by  its  own  forces. 
The  President  made  clear  the  intention  of  the 
United  States  to  contmue  its  assistance  to  Thai- 
land to  help  provide  the  Koyal  Thai  Gov- 
ernment with  the  means  of  meeting  illegal 
Communist  activities.  He  stressed  American 
support  in  the  field  of  accelerated  rural  devel- 
opment, especially  with  regard  to  roads  and 
water  resources. 

The  President  re-emphasized  the  determina- 
tion of  the  United  States  to  stand  by  its  trea.ty 
commitments  to  Thailand  and  its  other  allies 
in  Asia.  Pie  recalled  with  pleasure  the  three 
visits  he  has  made  to  Thailand.  He  noted  the 
pledge  that  he  had  given  at  the  time  of  liis  visit 
to  Bangkok  in  1966  that  the  commitment  of 
the  United  States  was  not  of  a  particular  politi-  ,^ 
cal  party  or  administration,  but  of  the  people  of 
the  United  States,  and  that  "America  keeps  its 
commitments."  ^ 

Vietnam 

The  President  and  the  Prime  Minister  re- 
viewed in  detail  the  situation  in  South  Vietnam. 
They  reaffirmed  their  determination  to  assist  the 
Republic  of  Vietnam  in  defending  itself  against 
aggression  in  order  to  assure  its  people  the  right 
to  "determine  their  own  future  free  from  ex- 
ternal interference  and  terrorism.  They  also 
stressed  the  importance  of  this  defense  to  the 
security  of  other  nations  in  the  region. 

The  President  and  the  Prime  Minister  re- 
viewed the  military  situation  including  the  re- 
cent initiatives  of  the  Government  of  South 
Vietnam  and  actions  by  the  United  States  and 
its  allies  to  increase  tlieir  forces  there. 

The  Prime  Minister  noted  that  additional 
Thai  forces,  the  first  increments  of  a  Thai  divi- 
sion, will  deploy  to  South  Vietnam  sliortly  to 
join  Thai  troops  already  fighting  with  South 
Vietnamese,  American,  and  other  allied  units. 
The  President  paid  tribute  to  the  contribution 
Thailand  is  making  to  our  conmion  defense  in- 
terests by  making  base  facilities  available  for 
use  by  tlie  United  States.  He  also  praised  the 
hospitality  extended  American  servicemen  by 
the  Thai  people. 


'  For  President  Johnson's  toast  to  the  King  of  Thai- 
land at  a  state  dinner  at  Bangkok  on  Oct.  28,  1966.  see 
ibid.,  p.  767. 


678 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


The  President  and  the  Prime  Minister  agreed 
that  the  attainment  of  a  just  and  durable  peace 
required  both  a  strong  military  posture  and  the 
pui"suit  of  a  diplomatic  solution.  They  agreed  to 
continue  their  efforts  on  both  these  fronts  until 
such  a  peace  is  secured. 

The  President  reviewed  in  detail  the  develop- 
ments   that    had    followed    his    initiative    of 
March  31  to  halt  bombing  in  the  major  part  of 
North  Vietnam  and  to  invite  talks.'  The  Presi- 
dent and  the  Prime  ISIinister  expressed  satisfac- 
tion tliat  Paris  had  now  been  agreed  as  the  site 
for  talks,  and  tlie  President  reviewed  the  posi- 
tion that  American  representatives  would  take 
in  the  opening  stages  of  these  talks.  The  Presi- 
dent reaffirmed  that  at  each  stage  the  U.  S.  Gov- 
ernment would  continue  its  full  consultations 
with  the  Koyal  Thai  Government  and  its  other 
allies  concerning  negotiating  positions  and  de- 
velopments. The  President  and  the  Prime  Min- 
ister also  reaffirmed  the  position  stated  in  the 
Seven-Nation   Foreign   Ministers   Meeting   of 
April  1967 — that  a  settlement  in  Vietnam,  to  be 
enduring,  must  respect  the  wishes  and  aspira- 
tions of  the  Vietnamese  people;  that  the  Repub- 
lic of  Vietnam  should  be  a  full  participant  in 
any   negotiations   designed   to   bring   about   a 
settlement  of  the  conflict ;  and  that  the  allied  na- 
tions which  have  helped  to  defend  the  Eepublic 
of  Vietnam  should  participate  in  any  settlement 
of  the  conflict.*  Expressing  the  hope  that  the 
Paris  conversations  would  result  in  serious  dis- 
cussions on  the  substance  of  peace  in  Vietnam, 
the  President  and  the  Prime  Minister  reaffirmed 
that  the  Manila  Communique  of  1966  =  would 
form  the  basis  of  the  allied  position.  The  two 
leaders  emphasized  their  determination  that  the 
South  Vietnamese  people  shall  not  be  conquered 
by  aggression  and  shall  enjoy  their  inherent 
right  to  decide  their  own  way  of  life  and  form 
of  government.  The  President  and  the  Prime 
Minister  also  noted  the  importance  of  ensuring 


'For  President  Johnson's  address  to  the  Nation  on 
Mar.  31.  see  ibid.,  Apr.  lo,  1968.  p.  481. 

*For  text  of  a  final  communique  issued  at  the  close 
of  the  seven-nation  meeting  on  Viet-Nam  held  at  Wel- 
lington, New  Zealand,  on  Apr.  4,  see  ibid.,  Apr.  22,  1068, 
p.  521. 

'  For  text,  see  J6w7.,  Nov.  14, 1966,  p.  730. 


full  compliance  with  the  provisions  of  the  1962 
Geneva  Accords  on  Laos. 

In  discussing  the  situation  which  woidd  fol- 
low a  cessation  of  hostilities  in  Vietnam,  the 
President  and  the  Prime  Minister  agreed  that 
close  and  continuous  consultation  on  economic 
and  security  questions  would  be  required  to  as- 
sure a  smooth  transition  from  war  to  peace. 

Regional  Cooperation 

The  President  and  the  Prime  Minister  fur- 
ther reviewed  the  favorable  trends  in  regional 
cooperation  in  Southeast  Asia  and  Thailand's 
leading  role  in  furthering  these  developments. 
Particular  note  was  taken  of  the  accomplish- 
ments in  the  United  Nations  Economic  Commis- 
sion for  Asia  and  the  Far  East  (ECAFE)  and 
the  Mekong  Committee,  to  whose  studies  and 
projects  they  attach  considerable  importance, 
and  of  the  evolution  of  several  new  Southeast 
Asian  organizations  which  raise  hope  for  a  new 
era  of  constructive  common  endeavor  for  a  last- 
ing peace  and  sustained  progress  of  the  area. 
Referring  to  his  speech  at  Johns  Hopkins  in 
April  iges,**  the  President  cited  our  support  for 
Southeast  Asian  regional  development  as  clear 
evidence  of  the  United  States  continuing  con- 
cern for  and  commitment  to  the  nations  of  this 
region. 

In  particular,  the  Prime  Minister  reported  to 
the  President  discussions  held  in  New  York  with 
a  US  team  headed  by  Mr.  Eugene  R.  Black 
concerning  the  favorable  outlook  for  the  Pa 
Mong  dam  on  the  mainstream  of  the  Mekong 
River.  The  President  and  the  Prime  Minis- 
ter agreed  on  the  importance  of  this  project 
and  the  desirability  of  accelerating  present 
project  feasibility  studies  under  the  Mekong 
Committee. 

In  conclusion,  Prime  Minister  Thanom  Kitti- 
kachorn  expressed  his  grateful  appreciation  for 
the  gracious  hospitality  extended  to  him  and 
Thanpuying  Chongkol  as  well  as  the  members 
of  their  party  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States  and  for  the  warm  and  friendly  welcome 
accorded  them  by  the  Government  and  the 
people  of  the  United  States. 


'Ibid.,  Apr.  1.'0,  196.5,  p.  G06. 


MAT    27,    1968 


679 


Europe  and  the  United  States — The  Partnership  of  Necessity 


l>y  ZJtider  Secretary  Rostow  ^ 


I  propose  today  to  take  a  step  that  requires 
temerity — perhaps  the  boldness  of  those  who 
rush  in  where  angels  fear  to  venture.  I  intend  to 
challenge  one  of  the  most  familiar  cliches  in  the 
voluminous  literature,  journalism,  and  rhetoric 
of  our  foreign  policy.  As  yoii  all  know,  it  is 
conventional  wisdom,  repeated  everywhere  as 
commonplace,  that  we  have  no  European  and 
Atlantic  policy,  that  NATO  is  in  disarray,  and 
that  we  have  been  neglecting  our  vital  interests 
in  Europe  because  we  have  been  so  preoccupied 
with  Asia. 

I  submit  tliat  these  propositions  constitute  a 
myth,  that  here,  as  elsewhere,  there  is  a  notable 
gap — perhaps  even  a  credibility  gap — between 
cliche  and  reality. 

Tlie  relationship  between  the  United  States 
and  Europe  is  rich  in  the  complexity  of  deep 
and  intimate  human  ties.  We  share  a  common 
civilization,  common  values,  a  common  per- 
sonal heritage.  The  European  bond  is  an  insist- 
ent dimension  of  almost  every  aspect  of  all  our 
lives.  Generations  of  novelists,  historians,  and 
scholars  have  explored  it  but  failed  to  capture 
its  final  mystery.  I  shall  confine  myself  today 
to  the  more  mundane  aspects  of  our  relationship. 
But  all  our  ties  are  colored  by  the  nature  of  their 
matrix. 

Like  every  other  aspect  of  our  foreign  policy, 
our  relations  with  Europe  are  in  motion,  and 
often  in  turbulent  motion,  as  we  and  the  nations 
of  Europe  seek  to  reshape  the  pattern  of  our 
cooperation  in  the  light  of  changing  world  con- 
ditions. But  the  fact  of  that  cooperation  remains 


a  premise  of  our  foreign  policy,  and  of  Europe's, 
for  the  most  fundamental  reasons  of  shared  in- 
terest. The  principle  of  close  cooperation  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  Europe,  and  Japan 
as  well — the  main  power  centers  of  the  free 
world — has  been  basic  to  our  foreign  policy  for 
at  least  20  years.  It  is  indispensable  to  the  pa- 
tient, steady  quest  for  world  equilibrium  which 
has  engaged  four  Presidents  since  the  war,  with 
the  full  support  of  a  bipartisan  majority  of  the 
Congress  and  of  the  American  people.  And  it 
will  necessarily  remain  central  to  our  national 
policy  in  the  struggle  for  peace  for  as  far  ahead 
as  we  can  foresee. 

The  cooperation  of  Europe  and  the  United 
States  is  fruitful  and  constructive.  Month  after 
month,  it  results  in  agreed  solutions  for  difficult 
problems  in  many  fields :  in  the  military  area,  of 
course;  in  trade;  in  monetary  affairs;  in  pro- 
grams of  aid  for  the  developing  countries ;  in  the 
handling  of  thorny  political  troubles  in  many 
parts  of  the  world;  in  INTELSAT,  the  instru- 
ment for  mternational  cooperation  in  space 
satellite  communications;  in  the  development  of 
initiatives  to  improve  our  relations  with  the 
Conunimist  countries;  and  m.ost  recently  in  the 
articulation  by  NATO,  in  December  1967,  of  a 
program  to  give  new  vitality  and  new  dimen- 
sions to  tlie  political  work  of  the  Atlantic 
alliance.' 

I  do  not  wish  to  minimize  the  disagreements 
we  have  had  with  one  or  another  of  our  Euro- 
pean partners  from  time  to  time  nor  to  pretend 
that  they  do  not  exist.  I  do  wish,  however,  to 


'Address  made  before  the  Commonwealth  Club  of 
California  at  San  Francisco,  Calif.,  on  May  3  (as- 
delivered  text;  for  advance  text,  see  press  release  90). 


*  For  texts  of  a  final  communique  and  annex  released 
at  the  close  of  the  meeting  of  the  North  Atlantic  Coun- 
cil at  Brussels  on  Dec.  14,  1967,  see  Bulletin  of  Jan.  8, 
1968,  p.  49. 


680 


DEPARTMENT   OP    STATE   BTJLLETIIT 


put  those  disagreements  into  the  perspective  of 
our  overall  relationship  with  the  nations  of 
Europe  and  to  review  with  you  the  record  of 
solid  progress  which  we  and  they  have  achieved 
together  in  many  fields  during  the  last  few 
}'ears. 

Changing   Pattern  of  World  Politics 

In  19i5  the  nations  of  Europe  were  gravely 
weakened.  Some  were  divided  by  the  tensions  of 
fascism,  occupation,  or  defeat.  All  were  ex- 
hausted by  the  strain  of  war.  And  those  with 
overseas  empires  faced  the  long,  bitter  jjrospect 
of  withdrawal — a  trying  and  often  a  traumatic 
experience,  despite  the  financial  relief  which 
such  a  course  entailed. 

At  the  same  time,  we  began  to  perceive  the 
magnitude  of  the  burden  which  history  had 
thrust  upon  us.  For  the  first  time  in  our  experi- 
ence as  a  nation,  we  confronted  the  problem  of 
protecting  our  national  security  by  helpmg  to 
organize  and  preserve  a  world  balance  of  power. 
Until  1945  we  thought  such  tasks  were  for  other 
nations  less  virtuous  than  we.  Now — Lii  a  world 
where  Communist  power  reached  out  from  its 
bases  in  the  Soviet  Union,  and  later  from  China, 
j  a  world  where  Western  Europe  was  withdraw- 
'  ing  from  Asia,  Africa,  and  the  Middle  East  to 
be  succeeded  by  a  large  number  of  weak  and 
vulnerable  new  nations— in  this  new  world,  we 
saw  that  unless  we  took  the  lead  there  was  no 
possibility  of  organizing  the  conditions  of  a 
durable  peace.  In  magnitude,  the  effort  was  be- 
yond the  capacity  of  the  nations  of  Europe. 
Huge  new  powers  had  emerged — later  they  were 
to  become  nuclear  powers.  If  we  did  not  act,  no 
one  else  could.  And  if  we  failed,  we  should  per- 
force become  a  garrison  state,  hemmed  in,  re- 
strained—hardly the  open,  confident  America 
we  ]:new  and  wished  to  preserve. 

This  changing  fjattern  of  world  politics  has 
required  many  peoples  in  the  world  to  live 
through  difficult  reorientations.  They  liave  the 
same  psychological  content.  They  require  na- 
tions to  give  up  cherished  visions  of  self  based 
on  historical  experience  and  to  accept  new  roles 
and  new  functions  in  the  light  of  new  and  un- 
familiar configurations  of  world  power.  It  is 
extraordinarily  difficult  to  escape  from  the  his- 
torical memories — from  what  Jung  called  the 
collective  unconscious — that  shape  our  sense  of 
ourselves.  The  effort  requires  an  unequal  battle 


between  reason  and  feeling,  between  dream  and 
reality.  The  British  and  the  French  are  engaged 
in  such  an  effort — adjusting  themselves  to  the 
loss  of  empire  and  to  the  new  scale  of  world 
politics.  So  are  many  other  people  who  find 
themselves  in  an  altogether  new  relationsliip  to 
their  neighbors  and  the  outside  world. 

Our  identity  crisis  is  among  the  most  pro- 
found of  all  those  which  are  in  process  around 
the  world.  Our  collective  unconscious  is  an  idyl- 
lic vision  of  America  alone,  isolated,  and  mi- 
raculously safe  because  we  were  uniquely 
blessed — E  Pluribus  TJnum^  the  chosen  people, 
secure  because  we  were  high  minded. 

The  reversal  of  roles  between  Europe  and  the 
United  States  since  the  war  is  naturally  a  source 
of  strain  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic.  Europe 
does  not  enjoy  the  loss  of  primacy.  And  we  re- 
sent, indeed,  we  can  hardly  bring  ourselves  to 
recognize,  the  circumstances  which  have  re- 
quired us  to  assiune  that  responsibility.  For  both 
peoples,  the  course  of  policy  since  1945  is  pro- 
foundly at  variance  with  their  sense  of  the 
past. 

Nonetheless,  we  have  put  our  hands  to  the 
plow,  despite  recurring  periods  of  doubt  and 
self -searching,  such  as  the  one  we  are  enduring 
now.  Since  1947  we  have  been  engaged  in  a 
steady  and  sustained  effort,  to  build  a  new  sys- 
tem of  i^eace  to  replace  the  old  one  which  dis- 
integrated between  1914  and  1945. 

The  essential  idea  of  that  process  is  to  use  the 
power  of  the  United  States  as  the  magnetic  cen- 
ter of  several  overlapping  systems  of  regional 
cooperation.  Such  arrangements  could  shield  the 
free  world  and  organize  a  new  balance  of  world 
power  within  which  we  could  live  in  compara- 
tive safety  in  an  environment  of  reasonable  sta- 
bility and  of  wide  horizons  and  press  forward 
for  economic  and  social  progress  at  home  and 
abroad. 

In  the  beginning  we  had  to  provide  a  large 
part  of  the  force,  and  of  the  economic  resources, 
essential  to  the  task.  It  was  our  hope,  and  it  has 
been  our  policy,  that  other  nations  would  join 
us  as  they  recovered  from  the  shocks  of  war  and 
of  its  aftermath,  or  in  the  case  of  the  new  na- 
tions, as  they  gained  the  internal  strength  neces- 
sary to  sustain  such  efforts. 

This  pattern  of  regional  cooperation  within 
a  more  and  more  unified  world  pi-omises  a 
viable  longi'un  alternative  to  the  large-scale 


MAT 


19G8 


681 


American  involvements  and  responsibilities  of 
the  early  postwar  years.  Nuclear  questions  aside, 
we  could  over  time  become  the  jiuiior  jjartner  of 
the  free  world's  systems  of  regional  cooperation. 

The  Atlantic  Link 

The  model  and  the  prototype  for  the  kind  of 
regional  arrangements  we  have  m  mind  is  the 
network  of  cooperative  habits  we  call  the  At- 
lantic community.  Our  goal  has  been  to  help 
Europe  achieve  a  new  coherence  and  a  new  sta- 
bility within  that  community.  Our  aim  has 
never  been  an  "American"  Europe — an  Atlantic 
empire  which  would  result  in  American  hegem- 
ony. The  notion  of  empire  is  repugnant  to  the 
most  fundamental  tenets  of  our  polity.  We  shall 
always  prefer  patterns  of  cooperation  to  Roman 
solutions.  From  the  beginning  we  have  sought 
not  only  to  restore  and  preserve  Western  Eu- 
rope's independence  but  to  fost«r  conditions 
which  would  make  it  possible  for  our  European 
cousins  to  resume  that  full  place  in  the  world 
which  their  talent,  wealth,  and  experience  en- 
title— indeed,  oblige — them  to  hold.  With  the 
Marshall  Plan,  we  sought  to  build  not  an  eco- 
nomic dependency  but  a  powerful  competitor. 
No  one  needs  to  be  reminded  how  well  our  hopes 
have  been  fulfilled. 

Most  of  the  credit  for  Europe's  revival  be- 
longs, obviously,  to  the  Europeans  themselves. 
Their  histoiy  since  the  war  exhibits  not  only  the 
characteristic  vitality  of  these  ancient  and  in- 
exhaustible nations  but  their  political  maturity 
and  institutional  inventiveness  as  well. 

Perhaps  the  greatest  achievement  of  postwar 
European  statesmanship  has  been  the  articula- 
tion and  acceptance  of  the  European  idea,  which 
has  made  possible  the  fundamental  reconcilia- 
tion between  France  and  Germany.  It  ranks,  I 
believe,  with  the  Marshall  Plan  as  one  of  the 
truly  creative  acts  of  modern  politics.  It  has  lib- 
erated the  energies  that  have  made  possible  the 
achievements  of  the  European  Communities  and 
started  a  process  of  evolution  which  despite  all 
obstacles  is  still  gaining  in  momentum. 

In  short,  it  is  fair  to  say  that  Western  Europe, 
more  than  any  other  region  of  the  world,  has 
made  progress  in  reconciling  the  fact  of  nation- 
alism to  the  fact  of  interdependence. 

The  same  recognition  of  interdependence  has 
extended  not  only  among  the  Europeans  but 
across  the  Atlantic.  For  nearly  20  years  we  and 
our  allies  have  cooperated  intimately  in  sustain- 


ing Western  Europe's  military  defense,  as  well 
as  in  business,  economic  policy,  education,  and 
science. 

The  Atlantic  link  has  meant  that  in  a  turbu- 
lent world  Europe  has  already  enjoyed  a  period 
of  peace  longer  than  that  between  the  First  and 
Second  World  Wars. 

Reconciliation   of  Europe 

But  as  we  all  know,  Europe  does  not  enjoy 
real  peace.  Its  present  order  is  not  generally 
accepted  as  right  by  the  European  peoples 
themselves.  For  Europe  is  not  just  Western 
Europe,  but  Eastern  Europe  as  well.  Germany 
is  not  two  nations,  but  one.  There  cannot  be  a 
true  detente  in  Europe  until  the  wound  that  runs 
across  its  face  is  healed.  It  is  equally  apparent, 
as  President  Jolmson  pointed  out  in  the  fall  of 
1966,^  that  the  reunification  of  Germany  and  of 
Europe  can  be  achieved  only  by  detente,  that  is, 
only  through  improvements  in  the  political 
climate  of  Europe  and  of  the  world  at  large. 
The  stability  of  NATO,  and  the  economic  and 
social  progress  of  Western  Europe,  have  helped 
to  release  humanistic  influences  in  Eastern 
Europe;  at  this  pomt,  they  provide  a  solid 
foundation  for  new  initiatives  to  improve 
political  and  economic  relations  with  the 
countries  of  Eastern  Europe. 

The  long  period  of  peace  and  the  evident 
popular  feeling  on  both  sides  of  the  ideological 
boimdary  have  together  raised  hopes  that  some 
reconciliation  of  the  European  family  may  be 
possible  before  too  long. 

Our  ally,  the  Federal  Eepublic  of  Germany, 
has  embarked  upon  an  Eastern  policy  designed 
to  rebuild  its  ties  of  trade,  of  culture,  and  of 
political  relationships  to  Eastern  Europe.  If 
such  a  policy  offers  little  prospect  for  the  im- 
mediate reimification  of  Germany,  it  should 
prepare  the  way  by  altering  the  atmosphere  and 
breaking  down  the  sense  of  sullen  isolation  that 
breeds  unreasonable  fears.  Eventually,  in  a 
changed  climate,  it  should  not  be  beyond  the 
realm  of  possibility  that  the  same  inventiveness 
which  has  been  devoted  to  building  the  new 
environment  of  Western  Europe  and  of  the 
Atlantic  community  may  find  a  formula  to  end 
artificial  barriers  that  can  only  be  sustained  by 
force. 


"  For  an  address  by  President  Johnson  made  at  New 
York,  N.Y.,  on  Oct.  7,  1966,  see  iJ)id.,  Oct.  24,  1966, 
p.  622. 


682 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


We  imderstand  and  agi*ee  with  the  new  Ger- 
man policy  toward  the  East.  We  admire  the 
skill  and  courage  of  Chancellor  Kiesinger  and 
Foreign  Mmister  Brandt.  The  initiative  is  prop- 
erly theirs,  and  we  wish  it  every  success. 

Similarly,  we  support  another  important 
plank  in  the  program  of  the  German  Govern- 
ment: that  of  close  collaboration  between  Ger- 
many and  France.  We  have  encouraged  Franco- 
German  reconciliation  since  the  war  as  the 
indispensable  basis  for  the  formation  of  a 
united  Europe.  We  continue  to  believe  that  the 
stability  of  Europe  and  of  the  world  requires 
not  only  an  erosion  of  the  barriers  between  East 
and  West  but  a  strong  coordinated  Western 
grouping  to  provide  a  reasonable  comiterpoise 
to  the  immense  bulk  of  Ilussia,  a  European  en- 
tity capable  of  world  influence.  Such  a  Western 
grouping  does  not  rest  on  hostility  toward  Rus- 
sia. It  is,  on  the  contrary,  the  best  possible  basis 
for  stable  cooperation  with  the  Soviet  Union 
and  Eastern  Europe  and  for  the  full  participa- 
tion of  Western  Europe  as  our  equal  partner 
in  all  the  works  of  peace. 

We  continue  also  to  believe  that  a  genuinely 
stable  West  European  grouping,  whatever  form 
it  may  ultimately  take,  requires  the  presence  of 
Britain.  We  regret  the  circumstances  which 
have  thus  far  prevented  Britain  and  other  ap- 
plicants from  becoming  members  of  the  Euro- 
pean Communities.  That  delay  has  in  turn  de- 
layed the  evolution  of  a  political  Europe  and 
perhaps  also  of  a  European  defense  community. 

The  ultimate  shape  and  character  of  Europe 
is  for  Europeans  to  decide.  But  the  whole  free 
world  has  a  natural  interest  in  the  success  of  a 
movement  which  could  contribute  so  much  to  its 
capacity  for  order  and  for  progress. 

U.S.-European   Inferdependence 

A  stable  settlement  in  Europe  requires  more 
than  a  closely  knit  Western  Europe  strong 
enough  to  conduct  open  and  friendly  relations 
witli  the  East.  It  requires  also  a  vital  and  mod- 
ern Atlantic  alliance  and  the  dynamic  develop- 
ment of  the  other  institutions  of  the  Atlantic 
community. 

The  interdependence  of  the  United  States 
and  Europe  is  now  more  complete  than  it  was 
20  years  ago. 

Tlie  implacable  logic  of  the  nuclear  deter- 
rent constitutes  one  dimension  of  that  inter- 
dependence. The  progressive  integration  of  the 


Euro^Dean  and  American  economies,  university 
systems,  and  institutions  of  research  constitutes 
another. 

The  moral  of  recent  experience  in  the  field 
of  trade  and  monetary  affairs  is  that  the  econo- 
mies of  Europe,  the  United  States,  Canada,  and 
Japan  are  now  so  large  and  have  such  deep  in- 
tercomiections  that  they  simply  must  be  planned 
and  managed  together.  If  one  lai-ge  unit  gets 
out  of  phase  with  the  others,  the  result  is  dis- 
equilibrium in  the  system  as  a  whole. 

It  is  equally  clear  that  collaboration  in  science 
and  teclmology,  both  m  business  and  in  aca- 
demic institutions,  is  the  quickest  way  to  over- 
come teclmological  gaps  in  either  direction 
across  the  Atlantic  and  the  Pacific. 

Universities  have  always  been  an  internation- 
al fraternity  of  scholars,  at  one  remove  from  the 
political  power.  In  the  long  rim  their  integrity 
and  their  creativity  depend  equally  upon  their 
freedom.  If  knowledge  is  to  develop  fully  as  a 
common  resource,  it  is  vital  that  the  institutions 
of  knowledge  be  kept  open  to  all  comers  of  tal- 
ent. In  this  sphere  parochialism  is  self-defeat- 
ing. No  one  can  know  in  advance  where  the  next 
breakthrough  will  originate. 

These  immense  forces  bind  tlie  Atlantic  com- 
munity together:  the  nuclear  imperative  and 
the  equally  compelling  imperatives  of  econom- 
ics, science,  technology,  and  knowledge  gener- 
ally. They  supplement  the  community's  human 
and  cultural  bonds  and  give  urgency  to  its  polit- 
ical development.  In  these  areas,  there  are  sim- 
ply no  real  alternatives  to  Atlantic  cooperation 
if  Europe  and  the  United  States  continue  to 
respect  their  vital  national  interests  in  the  mak- 
ing of  foreign  policy,  and  indeed  of  policy  in 
many  other  realms. 

But  continuity  of  interests  need  not  and 
should  not  imply  a  continuity  of  institutional 
forms.  The  patterns  of  Atlantic  cooperation  that 
were  designed  in  the  late  forties  and  the  early 
fifties  are  not  necessarily  appropriate  today.  In 
that  era,  Europe  was  slowly  recovering  from  the 
war  and  enduring  the  final  stages  of  decoloniza- 
tion. Today,  Europe  has  completed  its  spectacu- 
lar recovery,  while  the  United  States  continues 
to  bear  a  hea^-y  share  of  the  free  world's  com- 
mon defense  burden.  Isolationist  policies  in 
Europe  reinforce  those  on  this  side  of  the 
Atlantic. 

Obviously,  in  the  face  of  that  risk,  the  course 
of  wisdom  is  not  a  general  American  with- 
drawal, which  would  invite  chaos  and  war, 


MAT    2', 


1968 


683 


but  a  more  rapid  rallying  of  our  allies,  both 
Atlantic  and  Pacific,  to  join  us  as  partners  in 
the  vital  tasks  of  peacekeeping  and  aid  in  the 
areas  most  central  to  the  problem  of  world  peace 
and  world  progress. 

Cooperation  among  Europe,  North  America, 
and  Japan  in  the  great  tasks  of  peace  makes  all 
three  regions  strongei'. 

American  public  opmion  will  always  support 
a  full  American  quota  of  collective  responsibil- 
ity, so  long  as  that  effort  is  reciprocated  by  our 
allies.  On  the  other  hand,  irresponsibility  on 
one  side  of  the  Atlantic  could  breed  irresponsi- 
bility on  the  other.  I  do  not  believe  that  the 
United  States  will  repeat  its  folly  of  1920— that 
of  repudiating  President  Wilson  and  seeking 
refuge  in  the  isolationism  of  the  19th  century. 
But  the  risk  is  there.  And  now— as  always  in  our 
history^ — there  are  strong  voices  in  praise  of 
such  a  course. 

Allied  cooperation  is  the  best  vaccination 
against  that  risk.  Sagacious  men  will  take  every 
prudent  action  to  minimize  it. 

New  Cooperative   Solutions 

In  October  1966  President  Johnson  proposed 
a  program  of  action  to  modernize  the  alliance :  * 

Our  policy  must  reflect  the  reality  of  today — not  yes- 
terday. In  every  part  of  the  world,  new  forces  are  at  the 
gates :  new  countries,  new  aspirations,  new  men. 

.  .  .  the  Atlantic  alliance  is  a  living  organism.  It 
must  adapt  to  changing  conditions.  .  .  . 

The  alliance  must  become  a  forum  for  increasingly 
close  consultations.  These  should  cover  the  full  range 
of  joint  concerns— from  East-West  relations  to  crisis 
management. 

In  the  spirit  of  these  words,  the  United  States 
has  worked  with  its  allies  to  find  cooperative 
solutions  for  many  of  the  principal  problems 
confronting  us.  Consultation  between  the  Atlan- 
tic nations  and  Japan  was  the  predicate  for  the 
success  of  the  Kennedy  Eound  of  tariff  negotia- 
tions and  for  the  Rio  agreement  and  other  acts 
of  cooperation  in  the  field  of  monetary  policy — 
policies  which  strengthen  the  open,  liberal,  and 
progressive  economy  of  the  free  world. 

Two  days  ago  the  European  nations,  Canada, 
and  Japan  proposed  the  unprecedented  step  of 
unilateral  and  unreciprocated  acceleration  of 
their  Kennedy  Eoimd  tariff  cuts  to  assist  the 
United  States  in  reaching  balance-of-payments 
equilibrium — a  welcome  act  of  political  and  eco- 


'  Ibid. 


nomic  solidarity,  which  we  shall  take  seriously 
into  account  in  our  own  decisions  of  economic 
policy.  This  step,  developed  in  consultations 
since  January  1,  aims  at  a  balance-of-payments 
equilibrium  aclueved  by  tlie  expansion  of  trade 
within  the  pattern  of  our  trade  policy  going 
back  to  1934. 

Similar  pi'ocedures  of  consultation  resolved 
difficult  problems  in  the  development  of  the 
draft  treaty  to  prevent  the  proliferation  of  nu- 
clear weapons,  which  is  now  before  the  General 
Assembly,  and  in  the  decision  about  Allied  force 
levels  in  Europe.  The  United  States,  Europe, 
and  Japan  are  now  full  partners  in  the  many- 
sided  enterprise  of  providing  economic  assist- 
ance to  the  developing  countries. 

Above  all,  the  last  year  has  seen  the  successful 
start  of  a  project  to  give  the  North  Atlantic  al- 
liance major  political  responsibilities.  The  allies 
conducted  a  year-long  study  of  the  future  politi- 
cal tasks  of  the  alliance  as  an  influence  for  a 
durable  peace  in  the  world.  On  the  basis  of  that 
study,  the  allies  agreed  in  December  1967  to 
undertake  concerted  political  actions  in  a  num- 
ber of  fields :  to  propose  policies  that  could  lead 
to  balanced  and  mutual  force  reductions  in 
Europe  and  other  steps  to  improve  political  re- 
lations with  the  Communist  countries  and  to 
develop  regular  consultations  among  interested 
members  about  common  problems  in  the  Medi- 
terranean area  and  outside  the  North  Atlantic 
Treaty  area.  This  program  rests  on  the  agreed 
judgment  that  stable  and  agreed  force  levels  in 
the  NATO  command  structure  remain  necessary 
as  the  foundation  for  an  active  alliance  policy 
of  political  initiatives  in  the  interest  of  peace. 

At  this  time,  the  first  projects  intended  to 
carry  out  this  important  mandate  are  being 
prepared  and  discussed  in  NATO. 

Troop   Levels   in   Europe 

I  might  say  an  additional  word  about  the 
critical  subject  of  troop  levels  in  Europe. 

NATO  has  been  so  successful  that  it  tends  to 
be  taken  for  granted.  Some  even  think  that  the 
danger  has  passed  and  that  NATO  can  now  be 
dismantled.  Such  a  policy  would  be  like  abolish- 
ing the  fire  department. 

The  allies  have  thoroughly  reviewed  the  ne- 
cessity for  the  NATO  command  and  the  NATO 
force  level  twice  in  recent  years :  first,  in  1966, 
in  the  wake  of  the  French  decision  to  withdraw 
its  forces  from  the  integrated  command  struc- 


684 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


turc,  and  again  last  year,  as  part  of  another 
reexamination  of  the  problem  of  military  se- 
curity and  the  intensive  study  of  the  future 
tasks  of  the  alliance. 

On  both  occasions,  the  allies  concluded  that 
it  would  be  imprudent  to  reduce  Western  mili- 
tary strength  and  capability  to  deter  aggression 
unless  the  Soviet  Government  undertook  also  to 
reduce  the  strength  of  the  Soviet  and  Warsaw 
Pact  forces  in  Eastern  Europe  and  of  Soviet 
forces  in  the  Atlantic  and  the  Mediterranean. 
One-sided  reductions  of  Western  strength  would 
remove  any  incentive  for  force  reductions  on 
the  Soviet  side  and  increase  both  the  military 
and  the  political  risks  on  the  flanks  of  Europe 
and  in  Europe  itself.  It  would  tend  to  weaken  or 
eliminate  nonnuclear  options  in  the  event  of  re- 
newed turbidence  over  Berlin  or  other  trouble 
spots  ill  or  near  Europe.  And  under  present  cir- 
cumstances, it  would  give  rise  to  serious  risks  of 
miscalculation,  against  which  Secretary  Rusk 
recently  warned  the  Nation  and  the  world. 

Changes  in  troop  dispositions  are  volcanic 
political  events,  as  we  have  learned  to  our  cost 
over  and  over  again,  from  Greece  to  Korea.  A 
unilateral  cut  in  NATO  forces  would  have  the 
most  profound  and  most  negative  aspect  on  both 
sides  of  the  ideological  boundary  in  Europe. 

The  allies  therefore  concluded  in  the  most  re- 
cent of  these  studies  last  December : 

.  .  .  one  of  the  foundations  for  achieving  an  improve- 
ment in  East/West  relations  and  a  peaceful  settlement 
in  Europe  must  be  NATO's  continuing  military  strength 
and  capability  to  deter  aggression.  In  this  connection 
they  noted  that  the  Soviet  Union  continues  to  expend 
Increasing  resources  upon  its  powerful  military  forces 
and  is  developing  types  of  forces  designed  to  enable  it 
to  achieve  a  significant  military  presence  in  other  parts 
of  the  world.  They  also  observed  that  during  the  past 
year  there  has  been  a  marked  expansion  in  Soviet 
forces  in  the  Mediterranean.  .  .  . 

Military  security  and  a  policy  of  detente  are  not 
contradictory  but  complementary.  Collective  defence  is 
a  stabilising  factor  in  world  politics.  It  is  the  necessary 
condition  for  effective  policies  directed  towards  a 
greater  relaxation  of  tensions.  The  way  to  peace  and 
stability  in  Europe  rests  in  particular  on  the  use  of  the 
Alliance  constructively  in  the  interest  of  detente. 

The  alliance  is  now  examining  the  question  of 
balanced  and  mutual  force  reductions  in  Europe 
and  other  measures  of  disarmament  and  arms 
limitation.  Meanwhile,  as  President  Joluison 
and  Ambassador  [Manlio]  Brosio,  the  Secretary 
General  of  NATO,  concluded  recently :  ^ 


'  For  background,  see  ibid.,  Mar.  11,  1968,  p.  356. 


.  .  .  the  maintenance  of  NATO's  strength,  including 
the  U.S.  commitment  (is)  necessary  to  continuing  sta- 
bility and  security  in  the  North  Atlantic  area.  This 
stability  and  security  jirovides  the  basis  for  exploring 
with  the  U.S.S.R.  the  possibility  of  mutual  force 
reductions. 

The  need  for  agreed  and  stable  force  levels  in 
Europe  at  this  time  does  not,  of  course,  mean 
that  NATO  is  forever  frozen  in  its  present  pos- 
ture. As  a  defensive  alliance,  NATO's  pui'pose 
is  basically  political:  to  permit  us  through 
diplomacy  to  seek  an  end  of  the  danger  which 
called  NATO  into  being  20  years  ago.  I  know  no 
informed  person  who  thinks  that  the  danger  has 
passed  and  that  we  and  the  Soviets  have  yet 
achieved  conditions  of  peaceful  coexistence. 

There  is,  of  course,  another  particularly  sensi- 
tive aspect  of  the  problem :  the  level  of  Amer- 
ican forces  stationed  in  Europe  at  any  given 
moment.  At  this  time,  American  forces  consti- 
tute 24  percent  of  NATO's  armies  in  Europe. 

Force  levels  are  now  agreed  annually  among 
the  allies  on  the  basis  of  a  continuing  review  of 
the  security  situation.  The  American  share  of 
the  NATO  force  is  a  matter  of  fundamental 
importance  to  the  coherence  and  credibility  of 
the  entire  defense  system  of  the  alliance,  which 
rests  ultimately  on  the  deterrent  power  of  our 
nuclear  forces.  This  does  not  imply  that  the 
American  military  position  in  Europe  is  for- 
ever fixed.  It  does  mean  that  changes  in  the  rela- 
tive military  positions  of  the  allies  should  be 
undertaken  not  by  unilateral  action  but  only 
after  careful  allied  consultations  and  a  thor- 
ough examination  of  the  political  and  military 
implications  of  any  change. 

This  is  the  procedure  we  followed  in  1966  and 
1967  in  the  sequence  of  talks  which  resulted  in 
allied  agreement  both  on  the  redeployment  and 
rotation  of  some  British  and  American  forces  in 
Europe  and  on  the  NATO  force  levels  for  1968. 
It  is  the  only  procedure  compatible  with  the 
nature  of  the  alliance  and  of  the  interdepen- 
dence it  represents. 

Maintaining  forces  abroad  is  of  course  expen- 
sive, particularly  in  terms  of  foreign  exchange 
expenditure.  The  problem  is  old  and  always 
difficult. 

As  a  matter  of  equity,  one  should  expect  that 
no  ally  should  sulfer  a  balance-of -payments  loss 
nor  receive  a  balance-of-payments  gain  as  a 
result  of  force  deployments  on  NATO  missions. 
While  the  principle  is  general^  accepted,  it  has 
not  always  been  possible  to  carry  it  out. 


MAT    27,    1968 


685 


For  some  years  in  the  recent  past,  the  United 
States  has  been  able  to  balance  the  exchange 
costs  of  maintaining  troops  in  certain  countries 
through  comitervailing  purchases  of  military 
equipment.  In  1966  it  became  clear  that  this 
solution  did  not  fully  meet  the  needs  of  the  situ- 
ation. For  the  time  being,  it  was  agreed,  the 
residual  balance-of-payments  drain  on  military 
account  should  be  met  by  cooperation  in  the 
management  of  monetary  reserves — through  the 
purchase  of  medium-term  United  States  secu- 
rities, and  in  other  ways. 

Obviously,  such  devices  do  not  constitute  a 
satisfactory  longrun  solution  of  the  problem. 
Military  dispositions  should  be  determined  by 
considerations  of  security,  not  of  finance.  In  the 
long  rim  the  allies  will  have  to  cooperate  in 
meeting  the  financial  consequences  of  military 
deployments,  just  as  they  cooperate  in  provid- 
ing the  forces  needed  to  assure  the  common 
safety. 

The  essence  of  our  foreign  policy  is  an 
awareness  of  the  processes  of  change.  We  are 
pressing  forward  in  a  quest  for  peace,  con- 
scious at  every  turn  that  the  structure  and  the 
very  nature  of  international  i-elations  are  being 
transformed  by  flows  of  change — change  in  the 
arithmetic  of  power,  change  in  technology, 
change  in  the  content  and  purpose  of  politics. 

As  we  see  it,  the  association  between  Europe 
and  the  United  States — the  network  of  habits 
and  instincts  we  call  the  Atlantic  community 
— and  an  equally  close  association  with  Japan 


are  the  indispensable  predicates  to  an  effective 
policy  of  peace.  Wliether  we  are  considering 
the  future  of  the  developing  countries  or  how 
to  accommodate  ourselves  in  peace  to  the 
emergence  of  China  during  the  next  generation 
or  the  evolution  of  our  relationship  with  the 
•Soviet  Union  and  the  counti'ies  of  Eastern 
Europe,  a  vital  alliance  relation  is  the  keystone 
of  foreign  policy  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic 
and  both  sides  of  the  Pacific.  The  alliance  is  the 
reservoir  of  every  kind  of  strength  on  which  the 
world's  future  security  depends. 

I  do  not  mean  to  suggest  that  we  and  the 
Europeans  and  the  Japanese  should  expect  to 
view  every  problem  of  world  politics  in  the  same 
way.  We  never  have.  Our  unity  in  ultimates 
presupposes  diversity  in  detail.  My  point  is  that 
the  great  tasks  of  world  peace  in  the  next  gener- 
ation, from  tlie  reconciliation  of  Europe  to  the 
achievement  of  order  and  progress  in  the  third 
world,  are  tasks  which  only  a  West  united  on 
viltimates  can  hope  to  accomplish. 

This  is  a  major  goal  of  our  foreign  policy. 
And  it  is  the  reason  why  our  first  concern  is  to 
keep  these  relationships  strong  and  abreast  of 
the  times.  We  know  that  1968  is  not  1945  or  1949 
and  that  Europe,  fully  recovered  from  the  war, 
is  right  in  desiring  a  role  in  world  affairs  which 
corresponds  to  the  reality  of  her  rebirth.  We 
desire  the  same  goal.  The  alliance  is  a  living 
organism,  and  its  forms  must  adapt  themselves 
to  change  if  they  are  not  to  break. 


686 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE    Bl'LLETIN 


How  To  Make  Peace  With  the  Russians 


iy  Harlan  Cleveland 

U.S.  Permanent  Representative  on  the  NATO  Council  ^ 


The  title  of  this  lecture — "How  to  Make 
Peace  with  the  Russians" — was  my  own  sug- 
gestion. It  is,  of  course,  something  of  a  fraud. 

Is  there  one  way  to  make  peace  with  the  Rus- 
sians, a  single  formula,  a  patented  answer?  No, 
obviously  not.  The  exercise  in  fluid  dynamics 
we  call  peace  ramifies  into  every  field,  into  every 
part  of  the  world,  into  every  department  of 
human  knowledge. 

Let's  start  with  this :  Do  we  have  peace  with 
t  he  Russians  right  now  ? 

If  30U  are  unambitious  enough  to  want  it  that 
way,  you  can  have  it  that  way.  But  personally, 
I  would  prefer  a  world  where  the  Russians 
weren't  pointing  three-quarters  of  a  thousand 
missiles  at  us  and  another  three-quarters  of  a 
thousand  missiles  at  our  European  allies.  I 
would  prefer  a  world  in  which  ships  of  the  Rus- 
sian Xavy  didn't  shadow  ours — or  at  least  dicbi't 
bump  into  them — on  the  high  seas.  I  would  pre- 
fer a  world  in  which  we  didn't  have  to  observe 
each  other  quite  so  suspiciously.  I  would  prefer 
a  world  in  which  the  Soviets  didn't  stir  up 
Asian  and  African  nations  with  MIG's  and  mis- 
sile boats.  And  I  would  naturally  prefer  a  world 
in  which  North  Vietnamese  were  not  shooting 
at  my  friends,  relations,  and  countrymen  with 
sopliisticated  Russian  weapons  of  recent  manu- 
facture and  delivery. 

I  would  also  much  prefer  a  world  in  which 
loe  did  not  find  it  a  necessary"  precaution  to  point 
missiles  at  them,  to  shadow  tlieir  ships,  to  ob- 
serve their  military  behavior  suspiciously,  and 
to  supply  arms  to  our  friends  who  feel  threat- 
ened. "What  we  have  now  is  a  standoff,  a  tech- 
nologically dynamic  stalemate,  of  two  world 
powers  who  still  have  very  different  ideas  of 
how  the  world  should  be  organized. 


'  The  1968  Cardinal  O'Hara  Memorial  Lecture  de- 
livered at  the  University  of  Xotre  Dame,  Notre  Dame, 
Ind..  on  Mar.  13. 


That's  world  peace  ?  Well,  it's  not  world  war. 

The  trouble  is,  the  Soviets  do  not  yet  see 
enough  advantage  to  themselves  in  the  kind  of 
world  we  think  both  desirable  and  inevitable. 
That  is  a  world  where  nobody  is  in  charge,  a 
world  full  of  international  organizations 
through  which  the  big  powers  can  share  with 
the  others  the  responsilaility  for  decisions  about 
their  common  destiny.  We  don't  yet  know  quite 
liow  to  organize  such  a  world  ourselves — nor  do 
we  regard  it  as  our  job  alone  to  organize  it.  But 
we  do  know  that  once  men  have  learned  to 
search  the  heavens,  manipulate  the  weather, 
communicate  with  everybody,  regulate  births, 
change  personalities,  and  incinerate  much  of 
mankind  at  human  command,  it  is  simplj'  not 
acceptable  that  any  one  race  or  creed  or  nation 
should  make  the  destiny  decisions  for  everyone. 

We  don't  want  to  be  masters  of  the  world  our- 
selves, and  we  don't  think  much  of  the  other 
candidates  for  world  dominion.  The  Soviets 
may  still,  for  a  little  time,  hanker  after  a  world 
where  they  are  in  general  charge.  But  they  are 
increasingly  in  a  box.  They  want  to  retain  lead- 
ership of  world  communism — for  which  they 
have  one  ambitious  rival  and  too  many  reluctant 
followers.  Tliat  means  they  cannot  be  seen  to 
cooperate  too  closely  with  us.  On  the  other  hand, 
they  have  to  cooperate  with  us — as  we  do  with 
them— on  life-and-death  questions  like  the  reg- 
ulation of  nuclear  weapons.  They  have  acted  on 
this  life-and-death  assumption — in  agreeing  to  a 
limited  ban  on  nuclear  tests  and  now  a  treaty 
against  the  spread  of  nuclear  weapons — even 
though  their  Communist  rivals  belabor  them  for 
collusion  with  us. 

For  they  have  to  keep  in  mind,  24  hours  a  day, 
the  ultimate  fact  of  their  national  life:  that  the 
United  States  has  the  physical  capacity  to  de- 
stroy the  Soviet  Union,  even  if  the  Soviets  tried 
to  destroy  us  first.  We  have  to  keep  the  mirror 


M.\T 


1968 


687 


image  of  the  same  big  fact  in  our  minds,  too — 
for  the  Soviet  Union  is  the  only  nation  which 
has  the  physical  capacity  to  destroy  the  United 
States,  even  if  vre  tried  to  destroy  them  first. 
The  fact  is  that  nobody  has  invented  a  way  to 
catch  enough  of  the  incoming  ballistic  missiles 
to  change  this  simultaneous  equation  of 
survival. 

The  consequence  is  an  old-fashioned  balance 
of  power  with  the  newest-fangled  weapons  of 
all— what  somebody  has  called  a  pax  hallistica. 
No  balance  that  is  technologically  so  dynamic 
could  be  described  as  stable.  Yet  the  nuclear 
standoff  does  set  a  limit  to  the  ultimate  pursuit 
of  national  policy  by  military  means,  and  that 
is  an  historical  "first." 

Until  our  time,  war  has  been  limited  only  by 
men's  capacity  to  wage  and  sustain  it.  The  abso- 
lute destruction  of  one  side  without  destniction 
of  the  other  has  long  been  the  image  of  "success- 
ful" military  operations  carried  to  "victory": 
the  unconditional  oblitei-ation  of  Carthage  21 
centuries  ago  is  of  a  piece  with  the  doctrine  of 
unconditional  surrender  only  a  generation  ago. 

But  in  our  time,  between  the  Russians  and 
ourselves,  war  is  limited  by  a  reciprocal  pru- 
dence to  a  limit  short  of  mutual  suicide. 

It  is  no  longer  true,  as  Giraudoux  wrote,  that 
Le  privilege  des  grands  est  de  voir  les  catastro- 
phes d'une  terrasse — "The  privilege  of  the  great 
is  to  watch  catastrophe  from  a  terrace."  Now 
the  great  powers,  fingering  the  atomic  trigger  of 
thermonuclear  catastrophe,  play  chess  with 
global  strategy  on  a  very  public  terrace — with 
the  world  watching  them  by  satellite  television 
in  living  color. 

On  that  terrace,  where  "the  work  is  play  for 
mortal  stakes,"  responsible  men  in  powerful 
nations  have  now  been  forced  by  teclinology  to 
think  in  terms  of  an  ultimate  limit  to  warfare. 
And  that  is  one  up  for  civilization. 

Overt  Aggression   Out  of  Style 

When  we  say  we  want  a  world  in  which  no 
one  nation,  no  one  race  of  men,  no  one  group  of 
"true  believers"  is  in  charge,  do  we  mean  a 
world  without  wars  ? 

Some  NoiTvegian  statistician  fed  the  ques- 
tion to  a  computer — and  there  is  one  thing 
about  a  computer :  right  or  wrong,  it's  accurate. 
The  machine  went  through  its  binomial  con- 
tortions and  gave  forth  the  staggering  totals: 
In  the  5,560  years  of  recorded  liistory,  there 


have  been  14,531  wars,  more  than  21^  wars  per 
year  since  men  started  counting.  And  we  have 
done  little  better  since  the  nuclear  dawn.  Since 
that  conflict  which  some  of  us  still  call  "the  last 
war,"  nations  have  fought  30  times,  usually 
without  calling  it  war. 

One  thing  we  have  accomplished  in  our  cen- 
tury, though.  It  begins  to  look  as  though  delib- 
erate, open  aggression — the  kind  of  war  in 
which  some  bully  hauls  up  his  flag,  blows  on  his 
bugle,  declares  his  hostility,  and  marches  in 
daytime  across  another  nation's  frontier — this 
kind  of  war  is  not  much  favored  by  the  world's 
bullies  any  more.  The  rape  of  Belgiimi,  the  in- 
vasion of  Poland,  the  bombing  of  Pearl  Harbor, 
and  even  the  violation  of  the  38th  parallel  in 
Korea  may  prove  to  have  been  examples  of  an 
obsolescent  species.  The  power  of  modern  weap- 
ons, the  rapidity  of  modem  communications, 
that  intangible  yet  relevant  force  called  world 
opinion — all  have  conspired  to  push  the  leaders 
of  men  and  nations  to  avoid  like  the  plague 
the  impression  that  they  are  starting  a  war. 

Before  we  tackle  the  next  problem  on  the 
world's  peace  agenda,  let's  pause  a  moment  to 
celebrate:  That's  two  up  for  civilization. 

The  Technique  of  Indirect  Aggression 

With  all-out  nuclear  war  suicidal  and  con- 
ventional aggression  impopular,  fashions  in 
military  power  have  shifted  to  more  subtle 
fabrics. 

When  overt  aggression  went  out  of  style, 
what  came  in  was  outside  help  to  insurgents,  or 
indirect  aggression.  In  the  14,000  wars  that 
mark  and  mar  the  story  we  call  civilization, 
man  has  used  many  Trojan  horses  and  con- 
trived countless  internal  revolutions  from  the 
outside.  But  only  in  our  time  has  this  technique 
been  dignified  as  doctrine  and  practiced  sys- 
tematicallj'  around  the  world. 

Small  wonder  that  a  young  applicant  for 
U.S.  Government  employment,  asked  to  fill  out 
form  57,  misread  the  question  "Do  you  favor 
the  overthrow  of  the  Government  by  force,  sub- 
version, or  violence?"  He  thought  it  was  mul- 
tiple-choice, and  wrote  "Violence." 

The  violent  wars  of  our  time,  begun  by  proxy 
and  fought  for  limited  policy  aims,  are  hard  on 
the  nerves  for  general  officers  and  the  general 
public  alike.  They  raise  excruciating  problems 
of  understanding  because  they  do  not  conform 


688 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BITLLETIN 


to  our  historical  experience  or  our  familiar 
ways  of  thinking  and  talkmg  about  armed  con- 
flict. There  are,  for  example,  no  satisfying  an- 
swers to  those  comfortable  old  questions: 
"When  did  the  war  start?''  "Who  started  it?"; 
and  especially  "How  are  we  doing  ?" 

Wars  that  start  in  stealth  are  fought  without 
a  clear  beginning — and  sometimes  not  a  clear 
endmg  either.  It  is  of  tlie  essence  for  those  who 
take  the  initiative  to  obscure  their  initiative. 

Wars  carried  on  by  indirection  are  fought 
without  a  nice  clean  front  that  can  be  drawn  on 
a  map  and  serve  both  sides  as  a  common  point 
of  reference.  The  answer  to  "How  are  we  do- 
ing?" is  statistics,  but  the  two  sides  are  not 
necessarilv  counting  the  same  tilings:  in  the 
Viet-Nam  case  they  obviously  are  not.  We  have 
helped  invent  a  new  kind  of  military  contest, 
in  which  both  sides  can  have  good  reason  to 
think  they  are  ahead  at  the  same  time.  If  such 
a  war  is  consequently  hard  to  fight  and  confus- 
ing to  support,  it  is  equally  hard  to  stop  fight- 
ing, especially  for  the  side  that  is  pretending 
not  to  be  tliere  and  thus  finds  it  embarrassing  to 
negotiate  about  getting  out  of  there.  IMaybe  our 
adversaries  have  not  pondered  deeply  enough 
the  pseudo-proverb  that  has  been  circulating 
among  diplomats  in  Moscow :  "Pie  who  has 
many  faces  can  always  save  some." 

The  other  kind  of  military  power  that  is  "in" 
these  days  is  tlie  kind  you  clon't  so  much  use  as 
brandish.  But  note  that  the  kinds  of  military 
power  now  regarded  as  very  difficult  to  use  for 
real  are  also  very  hard  to  use  for  blackmail. 

During  the  fifties,  Klirushchev  used  to 
threaten  to  incmerate  the  orange  groves  of 
Italy  and  reduce  the  Acropolis  in  Athens  to 
radioactive  ash.  Even  then,  such  threats  seemed 
so  disproportionate  to  laiown  Soviet  aims 
and  motives  in  Europe  as  to  have  no  effect;  if 
anything,  they  bound  the  threatened  nations 
more  closely  to  their  Western  allies.  And  now 
that  the  suicidal  nature  of  strategic  nuclear 
weapons  has  been  illuminated  for  all  concerned, 
and  especially  for  Khrushchev  and  his  succes- 
sors, by  the  Cuba  missile  crisis,  the  rattling  of 
those  big  Soviet  rockets  has  gone  out  of  style. 

Similarly,  the  unprovoked  conventional  at- 
tack now  seems  to  most  governments  so  out- 
moded a  way  to  pursue  their  purposes — for 
the  very  practical  reason  that  it  risks  lining 
up  miich  of  the  world  on  the  other  side  of  an 
unwiimable  war — that  you  do  not  find  modern 


nations  threatening  to  march  across  each  other's 
frontiers. 

Some  developing  nations  still  resort  to 
rocket-rattling  and  mvasion  talk.  But  we  will 
find,  I  think,  that  this  is  just  another  symptom 
of  underdevelopment. 

NATO's   New  Dimension 

The  world's  politest,  most  persistent,  and 
most  dangerous  case  of  weapon-brandishing  is 
the  confrontation  in  and  around  Europe  be- 
tween the  Communists  of  the  Warsaw  Pact  and 
the  members  of  the  North  Atlantic  alliance.  For 
two  decades  Europe  has  been  divided  by  ugly 
walls,  barbed-wire  barricades,  sentinel  towers, 
sentries,  and  watchdogs.  Three  times  the  argu- 
ment about  Berlin,  the  symbol  of  this  division, 
almost  boiled  over  into  war. 

During  this  time,  we  and  our  allies  have  spent 
something  like  a  trillion  dollars — that's  ten  hun- 
dred thousand  dollare  squared — keeping  the 
peace  in  the  modern  fashion.  And  most  of  that 
unimaginable  sum  has  been  used  to  deter  the 
Soviet  Union  from  doing  anything  rash  in 
Europe.  The  point  can  never  be  proved,  of 
course,  but  it  is  hard  to  avoid  the  impression 
that  it  was  the  existence  of  NATO — the  North 
Atlantic  Treaty  Organization — which  kept  the 
peace. 

You  may  find  it  mildly  astonishing  that 
NATO,  whose  obituary  you  used  to  read  regu- 
larly in  your  daily  newspaper,  is  still  so  crucial 
a  factor  in  American  foreign  policy  and  in  the 
keeping  and  making  of  the  general  peace.  Some- 
how the  revival  of  the  North  Atlantic  alliance, 
and  the  decision  of  its  members  to  move  beyond 
militai-y  defense  into  preparations  for  peace- 
making, has  been  obscured  by  drama  and  vio- 
lence in  other  continents  not  so  well  endowed 
with  effective  peacemaking  machinery  as  Eu- 
rope is.  So  let's  open  a  short  parenthesis  on  what 
the  newspaper  reader  has  not  been  reading 
about  NATO. 

Two  years  ago,  the  French  withdrawal  was 
widely  thought  to  be  the  beginning  of  the  end  of 
NATO.  Today,  the  14  other  allies  have  demon- 
strated they  can  and  will  defend  the  NATO 
area,  with  whatever  degree  of  French  coopera- 
tion turns  out  to  be  available  at  the  time. 

Two  years  ago  NATO  strategy  was  obsolete, 
its  air  defense  outmoded,  and  its  communica- 
tions system  conventional.  Today  a  new  flexible 
NATO  strategy  has  been  agreed  among  the 


MAT    27,    19GS 


689 


Fourteen,  a  new  air  defense  system  is  being  in- 
stalled, and  the  first  stage  of  a  NATO  satellite 
communications  system  is  being  tested. 

Two  years  ago  the  transatlantic  allies  were 
still  arguing  about  "nuclear  sharing."  Today, 
in  the  new  NATO  Nuclear  Planning  Group, 
the  responsibility  for  nuclear  plans  and  deploy- 
ments is  in  fact  beginning  to  be  shared. 

Two  years  ago  1969  seemed  a  significant  date 
to  NATO's  friends  as  well  as  its  opponents.  In 
that  20th  birthday  year,  any  ally  can  give  notice 
of  withdrawal.  But  the  "1969  issue"  is  largely 
bypassed  now;  most  of  NATO's  agreed  defense 
plans  and  projects  already  extend  well  into  the 
1970's,  and  the  political  talks  about  the  future 
of  Europe,  now  beginning  in  the  North  Atlantic 
Council,  reach  even  further  beyond  that  once- 
magic  date. 

Two  years  ago  the  Soviets  were  preaching 
that  the  way  to  European  peace  and_  security 
was  to  break  up  "blocs,"  starting  with  ours. 
They  still  talk  about  this  from  time  to  time  in 
desultory  propaganda.  But  the  NATO  allies,  all 
15  including  France,  have  now  decided  to  give 
the  so-called  "Western  bloc"  a  new  political  di- 
mension. NATO  has  been  primarily  a  military 
alliance;  it  has  now  been  established  as  an  alli- 
ance that  also  is  active  in  seeking  practical  peace 
arrangements  for  Europe.  The  idea  is  to  prepare 
a  Western  strategy  for  the  day  when  the  So- 
viets, noting  that  military  pressure  does  not 
seem  to  work  in  Europe,  might  be  willing  to  do 
something  they  have  not  been  willing  to  do  for 
the  past  two  decades— which  is  to  talk  seriously 
about  new  political  arrangements  for  a  durable 
peace  in  Europe. 

The  decision  to  make  a  serious  effort  to  reach 
beyond  East-West  stalemate  is  part  of  the  whole 
new  political  work  program  that  resulted  dur- 
ing 1967  from  NATO's  "Study  of  the  Future 
of  the  Alliance" — niclmamed  the  "Harmel  re- 
port" after  the  Belgian  Foreign  Minister  who 
sponsored  the  resolution  calling  for  it.  After  a 
year  of  planning  and  politicking,  all  15  of 
NATO's  foreign  ministers  agreed 

^to  maintain  the  NATO  defense  system  to 
deter  Soviet  military  militancy  in  Europe  and 
to  give  special  attention  to  the  newly  dangerous 
state  of  affairs  in  the  Mediterranean; 

— to  make  the  North  Atlantic  Council  a  po- 
litical clearinghouse  and  center  of  initiative — 
for  a  future  European  settlement  and  for  next 
steps  (beyond  the  nuclear  noniaroliferation 
treaty)  in  arms  control  and  disarmament. 

In  sum:  Two  years  ago  there  was  a  wide- 


spread illusion  that  Europe's  comparative  se- 
curity meant  the  NATO  defense  system  could 
be  scrapped.  Today  all  15  allies  have  agreed 
that  they  need  to  get  ready  to  negotiate  with  the 
Soviets  and  their  friends.  But  the  Western  allies 
have  also  decided  they  had  better  be  in  a  posi- 
tion to  negotiate  from  strength.  They  know  that 
in  the  real  world  detente  does  not  translate  as 
"relaxation"  after  the  tension  of  a  cold  war;  a 
modern  Clausewitz  might  rather  translate  de- 
tente as  "a  continuation  of  tension  by  other 
means." 

The  NATO   Defense  System 

During  these  past  2  years,  despite  all  the  talk 
about  force  reduction,  the  NATO  allies  have 
continued  to  spend  the  same  percentage  of  their 
gross  national  product  on  defense  and  to  commit 
roughly  the  same  forces  to  NATO.  The  first 
allied  5-year  force  plan,  adopted  at  the  NATO 
ministers'  meeting  last  December,^  shows  that 
the  allies  other  than  the  United  States  plan  to 
spend  on  defense,  in  the  5  years  from  1968  to 
1972,  close  to  $100  billion. 

This  defense  system  has  achieved  a  practical 
parity  with  the  Soviet  and  other  Communist 
forces  in  Europe.  Measured  both  by  their  force 
posture  and  their  political  behavior  since  1962, 
the  Soviets  consider  themselves  estopped  from 
military  militancy  in  Central  Europe.  The  evi- 
dence is  their  current  concentration  on  the  care- 
ful political  use  of  their  considerable  power. 

The  Soviets  do  continue  to  modernize  their 
forces  and  those  of  their  Eastern  European 
allies.  They  also  train  them  in  tactics  appropri- 
ate to  the  use  of  tactical  nuclear  weapons.  And, 
frustrated  by  the  stalemate  in  Central  Europe, 
they  are  now  trying  hard  to  outflank  NATO  by 
building  up  their  naval  presence  in  the  Mediter- 
ranean and  using  military  aid  to  penetrate  the 
Arab  states  in  the  Middle  East  and  North 
Africa.  Their  impressive  maritime  buildup  is 
direct  evidence  that  the  Soviets  are  getting 
ready  for  a  world  in  which  there  is  no  general 
war  "but  there  will  be  plenty  of  occasions  for 
pushing  peace  their  way  if  they  have  flexible 
weaponry  to  brandish  where  the  crises  arise, 
which  is  almost  anywhere. 

As  things  stand  now,  the  best  Soviet  hope 
clearly  is  that  the  United  States  will  busy  itself 
elsewhere,  retire  from  Europe  and  the  Mediter- 


=  For  text  of  a  final  communique  adopted  on  Dec.  14, 
1967,  at  the  close  of  the  meeting  at  Brussels,  see 
Bulletin  of  Jan.  S,  1968,  p.  49. 


690 


DEPARTMENT   OF    STATE   BTJT.LETIN 


ranean,  and  leave  the  Russians  as  the  strongest 
power  with  which  every  European  nation,  in- 
cluding all  the  Western  ones,  will  separately 
have  to  come  to  terms.  It  would  be  an  enormous 
boon  to  the  Soviets  if  American  preoccupation 
with  Yiet-Xam  and  Korea  were  to  bring  about 
the  unilateral  withdrawal  of  U.S.  forces  from 
Europe  and  the  consequent  unraveling  of  the 
NATO  defense  sj'stem. 

Unilateral  disarmament,  then,  would  risk  re- 
converting the  Soviets  to  military  militancy  in 
Europe. 

Does  this  mean  that  we  have  to  keep  American 
forces  in  Europe  forever?  Of  course  it  doesn't. 
With  the  agreement  of  our  NATO  allies,  we  are 
starting  this  year  to  redeploy  part  of  our  first- 
line  NATO-committed  army  and  air  forces  to 
bases  in  the  United  States — while  still  keeping 
them  committed  to  NATO  and  able  to  move 
rapidly  to  Europe  in  an  emergency. 

Even  more  important  than  our  own  deploy- 
ment decisions  is  the  decision  of  the  15  NATO 
ministers  to  study  the  possibility  of  balanced 
reductions,  by  agreement  or  mutual  example, 
of  the  Eastern  and  Western  forces  which  now 
face  each  other  in  Europe.  The  North  Atlantic 
Council  is  now  studying  how  this  could  be  done 
without  endangering  the  stalemate  which  keeps 
the  peace.  But  if,  meanwhile,  the  West  were  to 
start  melting  its  forces  down,  the  Soviets  would 
have  no  reason  to  bargain;  just  waiting  would 
better  serve  their  purpose. 

Continuing  the  Search   for  Common   Interests 

I  have  been  talking  about  keeping  the  peace 
with  the  Russians  by  maintaining  aii  effective 
deterrent  to  military  violence  and  by  keeping  in 
step  with  our  allies.  This  is  part  of  NATO's 
business.  It  is  a  sound  business  because  the  So- 
viet leaders  are  exceptionally  impressed  with 
the  realities  of  power — theirs  and  ours — and 
pragmatically  devoted  to  the  uses  of  power 
where  power  is  relevant  and  expedient.  "Flower 
power"  just  doesn't  seem  to  translate  into 
Russian. 

I  also  have  been  talking  about  making  peace 
with  the  Russians  by  reaching  out  beyond  our 
stalemated  strength  toward  agreements  to  re- 
duce the  level  of  confrontation,  to  increase 
X)eacef  ul  contacts  and  enterprise,  and  eventually 
to  find  some  mutually  acceptable  way  to  remove 
the  reason  for  all  those  ugly  walls  and  minefields 
and  sentinel  towers  that  divide  the  Continent  of 
Europe.  This  also  is  NATO  business.  ^\jid  this, 
too,  is  soimd  busmess  for  the  obvious  reason  that 

MAT    27,    1968 


each  little  increment  of  success  makes  this  world 
a  bit  safer,  a  little  more  cooperative,  and  a  touch 
more  friendly. 

There  are  plenty  of  other  ways  to  help  make 
peace  with  the  Russians — progressively  and  at 
whatever  pace  the  Russians  are  willing  to  come 
along. 

This  is  a  world  in  which  the  nation-state 
remains  a  political  reality,  for  some  the  symbol 
of  independence  from  old-fashioned  imperial- 
ism and  still  for  a  few  a  mystical  object  of  wor- 
ship. But  it  also  is  a  world  in  which  the  nation- 
state  just  doesn't  work  by  itself  in  science  and 
technology,  industry  and  agriculture,  trade  and 
finance,  transport  and  communications.  And 
these  are  two-way  carriers  of  facts  and  figures, 
ideas  and  attitudes,  fragments  of  culture  and 
fractions  of  civilization. 

If  nation-states  are  interdependent  in  so  many 
fields,  it  follows  that  they  have  common  in- 
terests— once  they  perceive  them — in  organizing 
their  interdependence  in  mutually  acceptable 
ways,  which  in  turn  requires  tacit  or  formal 
agreements,  exchanges,  services,  and  above  all, 
common  institutions. 

None  of  these  can  come  about  if  they  are 
approached  on  an  adversary  basis  by  great 
powers  detennined  to  agree  to  nothing  that  does 
not  gain  them  national  advantage  at  the  cost  of 
the  other.  So  we  are  happily  forced,  in  this 
final  third  of  the  20th  century,  to  search  for 
common  ground,  based  on  common  interest  and 
leading  to  common  institutions  from  which  we 
receive  common  benefits,  even  if  we  have  differ- 
ing versions  of  just  what  those  benefits  are. 

Here  we  have  the  raw  materials  of  peaceful 
relations — the  stuff  of  constructive  enterprise — 
the  building  blocks  for  a  dynamic  if  untidy 
world  order. 

So  if  keeping  peace  with  the  Russians  requires 
the  insurance  that  we  take  out  in  the  form  of 
a  military  deterrent — and  if  making  peace  with 
the  Russians  requires  the  patient  negotiation  of 
arms  control  agreements  and  the  dogged  search 
for  political  accommodation — ^it  also  means 
creating  and  cultivating  functional  and  tech- 
nical agreements  about  world  law  and  outer 
space  and  the  high  seas  and  Antarctica  and, 
perhaps  before  long,  the  ocean  floor — agree- 
ments to  allocate  frequencies  for  world  com- 
munication, to  build  a  global  weather  reporting 
and  forecasting  system,  to  standardize  and 
supervise  safety  regulations  for  air  and  mari- 
time traffic,  to  sponsor  peaceful  uses  of  the  atom 
and  inspect  nuclear  fuel,  to  speed  the  flow  of 

691 


mail  and  monitor  the  flow  of  narcotics,  to  pre- 
vent the  spread  of  communicable  disease  and 
foster  the  spread  of  improved  varieties  of 
plants  and  seeds,  even  to  teach  public  health 
and  personal  hygiene  and  family  planning  and 
the  care  of  children. 

There  are  international  organizations,  mainly 
within  the  family  of  United  Nations  agencies, 
working  peacefully  at  all  these  things  and  at 
many  more.  In  most  of  tliem  the  Russians 
grumble  but  participate ;  their  input  varies  from 
case  to  case,  but  they  do  cooperate  much  and 
often.  And  whenever  they  do,  it  helps  us  prove 
again  what  we  know  and  they  are  beginning  to 
suspect :  tliat  hostility  is  futile  and  cooperation 
pays  off. 

So  making  peace  with  the  Russians  is  a  job 
as  big  as  all  outdoors — with  room  in  it  for  every- 
body who  has  the  talent,  the  will,  the  guts,  and 
especially  tlie  patience  to  be  an  activist  for 
peace.  Ifs  not  easy ;  but  for  that  reason  it  will 
appeal  to  the  best  of  you.  Welcome  to  the  club. 


U.S.-Mexico  Border  Commission 
Holds  Second  Plenary  Session 

The  second  plenary  session  of  the  U.S.- 
Mexico 0 ommission  for  Border  Development 
and  Friendship  was  lield  at  Washington 
May  1—3.  Following  are  remarks  made  at  the 
opening  session  on  May  1  hy  W.  W.  Rostow, 
Special  Assistant  to  the  President,  and  a 
Department  announcement  conx;erning  the 
meeting. 


REMARKS  BY  MR.  ROSTOW 

White  House  press  release  dated  May  1 

On  behalf  of  President  Jolinson  I  welcome 
you  to  Washington.  He  has  asked  me  to  convey 
his  warm  greetings  and  best  wishes  for  the  suc- 
cess of  your  deliberations.  He  regrets,  because 
of  an  exceptionally  tight  schedule  this  week, 
that  he  will  not  be  able  to  meet  with  you. 

Your  presence  here  gives  me  special  satisfac- 
tion. It  takes  me  back  to  April  1966,  when  I 
visited  your  capital  with  President  Johnson 
for  the  dedication  of  the  Lincobi  statue  in 
Chapidtepec  Park. 

I  was  new  then  to  my  present  responsibilities. 


and  it  was  my  first  trip  abroad  with  the  Presi- 
dent. I  shall  never  forget  the  warmth  and  en- 
thusiasm of  the  welcome  which  the  people  of 
your  capital  gave  the  two  Presidents. 

The  night  of  our  arrival  my  colleagues  and  I 
met  with  Foreign  Secretary  Carrillo  Flores  to 
consider  the  contents  of  a  Presidential  com- 
munique.^ Under  the  direct  instruction  of  the 
two  Presidents,  we  examined  far  into  the  night 
new  areas  where  we  might  work  together  to  per- 
fect our  ties  as  good  neighbors  and  fi-iends.  The 
idea  of  your  Commission — of  raising  the  stand- 
ard of  living  of  our  border  communities  and 
transforming  them  into  model  cities — origi- 
nated in  that  discussion. 

The  two  Presidents  quickly  endorsed  it,  re- 
flecting as  it  does  a  pattern  of  cooperation  they 
wished  to  make  succeed  between  our  two  nations 
so  that  it  might  serve  as  an  example  elsewhere. 

This  great  experiment  along  2,000  miles  of 
common  frontier  rests  on  three  key  elements : 

The  first  is  the  spirit  of  fraternity  which 
unites  Mexico  and  the  United  States.  Relations 
between  us  are  closer  today  than  at  any  time  in 
our  common  history.  Mutual  confidence  enables 
us  to  deal  forthrightly  with  common  problems. 

The  second  is  Mexico's  drive  toward  mod- 
ernization in  every  sector  of  its  society,  sparked 
by  your  impressive  and  steady  economic  growth. 
The  fact  of  jjrogress  has  given  Mexico  confi- 
dence— including  the  confidence  to  tackle  a 
development  program  of  the  dimension  of  the 
border  area. 

The  third  is  the  hemisphere's  goal  of  economic 
integration  of  Latin  America.  That  is,  of  course, 
primarily  a  task  for  Latin  Americans.  But  we 
in  the  United  States  can  contribute  through  the 
Alliance  for  Progi-ess  and  perhaps  also  by  exam- 
ple. In  the  past,  national  boundaries  have  too 
often  been  barriers  to  interchange.  Along  our 
border  we  want  to  show  how  a  frontier  can  be 
made  an  avenue  of  commerce  and  better  under- 
standing, opening  new  opportunities  and 
eiu'iching  the  lives  of  all  those  who  live  along  it. 
As  Latin  America  turns — as  it  is  turning — to 
the  development  of  its  inner  frontiers,  connnon 
effort  along  those  frontiere  will  become  increas- 
ingly important. 

As  a  Commission  you  have  been  at  work  for  a 
little  over  6  months.  You  have  developed  a 
sound  organization  for  working  together.  You 
have  begun  to  analyze  the  economic,  social,  and 


'  For  text,  see  Bulletin  of  May  9,  1966,  p.  731. 


692 


DEPARTMEN'T   OF    STATE   BtTLLETIN' 


cultural  problems  to  be  overcome.  The  dimen- 
sions of  the  task  are  becoming  clear  and  you  are 
now  moving:  into  action. 

Tlie  arrangements  j'ou  have  worked  out  for 
joint  emergency  planning  operations  to  deal 
with  national  disaster  will  alleviate  suffering 
and  loss  of  human  life  should  floods  or  hurri- 
canes strike  again. 

The  urban  development  planning  workshop 
at  Laredo-Nuevo  Laredo  will  provide  models 
for  use  in  other  border  communities. 

The  meetings  of  technical  and  vocational 
teachei-s  in  Mexicali-Calexico  and  Tijuana-San 
Diego  point  the  way  to  much  broader  coopera- 
tion to  increase  educational  opportunities. 

The  sports  clinics  and  competitive  events  now 
taking  place  all  along  the  border  promote 
understanding  and  good  will  which  must  be  car- 
ried to  all  levels  of  endeavor  across  the  border. 

The  efforts  to  beautify  the  cities  is  bringmg  a 
new  sense  of  community  spirit  and  pride. 

Because  you  are  pioneering  a  new  interna- 
tional effort,  the  going  at  the  start  is  modest  and 
slow.  This  is  understandable.  But,  as  coiifidence 
springs  from  accomplislunent,  you  will  gain 
momentum.  In  time,  you  will  build  monuments 
of  human  cooperation  to  match  the  physical 
accomplishments  of  Amistad  Dam  and  the 
Chamizal  settlement. 

As  you  know,  a  major  strand  of  President 
Johnson's  foreign  policy  is  his  concern  for  eco- 
nomic and  social  progress  in  the  world  commu- 
nity as  a  whole  and  in  the  developing  regions  of 
Asia,  Africa,  and  Latin  America  in  particular. 

For  him,  Latin  America  holds  a  special  place 
within  that  framework.  This  springs  from  close 
association  with  Mexico  and  its  citizens  since 
early  childhood  and  an  abiding  interest  in  our 
hemisphere — an  interest  he  has  maintahied 
through  almost  40  years  of  public  life. 

He  sees  in  Mexico's  progi'ess  that  the  goals  of 
the  Alliance  for  Progress  are  realistic  and  its 
methods  are  valid. 

He  sees  in  our  relations  with  the  Mexican 
Government  a  model  of  how  neighboring  coun- 
tries should  conduct  their  affairs  in  independ- 
ence, friendship,  and  dignity. 

He  sees  in  Mexico's  distinguished  President  a 
good  neighbor,  trusted  friend,  wise  counselor. 

He  sees  in  the  work  you  are  doing  the  promise 
of  what  can  be  achieved  to  promote  imderstand- 
ing  and  broaden  the  horizon  of  opportunity  and 
prosperity  among  people  of  goodwill. 

It  is  in  this  spirit  that  I  wish  you  every  suc- 
cess in  your  deliberations. 


DEPARTMENT  ANNOUNCEMENT 

The  Department  of  State  anncamced  on  April 
30  (press  release  88,  revised)  that  the  U.S.- 
Mexico Commission  for  Border  Development 
and  Friendship  would  hold  its  second  plenary 
session  at  the  Department  of  State  in  Washing- 
ton, May  1  to  3.  The  first  session  was  held  in 
Mexico  City  in  October  1967.  The  purpose  of  the 
meeting  is  to  review  tlie  work  and  recommenda- 
tions of  the  commission's  working  groups, 
which  met  in  Ciudad  Juarez  in  December  1967 
and  in  San  Diego  in  ilarch  1968.  These  recom- 
mendations call  for  action  programs  designed 
to  improve  the  living  standards  of  the  6  million 
people  who  live  on  both  sides  of  the  2,000-mLle 
border  between  Mexico  and  the  United  States. 
The  plenarj'  session  will  consider  proposals 
relating  to  recreational  facilities,  economic 
development,  cultural  development,  emergency 
planning,  urban  development,  education,  tour- 
ism, and  the  promotion  of  sports  activities. 

The  Mexican  section  of  the  commission  is 
headed  by  Jose  A^ivanco,  who  is  also  the 
chief  of  Mexico's  border  improvement  agency, 
PKONAF.  The  Executive  Secretary-  is  Antonio 
Gonzalez  de  Leon,  who  is  also  Director  of  Mexi- 
co's diplomatic  service.  The  U.S.  section  is 
headed  by  Ainbassador  Raymond  Telles.  The 
Executive  Secretary  is  Melbourne  Spector." 


United  States  and  Mexico  Conclude 
Disaster  Assistance  Agreement 

A  U .S.-Mexico  agreement  on  disaster  assist- 
ance was  effected  hy  notes  exchanged  between 
Secretary  Rusk  and  Hugo  B.  Margdin,  Aj?iias- 
sador  of  Mexico,  at  a  ceremony  held  at  the 
Department  of  State  on  May  3  after  conclusion 
of  the  meeting  of  the  U. S.-Mexico  Commission 
for  Border  Development  and  Friendship.  Fol- 
lowing is  the  text  of  the  U.S.  note. 

Mat  3,  1968 
Excellency:  I  have  the  honor  to  aclcnowl- 
edge  the  receipt  of  Your  Excellenc3''s  note  No. 
2104  of  May  3,  1968,  which  reads  in  translation 
as  follows: 


'  For  names  of  members  of  the  U.S.  and  Mexican 
delegations,  see  Department  of  State  press  release  88 
(revised)  dated  Apr.  30. 


MAT    27,    1968 


693 


I  have  the  honor  of  referring  to  the  talks  held  recently 
between  representatives  of  our  countries  on  the  plan- 
ning and  implementation  of  assistance  measures  in 
cases  of  disasters  that  may  occur  in  the  territory  of 
Mexico  or  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

The  representatives  concluded  that  it  would  be  useful 
to  establish  means  and  procedures  directed  toward 
furnishing  mutual  assistance  between  the  two  coun- 
tries in  the  event  of  natural  disasters  such  as  hurri- 
canes, floods,  fires,  earthquakes,  or  other  catastrophes 
of  that  nature,  in  order  to  protect  the  life,  property, 
health,  and  safety  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  affected 
border  areas. 

They  also  determined  that  it  would  be  useful  to 
promote  the  conclusion  of  arrangements  on  mutual 
assistance  in  order  to  provide  help  in  case  of  disaster 
between  the  communities  located  along  the  two  sides  of 
the  international  border,  and  the  adoption  of  plans  for 
the  purpose  of  coordinating  assistance  measures  at  the 
local  level. 

Accordingly,  I  have  received  instructions  from  my 
Government  to  propose  an  agreement  on  assistance 
measures  in  cases  of  natural  disasters  in  the  following 
terms : 

1.  A  Jlexico-United  States  Committee  for  assistance 
in  cases  of  disasters  is  established,  its  function  being  to 
propose  to  the  two  Governments  measures  of  coopera- 
tion and  mutual  assistance  that  should  be  considered 
under  the  plans  in  force  in  each  country,  in  order  that 
they  may  be  put  into  operation  in  cases  of  civil  dis- 
asters such  as  hurricanes,  floods,  fires,  earthquakes, 
or  other  catastrophes  of  that  nature,  such  measures 
being  based  on  experience  in  this  respect. 

2.  The  Committee  will  meet  alternately  in  Mexico 
and  the  United  States  on  dates  approved  by  the  two 
Governments.  The  Chief  of  the  host  country's  Section 
will  act  as  Chairman  at  the  meetings. 

3.  The  Committee  will  be  composed  of  two  Sections, 
each  one  headed  by  a  national  representative. 

4.  The  Mexican  Section  will  consist  of  a  representa- 
tive of  the  Secretary  of  Government,  the  Chairman  of 
the  Mexican  Section  of  the  Mexico-United  States  Com- 
mission for  Border  Development  and  Friendship,  and 
representatives  of  the  Secretariats  of  Foreign  Rela- 
tions, National  Defense,  Navy,  Finance  and  Piiblic 
Credit,  Communications  and  Transportation,  and 
Health  and  Assistance,  as  well  as  any  other  representa- 
tives who  may  be  subsequently  appointed. 

5.  The  United  States  Section  of  the  Committee  will 
consist  of  the  Director  of  the  Office  of  Emergency 
Planning,  the  Chairman  of  the  United  States  Section 
of  the  Mexico-United  States  Commission  for  Border 
Development  and  Friendship,  and  the  Disaster  Belief 
Coordinator  of  the  Department  of  State,  as  well  as  any 
other  representatives  who  may  be  subsequently 
appointed. 

6.  The  first  meeting  of  the  Committee  will  be  held 
within  30  days  of  the  date  on  which  it  is  established. 

7.  During  its  meetings  the  Committee  may  appoint 
from  among  its  members  such  subcommittees  or  work- 
ing groups  as  it  deems  necessary  to  study  the  measures 
that  should  be  adopted  in  case  of  natural  disasters. 

8.  The  results  of  the  work  of  the  aforesaid  subcom- 
mittees or  working  groups  will  be  studied  by  the  full 
Committee  and  once  they  have  been  agreed  upon,  they 
will  be  recommended  to  the  Governments.  The  Govern- 
ments will  give  the  Committee's  recommendations 
priority  attention. 


9.  The  Committee  will  prepare  as  promptly  as  possi- 
ble a  preliminary  study  of  the  measures  that  might 
be  applied  in  emergency  cases  and  that  might  serve  as 
a  guide  to  the  authorities  of  the  two  countries  at  the 
national,  state,  and  municipal  levels. 

If  the  Government  of  the  United  States  of  America 
concurs  in  the  terms  set  forth  above,  I  have  the  honor 
to  propose  that  this  note  and  Your  Excellency's  note 
confirming  such  concurrence  constitute  a  formal  agree- 
ment between  our  two  Governments,  such  agreement  to 
be  in  force  for  two  years  from  this  date  and  subject  to 
automatic  renewal  for  additional  two-year  periods,  un- 
less either  of  our  two  Governments  informs  the  other 
in  writing  of  its  intention  to  terminate  it  at  least  30 
days  before  the  end  of  any  of  those  periods. 

i  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  to  renew  to  Your 
Excellency  the  assurances  of  my  highest  and  most 
distinguished  consideration. 

I  have  the  honor  to  state  that  the  foregoing 
proposal  is  acceptable  to  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  of  America  and  that  Your  Excel- 
lency's note  and  this  reply  shall  be  considered  as 
constituting  an  agreement  between  the  two  Gov- 
ernments on  tliis  subject,  the  agreement  to  enter 
into  force  on  the  date  of  this  note. 

Accept,  Excellency,  the  renewed  assurances  of 
my  highest  consideration. 


Dean  Kusk 


His  Excellency 
Hugo  B.  Margain, 
Ambassador  of  Mexico. 


Tavera  Dam  Project  Agreement 
Signed  in  Dominican  Republic 

DEPARTMENT  ANNOUNCEMENT 

The  Department  of  State  announced  on  April 
28  (press  release  86)  that  Under  Secretary 
Nicholas  deB.  Katzenbach  would  go  to  the  Do- 
minican Republic  on  April  29  to  represent  the 
United  States  at  ceremonies  marking  the  be- 
ginning of  a  major  project  to  expand  the  coim- 
ti-y's  electric  power  and  irrigation  facilities.  The 
project  includes  construction  of  a  dam  on  the 
Yaque  del  Norte  River. 

Prepared  within  the  framework  of  the  Alli- 
ance for  Progress,  the  project  calls  for  outlays 
totaling  $57.1  million,  $34.5  million  of  which 
will  be  invested  in  the  first  stage.  On  April  30  at 
Santo  Domingo  Mr.  Katzenbach  participated 
with  Dominican  officials  and  representatives  of 
the  Inter- American  Development  Bank  in  sign- 


694 


DEPARTMENT   OF    STATE   BULLETIN 


ing  the  agreement  marking  the  ijroject's  initial 
stage.  During  his  stay  he  paid  a  lielicopter  visit 
to  Tavera  in  the  Cibao  Valley,  the  site  of  the 
dam.  The  Cibao  Yallej^  is  one  of  the  Dominican 
Kepublic's  principal  farming  ai'eas. 

The  initial  project  is  bemg  financed  by  a  loan 
from  the  Inter- American  Development  Bank 
(66  percent)  and  through  allocation  of  local 
currency  by  the  Agenc}-  for  International  De- 
velopment (20  percent).  The  Dominican  Re- 
public will  finance  the  balance  (14  percent). 

The  project  when  completed  Avill  jirovide 
water  to  irrigate  93,000  acres.  The  irrigation 
will  permit  a  major  increase  in  agricultural 
production  over  present  levels.  The  first  stage 
of  the  project  will  mcrease  the  country's  present 
power  production  by  about  24  percent. 


REMARKS  BY  UNDER  SECRETARY  KATZENBACH, 
SANTO   DOMINGO,  APRIL  30 

Press  release  87  dated  April  30 

It  gives  me  great  pleasure  to  be  here  and  to 
participate  in  this  great  and  historic  event. 

"With  the  Tavera  Dam  begins  the  most  im- 
portant development  project  in  the  history  of 
the  Dominican  Republic.  The  United  States  is 
pleased  to  be  associated  with  you  in  this  enor- 
mous undertaking.  In  our  countiy,  river  valley 
development — for  electric  energy,  irrigation, 
and  conservation — has  been  a  key  factor  in  our 
national  gi-owth.  We  know  from  our  own  ex- 
perience its  importance  for  development.  For 
this  reason,  we  have  supported  comprehensive 
programs  to  bring  the  advantages  of  water  re- 
sources to  peoples  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  in 
Pakistan  and  India,  Taiwan,  Ghana,  Turkey, 
Mexico,  and  Brazil. 

"\Alien  President  Balaguer  raised  the  Tavera 
project  with  President  Johnson  a  year  ago  at 
Punta  del  Este  he  found  a  receptive  audience. 
United  States  pai'ticipation  has  since  had  his 
full  support  and  he  has  followed  the  develop- 
ment of  this  project  with  very  great  interest. 
The  President  has  personally  asked  me  to  con- 
vey his  congratulations  to  all  of  you  for  the 
fine  work  which  has  led  to  this  occasion. 

Special  recognition  is  also  due  to  President 
[Felipe]  Herrera  and  the  staif  of  the  Inter- 
American  Development  Bank  for  their  tireless 
and  imaginative  effort.  Without  their  contribu- 
tion the  project  would  not  have  been  possible. 

With  this  ceremony,  the  way  is  now  opened 
to  greatly  expanded  development  of  the  vast 
potential  of  the  Yaque  del  Norte.  Work  can 


now  begin  to  fulfill  this  long-held  dream.  It  is  a 
dream  conceived  over  40  years  ago  and  has 
since  become  one  of  this  country's  great  national 
objectives. 

Over  the  last  year  the  desire  of  the  Dominican 
people  to  see  the  dam  built  has  become  unmis- 
takably clear.  The  Dominican  peojjle,  led  by 
President  Balaguer,  with  the  cooperation  of 
leaders  of  various  political  parties,  have  dem- 
onstrated their  solidarity  and  made  their  will 
felt.  This  is  why  we  are  here  today.  Much  is  said 
about  the  democratic  power  of  the  people.  This 
is  what  it  means. 

There  is,  I  believe,  an  important  moral  to  this 
story.  In  the  international  organizations  and  in 
the  United  States  Govermnent,  there  are  many 
brilliant  and  dedicated  people  with  excellent 
ideas  about  development  and  what  should  be 
done.  They  make  vital  contributions.  But  the 
truly  essential  element  to  the  success  of  any 
major  development  project  is  the  will  of  the 
people  themselves.  Development  is  not  some- 
thing which  can  be  imposed  from  outside.  The 
most  imaginative  idea  is  worthless  if  it  does  not 
win  the  support  of  those  who  are  to  benefit  from 
it. 

We  can  help  contribute  funds  and  technical 
knowledge;  but  unless  our  partners  in  the  Al- 
liance for  Progress  care  enough  to  sacrifice,  to 
coojjerate  with  one  another  and  international 
institutions,  the  goals  they  have  set  for  them- 
selves in  this  hemisphere  cannot  be  achieved. 

The  initiative  for  the  Alliance  must  come 
from  the  peojile.  Only  they  can  provide  the  will 
for  development.  When  this  is  clearly  demon- 
strated, as  it  has  been  with  the  Tavera  project, 
then  mountains  can  be  moved  and  rivers 
dannned. 

We  hope  that  the  solidarity  of  purpose  which 
has  been  demonstrated  in  this  countiy  will  be 
reinforced  and  spread  over  the  entire  develop- 
ment process.  A  dam,  after  all,  is  only  a  tool,  a 
means  by  which  man  can  make  use  of  the  re- 
sources at  hand  and  get  the  most  from  his  en- 
vironment. Alone  it  will  not  enable  you  to  reach 
the  goals  to  which  you  aspire.  It  cannot  by  itself 
eliminate  poverty,  provide  land  for  landless 
campesinos,  or  educate  your  children.  These  and 
other  tasks  lie  ahead.  A  dam  on  the  Yaque  is  im- 
pressive and  important,  but  it  is  the  spirit  of 
Tavera  that  gives  hope  for  the  future.  If  that 
spirit  can  be  carried  over  to  the  goals  of  greater 
social  justice  and  economic  development,  then 
they,  too,  can  be  achieved.  This  is  the  promise  of 
Tavera  and  can  be  the  lasting  significance  of 
this  occasion. 


MAY    2T,    1968 


695 


THE  CONGRESS 


Strengthening  the  International  Monetary  System 


Message  From  President  Johnson  to  the  Congress " 


To  the  Congress  of  the  United  States: 

Twenty-four  years  ago,  President  Franklin 
D.  Roosevelt  asked  the  78th  Congress  to 
approve  a  monetary  plan  which  he  called 
the  "cornerstone  for  international  economic 
cooperation." 

The  Bretton  Woods  Agreement — and  the  In- 
ternational Monetary  Fmid  which  it  created — 
helped  map  the  recovery  of  a  war-ravaged 
world. 

Today  I  ask  the  Congress  to  take  another  his- 
toric step.  I  seek  approval  of  an  amendment  to 
the  International  Monetary  Fund  Agreement,^ 
to  adapt  it  to  changing  world  conditions.  This 
change — the  first  since  the  Agreement  was  rati- 
fied in  1945 — is  both  timely  and  necessary.  It  will 
prepare  us  for  the  era  of  expanding  world  trade 
and  economic  opportunity  that  unfolds  before 
us. 

Recovery  and   Expansion 

The  financial  statesmen  who  shaped  the  Bret- 
ton  Woods  Agreement  in  1944  looked  beyond  the 
holocaust  of  war  to  a  time  of  peace.  They  re- 
membered the  harsh  lessons  of  a  depression 
which  had  led  the  world  into  war. 

They  knew  what  had  to  be  avoided — restric- 
tive monetary  policies  that  strangled  progress, 
competitive  depreciation  of  currencies  that  led 
to  instability,  and  the  breakdown  of  interna- 
tional cooperation  that  impeded  trade. 

They  knew  what  had  to  be  built — a  coopera- 
tive monetary  system  to  foster  world  economic 


'Transmitted  on  Apr.  30  (White  House  pre.ss  re- 
lease; also  printed  as  H.  Doc.  300,  90th  Cong.,  2d 
sess. ) . 

^  Treaties  and  Other  International  Acts  Series  1501. 


expansion  in  a  climate  of  mutual  trust  and 
assistance. 

The  machinery  established  at  Bretton 
Woods — through  the  International  Monetary 
Fund — brought  stability  to  the  exchange  rates 
among  the  currencies  of  different  nations.  It 
brought  order  to  international  financial  mar- 
kets and  transactions.  It  created  a  carefully  de- 
signed system  of  cooperation  in  dealmg  with 
international  financial  problems. 

The  machinery  as  it  operated  in  the  quarter- 
century  since  World  War  II  produced  a  record 
of  unparalleled  economic  progress.  The  econo- 
mies of  war-ruined  nations  were  rebuilt  and 
have  grown  on  an  unprecedented  scale.  World 
imports  surged  from  $59  billion  in  1948  to  $202 
billion  in  1967. 

But  when  Franklin  Roosevelt  urged  approval 
of  the  Bretton  Woods  Agreements,  he  fore- 
saw that  "the  experience  of  future  years  will 
show  us  how  they  can  be  improved." 

That  experience  is  now  part  of  our  history. 

The  very  success  of  the  system  in  stimulating 
trade  has  put  new  pressures  on  the  Bretton 
Woods  machinery  and  shows  us  how  tliat  ma- 
chinery must  now  be  changed. 

The  rapid  growth  in  world  trade  and  in  the 
flow  of  capital  is  outpacing  the  growth  in  mone- 
tary reserves.  The  world  must  take  action  to 
provide  sufficient  reserves  for  this  growth.  If 
it  does  not,  strains  and  uncertainties  in  the  in- 
ternational monetary  system — and  the  limita- 
tions they  create^could  turn  the  clock  back- 
ward to  the  dark  days  of  restrictive  economic 
policies,  narrow  interests,  empty  ports  and  idle 
men. 

Today  I  propose  that  the  United  States  lead 
the  way  in  the  action  that  is  needed. 


696 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


/  recommend  that  the  Congress  approve 
changes  in  the  International  Monetary  Fund 
Agreement  to  create  a  new  fonn  of  internation- 
al reserve — the  Special  Draining  Right. 

Background  to  Acceptance 

T]ie  request  I  make  today  is  not  a  hasty  so- 
lution to  a  newly-discovered  problem.  It  repre- 
sents the  careful  work  of  five  years. 

The  first  part  of  that  period  was  devoted  to 
intensive  study  by  the  outstandmg  economists 
and  financial  specialists  of  many  nations. 

This  laid  the  base  for  action.  In  July  1963 — 
with  bi-partisan  support  and  suggestions  from 
the  Congress — I  directed  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  to  initiate  negotiations.  The  past 
three  years  have  been  marked  by  steady  prog- 
ress through  patient  negotiations — in  The 
Hague,  in  London,  m  Rio  and  in  Stockholm. 

From  the  studies  and  the  negotiations  has 
emerged  the  concept  of  Special  Drawing  Eights 
as  a  new  system  for  the  deliberate  and  orderly 
addition  to  international  reserves.  They  are  the 
refined  product  of  thoughtful  and  considered 
agreement  among  leading  experts  from  the 
treasuries  and  central  banks  of  the  Free  "World 
and  the  International  Monetary  Fund. 

Throughout  the  negotiations  leading  to  the 
development  of  the  Special  Drawing  Rights 
plan,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  had  the 
benefit  of  advice  from  the  Advisory  Committee 
on  International  Monetary  Arrangements.  This 
panel,  chaired  by  former  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury Douglas  Dillon,  consisted  of  some  of  the 
nation's  leading  bankers,  economists  and  busi- 
nessmen with  outstanding  experience  in  the  field 
of  international  finance. 

The  Need  for  International  Reserves 

International  reserves  are  to  world  trade 
what  working  capital  is  to  a  growing  business. 
As  trade  expands — just  as  when  business 
grows — more  reser\-es  are  needed. 

Nations  use  international  reserves  to  settle 
their  accounts  with  each  other.  And  these  re- 
serves are  an  important  factor  in  maintaining 
stable  exchange  rates  among  currencies.  They 
are  essential  to  provide  time  for  countries  to 
restore  equilibrium  in  their  balance  of  pay- 
ments through  an  orderly  process  of  adjustment. 

Reserves  must  be  unimpeachable  in  quality. 
They  must  be  acceptable  to  other  nations,  as 
well  as  to  the  nation  that  holds  them.  Tradi- 


tionally, international  reserves  have  consisted 
mainly  of  gold,  dollars  and  sterling. 

But  today  the  world's  supply  of  international 
reserves  camiot  meet  the  requirements  posed  by 
growing  world  trade  and  capital  flows. 

In  1948,  total  world  reserves  were  $48  billion. 
Of  this,  gold  accounted  for  $33  billion,  or  al- 
most 70  percent.  The  remaining  30  percent  was 
divided  among  dollars — G  percent — and  other 
foreign  exchange  plus  reserve  claims  on  the 
International  Monetary  Fimd. 

Today,  reflecting  the  vast  increase  in  world 
trade,  total  reserves  have  grown  to  $73  billion. 
Of  this,  gold  accounts  for  $39  billion,  a  decrease 
to  54  percent  of  the  total.  Dollai-s,  on  the  other 
hand,  have  risen  to  25  percent — or  $18  billion. 
The  remainder  is  divided  between  other  foreign 
exchange  and  reserve  claims  on  the  Interna- 
tional Monetary  Fund. 

Gold  became  less  and  less  dependable  as  the 
source  of  regular  addition  to  world  monetary  re- 
serves. Because  the  U.S.  was  nmning  a  balance 
of  payments  deficit,  the  dollar  took  up  the  slack 
left  by  gold  and  provided  the  largest  share  of 
the  new  reserve  growth  over  the  past  two  dec- 
ades. Thus,  the  growth  of  world  reserves  has 
been  Imked  maijily  to  deficits  in  America's  bal- 
ance of  payments. 

With  gold  imable  to  meet  reserve  needs,  and 
with  the  prospect  of  reduced  dollar  supplies  for 
international  reserves  as  the  U.S.  moves  toward 
balance  of  payments  equilibrium,  one  fact 
clearly  emerges :  the  world  needs  some  new  form 
of  acceptable  international  reserve  to  supple- 
ment existing  reserves. 

It  is  the  purpose  of  Special  Drawing  Rights 
to  fill  that  need. 

The  Significance  of  Special  Drawing  Rights 

International  agreement  on  the  Special 
Drawing  Rights  proposal  comes  at  a  time  when 
the  world  monetary  system  has  been  subjected 
to  imcertainty  and  speculation  following  the  de- 
valuation of  the  pound  sterling  last  November. 

To  all  nations  of  the  free  world,  this  agree- 
ment will  bring  new  strength. 

To  the  United  States,  it  can  provide  an  op- 
portunity to  rebuild  gradually  the  reserves 
which  we  have  lost  over  the  past  years.  But  in 
a  broader  sense,  the  Special  Drawing  Rights  are 
of  value  to  the  United  States  because  of  the 
strength  they  will  bring  to  the  world  monetary 
system. 


MAT    27,    1968 


697 


As  the  world's  largest  trading  and  investing 
nation,  we  prosper  where  other  nations  have 
adequate  resources  to  assure  their  expansion  of 
production,  employment  and  trade. 

These  Special  Drawing  Rights  are  a  land- 
mark in  the  long  evolution  of  international 
monetary  affairs.  For  the  first  time  a  reserve  as- 
set will  be  deliberately  created  by  the  joint  de- 
cision of  many  nations.  These  nations  will  back 
that  asset  with  their  faith  and  resources — the 
strongest  support  that  any  asset  has  ever  had. 
Special  Drawing  Rights  will  assure  the  world 
economy  of  an  adequate  and  orderly  growth  of 
mternational  reserves,  regardless  of  unpredict- 
able fluctuations  in  the  production  of  gold  or  in 
its  private  use. 

How  the  Special  Drawing  Rights  Will  Work 

Special  Drawing  Rights — to  be  issued  only  to 
governments,  and  exchanged  only  among  gov- 
erimients — will  be  a  special  kind  of  interna- 
tional legal  tender.  They  will  perform  the  same 
basic  function  in  the  international  monetary 
system  as  gold,  dollars,  or  other  reserve  curren- 
cies. They  will  can*y  a  gold  value  guarantee  and 
will  bear  a  moderate  rate  of  interest. 

Special  Drawing  Rights  will  be  created  after 
careful  consultation  and  broad  agreement.  Par- 
ticipating countries  with  85  percent  of  the 
weighted  votes  must  decide  that  a  need  for  addi- 
tional reserves  exist. 

Tliis  process  will  assure  wide  participation  in 
the  use  of  the  new  asset  and  confidence  in  its 
acceptability. 

These  new  reserve  assets  will  be  distributed 
in  accordance  with  each  member's  quota  in  the 
International  Monetary  Fund.  Under  this  ar- 
rangement, for  example,  the  United  States — 
whose  quota  is  about  25  percent  of  the  Interna- 
tional Monetary  Fund's  i-esources — would  re- 
ceive about  $250  million  out  of  each  $1  billion 
of  Special  Drawing  Rights  issued.  The  share  of 
the  Common  iSIarket  countries  as  a  gi'oup  would 
be  about  $180  million;  the  United  Kingdom, 
$115  million;  Canada  and  Japan,  about  $35  mil- 
lion each;  other  developed  coimtries,  $105  mil- 
lion; and  the  developing  countries  as  a  group, 
$280  million. 

A  participating  countiy  will  benefit  from  the 
program,  but  it  will  have  responsibilities  as  well. 
It  is  committed  to  accept  Special  Drawing 
Rights  from  other  countries  when  it  is  in  a 
strong  balance  of  payments  and  reserve  posi- 


tion. The  amount  it  is  required  to  accept  is  lim- 
ited to  three  times  the  value  of  Special  Drawing 
Rights  distributed  to  it  by  the  International 
Monetary  Fund.  This  limitation  is  sufficiently 
broad  to  assure  effective  use  of  the  new  asset. 

The  commitment  to  accept  Special  Drawing 
Rights  from  other  countries  insures  their  high 
quality  and  liquidity,  and  gives  them  the  status 
of  a  true  international  reserve  asset. 

The  machinery  to  create  Special  Drawing 
Rights  will  be  put  into  place  when  65  Interna- 
tional Monetary  Fund  member-nations  account- 
ing for  80  percent  of  the  weighted  votes  accept 
the  plan. 

As  one  of  the  leaders  in  the  formulation  of  this 
proposal,  and  as  tlie  member  with  the  greatest 
percentage  of  the  votes — about  22% — it  is  fit- 
ting that  tlie  United  States  be  one  of  the  first 
nations  to  accept  the  Special  Drawing  Rights 
plan. 

Our   Hope  for  Tomorrow 

International  finance — the  subject  of  this  Mes- 
sage— is  complex  and  intricate. 

But  its  effects  extend  far  beyond  monetary 
institutions.  They  reach  out  to  farmland  and 
production  line,  sales  office  and  show  room. 

For  the  heart,  of  this  message  is  a  plan  to  sus- 
tain a  prosperous  and  growing  world  economy 
through  an  orderly  expansion  of  trade.  As  that 
occurs,  we  all  benefit — the  worker  with  a  better 
paycheck,  the  businessman  with  a  new  order, 
the  farmer  witli  another  market,  the  family  with 
a  wider  choice  of  products. 

As  the  world's  economy  grows,  a  promise 
grows  with  it.  Franklin  Roosevelt  defined  it  al- 
most a  quarter  of  a  century  ago  in  his  first  mes- 
sage on  the  Bretton  Woods  Agreement — as  a 
hope 

for  a  secure  and  fruitful  world,  a  world  in  which  plain 
people  in  all  countries  can  work  at  tasks  which  they  do 
well,  exchange  in  peace  the  products  of  their  labor,  and 
work  out  their  several  destinies  In  security  and  peace ; 
a  world  in  which  governments,  as  their  major  con- 
tril)ution  to  the  common  welfare  are  highly  and  effec- 
tively resolved  to  work  together  in  practical  af- 
fairs. .  .  . 

That  was  the  hope  of  America  then.  It  is 
the  hope  of  America  now. 

The  Congress  can  move  far  toward  making 
this  hoi^e  a  reality  by  its  contribution  to  a  sound 
world  monetary  system. 

I  urge  the  Congress  to  cast  a  vote  for  a 
stronger  world  economy  by  approving  the  his- 


698 


DEPARTMENT   OF    STATE   BULLETIN 


toric  Special  Drawing  Rights  legislation  I  sub- 
mit today. 

The  key  I'ole  of  the  dollar  also  gives  America 
another  special  responsibility.  A  strong  dollar 
is  essential  to  the  stability  of  the  international 
financial  structure.  We  must  fulfill  our  respon- 
sibilities by  dealing  swiftly  with  our  own  budg- 
etary and  balance-of-payments  deficits.  Let  me 
remind  the  Congress  once  again  of  the  clear  and 
critical  need  to  pass  the  tax  bill — the  best  in- 
restment  America  can  make  to  keep  the  dollar 
strong. 

Lyndon  B.  Johnson 

The  White  House. 
April  30, 1968 


At  the  Imicheon  following  the  exchange  of 
ratifications,  Secretary  Rusk  commented  that 
the  new  treaty  is  another  demonstration  of  the 
continuing  friendly  relations  between  Thailand 
and  the  United  States.  It  will  facilitate  trade, 
travel,  and  investment  between  the  two  coun- 
tries. The  Secretary  noted  that  the  new  treaty 
will  contribute  to  the  success  of  the  first  official 
Thai  trade  and  investment  mission,  which  is 
presently  in  the  United  States. 


Current  Actions 


MULTILATERAL 


TREATY   INFORMATION 


U.S.  and  Thailand  Exchange 
Ratifications  of  Commercial  Treaty 

Press  release  97  dated  May  8 

On  the  occasion  of  the  visit  of  Prime  Minister 
Thanom  Kittikachorn  to  Washington,  the  in- 
struments of  ratification  of  the  new  Treaty  of 
Amity  and  Economic  Relations  between  Thai- 
land and  the  LTnited  States  were  exchanged.  The 
exchange  took  place  at  the  Department  of  State 
on  May  8,  and  the  treaty  will  go  into  efl'ect  1 
month  later,  on  June  8. 

This  treaty  is  the  latest  and  most  complete 
of  a  series  of  commercial  treaties  between  the 
United  States  and  Thailand  going  back  135 
years  to  the  Treaty  of  Amity  and  Commerce  of 
March  20,  1833.  That  treaty  was  the  first  be- 
tween the  LTnited  States  and  an  Asian  nation. 

The  new  treat}'  contains  16  articles  covering 
such  subjects  as  entry  and  sojourn,  personal 
freedoms,  access  to  courts,  just  compensation  in 
the  event  of  expropriation,  rights  with  respect 
to  establishing  and  carrj'ing  on  business  activi- 
ties, property  rights,  taxation,  exchange  con- 
trols, treatment  of  imports  and  exports,  treat- 
ment of  shipping,  and  other  matters  affecting 
the  status  and  activities  of  citizens  and  enter- 
prises of  one  country  within  the  territories  of 
the  other. 


Exhibitions 

Convention  regarding  international  exhibitions.  Signed 
at  Paris  November  22,  1928.  Entered  into  force 
.January  17,  10.30;' 

Protocol  modifying  the  convention  of  1928  relating  to 
international  exhibitions.  Signed  at  Paris  May  10, 
1948.  Entered  into  force  May  5.  1949 ; ' 

Protocol  modifying  article  IV  of  the  convention  signed 
at   Paris  November   22,   1928,   as  modified,   dealing 
with  international  exhibitions.   Done  at  Paris  No- 
vember 16,  1966.' 
Accession  signed  by  the  President:  May  6,  1968. 

Grains 

International  grains  arrangement,  1967,  with  annexes. 
Open  for  signature  at  Washington  October  1.5  until 
and  including  November  30,  1967." 
Ratification    to    the    Wheat    Trade    Convention   de- 
posited: Ireland.  May  S,  1968. 

Load  Lines 

International  convention  on  load  lines,  1966.  Done  at 
London  April  5,  1966.  Enters  into  force  July  21,  1968. 
TIAS  6.3.31. 
Acceptances  deposited:  India,  Italy,  April  19,  1968. 

Satellite   Communications   System 

Agreement   establishing   interim   arrangements  for   a 

global  commercial  communications  satellite  system. 

Done  at  Washington  August  20,  1964.  Entered  into 

force  August  20,  1964.  TIAS  5646. 

Accession  deposited:  Turkey,  May  6,  1968. 
Special   agreement.   Done  at   Washington  August  20, 

1964.  Entered  into  force  August  20,  1964.  TIAS  .5646. 

Signature:  Turkey,  May  6, 1968. 

Space 

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  Mo.scow  April  22,  1968.° 
Signatures:  Cyprus,  Korea,^  May  9,  1968. 


'  Not  in  force  for  the  United  States. 

"  Not  in  force. 

'  With  a  statement. 


MAT    27,    1968 


699 


Telecommunications 

Partial  revision  of  tlie  radio  regulations  (Geneva, 
1959),  as  amended  (TIAS  4893,  5603,  6332),  relating 
to  maritime  mobile  service,  v^ith  annexes  and  final 
protocol.  Done  at  Geneva  November  3,  1967.  Enters 
into  force  April  1, 1969. 

Signatures:  Algeria,'  Argentina,  Australia,  Austria, 
Belgium,  Brazil,  Bulgaria,*  Cameroon,'  Canada, 
Ceylon,  Chad,  Chile,'  China,'  Colombia,  Cuba,'' ' 
Cyprus,  Czechoslovakia,'  Denmark,  Ethiopia,'  Fin- 
land, France,  Group  of  territories  represented  by 
French  Overseas  Post  and  Telecommunications 
Agency,  Federal  Republic  of  Germany,  Ghana,'- ' 
Greece,  Guyana,"  Hungary,'  Iceland,  India,  Indo- 
nesia," Ireland,  Israel,'  Italy,  Ivory  Coast,'' " 
Jamaica,  Japan,  Jordan,'  Korea,*  Kuwait,* 
Liberia,''  °  Malaysia,'  Malta,  Mexico,  Monaco, 
Netherlands,  New  Zealand,  Pakistan,'  Poland,' 
Portugal,  Portuguese  Overseas  Provinces,  Romania, 
Senegal,'' '  Singapore,"  South  Africa,'  Spain, 
Sweden,  Switzerland,  Togo,  Tunisia,'  Turkey, 
Union  of  Soviet  Socialist  Republics,'  United  King- 
dom,' United  States,  Territories  of  the  United 
States,  Venezuela,  Republic  of  Viet-Nam,'  Yugo- 
slavia, November  3, 1967. 
Notification  of  approval:  Guyana,  January  22, 1968. 


BILATERAL 


Korea 

Agreement  relating  to  the  loan  of  two  additional 
destroyers  to  Korea.  Effected  by  exchange  of  notes 
at  Seoul  April  26,  1968.  Entered  into  force  April  26. 
1968. 


at  Bangkok  November  13,  1937.  Entered  into  force 
October  1, 1938.  53  Stat.  1731. 

Terminated:  June  8,  1968  (replaced  by  treaty  of  May 
29,  19m,SJipra). 

Union  of  Soviet  Socialist  Republics 

Agreement  amending  the  air  transport  agreement  and 
supplementary  agreement  of  November  4,  1966,  with 
annex  (TIAS  6135).  Effected  by  exchange  of  notes  at 
Moscow  May  6,  1968.  Entered  into  force  May  6,  1968. 


DEPARTMENT  AND   FOREIGN   SERVICE 


Confirmations 

The  Senate  on  May  9  confirmed  the  nomination  of 
Frank  E.  McKinney  to  be  Ambassador  to  Spain.  (For 
biographic  details,  see  White  House  press  release  dated 
March  23.) 

Designations 

Thomas  O.  Enders  as  Deputy  Assistant  Secretary  for 
International  Monetary  Affairs,  effective  May  6.  (For 
biographic  details,  see  Department  of  State  press  re- 
lease dated  May  6. ) 


Malta 

Agreement  relating  to  the  redeployment  of  the  U.S.S. 
Shenandoah  to  Malta.  Effected  by  exchange  of  notes 
at  Valletta  April  3  and  16,  1968.  Entered  into  force 
April  16, 1968. 

Philippines 

Agreement  relating  to  the  relinquishment  by  the  United 
States  of  the  right  to  use  Bataan  Pol  Terminal  at 
Kitang  Point,  Limay,  Province  of  Bataan.  Effected 
by  exchange  of  notes  at  Manila  April  30,  1968.  En- 
tered into  force  April  30,  1968,  operative  May  1,  1968. 

Thailand 

Treaty  of  amity  and  economic  relations.   Signed  at 

Bangkok  May  29, 1966. 

Ratifications  exchanged:  May  8, 1968. 

Enters  into  force:  June  8, 1968. 
Treaty  of  friendship,  commerce  and  navigation.  Signed 


'  With  declarations  contained  in  final  protocol. 
°  With  reservations  contained  in  final  protocol. 
°  With  statement  contained  in  final  protocol. 
'  Including  Isle  of  Man  and  Channel  Islands. 


Correction 

The  Canadian  Government  has  corrected  an 
omission  in  the  attachment  to  its  note  of 
March  13,  1968,  concerning  procedures  for  tempo- 
rary cro.ss-border  movement  of  land  forces  be- 
tween Canada  and  the  United  States. 

Subparagraph  1.  e.  of  the  attachment,  which 
was  printed  in  the  Bulletin  of  April  8,  1968, 
p.  478,  should  read  as  follows : 

"e.  Operational  movements  to  provide  military 
support  to  civil  authorities  in  emergencies  result- 
ing from  enemy  attack,  or  to  civil  authorities  in 
disasters  other  than  those  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." 


700 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BtJIiLETIN 


INDEX     '^ay  27,  19GS     Vol.  LVIII,  No.  1509 


Congress 

Confirmations  (McKinney) 700 

Strengthening  the  International  Monetary  Sys- 
tem  (President's  message  to  Congress)     .    .      696 

Department  and  Foreign  Service 

Confirmations  (McKinney) 700 

Designations    (Enders) 700 

Disarmament.  Consolidating  the  Rule  of  Law  in 

International  Affairs   (Rusk) 669 

Dominican  Republic.  Tavera  Dam  Project  Agree- 
ment Signed  in  Dominican  Republic  (Katzen- 
bach) 694 

Economic  Affairs 

Enders  designated  Deputy  Assistant  Secretary    .      700 

Strengthening  the  International  Monetary  Sys- 
tem   (President's  message  to  Congress)     .     .       696 

United  States  and  Mexico  Conclude  Disaster  As- 
sistance Agreement  (U.S.  note) 693 

U.S.  and  Thailand  Exchange  Ratifications  of 
Commercial  Treaty 699 

U.S.-Mexico  Border  Commission  Holds  Second 
Plenary  Session   (W.  W.  Rostow)     ....      692 

Europe 

Europe  and  the  United  States — The  Partnership 
of  Necessity    (Eugene  V.  Rostow)     ....       680 

How  To  Make  Peace  With  the  Russians  (Cleve- 
land)       687 

Foreign  Aid.  Tavera  Dam  Project  Agreement 
Signed  in  Dominican  Republic  (Katzen- 
bach) 694 

International   Law.   Consolidating   the   Rule   of 

Law  in  International  Affairs   (Ru.sk)     .     .     .       669 

Mexico 

United  States  and  Mexico  Conclude  Disaster  As- 
sistance Agreement   (U.S.  note) 693 

U.S.-Mexico  Border  Commission  Holds  Second 
Plenary  Session    (W.  W.  Rostow)     ....      692 

North  Atlantic  Treaty  Organization 

Europe  and  the  United  States — The  Partnership 
of  Necessity  (Eugene  V.  Rostow) 680 

How  To  Slake  Peace  With  the  Russians  (Cleve- 
land)      687 

Presidential  Documents 

Prime  Minister  of  Thailand  Visits  the  United 
States 674 

Strengthening  the  International  Monetary  Sys- 
tem    696 

Science.  Consolidating  the  Rule  of  Law  in  Inter- 
national Affairs  (Rusk) 669 

Space.  Consolidating  the  Rule  of  Law  in  Inter- 
national Affairs  (Ru.sk) 669 

Spain.  McKinney  confirmed  as  Ambassador    .     .      700 

Thailand 

Prime  Minister  of  Thailand  Visits  the  United 
States  (Johnson,  Thanom,  joint  communi- 
que)        674 

U.S.  and  Thailand  Exchange  Ratifications  of 
Commercial  Treaty 699 

Treaty  Information 

Current  Actions 699 


United  States  and  Mexico  Conclude  Disaster 
Assistance  Agreement   (U.S.  note)     ....       093 

U.S.  and  Thailand  Exchange  Ratifications  of 
Commercial  Treaty 099 

U.S.S.R.  How  To  Make  Peace  With  the  Russians 

(Cleveland) G87 

Viet-Nam 

Consolidating  the  Rule  of  Law  in  International 

Affairs    (Rusk) 669 

Prime  Minister  of  Thailand  Visits  the  United 
States  (.Johnson,  Thanom,  joint  communi- 
que)        674 

Name  Index 

Cleveland,  Harlan 687 

Enders,  Thomas  O 700 

Johnson,  President 674,696 

Katzenbach,  Nicholas  deB 694 

McKinney,    Frank   E 700 

Rostow,  Eugene  V 680 

Rostow,    W.    W 692 

Rusk,  Secretary 669,693 

Thanom  Kittikachorn 674 


Check  List  of  Department  of  State 
Press  Releases:  May  6-12 

Press  releases  may  be  obtained  from  the  Office 
of  News,  Department  of  State,  Washington,  D.C. 
20520. 

Releases  issued  prior  to  May  6  which  appear  in 
this  issue  of  the  Bulletin  are  Nos.  86  of  April  28, 
87  and  88  of  April  30,  90  of  May  3,  and  93  of 
May  4. 


No. 

t94 


Date 

5/6 


*95      5/6 

(rev.) 
*96      5/7 


97 

*98 


5/8 
5/8 


*9'J      .V9 


tlOO     5/9 


tlOl  5/9 

tl02  5/10 

tl03  5/11 

•104  .VI 1 


Subject 
Amendment  to  U.S.-U.S.S.R.  civil 

air  transport  agreement. 
Harriman :  Franklin  D.  Roosevelt 

Birthday  Award  (excerpts). 
Shriver  sworn  in  as  Ambassador  to 

France  (biographic  details). 
Thailand-U.S.  treaty  of  amity  and 

economic  relations. 
Lodge  sworn  in  as  Ambassador  to 

the  Federal  Republic  of  Germany 

(biographic  details). 
Program  for  visit  of  Prime  Minis- 
ter Seewoosagur  Ramgoolam  of 

Mauritius. 
Katzenbach :  Senate  Subcommittee 

on     Territories     and      Insular 

Affairs. 
Katzenbach :  House  Banking  and 

Currency  Committee. 
U.S.-Spanish   economic   talks. 
Rusk :  Laos  National  Day. 
Program    for    visit    of    President 

Habib  Bourguiba  of  Tunisia. 


•Not  printed. 

tHeld  for  a  later  is.sne  of  the  Bulletin. 


Superintendent  of  Documents 
U.S.  government  printing  office 

WASHINGTON.   D.C.     20402 


OFFICIAL  BUSINESS 


POSTAGE   AND    FEES    PAID 
U.S.  GOVERNMENT   PRINTING   OFFICE 


I 


THE  OFFICIAL  WEEKLY  RECORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POLICY 


THE 

DEPARTMENT 

OF 

STATE 

BULLETIN 


Vol.  LVIII,  No.  1510 


June  3,  1968 


OBJECTIVES  AND  DIRECTIONS  OF  U.S.  POLICY  IN  THE  NEAR  EAST 

by  Asshtant  Secretari/  Battle     710 

PREVALENT  MISCONCEPTIONS  ABOUT  WORLD  AFFAIRS 

by  Under  Secretary  Katzenhach     715 

U.S.  ECONOMIC  AND  MILITARY  ASSISTANCE  PROGRAM  FOR  FISCAL  YEAR  1909 

Statement  by  Secretary  Rusk     724 


U.S.  OUTLINES  ACTIONS  VITAL  TO  PEACE  IN  VIET-NAM 
AT  FIRST  SESSIONS  OF  PARIS  TALKS 

Statemrvfs  hy  Amba-isndor  71'.  ArereU  JJarriman      701 


h 


For  index  see  inside  back  cover 


THE   DEPARTMENT   OF  STATE 


BULLETIN 


For  sale  by  the  Superintendent  of  Documents 

U.S.  Qovemment  Printing  Office 

Washington,  D.C.  20402 

PRICK: 

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 
copyiighted  and  items  contained  herein  may  be 
reprinted.  Citation  of  the  DEPARTMENT  OF 
STATE  BULLETIN  as  the  source  will  be 
appreciated.  The  BULLETIN  is  inde.xed  in 
the  Readei-s'  Guide  to  Periodical  Literature. 


Vol.  LVIII,  No.  1510 
June  3,  1968 


The  Department  of  State  BULLETIN, 
a  weekly  publication  issued  by  the 
Office  of  Media  Services,  Bureau  of 
Public  Affairs,  provides  the  public  and 
interested  a  gencies  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  intenuitional, 
interest. 

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


n 


U.S.  Outlines  Actions  Vital  to  Peace  in  Viet-Nam 
at  First  Sessions  of  Paris  Talks 


OftcAol  conversations  hetween  the  United 
States  and  North  Viet-Nam  opened  at  Paris  on 
May  13.  Following  are  statements  made  at  the 
opening  session  on  May  13  and  at  sessions  held 
on  May  15  and  18  by  Am,ia8sador  at  Large  W. 
Averell  Earriman,  who  is  head  of  the  U.S. 
delegation. 


STATEMENT  OF  MAY   13 

Press  release  105  dated  May  13 

Your  Excellency :  You  have  raised  this  morn- 
ing many  matters  in  a  manner  and  in  substance 
■with  -which  we  disagree  or  which  we  completely 
reject.  I  will  not  today  answer  your  allegations 
but  will  make  an  affirmative  statement  which 
we  hope  will  contribute  to  progress  toward  the 
objective  that  brings  us  here. 

First,  I. wish  to  express  our  deep  gratitude  to 
the  French  Government  and  people  for  their 
warm  hospitality. 

We  meet  here  today  to  begin  the  work  of 
peace.  We  have  always  believed  that  the  confer- 
ence table — not  the  battlefield — is  the  place  to 
resolve  differences,    v 
Many  days  of  hard  discussions  lie  before  us. 
j  The  passions  of  war  Imve  created  suspicion  and 
I  distrust  between  us.  Let  me  state  today  that,  for 
1  our  part,  we  will  make  evei-y  effort^  Lo  maintain 
these  conversations  on  the  serious  level  which 
,  they  demand.  It  should  be  our  common  task  to 
;  seek  ways  to  develop  a  sound  basis  for  mutual 
j  understanding. 

j     Our  objective  in  Viet-Nam  can  be  stated  suc- 
cinctly and  simply :  to  preserve  the  right  of  the 
South  Vietnamese  people  to  determine  their  own 
:  future  without  outside  interference  or  coercion. 
The  process  that  brings  us  here  today  began 
with  President  Jolmson's  speech  of  ilarch  31.^ 


'  Bulletin  of  Apr.  15, 1968,  p.  481. 


JTJXi:    3,    196S 


On  April  3  the  Government  of  the  Democratic 
Republic  of  Viet-N"am  responded  by  agreeing 
to  meet  with  representatives  of  the  United 
States  Government.^  We  understood  this  to  be 
recognition  on  your  part  that  the  President's 
initiative  had  opened  the  way  for  us  to  meet  and 
discuss  our  differences.  We  are  gratified  that 
you  agreed  that  this  work  should  begin 
promptly — an  attitude  which  we  share. 

On  March  31  President  Johnson  renewed  the 
offer  he  made  last  September  at  San  Antonio  ^ 
and  took  a  major  step  to  deescalate  the  conflict. 
He  reduced  the  level  of  hostilities  by  ordering 
our  aircraft  and  naval  vessels  to  make  no  at- 
tacks on  North  Viet-Nam  except  in  the  area 
south  of  the  20th  parallel  where  the  continuing 
military  buildup  directly  threatens  Allied  posi- 
tions and  where  the  movement  of  troops  and 
supplies  are  related  to  that  threat.  Tlie  area  in 
which  we  have  stopped  attacks  includes  almost 
90  percent  of  North  Viet-Nam's  population  and 
most  of  its  territory.  The  President  stopped  all 
bombing  in  and  around  the  principal  populated 
areas  and  in  the  food-producing  areas  of  the 
North. 

The  President  went  further  than  that.  He 
said  that  even  this  limited  bombing  could  come 
to  an  early  end  if  our  restraint  is  matched  by 
restraint  on  the  other  side.  But  he  added  he 
could  not  in  good  conscience  stop  all  bombing  so 
long  as  such  an  action  would  immediately  and 
directly  endanger  the  lives  of  our  men  and  allies. 
He  said  that  future  events  would  determine 
whether  or  not  a  complete  bombing  halt  could 
become  possible. 

Since  March  31  we  have  sought  a  sign  that 
our  restraint  has  been  matched  by  the  Demo- 
cratic Republic  of  Viet-Nam.  We  cannot  conceal 


-  For  a  statement  by  President  Johnson,  see  ibii., 
Apr.  22, 1968,  p.  513. 
'  lUd.,  Oct.  23, 1967,  p.  519. 


701 


our  concern  that  your  Government  has  chosen 
to  move  substantial  and  increasing  numbers  of 
troops  and  supplies  from  the  North  to  the  South. 
Moreover,  your  forces  have  continued  to  fire  on 
our  forces  from  and  across  the  demilitarized 
zone. 

We  ask  what  restraints  you  wiU  take  for  your 
part  to  contribute  to  peace. 

We  believe  the  Geneva  accords  of  1954,*  in 
their  essential  elements,  provide  a  basis  for 
peace  in  Viet-Nam. 

At  Geneva  a  demilitarized  zone  was  estab- 
lished under  international  control  arrangements 
in  order  to  act  as  buffer  pending  determination 
of  the  issue  of  reunification.  We  believe  that  the 
question  of  imification  is  a  matter  to  be  decided 
freely,  without  coercion,  by  the  people  in  North 
Viet-Nam  and  the  people  in  South  Viet-Nam. 

The  demilitarized  zone  continues  to  be  vio- 
lated by  North  Viet-Nam.  North  Vietnamese 
troops  are  crossing  the  demilitarized  zone  to  at- 
tack United  States  and  South  Vietnamese 
forces.  Artillery  is  being  fired  from  across  that 
zone  at  United  States  and  South  Vietnamese 
forces  and  defensive  positions. 

We  believe  the  demilitarized  zone  should 
function  as  a  genuine  buffer.  Let  us  begin  by 
pulling  apart  the  contending  forces  as  a  step 
toward  broader  measures  of  deescalation.  Re- 
storing the  demilitarized  zone  to  its  proper  and 
original  status  can  be  an  important  test  of  good 
faith  on  each  side.  We  believe  it  is  a  reasonable 
test,  and  we  are  prepared  to  carry  it  out. 

There  are  other  provisions  of  the  Geneva  ac- 
cords which  should  be  considered.  The  accords 
forbid  any  aggression  by  any  part  of  Viet-Nam 
against  the  other.  Starting  in  the  late  1950's  the 
Government  of  North  Viet-Nam  began  to  in- 
filtrate men  that  it  had  trained  in  techniques  of 
sabotage  and  subversion  to  undermine  the  prog- 
ress being  made  in  the  South.  By  the  end  of  the 
1950's,  the  Government  of  North  Viet-Nam  was 
clearly  committing  aggression. 

In  more  recent  years  this  aggression  has  taken 
the  form  of  overt  invasion,  with  the  introduc- 
tion of  regular  units  of  the  North  Vietnamese 
Army.  There  are  also  an  increasing  number  of 
North  Vietnamese  soldiers  in  Viet  Cong  units. 


A  vast  amount  of  tangible  evidence  establishes 
this  blatant  violation  of  the  Geneva  accords.  At     I 
this  very  moment,  North  Vietnamese  forces  are     I 
engaged  in  terror  attacks  around  Saigon  against 
the  civilian  population.  i 

North  Vietnamese  military  and  subversive  ' 
forces  have  no  right  to  be  in  South  Viet-Nam. 
As  we  stated  at  Manila  in  October  1966,  we  are 
prepared  to  withdraw  our  forces  from  South 
Viet-Nam  as  the  other  side  withdraws  its  forces 
to  the  North,  stops  the  infiltration,  and  the  level 
of  violence  thus  subsides." 

The  Geneva  accords  provided  for  interna- 
tional supervision.  We  envisage  the  continuation 
and  strengthening  of  this  function.  Experience 
has  demonstrated  the  shortcomings  of  existing 
procedures.  We  believe  that  one  of  our  major 
tasks  will  be  to  devise  more  effective  ways  of 
supervising  any  agreement  and  insuring  the 
fair  and  equitable  investigation  of  complaints.  ; 
We  believe  the  nations  of  Asia,  which  have  a 
crucial  interest  in  the  peace  and  stability  of  the 
region,  should  be  associated  with  the  monitor- 
ing of  the  agreements  at  which  we  may  arrive. 

As  to  the  future  of  South  Viet-Nam,  we  re-  ' 
iterate  the  fundamental  principle  that  the  South 
Vietnamese  people  must  be  allowed  to  determine 
their  own  future  without  outside  interference. 
In  the  last  few  years,  despite  continuing  con- 
flict, the  South  Vietnamese  people  have  given 
practical  expression  to  the  right  of  self-deter- 
mination. The  majority  of  the  South  Vietnam- 
ese people  have  shown  their  desire  for  demo- 
cratic ways.  Their  freely  elected  representatives 
have  written  a  Constitution  under  which  a  gov- 
ernment has  been  elected.  They  are  determined 
to  choose  their  own  way  of  life  and  their  own 
form  of  government. 

The  Government  of  South  Viet-Nam  has  es- 
tablished national  reconciliation  as  an  objective. 
This  means  that  all  individuals,  regardless  of 
their  past  actions,  may  receive  the  full  rights  of 
citizenship. 

The  United  States  believes  that  all  of  the 
South  Vietnamese  people  should  be  allowed  to 
participate  peacefully  in  their  country's  future, 
and  we  reaffirm  our  belief  in  self-determination 
on  the  basis  of  one-man,  one-vote. 

In  the  wider  context  of  peace  in  Southeast 


'  For  text  of  the  Agreement  on  the  Cessation  of  Hos- 
tilities in  Viet-Nam,  July  20,  1954,  see  American  For- 
eign Policy.  1950-1955:  Basic  Documents  (Department 
of  State  publication  G446),  vol.  I,  p.  750. 


^  For  text  of  the  joint  communique  Issued  at  the  close 
of  the  Manila  Summit  Conference,  see  Bulletut  of 
Nov.  14, 1966,  p.  730. 


Y02 


DEPARTMENT  OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


Asia,  we  believe  that  the  G«neva  agreements  of 
1962 '  must  be  observed.  They  provided  for  the 
neutralization  of  Laos.  North  Viet-Nam  has 
failed  to  respect  these  agreements.  North  Viet- 
namese troops  remain  in  Laos  and  are  engaged 
in  aggression  there.  In  violation  of  its  specific 
undertakings,  North  Viet-Nam  has  systemati- 
cally continued  to  use  the  territory  of  Laos  to 
send  men  and  military  equipment  south  to  in- 
vade South  Viet-Nam  and  as  a  base  for  forces 
attacking  South  Viet-Nam. 

This  aggression  continues  and  has  been  in- 
tensified since  the  early  part  of  this  year.  We 
believe  it  is  fundamental  to  peace  in  Southeast 
Asia  that  these  agreements  on  Laos  be  honored. 

The  future  economic  development  of  South- 
east Asia  concerns  its  people  and  their  friends. 
Development  is  the  proper  object  of  policy — 
not  war  and  conquest.  President  Johnson,  in  his 
speech  at  Jolms  Hopkins  University  in  April 
1965,'  pledged  substantial  support  for  regional 
initiatives  in  this  direction.  We  reaffirm  our  of- 
fer to  contribute  to  the  cooperative  development 
of  the  economic  life  of  the  peoples  of  Southeast 
Asia — an  effort  in  which  we  hope  North  Viet- 
Nam  would  be  willing  to  participate. 

The  objectives  of  the  United  States  are 
strictly  limited.  We  do  not  seek  to  impose  our 
views  on  any  nation.  We  believe  that  the  coun- 
tries of  Southeast  Asia  should  be  free  to  deter- 
mine their  own  internal  affairs  and  their  interna- 
tional position  as  the  peoples  of  those  countries 
see  fit.  In  Viet-Nam  we  seek  no  sphere  of 
influence,  no  military  presence,  no  bases,  no  al- 
liances. We  have  no  desire  to  threaten  or  harm 
the  people  of  North  Viet-Nam  or  to  invade  your 
country. 

What  we  do  seek — and  seek  most  earnestly — 
is  South  Viet-Nam's  freedom  from  attack  and 
its  right  to  determine  its  own  future.  This  is  the 
basis  of  a  lasting  peace  in  Southeast  Asia. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  has  often 
stated  the  basic  desire  of  our  people  to  live  in 
peace  with  all  nations.  We  seek  no  wider  war  in 
Southeast  Asia.  We  are  prepared  to  explore  all 
matters  relevant  to  the  substance  of  peace. 

As  the  President  said  on  March  31,  the  pres- 
ent limited  bombing  of  North  Viet-Nam  can 
end.  Events  will  determine  whether  we  can  take 


'  For  text  of  the  Declaration  on  the  Neutrality  of 
Laos  and  accompanying  protocol,  signed  at  Geneva  July 
23, 1962.  see  ibid.,  Aug.  13, 1962,  p.  259. 

'  Hid.,  Apr.  26, 1965,  p.  606. 


the  risks  which  such  a  step  can  entail  to  the  lives 
of  our  men  and  our  allies. 

Let  me  sum  up  what  we  see  as  serious  and 
productive  actions  for  us  to  consider.  They  are 
serious  in  that  they  go  to  the  heart  of  the  prob- 
lem. They  are  productive  because,  taken  sepa- 
rately or  together,  they  can  help  resolve  our 
differences. 

At  the  core  lies  the  necessity  for  South  Viet- 
Nam  to  be  free  of  outside  interference.  We  re- 
peat again  that  we  are  prepared  to  withdraw 
our  forces  as  your  side  withdraws  its  forces  to 
the  North,  stops  infiltration,  and  the  level  of 
violence  thus  subsides. 

For  our  part,  we  desire  no  bases  in  South  Viet- 
Nam,  and  we  are  prepared  to  leave  the  facilities 
we  have  built  there  to  the  people  to  use  as  they 
wish. 

We  should  undertake  the  early  restoration  of 
the  demilitarized  zone  to  its  proper  and  original 
status. 

The  1962  agreements  on  Laos  should  be  hon- 
ored and  its  people  should  be  left  to  the  peace- 
ful life  they  desire. 

We  should  agree  on  the  fundamental  princi- 
ple that  the  South  Vietnamese  people  must  be 
allowed  to  determine  their  own  future  without 
interference.  National  reconciliation  should 
flourish.  All  persons  should  participate  peace- 
fully in  their  country's  political  life  according 
to  the  "one-man,  one-vote"  principle.  This  means 
every  citizen  should  be  assured  that  he  can  ex- 
ercise his  individual  political  rights  as  he  sees 
fit  within  democratic  procedures. 

Finally,  we  would  much  prefer  to  use  our 
resources  to  support  efforts  by  the  nations  of 
Southeast  Asia  to  cooperate  in  the  achievement 
of  their  economic  and  social  goals.  We  are  pre- 
pared to  join  with  all  the  nations  of  Southeast 
Asia — and  with  others — in  building  a  future 
with  great  promise  for  the  peoples  of  the  area. 
Our  faith  in  Asia  is  great,  and  we  are  prepared 
to  back  that  faith  with  substantial  assistance. 

On  March  31  we  took  an  important  step 
toward  peace.  We  hope  that  you  will  take  a 
similar  step. 

We  know  that  the  road  ahead  may  be  uneven. 
We  recognize  that  differences  will  arise.  But  we 
are  not  discouraged  by  this. 

We  come  to  Paris  in  a  spirit  of  sincerity,  good 
faith,  and  hope : 

— the  hope  that  reason  will  prevail  over 
rancor ; 


JXTNE    3.    1968 


703 


— the  hope  that  peace  will  overcome  war ; 

— the  hope  that  we  here  wiU  look  forward  to 
the  promise  of  tomorrow  and  not  backward  to 
the  recriminations  of  the  past. 

Let  us  open  the  way  to  the  kind  of  honorable 
and  stable  peace  that  holds  promise  for  all  the 
peoples  of  Southeast  Asia. 

The  eyes  of  the  people  of  the  world  are  on 
us,  and  their  hopes  for  peace  rest  on  what  is  done 
hei'e. 


STATEMENT  OF  MAY  15 

Press  release  107  dated  May  15 

In  our  last  meeting  we  agreed  to  study  each 
other's  opening  statements.  I  have  examined 
your  remarks  with  great  care. 

I  regret  that  you  felt  it  necessary  to  begin 
these  talks  with  a  lengthy  and  distorted  rendi- 
tion of  history.  We  are  here  to  resolve  our  pres- 
ent differences  and  to  build  a  peace  in  Viet-Nam. 
Therefore,  to  rehash  old  accusations,  to  rekmdle 
old  controversies,  and  above  all,  to  rewrite  his- 
tory is  an  unnecessary  and  unfortunate  way  to 
begin  these  conversations. 

Nevertheless,  since  you  raised  the  issue,  I 
must  state  that  we  reject  your  interpretation 
of  history. 

I  intend  today  to  discuss  areas  in  your  state- 
ment with  which  we  are  in  agreement  and  out- 
line further  actions  which  we  believe  are  vital 
to  peace  in  Viet-Nam.  But  before  I  do,  I  am 
obliged  to  make  some  observations  on  the  events 
of  the  last  14  years  and  on  the  legality  of  our 
presence  in  Viet-Nam. 

Contrary  to  the  false  and  grim  picture  you 
painted  Monday,  the  years  from  1955  to  1960 
were  a  time  of  growth  and  progress  in  South 
Viet-Nam.  Per  capita  food  output  increased 
more  than  20  percent — while  it  was  dropping 
10  percent  in  the  North.  Textile  production  in- 
creased dramatically — more  than  20  percent  in 
1958  alone.  Sugar  production  went  up  100  per- 
cent. 

The  refugees  who  had  fied  from  Communist 
rule  in  the  North  were  resettled  peacefully  in 
the  South  in  one  of  the  major  refugee  move- 
ments of  our  time. 

The  elementary  school  population  increased 
four  times  during  those  years. 

And  in  1960  per  capita  income  in  the  South 


had  increased  to  about  $110  a  person,  more  than 
50  percent  higher  than  in  the  North. 

In  short,  there  was  a  steady  improvement  in 
the  lives  of  the  people  of  South  Viet-Nam.  They 
were  outdoing  the  North  in  peaceful  competi- 
tion. Recognizing  clearly  what  was  happening, 
the  leaders  in  Hanoi  decided  in  the  late  1950's  to 
turn  to  violence  and  terror  to  destroy  this  prog- 
ress, to  create  chaos,  and  thereby  take  control. 

Events  m  the  North  in  these  years  were  in 
sharp  contrast  to  the  progress  in  the  South. 
About  900,000  people  fled  to  the  South  during 
the  300  days  allowed  by  the  Geneva  accords.  Far 
more  would  have  gone  if  North  Viet-Nam,  in 
violation  of  the  Geneva  accords,  had  not  stopped 
them. 

A  brutal  farm  program  resulted  in  the  execu- 
tion of  between  50,000  and  100,000  North  Viet- 
namese, including  many  who  had  served  in  the 
war  against  the  French.  So  widespread  was  the 
terror  that  even  General  [Vo  Nguyen]  Giap 
had  to  admit  in  a  speech  published  in  Nhan 
Dan  on  October  31,  1953,  that:  "We  .  .  .  exe- 
cuted too  many  honest  people  .  . .  terror  became 
far  too  widespread.  .  .  .  Worse  still,  torture 
came  to  be  regarded  as  a  normal  practice  during 
party  organization." 

As  a  result  of  this  oppression,  in  November 
1956  a  spontaneous  peasant  rebellion  broke  out 
in  President  Ho  Chi  Minh's  home  Province  and 
had  to  be  put  down  brutally  by  military  force. 

Faced  with  the  growing  prosperity  and  prog- 
ress in  the  South,  North  Viet-Nam  turned  in- 
creasingly to  illegal  methods  to  gain  control  of 
the  South,  violating  several  key  provisions  of 
the  1954  accords.  In  violation  of  the  1954  ac- 
cords, subversive  cadres  were  left  behind.  Many 
of  those  who  regrouped  North  were  trained  in 
guerrilla  warfare  and  then  sent  back  as  terror 
squads  and  political  agitators. 

These  actions  were  violations  of  article  19, 
which  forbade  either  North  or  South  Viet-Nam 
to  resume  "hostilities  or  to  further  an  aggressive 
policy."  In  June  1962,  in  a  special  report  to  the 
cochairmen  of  the  Geneva  conference  on  Indo- 
china, the  Legal  Committee  of  the  International 
Control  Commission  concluded: 

.  .  .  there  is  evidence  to  show  that  armed  and  un- 
armed personnel,  arms,  munitions  and  other  supplies 
have  been  sent  from  the  Zone  in  the  North  to  the  Zone 
in  the  South  with  the  object  of  supporting,  organising 
and  carrying  out  hostile  activities,  including  armed 
attacks,  directed  against  the  Armed  Forcts  and  Ad- 


704 


DEPAKTJVtENT    OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


ministration  of  the  Zone  in  the  South.  These  acts 
are  in  violation  of  Articles  10,  19,  24  and  27  of  the 
Agreement  on  the  Cessation  of  Hostilities  in  Viet- 
Nam. 

.  . .  the  Committee  has  come  to  the  further  eonchision 
that  there  is  evidence  to  show  that  the  PAVN  [People's 
Army  of  Viet-Xam]  has  allowed  the  Zone  in  the  North 
to  be  used  for  inciting,  encouraging  and  supporting 
hostile  activities  in  the  Zone  in  the  South,  aimed  at 
the  overthrow  of  the  Administration  in  the  South. 
The  use  of  the  Zone  in  the  North  for  such  activities  is 
in  violation  of  Articles  19,  24  and  27  of  the  Agreement 
on  the  Cessation  of  Hostilities  in  Viet-Nam. 

The  introduction  of  forces  and  weapons  from 
the  Xorth  into  South  Viet-Nam,  the  armed  at- 
tacks upon  the  Government  and  people  of  South 
Viet-Nam,  the  violation  of  the  territory  of 
South  Viet-Nam,  and  the  coercion  and  inter- 
ference with  the  lives  of  its  people — all  these 
constitute  a  clear  and  irrefutable  violation  of 
the  letter  and  intent  of  the  Geneva  accords  of 
1954.  The  fxmdamental  intent  of  those  accords 
was  to  bring  an  end  to  the  hostilities,  establish 
a  demarcation  line  and  a  demilitarized  zone, 
accomplish  a  regrouping  of  forces  and  move- 
ments of  civilians  into  the  zones  to  the  north 
and  south  of  that  line,  and  provide  against  the 
use  of  the  two  zones  for  the  resumption  of  hos- 
tilities or  to  further  an  aggressive  policy. 
Eeunification  through  peaceful  processes  and 
free  choice  was  envisaged. 

The  path  toward  restoration  of  the  1954  ac- 
cords is  clear.  It  is  to  abandon  the  resort  to  force, 
to  reestablish  the  demilitarized  zone,  and  sys- 
tematically to  withdraw  all  forces  other  than 
those  of  South  Viet-Nam  from  its  territory,  and 
for  the  issue  of  reunification  to  be  settled  peace- 
fully by  the  people  in  North  Viet-Nam  and 
the  people  of  South  Viet-Nam. 

Of  the  many  violations  of  the  accords,  one 
stands  out  in  its  callousness  and  disregard  for 
the  innocent  men,  women,  and  children  who 
wish  to  live  their  lives  in  peace  in  the  South: 
That  is  the  relentless  and  ruthless  acts  of  terror 
by  North  Viet-Nam  and  by  its  agents  in  the 
South  against  the  civilian  population.  At  this 
very  moment,  terror  attacks  directed  against  the 
innocent  civilians  of  Saigon  are  taking  place. 

From  the  end  of  the  Geneva  conference  until 
today,  tliree  American  Presidents  have  repeat- 
edly made  clear  that  we  would  have  to  take 
action  in  support  of  the  people  of  the  South 
if  North  Viet-Nam  violated  the  accords. 
On  the  day  that  the  accords  were  signed, 
President  Eisenhower  said  that  "any  renewal 


of  Communist  aggression  would  be  viewed  by 
us  as  a  matter  of  grave  concern."  *  Accordingly, 
we  have  responded  to  the  request  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  Republic  of  Viet-Nam  for  assistance 
as  North  Viet-Nam  increased  its  aggression. 

The  introduction  of  regular  units  of  the  North 
Vietnamese  Army  preceded  the  introduction  of 
U.S.  combat  forces  into  South  Viet-Nam  and 
the  sustained  bombing  of  the  North. 

As  regards  the  situation  in  Laos,  the  responsi- 
bility for  its  deterioration  falls  clearly  on  the 
shoulders  of  Hanoi.  The  North  Vietnamese  did 
not  observe  their  obligations  imder  the  1962 
agreements,  and  it  seems  clear  that  they  never 
intended  to.  Wiile  Soviet  and  American  mili- 
tary persomiel  presented  themselves  to  the  ICC 
and  withdrew  as  required,  only  a  handful  of 
North  Viet-Nam's  forces  did  the  same.  The  rest 
cynically,  flagrantly,  and  illegally  stayed  in 
Laos  and  violated  the  peace  and  territorial  in- 
tegrity of  that  small  neutral  neighbor.  Since 
1962  their  numbers  have  been  increased,  and  in 
further  violation  of  the  1962  agreements  they 
have  continuously  used  the  territory  of  Laos  as 
a  corridor  to  send  men  and  material  into  South 
Viet-Nam  for  the  purpose  of  their  aggression 
there. 

This  is  why  we  are  in  South  Viet-Nam.  We 
emphatically  reject  your  attempts  to  misuse  his- 
tory by  reversing  the  role  of  the  aggressor  and 
his  victim.  Clearly,  North  Viet-Nam  is  the  ag- 
gressor and  the  people  of  South  Viet-Nam  the 
victim.  We  reject  your  charges  that  we  have 
no  legal  basis  for  our  presence  in  Viet-Nam.  The 
moral  issue  is  the  disastrous  suffering  that  your 
terror  and  other  acts  have  caused  to  the  people  of 
South  Viet-Nam. 

Let  us  now  look  to  the  future  and  seek  a  basis 
for  peace.  I  am  struck  by  some  similarities  in 
our  respective  positions-  Let  me  identify  for  you 
some  of  the  areas  in  which  it  seems  reasonable 
to  hope  to  find  agreement.  I  hope  there  may  be 
others,  but  I  wish  to  speak  of  these  now. 

First,  we  both  speak  of  an  independent,  demo- 
cratic, peaceful,  and  prosperous  South  Viet- 
Nam.  You  also  speak  of  a  neutral  South  Viet- 
Nam.  We  have  no  problem  with  this  if  that  is 
South  Viet-Nam's  wish. 

Second,  we  both  speak  of  peace  on  the  basis 
of  respect  of  the  Geneva  accords  of  195-1 — to 
which  we  add  the  1962  agreements  on  Laos. 


'  Ibid.,  Aug.  2, 1954,  p.  162. 


JUNE    3.    1968 


705 


Third,  we  both  speak  of  letting  the  internal 
affairs  of  South  Viet-Nam  be  settled  by  the 
South  Vietnamese  themselves — which  we  would 
clarify  by  adding,  "without  outside  interference 
or  coercion." 

Fourth,  we  both  speak  of  the  reunification  of 
Viet-Nam  by  peaceful  means.  In  our  view  this 
must  not  only  be  peaceful  but  also  through  the 
free  choice  of  the  people  of  South  Viet-Nam 
and  of  North  Viet-Nam. 

Fifth,  we  both  speak  of  the  need  for  strict 
respect  of  the  military  provisions  of  the  1954 
Geneva  accords. 

Now  I  would  lUie  to  elaborate  further  on  some 
specific  and  urgent  steps  which  are  vital  to 
peace  and  on  which  it  should  be  possible  to 
agree. 

Certainly  one  of  the  prime  steps  toward  the 
strict  observance  of  the  military  provisions  of 
the  1954  Geneva  accords  should  be  to  restore 
to  the  demilitarized  zone  its  original  and  proper 
status.  We  agree  on  the  legal  existence  of  that 
zone  and  its  prescribed  boundaries.  We  propose 
that  we  agree  now  on  making  it  fimction  the 
way  it  should.  Are  you  prepared  to  join  in 
achieving  this?  The  prompt  restoration  of  the 
demilitarized  zone  as  a  bufl'er  is  an  essential 
step. 

In  your  statement  on  Monday  you  referred  to 
the  1962  agreements  on  Laos.  We  propose  that 
we  agree  now  that  all  parties  should  comply 
meticulously  with  the  1962  agreements  on  Laos. 
Let  us  call  upon  the  two  cochairmen  and  the 
three  countries  which  are  members  of  the  Inter- 
national Control  Commission  to  make  prompt 
arrangements  to  assure  that  those  accords  are 
respected.  We  will  be  glad  to  have  your  prompt 
answer  to  this  proposal. 

On  Monday  you  also  referred  to  Cambodia. 
We  propose  that  all  armed  elements  from  out- 
side Cambodia  should  fully  respect  the  terri- 
torial neutrality  and  integrity  of  Cambodia  and 
that  both  our  countries  give  support  publicly 
to  the  independence  and  neutrality  of  Cambo- 
dia. Let  us  join  in  requesting  the  International 
Control  Commission  to  strengthen  its  functions 
in  this  regard.  We  will  be  glad  to  have  your 
prompt  answer  to  this  proposal. 

Finally,  let  me  emphasize  that  the  people  of 
South  Viet-Nam  must  be  free  from  coercion. 
Nowhere  is  this  more  important  than  in  Saigon, 
where  vicious  attacks  are  being  directed  against 


a  civilian  population.  The  continuation  of  such 
attacks  on  civilians  in  Saigon  and  elsewhere 
does  not  contribute  to  the  atmosphere  for  suc- 
cessfiil  talks. 

In  closing,  I  want  to  repeat  the  thoughts  I 
expressed  in  my  statement  on  May  13.  I  ask 
that  you  give  careful  attention  to  the  affirma- 
tive proposals  in  these  two  statements. 


STATEMENT  OF  MAY  18 

Press  release  110  dated  May  20 

Excellency,  on  behalf  of  the  United  States,  we 
are  hopeful  that  these  meetings  can  prove  to  be 
a  forum  for  a  meaningful  exchange  of  views 
over  the  issues  which  we  must  solve  here  if  peace 
is  to  come  to  Viet-Nam.  In  this  spirit,  I  wUl 
avoid  a  point-by-point  denial  of  your  polemical 
allegations  which  I  have  rejected  already  and 
which  I  now  reject  again. 

At  the  outset,  I  will  answer  one  question: 
Would  the  United  States  dare  to  give  self-de- 
termination to  the  South  Vietnamese  people? 
My  answer  is  clear.  President  Jolinson  has  ex- 
pressed it  many  times.  My  answer  is  "Yes" — on 
the  basis  of  "one  man,  one  vote."  I  add  that  the 
South  Vietnamese  should  be  free  from  outside 
interference  and  coercion. 

I  note  your  wide  research  into  statements  by 
individuals  in  the  United  States.  This  is  a  part 
of  a  free  society.  You  evidently  don't  under- 
stand that.  Unfortunately,  you  do  not  permit 
freedom  of  speech  and  conceal  the  thoughts  of 
your  people. 

You  have  charged  us  with  deliberate  destruc- 
tion of  nonmilitary  targets  in  North  Viet-Nam. 
We  deny  these  charges  and  believe  that  they 
should  receive  an  impartial  investigation.  Sev- 
eral times  in  the  past  we  have  proposed  that  such 
an  investigation  be  made  by  the  International 
Committee  of  the  Ked  Cross.  On  August  19, 

1965,  September  24,  1965,  and  September  30, 

1966,  we  suggested  in  writing  to  the  Interna- 
tional Committee  of  the  Red  Cross  that  they 
conduct  a  "thorough  and  impartial  investiga- 
tion." Each  time  the  Government  of  North  Viet- 
Nam  rejected  the  proposal.  Now  that  you  have 
again  made  these  same  charges,  we  suggest  once 
again  that  such  an  investigation  be  made  by  the 
ICRC  or  another  impartial  international 
agency. 

Your  Excellency,  I  should  also  like  to  answer 


706 


DEPARTMENT  OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


the  cliarge  you  have  made  that  it  was  the  United 
States  wliich  had  violated  the  status  of  the  de- 
militarized zone.  It  was  North  Viet-Nam  which 
first  violated  the  demilitarized  zone,  using  it  as  a 
route  of  infiltration  for  its  troops,  as  a  base  for 
storage  of  supplies  and  the  stationing  of  artil- 
leiy,  including  antiaircraft  guns,  and  as  a  sanc- 
tuary from  which  North  Vietnamese  army  units 
carry  out  attacks  against  South  Viet-Nam.  Ar- 
tillery in  North  Viet-Nam  also  fires  across  the 
demilitarized  zone  a<rainst  Allied  positions  in 
South  Viet-Nam. 

Since  the  late  1950's  North  Viet-Nam  has  vio- 
lated the  Geneva  accords  by  sending  armed  men 
directly  across  the  demilitarized  zone,  and  in 
May-June  1966  massive  numbers  of  North  Viet- 
namese troops — the  entire  324B  Division  con- 
sisting of  the  812th,  90th,  and  803d  Kegiments— 
began  crossing  the  17th  parallel  into  Quang  Tri 
Province.  The  introduction  of  these  units  was 
confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  prisoners  from 
these  regiments.  In  September  1966,  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  Republic  of  South  Viet-Nam  com- 
plained to  the  International  Control  Commis- 
sion on  the  introduction  of  the  324B  Division, 
providing  the  International  Control  Commis- 
sion with  pertinent  testimony  from  12  captured 
personnel  from  the  three  regiments  of  this  divi- 
sion. It  is  clear  from  this  evidence  that  planning 
for  the  deplo}Tnent  of  the  324B  Division  began 
considerably  before  June  1966  and,  indeed,  that 
the  division  was  inside  the  demilitarized  zone 
for  some  time  before  its  identification  inside 
South  Viet-Nam. 

Only  after  the  introduction  of  the  North 
Vietnamese  Army  324B  Division  were  Allied 
forces  compelled  to  initiate  defensive  ground 
operations  from  Quang  Tri  Province,  which  at 
times  have  included  defensive  actions  in  the 
southern  half  of  the  demilitarized  zone. 

The  evidence  is  thus  indisputably  clear  that 
North  Viet-Nam  was  first  to  violate  the  status 
of  the  demilitarized  zone.  It  was  not  until  long 
after  these  violations  that  Allied  ground  forces 
were  compelled  to  enter  the  southern  half  of  the 
demilitarized  zone  in  defense  of  their  positions 
in  Quang  Tri. 

I  now  wish  to  take  up  the  question  which  I 
put  to  you  at  the  close  of  our  last  session.  I 
asked  whether  your  government  admits  the 
presence  of  North  Vietnamese  forces  in  South 
Viet-Nam.  Your  reply  was  evasive. 

Since   that   meeting,   your   spokesman,   Mr. 


Nguyen  Thanh  Le,  is  quoted  in  the  press  as 
saying  that  my  statement  concerning  the  pres- 
ence of  North  Vietnamese  Army  troops  in  South 
Viet-Nam  is  a  "perfidious  calumny." 

In  our  discussions  this  week  of  the  history  and 
origins  of  this  conflict,  we  have  had  several 
sharp  differences,  and  I  have  tried  to  make 
clear  our  beliefs.  But  I  am  particularly  as- 
tounded that  you  should  seek  to  evade  acknowl- 
edgment of  a  simple  and  utterly  verified  fact. 
My  raising  the  issue  is  not  simply  a  question  of 
the  credibility  of  your  statement  on  other  mat- 
ters— although  it  deeply  affects  this — it  is  a 
question  of  establishing  some  basis  from  which 
we  can  properly  consider  your  demand  for  ces- 
sation of  our  bombing  of  North  Viet-Nam  and 
at  an  appropriate  later  time  such  questions  as 
the  withdrawal  or  regroupment  of  forces  other 
than  those  of  South  Viet-Nam  from  the  terri- 
toi-y  of  South  Viet-Nara. 

Accordingly,  I  will  take  a  little  time  this 
morning  to  review  the  massive  and  imassailable 
evidence  of  what  your  Government  has  done 
over  a  long  period  of  years  in  sending  trained 
men  to  South  Viet-Nam  for  the  purjDose  of 
fomenting,  leading,  and  directly  participating 
in  an  attack  on  the  legitimate  government  of 
that  nation.  Although  my  presentation  will  nec- 
essarily be  limited  by  time,  I  must  point  out 
the  essential  elements  of  your  actions — and  I 
propose  to  return  at  the  end  to  tha  question  I 
raised  at  the  last  meeting,  in  the  hope  that  you 
may  be  able  to  produce  a  different  and  more 
realistic  answer. 

U.S.  intelligence  on  the  presence  of  the  North 
Vietnamese  army  in  South  Viet-Nam  is  derived 
in  part  from  information  provided  by  nearly 
500  North  Vietnamese  defectors,  from  nearly 
2,500  North  Vietnamese  Army  prisoners  and 
from  captured  documents,  including  official 
NVA  directives  and  the  diaries  of  North  Viet- 
namese officers  and  soldiers.  Obviously,  we  have 
additional  sources.  Based  on  all  our  sources,  we 
know  that  the  North  Vietnamese  Army  pres- 
ently has  over  85,000  military  personnel  serving 
in  South  Viet-Nam.  More  than  72,000  of  these 
are  in  wholly  North  Vietnamese  Army  units, 
which  include  nine  divisions,  37  regiments,  and 
99  infantry  battalions,  43  combat  support  bat- 
talions, and  two  sapper  reconnaissance  bat- 
talions. We  estimate  that  15,000  North  Viet- 
namese Army  personnel  are  presently  serving  in 
the  ranks  in  nominally  Viet  Cong  units.  More- 


JTJ>rE    3.    1968 


707 


over,  we  know  from  prisoner  and  defector  testi- 
mony, and  from  captured  documents,  that  at 
least  16  NVA  generals  are  presently  operating 
or  have  recently  operated  in  South  Viet-Nam. 
Thus,  we  are  concerned,  when  we  speak  of  the 
presence  of  the  North  Vietnamese  Army,  not 
only  with  North  Vietnamese  Army  imits  as  such 
but  with  North  Vietnamese  Army  personnel 
serving  in  Viet  Cong  military  units  and  with 
those  North  Vietnamese  officers  who  command 
military  operations  in  South  Viet-Nam. 

The  presence  iii  South  Viet-Nam  of  North 
Vietnamese  regular  soldiers  and  North  Vietna- 
mese Army  miits  has  massively  underwritten 
the  war  since  1964.  It  is  the  presence  of  your 
armed  forces  on  the  soil  of  South  Viet-Nam 
which  today  constitutes  a  primary  obstacle  to 
peace  in  Viet-Nam.  Smce  the  95th  Eegiment  of 
the  North  Vietnamese  Army  left  North  Viet- 
Nam  in  October  1964,  the  armed  forces  of  the 
Democratic  Eepublic  of  Viet-Nam  have  system- 
atically been  deployed  onto  the  territoi-y  of 
the  Republic  of  Viet-Nam.  By  units  and  in  in- 
filtration groups,  North  Vietnamese  Army  per- 
sonnel have  marched  south  across  the  demili- 
tarized zone,  or  through  the  territoi-y  of  Laos, 
in  contravention  of  the  Geneva  accords  of  1954 
and  the  accords  of  1962. 

Today  I  shall  deal  only  with  the  fact  of  North 
Vietnamese  Army  personnel  in  South  Viet-Nam 
and  not  in  detail  with  the  presence  of  North 
Vietnamese  forces  in  Laos  and  Cambodia,  sub- 
jects on  which  if  you  wish  we  are  prepared  to 
supply  evidence  and  further  materials. 

Within  the  past  month,  at  the  request  of  a 
member  of  the  United  States  Congress,  the 
Honorable  Frank  E.  Evans  of  Colorado,  tlie 
U.S.  Department  of  State  released  a  summary 
of  evidence  on  North  Vietnamese  Amiy  per- 
sonnel in  South  Viet-Nam,  contained  in  the 
verbatim  translations  of  captured  documents 
and  interrogation  reports  collected  from  100 
different  sources.  Accompanying  these  mate- 
rials were  tables  smnmarizing  the  infiltration 
of  personnel  from  North  Viet-Nam  and  the 
infiltration  of  North  Vietnamese  Army  regi- 
ments. Copies  of  this  report  and  of  the  docu- 
ments upon  which  it  is  based  have  been  made 
available  to  the  public. 

Tliese  docmnents  illustrate  that  tlie  presence 
of  the  North  Vietnamese  Army  in  South  Viet- 
Nam  is  a  hard,  cold  reality.  JBut  they  do  not 
stand  alone.  The  North  Vietnamese  presence  is 
as  real  as  the  hundreds  of  North  Vietnamese, 
many  of  them  army  officers,   who  have  sur- 


rendered themselves  at  their  own  initiative  to 
the  allies.  It  is  as  real  as  the  more  than  2,000 
North  Vietnamese  presently  detained  in  Allied 
prisoner-of-war  camps.  It  is  as  real  as  those  who 
died  in  North  Vietnamese  unifonn,  bearing 
North  Vietnamese  identification  and  North 
Vietnamese  Army  weapons,  which  have  been 
examined  and  reported  on  by  Allied  field  com- 
manders within  the  past  year.  Recently  a 
French  newspaperwoman,  Catherine  LeRoy, 
photographed  North  Vietnamese  Army  vmits 
occupying  portions  of  the  city  of  Hue — further 
graphic  evidence  of  the  presence  of  foreign 
military  miits  in  South  Viet-Nam.  Indeed,  in 
the  northern  part  of  South  Viet-Nam,  the  war 
is  almost  wholly  North  Vietnamese ;  there  mili- 
tary operations  are  directly  imder  the  command 
of  the  North  Vietnamese,  there  entire  North 
Vietnamese  divisions  are  deployed,  and  there 
the  North  Vietnamese  Army  has  available  its 
most  advanced  implements  of  war.  The  North 
Vietnamese  soldiers  who  assaulted  the  ancient 
city  of  Hue  are  not  mythical.  The  North  Viet- 
namese tanks  which  entered  the  South  Vietnam- 
ese camp  of  Lang  Vei  near  lOie  Sanh  were  not 
imaginary.  The  trucks  recently  captured  in  the 
A  Shau  Valley  were  not  manufactured  in  the 
mountains  or  driven  into  South  Viet-Nam  by 
imaginary  logisticians. 

I  can  also  tell  you  something  about  the  role 
of  units  of  the  North  Vietnamese  Army  m  the 
Saigon  area.  During  the  attack  on  Saigon  ear- 
lier this  month,  four  North  Vietnamese  Army 
regiments — the  88th  and  the  101st,  141st,  and 
165th — were  employed  in  actions  aroimd  Sai- 
gon in  Gia  Dinh,  Binh  Duong,  and  Bien  Hoa 
Provinces.  These  forces  generally  were  inter- 
cepted while  deploying  toward  their  objectives 
and  suffered  heavy  losses  fi'om  Allied  counter- 
operations.  Elements  of  two  of  these  regiments 
were  engaged  within  8  miles  of  Saigon  itself. 

If  the  presence  of  the  North  Vietnamese 
Army  need  be  further  demonstrated,  we  are 
prepared  to  introduce  into  these  pi'oceedings 
biogi-aphic  data  sheets  and  pictiures  of  North 
Vietnamese  prisoners,  additional  diaries,  let- 
ters, and  notebooks  captured  in  South  Viet-Nam 
detailing  their  journeys  into  South  Viet-Nam 
and  their  subsequent  operations,  official  infil- 
tration passes  and  medical  orders  of  the  NVA, 
orders  signed  by  NVA  general  officers  in  South 
Viet-Nam,  motion  picture  films  showing  North 
Vietnamese  generals  in  Tay  Ninh  Province  of 
South  Viet-Nam,  photographs  showing  North 
Vietnamese  leaders  in  South  Viet-Nam,  Viet 


708 


DEPARTMENT   OF    STATE   BULUITIN 


Cong  directives  on  the  treatment  of  etlinic 
North  Vietnamese  serving  in  VC  units,  regi- 
mental and  other  unit  histories  detailing  the 
trek  south  and  subsequent  operations  in  South 
Viet-Nam,  and  documentation  and  identifica- 
tion t<aken  from  infiltration  ships  or  trucks 
seized  or  destroyed  in  South  Viet-Nam. 

We  have  not  come  to  this  table  to  debate  con- 
flicting interpretations  of  history.  We  are  here 
for  a  vastly  more  serious  purpose.  Nonetheless, 
the  record  should  be  clear  that  your  assertions 
concerning  the  nature  and  antecedents  of  the 
present  war  are  wrong.  The  documents  released 
by  Congressman  Evans  represent  only  a  small 
portion  of  the  information  presently  available 
to  Allied  governments  concerning  North  Viet- 
namese operations  in  South  Viet-Nam  since  the 
Geneva  accords  were  signed  in  1954.  In  June  of 
1962,  the  International  Commission  for  Super- 
vision and  Control  (ICC)  of  Viet-Nam  issued 
a  report  which  concluded  that : 

.  .  .  there  is  evidence  to  show  that  armed  and  un- 
armed personnel,  arms,  munitions,  and  other  supplies 
have  been  sent  from  the  Zone  in  the  North  to  the 
Zone  in  the  South  vrith  the  object  of  supporting,  orga- 
nising and  carrying  out  hostile  activities,  including 
armed  attacks,  directed  against  the  Armed  Forces  and 
Administration  of  the  Zone  in  the  South.  These  acts 
are  in  violation  of  Articles  10,  19,  24  and  27  of  the 
Agreement  on  the  Cessation  of  Hostilities  in  Viet-Nam. 

I  asked  at  our  last  meeting  whether  your 
Government  is  prepared  to  acknowledge  the 
presence  of  North  Vietnamese  Army  personnel 
in  South  Viet-Nam.  I  should  be  pleased  to  have 
your  reply  today. 

As  I  have  indicated,  we  are  also  ready  to 
address  the  question  of  North  Viet-Nam  mili- 
tary in  Laos  and  Cambodia.  However,  I  would 


hope  that  we  can  avoid  further  disputations  on 
matters  of  demonstrable  fact  and  proceed  to 
consideration  of  withdrawal  of  North  Viet- 
namese forces  from  these  states. 

Specifically,  I  again  ask  you  to  join  in  an 
agreement  on  prompt  restoration  of  the  demili- 
tarized zone,  agreement  on  meticulous  compli- 
ance with  the  1962  Laos  agreements,  and  in 
mutual  respect  for  the  territorial  integrity  and 
neutrality  of  Cambodia.  We  will  be  glad  to  have 
your  prompt  answers  to  these  proposals. 

You  will  also  recall  that  in  both  of  our  pre- 
vious meetings  I  have  said  that  the  continuation 
of  cruel  attacks  on  civilians  in  Saigon  and  else- 
where does  not  contribute  to  the  atmosphere  for 
successful  talks. 

And  so  we  come  back  to  the  task  which  con- 
cerns us  here :  how  to  move  toward  peace.  You 
have  said  a  great  deal  about  a  bombing  cessation 
and  why  we  are  here.  We  are  here  in  response 
to  President  Johnson's  speech  of  March  31. 
After  explaining  his  unilateral  action  in  reduc- 
ing the  bombing,  the  President  said: 

Even  this  very  limited  bombing  of  the  North  could 
come  to  an  early  end  if  our  restraint  is  met  by  restraint 
in  Hanoi.  But  I  cannot  in  good  conscience  stop  all 
bombing  so  long  as  to  do  so  would  immediately  and 
directly  endanger  the  lives  of  our  men  and  our  allies. 
Whether  a  complete  bombing  halt  becomes  possible  in 
the  future  v^ill  be  determined  by  events. 

Regretfully,  I  must  repeat  that  all  the  evi- 
dence at  our  disposal  indicates  that  the  flow  of 
men  and  materiel  into  the  South  continues  at 
an  increasing  rate. 

And  so,  I  would  like  to  ask  you  again  a  ques- 
tion which  you  have  not  yet  answered:  Wiat 
restraints  will  you  take  to  contribute  to  peace 
in  Viet-Nam  ? 


ffUXE    3.    196S 


709 


Objectives  and  Directions  of  U.S.  Policy  in  the  Near  East 


ty  Lucius  D.  Battle 

Assistant  Secretary  for  Near  Eastern  and  South  Asian  Affairs  ^ 


I  am  honored  to  be  here  on  this  50th  anni- 
versary. It  is  an  anniversary  which  I  share,  as 
I,  too,  will  attain  my  50th  birthday  in  a  few 
days.  Throughout  the  age  that  I  have  lived,  I 
have  watched  with  sadness  and  with  troubled 
heart  the  world's  problems  growing  out  of  in- 
tolerance and  cruelty  of  one  group  to  another. 
Your  congress  has  earned  a  distinguished  repu- 
tation for  its  contributions  to  increased  under- 
standing and  tolerance  between  groups  in  our 
own  country.  Your  solicitude  and  imselfish  as- 
sistance for  world  Jewry  is  an  achievement  of 
which  you  can  be  justly  proud.  And  your  as- 
sistance and  help  has  come  in  response  to  world 
problems,  whether  growing  out  of  the  cata- 
strophic devastation  by  Nazi  Germany  in  the 
thirties  and  forties,  or  in  the  sixties  when  the 
evils  of  anti-Semitism  and  religious  persecution 
still  afflict  some  nations.  The  cause  of  tolerance, 
like  the  cause  of  peace,  is  always  unfinished 
business.  I  fear,  regretfully,  that  these  problems 
will  require  continual  vigilance  for  another  50 
years  and  even  longer.  But  some  progress  has 
been  made,  and  you  may  be  pleased  at  your 
contribution  to  that  progress. 

Israel  has  come  into  being  during  the  lifetime 
of  your  organization,  although  it  is  consider- 
ably younger.  We  note  this  month  the  20th  an- 
niversary of  the  independence  of  Israel.  The 
existence  and  survival  of  this  little  country  has 
offered  many  things  to  many  people.  It  has 
strengthened  our  confidence  in  the  capability  of 
all  newly  developing  states.  It  began  as  a  loose 
collection  of  dissimilar  national  and  economic 
groups.  But  these  groups  shared  strong  common 
memories,  traditions,  and  values.  Israel  has  now 
become  a  cohesive  and  vital  democracy.  It  was 

'  Address  made  before  the  American  Jewish  Congress 
at  Miami,  Fla.,  on  May  16  (press  release  108). 


established  in  a  harsh  enviromnent,  but  it  has 
developed  flourishing  agriculture  and  promis- 
ing industry  built  upon  foundations  of  the  most 
modern  technology.  Its  citizens  can  boast  of  a 
level  of  per  capita  income  that  compares  favor- 
ably with  the  older  countries  of  Western  Eu- 
rope. Over  the  past  decade  its  amiual  growth 
rates  as  a  nation  have  been  steady  and  strong. 

Despite  these  achievements,  Israel  still  faces 
imposing  problems.  Among  its  other  impressive 
achievements  I  note  with  awe  and  admiration 
Israel's  determination  to  overcome  these  prob- 
lems. This  determination  is  backed  up  by 
muscle  and  sweat  and,  regrettably,  blood.  Its 
determination  to  survive  has  led  to  achievements 
aimed  at  stable,  sustained  economic  develop- 
ment and  the  integration  of  various  elements 
of  the  population.  But  most  importantly,  Israel 
has  a  determination  to  secure  a  lasting  and  ef- 
fective peace  with  neighbors  with  whom  it  must 
eventually  find  lasting  arrangements. 

A  year  has  passed  since  the  June  war.  Fol- 
lowing that  war  many  countries,  including  our 
own,  determined  to  seek  this  time  a  lasting 
peace.  The  world  cannot  risk  these  periodic  up- 
heavals, with  all  the  increasing  dangers  of 
broader  conflict.  As  I  speak  today  1  year  later, 
our  hope  for  peace  is  still  strong.  Our  deter- 
mination to  pursue  it  is  unwavering.  But  the 
optimism  in  the  immediate  aftermath  of  the  war 
has  been  tempered  by  certain  hard  realities. 

The  problems  which  for  20  years  have  divided 
Israel  and  its  neighbors  are  still  with  us.  Many 
have  increased  in  complexity.  The  conditions 
which  led  to  the  June  war  are  still  present  and 
have  been  sharpened  by  intense  bitterness  and 
distrust.  For  some  time  following  the  war,  there 
was  great  debate  in  the  halls  of  diplomacy,  as 
well  as  the  public  press,  as  to  whose  side  time 


710 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BTJLLETIK 


served.  It  seems  clear  now  that  time  is  working 
for  no  one. 

I  would  like  on  this  occasion,  first,  to  speak 
generally  of  the  search  for  peace  and  then  to 
deal  specifically  and  frankly  with  some  of  the 
problems  and  conditions  that  must  be  dealt  with 
if  that  quest  for  peace  is  to  succeed. 

President  Johnson  in  a  notable  speech  on 
Jime  19  -  set  forth  the  policy  of  the  United 
States  with  respect  to  the  Near  East.  Eead  to- 
day with  all  the  incidents  and  events  and  debate 
over  past  months,  the  speech  in  my  judgment 
shines  through  as  a  beacon  of  wisdom,  anticipat- 
ing as  it  did  the  trend  of  thought  which  evolved 
throughout  this  troubled  year.  Its  basic  five 
principles  are  undoubtedly  well  known  to  you, 
but  tliey  cannot  be  restated  too  often,  and  I  re- 
call them  here : 

First,  the  recognized  right  of  national  life. 

Second,  justice  for  the  refugees. 

Third,  innocent  maritime  passage. 

Fourth,  limits  on  the  wasteful  and  destruc- 
tive arms  race. 

And  lastly,  political  independence  and  ter- 
ritorial integi'ity  for  all. 

Problems  That  Threaten  Peace  in  the  Area 

Slay  I  now  turn  to  some  of  the  specific 
problems. 

The  first  and  the  most  immediate  threat  to 
peace  in  the  area  is  the  two-sided  problem  of 
terrorism  and  acts  of  reprisal.  In  recent  months 
the  old  terrorism  has  begun  to  assume  new  di- 
mensions and  new  dangers  and  to  create  a  new 
kind  of  threat.  The  number  of  terrorist  bands 
has  increased.  There  is  a  stronger  appeal  and 
more  support  for  these  so-called  resistance 
groups  among  better  educated,  more  competent, 
and  more  seriously  dedicated  elements  in  Arab 
societies.  The  nationals  of  more  coimtries  appear 
to  be  drawn  into  this  activity. 

Official  Jordanian  policy  has  been  one  of  op- 
position to  terrorism.  Enforcement  of  this 
policy  has  proved  difficult  indeed.  The  best  ef- 
forts of  the  Jordanian  Government  are  often 
frustrated  by  the  unsettled  conditions  in  Jordan 
and  the  strong  feeling  of  segments  of  the  popu- 
lation that  the  occupied  territories  must  bo  re- 
gained by  any  means. 


Terrorism  breeds  reprisal  raids  which  breed 
more  terrorism  which  breeds  more  reprisal 
raids.  The  cycle  can  be  unending. 

The  United  States  has  attempted  to  interject 
reason  into  tliis  cycle  and  to  urge  both  sides  to 
end  it.  After  one  cycle  culminated  in  a  heavy 
raid  by  Israeli  forces  into  Jordan  on  March  21, 
we  joined  in  a  Security  Council  resolution  de- 
ploring all  incidents  of  violence,  including  ter- 
rorism and  Israeli  response.' 

Over  recent  weeks  the  Israeli  defense  forces 
appear  to  be  policing  the  Jordan  line  more  suc- 
cessfully. The  Jordanians  are  also  seeking  to 
exercise  more  effective  controls.  For  the  sake  of 
all,  may  this  problem  be  eliminated  by  progress 
toward  peace. 

At  the  same  time,  cease-fire  violations  along 
the  Israeli-Jordan  line  ai'e  an  almost  daily  oc- 
currence. There  is  no  effective  way  of  arranging 
for  a  cessation  of  firing.  And  as  the  violations 
continue,  so  does  the  constant  threat  that  cease- 
fire violations  might  escalate  to  dangerous  lev- 
els. To  help  prevent  such  violations  and  to 
establish  machinery  for  controlling  those  that 
occur,  we  have  called  upon  the  Government  of 
Jordan  and  the  Government  of  Israel  to  permit 
the  stationing  of  United  Nations  military  ob- 
servers along  the  cease-fire  line.  For  different 
reasons,  neither  side  has  responded  positively 
to  this  idea. 

The  tragic  problem  of  the  Arab  refugees  has 
become  more  complicated  since  the  June  war. 
As  a  consequence  of  that  war,  over  300,000  per- 
sons have  fled  their  homes  in  the  occupied  terri- 
tories. Many  of  these  people  are  living  in  con- 
ditions of  near  desperation  in  East  Jordan.  Over 
30,000  indigenous  villagers  have  recently  been 
uprooted  by  fighting  along  the  Jordan  River. 
Together,  these  displaced  persons  and  the  1948 
refugees  total  over  half  the  East  Jordan  popu- 
lation. They  offer  prime  recruiting  targets  for 
terrorist  groups.  In  our  opinion  there  are  com- 
pelling political  and  humanitarian  reasons  for 
the  Government  of  Israel  to  permit,  with  neces- 
sary security  safeguards,  the  return  of  the  dis- 
placed persons  to  their  normal  lives  in  the 
occupied  territories. 

A  third  problem  I  would  like  to  discuss  is  the 
difficult  and  highly  emotional  issue  of  Jeru- 
salem, a  city  holy  to  three  world  religions  and 


"  Bri-LETIN  of  July  10, 1967,  p.  31. 


'  For   hackground   and  text  of  the  resolution,   see 
ma.,  Apr.  1.5, 1968,  p.  508. 


JUNE    3,    1968 


711 


hundreds  of  millions  of  people.  The  ties  of  the 
Jewish  people  to  Jerusalem  are  deeply  felt.  The 
world  recognized  the  surge  of  emotion  experi- 
enced by  the  Jewish  people  everywhere  when 
Jews  could  once  again  worship  at  the  Western 
Wall,  or  Wailing  Wall. 

At  the  same  time,  Moslem  religious  and  his- 
torical associations  with  Jemsalem  are  no  less 
binding  and  no  less  emotional  than  those  of  the 
Jewish  people.  For  Christians  also,  Jerusalem 
is  a  shrine  of  special  importance. 

For  20  years  the  United  States  has  stressed  the 
international  character  of  this  holy  city.  We 
hare  not  recognized  clahns  of  national  sov- 
ereignty over  Jerusalem.  We  have  not  accepted 
the  view  that  either  Israel  or  Jordan  has  a  su- 
perior claim  to  the  city.  The  interests  of  both 
these  countries,  as  well  as  the  interests  of  the 
international  commimity,  must  be  taken  into  ac- 
count and  properly  protected. 

We  continue  to  think  it  fundamental  to  any 
solution  for  Jerusalem  that  communicants  of 
all  faiths  must  have  unrestricted  access  to  their 
holy  places  in  the  city.  We  believe  also  that  the 
interests  of  the  tliree  world  religions  and  of  the 
countries  most  directly  concerned  must  be  pro- 
tected by  fair  and  effective  arrangements  if 
Jerusalem  is  to  be  truly  a  city  of  peace  and  not 
a  center  of  strife. 

Since  last  summer  the  United  States  has  con- 
sistently maintained  that  if  there  is  to  be  a 
satisfactory  solution  for  Jerusalem,  the  prob- 
lem must  be  dealt  with  as  one  of  the  elements 
in  a  general  peace  settlement.  It  is  obviously  im- 
possible to  have  a  satisfactory  solution  for 
Jerusalem  without  peace  in  the  area,  and 
it  is  just  as  evident  that  there  will  be  no  real 
peace  imless  the  parties  can  agree  to  a  solution 
for  Jerusalem.  As  Ambassador  Goldberg  stated 
before  the  United  Nations  Security  Council  last 
week,''  the  United  States  does  not  recognize 
miilateral  actions  as  prejudging  "the  final  and 
permanent  status  of  Jerusalem." 

A  basic  problem  of  the  area  lies  in  the  atti- 
tudes that  have  developed  during  the  course  of 
the  Arab-Israel  struggle.  If  there  is  to  be  any 
chance  for  jieace  in  the  Near  East,  it  is  essen- 
tial that  the  illusions  and  myths  of  the  past  20 
years  be  abandoned  and  that  the  Arab  people 
and  their  leaders  face  squarely  the  realities  of 
the  choices  which  confront  them.  The  first  and 


greatest  principle  for  peace  in  the  area  is  that 
every  nation  has  a  fundamental  right  to  live  and 
to  have  that  right  respected  by  its  neighbors. 

U.N.  Efforts  Toward  a  Peaceful  Settlement 

Another  of  the  difficult  realities  confronting 
us  in  the  Near  East  has  been  the  problem  of  get- 
ting talks  started  toward  a  peace  settlement.  The 
United  Nations  Security  Council  last  Novem- 
ber 22  unanimously  adopted  a  resolution  which 
set  forth  certain  principles  for  a  peace  settle- 
ment.^ Briefly  these  include : 

1.  Withdrawal  of  Israeli  armed  forces  from 
occupied  territories. 

2.  Termination  of  all  claims  of  belligerency 
and  respect  for  sovereignty,  territorial  integrity, 
and  political  independence  and  secure  and 
recognized  boundaries. 

3.  Freedom  of  navigation. 

4.  A  just  settlement  of  the  refugee  problem. 

5.  Guarantees  for  the  territorial  inviolability 
and  political  independence  of  every  state  in  the 
area,  through  measures  including  demilitarized 
zones. 

These  principles  are  consistent  with  the  state- 
ment of  policy  made  by  President  Johnson  on 
June  19  of  last  year. 

The  resolution  also  called  for  a  special  repre- 
sentative of  the  U.N.  Secretary-General  to  go 
to  the  area  to  prom.ote  agreement  and  assist 
efforts  to  achieve  a  peaceful  and  accepted  settle- 
ment in  accordance  with  the  resolution.  Ambas- 
sador Gunnar  Jarrmg  of  Sweden,  the  United 
Nations  Special  Representative,  has  been  travel- 
ing between  the  capitals  of  Israel,  Jordan, 
Lebanon,  and  the  U.A.R.  since  the  middle  of 
December.  Ambassador  Jarring  is  a  world- 
renowned  diplomat  who  enjoys  the  respect  of 
both  sides.  It  was  clear  from  the  outset  that  his 
mission  would  require  extraordinary  patience 
and  tlie  exercise  of  great  skill. 

Ambassador  Jarring's  work  has  been  compli- 
cated by  strongly  held  positions  on  both  sides 
toward  his  mission.  On  the  one  hand,  Israeli 
spokesmen  call  for  direct  negotiations  and  a 
formal  peace  treaty  with  the  Arabs.  On  the 
other  hand,  some  Arab  leaders  insist  there  must 
be  "no  negotiations,  no  recognition,  and  no  peace 
treaty"  with  Israel.  The  gap  between  these  posi- 


*  See  p.  731. 


'  For  text,  see  Bulletin  of  Dec.  18,  1967,  p.  843. 


712 


DEP.VRTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


tions  is  very  wide  indeed,  but  we  continue  to 
hope  that  with  good  will  and  quiet  diplomacy 
it  can  be  bridged.  Some  progress  in  tliis  direc- 
tion has  been  achieved. 

You  have  also  read  in  the  press  of  the  demand 
by  the  Arabs  that  Israel  "acceijt"  and  agree  to 
"implement"  the  Security  Council  resolution. 
I  will  not  test  your  patience  with  the  juggling 
of  semantics  tliis  sterile  argument  has  produced. 
"Whatever  its  merits,  the  debate  has  impeded 
progress  toward  substantive  talks  for  months. 
Quiet  diplomacy,  more  flexibility,  and  fewer 
tendentious  public  statements  might  help  the 
parties  to  bridge  their  differences. 

Too  often,  both  sides  seem  to  lose  sight  of  the 
overriding  goal  of  a  permanent  peace  settlement 
in  order  to  give  expression  to  their  temporary 
frustrations. 

Soviet  Influence  in  the  Near  East 

Finally,  I  must  discuss  another  problem 
which  is  of  most  serious  concern  to  all  of  us  as 
Americans.  This  is  the  question  of  Soviet  influ- 
ence in  the  Near  East  since  the  June  war. 

An  enlarged  Soviet  fleet  now  sails  the  waters 
of  the  Mediterranean  between  Alexandria, 
Egypt,  and  Latakia  in  Syria.  Soviet  military 
technicians  have  gone  to  certain  Arab  countries 
in  increasing  numbers,  while  shipments  of 
Soviet  military  equipment  to  the  area  have 
brought  the  level  of  armaments  in  Arab  coun- 
tries close  to  the  inventories  of  a  year  ago.  Our 
efforts  to  arrive  at  an  effective  limitation  of 
arms  shipments  to  the  area  have  so  far  met  with 
no  success.  Accordingly,  the  United  States  has 
authorized  the  shipment  of  selective  military 
equipment  to  Israel  and  to  moderate  Arab  states 
whose  friendship  and  ability  to  defend  them- 
selves are  important  to  the  United  States.  I  am 
aware  of  your  interest  in  guaranteeing  Israel's 
security,  and  I  can  give  unqualified  assurance 
that  the  United  States  Government  is  very  much 
alive  to  Israel's  needs.  I  can  best  summarize  our 
view  of  this  matter  by  referring  to  the  joint 
statement  *  issued  at  the  conclusion  of  Prime 
Minister  Eshkol's  visit  to  Texas  last  January : 

The  President  agreed  to  keep  Israel's  military  defense 
capability  under  active  and  sympathetic  examination 
and  review  in  the  light  of  all  relevant  factors,  including 
the  shipment  of  military  equipment  by  others  to  the 
area. 


•  For  text,  see  ihid..  Feb.  5.  1968,  p.  174. 


I  have  spoken  at  length  on  the  problems  con- 
fronting the  United  States  and  the  nations  of 
the  Near  East.  I  would  like  to  deal  with  two  con- 
flicting but  equallj'  incorrect  interpretations  of 
the  United  States  role  in  the  Near  East.  First, 
there  is  the  view  that  the  United  States  has 
taken  a  conscious  decision  to  stand  aside,  to  dis- 
engage from  the  problems  of  the  Near  East — the 
view  that  we  are  more  or  less  resigned  to  accept 
whatever  fate  brings  us  in  the  area.  On  the 
other  hand,  we  sometimes  hear  the  contrasting 
opinion  that  the  United  States  is  planning  with 
the  Soviet  Union  to  work  out  some  sort  of  "deal" 
in  the  Near  East  in  exchange  for  an  equivalent 
"deal''  in  Southeast  Asia.  Those  who  hold  this 
opinion  believe  such  a  Near  Eastern  deal  would 
be  made  by  us  at  Israel's  expense. 

To  understand  the  error  that  says  we  are  un- 
concerned about  the  Near  East,  one  must  appre- 
ciate the  nature  and  delicacy  of  the  mission  un- 
dertaken by  Ambassador  Jarring.  His  contacts 
are  with  the  parties  to  the  conflict,  not  with  out- 
siders. We  believe  that  the  parties  to  the  conflict 
must  have  a  chance  to  settle  their  differences  in 
their  own  way  under  his  auspices.  But  in  this 
situation  we  must  not  be  unmindful  of  our  inter- 
ests in  the  area.  These  interests  are  economic, 
geographic,  and  strategic,  and  they  call  for  the 
maintenance  of  strong,  independent  states  in  the 
area  friendly  to  the  United  States.  These  spe- 
cific interests  must  not  suffer  at  the  hands  of 
any  power  within  the  area  or  outside  of  it. 

The  possibility  of  a  U.S.-Soviet  deal  in  the 
Near  East  is  equally  imrelated  to  the  factual 
situation  in  the  area  and  to  the  logic  of  U.S. 
foreign  policy.  This  rumor  was  current  at  the 
time  of  Glassboro.  A  year's  time  should  have 
proved  it  false.  The  problems  of  the  Near  East 
have  long  histories,  going  back  more  than  20 
years.  The  Soviets  have  historic  ambitions  in  the 
Near  East  which  are  unlikely  to  be  altered  by 
events  in  Asia.  For  the  United  States,  suffice  it 
to  say,  we  do  not  trade  on  the  interests  of  our 
friends  for  our  benefit.  That's  simply  not  the 
way  we  do  business. 

Putting  aside  these  misconceptions  of  U.S. 
policy,  what  are  the  actual  objectives  and  the 
direction  of  our  policy  in  the  Near  East?  The 
answer  is  a  simple  one.  We  seek  an  effective  and 
lasting  peace  in  accordance  with  the  principles 
set  down  by  President  Johnson  last  June  19. 
Only  M'ith  the  attainment  of  a  real  peace  can 
we  protect  our  long-term  interests  in  Israel  and 


JtrXE    3,    19  68 


713 


in  the  Arab  world.  But  no  matter  how  important 
peace  is  to  us,  we  have  not  been  prepared  to 
write  the  terms  of  a  peace  settlement  or  to  im- 
pose our  o^vn  ideas  of  peace  on  the  area. 

The  role  that  the  United  States  can  play  is  an 
important  one,  however.  We  and  other  nations 
of  the  world  must  help  to  create  the  environ- 
ment which  can  lead  to  a  peaceful  settlement. 
President  Johnson's  speech  of  June  19  spelled 
out  the  kind  of  environment  which  would  be 
necessary  for  peace.  He  urged  the  parties  to  be 
flexible  in  their  approach,  to  adopt  no  rigid  view 
on  procedures.  He  urged  them  to  deal  with  the 
area's  problems  in  a  comprehensive  way,  and 
he  promised  them  our  material  and  diplomatic 
assistance  in  resolving  their  difficulties.  Follow- 
ing these  guidelines,  we  have  sought  to  promote 
the  necessary  conditions  for  peace.  To  this  end 
Ambassador  Goldberg  worked  skillfully  at  the 
United  Nations  last  fall  to  help  produce  a  reso- 
lution acceptable  to  all  parties.  During  the  past 
months  of  the  Jarring  mission,  we  have  been  ac- 
tive in  Washington,  in  our  embassies  abroad, 
and  through  Ambassador  Goldberg's  mission  in 
New  York  to  urge  the  parties  to  cooperate 
effectively  with  Ambassador  Jarring's  mission. 

We  shall  continue  in  our  efforts  to  support 
the  mission  of  Ambassador  Jarring.  It  is  our 
earnest  hope  that  his  mission  will  be  successful, 
but  as  I  have  tried  to  point  out  to  you  without 
illusion,  the  obstacles  facing  Ambassador  Jar- 
ring are  considerable.  It  is  in  the  interest  of 
the  parties  that  the  Jarring  mission  succeed.  It 
is  in  their  interest  to  show  the  responsible  flexi- 
bility that  can  make  his  mission  a  success.  More- 
over, the  world  demands  that  the  Jarring  peace 
mission  succeed.  The  world  cannot  tolerate  a 
prolonged  period  of  tension  which  constantly 
threatens  the  outbreak  of  broader  hostilities. 
The  "hot  line"  was  used  last  Jime.  We  do  not 
want  a  situation  to  arise  in  which  it  must  be 
used  again.  The  nations  of  the  Near  East  have 
an  obligation  to  the  nations  of  the  world  to  work 
for  peace  in  their  area.  The  world  is  conmiitted 
to  help  them.  You  may  be  assured  that  the 
United  States  will  do  everything  in  its  power 
to  prevent  the  area  from  again  turning  toward 
open  conflict.  We  will  use  all  of  our  influence 
to  move  forward  from  the  present  dangers  of 
instability  and  growing  tensions.  We  will  do 
everything  we  can,  but  the  major  burden  and 
the  final  responsibility  fall  on  the  nations  of 
the  area.  It  is  to  them  that  we  must  look  for 
the  good  will,  the  wisdom,  and  the  determina- 
tion to  reach  a  true  peace  settlement. 


National  Day  of  Laos 

The  Kingdom,  of  Laos  celebrated  its  National 
Day  on  May  11.  Following  are  the  texts  of 
messages  sent  on  that  occasion  hy  President 
Johnson  to  His  Majesty  Sri  Savang  Vatthana 
and  by  Secretary  Rii.sk  to  Prince  Sov/oanna 
Phouma,  the  Prime  Minister. 


MESSAGE   FROM   PRESIDENT  JOHNSON 

White  House  press  release  dated  May  10 

Your  Majesty  :  I  extend  to  you  and  to  the 
people  of  Laos  the  sincere  good  wishes  of  the 
people  of  the  United  States  of  America  on  the 
National  Day  of  the  Kingdom  of  Laos. 

On  this  occasion  we  wish  to  reaffirm  our  sup- 
port of  the  staunch  efforts  of  the  Lao  people  to 
achieve  peace  and  tranquility.  It  is  our  earnest 
hope  that  the  neutrality  of  the  Kingdom  of 
Laos  will  be  respected  and  honored  by  all 
nations. 

I  assure  you  that  the  principles  embodied  in 
the  1962  Geneva  Agreements  guide  our  relations 
with  your  coimtry,  and  we  continue  to  support 
full  implementation  of  the  provisions  of  those 
Agreements  as  the  best  means  of  assuring  an 
enduring  peace  for  your  country. 
With  personal  regai'ds. 

Ltjtoon  B.  Johnson 


MESSAGE   FROM  SECRETARY  RUSK 

Press  release  103  dated  May  11 

YotTR  Highness,  Permit  me  to  express  to  you, 
and  through  you,  to  your  Government,  my 
warmest  felicitations  on  the  occasion  of  Laos 
National  Day.  It  is  my  earnest  wish  that  your 
diligent  search  for  peace,  progress,  and  jsros- 
perity  will  be  crowned  with  success. 

Peace,  which  is  our  mutual  objective  in 
Southeast  Asia,  should  brmg  great  benefits  to 
the  countries  of  that  war-torn  area.  None  de- 
serves those  benefits  more  than  Laos,  where  a 
formula  for  peace  was  agreed  upon  in  1962  by 
thirteen  nations  including  all  the  great  powers 
and  all  the  neighbors  of  Laos.  Clearly,  any  for- 
mula for  peace  in  Southeast  Asia  must  also 
bring  a  return  to  the  spirit  as  well  as  the  letter 
of  the  1962  Agi-eements  on  the  neutrality  of 
your  country.  This  is  our  earnest  desire. 
Sincerely, 

Dean  Rusk 


714 


DEPAETMENT  OF  STATE  BTJULETIX 


Prevalent  Misconceptions  About  World  Affairs 


hy  Under  Secretary  Katzeribach^ 


It  is  a  pleasiire  to  be  in  Tennessee  and  to  par- 
ticipate in  this  foreign  policy  conference.  The 
aim  of  these  regional  conferences  is  at  once 
simple  and  significant :  They  seek  to  bring  the 
issues  of  foreign  policy  closer  to  concerned  citi- 
zens in  all  parts  of  tlie  country.  They  represent 
an  essential  democratic  idea,  an  exchange  of 
views  between  the  public  and  those  who  shape 
public  policy. 

In  an  earlier  and  simpler  time  conferences 
such  as  this  may  not  have  been  necessary.  Even 
without  the  benefit  of  instant  communications, 
it  was  relatively  easy  for  the  public  to  keep  in- 
formed on  major  public  issues.  Today,  as  for- 
eign policy  grows  more  complex  and  its  nuances 
grow  more  subtle,  even  generally  knowledgeable 
people  hesitate  to  get  involved.  There  is  a  tend- 
ency to  leave  foreign  affairs  to  the  profession- 
als or  experts. 

This  abdication  is  as  minecessary  as  it  is 
harmful.  The  practice  of  foreign  policy  is  not 
some  arcane  art  comprehensible  only  to  a  few 
initiates.  The  essentials  of  even  complex  issues 
can  always  be  judged  by  interested  persons. 

At  bottom,  they  involve  political  judgments 
and  values  and  an  assessment  of  facts  commonly 
available.  A  very  high  percentage  of  the  infor- 
mation on  which  judgments  are  made  is  in  the 
public  domain.  I  am  always  skeptical  when 
someone  says  he  can't  judge  an  issue  because  he 
"doesn't  have  access  to  all  the  information." 
Very  seldom  are  the  essentials  unavailable; 
usually  such  a  statement  is  just  an  excuse  for 
not  wanting  to  face  up  to  an  issue. 

The  foreign  policy  problems  which  confront 
us  daily  are  not  just  complex,  however.  Events 
now  move  so  quickly  that  yesterday's  profound 
insight  can  easily  become  today's  misconception. 
Our    best-thought-through    views,    our    most 


'  Address  made  bef ora  a  regional  foreign  policy  con- 
ference at  Knoxvllle,  Tenn.,  on  May  17  (press  release 
109). 


treasured  theories,  our  tenderly  nurtured  doc- 
ti-ines,  can  quickly  become  obsolete. 

Lord  Keynes  wrote  that  "Practical  men,  who 
believe  themselves  to  be  quite  exempt  from  any 
intellectual  rufluences,  are  usually  the  slaves  of 
some  defimct  economist." 

That  defunct  economist  may  have  had  some- 
thing terribly  important  and  accurate  to  say 
when  he  said  it.  But  today's  most  accurately 
distilled  wisdom  often  turns  sour  by  tomorrow. 
The  timelag  between  our  approach  to  events 
and  the  reality  of  these  events — between  our 
conception  and  the  actuality — plagues  and 
hinders  our  thinking  about  foreign  policy. 

I  would  today  like  to  explore  with  you  just 
a  few  examples  of  what  I  regard  as  prevalent 
misconceptions  or  oversimplifications  about 
world  affairs — notions  that  at  one  time  may 
have  contained  some  truth  but  which,  with  the 
passage  of  events,  have  become  damaging  and 
misleading. 

Magnitude  and  Importance  of  Foreign  Aid 

A  prime  case  is  that  of  foreign  aid,  which 
ever  since  World  War  II  has  been  a  major  tool 
of  our  foreign  policy.  It  is,  in  fact,  an  Ameri- 
can invention  embodying  at  once  our  nation's 
idealism  and  pragmatism.  It  is,  as  well,  one  of 
the  more  controversial  aspects  of  United  States 
foreign  relations.  And  in  the  turmoil  of  public 
debate  it  has  been  both  lavishly  praised  as  a 
panacea  for  the  world's  ills  and  denounced  as  a 
giveaway.  Some  describe  it  as  a  major  drain  on 
our  public  treasury,  others  as  a  negligible 
expense. 

The  truth,  of  course,  is  considerably  more 
complex. 

Today's  foreign  aid  program  is  not  a  major 
factor  in  our  budgetary  difficulties — nor  does  it 
contribute  heavily  to  our  balance-of-payments 
problem.  The  President's  aid  appropriation  re- 
quest this  year,  both  for  economic  and  military 


JtrjfE    3,    1968 


715 


aid,  is  just  about  $3  billion — out  of  a  total  Fed- 
eral budget  of  $170  billion. 

In  fact,  we  are  not  first  but  fifth  among  the 
industrial  nations  in  the  percentage  of  our 
gross  national  product  devoted  to  foreign  aid. 

Still,  these  are  hardly  insignificant  sums ;  but 
I  am  convinced  they  continue  to  be  important 
to  our  national  security.  Foreign  aid  is  the  in- 
strument which  makes  it  possible  to  promote 
peaceful  evolutionary  change,  greater  partici- 
pation in  political  life,  and  improved  hmiian 
welfare  in  the  developing  regions  of  the  world. 
Without  it  we  can  only  preach. 

You  are  all  aware  of  the  tremendous  success 
of  the  Marshall  Plan.  Similar  success  stories 
have  since  occurred  in  several  developing  coun- 
tries. Yet  comparisons  with  the  Marshall  Plan 
can  be  misleading  and  dangerous.  For  there  is  a 
vast  difference  between  reconstruction  and  de- 
velopment. The  former  involves  developed  econ- 
omies with  modern  institutions  and  trained 
manpower.  The  latter  means  bringing  back- 
ward, sometimes  primitive,  societies  to  the  stage 
of  viable,  self-sustaining  growth. 

The  second  task,  involving  as  it  does  the 
learning  of  new  habits,  social  roles,  patterns  of 
behavior,  and  modes  of  thought,  is  infinitely 
more  difficult. 

If  we  are  to  be  effective  in  it  we  must  i-ecog- 
nize  and  be  realistic  about  its  magnitude  as  well 
as  its  importance.  In  Latin  America  the  process 
may  require  decades ;  in  Africa  and  Asia,  quite 
possibly  generations.  And  the  same  can  be  said 
about  "underdeveloped  America" — our  ghettos, 
our  Appalachias. 

Each  of  the  developing  nations  must  choose 
its  own  destiny,  each  must  make  its  way  at  its 
own  pace.  Our  aid  will  make  only  a  small  dif- 
ference. But  the  effort  is  not  unreasonable  in 
relation  to  our  national  resources.  And  it  is  ter- 
ribly small  compared  to  the  enormous  issues  at 
stake. 

The  role  of  the  United  States  as  a  dominant 
power  was  not  chosen.  It  was  thrust  upon  us. 
It  could  not  be  easily  dissolved  even  if  we  chose 
to  dissolve  it.  But  having  the  power,  we  have 
no  choice  but  to  use  it  to  strengthen  peaceful 
and  democratic  developments  whenever  we  can. 

The  idea,  heard  often  nowadays,  that  it  is 
possible  to  make  a  choice  between  our  overseas 
commitments  and  spending  for  domestic  needs 
is  another  myth.  Certainly  priorities  can  be 
established.  Certainly  particular  aspects  of  our 
overseas  commitments  can  be  altered.  We  can 
give  less  aid  to  this  country  or  less  support  to 


that  one.  But  the  idea  that  what  we  cut  over- 
seas can  somehow  automatically  be  added  to 
domestic  spending  is,  of  course,  both  practically 
and  politically  naive. 

To  allow  chaos  to  build  up  abroad  would  not 
help  our  poor  at  home.  To  weaken  our  defense 
in  an  area  where  other  powers  would  be  ready  to 
threaten  our  security,  our  trade,  and  our  in- 
terests in  peace  would  bring  no  satisfaction 
whatsoever  to  those  interested  in  eliminating 
domestic  poverty.  We  have  learned — the  hard 
way — that  to  neglect  or  withdraw  from  the 
world  because  the  problems  are  tough — or  even 
insoluble — only  means  that  we  pay  a  higher 
price  in  blood  and  treasure  in  the  future. 

Myth  of  American  Omnipotence 

But  the  opposite  side  of  the  coin  is  equally 
fallacious.  This  is  the  lingering  myih.  of  Amer- 
ican omnipotence — an  overconfidence  in  our 
ability  to  influence  the  events  of  a  turbulent  and 
changing  world. 

Let  us  face  facts.  Our  ability  to  determine 
how  other  governments  will  act — even  those 
friendly  to  us  and  dependent  on  our  help — is 
limited.  We  are,  in  each  case,  dealing  with 
sovereign  nations  which,  like  us,  have  their  own 
domestic  disputes,  their  own  legislatures,  tlieir 
own  public  opinion.  The  leader  of  a  foreign 
count7'y  may  agree  completely  that  what  we 
want  him  to  do  makes  sense.  But  there  will  be 
times  when  he  must  ignore  our  advice  because 
to  take  it  would  mean  that  he  would  be  out  of 
office. 

It  is  often  argued  that  if  a  country  allied  with 
us  will  not  do  as  we  want,  we  should  cut  off  or 
reduce  our  aid.  But  such  a  step  almost  always 
has  the  reverse  effect  from  that  intended.  It  may 
turn  a  nation  against  us,  as  Egypt  turned 
against  us  after  we  witUield  aid  for  the  Aswan 
Dam.  Even  if  there  is  no  drastic  or  immediate 
reaction,  the  long-range  results  are  bound  to  be 
self-defeating.  Our  objective  of  fostering  peace- 
ful evolution  and  economic  development  is 
hardly  served  by  actions  which  increase  the 
chances  of  conflict  or  slow  down  the  process  of 
development. 

Our  aims  in  the  Middle  East,  for  example, 
are  simple  enough.  We  would  like  the  Arab- 
Israeli  dispute  to  be  settled  fairly  and  peace- 
fully. Yet  our  influence  is  limited,  not  only  by 
the  emotions  and  hatreds  which  dominate  the 
area  but  by  the  role  played  by  other  powers. 
Despite  the  fact  that  we  were  providing  aid  to 


716 


DEPAKTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


both  Israel  and  Joi'dan,  we  were  unable — even 
with  the  most  strenuous  efforts — to  prevent  the 
June  war.  Wq  had  sent  arms  to  the  area,  but  in 
moderate  quantities.  The  Soviet  Union,  on  tlie 
other  hand,  had  provided  over  2  billion  dollars" 
worth  of  military  equipment,  while  various 
other  countries  had  sold  arms  to  both  sides. 
After  the  war,  hoping  that  a  peaceful  settlement 
might  finally  grow  out  of  the  ravages  of  war. 
we  suspended  all  arms  shipments  to  both  Israel 
and  the  Arab  states.  But  others  have  failed  to 
match  our  restraint. 

Latin  America  ju-ovides  an  analogous,  though 
fortunately  less  dangerous,  example.  Because 
Latin  America  is  not  faced  with  hostile  military 
threats,  we  have  urged  the  countries  of  the  hemi- 
sphere to  avoid  the  pm'chase  of  expensive  arma- 
ments and  to  put  the  money,  instead,  into  the 
work  of  economic  and  social  development. 

By  and  large  this  advice  has  been  listened  to. 
In  relative  tex'ms,  hemispheric  military  budgets 
have  declined  by  almost  half  in  the  last  two 
decades.  But  as  a  result,  a  number  of  Latin 
.Vmerican  countries — or  at  least  their  generals — 
consider  the  arms  they  now  have  to  be  obsolete 
and  want  to  buy  new  ones.  They  would  like  to 
purchase  new  jets,  for  example,  and  know  that  if 
we  do  not  sell  to  them  other  countries  will.  Un- 
der these  circumstances  it  is  hard  to  argue  that 
we  have  much  leverage.  We  can  advise  them,  we 
can  urge  them ;  but  it  is  not  possible  to  dictate  to 
them — even  if  we  wanted  to  do  so — particularly 
if  they  feel — right!}'  or  wrongly — that  their  se- 
curity is  at  stake.  There  are  those — including  the 
Congress — who  would  have  us  cut  our  aid  to 
these  countries  if  they  decide,  for  exam})le,  to 
buy  jets.  But  there  is  little  reason  to  believe  such 
a  threat  will,  in  fact,  dissuade  them  in  those 
instances  where  their  own  political  impera- 
tives— wise  or  unwise — argue  otherwise  to  them. 

Differences  Within  the  Communist  World 

If  our  influence  on  our  allies  is  limited,  so, 
too,  is  the  influence  of  the  Soviet  Union  in  the 
Communist  world.  In  fact,  of  all  the  simplifica- 
tions and  misconceptions  I  will  talk  about  today, 
perhaps  the  most  dated  and  unreal  of  all  is  the 
belief  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  monolithic 
communism.  Few  students  of  world  affaii's  any 
longer  accept  the  notion  that  communism  is 
alike  the  world  over  or  that  the  Soviet  Union 
stands  as  unchallenged  master  of  all  Commu- 
nist nations.  But  the  psychological  hangover 
from  an  earlier  day  when  this  was  tme  persists, 


and  our  ability  to  deal  flexibly  with  individual 
Commmiist  nations  is  hamstrung  as  a  result. 

During  the  years  right  after  the  war  the  So- 
viet LTnion — riding  the  crest  of  its  power  and 
prestige  after  making  a  massive  contribution  to 
the  defeat  of  Nazi  Germany — attempted  to  im- 
pose an  ironbound  ideological,  social,  economic, 
political,  and  even  cultural  pattern  upon  its 
Eastern  European  neighliors.  The  Soviet  road 
to  a  Communist  nirvana  was  virtually  unchal- 
lenged at  that  time.  Even  the  Chinese  colossus, 
just  arising  from  the  chaos  of  its  own  revolu- 
tion, was  willing  to  bow  to  Soviet  leadership. 

But  the  monolith  was  beginning  to  lose  its 
grij)  by  the  time  of  Stalin's  death.  Yugoslavia 
had  already  gone  its  own  Avay,  and  soon  aftei- 
the  passing  of  Stalin  the  distinct  national  iden- 
tities of  Eussia's  Eastern  European  satellites 
began  to  reassert  themselves  and  Conununist 
China  started  openly  sniping  at  Soviet  domi- 
nance. 

By  1964,  when  Mao  plunged  China  into  his 
misnamed  "Cultural  Revolution,"  the  polemic 
between  the  Soviet  Union  and  Communist 
China  had  reached  the  level  of  open  ideological 
warfare.  Underlying  the  ideological  battle  was 
growing  Soviet  unease  over  the  prospect  of 
nearly  700  million  Chinese  just  across  a  long 
and  historically  contested  bordei*. 

Meanwhile,  on  the  other  side  of  the  globe, 
a  newly  born  Communist  Cuba  was  raising  its 
own  outcry.  Although  the  Soviet  Union  was 
quick  to  acknowledge  paternity,  it  was  not  long 
before  the  Kremlin  had  doubts  about  this 
American  adventure.  The  rearing  of  the  Cuban 
foundling  proved  extremely  costly.  And  while 
accepting  Soviet  aid,  Cuba  irritated  and 
embarrassed  it  with  aggressive  demands  for 
the  violent  overthrow  of  Latin  American  gov- 
ernments that  the  Soviet  Union  was  trying  to 
cultivate. 

And  further  testimony  to  differences  within 
the  Commvmist  world  can  be  seen  in  the  Eastern 
European  ferment  we  have  been  reading  about 
lately. 

There  is,  then,  in  both  East  and  West,  a  grow- 
ing diversity  and  renewed  nationalist  stirring. 
In  some  ways,  this  presents  us  with  new  dangers. 
Nuclear  proliferation  becomes  more  likely.  A 
multiplicity  of  local  disputes  can  lead  to  larger 
conflagrations.  But  there  are  positive  aspects 
as  well :  Buffer  zones  are  created  which  may 
make  great  power  confrontation  less  likely; 
power  becomes  more  diffused. 

So  while  the  world  situation  presents  us  with 


JTIXE    3,    1968 

306-510 — 68- 


717 


little  cause  for  complacency,  the  opportunities 
for  making  headway  toward  peace  are  many. 

We  continue  working  to  identify  areas  of 
common  interest  with  the  Soviet  Union,  not  only 
in  the  prevention  of  nuclear  proliferation  but  in 
such  mundane  fields  as  fishery  agreements,  non- 
strategic  scientific  exchanges,  and  the  normal- 
ization of  trade,  travel,  and  tourism.  And  we 
stand  ready  to  undertake  with  the  Soviets  new 
efforts  to  curb  the  incredibly  costly  development 
of  defensive  missile  systems  and  the  incredibly 
dangerous  intrusion  of  sophisticated  weapons 
and  unsophisticated  advisers  into  regional  con- 
flicts in  the  Middle  East  and  elsewhere. 

In  none  of  these  efforts  can  we  allow  our 
thinking  to  be  mired  in  tired  old  slogans  and 
sliopworn  dogma.  All  will  require  boldness, 
imagination,  and  vigorous  new  ideas.  And  in  all 
of  them  we  shall  look  to  j'ou  for  your  views, 
your  advice,  and  your  help. 

For  this,  after  all,  is  how  a  democratic  society 
sustains  its  strength.  This  is  how  it  moves  for- 
ward— by  the  spirited  involvement  of  its  citizens 
in  its  affairs. 


President  Johnson  Hails  Progress 
Under  the  Inter-American  System 

The  White  House  on  May  10  released  the  text 
of  the  foUoic'mg  exchange  of  remarks  hePween 
President  Johnson  and  Jose  A.  Mora,  retiring 
Secretary  General  of  the  Organization  of  Amer- 
ican States,  at  a  luTich-eon  at  the  White  House 
that  day  in  honor  of  Dr.  Mara  and  William 
Sanders,  retiring  Assistant  Secretary  General 
of  the  OAS. 


PRESIDENT  JOHNSON 

We  have  come  here  to  the  "\^niite  House  today 
(o  honor  two  of  the  outstanding  public  servants 
of  this  hemisphere. 

Jose  Mora  and  William  Sanders  have 
guided  our  Organization  of  American  States 
through  the  most  challenging  decade  in  its  his- 
tory. Their  stewardship  has  seen  the  launching 
of  the  Alliance  for  Progress  and  the  Inter- 
American  Development  Bank. 

They  have  witnessed  and  shared  in  the  great 
movement  toward  economic  integration  that 
was  reflected  in  the  Central  American  Common 


Market  and  the  Latin  American  Free  Trade 
Association. 

They  stood  in  the  front  lines  defending  our 
hemisphere  during  the  times  of  great  peril,  and 
they  stood  beside  us  as  we  adopted  a  new  char- 
ter of  promise  and  hope  in  the  Americas  in  the 
Presidents'  Action  Progi'am  of  Punta  del  Este. 

For  almost  half  of  this  decade,  I  have  worked 
shoulder  to  shoulder  with  these  two  distin- 
guished men.  We  have  strengthened  the  security 
of  our  hemisphere  beyond  doubt.  We  have 
waged  a  successful  battle  for  economic  oppor- 
tunity and  social  justice  in  Latin  America. 

In  these  years,  just  to  cite  a  few  facts,  the 
average  per  capita  growth  in  Latin  America 
has  more  than  doubled  over  the  first  3  years  of 
the  Alliance,  from  nine-tenths  of  1  percent  in 
1961  through  1963,  to  22/^0  percent  from  1964 
through  1967. 

The  United  States  has  put  $7.7  billion  at  the 
service  of  the  Alliance  for  Progress.  That  is  35 
percent  higher  per  annum  in  the  last  4  years 
than  we  did  in  the  first  3  years. 

The  enrollment  in  our  primary  schools  has 
increased  by  almost  7  million  students,  and  in 
secondary  schools  by  close  to  2  million  students. 
The  number  of  cooperatives  has  increased  by 
over  35  percent.  A  quarter  of  a  million  land 
titles  have  already  been  distributed;  and  tax 
collections,  which  rose  $489  million  in  the  1961 
through  1963  period,  increased  from  $489  mil- 
lion to  nearly  $3  billion  during  the  1964  to  1967 
period. 

Our  inter-American  system  has  always  been 
a  trailblazer  in  the  quest  for  a  better  world.  We 
have  pioneered  procedures  for  the  peaceful  set- 
tlement of  disputes.  There  has  been  no  armed 
conflict  between  the  members  of  our  community 
now  for  more  than  30  years. 

We  have  championed  the  principle  of  self- 
determination  of  peoples.  We  have  acted  to 
preserve  it — collectively — when  it  was  threat- 
ened in  our  hemisphere. 

We  have  developed  the  modern  concept  of 
collective  security.  We  are  pursuing  the  goal 
of  representative  democracy.  Elections  held 
throughout  the  hemisphere  during  the  last  2 
years  show  that  we  are  making  great  progress. 

We  are  demonstrating  that  through  the  Al- 
liance for  Progress,  by  all  of  us  working  to- 
gether, nations  in  a  region  can  build  economic 
democracy;  and  Latin  America  recently  gave 
the  world  a  model  for  preventing  the  spread  of 
nuclear  weapons. 

All  of  this  could  not  have  been  achieved  with- 


718 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BTJLLETIN 


out  the  dedication  of  wise  men — men  who  saw 
that  in  hiboring  for  cooperation  between  all  the 
nations  of  America,  they  would  serve  the  in- 
terests of  each  nation  and  its  people. 

Mr.  Sanders,  we  are  very  proud  of  your  dedi- 
cated service  to  the  inter- American  cause. 

Dr.  Mora,  I  am  reminded  of  Emerson's  words : 
"An  institution  is  the  lengthened  shadow  of  a 
man."  You  leave  your  high  office  knowing  that 
the  OAS  will  cany  the  mark  of  your  achieve- 
ments throughout  history.  You  leave  with  the 
deep  gratitude  of  this  nation — of  this  nation's 
President  and  of  this  nation's  people — for  mak- 
ing the  Xew  World  a  better  and  a  safer  place  for 
free  men  to  pursue  their  destiny. 

There  is  so  much  that  is  imdone.  There  is  still 
so  much  to  be  done.  But  it  can  and  it  will  be 
done.  If  those  who  follow  you  in  this  institution 
cast  the  same  shadow  of  solidarity  and  progress 
for  our  hemisphere,  then  we  have  many  good 
years  to  look  forward  to. 

I  ask  you  to  rise  and  join  me  in  a  toast  to  Dr. 
Mora  and  Mr.  Sanders. 


SECRETARY  GENERAL  MORA 

Dr.  Sanders  and  I  are  greatly  honored  by 
this  luncheon  today  and  deeply  moved  by  the 
warm  words  of  friendship  that  have  just  been 
spoken. 

Of  the  many  satisfactions  that  I  have  had 
during  the  term  of  my  office  as  Secretary  Gen- 
eral of  the  Organization  of  American  States, 
none  has  been  greater  than  that  afforded  by  the 
support  given  to  our  regional  organization  by 
leaders  of  the  hemisphere  and  very  particularly 
by  our  host,  President  Johnson. 

The  concern  of  President  Johnson  for  his 
country's  neighbors  has  been  manifested  time 
and  again.  It  is  a  very  real  concern  of  President 
Johnson,  based  on  a  keen  appreciation  of  the 
immense  problems  by  which  the  people  and  gov- 
ernments of  Latin  America  are  confronted. 

It  is  expressed  in  a  conviction  that  the  con- 
cepts of  the  good  neighbor  and  the  great  society 
know  no  boundaries  and  that  the  hand  of  friend- 


ship, once  extended,  should  be  a  helping  hand, 
such  as  President  Johnson  has  demonstrated. 

Above  all,  that  concern  is  marked  by  a  sense 
of  the  imperativeness  of  immediate  action.  In 
addressing  his  fellow  chiefs  of  state  at  their 
meeting  last  year  in  Punta  del  Este,  President 
Johnson  proclaimed :  ^ 

The  pace  of  change  is  not  fast  enough.  .  .  .  The  time 
ia  now.  The  responsibility  is  ours.  Let  us  declare  the 
next  10  years  the  decade  of  urgency. 

It  is  characteristic  of  President  Johnson's 
sense  of  personal  commitment  that  he  has  never 
issued  a  call  for  action  by  the  hemispliere  with- 
out a  clear  plan  in  view  and  a  tinn  pledge  of  sup- 
port by  his  government  for  the  common  en- 
deavor. 

The  most  recent  instance  we  witnessed  only  a 
few  days  ago  in  this  house  when  President  John- 
son proposed  a  task  force  of  the  hemisphere's 
outstanding  plamiers  to  work  out  a  5-year  pro- 
gram for  speeding  up  the  physical  integration  of 
the  Americas,  "uniting  the  continents  with  roads 
and  river  systems,  with  power  grids  and  pipe- 
lines, and  with  transport  and  telephone  com- 
munications." ^ 

That  proposal  was  concluded  with  the  decla- 
ration: "I  assure  you  that  the  United  States 
will  lend  its  full  cooperation  and  support." 

We  of  the  hemisphere  are  particularly  appre- 
ciative of  the  depth  of  President  Johnson's  con- 
cern for  our  greater  well-being  in  the  light  of 
the  vast  problems  facing  him  in  other  areas  of 
the  world. 

I  am  sure  I  speak  for  all  here  present  in  voic- 
ing the  fer%^ent  desire  that  the  efforts  President 
Jolinson  has  cea.selessly  put  forth  to  bring  about 
that  peace  which  will  permit  the  uninterrupted 
advance  of  humanity  upon  the  path  of  progress 
may  speedily  be  crowned  with  the  fullest  of 
success. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  President,  for  your  kindness 
today,  and  all  of  our  support  is  behind  you. 


'  For  a  statement  by  President  .Tohnson  made  at 
Punta  del  Este,  Uruguay,  on  Apr.  13,  1967,  see  Bul- 
letin of  May  8, 1907,  p.  708. 

=  For  background,  see  ihM..  May  13,  1968,  p.  G14. 


JUNE  3.   1968 


719 


Human  Rights:  World  Problems  and  American  Policies 


hy  James  Frederick  Green  ^ 


Twenty  years  ago,  on  December  10,  1948,  tlie 
United  Nations  General  Assembly,  meeting  in 
Paris,  adopted  the  Universal  Declaration  of 
Human  Rights.  The  adoption  of  the  Universal 
Declaration,  by  a  unanimous  vote,  with  eight 
abstentions,  was  a  landmark  in  mankind's  prog- 
i-ess  toward  freedom.  This  was  the  first  time  in 
history  that  the  world  community  had  agreed 
upon  a  statement  of  goals  and  standards  con- 
cerning human  rights.  Thanks  to  the  leadership 
given  in  the  drafting  of  the  Universal  Declara- 
tion by  the  American  representative,  Mrs.  Elea- 
nor Roosevelt,  that  document  reflects  the  best 
in  the  American  tradition. 

The  essence  of  the  Universal  Declaration  is 
contained  in  its  first  article :  "All  human  beings 
are  born  free  and  equal  in  dignity  and  rights." 
Thus,  for  the  first  time  the  principle  of  human 
equality — defined  by  philosophers,  preached  by 
religious  leaders,  acknowledged  by  statesmen — 
was  defined  in  detail  in  an  international 
document. 

This  concept  of  human  equality,  to  be  sure, 
liad  been  acknowledged  in  many  difi'erent 
national  documents  and  international  instru- 
ments. The  League  of  Nations  Covenant  had 
provided  for  protection  of  the  rights  of  minori- 
ties and  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  mandated 
territories.  The  peace  treaties  that  concluded 
the  two  World  Wars  had  protected  the  rights  of 
peoples  of  the  defeated  nations.  The  Charter  of 
the  United  Nations  had  made  the  promotion  of 
human  rights  a  major  purpose  of  the  organiza- 
tion. The  linking  of  human  rights  to  peace  and 
security  is  an  essential  element  of  the  charter. 

As  you  know,  the  Universal  Declaration  of 
Human  Rights  is  just  that:  a  declaration.  It 
is  a  statement  of  standards  and  of  goals  toward 
which  all  mankind  should  be  moving.  Its  30 
articles  set  forth  civil  and  political  rights — 


'Address  made  before  the  International  Human 
Rights  Workshop  at  Indianapolis,  Ind.,  on  May  4.  Mr. 
Green  is  Executive  Director  of  the  President's  Com- 
mission for  the  Observance  of  Human  Rights  Tear  1968. 


like  the  right  to  vote  and  to  hold  office,  freedom 
of  speech  and  of  assembly,  freedom  from  arbi- 
trary arrest  and  imprisonment,  freedom  of 
thought,  conscience,  and  religion,  and  many 
others — that  are  familiar  to  us  from  our  own 
heritage.  Its  30  articles  also  set  forth  economic, 
social,  and  cultural  rights — like  the  right  to 
work,  the  right  to  education,  the  right  to  social 
security,  the  right  to  participate  in  cultural 
activities — that  are  equally  familiar  from  legis- 
lation of  modern  times. 

The  Universal  Declaration  does  not  provide 
guarantees  that  these  rights  will  be  immediately 
fulfilled,  nor  does  it  impose  legal  obligations 
on  any  government  to  provide  all  the  rights. 
The  Universal  Declaration  merely  states  that 
these  are  the  accepted  goals  of  the  world  com- 
munity— equally  valid  in  every  country,  includ- 
ing the  United  States,  and  in  every  city, 
including  Indianapolis. 

The  Universal  Declaration  of  Human  Rights, 
embodying  this  principle  of  equality — of  equal 
rights  and  equal  opportunities — has  already  had 
an  impact  in  international  affairs.  The  constitu- 
tions of  new  states  have  embodied  the  provisions 
of  the  Universal  Declaration,  the  courts  of  many 
countries  have  referred  to  the  Universal  Decla- 
ration, and  the  debates  and  resolutions  of  the 
United  Nations  have  cited  the  Universal 
Declaration  as  their  criterion  of  excellence. 

In  the  20  years  that  have  passed  since  that 
historic  vote  at  Paris,  many  different  efforts 
have  been  made  to  codify  and  extend  the  Uni- 
versal Declaration.  Several  additional  declara- 
tions and  some  21  international  conventions 
have  been  adopted  by  the  United  Nations, 
the  International  Labor  Organization,  and 
UNESCO  [United  Nations  Educational,  Scien- 
tific and  Cultural  Organization]  in  order  to 
define  the  rights  set  forth  in  tlie  Universal  Dec- 
laration more  precisely.  These  human  rights 
conventions,  all  designed  to  codify  certain 
gi'oups  of  rights,  are  subject  to  ratification  by 
each  state. 

Of  these  21  conventions,  only  one  has  been 


720 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BTTLLETTN' 


approved  by  the  Senate  and  ratified  by  the 
President:  the  supplementary  convention  on 
slaveiy.  Six  other  conventions  have  been  sub- 
mitted to  the  Senate  during  the  past  two  dec- 
ades— freedom  of  association,  punisliment  of 
the  crime  of  genocide,  and  the  inter- American 
convention  on  granting  political  rights  to 
women,  by  President  Truman;  abolition  of 
forced  labor  and  the  United  Nations  convention 
on  political  rights  of  women,  by  President  Ken- 
nedy; and  employment  policy,  by  President 
Jolmson.  Twice  in  recent  months  President 
Johnson  has  urged  the  Senate  to  approve  the 
human  rights  conventions. 

May  I  suggest  that  you  in  Indianapolis  study 
and  discuss  these  six  human  rights  conventions 
and  that  you  send  your  opinions  about  them, 
favorable  or  unfavorable,  to  the  Senate  Foreign 
Eelations  Committee  and  to  the  two  Senators 
who  represent  your  State.  How  else  can  the 
Senate  know  the  views  of  the  American  people  ? 

In  addition  to  these  efforts  to  codify  human 
rights  into  international  conventions,  the 
United  Nations  has  devoted  enormous  amounts 
of  time  and  energy  to  action  programs  of  differ- 
ent kinds.  The  General  Assemblj',  the  Economic 
and  Social  Council,  the  Commission  on  Hiunan 
Eights,  its  Subcommission  on  Discrimination 
and  ]Minorities,  and  the  Commission  on  the 
Status  of  Women  have  all  sought  to  aid  meml>er 
states  in  protecting  and  promoting  human 
rights.  These  bodies  have  studied  the  basic 
principles  underlying  human  rights,  they  have 
examined  the  causes  of  violations  of  human 
rights,  and  they  have  looked  for  practical  means 
to  safegTiard  these  rights.  They  have  given  spe- 
cial attention  to  racial  discrimination,  especially 
to  its  most  virulent  form,  apartheid  in  South 
Africa. 

International  Human   Rights  Year 

To  commemorate  the  20th  anniversary  of  the 
Universal  Declaration,  the  United  Nations  Gen- 
eral Assembly  proclaimed  1968  as  International 
Human  Eights  Year.  The  United  Nations  called 
upon  all  its  members  to  celebrate  Human  Eights 
Year  in  their  own  countries  and  to  take  stock  of 
their  progi'ess  and  lack  of  progress.  The  United 
Nations  convened  an  International  Conference 
on  Human  Eights,  which  is  currently  meeting  at 
Tehran,  to  take  stock  of  what  has  been  accom- 
plished in  the  past  two  decades  and  of  what 
remains  to  be  done. 

The  chairman  of  the  United  States  delegation 


to  the  Tehran  conference  is  a  distinguished 
Negro  American,  Mr.  Eoy  Wilkins.  In  his  open- 
ing address,^  Mr.  Wilkins  described  with  the 
utmost  frankness  what  he  called  "the  tortuous 
path  by  which  the  United  States  has  corrected 
its  past  myopia  about  human  rights,  often  by 
pain  and  once  by  a  Civil  War."  He  concluded 
his  description  of  "the  tortuous  path"  with  these 
moving  words : 

There  is  not  the  slightest  doubt  In  my  mind  about  my 
country's  glittering  future  for  all  Americans — black 
men  and  white,  Indians,  Protestants,  Catholics,  Jews, 
and  nonbelievers.  Such  a  statement  is  justified  by  the 
confidence  that  the  President  of  the  Nation,  its  court 
system,  and  belatedly  its  National  Legislature,  are 
fully  committed  toward  this  ideal — and  the  country 
will  surely  follow. 

One  of  the  many  questions  being  discussed  at 
the  Tehran  conference  is  how  best  to  deal  with 
violations,  and  alleged  violations,  of  human 
rights  in  some  particular  country.  Obviously, 
the  initial  and  best  remedy  is  within  the  coimtry 
itself;  machinei7  must  be  available  to  enable 
every  citizen,  especially  the  poorest  and  weakest, 
to  obtam  justice.  If  that  machinery  is  not  avail- 
able, however,  what  kind  of  international  pro- 
cedures might  be  instituted  to  enable  the  victim 
of  injustice  to  obtain  a  hearing?  There  is  no 
easy  answer  to  this  question,  but  an  answer 
should  be  developed. 

In  response  to  the  United  Nations,  President 
Johnson  last  October  11,  the  biithday  of  Mrs. 
Eoosevelt,  designated  1968  as  Human  Eights 
Year  in  this  country ;  ^  and  on  January  30,  the 
birthday  of  President  Franklin  D.  Eoosevelt, 
he  established  a  Commission  for  the  Observance 
of  Human  Eights  Year.^  The  President  ap- 
pointed W.  Averell  Harriman,  Ambassador  at 
Large,  as  Chairman;  and  Mrs.  Amia  Eoosevelt 
Halsted,  daughter  of  two  champions  of  human 
freedoms,  as  Vice  Chairman.  The  members  of 
the  Commission  include  the  heads  of  seven  Gov- 
ernment agencies  and  10  distinguished  citizens. 
"They  are  charged,"  said  the  President,  "with 
shaping  the  variety  of  our  efforts  into  a  major 
and  purposeful  national  contribution."  Their 
purpose  is  to  "enlarge  our  people's  understand- 
ing of  the  principles  of  human  rights  as  ex- 
pressed in  the  Universal  Declaration  and  the 
Constitution  and  in  tlie  laws  of  the  United 
States." 


'  BuLLETix  of  Jlay  20. 1007,  p.  661. 
'  For  text  of  Proclamation  3814,  see  ihid.,  Nov.  13, 
1967,  p.  660. 
*  For  background,  see  ihld.,  Feb.  19,  1968,  p.  231. 


JUNE    3.    1968 


721 


The  President's  Commission  has  just  begun 
its  work,  which  will  be  designed  to  assist  the 
efforts  of  the  Federal  Government,  the  State 
and  municipal  governments,  and  the  many  hun- 
dreds of  civic  organizations  to  celebrate  Human 
Rights  Year.  During  its  first  meeting,  on  Feb- 
ruary 28,  the  Commission  was  received  by 
President  Johnson  in  the  Cabmet  Room  at  the 
Wliite  House.  The  President  expressed  to  the 
Conunission  his  deep  interest  in  its  future  work. 

In  order  to  enlist  as  wide  public  support  as 
possible,  tlie  Commission  lias  created  eight  spe- 
cial comniittees,  in  the  following  fields :  awards 
and  special  events,  businessmen,  education,  la- 
bor, lawyers,  mass  media,  nongovernmental 
organizations,  and  State  and  municipal 
governments. 

One  of  the  members  of  the  Commission  has 
said  that  the  objective  of  the  President's  Com- 
mission, in  effect,  is  to  insure  that  every  Ameri- 
can is  aware  of  the  existence  and  tlie  significance 
of  the  Universal  Declaration  of  Human  Rights. 
That  is,  to  be  sure,  a  "tall  order,"  as  we  say  in 
the  Middle  West.  It  does  not  mean,  of  course, 
that  every  American  should  be  able  to  recite 
and  explain  every  article  in  the  Universal  Dec- 
laration, any  more  than  he  can  recite  and  ex- 
plain each  article  in  our  Bill  of  Rights.  This 
means  merely  that  eveiy  American  should  be 
aware  that  there  is  in  existence  a  Universal 
Declaration  of  Human  Rights,  similar  in  pur- 
pose and  content  to  our  own  Bill  of  Rights, 
though  different  in  form  and  broader  in  scope. 

Racial  Prejudice  and  Discrimination 

To  relate  the  Universal  Declaration  of  Human 
Rights — and,  indeed,  our  own  Bill  of  Rights — 
to  contemporary  America  is  to  confront  the 
most  difficult  domestic  issues  of  our  times.  Yet 
is  not  the  basic  concept  clear?  "All  men  are 
created  equal,"  proclaimed  our  Declaration  of 
Independence.  "All  liimian  ijeings  are  born  free 
and  equal  in  dignity  and  rights,"  proclaims  our 
Universal  Declaration  of  Human  Rights.  Those 
ringing  words  of  equality,  those  resounding 
phrases  of  justice,  are  indeed  the  only  equitable, 
the  only  practical,  approach  to  the  issues  that 
divide  America  today. 

The  National  Advisory  Commission  on  Civil 
Disorders,  headed  by  the  Governor  of  your 
neighboring  State  of  Illinois,  Otto  Kemer,  con- 
cluded that  the  basic  issue  underlying  the  un- 
rest in  our  land  and  the  riots  in  our  cities  is 
racial  prejudice — white  racial  prejudice.  The 


Commission  stated  this  fact  categorically: 

Race  prejudice  has  shaped  our  history  decisively  In 
the  past ;  it  now  threatens  to  do  so  again.  White 
racism  is  essentially  responsible  for  the  explosive 
mixture  which  has  been  accumulating  in  our  cities 
since  the  end  of  World  War  II. 

This  race  prejudice  is  based,  as  is  all  prejudice, 
on  the  idea  that  people  who  are  different  are, 
ipso  facto,  inferior.  All  discrimination — on 
grounds  of  "race,  colour,  sex,  language,  religion, 
political  or  other  opinion,  national  or  social 
origin,  property,  birth  or  other  status"  in  the 
words  of  the  Universal  Declaration — is  based 
on  this  false  concept.  All  discrimination  is  based 
on  this  scientifically  untenable  and  morally  un- 
acceptable concept,  that  people  who  are  different 
are  inferior.  Is  not  this  the  essence  of  discrim- 
ination? Is  not  this  the  essence  of  intolerance 
and  hatred  ? 

This  age-old  idea  that  one  race  is  inferior  to 
anotlier  or,  more  specifically,  that  all  colored 
races  are  inferior  to  the  white  race  has  been 
demolished  once  and  for  all  by  scientists — 
biologists,  geneticists,  anthropologists,  and 
others.  Groups  of  scientists  convened  by 
UNESCO  in  1951  and  1964  concluded  that,  in 
terms  of  biology,  all  men  are  truly  created 
equal.  Their  findings  were  confirmed  last  year 
in  a  statement  issued  by  18  experts  brought 
together  by  UNESCO.  This  statement  on  race 
and  racial  prejudice  should  be  read  by  every 
person  who  still  questions  whether  there  may 
not  be  some  scientific  evidence  to  justify  dis- 
crimination. This  is  the  conclusion  of  the 
UNESCO  statement : 

Racism  grossly  falsifies  the  knowledge  of  human 
biology. 

The  human  problems  arising  from  so-called  "race" 
relations  are  social  in  origin  rather  than  biological. 

In  Human  Rights  Year,  perhaps  no  single 
document  is  more  significant  than  this  simple 
statement  of  the  UNESCO  experts:  that  no 
race  or  group  is  biologically  superior  to  another. 
If  every  human  being  around  the  world  would 
today  acknowledge  that  every  other  person — 
Christian,  Moslem,  Jew,  Buddhist,  and 
agnostic ;  black,  white,  brown,  and  yellow ;  rich 
and  poor;  privileged  and  underprivileged — 
is  his  equal  in  dignity  and  rights,  and  if  each 
were  to  recognize  the  obligation  to  respect  the 
rights  of  the  other,  then  we  would  be  im- 
measurably nearer  to  stability  at  home  and  peace 
abroad. 

This  was  the  message  of  equality  and  mutual 


722 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BtTLLETIN 


respect  that  was  proclaimed  to  America  and  to 
the  world,  in  words  and  in  deeds,  by  Dr.  Mar- 
tin Luther  King,  Jr.  This  was  the  message  that 
all  who  mourn  his  tragic  death  must  remember 
and  fulfill. 

The  danger — in  this  country  and  abroad — is 
that  tliis  idea  of  human  equality,  this  concept 
of  mutual  respect  of  rights,  this  observance  of 
the  Golden  Rule,  which  is  an  axiom  common 
to  all  religious  faiths,  is  not  yet  accepted.  On 
the  contrary,  the  old  prejudices,  the  old  his- 
torical intolerances,  the  old  inherited  hatreds, 
all  work  against  the  best  that  is  in  the  human 
mind  and  the  human  heart.  There  is  nothing 
natural,  nothing  normal,  nothing  eternal  in 
these  prejudices,  these  intolerances,  these  ha- 
treds. They  are  not  part  of  our  biological  being ; 
but  they  are — alas  I — part  of  our  cultural  and 
social  heritage. 

Never  has  this  tragic  irony  been  more  elo- 
quently expressed  than  in  Rodgers  and  Ham- 
merstein's  "South  Pacific."  The  young  Ameri- 
can lieutenant,  Joseph  Cable,  exclaims  about 
racial  prejudice:  "It's  not  born  in  you !  It  hap- 
pens after  you're  born."  Then  he  sings: 

You've  got  to  be  taught  to  hate  and  fear, 
You've  got  to  be  taught  from  year  to  year, 
It's  got  to  be  drummed  in  your  dear  little  ear, 
You've  got  to  be  carefully  taught. 

You've  got  to  be  taught  to  be  afraid 
Of  people  whose  eyes  are  oddly  made, 
And  people  whose  skin  is  a  different  shade, 
You've  got  to  be  carefully  taught. 

You've  got  to  be  taught  before  it's  too  late. 
Before  you  are  six  or  seven  or  eight, 
To  hate  all  the  people  your  relatives  hate, 
You've  got  to  be  carefully  taught! 

What  is  evidently  needed  in  the  world,  in  the 
nation,  and  in  Indianapolis,  is  to  reverse  course 
and  to  "be  carefuUy  taught"  not  to  "hate  all  the 
people  your  relatives  hate"  but  to  imderstand 
all  those  people  and  to  respect  them.  Is  not  this 
the  essence  of  human  rights?  The  meaning  of 
the  Universal  Declaration  of  Human  Rights? 
Of  the  Declaration  of  Independence?  Of  the 
American  Bill  of  Rights?  Of  the  American 
dream  ?  Surely,  it  is  the  essence  of  the  American 
dream  that  all  men  are  created  equal,  that  all 
men  enjoy  equal  rights  and  opportunities,  and 
that  they  respect  the  right  of  all  others  to  en- 
joy those  same  rights  and  opportunities.  Surely, 
it  is  the  essence  of  our  heritage  and  the  hope 
of  our  future  that  these  goals  can  be  achieved 
without  hatred  and  without  violence. 

It  would  hardly  be  appropriate  for  me,  a 


Foreign  Service  officer  speaking  for  the  first 
time  in  Indianapolis,  to  advise  you  how  to  ap- 
ply the  principles  set  forth  in  the  Universal 
Declaration  of  Human  Rights  to  the  local  prob- 
lems of  your  city.  Having  served  over  the  past 
decade  in  three  African  countries  and  having 
visited  many  others,  I  can  assure  you  that  all 
countries  in  this  world  have  their  own  partic- 
ular problems  of  safeguarding  and  promoting 
the  rights  of  their  citizens.  So  far  as  our  own 
country  is  concerned,  I  can  commend  to  your 
attention  the  pamphlet  entitled  "You  in  Human 
Rights"  that  was  sponsored  for  Human  Rights 
Year  by  the  U.S.  National  Commission  for 
UNESCO  and  the  United  Nations  Association 
of  the  U.S.A.,  in  cooperation  with  45  nongov- 
ernmental organizations.  That  pamphlet  con- 
tains many  useful  suggestions  for  promoting 
human  rights  in  a  local  community. 

"Human   Rights   Begin   Close  to   Home" 

This  year,  1968,  we  Americans,  in  Indian- 
apolis and  throughout  our  country,  commemo- 
rate Human  Rights  Year,  the  20th  anniversary 
of  the  Universal  Declaration  of  Human  Rights. 
Perhaps  we  could  do  no  better  than  to  look  in- 
ward upon  our  own  consciences  and  upon  our 
own  attitudes.  Once  we  accept  the  concept  in 
our  own  minds  and  hearts,  that  all  Americans 
are  our  equals — in  the  words  of  Mr.  Wilkins, 
"black  men  and  white,  Indians,  Protestants, 
Catholics,  Jews,  and  nonbelievers" — then  the 
hideous  problems  and  imminent  dangers  con- 
fronting this  country  will  be  solvable.  Once  we 
regard  the  slum  dweller,  the  tenant  farmer,  the 
unemployed,  the  underprivileged,  and  the  dis- 
inherited as  our  equals,  then  we  will  treat  them 
as  our  equals. 

No  one  ever  said  this  simple  truth  better  than 
Mrs.  Eleanor  Roosevelt : 

"■^^Hiere,  after  all,  do  universal  human  rights 
begin?  In  small  places,  close  to  home — so  close 
and  so  small  that  they  cannot  be  seen  on  any 
map  of  the  world.  Yet  they  are  the  world  of  the 
individual  person:  The  neighborhood  he  lives 
in;  the  school  or  college  he  attends;  the  factory, 
farm  or  office  where  he  works.  Such  are  the 
places  where  every  man,  woman  and  child  seeks 
equal  justice,  equal  opportimity,  equal  dignity 
without  discrimination.  Unless  these  rights 
have  meaning  there,  they  have  little  meaning 
anywhere.  "Without  concerted  citizen  action  to 
uphold  them  close  to  home,  we  shall  look  in 
vain  for  progress  in  the  larger  world." 


JUNE    3,    1968 


723 


THE  CONGRESS 


U.S.  Economic  and  Military  Assistance  Program 
for  Fiscal  Year  1969 


Statement  ty  Secretary  Rush  '■ 


I  appreciate  the  opportunity  to  appear  before 
this  committee  in  support  of  the  Foreign  As- 
sistance Act  of  1968  and  the  President's  budget 
proposals  for  economic  and  militaiy  assistance 
for  fiscal  year  1969.  I  especially  appreciate  the 
careful  and  detailed  examination  of  the  program 
which  this  committee  has  conducted. 

The  committee  has  before  it  requests  for  new 
appropriations  of  approximately  $2.5  billion  for 
economic  assistance  and  $420  million  for  grant 
militaiy  assistance  imder  the  Foreign  Assist- 
ance Act.^ 

For  nearly  two  decades,  assistance  to  less  de- 
veloped countries  has  been  a  major  element  of 
United  States  foreign  policy.  It  has  been  pre- 
sented as  vitally  necessary  by  four  successive 
Presidents  and  approved  by  bipartisan  majori- 
ties in  10  successive  Congresses. 

This  connnittee  has  been  a  bulwark  of  sup- 
port for  our  economic  and  military  assistance 
programs.  The  committee  well  understands  the 
contribution  these  programs  make  to  our  na- 
tional interest. 

Our  paramount  national  interest  is,  of  course, 
the  safety  of  our  nation  and  the  well-being  of 
our  people. 

But  we  cannot  find  safety  or  well-being  apart 
from  the  rest  of  the  world.  In  the  long  run,  we 
can  be  neither  prosperous  nor  secure  if  others 
live  in  squalor  or  if  violence  consumes  the  world 
around  us. 

There  is  impressive  evidence  that  our  foreign 
aid  programs  have  helped  improve  the  world 


'Made  before  the  House  Foreign  Affairs  Committee 
on  May  2. 

"  For  text  of  President  Johnson's  message  on  foreign 
aid,  see  Bulletin  of  Mar.  4, 1968,  p.  322. 


we  live  in.  Already  a  few  less  developed  coun- 
tries have  reached  the  point  where  they  no 
longer  need  assistance  from  AID  [Agency  for 
International  Development].  Elsewhere  the  job 
will  take  longer  but  progress  is  evident.  Over  the 
period  1962  to  1966,  the  yearly  growth  rates  of 
the  dozen  countries  receiving  the  bulk  of  AID 
development  assistance  have  averaged  nearly 
5  percent. 

But  we  certainly  cannot  assume  that  progress 
is  automatic  or  mevitable  in  the  less  developed 
world.  Without  outside  help,  even  though  a  very 
small  fraction  of  their  own  GNP,  the  poor  coun- 
tries camiot  progress  from  a  heritage  of  violence 
and  despair  to  sustained  and  peaceful  develop- 
ment. 

Latin  America 

President  Johnson  and  the  Latin  American 
chiefs  of  state  met  in  Pimta  del  Este  1  year  ago ' 
to  take  the  pulse  of  the  Alliance  for  Progress — 
then  6  years  old.  They  found  that  the  Alliance 
is  succeeding.  They  also  found  that  progress  to- 
ward Alliance  goals  has  been  uneven.  Some 
problems  have  proved  to  be  more  stubborn  than 
first  anticipated.  Others  have  become  more  im- 
mediate and  pressing  as  initial  gains  have  been 
achieved. 

In  the  past  4  years  average  annual  per  capita 
growth  rates  in  Latin  America  have  averaged 
2.2  percent.  This  is  short  of  the  Alliance  goal 
of  2.0  percent  per  year — but  significantly  above 
the  1  percent  average  of  the  fii-st  2  years  of  the 
Alliance. 


'  For  background,  see  iU6.,  May  8,  1967,  p.  706. 


724 


DEPARTMEXT   OF   STATE    BTJLLETIN 


Over  the  lifespan  of  the  Alliance,  the  Latin 
American  countries  hare  themselves  contributed 
almost  90  percent  of  the  development  investment 
which  has  made  economic  growth  a  reality. 
They  have  raised  GNP  by  3U  percent,  and  tax 
revenues  bj'  33  percent. 

Latin  America  has  learned  the  hard  way  that 
development  progress  must  be  accompanied  by 
stable  prices.  Chile  cut  its  inflation  by  one-half 
to  about  20  percent  in  1967.  Brazil,  which  had 
an  amiual  rate  of  price  increase  of  about  140 
percent  in  March  1964,  cut  the  rate  down  to 
24  percent  last  year.  Inflation  remains,  however, 
a  serious  problem  in  these  countries  and  in 
others. 

On  the  other  side,  Latin  America's  population 
is  growing  faster  than  that  of  any  other  region 
in  the  world.  Today  more  than  half  of  the  Latin 
Americans  are  under  20  years  of  age. 

The  lesson  is  clear.  More  development  invest- 
ment, more  jobs,  more  housing,  more  public  fa- 
cilities— indeed,  more  of  eveiything  is  needed. 
For  instance,  since  1960  enrollment  in  primary 
schools  has  increased  by  50  percent,  graduates 
by  85  percent,  and  the  ntimber  of  teachers  by 
60  percent.  Nevertheless,  to  continue  tlais  trend, 
almost  a  half  million  new  teachers  wiU  have  to 
be  trained  and  equipped  with  classrooms,  books, 
and  instructional  materials  witliin  the  next  4 
years. 

Violent  revolution  gathers  appeal  and  force 
when  the  possibility  for  peaceful  economic  and 
social  progress  is  discredited.  It  is  imperative 
that  the  people  of  Latin  America  Icnow  that  the 
United  States  will  not  back  away  from  its  com- 
mitment to  help  them  achieve  a  peaceful  eco- 
nomic and  social  transformation.  It  is  impera- 
tive that  the  governments  of  Latin  American 
countries  continue  and  increase  their  own  self- 
help  efforts — and  spread  the  benefits  of  prog- 
ress to  more  people. 

In  the  next  21/4  years,  18  major  elections  are 
scheduled  in  the  21  Latin  American  countries 
in  which  there  are  constitutional  governments. 
These  elections  will  be  major  tests  of  progress 
under  the  Alliance. 

For  fiscal  year  1969,  authorization  of  $625 
million  is  requested  for  the  Alliance  for  Prog- 
ress, including  $110  million  for  technical  assist- 
ance grants.  Over  70  percent  of  the  proposed 
program  is  for  Brazil,  Chile,  Colombia,  and 
Central  America.  The  major  emphases  continue 
to  be  agriculture,  education,  and  health.  This 
is  a  modest  and  essential  request. 


Near  East -South  Asia 

In  the  Near  East-South  Asia  region,  the  out- 
look is  good  for  the  three  major  aid  recipients. 
India  and  Pakistan  have  bounced  back  sharply 
from  2  successive  years  of  drought.  And  Turkey 
by  the  early  1970's  will  no  longer  need  conces- 
sional aid  if  present  growth  is  maintained. 

The  current  economic  revival  in  South  Asia 
is  a  fact.  India's  gross  national  product  is  ex- 
pected to  increase  9  percent  this  year.  In  Paki- 
stan, for  the  second  straight  year,  growth  should 
be  over  6  percent,  the  targeted  growth  rate  of 
the  Third  Development  Plan  (1965-70). 

Enlightened  development  policies,  increasing 
investment  levels,  and  hard  work  are  helping  to 
win  the  war  on  hunger  on  the  South  Asian  sub- 
continent. Last  year  good  weather  was  an  im- 
portant factor  in  the  agricultural  turnaround. 
But  improved  government  policies,  increased 
use  of  fertilizer  and  new  seeds,  and  better  culti- 
vation practices  were,  and  are,  essential  to  suc- 
cess. So  is  tlie  finn  commitment  by  the  Indian 
and  Pakistani  Governments  to  expand  invest- 
ment in  agriculture  in  the  face  of  the  competing 
claims  of  other  priority  sectors. 

India  and  Pakistan  understand  that  increased 
agricultural  production  is  only  part  of  the 
answer ;  it  must  be  accompanied  by  widespread 
family  plamiing  activity.  The  Indian  Govern- 
ment is  launching  a  massive  promotion  cam- 
paign to  reach  people  in  every  village.  Over  $40 
million  in  the  current  Indian  budget  is  allocated 
for  population  purposes.  Pakistan  already  has  a 
dynamic  family  planning  program,  with  the 
target  of  reducing  the  birth  rate  by  20  percent 
between  1965  and  1970.  The  program  is  on 
schedule. 

Encouraged  by  the  United  States  and  other 
donors,  India  and  Pakistan  have  chosen  to  base 
more  investment  and  production  decisions  on 
market  forces  rather  than  on  administrative 
controls.  In  1966,  India  dismantled  a  complex  of 
import,  investment,  price,  and  production  con- 
trols. Pakistan  has  extended  its  trade  reform 
program  begun  in  1964. 

These  policies  are  already  beginning  to  pay 
dividends.  But  India  and  Pakistan  can  stay  on 
course  only  to  the  extent  that  foreign  exchange 
availabilities  are  sufficient  to  meet  increasing 
needs  for  industrial  imports.  If  foreign  ex- 
change, partly  provided  by  outside  aid,  is  inade- 
quate, controls  will  have  to  be  restored. 

In  its  Second  Plan,  beginning  this  year,  Tur- 


JTjJTE    3,    1968 


725 


key  intends  to  surpass  its  impressive  First  Plan 
average  annual  growth  rate  of  6.6  percent. 
Food-grain  miracle  seeds  are  now  being  im- 
ported and  grown.  The  Government  is  giving 
high  priority  to  its  family  planning  program. 
Steps  are  being  taken  to  increase  foreign  ex- 
change earnings,  and  simplified  investment  pro- 
cedures are  encouraging  foreign  and  domestic 
investment. 

The  chances  are  good  that  the  Turkish  Gov- 
ernment will  achieve  its  goal  of  self-sustaining 
growth  by  the  early  1970's  if  adequate  economic 
assistance  is  furnished  now. 

For  fiscal  year  1969,  most  of  the  $706  million 
program  proposed  for  the  Near  East  and  South 
Asia  will  be  concentrated  in  India,  Pakistan, 
and  Turkey. 

Africa 

Africa's  social  and  economic  institutions  are 
new,  and  African  leaders  know  there  are  no  easy 
or  quick  solutions  to  their  problems.  As  these 
new  institutions  have  developed  and  changed, 
uncertainties  and  instability  have  arisen.  Prog- 
ress in  building  more  durable  institutions  is 
dependent  on  African  effort,  determination,  and 
sacrifice.  Outside  external  aid  is  essential  to  pro- 
vide skills,  knowledge,  and  capital  needed  for 
progress. 

Africa's  problems  are  great,  but  there  can  be 
realistic  optimism  that  solutions  will  be  found. 
For  example,  in  the  interests  of  peace,  most 
Africans  accept  the  boimdaries  carried  over 
from  colonial  days,  even  though  they  cross 
ethnic  lines.  This  is  preferred  to  the  bloodshed 
that  would  otherwise  ensue.  The  current  internal 
conflicts  in  Nigeria  and  earlier  those  in  the 
Congo  illustrate  the  extent  of  these  tribal  ten- 
sions. Yet  a  most  hopeful  sign  for  the  future  is 
the  growing  regional  cooperation  in  Africa, 
which  diminishes  these  divisive  forces  and  pro- 
vides economic  benefits  in  making  more  effective 
use  of  scarce  resources. 

Less  than  6  months  ago,  Kenya,  Tanzania, 
and  Uganda  revitalized  their  common  market 
and  common  services  in  a  newly  constituted 
East  African  Community.  Three  neighboring 
states  have  applied  for  membership  in  the  Com- 
munity. Elsewhere  in  Africa  neighbors  are 
working  together  in  common  approaches  to 
further  economic  development  through  common 
markets  and  by  building  mutual  infrastructures 
by  harnessing  the  immense  liydropower  poten- 
tial of  the  great  African  rivers  and  by  linking 


transport  and  communications.  Africa  is  only 
beginning  to  realize  the  benefits  of  regional  co- 
operation; the  organizations  for  such  coopera- 
tion are  only  now  being  buUt. 

The  inherent  good  sense  of  multinational  eco- 
nomic cooperation  has  been  reflected  in  the  AID 
program,  in  which  over  40  percent  of  the  $179 
million  proposed  for  fiscal  year  1969  is  for 
regional  and  multilateral  activity.  Compared  to 
35  bilateral  AID  programs  last  year,  21  are  pro- 
posed in  fiscal  year  1969  and  a  dozen  in  fiscal 
year  1970.  The  bilateral  programs  that  are 
phased  out  will  be  taken  up  by  multinational 
projects. 

I  should  emphasize  that,  while  Europe  con- 
tinues to  furnish  the  bulk  of  free-world  eco- 
nomic assistance  to  Africa,  the  United  States 
contribution  to  African  development  is  further- 
ing real  progress.  National  product  in  the 
nations  of  the  East  African  Community  has 
increased  5  percent  yearly  since  1962.  The 
Moroccan  Government  is  expanding  "Operation 
Fertilizer"  to  increase  wheat  yields  in  dryland 
farming  areas.  Ghana  and  the  Congo  are  mak- 
ing headway  in  their  economic  stabilization 
efforts,  pursued  in  line  with  IMF  [International 
Monetary  Fund]  reconmiendations. 

By  almost  any  standard,  however,  only  a  be- 
ginning has  been  made  on  the  road  to  economic 
viability.  In  agriculture,  the  African  farmer 
generally  produces  crops  under  traditional 
methods  which  make  only  small  use  of  his  re- 
sources; modem  cropping  methods,  disease  con- 
trol, and  animal  husbandry  are  urgently  needed, 
especially  since  many  African  nations  do  not 
produce  sufficient  food  to  give  their  peoples  an 
adequate  diet. 

The  implications  of  rapid  population  expan- 
sion are  disturbing.  Although  the  rate  of  popu- 
lation increase  is  2.4  percent  in  Africa  as  a 
whole,  in  many  countries  it  is  3  percent  or 
higher.  A  few  nations  have  made  some  headway 
in  family  planning.  Slost  have  neither  the  data 
with  which  to  discern  important  population 
trends  nor  the  rudiments  of  organization  for 
effective  family  planning. 

And  Africa  has  only  begun  to  develop  essen- 
tial frameworks  for  a  modern  economy — par- 
ticularly, adequate  skills  and  power,  communi- 
cations, and  transportation  networks.  Similarly, 
industrial  development  is  very  limited. 

Faced  witli  such  obstacles,  African  leaders  de- 
serve our  sympathetic  understanding  in  their 
efforts  to  undertake  a  bootstraps  economic  de- 
velopment progi-am.  But  Africa  cannot  achieve 


726 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


longrun  goiils  without  the  help  of  the  developed 
nations. 

Mr.  Chaii-man,  let  me  mention  my  deep  con- 
cern about  the  downward  trend  of  economic 
assistance  to  Africa.  Since  fiscal  year  1961,  for- 
eign aid  from  all  sources  to  the  continent  has 
declined,  despite  growing  requirements.  Our 
fiscal  year  1969  AID  request  falls  far  short  of 
the  full  measure  of  needs  and  opportunities.  I 
consider  the  modest  program  we  propose  of 
selected  agriculture,  education,  and  institution- 
building  activity  to  be  essential.  It  is  imperative 
that  hope  for  economic  progress  assures  Africa 
of  its  constructive  partnership  in  the  free  world. 

Viet-Nam 

As  you  know,  the  situation  in  Viet-Nam  has 
undergone  substantial  change  in  the  past  sev- 
eral months,  and  it  remains  highly  fluid.  But  the 
need  for  progress  on  the  economic  and  social 
fronts  in  Viet-Nam  continues. 

The  major  elements  of  our  AID  program  in 
Viet-Xam  remain  the  same.  However,  the  scope 
of  the  program  will  be  modified  to  take  accoimt 
of  the  results  of  the  Viet  Cong  Tet  offensive. 
Funding  requirements  for  the  balance  of  this 
year  will  be  down  substantially.  However,  mth 
improvement  in  the  security  situation  and  re- 
covery of  demand  for  imports,  our  best  estimate 
at  the  moment  is  that  we  will  need  the  amounts 
proposed  for  fiscal  year  1969. 

Among  indicators  of  real  social  and  economic 
progress  are  these : 

— Our  commercial  import  and  P.L.  480  pro- 
grams, and  the  concurrent  stabilization  meas- 
ures taken  by  the  GVN,  were  instrumental  in 
reducing  inflation  from  68  percent  in  1966  to 
34  percent  in  1967. 

— Our  health  programs  for  care  of  civilian 
patients,  aimed  especially  at  the  casualties  of 
war  and  VC  terrorism,  have  been  greatly  ex- 
panded. Forty-eight  free-world  teams  are  now 
operating  in  provincial  hospitals,  and  U.S.  med- 
ical personnel  are  treating  close  to  300,000  pa- 
tients per  month  at  a  variety  of  facilities. 

— A  major  new  rice  production  program  is 
underway,  with  the  objective  of  reaching  self- 
sufficiency  in  rice  by  1971.  In  1955  only  5,000 
tons  of  fertilizer  were  used  in  Viet-Nam ;  in  1967 
it  was  220,000  tons,  30  percent  of  which  was 
distributed  by  the  trade  unions.  In  1955  there 
were  only  a  few  irrigation  pumps  in  service;  in 
1967  the  nimiber  was  estimated  to  be  50,000. 


It  is  now  more  important  than  ever  to  demon- 
strate through  programs  of  this  kind  that  the 
Vietnamese  Government  is  concerned  about  the 
welfare  of  its  people  and  the  development  of 
its  society  and  that  it  can  deliver  on  its 
promises. 

East  Asia 

I  am  heartened  by  the  responses  of  the  coun- 
tries of  East  Asia  to  the  formidable  challenges 
they  face.  Our  stand  in  Viet-Nam  is  in  part  re- 
sponsible for  the  positive  character  of  that 
response.  Our  assistance  is  critical  to  survival 
and  development  of  independent  East  Asian 
nations. 

In  their  Honolulu  meeting  2  weeks  ago,  Presi- 
dent Johnson  and  President  Park  of  the  Repub- 
lic of  Korea  reaffirmed  the  enduring  partner- 
ship joining  our  two  countries.*  The  Republic  of 
Korea  has  been  making  a  miraculous  record  of 
economic  growth,  averaging  more  than  8  per- 
cent a  year  since  1961.  It  must  increase  its  mili- 
tary readiness  but  without  impeding  its  strong 
economic  development  effort.  In  these  circum- 
stances, both  the  economic  and  military  aid  re- 
quests for  fiscal  year  1969  have  heightened 
importance. 

Thailand  has  been  a  steadfast  and  loyal  ally. 
The  Thai  Government  has  directly  countered 
the  appeal  of  Communist  insurgency  in  rural 
northeast  Thailand  with  a  program  of  improved 
social  services  and  strengthened  rural  security. 
On  the  economic  front,  Thailand  has  channeled 
an  impressive  23  percent  of  its  rapidly  expand- 
ing gross  national  product  into  investment  ac- 
tivity, with  only  modest  price  increases. 

This  encouraging  economic  performance  has 
attracted — and  is  fueled  by — substantial  capital 
from  sources  other  than  the  United  States.  For 
its  part,  the  United  States  focuses  its  economic 
aid  on  helping  the  Thai  Government  sustain  an 
effective  counterinsurgency  program  in  the 
nortlieast. 

The  Lao  Government  has  made  significant 
progress  with  AID  assistance.  However,  the 
military  situation  in  Laos  has  deteriorated  in 
recent  months.  The  United  States  continues  to 
finance  a  considerable  part  of  the  Lao  military 
effort  through  an  economic  stabilization  pro- 
gram. It  is  no  overstatement  to  say  that  the  sur- 
vival of  Laos  as  an  independent  nation  depends 
on  United  States  help. 

'  For  background  and  text  of  a  Joint  communique 
issued  on  Apr.  17,  see  ibid.,  May  C,  1968,  p.  573. 


JUNE    3,    1968 


727 


President  Suharto  of  Indonesia  has  taken  up 
the  reins  of  leadership  in  firm  and  responsible 
fashion  and  deserves  much  of  the  credit  for  his 
country's  steady  recovery  from  the  political  and 
economic  excesses  of  the  Sukarno  era.  His  recent 
mandate  from  the  Indonesian  people  puts  hun 
in  a  stronger  position  to  push  through  painful 
but  necessary  economic  reforms. 

Inflation  in  Indonesia  has  been  slowed— from 
650  percent  in  1966  to  125  percent  in  1967— but 
obviously  is  still  a  major  problem.  Government 
revenues  are  up  substantially,  although  the 
budget  deficit  is  still  too  large.  But  food  produc- 
tion falls  far  short  of  domestic  requirements, 
economic  infrastructure  must  be  rebuilt  and  im- 
proved, and  sizable  foreign  debts  must  be  repaid 
or  rescheduled.  The  Suharto  government  can 
continue  to  make  progress  only  if  the  United 
States  continues  to  provide  its  part  of  the  multi- 
lateral assistance  needed  to  put  the  world's  sixth 
most   populous   nation   on    a    firm   economic 

footing.  . 

Regional  cooperation  among  the  East  Asian 
nations  continues  to  grow.  The  nations  of  the 
reo-ion  are  collaborating  on  joint  programs  m 
the  fields  of  education,  transportation,  and  com- 
munications and  in  exploring  the  great  develop- 
ment potential  of  the  Mekong  Eiver  Basin.  We 
must  continue  to  encourage  and  support  these 
Asian  initiatives. 

The  $277  million  program  proposed  for  fiscal 
year  1969  is  necessary  to  help  the  nations  of  East 
Asia  meet  the  variety  of  economic  and  security 
challenges  I  have  just  discussed. 

Grant  Military  Assistance 

Mr.  Chairman,  let  me  add  a  word  about  the 
request  for  grant  military  assistance  of  $420  mil- 
lion for  fiscal  year  1969.  This  request,  as  several 
of  the  members  of  the  committee  have  remarked 
in  earlier  hearings,  is  a  modest  one,  taking  full 
account  of  the  growing  ability  of  developing  na- 
tions to  finance  their  own  military  requirements. 
Our  foreign  policy  goal  is  to  assist  in  the  de- 
velopment ol  a  stable  world  community  of  free 
and  independent  nations.   Stability  does  not 
mean  an  absence  of  change.  On  the  contrary,  it 
means  enough  basic  security  for  change  to  take 
place  without  widespread  violence.  It  means 
change  fostered  by  governments  responsible  to 
their  people,  not  change  imposed  by  threat  or  by 
force  or  by  subversion  guided  from  without. 
The  major  purposes  of  military  assistance  are : 


—To  strengthen  the  capability  of  selected  al- 
lied and  friendly  nations  against  the  threat  of 
external  attack.  . 

—To  help  developing  nations  protect  their 
societies  against  internal  violence,  thus  provid- 
ing the  framework  of  stability  withm  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  appropriation  request  for  grant 
military   aid   is   for   five   "forward   defense 
countries.  The  enactment  of  this  program  is 

important.  ,       ,  ... 

I  continue  to  be  impressed  by  the  maturity 
and  responsibility  shown  by  so  many  of  the 
leaders  of  the  developing  world.  These  spokes- 
men for  moderation  have  remamed  committed 
to  orderly  economic  and  social  progress  and 
have  fended  off  the  promoters  of  violent  revolu- 
tion But  leaders  who  believe  in  peaceful  prog- 
ress cannot  be  expected  to  endure  unless  they 
produce  results,  miless  their  peoples  receive 
tano-ible  economic  and  social  benefits. 

It  is  regrettable,  therefore,  that  the  position 
of  these  moderates  is  at  tliis  moment  being 
eroded.  Even  though  most  developing  countries 
are  making  some  economic  headway,  the  gap 
between  them  and  the  economically  advanced 
nations  is  growmg  wider.  It  has  been  estimated 
that  the  economically  advanced  countries— m 
North  America  and  Western  Europe,  the  War- 
saw Pact  nations,  Japan,  Austraha,  New  Zea- 
land-have a  per  capita  gross  national  product 
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. 

I  would  be  remiss  if  I  did  not  mention  an- 
other facet  of  the  problem.  Many  peop  e, 
whether  rightly  or  wrongly,  believe  that  the 
United  States  is  turning  away  from  its  responsi- 
bilities in  the  developing  world. 

This  country  now  ranks  only  fifth  among  the 
members  of  tlie  Development  Assistance  Com- 
mittee in  official  aid  as  a  proportion  of  national 
income,  and  our  aid  terms  have  appreciably 
hardened.  Developing  nations  fear  that  the 
other  donor  nations  will  follow  the  United 
States  example  and  cut  back  on  their  assistance 

^""KThairman,  the  United  States  has  much 
urgent  business,  and  I  believe  strongly  that  for- 
ei^  aid  is  a  part  of  it.  In  the  less  developed 


728 


DEPARTMENT   OF    STATE   BULLETIN 


■world,  change  is  the  fundameutal  fact  of  our 
time.  The  developing  countries  have  determmed 
to  tight  their  old  enemies:  hopelessness  and 
poverty.  They  can  have  no  hope  of  success  in 
this  fight,  no  matter  hovr  great  their  eiforts, 
•without  adequate  assistance  from  the  wealthy 
nations  of  the  world.  "We  must  choose  between 
providing  that  assistance  or  destroying  the 
hope  of  peacefiil  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,  of  250  million  people  in 
Latin  America,  and  of  260  million  people  in 
Africa  also  engage  our  concern  and  are  directly 
related  to  our  own  security  and  well-being. 

I  find  it  hard  to  accept  assertions  that  we 
cannot  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  funds  to  get  on 
with  the  job. 


Status  Commission  Proposed 
for  Pacific  Islands  Trust  Territory 

Statement  hy  Under  Secretary  Katzenbach,  ^ 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  grateful  for  this  oppor- 
tunity to  testifj-  on  the  proposed  joint  resolu- 
tion^ on  the  status  of  the  Trust  Territory  of  the 
Pacific  Islands.  We  consider  this  a  most  impor- 
tant resolution  and  a  matter  of  some  urgency. 

Developments  have  reached  a  point  where  we 
should  clarifj'  the  status  of  the  trust  territory, 
both  from  the  point  of  view  of  Micronesia  as 
well  as  from  that  of  the  United  States. 

Our  association  with  the  trust  territory, 
which  began  with  military  operations  during 
World  War  II,  is  a  unique  one.  It  takes  the  fomi 
of  a  strategic  trust  set  forth  in  our  trusteeship 


agreement  of  1947  with  the  Security  Council  of 
the  United  Nations.^  The  trusteeship  agreement 
gives  us  authority  to  administer  the  TTPI 
virtually  as  if  it  were  an  area  over  which  we  had 
sovereignty.  In  law  and  in  fact,  however,  our 
sovereignty  does  not  extend  to  the  territory.  We 
remain  obligated  to  tho  United  Nations  to  foster 
the  political,  economic,  social,  and  educational 
advancement  of  the  Micronesian  people  and 
camiot  deal  independently  with  it  as  though 
there  were  no  trusteeship  agreement. 

The  United  Nations,  for  its  part,  maintains 
its  surveillance  over  our  stewardship  by  an  an- 
nual review  of  our  administration  during  Trus- 
teesliip  Council  meetings.  In  addition,  visitmg 
missions  have  periodically  gone  to  the  territory 
and  reported  back  to  the  Trusteeship  Council. 
Although  we  have  not  escajjed  criticism,  this 
particular  association  with  the  U.N.  has  been 
constructive  and  devoid  of  the  kind  of  hostile  or 
destructive  criticism  wliich  has  fallen  on  most 
other  dependent  areas. 

Despite  some  lean  years  in  our  administration 
and  despite  continued  shortcomings,  we  have 
for  the  last  several  years  engaged  in  a  major 
effort  to  accelerate  the  territory's  development. 
Now,  after  over  two  decades  of  trusteeship,  it 
has  become  clear  that  a  more  definitive  status  for 
the  territoi-y  is  necessary  and  desirable.  Two 
years  ago  the  Congress  of  Micronesia  petitioned 
President  Johnson,  stating  that  "This  genera- 
tion of  Micronesians  should  have  an  early  op- 
portunity to  determine  the  ultimate  constitution 
and  political  status  of  Micronesia."  It  requested 
the  President  to  establish  a  status  conxmission 
which,  after  ascertaining  the  views  of  the  people 
of  Micronesia,  would  study  and  critically  assess 
the  available  political  alternatives. 

Micronesia's  petition  was  hardly  surprising  in 
a  day  when  peoples  throughout  the  world  are 
seeking  greater  control  over  their  own  affairs. 
Moreover,  the  United  States  shares  the  convic- 
tion that  there  should  be  less  uncertainty  about 
the  territory's  political  future. 

The  United  States  fully  supports  self-deter- 
mination by  the  people  of  the  trust  territory. 
Both  our  history  and  our  foreign  policy  have 


'M.'ido  before  the  Subcommittee  on  Territories  and 
Insular  Affairs  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Interior 
and  Insular  Affairs  on  Slay  8  (press  release  100  dated 
May  9). 

»  S.  J.  Res.  106.  90th  Cong.,  2d  sess. 

'  For  text,  see  Bulletin  of  May  4,  1947,  p.  791. 


JUXE    3,    1968 


729 


been  deeply  identified  with  the  principle  of  self- 
determination.  The  only  question  before  us  is  one 
of  appropriate  timing. 

The  trusteeship  agreement  does  not  specify 
procedures  for  its  termmation.  Both  the  agree- 
ment and  the  U.N.  Charter  leave  no  doubt,  how- 
ever, that  an  exercise  of  self-determination  in 
the  TTPI  would  require  that  we  offer  the  Mcro- 
nesian  people  the  choice  of  self-government  or 
independence.  Article  6  explicitly  enjoins  the 
United  States  to  "promote  the  development  of 
the  inhabitants  of  the  trust  territory  toward 
self-government  or  independence  as  may  be 
appropriate  to  the  particular  circumstances  of 
the  trust  territory  and  its  peoples  and  the  freely 
expressed  wishes  of  the  people  concerned." 

While  neither  the  charter  nor  the  agreement 
specify  how  self-determination  should  be 
brought  into  bemg,  the  precedent  of  similar 
cases  indicates  the  need  for  a  plebiscite  to  ascer- 
tain the  wishes  of  the  inhabitants. 

The  choices  offered  to  the  Micronesians  in 
such  a  plebiscite  must  include  self-government 
or  mdependence.  The  plebiscite  should  represent 
a  genuine  and  meaningful  decision  by  all  the 
inhabitants  of  the  territory.  As  such,  it  would 
require  all  the  preparation  and  care  that  must 
accompany  such  a  solemn  decision. 

The  proposed  resolution  envisages  a  plebiscite 
in  Micronesia  not  later  than  June  30,  1972.  The 
timing  of  a  plebiscite  must  avoid  two  dangers. 
If  the  target  date  is  postponed  too  long,  we  shall 
create  serious  disappointments  which  could 
cause  us  grave  difficulties  at  a  later  time.  A  pre- 
mature plebiscite,  on  the  other  hand,  would  not 
allow  time  to  prepare  a  realistic  progi-am  for 
carrymg  out  the  alternative  chosen  or  to  permit 
the  education  necessary  if  the  Micronesian 
people  are  to  make  a  meaningful  choice.  We 
believe  that  1972  gives  us  enough  time  for  prep- 
aration and  education  without  risking  the 
dangers  inherent  in  extended  delay. 

We  propose  a  status  commission  because  we 
are  convinced  that  a  qualified  body  should  rec- 
ommend how  to  give  a  fuller  meaning  to  terms 
like  "independence,"  "self-government."  It 
would  not  be  fair  if  the  Micronesians— who  are 
looking  for  greater,  not  less,  certainty — were 
presented  with  a  plebiscite  in  which  the  bare 
words  describing  each  alternative  were  not 
backed  up  by  a  plausible  and  practical  program. 
For  example,  it  would  be  meaningless  to  offer 
IMicronesia  some  form  of  self-government  in 
free  association  with  the  United  States  if  our 
proposals  on  such  things  as  citizenship,  form  of 


government,  budgetai-y  arrangements,  and  eco- 
nomic relationships  were  not  well  understood 
ahead  of  time  by  the  Micronesians.  A  status 
commission  would  study  the  range  of  possibil- 
ities and  recommend  to  the  President  and  the 
Congress  the  arrangements  most  suitable  to  the  | 
trust  territory's  special  circumstances.  i 

The  joint  resolution  proposes  that  the  status      i 
commission  include,  in  addition  to  the  chair- 
man, eight  members  representing  the  Congress 
and  eight  members  appointed  by  the  President.      i 
This  composition  would,  we  think,  allow  the 
President  and  the  Congress  to  work  together  in 
the    smoothest   possible   way.    The    President 
has    clear    obligations    regarding   the   TTPI, 
and  the  Congress  has  explicit  constitutional      - 
obligations. 

Before  closmg,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to 
urge  the  greatest  possible  support  from  tlais 
committee  and  from  the  Congress  for  programs      ^ 
of  political  and  economic  development  in  the     ! 
trust    territory.    Wliile    an    exercise    of    self-      ! 
determination  will  usher  the  Micronesian  people     ' 
into  a  new  era,  their  choice  will  obviously  be 
affected  by  their  experiences  of  the  present.  The 
best  and  most  tangible  way  to  prepare  the  peo- 
ple of  Micronesia  for  a  free  and  wise  choice  in 
their  exercise  of  self-detennuaation  is  clearly  to 
build  up  present  political  institutions  and  to 
stimulate    economic    development.    No    other 
course   could   better   insure   that   the   choices 
offered  at  the  time  of  a  plebiscite  would  have 
real  and  attractive  meaning  to  the  people  of  the 
territory. 


Congressional  Documents 
Relating  to  Foreign  Policy 


90th  Congress,  2d  Session 

Seventh  Annual  Report  of  the  U.S.  Arms  Control  and 
Disarmament  Agency.  Message  from  the  President 
transmitting  the  report.  H.  Doc.  256.  February  12, 
1968.  77  pp. 

Extension  and  Amendment  of  Public  Law  480,  83d 
Congress.  Report  to  accompany  H.R.  16165.  H.  Rept. 
1297.  April  23,  1968.  56  pp. 

Extending  Authority  of  Export-Import  Bank  In  Order 
To  Improve  the  Balance  of  Payments.  Report  to  ac- 
company S.  3218.  S.  Rept.  1100.  May  1,  1968.  6  pp. 

Arms  Control  and  Disarmament  Act  Amendments.  Con- 
ference report  to  accompany  H.R.  14940.  H.  Rept 
1347.  May  2,  1968.  2  pp. 

Amendment  to  the  Act  Creating  the  Atlantic-Paciflc 
Interoceanic  Canal  Study  Commission.  Report  to  ac- 
company H.R.  15190.  S.  Rept.  1112.  May  8,  1968. 


730 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATIONS 
AND   CONFERENCES 


U.S.  Reaffirms  Support  for  Efforts 
of  U.N.  Mediator  in  the  Near  East 

Following  are  statements  made  iy  U.S.  Rep- 
resentative Arthur  J.  Goldberg  in  the  UJV. 
Security  Council. 

STATEMENT  OF  MAY  1 

U.S./n.N.  press  release  62 

Mr.  President,  it  is  the  profound  conviction 
of  the  United  States  that  what  is  imperatively 
required  is  peace  in  the  Middle  East,  the  es- 
tablisluuent  of  a  just  and  lasting  peace — not 
further  invective,  not  further  charges  and 
countercharges,  not  one-sided  recalling  of  cer- 
tain resolutions  of  the  Security  Council  and 
the  General  Assembly  and  ignoring  of  others. 
Conciliation,  impartiality,  and  magnanimity 
are  the  needs.  Cooperation  with  the  Secretary- 
General's  representative.  Ambassador  Jarring, 
in  his  difficult  peacemaking  endeavors  is  a  ne- 
cessity. Surely,  Mr.  President,  any  objective 
person  listening  to  our  debates  must  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  we  are  dealing  too  much  with 
a  tortuous  and  tragic  past.  The  time  is  overdue 
to  deal  with  the  present  and  to  look  forward 
to  a  hopeful  and  better  future. 

My  Government  has  repeatedly  pointed  out 
our  concern  about  the  status  of  .Jerusalem,  that 
holy  city  sacred  to  Moslems,  Christians,  and 
Jews.  iVnd  we  have  likewise  pointed  out  what 
is  an  obnous  fact — that  a  just  settlement  of  the 
status  of  .Jerusalem  is  inseparably  connected 
with  other  aspects  of  the  problems  which  still 
defy  solution. 

Mr.  President,  that  is  not  just  the  observa- 
tion and  conclusion  of  my  Government.  That 
is  the  clear  import  of  the  unanimous  reso- 
lution of  November  22  adopted  by  the  Security 
Council.^ 

Mr.  President,  there  is  one  overriding  lesson 
to  be  learned  from  the  history  of  the  Middle 
East  since  1948  and  from  this  Council's  efforts 
to  deal  with  the  situation  there  during  the  past 


'  For  text,  see  B/lletiw  of  Dec.  18,  1967,  p.  843. 


two  decades.  Peace  will  not  and  cannot  be 
achieved  by  a  patchwork  of  resolutions  adopted 
in  this  Coimcil  dealing  with  one  or  another  of 
the  symptoms  of  tension  and  discord.  Some  of 
the  resolutions  have  been  adopted,  some  have 
been  vetoed,  some  have  been  complied  with,  and 
some  ignored  or  disregarded  by  both  Israel  and 
the  Arab  countries.  This  piecemeal  approach 
has  been  tried  in  the  Council  time  and  again, 
and  the  approach  has  failed  time  and  again.  It 
has  failed  partly  because  it  sought  to  deal  with 
the  symptoms  of  trouble,  not  the  source  of  trou- 
ble, and  partly  because  the  Council  appeals  or 
decisions  or  resolutions  have  fallen  upon  ears 
made  deaf — both  Arab  and  Israeli  ears — by 
years  of  conflict  and  hostility.  We  are  afraid 
that  we  are  on  the  verge  of  drifting  into  the 
same  situation  again. 

The  basic  grounds  for  concern  and  care 
among  all  members  of  the  Council  and  of  the 
international  community  should  continue  to  be 
to  foster  the  success  of  the  peacemaking  process 
this  Council  set  in  motion  last  November.  I  re- 
fer, of  course,  to  the  effort  of  Ambassador 
Jarring,  who  has  been  trying  against  the  great- 
est of  odds  to  fulfill  the  mandate  given  him: 
that  of  promoting  agreement  on  a  just  and 
lasting  peace  in  the  Middle  East. 

Mr.  President,  the  history  and  experience  of 
the  last  20  years  demonstrates  that  this  Council, 
despite  the  best  will  and  despite  its  best  efforts 
and  wisdom,  cannot  impose  the  terms  of  a  peace 
settlement  upon  the  parties.  The  Security  Coun- 
cil has  tried  to  do  so,  with  the  active  support 
of  my  Govenmient.  We  have  not  succeeded. 

As  I  have  said,  on  November  22  we  embarked 
upon  a  new  approach  to  engage  the  parties 
themselves  in  the  peacemaking  process  with  the 
help  of  a  United  Nations  representative.  If  we 
are  to  avoid  repeating  the  errors  of  the  past 
and  serve  the  cause  of  peace  in  which  the  peo- 
ples of  the  Middle  East,  of  all  its  countries, 
more  than  any  one  else,  have  such  a  precious 
stake,  our  duty  is  to  keep  our  minds  focused 
constantly  on  the  ultimate  objective :  the  success 
of  Ambassador  Jarring's  mission.  And  I  quote 
the  resolution : 

...  to  establish  aBd  maintain  contacts  with  the 
States  concerned  In  order  to  promote  agreement  and 
assist  efforts  to  achieve  a  peaceful  and  accepted  settle- 
ment in  accordance  with  the  provisions  and  principles 
In  this  resolution.  .  .  . 

It  is  only  by  so  doing  that  we  will  be  suc- 
cessful in  replacing  relations  based  on  the 
premise  of  a  temporary  respite  in  hostility  by 


JTINK    3.    1968 


731 


relations  based  upon  mutual  tolerance  and  a 
mutual  willingness  for  each  one  to  accept  the 
other  and  to  live  in  peace — permanent  peace. 
Our  every  move  must  be  measured  against 
that  standard.  It  is  not  an  exacting  or  an  un- 
reasonable standard.  It  asks  no  more  of  the 
parties  in  the  Middle  East  than  we  expect  of 
members  of  the  United  Nations  in  other  areas 
of  the  world.  Our  debate,  Mr.  President,  should 
be  in  this  spirit;  our  objective  should  be,  with- 
out malice  to  any  of  the  countries  in  the  area 
and  with  magnanimity  toward  all  of  the  coun- 
tries in  the  area,  to  help  bind  up  the  wounds  of 
the  tragic  conflicts — recent  and  i)ast — and  to 
achieve  a  just  and  lasting  peace  between  the 
countries  in  the  area  which  will  contribute  so 
much  to  the  peace  and  well-being  of  nations  and 
peoples  throughout  the  world. 


STATEMENT  OF  MAY  9 

U.S. /U.N.  press  release  64 

It  may  be  helpful  at  this  point  in  our  debate 
to  recall  briefly  the  road  toward  peace  that  we 
in  this  Council  have  traveled  together  during 
this  past  difficult  year  and  then  to  look  forward 
to  see  what  the  next  step  ought  to  be. 

We  all  remember  that  although  a  cease-fire 
was  achieved  in  a  matter  of  days  after  the  out- 
break of  fighting  in  June,  it  required  over  5 
months  of  debate  and  diplomacy  before  we  were 
able  to  launch  a  positive  and  united  effort  for 
peace.  That  effort  was  launched  lay  unanimous 
action  of  the  Security  Council  in  adopting  Reso- 
lution 242  of  November  22, 1967.  The  resolution 
affirmed  "that  the  fulfillment  of  Charter  prin- 
ciples requires  the  establisliment  of  a  just  and 
lasting  peace  in  the  Middle  East."  It  set  forth 
certain  fundamental  principles  and  provisions 
in  that  connection ;  and  it  asked  the  Secretary - 
General  to  designate  a  special  representative  "to 
establish  and  maintain  contacts  with  the  States 
concerned  in  order  to  promote  agreement  and 
assist  efforts  to  achieve  a  peaceful  and  accepted 
settlement"  in  accordance  with  those  provisions 
and  principles. 

Our  distinguished  Secretary-General  there- 
upon designated  as  special  representative  a  veiy 
able  diplomat.  Ambassador  Gimnar  Jarring. 
And  from  that  day  to  this,  Ambassador  Jarring, 
with  admirable  skill  and  perseverance,  has  de- 
veloped and  maintained  his  contacts  with  the 
states  concerned  in  pursuance  of  the  mandate 
given  him  in  Resolution  242. 


The  task  given  to  the  special  representative 
is,  of  course,  inlierently  very  difficult;  and  it 
has  not  been  made  easier  by  the  further  inci- 
dents and  actions  of  various  kinds  which  have 
occurred  between  some  of  the  parties  and  which 
have  engaged  the  attention  of  this  Council. 
As  far  as  my  country  is  concerned,  we  have 
sought  at  every  turn  to  support  the  peacemak- 
ing efforts  of  Ambassador  Jarring  and  to 
minimize  any  damage  that  these  incidents 
might  cause  to  the  hopes  for  his  success.  We 
have  done  so  in  the  sincere  belief  that  both  our 
duty  as  a  member  of  this  Coimcil  and  our 
interest  in  greater  stability  in  the  area  require 
us  to  promote  progress  toward  a  just  and  equi- 
table peace  in  the  Middle  East. 

In  that  spirit  we  have  made  clear — not  only 
in  this  Council  but  also  directly  to  the  govern- 
ments concerned — our  strong  opposition  to  all 
unilateral  measures  which  might  prejudge  a 
future  settlement  and  to  all  acts  of  renewed 
violence  in  the  area,  whatever  form  it  takes  or 
from  whatever  quarter  it  comes.  All  such  meas- 
ures and  actions  increase  tension  in  the  area. 

It  is  in  this  context  that  I  should  like  now 
to  address  the  particular  problem  of  Jerusalem. 

The  position  of  the  United  States  regarding 
Jerusalem  is  well  known.  The  United  States 
does  not  accept  or  recognize  unilateral  actions 
by  any  of  the  states  in  the  area  as  altering  the 
status  of  Jerusalem.  My  Government  has  pub- 
licly stated  that  such  imilateral  measures,  in- 
cluding expropriation  of  land  and  legislated 
administrative  action  taken  by  the  Government 
of  Israel,  cannot  be  considered  other  than  in- 
terim and  provisional  and  camiot  affect  the 
present  international  status  nor  prejudge  the 
final  and  permanent  status  of  Jerusalem.^ 

As  regards  the  military  parade  carried  out 
by  Israel  in  Jerusalem  on  May  2,  the  attitude 
of  the  United  States  was  made  clear  by  our 
votes  in  this  Council.  We  shared  the  concern 
which  the  Coimcil  expressed  in  its  resolution 
of  April  27,^  that  the  parade  would  "aggravate 
tensions  in  the  area."  We  therefore  joined  in 
the  Council's  unanimous  adoption  of  that  reso- 
lution, calling  on  Israel  to  refrain  from  holding 
the  parade.  And  we  again  jomed  in  the  unani- 
mous resolution  of  May  2,*  deeply  deploring 
what  had  occurred— as  indeed  we  deplored  any 


'  For  background,  see  ihid.,  July  17, 1967,  p.  60 ;  July 
24,  1967,  p.  108 ;  and  July  31,  1967,  p.  148. 
'  U.N.  doc.  S/RES/2oO  (1968). 
'  U.N.  doc.  S/RES/251  (1968). 


732 


DirPARTirENT   OF    STATE   BULLETIN 


action  which  tends  to  aggravate  tension  in  the 
area. 

At  tliis  stage  of  our  debate  my  delegation  has 
ffiven  careful  thovight  to  the  course  which  the 
Security  Council  should  follow.  It  is  our  con- 
sidered view  that  we  must  not  return  to  the 
unsuccessful  approach  of  the  past — that  of 
attempting  to  deal  separately  with  individual 
aspects  of  the  Middle  East  problem,  however 
important  they  may  be  in  themselves.  Rather 
we  must  continue  on  the  course  we  embarked  on 
last  November — that  of  seeking  to  promote  an 
agreed,  peaceful,  and  accepted  settlement  em- 
bracing all  of  the  aspects  of  the  complex  and 
multifaceted  Middle  East  problem  compre- 
hended in  our  resolution  of  November  22. 

Accordingly,  the  United  States,  while  agree- 
ing that  Jerusalem  is  a  most  important  issue, 
does  not  believe  that  the  problem  of  Jerusalem 
can  realistically  be  solved  apart  from  other 
aspects  of  the  situation  in  the  Middle  East  dealt 
with  in  the  November  22  resolution.  Neither 
do  we  believe  that  Jerusalem  can  be  excluded 
from  the  scope  of  the  November  22  resolution. 
Instead,  we  consider  it  basic  to  a  peaceful  settle- 
ment in  conformity  with  the  November  22 
resolution  that  the  solution  of  all  aspects  of 
the  Middle  East  problem,  including  Jerusalem, 
must  be  acliieved  by  an  agreed  and  accepted 
peaceful  settlement.  In  the  achievement  of  such 
a  settlement,  the  parties  themselves  must  neces- 
sarily be  engaged.  And  such  a  settlement,  if  it 
is  to  achieve  our  stated  goal  of  "a  just  and 
lasting  peace,"  must  take  into  accoimt  the  legit- 
imate interests  of  all  concerned. 

It  is,  above  all,  to  the  resolution  of  Novem- 
ber 22  that  we  must  return.  That  resolution  is 
the  lodestar  that  illuminates  our  journey  toward 
peace. 

Mr.  President,  I  now  reaffirm  once  again  that 
the  United  States  contmues  to  support  Security 
Council  Resolution  242  of  November  22  unre- 
servedly, in  its  entirety,  and  in  all  its  parts. 

Indeed,  Mr.  President,  in  the  view  of  the 
United  States  the  moment  has  come  when  the 
Security  Council  could  make  a  most  constructive 
contribution  to  progress  toward  peace  by  giving 
an  explicit  expression  of  its  support  for  the 
special  representative,  Ambassador  Jarring,  in 
his  peacemaking  efforts.  I  strongly  believe  that 
such  an  expression  of  support  from  this  Council 
;  is  called  for  at  this  time. 

I     On  behalf  of  the  United  States,  therefore, 

'  let  me  offer  the  suggestion  that  we  promptly 

find  a  means  to  make  clear  this  Council's  con- 


tinued, imited  will  to  promote  the  cause  of 
peace  in  the  Middle  East  by  supporting  Am- 
bassador Jarring's  efforts  in  pursuance  of  his 
mandate  imder  Resolution  242.  Specifically,  we 
profoimdly  believe  that  the  very  best  way  for 
the  Security  Council  to  support  Resolution  242 
is  to  call  upon  all  the  parties  to  refrain  from 
any  and  all  actions  that  might  prejudice  Am- 
bassador Jarring's  efforts  and  to  extend  to  the 
Secretary-General's  representative  full  cooper- 
ation in  carrying  out  this  most  difficult  mission. 
Mr.  President,  this  is  a  tmie,  as  it  always  is  in 
the  Council,  for  statesmanship  by  the  Council, 
for  not  ignoring  any  of  the  problems  at  hand, 
but  for  proceeding  in  the  best  tradition  of  the 
Council  to  do  what  this  Council  can  do  in  the 
interest  of  achieving  a  permanent  peace  in  the 
area.  We  were  imited  on  November  22;  and 
the  unity  of  15  members  of  this  Council  of  vary- 
ing views,  of  different  ideologies,  coming  from 
all  parts  of  the  world,  is  the  greatest  hope  for 
peace  and  stability  in  the  Middle  East.  We 
must  preserve  tliat  unity  and  we  must  preserve 
the  common  desire  that  I  am  sure  is  shared  in 
this  Council  to  take  constructive  action  to  see 
to  it  that  the  peacemaking  process  which  we 
initiated  on  November  22  is  carried  on  in  such 
a  manner  that  the  goal  that  we  all  fervently 
hope  and  pray  for  shall  be  achieved. 


Current  U.N.  Documents: 
A  Selected  Bibliography 

Mimeographed  or  processed  documents  {such  as  those 
listed  bcloir)  may  be  consulted  at  depository  Uhararies 
in  the  United  States.  U.N.  printed  publieations  may 
he  purrhn.sed  from  the  Sales  Section  of  the  United 
Nations,  United  Nations  Plaza,  N.Y. 

Economic  and  Social  Council 

Allegations  Regarding  Infringements  of  Trade  Union 
Rights  in  the  Republic  of  South  Africa.  Report  of 
the  ad  hoc  working  group  of  exiKTts  established 
under  resolution  2  (XXIII)  of  the  Commission  on 
Human  Rights.  E/4459.  February  15,  1968.  139  pp. 

Conservation  and  Rational  Use  of  the  Environment. 
Report  submitted  by  UNESCO  and  FAO.  E/4458. 
March  12,  19G8.  131  pp. 

The  Development  of  Non-Agri.mltural  Resources.  Re- 
port of  the  Secretary-GeneraL  E/4478.  March  25, 
1908.  30  pp. 

Report  of  the  Commission  for  Social  Development  on 
its  19th  session.  E/4467  (Summary).  March  26,  1968. 
10  pp. 

Reixtrt  of  the  Commission  on  Narcotic  Drugs  on  its 
22d  session.  E/4455  (Summary).  March  27,  1968. 
18  pp. 


JTXE    3.    IOCS 


733 


TREATY  INFORMATION 


U.S.  and  Soviet  Union  Amend 
Civil  Air  Transport  Agreement 

Press  release  94  dated  May  6 

DEPARTMENT  ANNOUNCEMENT 

The  U.S.-U.S.S.E.  Civil  Air  Transport 
Agreement  ^  was  amended  on  May  6  to  permit 
Pan  American  World  Airways  and  the  Soviet 
airline,  Aeroflot,  each  to  make  an  intermediate 
stop  on  their  services  between  New  York  and 
Moscow.  The  amendment  was  concluded 
through  an  exchange  of  diplomatic  notes 
between  the  U.S.  Embassy  at  Moscow  and  the 
Soviet  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs. 

The  route  amendment  will  permit  each  airline 
to  stop  at  either  Montreal,  London,  Copenliagen, 
or  Stockholm,  but  without  the  right  to  carry 
traffic  between  the  point  selected  and  the  ter- 
minal point  in  the  other  country.  However,  each 
airline  may  carry  traffic  between  its  home 
country  and  the  intermediate  point  selected,  as 
well  as  through  traffic  which  stops  over  at  the 
intermediate  point.  These  rights  are  commonly 
referred  to  as  blind  sector  rights  with  a  stop- 
over privilege.  Either  airline  may  change  its 
intermediate-stop  selection  at  the  beginning  of 
each  winter  and  summer  traffic  season. 

The  mtermediate-stop  agreement  will  give 
the  airlines  access  to  additional  traffic  and  thus 
serve  to  enhance  the  conamercial  viability  of  the 
air  services. 


EXCHANGE  OF  NOTES 

Text  of  U.S.  Note 

Mat  6,  1968 
The  Embassy  of  the  United  States  of  America  refers 
to  the  Civil  Air  Transport  Agreement  and  the  Supple- 
mentary Agreement  thereto  between  the  United  States 
of  America  and  the  Union  of  Soviet  Socialist  Repub- 
lics signed  at  Washington  on  November  4,  1906,  and 
has  the  honor  to  propose  on  behalf  of  its  Government 
that  these  agreements  be  amended  as  foUovFs: 


^  For  text  of  the  agreement  and  supplementary  agree- 
ment, see  Btjlletin  of  Nov.  21,  1966,  p.  792. 


1.  The  Annex  to  the  Civil  Air  Transport  Agreement 
to  be  replaced  by  the  text  appearing  in  the  enclosure 
to  this  Note. 

2.  London,  Copenhagen,  and  Montreal  to  be  added 
to  the  list  of  agreed  technical  stops  in  Article  II  of  the 
Supplementary  Agreement. 

If  these  proposals  are  acceptable  to  the  Government 
of  the  Union  of  Soviet  Socialist  Republics,  the  Em- 
bassy has  the  honor  to  propose  that  this  Note  and  the 
Ministry's  reply  thereto  constitute  an  agreement  be- 
tween the  two  parties  concerning  the  amendment  of 
the  Civil  Air  Transport  Agreement  and  the  Supple- 
mentary Agreement  of  November  4,  1966,  which  will 
enter  into  force  on  the  date  of  the  Ministry's  reply. 

Annex 

1.  The  Government  of  the  Union  of  Soviet  Socialist 
Republics  entrusts  the  Ministry  of  Civil  Aviation  of  the 
USSR  with  responsibility  for  the  operation  of  the 
agreed  services  on  the  routes  specified  in  Table  I  of 
this  Annex,  which  in  turn  designates  for  this  purpose 
the  Transport  Authority  of  the  International  Airlines 
of  Civil  Aviation  (Aeroflot). 

2.  The  Government  of  the  United  States  of  America 
designates  Pan  American  World  Airways,  Inc.,  to  op- 
erate the  agreed  services  on  the  routes  specified  in 
Table  II  of  this  Annex. 

3.  Each  designated  airline  shall  have  the  following 
rights  in  the  operation  of  the  agreed  sen-ices  on  the 
respective  routes  specified  in  Tables  I  and  II  of  this 
Annex : 

(1)  The  right  to  land  for  technical  and  commercial 
purposes  at  the  terminal  point  of  the  agreed  route  in 
the  territory  of  the  other  Contracting  Party,  as  well  as 
to  use  alternate  airports  and  flight  facilities  in  that 
territory  for  these  purposes ; 

(2)  The  right  to  discharge  passengers,  baggage, 
cargo  and  mail  in  the  territory  of  the  other  Contracting 
Party,  but  without  the  right  to  discharge  passengers, 
baggage,  cargo  and  mail  coming  from  an  intermediate 
point  in  a  third  country  on  the  given  route,  except  for 
passengers  and  their  accompanied  baggage  which  have 
been  disembarked  at  that  intermediate  point  by  the 
designated  airline  and  subsequently  re-embarked  during 
the  validity  of  the  ticket  (but  in  no  event  later  than 
one  year  from  the  date  of  disembarkation)  and  which 
are  moving  under  a  passenger  ticket  and  baggage  check 
providing  for  transportation  on  scheduled  flights  on 
each  segment  of  the  route  between  the  two  Contracting 
Parties;  and 

(3)  The  right  to  pick  up  passengers,  baggage,  cargo 
and  mail  in  the  territory  of  the  other  Contracting 
Party,  but  without  the  right  to  pick  up  passengers, 
baggage,  cargo  and  mail  destined  for  an  intermediate 
point  in  a  third  countiT  on  the  given  route,  except  for 
passengers  and  their  accompanied  baggage  which  are 
to  be  disembarked  at  that  intermediate  point  and  sub- 
sequently re-embarked  by  the  designated  airline  during 
the  validity  of  the  ticket  (but  in  no  event  later  than 
one  year  from  the  date  of  disembarkation)  and  which 
are  moving  under  a  passenger  ticket  and  baggage  check 
providing  for  transportation  on  scheduled  flights  on 
each  segment  of  the  route  between  the  two  Contracting 
Parties. 


734 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BUIiLETTN 


(4)  The  intermediate  points  referred  to  in  Tables 

I  and  U  of  this  Annex  shall  be  Montreal,  Stockholm, 
Copenhagen  or  London.  At  tie  beginning  of  each  sum- 
mer and  winter  traffic  season,  each  designated  airline 
may  change  from  one  to  another  of  these  intermediate 
points  for  that  season.  The  intermediate  point  may,  at 
the  option  of  each  designated  airline,  be  omitted  on  any 
or  all  flights.  Additional  intermediate  points  may  be 
added  to  Tables  I  and  II  of  this  Annex  by  agree- 
ment between  the  appropriate  authorities  of  each 
Government. 

AOBEKD  SeBVTCES 

Table  I 

For  the  Union  of  Soviet  Socialist  Republics : 
Moscow  to  New  York  and  return,  via  one  of  the  inter- 
mediate points   listed  in   paragraph  4  of  the  Annex. 
Technical  stops  will  be  limited  to  those  listed  in  Article 

II  of  the  Supplementary  Agreement. 

Table  II 

For  the  United  States  of  America  : 

Xew  Tork  to  Moscow  and  return,  via  one  of  the  inter- 
mediate points  listed  in  paragraph  4  of  the  Annex. 
Technical  stops  will  be  limited  to  those  listed  in  Article 
II  of  the  Supplementary  Agreement. 


Text  of  Soviet  Note 

Mat  6,  1968 

The  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  USSR  refers 
to  the  note  with  enclosure  thereto  of  the  Embassy  of 
the  United  States  of  America  of  May  G,  1968,  which 
reads: 

(Full  text  of  U.S.  note  and  enclosure) 

The  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  USSR,  upon 
Instructions  from  its  Government,  communicates  that 
the  Soviet  side  agrees  to  consider  the  Embassy  note 
with  enclosure  thereto  set  forth  above  and  the  Minis- 
try's reply  thereto  as  con.stltutlng  an  agreement  be- 
tween the  Parties  concerning  the  amendment  of  the 
Civil  Air  Transport  Agreement  and  the  Supplementary 
Agreement  thereto  of  November  4,  1966,  which  enters 
into  force  on  this  date. 


tional,  scientific  and  cultural  character,  and  protocol. 

Done  at  Lake  Success  July  15,  1949.  Entered  into 

force  for  the  United  States  January  12,  1967.  TIAS 

6116. 

Accession  deposited:  Niger,  April  22,  1968. 

Grains 

International  grains  arrangement,  1967,  with  annexes. 

Open  for  signature  at  Washington  October  lu  until 

and  including  November  30,  1967.' 

Ratifications  to  the  Food  Aid  Convention:  Canada, 
May  14,  1968;  Sweden,  May  7,  1968. 

Ratifications  to  the  Wheat  Trade  Convention:  Can- 
ada, May  14,  1968 ;  Sweden,  May  7,  1968. 

Maritime  Matters 

Convention  on  the  Intergovernmental  Maritime  Con- 
sultative Organization.  Signed  at  Geneva  March  6, 
1948.  Entered  into  force  March  17,  1958.  TIAS  4044. 
Acceptance  deposited:  Peru,  April  15,  1968. 

Organization  of  American  States 

Protocol  of  amendment  to  the  Charter  of  the  Organiza- 
tion of  American   States.   Signed  at  Buenos  Aires 
February  27,  1967.' 
Ratification  deposited:  Mexico,  April  22,  1968. 

Wheat 

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, 
1907,  inclusive.  Entered  into  force  July  16,  1967. 
TIAS  6315. 
Ratification  deposited:  Lebanon,  May  14,  1968. 

BILATERAL 

United  Kingdom 

Agreement  to  establish  on  the  I-sland  of  Grand  Bahama 
a  transportable  Apollo  Unified  S-Band  facility  for 
the  United  States  National  Aeronautics  and  Space 
Administration  to  be  used  for  tracking  of  and  com- 
munication with  space  vehicles.  Effected  by  exchange 
of  notes  at  London  April  26  and  May  3,  1968.  Entered 
into  force  May  3,  1968. 


Current  Actions 


DEPARTMENT  AND   FOREIGN   SERVICE 


MULTILATERAL 

Cultural   Relations 

Agreement  on  the  importation  of  educational,  scien- 
tific and  cultural  materials,  with  protocol.  Done  at 
Lake  Success  November  22,  19.50.  Entered  into  force 
for  the  United  States  November  2,  19C6.  TIAS  6129. 
Acceptance  deposited:  Niger,  April  22,  1968. 

Agreement  for  facilitating  the  international  circula- 
tion of  visual  and  auditory  materials  of  an  educa- 


'  Not  in  force. 


Confirmations 

The  Senate  on  May  13  confirmed  the  following 
nominations : 

George  W.  Ball  to  be  the  representative  of  the  United 
States  to  the  United  Nations  with  the  rank  and  status 
of  Ambassador  Extraordinary  and  Plenipotentiary,  and 
the  repre.'ientative  of  the  United  States  in  the  Security 
Council  of  the  United  Nations.  (For  biographic  details, 
see  White  IIoui3e  press  release  dated  April  25.) 

G.  Mennen  Williams  to  be  Ambassador  to  the  Philip- 
pines. (For  biographic  details,  see  White  House  press 
release  (Honolulu,  Hawaii)  dated  April  16.) 


JUNE    3.    1968 


735 


PUBLICATIONS 


Additional  Volume  in  Foreign  Relations 
Series  for  1945  Released 

The  Department  of  State  on  May  10  released  For- 
eign Relatio^is  of  the  Unitea  States:  DiplomaUc  Pa. 
vers  19h5,  Volume  IV,  Europe  (vii,  1,356  pages).  The 
volume  includes  documentation  ot  United  States  policy 
and  diplomacy  at  the  end  of  World  War  "with  Al- 
bania, Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Czechoslovalna,  Denmark, 
Finland  France,  Hungary,  Iceland,  and  Italy.  Docu- 
mentation on  bilateral  relations  ^"^  ot'^f  J^"°P^^ 
countries  was  provided  in  volumes  III  and  V  released 
earlier  this  year. 

With  the  release  of  this  volume,  the  public  now  has 
volumes  I  through  V  of  1945,  covering  the  most  im- 
portant multilateral  and  European  problems  of  the 
year  They  throw  light  on  the  origins  of  the  cold  war, 
lately  a  matter  of  lively  controversy  among  scholars. 
They  are  a  significant  supplement  to  the  volumes  on 
the  summit  conferences  at  Malta,  Yalta,  and  Potsdam 
published  .some  years  ago  in  the  Foreign  Relations 

Copies  of  volume  IV  (Department  of  State  publica- 
tion 8366)  may  be  obtained  from  the  Superintendent 
of  Documents,  U.S.  Government  Printing  Office,  Wash- 
ington, D.C.  20402,  for  $4.50  each. 


Recent  Releases 

For  sale  hy  the  Superintendent  of  D'>cunients  VS 
Government  Printing  Office,  Washington,  D.C.  Z0i02- 
Address  requests  direct  to  the  Superintendent  of  Docu- 
ments. A  25-percent  discount  is  made  on  orders  for 
ToTor  more  lopies  of  any  one  P^^^^'Z'T Zsuper- 
thc  same  address.  Remittances,  payaUe  to  the  Super 
intendent  of  Documents,  must  accompany  orders. 

Viet-Nam  Information  Notes.  Latest  pamphlets  in  the 
Department's  series  of  Viet-Nam  studies,  each  of  which 
summarizes  the  most  significant  available  material  on 
one  important  aspect  of  the  Viet-Nam  situation . 

No.  5.  Political  Development  in  South  Viet-Nam 
(revised).  A  discussion  of  South  Viet-Nam's  steady 
progress  toward  an  elected  government  and  represent- 
ative institutions  at  all  levels  of  government.  Pub. 
8321.  East  Asian  and  Pacific  Series  160.  7  pp.  lUus.  5<t. 

No.  11.  Opinions  of  Asian  and  Pacific  Leaders.  This 
pamphlet  presents  some  representative  samples  of  at- 
titudes of  the  countries  of  the  Asia/Pacific  area  re- 
garding the  U.S.  position  in  the  Far  East.  Pub.  8363. 
East  Asian  and  Pacific  Series  172.  8  pp.  54. 


Message  to  Africa.  An  Illustrated  report  of  Vice  Presi- 
dent Humphrey's  January  visit  to  9  African  countries, 
including  his  address  at  Africa  Hall  Addis  Ababa. 
Ethiopia.  Pub.  8348.  African  Series  46.  23  pp.  250. 
The  Battle  Act  Report,  1967.  Twentieth  report  to  Con- 
gress on  operations  under  the  Mutual  Defense  As- 
sistance Control  Act  of  1951  (Battle  Act)  Pub.  8358. 
General  Foreign  Policy  Series  223.  88  pp.  350. 
From  Where  I  Sit.  A  discussion  guide  to  accompany  a 
27-minute  documentary  flhn  about  the  complexity  ol 
foreign  policy  issues  and  the  factors  which  must  be 
considered  in  maldng  foreign  policy  decisions.  Pub. 
8362.  4  pp.  50. 

The  World  at  U.N.  Plaza.  A  discussion  guide  to  accom- 
panv  a  30-minute  color  film  about  the  worlt  of  the  U.S. 
Mission  to  the  United  Nations.  Pub.  8370.  4  pp.  50. 

Trade  in  Cotton  Textiles.  Agreement  with  Oie  United 
Arab  Republic.  Exchange  of  notes  between  the  becre- 
tarv  of  State  and  the  Charge  d'Affaires  ad  Interim  of 
India  (representing  the  United  Arab  Republic  ta- 
tprpsts)— Signed  at  Washington  December  28,  1967. 
Entered  into  ?orce  December  28,  1967.  TIAS  6336.  3  pp. 
50. 

Demarcation  of  the  New  International  Boundary 
(Chamizal).  Act  approving  minute  no.  228  of  the  Inter- 
national Boundary  and  Water  Commission  Un  ted 
States  and  Mexico.  With  Mexico— Signed  at  Washing- 
ton October  27,  1967.  Entered  into  ^ojce  October  28, 
1967  With  declaration  of  the  Presidents  of  the  United 
States  and  Mexico— Signed  at  Cuidad  Juarez  October 
28, 1967.  TIAS  6372. 11  pp.  350. 

Alien  Amateur  Radio  Operators.  Agreement  with  Chile. 
Exchange  of  notes-Signed  at  Washington  Novem- 
ber 30,  1967.  Entered  into  force  December  oO,  19b7. 
TIAS  6380.  4  pp.  5(?. 

Agricultural  Commodities.  Agreement  with  Guinea- 
Signed  at  Conakry  October  18, 1967.  Entered  into  force 
October  18, 1967.  TIAS  6381.  34  pp.  150. 
Agricultural  Commodities.  Agreement  with  Indonesia, 
tfgned  at  Djakarta  November  1,  1967.  Entered  into 
force  November  1,  1967.  TIAS  6382.  2  pp.  54. 
Treaties-Continued  Application  toL''?»tho  of  Certain 
Treaties  Concluded  Between  the  United  States  and 
the  United  Kingdom.  Agreement  with  Le/o|ho  «?«°- 
tinuing  the  treaties  in  force  until  October  4,  1^8  Ex 
change  of  notes-Dated  at  Maseru  October  5  and  26, 
1967  Entered  Into  force  October  26,  1967.  TIAS  6383. 
2  pp.  50. 

Agricultural  Commodities.  Agreement  witli  Morocco- 
tfgned  a"  Rabat  October  27,  1967.  Entered  into  force 
October  27, 1967.  TIAS  6384.  4  pp.  50. 
Agricultural  Commodities.  Agreement  with  Tunisia- 
Signed  at  Tunis  November  6,  1967.  Entered  into  force 
November  6, 1967.  TIAS  6385. 4  pp.  50. 

Atomic  Energy— Application  of  Safeguards  by  the 
IAEA  to  the  United  States-Japan  Cooperation  Agree- 
ment Protocol  with  Japan  and  the  International 
Momic  Energy  Agency,  extending  the  agreement  of 
September  23,  1963.  Signed  at  Vienna  November  J' 
1967.  Entered  into  force  November  2,  1967.  TIAS  bd»». 

1  p.  54- 


736 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 

0,5.   OOVERNMENT  PBIHTINe   OFFICE.  I96S 


INDEX     Ju'ie  3,  196S      Vol.  LV/II,  .Xo.  1510 


Africa.  U.S.  Economic  and  Military  Assistance 

Program  for  Fiscal  Year  1969  (Rusk)     ...       724 

Asia.   U.S.    Economic   and   Military   Assistance 

Program  for  Fiscal  Year  1969  ( Rusk )     .     .     .       724 

ATiation.  U.S.  and  Soviet  Union  Amend  Civil  Air 
Transport  Agreement   (text  of  agreement)  734 

Communism.  Prevalent  Misconceptions  About 
World  Affairs    (Katzenbach) 71o 

Congress 

Confirmations   (Ball.  Williams) 73.J 

Congressional   Documents   Relating  to   Foreign 

Policy 730 

Status  Commission  Proposed  for  Pacific  Islands 

Trust  Territory  (Katzenbach) 729 

U.S.  Economic  and  Military  Assistance  Program 

for  Fiscal  Year  1969   (Rusk) 724 

Department  and  Foreign  Service.  Confirmations 

(Ball,  Williams) 735 

Foreign  Aid 

Prevalent  Misconceptions  About  World  Affairs 

(Katzenbach) 715 

U.S.  Economic  and  Military  Assistance  Program 
for  Fiscal  Year  1969   (Rusk) 724 

Human  Rights.  Human  Rights  :  World  Problems 
and  American  Policies   (Green) 720 

Laos.  National  Day  of  Laos  (Johnson,  Rusk)     .      714 

Latin  America 

President   Johnson    Hails   Progress   Under   the 

Inter- American  System  (Johnson,  Mora)     .     .       71S 
U.S.  Economic  and  Military  Assistance  Program 

for  Fiscal  Year  1969  (Rusk) 724 

Near  East 

Objectives  and  Directions  of  U.S.  Policy  in  the 
Near  East  (Battle) 710 

U.S.  Economic  and  Military  Assistance  Program 
for  Fiscal  Year  1969   (Rusk) 724 

U.S.  Reaffirms  Support  for  Efforts  of  U.N.  Medi- 
ator in  the  Near  East  (Goldberg)     ....       731 

Non-Self -Governing  Territories.  Status  Commis- 
sion Proposed  for  Pacific  Islands  Trust  Ter- 
ritory   ( Katzenbach ) 729 

Philippines.  Williams  confirmed  as  Ambassa- 
dor     735 

Presidential  Documents 

National  Day  of  Laos 714 

President  Johnson  Hails  Progress  Under  the 
Inter-American    System 718 

Publications 

Additional  Volume  in  Foreign  Relations  Series 

for    1945    Released 736 

Recent  Releases 736 

Treaty  Information 

Current  Actions 735 

U.S.  and  Soviet  Union  Amend  Civil  Air  Tran.s- 
port  Agreement   (text  of  agreement)     .     .     .       734 


U.S.S.R. 

Objectives  and  Directions  of  U.S.  Policy  iu  the 
Near  East  ( Battle ) 710 

Prevalent  Misconceptions  About  World  Affairs 

(Katzenbach) 715 

U.S.  and  Soviet  Union  Amend  Civil  Air  Trans- 
port Agreement  (text  of  agreement)     .    .     .      734 

United  Nations 

Ball  confirmed  as  U.S.  Representative     ....       735 

Current    U.N.    Documents 733 

Human  Rights :  World  Problems  and  American 

Policies  ( Green ) 720 

Objectives  and  Directions  of  U.S.  Policy  in  the 

Near  East  (Battle) 710 

U.S.  Reaffirms  Support  for  Efforts  of  U.N.  Medi- 
ator in  the  Near  East   (Goldberg)     ....       731 

Viet-Nam 

U.S.  Economic  and  Military  Assistance  I'mnram 
for  Fiscal  Year  1969   (Rusk) 724 

U.S.  Outlines  Actions  Vital  to  Peace  in  Viet-Nam 
at  First  Sessions  of  Paris  Talks  (Harriman )    .      701 

Name  Index 

Ball,  George  W 735 

liattle.  Lucius  D 710 

Goldberg,  Arthur  J 731 

Green,  James  Frederick 720 

Harriman.  W.  Averell 701 

Johnson,  President 714, 718 

Katzenbach.  Nicholas  deP. 715, 729 

Mora,  Jose  A 718 

Rusk,  Secretary 714. 724 

WiUiam.s,  G.  Mennen 735 


Check  List  of  Department  of  State 
Press  Releases:  May  13-19 

Press  releases  may  be  obtained  from  the  Office 
of  News,  Department  of  State,  Washington,  D.C. 
20520. 

Releases  issued  prior  to  May  I'l  which  appear 
iu  this  issue  of  the  I>fi.i.ETi.\  are  Nos.  '.14  of 
May  6,  100  of  May  9,  and  103  of  May  11. 

No.       Date  Subject 

105     5/13     Harriman  :    opening   of    U.S.-Nortli 
Viet-Nam  ollieial  rciiiversations. 
tl06    .5/16     Solomon:   The   United   States   Role 
iu  the  Juternational  Economy. 

107  5/15     Harriman  :  2d  session  of  U.S.-North 

Viet-Nam  ollieial  conversations. 

108  5/11)     I'.attle  :  American  Jewish  ('(ingress, 

Miami.  Fla. 

109  5/17     Katzenbach :  Regional  Foreign  Pol- 

icy  I'onference,   Kiioxville.  Tenn. 


tlli'ld  fur  .-I   later  issue  of  the  Hli.i.eti.v. 


LWZO      VW     NOiSO'J 

9-^2  xoa  0  d 
nil  onand  Noisoa 

j      030  OSO 


=  ERINTENDENT  OF  DoCUi.        

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
WASHINGTON.  D.C.     20402 


POSTAGE   AND    FEES    PAID 
U.S.  GOVERNMENT   PRINTING  OFFICE 


OFFICIAL  BUSINESS 


,V' 


m 


11 


THE  OFFICIAL  WEEKLY  RECORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POLICY 


THE 

DEPARTMENT 

OF 

STATE 

BULLETIN 


Vol.  LV 1 1 1,  No.  loU 


June  10, 196S 


A  REALISTIC  VIEW  OF  COMMUNIST  CHINA 

by  Under  Secretary  Katzenbach     737 

THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  THE  COMMUNIST  WORLDS 

by  Under  Secretary  Rostow     7il 

U.S.  AND  NORTH  VIET-NAM  HOLD  FOURTH  MEETING  AT  PARIS 

Excerpts  From  Remarks  by  Ambassador  W.  Averell  Ilarriman     71fi 

UNITED  STATES  DISCUSSES  SECURITY  ASSURANCES 
AND  DRAFT  NONPROLIFERATION  TREATY 

Statement  by  Ambassador  Arthur  J.  Goldberg     755 

For  index  see  inside  back  cover 


THE   DEPARTMENT   OF  STATE 


BULLETIN 


Vol.  LVIII,  No.  1511 
June  10,  1968 


For  sale  by  tbe  .Superintendent  of  Documents 

U.S.  Government  Printing  Office 

Washington,  D.C.  20402 

PRICE: 

52  issues,  domestic  $10,  foreign  $1S 
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  antl  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'  Oulde  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  tlie  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 
interest. 

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


A  Realistic  View  of  Communist  China 


hy  Under  Secretary  Eatzenhach^ 


I  would  like  to  talk  to  you  today  about  our  re- 
lations, or  lack  of  them,  with  Communist  China. 
I  must  warn  you  at  the  outset  that  I  am  not 
going  to  reveal  any  gi-eat  new  truths  about 
China  or  enunciate  any  startling  new  policy. 
But  mamland  Cliina  is  an  ancient,  populous, 
and  powerful  nation.  Our  relations  with  it  are 
always  of  significance  to  us  and  always  worthy 
of  renewed  consideration. 

The  evolution  of  our  policy  toward  both 
mainland  China  and  the  Government  of  the 
Kepublic  of  China  on  Taiwan  has  been  spelled 
out  often.  But  misconceptions  and  misunder- 
standings persist.  I  shall  attempt  to  sort  out  a 
few  of  them  and  perhaps  dispel  some  of  the  graj- 
areas  around  the  periphery. 

We  have,  of  course,  followed  with  great  inter- 
est the  developments  going  on  on  the  mainland 
in  recent  years.  Many  of  these,  and  especially 
the  ones  coming  under  the  heading  of  Mao  Tse- 
tung's  curiously  misnamed  "Cultural  Revolu- 
tion,'" have  been  fully  reported  by  the  press.  We 
have,  in  general,  refrained  from  conunenting  on 
these  events,  but  I  can  summarize  for  you  what 
we  believe  the  situation  there  to  be. 

The  Cultural  Revolution,  conceived  by  Mao 
as  a  means  of  eliminating  individuals  and  view- 
points which  deviated  from  the  straight  and 
true  path  he  wanted  China  to  follow,  has  now 
been  raging  for  over  2  years.  In  that  time  hun- 
dreds of  thousands,  and  perhaps  even  millions, 
of  Communist  Party  and  government  officials 
and  ordinarj'  Chinese  have  come  under  criti- 
cism. Schools  have  been  closed  or  disrupted.  Key 
political,  economic,  and  military  officials  have 
been  dismissed.  There  has  been  intense  political 


'  Address  made  before  the  National  Press  Club  at 
Washington,  D.C.,  on  May  21  (press  release  112). 


upheaval  with  major  sectors  of  the  economy  and 
govermnent  thrown  into  confusion. 

Since  the  major  target  of  the  Cultural  Revo- 
lution was  the  organizational  leadership  of  the 
Chinese  Communist  Party  itself,  the  movement 
has  had  to  rely  primarily  on  ad  hoc  mass  orga- 
nizations of  students  or  workers  such  as  the 
famed  Red  Guards.  At  their  worst  these  have 
spread  terror  and  chaos.  At  a  minimum  they 
have  created  a  vast  disorganization  throughout 
the  country.  By  the  middle  of  last  year  the  lead- 
ers in  Peking  began  to  be  alarmed  by  the  degree 
to  which  the  life  of  the  country  had  been  dis- 
rupted. They  attempted  to  stem  the  violence  and 
factionalism,  which  by  this  time  had  grown  to 
enormous  proportions,  particularly  in  the  cities. 

At  present  Peking  is  attempting  to  reorganize 
and  stabilize  political  and  administrative  or- 
ganizations in  the  provinces.  Tripartite  revolu- 
tionary committees  composed  of  army,  party, 
and  Red  Guard-type  representatives  have  been 
established  in  most  of  the  provinces  to  take  the 
place  of  the  previous  administrative  units.  In 
many  areas,  however,  factional  disputes  have 
created  deep  antagonisms  and  the  committees 
have  been  set  up  only  with  great  difficulty. 

While  the  major  political  forces  operating 
in  Peking  are  difficult  to  discern,  Mao  Tse-tung 
seems  to  retain  his  overwhelmingly  preeminent 
position.  Major  issues — how  best  to  carry  out 
economic  development,  the  role  of  material  in- 
centives versus  ideological  motivations,  the  al- 
location of  limited  resources  to  areas  of  need — 
remain,  however,  and  will  probably  continue  to 
create  intense  disagreements  and  conflicts.  But 
for  the  moment  the  authorities  in  Peking — rely- 
ing increasingly  upon  the  military — remain  in 
overall  control. 

This — in  broad  outline^is  the  situation  that 
seems  to  exist  on  the  mainland.  It  is  Peking's 


JirXE    10,    1968 


737 


foreign  policy,  however,  not  its  domestic  prob- 
lems, that  is  of  greatest  interest  to  us.  And  un- 
happily, its  foreign  policy,  unlike  its  domestic 
situation,  has  remamed  static  in  the  last  few 
years. 

Communist  China's  Foreign  Policy 

We  have  followed  Communist  China's  foreign 
policy  closely  ever  since  the  Communist  govern- 
ment came  to  power  in  1949.  Although  right 
from  the  begimiing  we  made  efforts  to  maintain 
contacts  and  avoid  hostile  relations,  the  Com- 
munist authorities  left  little  doubt  that  they 
wanted  to  elhninate  any  American  representa- 
tion from  the  Chinese  mamland  and  to  pursue 
a  politically  hostile  policy  toward  this  counti-y. 
Even  after  North  Korea's  invasion  of  the 
South  in  1950  the  United  States  avoided  rigid 
restrictions    on    contact   and   trade   with   the 
Chinese    mainland.    Only    after   the    massive 
Chinese  intervention  in  Korea  late  m  the  fall  of 
1950  did  we  put  such  restrictions  into  effect. 

For  a  brief  period  beginning  in  1954  Peking 
attempted  to  improve  its  international  image. 
It  was  during  this  period  that  it  agreed  to 
ambassadorial  contacts  with  the  United  States. 
The  original  purpose  of  these  meetings  was  to 
secure  the  release  and  exchange  of  Americans 
and  Chinese  who  wanted  to  return  home.  A.n 
understanding  was  reached  on  the  subject  in 
September  1955;  and  we  anticipated  that  it 
would,  in  the  language  of  the  public  announce- 
ment,^ be  "expeditiously"  implemented. 

But  the  Chinese  suddenly  changed  their  pos- 
ture. Developments  on  the  question,  they  said, 
were  contingent  on  U.S.  action  on  a  wide  range 
of  other  issues.  One  demand  was  that  we  aban- 
don our  commitment  to  the  defense  of  Taiwan, 
which  was  not  then  and  is  not  now  open  to  nego- 
tiation. Some  of  the  issues  they  raised,  such  as 
the  exchange  of  journalists  and  related  ques- 
tions of  travel  and  exchange,  I  think  we  might 
have  pursued  more  energetically.  Further  prog- 
ress might  possibly  have  been  achieved  at  that 
time.  Still,  in  view  of  Peking's  failure  to  follow 
through  on  the  earlier  commitment,  skepticism 
about  their  good  faith  was  understandable. 

A  year  later,  in  1957  when,  after  some  prod- 
ding from  members  of  your  profession,  the 
United  States  Government  did  indicate  a  will- 
ingness to  explore  the  subject  of  journalists, 
China  agam  reversed  its  position.  In  recent 


'  For  text,  see  Bot-i.etin  of  Sept.  19,  195.5,  p.  456. 


years,  Peking  has  consistently  turned  down  all 
proposals  for  increased  contact. 

Proposals  for  the  exchange  of  newspapermen, 
of  scholars  or  scientific  information,  have  all 
been  rejected.  Hmts  that  we  might  be  wiUmg 
to  sell  commodities  such  as  grain  or  di'ugs  were 
ignored  or  denounced  as  a  trick, 
''why  do  the  Chinese  Communists  maintain 
this  position?  One  can  only  speculate.  One  rea- 
son may  be  smiply  a  contmuation  of  the  same 
bitterness  reported  on  46  years  ago  by  four  dis-     ] 
tinoTiished  Americans— Charles  Evans  Hughes,    i 
Henry  Cabot  Lodge,  Elihu  Root,  and  Oscar  W. 
Undei-wood.  Reviewing  the  unhappy  history  of 
Chinese  dealings  with  the  West  they  concluded : 

A  situation  had  thus  been  created  in  which  the  Chi- 
nese people  nursed  a  sense  of  grievance  and  even  of 
outrage ;  and  the  foreign  nations  found  their  relations 
complicated  by  mutual  suspicion  and  resentment 

Internal  political  factors  must,  of  course,  be 
considered.  The  dominant  element  within  the 
Chinese  Communist  leadership  still  apparently 
thinks  that  easing  tensions  with  the  United 
States    would    represent    a    betrayal    of    the 

revolution.  i     i     o     •  ^ 

Furthermore,  we  (and  increasingly  the  Soviet 
Union  as  weU)  are  seen  by  the  Chinese  as  pnme 
examples  of  what  should  not  happen  in  their 
country.  Contact,  exchange,  detente^sXl  threat- 
en not  only  the  objectives  of  Peking's  foreign 
policy  but  the  whole  ideological  fabric  which 
this  generation  of  leaders  has  woven  together. 
So  long  as  such  attitudes  persist  in  Peking, 
the  establishment  of  diplomatic  relations  be- 
comes unrealistic.  For  the  imderlying  premise 
of  such  a  move— the  desire  for  expanded  and 
unproved  peaceful  contacts  between  the  two 
countries— appears  still  to  be  lacking  on  the 
Cliinese  side. 

But  even  without  the  existence  of  formal  dip_ 
lomatic  relations,  the  territory  controlled  and 
administered  by  Peking  is  obviously  not  un- 
Imown  to  us.  When  matters  arise  pertaining  to 
it  which  involve  our  interests  or  the  interests 
of  our  citizens,  we  approach  the  Chinese  Com- 
munist authorities.  All  this  is  fully  acknowl- 
edged. 

But  it  is  also  evident  that  the  entire  question 
of  U.S.-Chinese  Communist  relations  cannot  be 
considered  apart  from  the  relationship  between 
the  United  States  and  the  Republic  of  China. 

This  relationship  is  an  old  and  friendly  one 
and,  under  present  circumstances,  is  based  on 
common  security  interests.  Since  1954  we  have 


738 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


had  a  treaty  commitment  to  help  defend  Taiwan 
and  the  Pescadores  from  external  attack.  The 
demand  of  the  Chinese  Communists  for  the  con- 
trol of  Taiwan  is  totally  unacceptable  to  us. 

Any  final  resolution  concerning  Taiwan 
should,  in  all  events,  meet  with  the  approval 
of  the  Govermuent  of  the  Republic  of  China 
and  its  people,  whose  interests  are  most  directly 
affected. 

Chinese   Communist  Security   Interests  in  Asia 

Does  the  United  States,  tlirough  its  bilateral 
and  multilateral  security  arrangements  with 
Asian  coimtries,  and  by  the  existence  of  U.S. 
bases  in  Asia,  threaten  Peking?  Do  we  fail  to 
recognize  that  Peking  has  legitimate  security 
interests  of  its  own  in  Asia?  Concern  about  an 
American  threat  to  their  security  is  undoubt- 
edly felt  by  some  leaders  in  Peking.  I  cannot 
stress  too  strongly,  however,  for  their  infonna- 
tion  or  for  that  of  anyone  else  who  may  be  in- 
terested, that  no  basis  for  such  a  fear  exists. 

We  have  made  this  clear  over  and  over  again. 
As  President  Johnson  said  in  his  state  of  the 
Union  address  last  year :  ^ 

...  we  have  no  intention  of  trying  to  deny  (Com- 
munist China's)  legitimate  needs  for  security  and 
friendly  relations  with  her  neighboring  countries. 

If  WO  actually  wanted  to  threaten  Commu- 
nist China,  would  not  repeated  opportunities 
have  presented  themselves?  Could  we  not  have 
attacked  it  on  the  many  occasions  when  the 
mainland  was  weak  or  wracked  by  internal 
problems  ? 

Legitimate  historical  reasons  for  the  Chinese 
people  to  be  fearful  of  outside  threats  do  exist, 
as  I  earlier  indicated.  We  recognize  these  and 
understand  them. 

Fears  and  threats  can  work  in  both  direc- 
tions, however.  The  countries  around  China's 
borders  have  the  same  right  to  feel  secure  and 
free  from  external  threat  as  the  People's  Re- 
public of  China.  But  these  countries  do,  in  fact, 
feel  threatened — not  by  the  United  States,  but 
by  Peking.  The  most  reasonable  avenue  to  se- 
curity for  mainland  China  in  Asia  is  not  through 
threats  or  bluster  but  through  acts  of  good  will 
which  will  reassure  its  neighbors. 

The  military  tlireat  posed  by  Peking  can  be, 
and  perhaps  at  times  has  been,  exaggerated. 
But  there  is  no  question  that  on  occasion  Peking 
has  been  prepared  to  use  anned  force  across 


'  For  excerpts,  see  ibid..  Jan.  30,  19C7,  p.  1.58. 


JtTNE    10,    1968 


its  frontiers.  Certainly  there  is  no  doubt  of  this 
fact  in  the  minds  of  the  people  of  India  or 
Korea. 

Although  Peking  has  reached  agreements 
with  India,  Burma,  and  Indonesia  disavowing 
interference  in  each  other's  internal  affairs,  this 
has  not  prevented  the  Chinese  from  openly  urg- 
ing the  overthrow  of  their  governments  by 
armed  insurrection.  Nor  has  it  prevented  Pe- 
king from  translating  words  into  actions  by 
assisting  msurrectionary  groups  in  those  coun- 
tries. 

A  whole  series  of  other  Asian,  as  well  as 
African  and  Latin  American,  nations  have  be- 
come aware  of  the  financial  assistance  and  train- 
ing in  guerrilla  tactics  offered  by  Pelring  to 
revolutionaries  in  their  own  countries.  A  num- 
ber of  them  have  severed  diplomatic  relations 
witli  Peking  in  protest. 

Please  do  not  take  what  I  am  saying  to  mean 
that  I  believe  Peking  is  preparing  to  pour 
troops  across  its  borders  in  great  waves  to  oc- 
cupy all  the  rimland  of  Asia.  While  Peking's 
large  army  and  modern  weapons  make  this  a 
potential  danger,  we  doubt  anything  like  this  is 
imminent.  The  fact  remains,  however,  that  most 
Asians — from  the  Himalayas  to  Japan — see 
Communist  China  today  as  a  potential  danger 
to  their  security. 

Peking's   Isolation 

It  is  often  argued  that  we  ai'e  isolating  Pe- 
king from  the  international  community  by  op- 
posing its  participation  in  the  United  Nations 
and  other  international  groups  and  by  discour- 
aging other  states  from  establishing  diplomatic 
relations  or  conducting  trade  with  it. 

But  once  again,  it  is  not  the  attitude  of  the 
United  States  but  that  of  the  People's  Republic 
of  China  which  isolates  it.  The  United  States,  in- 
fluential though  it  may  be,  does  not  control  and 
govern  the  organs  of  the  United  Nations  or  of 
other  international  bodies. 

The  Government  of  the  United  States  cannot 
accept  Peking's  demand  for  participation  in  in- 
ternational organizations  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
Republic  of  China.  This  view  is  shared  by  a 
majority  of  the  members  of  the  United  Nations. 

Under  present  circumstances,  Communist 
China's  participation  in  the  Security  Council, 
particularly,  would  weaken  that  body's  ability 
to  deal  constructively  with  international  prob- 
lems. 

The  Chinese  mistreatment  of  diplomats  and 


739 


diplomatic  missions  in  Peking  since  1967,  in- 
cluding the  entry  or  sacking  of  several  embas- 
sies, and  the  highly  undiplomatic  activities  of 
many  of  Peking's  own  officials  abroad  have 
hardly  helped  its  cause  in  the  international 
community. 

Peking  has  declined  to  participate  even  in  to- 
tally nonpolitical  international  activities,  such 
as  the  International  GeoiDhysical  Year.  It  rarely 
permits  its  scientists  to  attend  even  those  inter- 
national scientific  meetings  in  which  national 
membership  is  not  a  factor. 

The  Chinese  have  quarreled  even  with  fellow 
Communist  nations,  with  consequences  for  in- 
ternational Communist  unity  that  are  familiar 
to  you.  They  have  withdrawn  from  most  of  the 
organizations  which  formerly  were  known 
under  the  general  label  of  the  "world  peace 
movement"  and  attempted  either  to  set  up  rival 
organizations  or  disrupt  already  existing  ones. 

The  United  States  would  welcome  a  change  in 
Peking's  position  which  might  indicate  a  shift 
in  its  attitude  on  the  general  conduct  of  inter- 
national affairs.  Few  signs  of  any  shift  are 
discernible.  Under  these  circumstances,  any  iso- 
lation which  Peking  senses  is  of  its  own 
choosing. 


Embargo  on  Trade  With  Communist  China 

But  what  about  the  embargo  on  U.S.  trade 
with  Peking?  Are  not  the  Chinese  able  to  ob- 
tain virtually  whatever  they  need  from  other 
countries  anyway  ? 

Since  our  present  restrictions  on  trade  were 
established,  China  has  grown  increasingly  able 
to  produce  many  industrial  materials  which  it 
needs.  And  gradually  more  and  more  states,  in- 
cluding many,  such  as  Japan,  Australia,  and 
West  Germany,  which  do  not  recognize  the 
Peking  regime,  have  steadily  increased  their 
trade  with  mainland  China  in  nonstrategic 
goods  and  commodities. 

At  the  same  time,  Peking  has  shown  little 
interest  in  trading  with  the  United  States.  In 
1961  it  turned  a  cold  shoulder  on  President 
Kennedy  when  he  indicated  that  the  United 
States  would  consider  Chinese  interest  in  the 
purchase  of  food  grains.  Last  year  it  rejected 
out  of  hand  this  administration's  indication  of 
willingness  to  permit  the  export  of  drugs  and 
medical  supplies  for  the  treatment  of  certain 
epidemic  diseases. 

We  have  from  time  to  time  reviewed  our 
trade  policy  to  see  if  it  would  be  feasible  and 
in  our  interest  to  reduce  the  barriers  on  our  side 


to  mutually  beneficial  trade  in  nonstrategic 
goods  with  the  maiidand.  We  have  undertaken 
this  review  to  determine  whether  such  peaceful 
trade  might  be  possible  without  harming  our  in- 
terests in  the  area.  In  view  of  Peking's  attitudes, 
however,  I  cannot  be  opthnistic  about  any  early 
or  significant  practical  I'esult  in  terms  of  trade. 

We  have  said  many  times  in  recent  years  that 
we  are  willing  to  move  toward  reciprocal  (or 
even  unilateral)  person-to-person  contacts  and 
exchanges  with  mainland  China.  Just  last  week 
Leonard  Marks  [Director,  United  States  In- 
formation Agency]  invited  Communist  Chinese 
journalists  here  to  observe  and  report  on  this 
year's  election  campaign. 

We  have  informed  numerous  nongovern- 
mental organizations  which  wish  to  invite  rep- 
resentatives from  mainland  China  to  meetings 
in  this  country  that  we  have  no  objection.  We 
woidd  also  be  happy  to  see  exchanges  of  cul- 
tural exhibits  and  articles. 

We  are  prepared  to  issue  visas  to  Chinese 
visitors  from  the  mainland  who  may  wish  to 
come  to  the  United  States,  subject  only  to  legis- 
lation applying  to  all  visitors. 

Is  it  true  that  the  degree  of  antagonism  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  Communist  China 
is  so  great  and  so  in-econcilable  that  there  must 
inevitably  take  place  a  major  military  confron- 
tation between  our  two  countries  ? 

Our  entire  policy  and  philosophy  aims  to 
avoid  such  a  calamity.  War  is  never  mevitable. 
Given  normal  and  sensible  restraint  on  both 
sides,  there  is  absolutely  no  reason  why  the 
United  States  and  Communist  China  should 
come  into  conflict. 

While  hoping  for  better  relations  with  Com- 
mmiist  China,  we  are  realistic  enough  to  expect 
changes  to  come  slowly.  For  our  ability  to  in- 
fluence the  rate  at  which  changes  occur  is  lira-  ■ 
ited.  Many  of  them  will  result  ultimately  from 
altered  perceptions  and  a  more  relaxed  atmos- 
phere within  mainland  China  itself.  The  winds 
of  change  are  blowing  throughout  the  world. 
Sooner  or  later  they  must  blow  even  over  the 
Great  Wall  of  China.  Wlien  they  do,  if  they 
bring  about  a  Chinese  wisli  for  improved  rela- 
tions, the  LTnited  States  ^vill  be  happy  to  respond  ' 
positively. 

In  1843  President  John  Tyler  wrote  a  letter 
to  the  Chinese  Emperor.  The  spirit  of  one  para- 
graph can  still  stand  as  our  attitude  today :  "The 
Governments  of  two  such  great  countries  should  ' 
be  at  peace.  It  is  proper  and  according  to  the 
will  of  heaven  that  they  should  respect  each 
other,  and  act  wisely."  ' 


740 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


The  United  States  and  the  Communist  WorSds 


hy  Eugene  V.  Rostow 

Under  Secretary/  for  Political  Affairs  • 


I  propose  tonight  to  discuss  a  central  source 
of  international  tension:  our  relationship  with 
the  Communist  worlds. 

The  negotiations  to  settle  the  war  in  Viet- 
Xam  could  be  a  turning  point — and  a  turning 
point  for  tlie  better — in  the  relations  between 
the  United  States  and  its  allies  on  the  one  hand 
and  the  Communist  worlds  on  the  other.  This 
is  an  underlying  goal  Ambassadors  [W. 
Averell]  Harriman  and  [Cyrus  E.]  Vance  are 
seeking  in  Paris. 

Obviously,  this  is  not  the  time  to  discuss  the 
negotiating  problems  they  confront.  I  thought, 
however,  that  it  might  be  useful  to  review  the 
history  of  our  relations  with  the  Communist 
countries  since  the  war  and,  against  that  back- 
ground, to  attempt  a  few  cautious  liypotheses 
about  the  future. 

You  will  notice  that  I  used  the  phrase  "Com- 
munist worlds,"  in  the  plural.  Even  the  State 
Department  has  noticed  that  tliere  has  been 
trouble  in  paradise  and  that  the  Conomunist 
monolith  has  joined  the  mastodon.  We  have  long 
since  abandoned  that  comfortable  old  plirase, 
"the  Sino-Soviet  bloc,"'  m  our  departmental 
jargon;  indeed,  if  I  may  be  pardoned  a  little 
institutional  pride,  we  were  among  the  first  to 
notice  its  irrelevance. 

But  we  cannot  take  the  next  step,  so  dear  to 
some  of  my  Utopian  colleagues  in  the  universi- 
ties, and  conclude  that  communism  itself  has 
evaporated,  leaving  nothing  behind  but  an  echo 
and  the  reflex  responses  of  the  more  doctrinaire 
anti-Communists.  Such  a  view  would  be  unfair 


'  Address  made  before  the  18th  annual  citation 
dinner  of  the  Cincinnati  chapter  of  the  National  Con- 
ference of  Christians  and  Jews  at  Cincinnati,  Ohio, 
on  May  21  (as-delivered  text;  for  advance  text,  see 
press  release  111). 


to  the  sincere  and  devoted  men  who  direct  Com- 
munist movements  and  parties  throughout  the 
world.  We  must  respect  their  convictions  and 
their  efforts  to  realize  the  aims  of  their 
prophets. 

The  Communist  movement  lias  been  ricli  in 
sectarianism,  and  new  heresies  attest  the  depth 
and  intensity  of  the  beliefs  which  sustain  Com- 
munist programs.  But  certain  basic  drives  re- 
main. The  significance  of  these  drives  in  the 
policy  of  the  different  Communist  governments 
varies.  Some  seem  to  put  the  emphasis  on  "so- 
cialism in  one  country,"  to  recall  an  earlier 
slogan.  Others  are  genuinely  interested  in  pro- 
moting world  revolution  or,  more  recently, 
something  that  seems  to  resemble  a  state  of 
anarchy  in  which  they  could  hope  to  seize  power. 

Communism  is  not  a  force  of  constant  inten- 
sity in  world  affairs.  But  it  is  nonetheless  a 
force.  The  interplay  between  ideology  and  na- 
tionalism is  one  of  tlie  crucial  factors  m  the 
history  of  the  last  half  century,  most  particu- 
larly in  the  process  which  has  required  the 
United  States  to  take  a  major  and  continuing 
interest  in  world  politics.  As  Secretary  Rusk 
has  remarked,  the  periodic  tensions  in  our  rela- 
tions with  the  Soviet  Union  have  not  been  about 
polar  bears  in  the  Arctic,  nor  about  abstract 
issues  of  political  theory,  but  about  Berlin  and 
Korea  and  many  other  problems  of  politics  and 
security. 

At  the  end  of  the  war,  in  1945,  we  confronted 
a  problem  totally  new  to  our  national  experi- 
ence. Until  1914  our  basic  security  was  pro- 
tected without  exertion  on  our  part  by  the  efforts 
of  the  European  nations,  who  conducted  a  rea- 
sonably harmonious  system  of  world  order.  It 
may  not  have  been  altogether  a  just  order.  It 
certainly  was  not  always  a  progressive  order. 


JUNE    10,    1968 


741 


But  it  was  a  system  of  order,  a  fact  to  which 
some  look  back  rather  wistfully  at  the  moment. 

The  central  animating  principle  of  that  sys- 
tem— the  concert  of  Europe — began  to  dismte- 
grate  in  1914.  By  1945  it  was  in  ruins.  We  looked 
arovmd  us  and  discovered  that  the  map  of  world 
politics  was  entirely  changed.  Connnunist  power 
was  reaching  out  from  its  bases  in  the  Soviet 
Union,  and  later  from  China.  The  nations  of 
Western  Europe  were  withdrawing  from  Asia, 
Africa,  and  the  Middle  East  to  be  succeeded  by 
a  large  number  of  weak  and  vulnerable  new 
nations,  each  seeking  to  create  institutions  of 
modern  society  and  government  and  to  join  the 
mainstream  of  modern  progress.  Some  were  in- 
terested as  well  in  aggrandizement  and  revenge 
for  what  they  regarded  as  old  wrongs. 

To  our  astonishment,  we  were  forced  to  see 
ourselves  as  one  of  the  two  superpowers  in  a 
new  order  of  world  politics  beyond  the  control 
of  the  European  nations  acting  alone. 

We  and  the  Russians  emerged  from  the  war 
as  world  powers  on  a  new  scale:  both  huge 
countries  of  advanced  technology,  both  with 
large  military  establishments  and  potential.  De- 
spite the  enormous  losses  and  the  destruction 
of  the  war  for  the  Soviet  people,  their  army 
was  intact  and  was  by  far  the  largest  in  Europe. 
It  stood  not  on  the  Soviet  frontiers  of  1939  nor 
on  those  of  the  old  Russian  Empire  but  on  the 
Elbe  and  in  the  ancient  cities  of  Prague  and 
Budapest,  capitals  of  the  Western,  Latin  world 
for  1,000  years.  In  the  Far  East,  fulfilling  old 
Russian  dreams,  it  had  established  itself  in 
Manchuria  and  Korea. 


U.S.   Responses  to   Postwar   Pattern 

It  was  not  easy  for  America  to  accept  the 
reality  that  in  our  world  of  sovereign  states, 
peace  is  a  function  of  power.  Indeed  it  is  still 
difficult  for  us  to  believe  that  these  problems  are 
ours  and  that  in  a  contracting,  nuclear  world 
we  of  all  people  have  to  be  concerned  with 
political  and  military  issues  all  around  the 
globe.  We  had  always  scorned  the  idea  of  the 
balance  of  power  as  a  foreign  and  essentially 
a  monarchical  and  undemocratic  principle.  Now 
we  had  suddenly  to  embrace  the  concept  as  a 
goal  of  national  policy,  to  acknowledge  our  past 
error,  and  to  shoulder  the  obligation  of  orga- 
nizing and  maintaining  a  balance  of  power  in 
the  interest  of  our  own  security. 


Not  mmaturally,  our  initial  responses  to  the 
postwar  pattern  of  world  politics  reflected  spe- 
cial aspects  of  our  own  historical  experience. 

We  wanted  first  to  make  amends  to  President 
Wilson — to  atone  for  our  failure  to  join  tlie 
League  of  Nations — by  directing  our  support 
and  our  hopes  for  the  future  to  the  new  United 
Nations  Organization. 

We  wanted  also  to  contmue  our  wartime  as- 
sociation with  the  Russian  people  and  with  the 
Soviet  Union.  We  had  fresh  memories  of  war- 
time comradeship  m  arms,  of  hands  across  the 
Elbe,  of  the  Sox-iet  contribution  to  the  victory 
over  Hitler.  We  recalled  other  ties  and  similari- 
ties between  our  two  peoples :  the  traits  of  gen- 
erosity, of  spontaneity  and  frankness  which 
both  peoples  like  to  call  their  own.  We  recalled, 
too,  that  both  peoples  had  imdergone  the  in- 
vigorating experience  of  everythmg  conjured 
up  by  the  idea  of  "the  fi'ontier":  The  great 
westward  expansion  of  our  own  country  paral- 
leled the  eastward  ex^Dansion  of  the  Russian 
people.  We  appreciated  Russian  literature,  mu- 
sic, and  theatre;  and  the  Russians  found  much 
to  admire  in  the  works  of  many  American 
writers. 

There  was  also,  let  us  not  forget,  much  gen- 
ume  sympathy  in  the  United  States  for  the 
March  Revolution  of  1917  and  for  the  ideals 
which  it  proclaimed.  There  was  more  than  a 
little  initial  sympathy  for  the  October  Revolu- 
tion as  well.  It  is  always  a  mistake  to  think  of 
America  as  a  reactionary  country.  Our  own 
revolutionary  tradition  plays  a  powerful  part 
in  our  outlook.  Our  first  sympatliies  invariably 
are  for  governments  and  social  movements  that 
march  under  the  banner  of  progress. 

And  fuially,  we  had  a  practical  awareness  of 
the  importance  of  the  Soviet  Union  and  respect 
for  its  power.  We  had  begun  to  understand 
that  the  future  of  world  peace  would  depend  on 
the  relationship  established  by  the  two  giants 
and  that  a  unique  kind  of  ''special  relationship," 
a  unique  mutual  responsibility,  bound  the  two 
nations  together.  American  public  opinion  has 
always  favored  a  fair  imderstanding  with  the 
Soviet  Union. 

We  were — and  are — opposed  to  communism 
and  concerned  about  its  spread.  But  during  the 
war  and  in  its  aftermath  many  of  us  were  in- 
clined to  somewhat  sentimental  illusions  on  the 
subject.  Sir  Denis  Brogan  described  such  think- 
ing in  his  book  "Is  Innocence  Enough?" — pub- 


742 


DEPABTMENT   OF   STATE   BTTLLETTN 


lislied  in  England  in  1941  but  not  issued  here, 
in  deference  to  our  warm  feelings  of  the  time 
toward  the  Soviet  Union.  We  demobilized 
hastily  at  the  end  of  the  war.  The  idea  of  using 
the  threat  of  force,  or  of  our  atomic  monopoly, 
to  press  for  Soviet  fulfillment  of  its  agree- 
ments at  Yalta  and  Potsdam  was  literally 
unthinkable. 

The  finest  quality  of  our  culture  required  us  to 
test  the  possibility  that  the  Soviet  Union  might 
wish  to  cooperate  with  us  in  building  a  durable 
peace  after  the  war.  Perhaps  Sir  Denis  would 
say  we  were  somewhat  innocent  in  doing  what 
we  did.  Yet,  even  after  20  difficult  years  of  deal- 
ing with  the  Soviets,  we  should  not  be  altogether 
ashamed  of  our  innocence.  For  innocence,  after 
all,  is  the  yeast  of  hope  as  often  as  it  is  the 
source  of  folly. 

It  was  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  in  1945 
many  Americans  envisioned  a  peaceful  future 
based  upon  tlie  new  United  Nations  Orga- 
nization and  on  Soviet- American  cooperation 
within  it. 

Disappointment  of  Postwar  Hopes 

Tliese  hopes  were  soon  disappointed.  Plans 
for  the  quadripartite  administration  of  Ger- 
many came  to  nothing  within  a  year  of  the  fall 
of  the  Keich.  The  Soviets  demanded  a  com- 
pletely free  hand  in  their  zone  of  occupation 
and  3'et  blocked  plans  for  Germany  as  a  whole. 
In  violation  of  their  agreements  at  Yalta  and 
Potsdam,  they  refused  to  allow  free  elections 
in  Eastern  Europe  and  imposed  minority  gov- 
ernments in  Poland,  then  elsewhere  in  Eastern 
Europe,  and  finally  in  Czechoslovakia.  They 
supported  a  Communist-inspired  civil  war  in 
Greece.  There  were  threats  to  Turkey  and  Iran. 

These  alarm  bells  put  us  on  our  guard  against 
an  expansionist  policy  which  threatened  the 
possibility  of  peace  and  stability  of  the  world. 
Tlie  hopes  of  the  wartime  and  early  postwar 
years  faded,  but  they  did  not  die. 

"We  tempered  our  oversanguine  views  of  the 
Soviet  Union.  We  recalled  the  less  idyllic 
passages  in  Russian  history.  Through  the  cen- 
turies, Russia,  without  natural  frontiers,  has 
been  open  to  invasions  from  every  direction. 
That  fact  of  its  liistory,  so  different  from  our 
own  experience,  has  given  rise  to  deep-seated 
fears  and  suspicions  which  color  the  Russian 
view  of  the  outside  world. 


As  a  corollary  to  this  experience,  we  came  also 
to  accept  a  more  realistic  view  of  tlie  United 
Nations.  The  United  Nations  is  not  designed  to 
function  as  a  peacekeeping  body  when  the  great 
powers  disagi'ee.  The  special  competence  of  the 
Security  Council,  and  the  veto,  are  the  corner- 
stones of  its  structure.  But  the  law  of  the 
charter  is  not  suspended  when  the  Security 
Council  is  paralyzed  by  a  veto.  The  obligation 
to  uphold  the  charter  remains,  to  be  carried 
out  by  nations  and  gi'oups  of  nations  through 
older  procedures  of  alliance  and  diplomacy. 
The  United  Nations,  we  discovered,  did  not  of- 
fer a  fully  effective  way  to  solve  old  jiroblems  of 
power  by  invoking  a  new  system  of  law. 

We  were  forced  as  well  to  reexamine  our 
thinking  about  communism,  to  recall  that  it  is 
not  simply  an  idealistic  dream  and  a  program 
for  one  coimtry  but  a  serious  commitment  to 
action  on  a  worldwide  scale. 

Tlie  resulting  process  of  study  has  given  rise 
to  more  books,  speeches,  and  articles  than  any 
of  us  could  read  in  a  lifetime.  This  has  been 
the  case  not  simply  because  we  are  prolix — al- 
though we  are  indeed  prolix — but  because 
changes  within  the  Communist  world,  or  worlds, 
have  necessitated  frequent  reassessments — in  the 
State  Department  no  less  than  in  the  universi- 
ties and  institutes  of  research. 

Ideology  and  Traditional   Nationalism 

What  is  the  communism  we  have  to  take  into 
account  in  our  foreign  policy  ?  Is  it  a  recogniz- 
able doctrine  or  policy,  or  a  related  family  of 
doctrines,  or  an  altogether  misleading  word 
whose  use  to  identify  a  number  of  different  tend- 
encies imposes  a  false  unity  on  phenomena  of 
protest  which  have  no  relationshij)  to  each 
other?  What  connection  is  there  between  mod- 
ern communism  and  the  classic  textbook  defini- 
tions ?  When  we  talk  of  Communists,  do  we  mean 
(miy  disciplined  members  of  the  several  Commu- 
nist parties?  Or  should  the  word  be  applied  also 
to  what  the  French  call  tlie  enrages,  men  and 
women  in  the  old  anarchist  tradition,  who  are 
interested  primarily  in  violence  and  destruction 
for  their  own  sakes  and  often  not  even  for  the 
sake  of  utopia  ?  How  does  the  idea  of  commu- 
nism apply  to  the  vast  array  of  sects  and  schisms 
the  Communists  have  produced? 

Some  of  you  may  recall  the  musical  comedy  of 
the  thirties  in  wliich  Victor  Moore  played  the 


JrXE    10,    1968 


743 


role  of  an  American  Ambassador  about  to  de- 
part for  Moscow.  He  professed  ignorance  about 
the  nature  of  communism.  "It's  easy,"  his  brief- 
ers told  him.  "All  you  have  to  remember  is  that 
Trotskyism  isn't  Leninism,  Leninism  isn't  Stal- 
inism, Stalinism  isn't  Socialism,  and  Socialism 
isn't  Coimnunism."  Victor  remained  confused. 
Are  we  less  confused  today — confronted  with 
Titoism,  Castroism,  Maoism,  revisionism,  ad- 
venturism, dogmatism,  and  other  heresies  as 
well? 

Some  react  to  this  array  by  concluding  that 
ideology  is  irrelevant,  like  the  glittering  coinage 
of  Samuel  Butler's  musical  banks.  They  con- 
tinue to  see  the  states  of  tlie  Communist  world 
essentially  as  successors  to  the  19th-century 
kingdoms  and  empires  which  once  occupied  the 
same  areas. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  know  that  the  appeal 
of  Communist  ideology  has  driven  men  and 
women  to  commit  acts  of  espionage  against  their 
own  countries;  that  ideology  has  been  a  useful 
tool  of  the  well-orchestrated  worldwide  propa- 
ganda campaigns  with  which  we  have  all  be- 
come familiar  and  often  the  source,  as  well,  of 
organized  efforts  to  sustain  levels  of  violence 
and  unrest  intended  to  undermine  the  ties  bind- 
ing together  societies  under  attack.  It  is  Com- 
munist ideology  which  stimulates  and  attempts 
to  justify  the  strategy  of  the  "war  of  national 
liberation"  so  brilliantly  exemplified  by  the 
struggle  in  Viet-Nam  today.  Some  people,  there- 
fore, tend  to  see  conununism  exclusively  as  an 
ideological  movement  or  a  set  of  competing  but 
complementary  ideological  movements  which 
have  completely,  or  nearly  completely,  sub- 
merged the  separate  national  interests  of  states 
controlled  by  Communist  parties. 

Clearly,  the  realities  and  the  conclusions  we 
must  draw  from  them  lie  somewhere  between 
these  two  extremes.  The  policies  of  the  states 
controlled  by  Communist  parties  contain  ele- 
ments of  both  ideology  and  traditional  national 
interests,  in  different  combinations — in  com- 
binations, that  is,  which  are  differently  pro- 
portioned in  different  countries  and  at  different 
times.  We  might  say,  simply,  that  a  Communist 
state,  while  resembling  any  nation-state  in  many 
respects,  is  also  one  under  the  control  of  a 
Communist  party — a  party  which  remains 
linked,  at  one  remove  or  another,  to  other  Com- 
munist parties  around  the  world — and  is  re- 
quired   to   conform    to    certain    standards    in 


consequence.  Nationalism  and  internationalism      I 
are  both  relevant  themes  in  its  policies,  but  in 
changing    patterns.    After    all,    for    all    their 
rivalry,  both  the  Soviet  Union  and  Communist      j 
China  are  now  sending  military  supplies  to 
North  Viet-Nam.  So  are  many  of  the  states  of     j 
Eastern  Europe.  Aid  to  North  Viet-Nam  by 
the  Soviet  Union  and  the  nations  of  Eastern 
Europe  is  a  phenomenon  of  ideology.  It  cannot 
readily  be  explained  in  terms  of  Soviet  or  East 
European  national  interests.  For  reasons  which 
are   similar,   but  not  altogether  parallel,  the 
Soviet  Union  is  also  weakening  the  prospects 
for  peace  in  the  Middle  East  by  its  arms  supply 
policies. 

U.S.  Response  to  Threat  of  Aggression 

How,  then,  are  we  to  react  to  states  in  which 
both  traditional  nationalism  and  ideologj'  com- 
bine, each  with  influences  for  good  and  evil? 

We  have  had  to  realize  on  the  one  hand  that 
19th-century  norms  of  foreign  policy  and  inter- 
national law,  which  ignored  ideology,  could  not 
alone  describe  or  govern  the  behavior  of  the 
Communist  states.  These  norms  do  not  fit  a 
situation  of  endless  thrusts  of  many  kinds  and 
at  many  levels,  a  situation  characterized  by 
vituperation,  subversion,  fear,  and  uncer- 
tainty— of  the  whole  process  we  have  called  the  ■ 
cold  war,  which  has  turned  the  world  into  anned 
camps.  There  has  never  been  a  time  in  history 
when  men  have  devoted  so  large  a  share  of  their 
national  incomes  to  armaments. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  ourselves  rejected 
from  the  outset  the  notion  that  our  own  foreign 
policy  should  be  an  ideological  crusade  against 
communism  as  such.  What  President  Truman  : 
established,  and  his  three  successors  have  pur-  , 
sued,  was  a  policy  not  based  on  ideological  op- 
position to  communism  but  directed  toward  the 
preservation  of  our  own  national  interests  in  a 
balance  of  power — a  new  system  of  peace  built 
out  of  the  ruins  of  the  old,  a  system  through 
which  we  and  our  allies  could  achieve  equilib-  i 
rium  and  detente  between  the  Conmiunist  and 
non-Communist  states.  For  20  years,  neither  our 
words  nor  our  policies  have  shown  a  trace  of  the 
illusion  that  America  is  omnipotent.  No  respon- 
sible person  has  imagined  that  we  could  impose 
an  imperial  pax  Americana  on  the  world.  No 
one  has  dreamed  of  undoing  the  Soviet  Kevolu- 
tion  or  of  conquering  China.  Wliat  we  have 


744 


DEPAKTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


sought,  and  used  limited  power  to  achieve,  is 
the  accej^tanco  by  the  Communist  nations  of  a 
rule  of  order,  an  organized  and  accepted  pat- 
tern of  peace.  Only  such  a  stabilized  system  of 
peace  could  pennit  us  and  other  free  nations  to 
pursue  policies  of  social  and  economic  progress. 

As  a  first  corollary  to  this  basic  premise,  we 
recognized  that  attempts  to  upset  this  general 
equilibrium  by  force — that  is  to  say,  by  acts  of 
aggression — could  not  be  tolerated. 

In  recent  j'ears,  the  problem  of  aggression  has 
taken  on  new  dimensions  and  new  and  indirect 
fonns.  It  has  relied  on  seapower  and  airpower 
more  than  on  the  glacial  outward  thi-ust  of 
landpower.  In  the  Middle  East,  in  Cuba,  and  in 
other  areas  of  tension  and  potential  tension,  we 
have  sought  to  meet  new  thrusts  in  terms  of  the 
same  principle.  We  believe  in  the  freedom  of 
the  seas  for  all  nations  and  have  made  no  effort 
to  restrict  any  nation's  freedom  to  enjoy  mari- 
time rights  assured  by  international  law.  But 
we  have  continued  to  insist  on  the  basic  idea  of 
the  Truman  doctrine,  thus  far  with  considerable 
success. 

It  was  against  the  threat  of  aggression  that 
our  double-edged  policy  of  contaimnent — of 
military  security  and  economic  and  social  prog- 
ress— was  directed.  Its  archetypes  were  the  Tru- 
man doctrine  and  the  Marshall  Plan.  These  two 
ideas  have  also  been  fundamental  to  the  evolu- 
tion of  other  programs  for  regional  cooperation 
in  many  parts  of  the  world,  programs  involving 
economic  and  cultural  cooperation  as  well  as 
security.  Their  goal  is  to  provide  the  bone 
structure  of  a  new  system  of  peace,  a  realm 
ample  enough  and  dynamic  enough  to  accom- 
modate the  changing  policies  of  many  free  peo- 
ples without  losing  the  discipline  of  peace.  In 
such  systems  of  regional  cooperation,  as  they 
develop,  we  could  hope  to  take  a  declining  part^ 
save  for  the  ultimate  problem  of  nuclear  deter- 
rence— as  other  nations  take  on  a  larger  share 
of  the  common  responsibility. 

Progress   in  Areas  of  Accord 

But  those  who  see  the  histor}'  of  the  postwar 
years  as  only  a  history  of  cold  war,  of  con- 
tainment, and  of  economic  and  social  develop- 
ment behind  the  shield  of  containment  miss  the 
point. 

Because  our  first  innocent  hopes  for  collabora- 
tion with  the  Soviet  Union  were  frustrated  does 


not  mean  that  the  United  States  abandoned  its 
desire  to  find,  with  its  allies,  a  basis  for  peaceful 
coexistence  and  peaceful  competition.  The  his- 
tory of  the  postwar  world  is  not  only  of  tracing 
the  consequences  of  Soviet  actions  clanging  shut 
many  gates  to  collaboration;  it  is  also  a  history 
of  our  persistent  efforts  to  keep  them  open. 

The  Marshall  Plan,  as  you  will  recall,  was 
offered  to  the  Soviet  Union  and  to  Eastern 
Europe  as  well  as  to  Western  Europe.  And  at 
a  time  when  we  still  had  a  nuclear  monopoly, 
we  offered  the  Baruch  plan  for  the  international 
control  of  all  nuclear  energy. 

We  did  of  course  resist  Communist  efforts  to 
extend  what  Cliurchill  first  called  the  Iron  Cur- 
tain. But  we  did  not  attempt  to  intervene  on  the 
other  side  of  that  line — either  in  East  Germany 
in  1953  or  in  Hungary  in  1956.  Today,  although 
we  are  determined  to  resist  aggression  in  South 
Viet-Nam,  we  have  no  designs  against  the  po- 
litical system  which  exists  in  North  Viet-Nam. 

We  have  never  forgotten  that  the  United 
States  and  the  Soviet  Union  are  more  and  more 
closely  linked  in  a  marriage  not  of  convenience 
but  of  necessity,  a  relationship  which  domi- 
nates their  ideological  antipathies  and  their  oc- 
casional conflicts  of  interest  as  national  states. 

In  the  thrusts  and  responses  of  the  last  20 
years,  we  can  hope  that  the  governors  of  the 
Soviet  Union  have  come  to  understand  that  the 
restrained  and  limited  policies  of  the  United 
States  are  hardly  those  of  "aggressive  imperi- 
alism" regularly  described  in  Commmiist  ora- 
tory, but  something  far  more  tractable  and 
conciliatory  and  far  less  threatening.  The  two 
countries  know  that  their  shared  trusteeship  of 
ultimate  military  power  has  been  and  remains 
the  ultimate  guarantee  of  general  peace. 

The  nonproliferation  treaty,  which  both  coun- 
tries have  submitted  to  the  United  Nations,  is  a 
direct  result  of  the  implacable  nuclear  impera- 
tive which  unites  the  two  nations.  It  is,  thus  far, 
the  most  promising  child  of  that  marriage  of 
necessity  I  referred  to  earlier. 

No  one  of  our  recent  Presidents  has  been  more 
conscious  of  these  facts  than  President  John- 
son. He  views  our  relations  with  the  Soviet 
Union,  and  indeed  with  mainland  China,  as  the 
dominant  problems  of  our  foreign  policy  and 
the  context  in  which  most  local  conflicts  must  be 
examined.  If  he  is  forced  by  reality  to  confront 
many  threats  not  yet  contained,  he  also  sees  the 
achievement  of  a  fair  detente  as  the  only  coui-se 


JTNE    10,    1968 


745 


offering  real  promise  for  the  future.  President 
Johnson  summed  up  our  policy  in  these  terms 
in  his  speech  of  August  26,  1966 :  ^ 

...  at  the  heart  of  our  concern  In  the  years  ahead 
must  be  our  relationship  with  the  Soviet  Union.  Both 
of  us  possess  unimaginable  i)0wer ;  our  responsibility 
to  the  world  is  heavier  than  that  ever  borne  by  any 
two  nations  at  any  other  time  in  history.  Our  common 
interests  demand  that  both  of  us  exercise  that  responsi- 
bility and  that  we  exercise  it  wisely  in  the  years  ahead. 

Since  1945,  we  have  opposed  Communist  efforts  to 
bring  about  a  Communist-dominated  world.  We  did 
so  because  our  convictions  and  our  interests  demanded 
it ;  and  we  shall  continue  to  do  so. 

But  we  have  never  sought  war  or  the  destruction  of 
the  Soviet  Union ;  indeed,  we  have  sought  instead  to 
increase  our  knowledge  and  our  understanding  of  the 
Russian  people,  with  whom  we  share  a  common  feeling 
for  life,  a  love  of  song  and  story,  and  a  sense  of  the 
land's  vast  promises. 

Our  compelling  task  is  this :  to  search  for  every 
possible  area  of  agreement  that  might  conceivably 
enlarge,  no  matter  how  slightly  or  how  .slowly,  the  pros- 
pect for  cooperation  between  the  United  States  and  the 
Soviet  Union.  In  the  benefits  of  such  cooperation,  the 
whole  world  would  share  and  so,  I  think,  would  both 
nations. 

This  statement  is  the  key  to  understanding 
the  pattern  of  our  relationsliips  with  the  Com- 
munist worlds  today.  It  may  add  to  this  under- 
standing to  delineate  some  of  the  guidelines  we 
try  to  follow  in  reconciling  these  sometimes  con- 
flicting goals. 

The  first,  and  most  important,  is  that  we  have 
used  force  only  in  conformity  with  international 
law  and  only  to  require  compliance  with  it.  As  a 
state  we  respect  the  same  basic  rule  for  inter- 
national society  which  necessarily  governs  the 
domestic  life  of  the  citizen  in  a  society  governed 
by  law;  namely,  the  moral  duty  of  obedience  to 
the  law.  This  principle  is  the  essence  of  the  social 
contract  for  all  societies  of  law — societies,  that 
is,  where  the  citizen  ( or  the  state,  in  the  case  of 
international  law)  can  participate  in  the  making 
of  law.  The  society  of  nations  cannot  tolerate 
the  persistent  defiance  of  this  principle,  any 
more  than  a  domestic  community  can. 

Secondly,  we  try  to  avoid  open  and  direct 
confrontations  between  the  great  powers. 

When  tests  do  arise,  we  show  both  finnness 
and  measure. 

We  endeavor  to  maintain  an  atmosphere  of 
courtesy,  believing  that  neither  side  is  served 
by  hostile  propaganda  efforts — ^through  demon- 
strations, speeches,  or  broadcasts. 


'For  text,  see  Buixetin  of  Sept.  19,  1966,  p.  410. 


We  will  not  be  needlessly  provoked. 

We  continue  to  seek  new  initiatives  for  peace, 
new  paths  which  all  can  travel  together. 

And  lastly,  we  have  consistently  refused  to 
sacrifice  progress  m  areas  of  accord  because  of 
problems  in  areas  of  conflict.  Despite  the  recur- 
ring provocations  of  recent  years,  we  have,  for 
example,  concluded  the  limited  test  ban  treaty, 
the  Antarctic  Treaty,  the  1966  Treaty  on  the 
Peaceful  Uses  of  Outer  Space,  and  the  "hot 
line"  agreements.  We  are  reaching  accord  on  a 
civil  aviation  agreement  which  will  provide 
direct  air  service  between  the  Soviet  Union  and 
the  United  States;  we  are  pleased  with  the 
recent  ratification  of  our  consular  agreement  by 
the  Soviet  Union.  We  are  continuing  to  join 
with  the  Soviets  in  working  for  the  United 
Nations  adoption  and  universal  acceptance  of 
the  treaty  for  the  nonproliferation  of  nuclear 
weapons.  And  we  have  repeatedly  urged  them 
to  take  responsibility  for  peace  in  the  Middle 
East,  in  Viet-Nam,  and  with  respect  to  Castro 
and  North  Korea. 

Defense  and   Conciliation   in  Asia 

The  same  principles  of  equilibrium  and  of 
search  for  accord  apply  in  our  relations  with 
Asian  Communists.  Today,  eyes  are  fixed  on 
Viet-Nam.  Although  the  style  of  fighting  in 
Viet-Nam  is  different  from  that  in  Korea,  the 
principle  at  stake  is  the  same.  In  both  cases,  we 
fought  not  to  defeat  Communist  ideology,  but 
to  protect  our  national  interest  in  stability  and 
equilibrium. 

Wliy  were  these  actions  necessary? 

The  issue  in  Viet-Nam  has  never  been  more 
clearly  put  than  in  a  recent  speech  by  President 
Bourguiba  of  Tunisia,  who  is  one  of  the  most 
realistic  and  perceptive  statesmen  in  the  world 
today : 

.  .  .  the  problem  of  Viet-Nam  ...  is  a  serious 
problem,  involving  the  equilibrium  of  the  world  .  .  . 
An  analysis  of  the  events  leads  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  struggle  In  Viet-Nam  is  taking  place  between 
America  and  China  behind  the  scenes  .  .  .  For  Mao 
Tse-tung  the  object  is  to  prove  that  the  United  States 
can  be  brought  to  capitulation  .  .  .  Things  are  far 
from  simple,  and  what  is  called  "imperialism"  often 
is  only  a  matter  of  opinion.  To  humanity's  misfortune, 
it  happens  that  peace  is  founded  on  the  balance  of 
power  ...  I  am  not  seeking  to  spare  anyone  or  to 
please  any  nation  when  I  say  that  the  world  would  be 
in  danger  the  day  that,  in  response  to  a  trend  of  public 
opinion,  America  decided  to  go  back  to  her  former 
isolationism  .  .  .  China  would  seize  control  of  all  the 


746 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


countries  in  the  region  nnd  would  wrest  leadership  of 
the  Communist  world  from  Moscow.  And  thut  would 
be  the  end  of  world  peace  .  .  .  Hence  the  conflict  we 
are  witnessing  has  a  scope  and  significance  that  goes 
beyond  Viet-Nam. 

The  continuance  of  the  war,  President 
Bourguiba  contends,  threatens  tlie  modus 
vivendi  on  which  the  chance  of  peace  turns. 
"One  can  imagine,"  he  writes,  "the  mortal 
danger  to  which  tlie  world  would  be  exposed  if 
East  Germany  or  "West  Germany  were  to  at- 
tempt to  achieve,  for  its  own  benefit,  the  unifi- 
cation of  the  country,  as  in  Viet-Nam."  After 
each  Soviet  attempt  since  the  war  to  extend  its 
sphere  of  influence,  he  points  out,  the  Soviets 
returned  to  the  demarcation  line  of  their  sphere 
of  influence.  No  solution  in  Viet-Nam  other 
than  a  like  return  to  the  status  quo  ante  is  con- 
ceivable. President  Bourguiba  argues,  without 
threatening  "the  balance  of  tlie  world." 

As  in  Europe,  United  States  policies  in  Asia 
are  directed  not  only  to  defense  but  to  concilia- 
tion 35  well.  President  Jolmson  proposed  3 
years  ago  that  tlie  United  States  would  be  pre- 
pared to  provide  $1  billion  toward  a  new  pro- 
gram of  development  in  Southeast  Asia,  includ- 
ing North  Viet-Nam,  in  an  environment  of 
peace. ^  This  continues  to  be  our  policy.  We  are 
convinced  that  communism  need  not  be  the  wave 
of  the  future  in  Asia.  And  we  are  prepared,  and 
we  are  convinced  the  free  countries  of  Asia  are 
prepared,  to  see  this  challenge  tested  in  prac- 
tice through  peaceful  competition  and  diversity. 

Thus  far  the  leaders  of  Communist  China, 
the  paramount  Asian  Communist  state  today, 
have  feared  and  rejected  diversity  and  the  com- 
petition of  ideas.  Wary  of  contact  and  exchange, 
they  have  sought  to  seal  mainland  China  from 
all  outside  influences  while  trumpeting  the  re- 
vealed truth  of  their  own  system  throughout 
the  world. 

We  would  see  an  end  to  this  isolationist,  ex- 
clusivist  attitude  in  Asia,  as  it  has  gradually 
been  changing  in  Europe.  In  recent  years  we 
have  proposed  numerous  ways  by  which  we  and 
the  people  of  mainland  China  might  begin  to 
ease  the  tensions  which  exist  between  our  two 
countries. 

We  have  made  clear  our  willingness  to  wel- 


^  For  an  address  by  President  Johnson  made  at  Johns 
Hopkins  University,  Baltimore,  Md.,  on  Apr.  7,  1965, 
see  Hid.,  Apr.  26,  1965,  p.  606. 


come  Chinese  scientists,  scholars,  and  journalists 
to  the  United  States  and  have  encouraged  our 
own  academics  to  establish  contacts  with  their 
counterparts  on  the  mainland  of  China.  To  fa- 
cilitate these  contacts,  we  have  eased  restric- 
tions on  travel  to  Communist  China.  Few  appli- 
cations for  the  validation  of  passports  for  travel 
to  Communist  China  have  been  refused  in  recent 
years.  In  the  commercial  field,  we  have  ex- 
pressed our  willingness  to  consider  the  sale  of 
foodstuifs  and  certain  pharmaceuticals  to  the 
Chinese.  We  have  taken  other  steps  as  well. 

These  initiatives  on  our  part  have  all  been 
vehemently  rejected.  It  is  our  hope,  however, 
that  one  day  the  barriers  which  the  Chinese  have 
guarded  with  such  fierce  detennination  will  be- 
gin to  crumble  on  their  side,  just  as  we  have 
ourselves  pushed  aside  barriers  which  once 
existed  in  our  policy.  This  should  begin  to  hap- 
pen not  only  in  Communist  China  but  elsewhere 
in  Communist  Asia,  if  we  achieve  a  stable  and 
just  peace  in  Viet-Nam. 

Varying   Elements   of  Hope  and   Danger 

These,  then,  are  the  Commtmist  worlds  and 
a  brief  sketch  of  our  policies  toward  them.  Com- 
mimist  ambitions  have  been  the  occasion  but 
not  the  cause  for  the  burdens  of  our  foreign 
policy  since  1945.  The  cause  of  the  profound 
change  in  our  foreign  policy,  as  I  have  tried  to 
show  earlier,  is  the  change  in  the  map  of  world 
politics  since  1914. 

A  society  like  that  of  the  United  States  can 
only  be  safe  in  a  reasonably  stable  world — a 
world  of  wide  horizons,  tolerant  of  freedom  and 
generally  obedient  to  law.  Obviously,  the  society 
of  nations  cannot  tolerate  prolonged  conditions 
of  general  anarchy  any  more  than  a  nation  can 
tolerate  such  conditions  in  its  domestic  life. 

What  we  seek,  therefore — in  Europe,  in  the 
Middle  East,  and  in  Asia — is  a  common 
acceptance  of  the  premise  of  peace,  and  of  the 
idea  of  detente,  the  kind  of  world  in  which  eacli 
country  could  pursue  its  own  goals  and  indeed 
its  own  revolution,  if  revolution  be  needed, 
without  outside  provocation  or  interference. 
The  stability  we  seek  is  not  one  of  Jletternich's 
rigid  enforcement  of  the  status  qu-o,  but  freedom 
for  every  people  to  undertake  the  kind  of  social 
change  they  feel  best  suits  them.  Our  approach, 
in  the  end,  is  national,  pluralistic,  and  prag- 
matic— not  ideological  and  not  universalistic. 
The  means  it  employs  rest  on  a  realistic  under- 


JTrVE    10,    1968 


747 


standing  of  the  limits  of  our  power.  It  is  a  policy 
of  peace,  and  only  of  peace. 

I  suspect  that  the  attitudes  of  Communist 
leaders  toward  their  problems  of  foreign  policy 
are  more  comjilex  than  our  own. 

Fifty  years  after  the  October  Revolution, 
despite  doctrinal  arguments  and  brutal  purges, 
many  of  them  remain  "tiiie  believers,"  engaged 
to  varying  degrees  in  the  fortunes  of  Com- 
munist movements  in  other  countries. 

At  the  same  time,  50  years  after  Brest 
Litovsk,  where  Lenin  firmly  attached  com- 
mimism  to  a  Russian  national  base,  nationalism 
and  national  interests  also  constitute  a  strong 
influence  in  every  Communist  country  and  limit 
the  extent  of  its  commitment  to  foreign  adven- 
tures in  behalf  of  ideology. 

The  policies  of  every  Communist  party  reflect 
patterns  of  contrasting  emphasis  on  these  two 
themes.  In  no  country,  however  nationalist  or 
however  orthodox,  is  policy  either  entirely 
national  or  entirely  ideological. 

We  miglit  note  another  set  of  competing  im- 
pulses within  the  Commimist  worlds :  the  appeal 
of  humanism  on  the  one  hand  and  of  hierarchi- 
cal despotism  on  the  other.  The  clash  of  these 
themes  is  particularly  strong  in  the  Soviet  Un- 
ion and,  in  diiferent  combinations,  within  East- 
ern Europe.  The  conflict  of  the  Slavophiles  and 
the  Westernizers  is  as  old  as  Russia  itself.  One 
can  contrast  Ivan  the  Terrible  and  Peter  the 
Great,  Chekhov  and  Dostoyevsky,  Alexander 
II  and  Stalin,  and  hundreds  more.  Suffice  it 
to  say  that  in  Eastern  Europe,  and  in  the  Soviet 
Union,  many  Communist  leaders  are  also  chil- 
dren of  the  enlightenment  and  participants  in 
the  common  humanistic  culture  of  the  Western 
World.  They  have  not  forgotten  their  alliance 
in  two  World  Wars  with  the  United  States, 
France,  and  Britain,  and  other  deep  ties  as  well. 

Yet  the  tradition  of  absolutism  and  the  quest 
for  power  remain  strong.  One  can  only  wonder 
what  combination  of  Communist  zeal  and  na- 
tionalist impulse  has  caused  the  Soviet  Union 
to  continue  its  arms  shipments  and  other  politi- 
cal activities  in  the  Middle  East. 

Further  east,  the  walls  of  inaccessibility,  the 
spirit  of  destruction  for  its  own  sake,  seem  much 
stronger.  The  old  friendly  ties  between  thou- 
sands of  Americans  and  Chinese  from  the  main- 
land are  in  suspense.  Their  influence  on  the 
course  of  events  is  invisible.  Ho  Chi  IMinli's  con- 
sistent intolerance  of  any  Vietnamese  national- 


ism other  than  his  own,  and  his  willingness  to 
subject  his  country  to  agony  and  destruction  for 
ideology's  sake  and  for  the  sake  of  naked  power, 
are  in  marked  contrast  to  the  spirit  of  peaceful 
coexistence  some  other  Communists  seem  to 
show  toward  people  who  think  in  ways  differ- 
ent from  their  own. 

And  finally,  the  mysterious  fire  of  aggression, 
the  ancient  impulse  of  conquest,  which  has  flared 
up  from  time  to  time  in  the  history  of  many 
nations,  has  made  its  separate  contribution  to 
the  course  of  events  during  the  last  20  years. 

In  the  face  of  these  dualisms,  these  varying 
elements  of  hope  and  danger,  our  policy  remains 
one  of  patient  restraint  and  of  endless  quest  for 
conciliation. 

The  talks  in  Paris  may  be  long  and  often 
acrimonious.  The  North  Vietnamese  are  pur- 
suing their  strategy  of  "fight  and  negotiate" 
with  a  vengeance.  Yet  our  civil  air  negotiations 
with  the  Soviets  and  our  joint  efforts  for  a  non- 
proliferation  treaty  have  continued.  Nor  have 
we  ceased  our  attempts  at  opening  a  dialog  with 
mainland  China — as  evidenced  by  our  recent 
offer  to  admit  Chinese  newsmen  to  cover  our 
electoral  campaign.  We  shall  continue  steadily 
to  build  the  strength  of  our  evolving  regional 
alliances,  in  Europe  and  in  Asia,  and  to  en- 
courage our  colleagues  in  these  ventures  to  join 
with  us  in  the  many  works  of  peace. 

Patient  and  Mature  Thought  and  Action 

In  the  end,  we  must  ask  ourselves,  will  this 
policy  work?  Will  it  avoid  general  war  and 
persuade  the  Communists  of  various  sects  to  ac- 
cept the  rule  of  live-and-let-live?  Will  that  be 
the  synthesis  to  emerge  from  the  thesis  and 
antithesis  of  the  last  20  years,  the  thrust  and 
the  parry,  the  ideological  debate,  the  interplay 
of  our  ideas  and  of  theirs  ? 

No  one  can  be  certain.  At  least  I  cannot  be 
certain. 

But  I  can  see  no  prudent  alternative  to  the 
policy  the  nation  has  followed  under  four  Pres- 
idents suice  1945.  It  is  not  a  dramatic  nor  a 
glamorous  policy.  It  requires  patient,  mature 
thought  and  action  in  meeting  present  and 
future  tests  of  will.  It  does  not  offer  instant 
peace.  It  rejects  the  notion  of  an  ideological 
crusade  against  communism,  as  well  as  the  naive 
belief  that  the  Communist  systems  would  not 
threaten  our  security  if  we  withdrew  from  the 


748 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


■world  stage.  It  therefore  rejects  the  proposals 
of  those  who  would  lead  us  like  lemmings  into 
the  isolationist  policy  of  the  twenties — now,  as 
then,  the  surest  prescription  for  war. 

The  burden  of  sustained  domestic  and  inter- 
national tensions  has  produced  extraordinary 
explosions  of  human  feelings  in  recent  years, 
and  particularly  in  this  year.  Those  explosions 
are  remarkable  events — -signals  of  serious  pro- 
test at  a  time  when  Western  societias,  at  least, 
have  never  been  more  successful  and  more 
earnesth'  committed  to  fulfilling  their  ideals  of 
social  justice.  Historians  may  look  back  on  1968 
as  they  do  on  1848 :  as  a  j-ear  in  which  the  deep- 
est wishes  of  mankind  were  made  manifest. 
We  should  recall  that  one  of  the  greatest  of 
modern  historians  has  called  1848  the  Revolu- 
tion of  the  Intellectuals. 

All  over  the  world  there  are  visible  and  so)ne- 
times  violent  manifestations  of  hmnan  stress 
and  concern  over  the  trend  of  events.  In  most 
cases,  these  manifestations  express  and  reflect 
the  yearnings  of  generous  and  idealistic  spirits. 
In  some,  they  betray  feelings  of  hostility,  bitter- 
ness, fi'ustration,  and  the  desire  for  revenge.  In 
many  countries,  the  demonstrators  seek  liberty 
and  social  advance.  Occasionally,  they  manifest 
man's  universal  taste  for  violence  and  his  in- 
stinct of  destruction  for  its  own  sake,  normally 
but  not  always  kept  in  check  by  the  texture  of 
his  social  system. 

Of  course  hostile  forces  seek  to  exploit  these 
feelings,  and  to  turn  their  manifestation  into 
revolutionary  channels;  that  is,  into  channels 
seeking  a  truly  revolutionary  transfer  of  power 
and  not  simply  the  acceleration  of  agreed  pro- 
grams of  social  change.  And  of  course  govern- 
ments have  to  intervene  finally  to  preserve 
public  order. 

But  responsible  men  eveiywhere  would  ig- 
nore the  yearnings  behind  these  events  at  their 
peril.  One  theme  in  most — but  not  all — of  the 
demonstrations  is  a  passionate  desire  for  peace, 
for  an  end  of  the  cold  war  and  of  the  tensions 
and  threats  of  the  years  since  1945.  Here  the 
moral  of  protest  is  one  we  can  hope  the  serious 
men  who  direct  Communist  parties  everywhere 
will  examine  with  the  utmost  care.  For  if  the 
liigh-minded  and  idealistic  youth  who  protest 
in  behalf  of  peace  conclude  that  certain  Com- 
munist states  are  ultimately  responsible  for  the 
tensions  which  prevent  peace,  the  impact  of  that 
conclusion  on  opinion  and  on  policy  could  be- 
come difficult  to  control. 


U.S.  and  North  Viet-Nam  Hold 
Fourth  Meeting  at  Paris 

The  fourth  session  of  the  official  conversations 
hetween  the  United  /States  and  North  Viet-Nam 
was  held  at  Paris  on  May  W.  Folloioing  are 
excerpts  from  the  opening  remarks  made  at 
that  session  by  Ambassador  at  Large  W. 
Averell  Harriman,  who  is  head  of  the  U.S, 
delegation} 

Press  release  115  dated  May  22 

We  hope — we  continue  to  hope — that  these 
talks  can  become  a  frank  and  candid  exchange 
of  views.  For  our  part,  we  would  like  to  see 
the  talks  freed  from  polemics.  The  DEV  should 
understand,  for  example,  that  it  is  difficult  for 
us  to  have  candid  discussions  of  the  questions 
of  restraint  in  any  detail  while  you  deny  having 
major  elements  of  your  armed  forces  in  South 
Viet-Nam.  Surely  the  time  has  come  to  begin 
discussing  these  problems  on  the  basis  of  reality. 
In  this  spirit,  I  will  keep  my  opening  remarks 
short  so  that  we  can  use  our  time  for  productive 
discussions  of  the  issues  which  concern  us  both. 

First,  I  would  like  to  refer  again  to  a  ques- 
tion you  asked  on  May  18.  You  asked  would  the 
United  States  dare  to  recognize  the  right  of  the 
Vietnamese  people  to  self-determination.  I  want 
to  underscore  what  I  said  on  Saturday  so  that 
there  can  be  no  misunderstanding.  President 
Johnson  has  repeatedly  stated  that  we  are  in 
Viet-Nam  to  presers-e  the  right  of  the  South 
Vietnamese  people  to  determine  their  own  fu- 
ture, on  the  basis  of  "one  man,  one  vote,"  free 
of  coercion  and  outside  interference.  I  wish  to 
reaffirm  that  objective  now.  I  should  like  to  ask 
of  you  the  same  question:  Is  the  Democratic 
Republic  of  Viet-Nam  prepared  to  recognize 
the  right  of  self-determination  for  the  people  of 
South  Viet-Nam,  free  from  coercion  and  outside 
interference  ? 

The  policy  of  self-determination  is  not  new. 
It  has  been  stated  many  times  and  was  specifi- 
cally endorsed  by  the  Republic  of  Viet-Nam  and 
its  six  allies  in  the  Manila  communique  of  Oc- 
tober 1966.^ 

In   order   to    determine   for   themselves   the 


^  For  statements  by  Ambassador  Harriman  made  at 
Paris  May  13,  15,  and  18,  see  Bulletin  of  June  3,  1968. 
p.  701. 

'  For  test,  see  ihid.,  Nor.  14,  1966,  p.  730. 


JUNE   10,    1968 


749 


course  of  their  future,  the  South  Vietnamese 
people  must  be  free  from  the  threats  and  in- 
timidation mider  whicli  they  now  live. 

In  spite  of  this  intimidation,  millions  of  citi- 
zens of  the  South  have  participated  m  the  slow 
and  difficult  process  of  building  a  genuinely  rep- 
resentative government.  The  present  Govern- 
ment of  the  Kepublic  of  Viet-Nam  is  a  legiti- 
mate goveiTunent  chosen  by  an  election  in  which 
almost  5  million  voters  took  part.  It  has  a  solid 
representative  and  constitutional  base.  The  Con- 
stitution was  the  work  of  a  Constituent  Assem- 
bly whose  members  were  also  chosen  by  the  free 
vote  of  the  jDeople.  The  authors  of  the  Constitu- 
tion represented  every  regional  section,  every 
major  religion,  eveiy  ethnic  group,  and  a  wide 
range  of  occupations.  That  Constitution  pro- 
vides the  base  on  which  the  present  representa- 
tive government  was  established. 

I  might  add  that  in  this  regard  your  reference 
to  the  Govenunent  of  the  Eepublic  of  Viet-Nam 
as  a  "puppet"  is  false  and  unhelpful.  It  does  not 
further  our  discussions ;  it  does  not  describe  re- 
ality; and  it  does  not  contribute  to  an  atmos- 
phere in  which  we  can  look  honestly  at  our 
differences  and  try  to  resolve  them. 

I  would  now  like  to  turn  to  the  issue  of  the 
bombing  of  the  North  and  your  demand  for 
stopping  all  bombing.  We  remain  ready  to  dis- 
cuss this  issue,  but  as  President  Jolinson  said  on 
March  31 : » 

Even  this  ver.y  limited  bombing  of  the  North  could 
come  to  ail  early  end  if  our  restraint  is  matched  by 
restraint  in  Hanoi.  But  I  cannot  in  good  conscience  stop 
all  bombing  so  long  as  to  do  so  would  immediately  and 
directly  endanger  the  lives  of  our  men  and  our  allies. 
Whether  a  complete  bombing  halt  becomes  possible  in 
the  futm-e  will  be  determined  by  events. 

We  are  ready  to  discuss  in  more  detail  with 
you  the  kinds  of  restraint  that  might  be  con- 
sidered. We  have  suggested  that  it  could  be 
constructive  to  discuss  such  matters  as  the  re- 
establishment  of  the  demilitarized  zone  and  the 
observance  of  the  1962  agreements  on  Laos. 

Let  me  close  by  repeating  my  eaniast  hope 
that  we  can  avoid  polemics  in  these  meetmgs.  In 
this  regard,  could  we  agree  not  to  release  the 
text  of  f onnal  statements  to  the  press  after  each 
session  ?  We  could  each  give  out  brief  and  gen- 
eral infonnation  about  the  meeting  but  not  re- 
lease texts.  I  feel  sure  that  such  a  move  would 
make  possible  a  more  useful  and  meaningful 
exchange  of  views. 

"  For  President  Johnson's  address  to  the  Nation  on 
Mar.  31,  see  ibid.,  Apr.  15,  1968,  p.  481. 


President  Pledges  Resistance 

to  Aggression  as  Talks  Continue 

Folloioing  are  remarks  hy  President  Johnson 
made  on  May  23  at  a  'White  House  ceremony 
marking  the  presentation  of  the  Pi-esidentiul 
Unit  Citation  to  the  26th  Marines  {Reinforced) . 

White  House  press  release  dated  May  23 

It  was  23  years  ago  that  the  26th  Marines 
took  part  in  a  mission  that  some  people  believed 
to  be  impossible :  the  capture  of  Iwo  Jima,  the 
most  heavily  fortified  island  in  the  world.  That 
mission  was  accomplished;  and  the  26th — after 
being  awarded  a  Presidential  Unit  Citation  for 
its  part  in  that  battle — passed  fi'om  the  active 
rolls  of  the  Marine  Corps  on  into  history. 

In  January  of  1966,  the  26th  was  reborn  as 
the  first  regiment  of  the  reactivated  5th  Marine 
Division.  Again  the  colors  of  the  26th  Marines 
were  can-ied  into  our  fight  for  freedom  in  Asia. 

Again  they  were  assigned  a  task  believed  by 
many  to  be  impossible. 

Reinforced  with  a  battalion  from  a  sister 
regiment — the  1st  Battalion,  9th  Marines — and 
joined  by  a  battalion  of  valiant  South  Vietnam- 
ese Rangers,  the  26th  was  given  the  job  of  de- 
fending the  vital  combat  base  at  Khe  Sanli. 

The  6,000  Allied  troops  faced  more  than 
20,000  determined  North  Vietnamese.  Some  say 
there  are  no  North  Vietnamese  in  that  area. 

But  in  the  face  of  this  threat,  after  most 
mature  deliberation  here,  we  asked  General 
Westmoreland  [Gen.  William  C.  Westmore- 
land, Commander,  Military  Assistance  Com- 
mand, Viet-Nam]  for  his  judgment  about 
whether  we  should  hold  the  position  or  remove 
our  forces.  He  was  told  to  give  no  thought  to 
the  psychological  or  political  repercussions  of 
withdrawal  in  the  United  States. 

The  judgment  of  this  battlefield  general  dif- 
fered considerably  from  that  of  some  here  at 
home  who  then  predicted  that  Khe  Sanh  would 
be  another  Dien  Bien  Phu. 

General  Westmoreland's  decision  was  that  the 
base  should  and  could  and  would  be  held.  That 
decision  was  confirmed  by  the  Joint  Chiefs  and 
other  officials  here. 

His  faith  m  the  26th  Marines  was  more  than 
justified.  For  more  than  70  days  and  nights  they 
held  despite  massive  and  merciless  attacks  by 
the  enemy. 

The  North  Vietnamese  mounted  an  assault 
identical  to  that  which  ended  in  their  victory 


750 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BTJLLETXNr 


at  Dien  Bien  Phu  14  j-ears  ago.  But  they  had 
not  counted  on  the  most  ovenvhehning,  intelli- 
gent, and  effective  use  of  airpower  in  the  history 
of  warfare;  nor  had  they  counted  on  the  en- 
durance— and  artillery — of  the  Marines  at  IDie 
Sanli.  So,  unable  to  conquer,  the  enemy 
withdrew. 

Some  have  asked  what  the  gallantry  of  these 
marines  and  airmen  accomplished.  Wliy  did  we 
choose  to  pay  the  price  to  defend  those  dreary 
hills? 

The  fortress  at  Khe  Sanh  straddled  critical 
supply  and  infiltration  routes  that  the  North 
Vietnamese  were  using.  Route  9,  which  it  com- 
manded, was  to  be  a  major  avenue  for  the 
enemy  into  populated  areas  and  into  the  cities 
of  South  Viet-Nam. 

By  piiming  down — and  by  decimating — two 
North  Vietnamese  divisions,  the  few  thousand 
marines  and  their  gallant  South  Vietnamese 
allies  prevented  those  divisions  from  entering 
other  major  battles  such  as  those  for  Hue  and 
Quang  Tri. 

I  believe  that  our  initiative  toward  talks  with 
North  Viet-Nam  was  gi-eatly  strengthened  by 
what  these  men  did  at  Khe  Sanh — for  they 
vividly  demonstrated  to  the  enemy  the  utter 
futility  of  his  attempts  to  win  a  military  victory 
in  the  South. 

All  of  us  in  America  hope  that  the  road  to 
peace  wdll  lead  through  the  talks  in  Paris. 

But  it  is  still  not  clear  that  Hanoi  is  ready 
for  an  early  or  an  honorable  peace. 

The  flow  of  infiltrators  and  of  equipment 
from  North  Viet-Nam  has  never  been  greater 
than  it  is  now.  There  is  still  very  bitter  fighting 
in  many  areas  of  South  Viet-Nam. 

There  has  been  no  visible  lessening  of  Hanoi's 
aggressive  efforts.  In  fact,  Hanoi  is  today  tell- 
ing its  forces  in  the  South  that  they  must  con- 
tinue their  offensive  to  support  their  negotiators 
in  Paris. 

For  our  part,  we  shall  seriously  and  soberly 
pursue  negotiations  toward  an  honorable  and 
peaceful  settlement  of  the  war.  But  this  should 
also  be  clear :  We  shall  not  be  defeated  on  the 
battlefield  while  the  talks  go  on.  We  shall  not 
permit  the  enemy's  mortars  and  rockets  to  go 
unanswered  and  to  permit  him  to  achieve  a 
victory  that  would  make  a  mockerj'  of  the 
negotiations. 

We  have  faith  that  an  honorable  peace  can  be 
achieved  in  Viet-Nam.  But  if  there  must  be 
more  fighting  before  it  comes,  then  we  shall  not 
be  f  oimd  wanting. 


Brave  men  such  as  the  26th  Marines  will 
carry  on  the  fight  for  freedom  in  Viet-Nam. 
Soon,  God  willing,  they  will  come  home.  We 
would  like  nothing  more  than  to  see  that  day. 
But  until  they  do,  we  shall  express — at  moments 
such  as  these — on  behalf  of  all  our  American 
people  our  great  gi-atitude  for  the  protection 
they  have  given  us  and  our  great  appreciation 
for  their  selfless  bravery. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Navy  will  now  read  the 
citation. 


President  Bourguiba  of  Tunisia 
Visits  the  United  States 

President  Hahib  Bourguiba  of  the  Republic 
of  Tunisia  made  a  state  visit  to  the  United 
States  May  15-21,  preceded  by  a  private  visit 
May  12-lJi..  He  met  with  President  Johnson 
and  other  Government  officials  in  Washington 
May  15-17.  Following  is  an  exchange  of  greet- 
ings between  President  Johnson  and  President 
Bourguiba  at  a  welcoming  ceremony  on  the 
South  Lawn  of  the  White  House  on  May  15,  to- 
getlier  with  the  text  of  a  joint  statement  issued 
on  May  16  following  their  talks. 


EXCHANGE   OF   GREETINGS 


President  Johnson 

White  House  press  release  dated  May  15 

This  morning  America  welcomes  a  friend,  a 
patriot  who  has  brought  his  country  into  inde- 
pendence, a  leader  who  has  given  North  Africa 
and  the  Mediterranean  a  vivid  example  of  what 
modem  men  can  achieve  in  an  ancient  land,  a 
statesman  who  has  worked  for  just  peace 
throughout  liis  region  and  in  the  world  at  large. 

You  have  come,  Mr.  President,  to  a  land  that 
deeply  admires  what  you  and  your  people  have 
accomplished  in  12  years  of  nationhood. 

America's  friendship  with  Tunisia  demon- 
strates that  a  nation  of  great  size  and  power  can 
play  a  role  in  the  development  of  a  smaller  na- 
tion without  in  any  way  detracting  from  its 
liberty  of  choice  or  its  independence  of  action. 

The  United  States  neither  has  nor  desires  po- 
litical dominion  in  North  Africa  and  the  Middle 
East.  What  we  seek  is  what  the  war- weary  peo- 


JXINT;    10,    1968 


751 


pie  of  the  Middle  East  most  desire  themselves ; 
that  is,  the  hope  of  a  better  life  and  justice  and 
peace. 

Last  June  I  reconfirmed  our  commitment  to 
these  goals  in  the  Middle  East.^  I  committed  us 
to  pursue  a  peace  based  on  five  principles : 

First,  the  recognized  right  of  national  life; 

Second,  justice  for  the  refugees ; 

Third,  innocent  maritime  passage; 

Fourth,  limits  on  the  wastefid  and  destruc- 
tive arms  race;  and 

Fifth,  political  independence  and  territorial 
integrity  for  all. 

I  restate  these  principles  t<xiay.  Many  debates 
and  many  discussions  have  taken  place  since 
last  June  19th.  The  United  Nations  Security 
Comicil  passed  its  important  resolution  on 
November  22d.^  Our  commitment  to  those  prin- 
ciples— and  to  that  resolution — has  not  changed. 
It  will  not  change. 

America  respects  and  supports  the  aspira- 
tions of  people  who  are  new  to  independence, 
wlio  work  to  preserve  and  to  strengthen  their 
freedom.  It  is  a  particular  pleasure  to  welcome 
the  great  leader  of  such  a  nation  as  this  this 
morning. 

Mr.  President,  we  are  pleased  and  proud  to 
have  you  in  America. 

President  Bourguiba  ^ 

White  House  press  release  dated  May  15 

Mr.  President,  we  have  been  very  deeply 
moved  by  the  very  kind  words  which  you  have 
just  said,  the  feelings  which  you  have  expressed, 
and  that  significantly  cordial  welcome  which 
has  been  given  to  us  by  yourself,  Mr.  President, 
as  well  as  by  the  Government  and  the  people 
of  the  United  States.  Those  words  and  that  wel- 
come bear  witness  to  the  fact  of  the  considera- 
tion and  the  esteem  that  you  have  toward 
Tunisia  and  its  people.  It  is  vei-y  sincerely  that 
I  am  exjiressing  to  you  my  gratitude  for  all 
those  manifestations  of  friendship. 

The  visit  which  I  am  making  today  to  the 
United  States  is  a  very  glad  occasion.  It  is  a  true 


'  For  an  address  by  President  Johnson  made  at  Wash- 
ington, D.C.,  on  June  19,  1967,  see  Bulletin  of  July  10, 
1967,  p.  31. 

'  For  text,  see  ihid.,  Dec.  18,  1967,  p.  843. 

'  President  Bourguiba  spolie  In  French. 


pleasure  for  me  to  be  again  in  this  hospitable 
land  and  to  convey  to  you  as  well  as  to  the  great 
American  people  the  feelings  of  friendship  and 
of  appreciation  of  the  Tunisian  people. 

This  mutual  esteem  and  trust  which  is  char- 
acteristic of  the  relationships  between  our  coun- 
tries are  based  on  our  common  dedication  to  the 
same  ideal  of  dignity,  of  progress,  and  that  of 
2)eace  and  justice.  They  also  reflect  our  respect 
for  moral  values,  as  well  as  our  firm  detennina- 
tion  to  continue  working  for  the  safeguarding  of 
peace  in  the  world  and  for  a  greater  under- 
standing among  men. 

Without  recalling  the  beginnings  of  our  dip- 
lomatic relations  which  date  back,  as  you  know, 
to  1789, 1  want  to  say  that  the  United  States  for 
us  is,  first  of  all,  the  country  which  gave  to  our 
cause  a  precious  measure  of  support  during  the 
dark  days  of  our  struggle  by  recognizing  in  our 
national  movement  the  true  and  authentic  ex- 
pression of  the  aspirations  of  the  Tunisian 
people. 

"We  do  not  forget  that  the  United  States  was 
the  first  nation  to  recognize  our  independence 
and  the  first  to  help  us  to  preserve  it  and  to 
strengthen  it. 

Today,  12  years  after  its  succession  to  sover- 
eignty, which  is  synonymous  with  responsibility, 
the  Tunisian  people  will  look  back  with  pride  on 
the  I'oad  that  it  has  traveled. 

The  Tunisian  people  have  been  untiringly  ac- 
tive with  a  view  to  assure  to  the  greatest  extent 
possible  the  well-being  of  each  and  every  one 
and  also  a  full  measure  of  dignity. 

The  Tunisian  people  have  built  a  modern  state 
and  have  undertaken  a  true  social  revolution 
based  on  the  enhancement  of  men  and  women, 
on  the  renovation  of  structures,  and  with  the  co- 
operation of  all  those  countries  which  respect 
our  sovereignty. 

In  this  endeavor,  we  have  always  been  guided 
by  the  same  principles  which  we  had  laid  down 
more  than  30  years  ago.  We  have  been  unswerv- 
ing with  regard  to  the  objectives  to  be  attained. 
But  we  have  been  first  and  foremost  concerned 
with  the  most  efficient  means  to  reach  such  goals. 

We  have  gone  forward  without  diminishing 
ideals,  without  prejudice,  and  without  bearing 
grudges  of  any  kind.  We  have  refused  to  lead 
our  people  into  dreamlike  ventures  inspired  by 
demagoguery  or  the  seeking  of  prejudice. 

On  the  contrary,  we  have  always  worked 
along  the  more  realistic  methods  which  are  much 
more   difficult  because  they  require  as  much 


752 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE    BULLETIN 


dj-namism,  courage,  and  as  much  clear  thinking 
and  as  much  integrity. 

In  that  phase  of  our  struggle  for  development 
and  well-being,  your  country,  Mr.  President,  has 
given  us  assistance  with  no  strings  attached,  and 
thus  it  helped  us  to  face  in  better  conditions  the 
problems  that  go  hand  in  hand  with  economic 
and  social  development  in  a  country  which  was 
not  richly  endowed  by  nature. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  mentioned  to  what  ex- 
tent Tunisia  is  indebted  to  the  United  States, 
but  the  truth  must  be  said  that  all  the  nations 
that  cherish  security,  democracy,  and  well-be- 
ing also  have  been  and  are  indebted  toward  your 
country.  The  world  shall  never  forget  the  de- 
cisive I'ole  played  by  the  United  States  during 
and  after  World  War  II  so  that  liberty  and 
moral  values  might  emerge  triumphant.  Nor  has 
the  world  forgotten  the  important  contribution 
made  by  your  great  nation  in  the  struggle 
against  hunger  and  underdevelopment  in 
general. 

The  position  of  superpower  which  is  yours 
today  in  the  world  has  imposed  very  heavy  re- 
sponsibilities, which  you  have  assumed  with 
great  courage  and  fortitude.  I  know  that  those 
responsibilities  may  be  a  source  of  gratification, 
but  at  the  same  time  they  are  a  hard  burden. 

Regardless  of  that,  you  have  accepted  them  so 
as  to  preserve  the  balance  of  powers  and  forces 
in  the  world  and  to  safeguard  peace  throughout 
the  world. 

In  a  manner  similar  to  that  of  other  countries, 
Tunisia  has  always  been  concerned  with  main- 
taining friendly  relations  with  the  United 
States  on  the  basis  of  mutual  esteem  and  a  fruit- 
ful cooperation,  while  always  preserving  its 
freedom  and  its  independence. 

Tunisia  today  can  congratulate  herself  on 
having  been  fully  successful  in  that  manner,  in 
that  way  which  is  the  dialog  among  the  peoples. 

In  this  century  of  technological  advances,  we 
must  all  join  our  efforts  so  as  to  make  sure  that 
men  shall  be  triumphant  over  technique.  The 
important  thing  is  to  have  a  sincere  and  loyal 
cooperation  among  all  the  countries  that  might 
be  the  way  to  avoid  a  catastrophe  that  would 
doom  the  whole  of  mankind. 

As  far  as  we  are  concerned,  we  are  convinced 
that  it  is  possible  to  bring  together  all  the  peo- 
ples in  a  peaceful  competition  so  as  to  build  a 
better  world — a  more  human  world  and  a  more 
brotherly  world. 

In  conclusion,  Mr.  President,  I  would  like  to 


renew  the  expression  of  my  thanks  and  to  take 
advantage  of  this  opportunity  to  bring  to  the 
Nation  of  the  United  States  the  friendly  greet- 
ing of  the  Tunisian  people. 


JOINT  STATEMENT 

White  House  press  release  dated  May  16 

On  May  15,  1968,  President  Johnson  wel- 
comed President  Bourguiba  of  Tunisia  as  his 
guest  for  a  State  Visit  to  the  United  States. 
The  two  Presidents  had  a  mutually  valuable 
exchange  of  views  on  Tunisian-United  States 
relations  and  on  African,  regional  and  world 
developments. 

President  Bourguiba  described  the  successful 
efforts  Tunisia  is  making  to  consolidate  its  in- 
dependence, develop  its  economy  and  achieve 
new  social  goals  for  all  its  people,  men  and 
women,  young  and  old.  He  expressed  Tunisia's 
appreciation  for  American  assistance,  which 
has  contributed  significantly  to  Tunisian  eco- 
nomic development.  President  Johnson  recalled 
the  longstanding  interest  of  the  United  States 
in  Tunisia's  efforts  to  achieve  in  peace  and  se- 
curity its  goals  of  economic  development  and 
social  progress. 

President  Bourguiba  expressed  his  under- 
standing of  America's  aim  in  supporting  the 
principle  of  national  independence  and  self- 
determination  in  Southeast  Asia  and  com- 
mended President  Johnson  for  seeking  talks 
on  the  Viet  Nam  problem.  The  two  Presidents 
shared  the  hope  that  a  general  easing  of  world 
tensions  would  be  brought  about  by  patient  and 
persistent  efforts  to  achieve  a  just  settlement 
in  Viet  Nam. 

President  Bourguiba  stressed  the  urgency  of 
a  just  settlement  of  the  Middle  East  problem. 
President  Johnson  expressed  his  agreement,  and 
in  that  connection  reiterated  his  firm  belief  that 
justice  for  all  was  to  be  found  in  the  five  prin- 
ciples he  had  enunciated  on  June  19,  1967.  The 
two  Presidents  reaffirmed  their  strong  support 
for  the  Security  Council  Resolution  of  Novem- 
ber 22, 1967,  as  offering  the  surest  road  to  peace, 
and  called  on  all  Governments  to  cooperate  fully 
with  the  Jarring  Mission  toward  this  end. 

President  Johnson  noted  with  great  satis- 
faction the  priority  given  by  Tunisia  to  build- 
ing up  sound  and  fruitful  relations  with  its 
Maghrebian  neighbors,  as  well  as  with  other 
regions  of  Africa.  He  explained  the  United 


JTJNI!   10,    1968 


753 


States  Government's  belief  that  regional  eco- 
nomic cooperation  offered  an  effective  means  of 
hastening  the  process  of  development  and  con- 
tributing to  the  lessening  of  world  tensions. 

The  two  Presidents  consider  that  this  State 
Visit,  with  the  many  demonstrations  of  Ameri- 
can friendship  for  Tunisia  which  it  evokes,  is 
a  symbol  of  the  common  political  philosophy, 
the  belief  in  freedom,  the  respect  for  the  dignity 
of  the  individual,  and  the  profound  disposition 
toward  peace,  which  are  shared  by  the  Tunisian 
and  the  American  peoples. 


U.S.  To  Study  Effects  of  Imports 
on  Domestic  Producers  of  Footwear 

White  House  press  release  dated  April  29 

The  President  on  April  29  asked  the  U.S. 
Tariff  Commission  to  report  to  him  at  the  earli- 
est opportmiity  on  the  economic  condition  of 
the  domestic  producers  of  all  forms  of  footwear 
other  than  rubber  footwear.^ 

This  action  is  being  taken  in  recognition  of 
tlie  fact  tliat  imports  have  increased  substan- 
tially in  recent  months.  Moreover,  representa- 
tives of  the  industi-y  have  expressed  concern  that 
such  imports  may  adversely  affect  domestic  pro- 
ducers of  footwear. 

In  his  request,  the  President  asked  that  the 
Tariff  Commission's  report  deal  with  such  rele- 
vant factors  as  production,  sales,  investment, 
employment,  prices,  profits,  exports  and  im- 
ports. In  particular,  the  Tariff  Commission  is 
to  report  on  the  effect  of  unports  upon  domestic 
producers,  including  the  competitive  relation- 
ship between  imports  and  their  products. 

Chairman  [Wilbur  D.]  IMills  of  the  Ways  and 
Means  Coimnittee  is  joining  the  President  in 
requesting  die  Tariff  Commission  investigation. 


United  States  and  Spain  Hold 
Economic  Talks  at  Washington 


Joint  Statement 


Press  release  102  dated  May  10 


"  For  text  of  a  letter  from  President  Johnson  to  Stan- 
ley D.  Metzger,  Cliairinan,  U.S.  Tariff  Commission,  see 
White  House  press  release  dated  Apr.  29. 


The  United  States  and  Spain  yesterday 
[May  9]  concluded  two  days  of  talks  on  eco- 
nomic matters  of  mutual  concern.  These  talks 
were  held  in  accordance  with  the  U.S.-Spanish 
Joint  Declaration  of  September  26, 1963,^  which 
provided  for  regular  consultations  on  all  politi- 
cal, military  and  economic  matters  of  common 
interest. 

During  the  course  of  the  two-day  meeting, 
representatives  of  the  Spanisli  Government, 
headed  by  Ambassador-at-large  Faustino  Ar- 
mijo,  met  with  representatives  of  the  United 
States  Government,  headed  by  Under  Secre- 
tary Katzenbach,  and  discussed  the  current 
economic  situation  of  the  two  coimtries  with 
emphasis  on  problems  in  the  international  mone- 
tary, investment,  fiscal  and  trade  fields. 

The  talks  have  been  extremely  useful  in  pro- 
viding the  respective  delegations  a  clearer  im- 
derstanding  of  the  economic  problems  faced  by 
Spain  and  the  United  States,  and  the  two  gov- 
ernments are  confident  that  the  possibility  offer- 
ed for  continuing  regular  consultations  will 
prove  equally  useful. 


Letters  of  Credence 

Indonesia 

The  newly  appointed  Ambassador  of  Indo- 
nesia, R.  Mangundiningrat  Sudjatmoko,  pre- 
sented his  credentials  to  President  Johnson  on 
May  7.  For  texts  of  the  Ambassador's  remarks 
and  the  President's  reply,  see  Department  of 
State  press  release  dated  May  7. 


'  For  text,  see  Bulletin  of  Oct.  28, 1963,  p.  686. 


754 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BtTLLETIN 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATIONS  AND   CONFERENCES 


United  States  Discusses  Security  Assurances 
and  Draft  Nonproliferation  Treaty 


Statement  hy  Arthur  J.  Goldberg 

U.S.  Representative  to  the  U.N.  General  Assembly  ' 


In  my  statement  of  April  26,^  at  the  very  out- 
set of  our  discussions,  when  I  touched  upon  the 
important  question  of  security  assurances,  I  said 
my  delegation  would  further  detail  the  position 
of  the  United  States  on  this  matter  later  in  our 
debate,  after  we  had  had  the  opportimity  to  hear 
the  views  of  various  delegations.  I  should  like 
to  make  that  presentation  now  and  at  the  same 
time  to  comment  on  several  other  questions 
which  have  been  raised  as  we  have  listened  care- 
fully to  the  statements  of  our  colleagues  in  this 
committee.  First  I  shall  deal  with  the  matter  of 
security  assurances. 

On  March  7  of  this  year  in  Geneva,  the  United 
States  joined  with  the  Soviet  Union  and  the 
United  Kingdom  in  outlining  a  course  of  action 
wliich  they  propose  to  take  in  the  Security 
Council  to  provide  appropriate  security  assur- 
ances.^ That  action  which  we  outlmed  is  de- 
signed to  enhance  the  security  of  all  parties  to 
the  treaty,*  and  in  particular  of  those  non- 
nuclear  powers  which  may  find  themselves  con- 
fronted by  a  direct  nuclear  threat. 

The  formulation  of  tliis  security  proposal  was 
not  easy ;  the  problem  is  a  difficult  and  compli- 
cated one.  Effective  assurances  must  address 
themselves  to  circumstances  and  events  that 
cannot  be  foreseen  in  detail.  They  must  be  prac- 
tical and  credible  under  a  wide  range  of  possible 


^Matle  in  Committee  I  (Political  and  Security)  on 
May  1.5. 

-  BuixETiN  of  Hay  20,  1968,  p.  63.5. 

'For  background,  see  Hid.,  Mar.  25,  1968,  p.  401. 

'For  text  of  the  Draft  Treaty  on  the  Non-Prolifer- 
ation  of  Xuclear  Weapons,  see  ibid..  May  20,  19C8,  p. 
&13. 


circiunstances  in  a  world  in  which  allied,  non- 
aligned,  and  neutral  nations  have  different  in- 
terests. The  conclusion  reached  was  that  the  best 
solution  was  to  be  found  in  the  context  of  the 
United  Nations.  Under  its  charter,  as  we  all  well 
know,  every  one  of  our  comitries  has  assumed  a 
solemn  obligation  to  cooperate  in  the  mainte- 
nance of  peace. 

The  United  States,  the  Soviet  Union,  and  the 
United  Kingdom  therefore  agreed  to  sponsor  a 
draft  resolution  on  security  assurances  in  the 
Security  Council,  the  organ  of  the  United  Na- 
tions which  bears  the  primaiy  responsibility  for 
the  maintenance  of  international  peace  and  se- 
curity. Tlie  text  of  that  draft  resohition  lias  been 
circulated  to  each  member  of  the  United  Nations 
as  annex  B  of  the  Eighteen-Nation  Committee's 
report,  document  A/7072.  My  Government  be- 
lieves that  this  draft  resolution  will  lay  a  firm 
political,  moral,  and  legal  basis  for  assuring  the 
security  of  nonnuclear  parties  to  this  treaty. 

A  key  paragraph  of  the  draft  resolution  en- 
visages declarations  by  the  nuclear-weapon 
sponsors  giving  assurance  to  the  non-nuclear- 
weapon  states  that  will  enliance  their  security 
against  the  threat  of  nuclear  attack.  According- 
ly, the  Government  of  the  United  States  will 
make  such  a  declaration  in  conjunction  with  the 
Security  Council  consideration  of  this  draft 
resolution.  Similar  declarations  will  be  made  by 
the  Soviet  Union  and  the  United  Kingdom.  We 
believe  that  these  declarations  will  reinforce  the 
Security  Council's  action  on  the  draft  resolution. 

In  its  declaration  the  United  States  will  affirm 
that  any  aggression  accompanied  by  the  use  of 
nuclear  weapons  would  endanger  the  peace  and 


JtrXE    10,    1968 


755 


security  of  all  states.  The  United  States  will 
declare  that  aggression  with  nuclear  weapons, 
or  the  threat  of  such  aggression,  against  a  non- 
nuclear-weapon  state  would  create  a  qualitative- 
ly new  situation.  We  will  declare  that  in  this 
situation  the  nuclear-weapon  states  which  are 
permanent  members  of  the  United  Nations  Se- 
curity Council  would  have  to  act  immediately 
through  tlie  Council  to  take  the  measures  neces- 
sary to  counter  such  aggression  or  to  remove  the 
threat  of  aggression  in  accordance  with  the 
United  Nations  Charter.  The  charter  calls  for 
taking  "effective  collective  measures  for  the  pre- 
vention and  removal  of  threats  to  the  peace  and 
for  the  suppression  of  acts  of  aggression  or  other 
breaches  of  the  peace." 

The  United  States  will  further  declare  that 
any  state  which  commits  aggression  accom- 
panied by  the  use  of  nuclear  weapons,  or  which 
threatens  such  aggression,  must  be  aware  that 
its  actions  are  to  be  countered  effectively  by 
measures  to  be  taken  in  accordance  with  the 
United  Nations  Charter  to  suppress  the  aggres- 
sion or  remove  the  threat  of  aggression.  We  will 
affirm  the  intention  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  as  a  permanent  member  of  the 
Security  Council,  to  seek  iimnediate  Security 
Council  action  to  provide  assistance  in  accord- 
ance with  the  charter  to  any  non-nuclear- 
weapon  state  party  to  the  treaty  that  is  a  victim 
of  an  act  of  aggression,  or  the  object  of  a  tlireat 
of  aggression,  in  which  nuclear  weapons  are 
used. 

The  United  States  will  reaffirm  in  particular 
the  inherent  right,  recognized  under  article  51 
of  the  charter,  of  individual  and  collective  self- 
defense  if  an  armed  attack,  including  a  nuclear 
attack,  occurs  against  a  member  of  the  United 
Nations,  until  the  Security  Council  has  taken 
measures  necessary  to  maintain  international 
peace  and  security. 

In  voting  for  this  draft  resolution,  the  United 
States  will  indicate  that  its  vote  and  its  state- 
ment of  the  way  in  which  it  intends  to  act  in 
accordance  with  the  charter  are  based  on  the  fact 
that  the  draft  resolution  is  also  supported  by  the 
Soviet  Union  and  the  United  Kingdom,  the 
other  permanent  members  of  the  Security  Coun- 
cil which  are  nuclear-weapon  states  and  are 
proposing  to  sign  the  nonproliferation  treaty. 
We  will  further  state  that  our  vote  for  this  draft 
resolution  is  based  on  the  fact  that  these  states 
have  made  statements  similar  to  that  of  the 
United  States  as  to  how  they  intend  to  act  in 
accordance  with  the  charter. 


If  the  full  significance  of  this  proposed  Se- 
curity Council  action  is  to  be  grasped,  it  must  be 
seen  in  the  light  of  the  present  world  situation. 
It  reflects  the  determination  of  the  United 
States,  the  Soviet  Union,  and  the  United  King- 
dom to  have  assistance  provided  in  accordance 
with  the  Charter  of  the  United  Nations  to  any 
party  to  the  treaty  which  is  a  victim  of  an  act  of 
aggression  or  the  object  of  a  threat  of  aggression 
in  which  nuclear  weapons  are  used. 

I  note  that  questions  have  been  raised  by  sev- 
eral delegations  as  to  how  the  machinery  of  the 
Security  Council  and  the  provisions  of  the  char- 
ter would  function  in  the  event  of  aggression, 
or  of  the  threat  of  aggression,  with  nuclear 
weapons.  These  are  legitimate  questions  and  de- 
serve a  serious  answer.  In  attempting  to  answer 
them  I  would  make  several  points. 

My  first  point  is  that  with  the  joint  support  of 
the  United  States,  the  Soviet  Union,  and  the 
United  Kingdom  there  is  a  firm  foundation  for 
an  effective  response  by  the  Security  Council  to 
any  challenge  requiring  immediate  action. 

Second,  I  would  emphasize  a  point  of  the  very 
greatest  political  significance;  namely,  the 
identity  of  the  three  nuclear- weapon  powers 
which  have  joined  in  supporting  the  nuclear 
nonproliferation  treaty  and  in  agreeing  to  pre- 
sent this  Security  Council  draft  resolution.  It  is 
no  secret  that  these  powers  command  the  over- 
whelming preponderance  of  nuclear-weapon 
power  in  the  world  today.  That  these  major  nu- 
clear powers,  whatever  their  respective  views  on 
other  matters,  have  now  united  in  this  projiosal 
is  a  political  fact  of  the  first  order.  It  means  that 
they  consider  that  their  respective  vital  national 
interests  demand  that  there  shall  be  no  nuclear 
aggression,  and  no  threat  of  nuclear  aggres- 
sion, from  any  quarter ;  and  that  those  countries 
that  forgo  nuclear  weapons  by  adhering  to  the 
nonpi-oliferation  treaty  should  not  thereby  feel 
any  loss  of  security. 

Thus,  the  sponsorship  of  this  Security  Coun- 
cil draft  resolution  by  tiiese  three  nuclear- 
weapon  powers  introduces  a  powerfid  element 
of  deterrence  against  nuclear  aggression  or  the 
threat  of  such  aggression.  It  also  is  a  fact  of 
history,  as  we  who  represent  our  comitries  in 
the  United  Nations  well  know,  that  where  the 
three  nuclear  nations  which  have  developed  this 
Security  Council  draft  resolution  have  joined 
in  support  of  proposed  action  by  the  Council, 
such  action  has  usually  been  forthcoming  and 
effective. 

Furthermore,  as  we  have  already  pointed  out, 


756 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE    BTJLLETIN 


article  51  of  the  chai-ter  recognizes  the  inherent 
riglit  of  individual  and  collective  self-defense. 
This  right  is  reaflirmcd  in  the  Security  Council 
draft  resolution  which  the  United  States,  the 
Soviet  Union,  and  the  United  Kingdom  would 
submit  and  is  also  reaffirmed  in  the  declaration 
which  ni}'  Govcrmnent  would  make  accompany- 
ing tliis  resolution  and  which  the  other  Govern- 
ments would  likewise  make. 

I  urge  all  members  to  consider  thoughtfully 
the  value  to  them,  from  tlie  standpoint  of  their 
own  national  interests,  of  these  proposed  se- 
curity assurances  sponsoi'ed  by  the  principal  nu- 
clear-weapon powers.  x\.nd  I  suggest  that  in  so 
considermg  them  each  state  should  ask  itself 
not  "Will  this  treaty,  combined  with  the  se- 
curity assurances,  give  my  country  perfect  se- 
curity?"— because  there  is,  of  course,  no  perfect 
security  in  this  world — but  should  rather  ask 
itself:  "Will  this  treaty,  combined  with  the  se- 
curity assurances,  give  my  country  more  security 
than  it  would  otherwise  enjoy?"  And  as  I  said 
in  my  opening  statement,  the  United  States  is 
confident  that  a  careful  appraisal  in  the  light 
of  this  pertinent  question  will  result  in  an  over- 
whelmingly affirmative  answer  in  support  of  the 
treaty  before  us. 

Finally,  the  treaty  itself,  independent  of  any 
other  consideration,  will  enhance  the  secm-ity 
of  non-nuclear-weapon  states. 

^V\\at  will  the  world  be  like  if,  due  to  failure 
on  the  part  of  the  Assembly  to  endorse  the  treaty 
on  time — wliich  I  trust  and  hope  will  not  hap- 
pen— further  proliferation  should  take  place? 
In  July  1963,  upon  the  initialing  of  the  limited 
test  ban  treaty,  the  late  President  Kennedy 
noted  that  within  a  few  years  a  small  but  sig- 
nificant number  of  nations  would  possess  the 
resources  to  produce  both  nuclear  weapons  and 
the  means  of  delivering  them.  President  Ken- 
nedy went  on  to  say :  ° 

In  time,  it  is  estimated,  many  other  nations  will  have 
either  this  capacity  or  other  ways  of  obtaining  nuclear 
warheads,  even  as  missiles  can  be  commercially  pur- 
chased today. 

I  ask  you  to  stop  and  think  for  a  moment  what  it 
would  mean  to  have  nuclear  weapons  in  .so  many  hands, 
in  the  hands  of  countries  large  and  small  .  .  .  scat- 
tered throughout  the  world.  There  would  be  no  rest  for 
anyone  then,  no  stability,  no  real  security,  and  no 
chance  of  effective  disarmament.  There  would  only  be 
the  increased  chance  of  accidental  war  and  an  increa.sed 
necessity  for  the  great  powers  to  involve  themselves 
in  what  otherwise  would  be  local  conflicts. 


This  treaty  will  prevent  such  a  nightmare 
world  of  the  future.  By  halting  the  spread  of 
nuclear  weapons,  the  treaty  itself  will  lessen  the 
danger  of  nuclear  war,  reduce  tensions,  and  im- 
prove the  prospects  for  nuclear  disarmament  and 
for  general  disarmament. 

4  Years  of  Detailed  Negotiations 

Having  dealt  with  the  matter  of  security 
assurances,  I  should  now  like  to  refer  to  views 
that  have  been  expressed  in  this  debate  concern- 
ing other  aspects  of  the  question  before  us. 

The  view  has  been  expressed  that,  despite  the 
urgency  and  importance  of  prompt  action  on 
the  treaty,  the  Eighteen-Nation  Committee  on 
Disarmament  did  not  have  sufficient  opportunity 
for  a  detailed  consideration  of  all  proposals  sub- 
mitted by  the  members  of  that  Committee  and 
other  countries  prior  to  the  transmission  of  its 
report  to  the  General  Assembly  on  March  15, 
and  consequently  it  has  been  suggested  that  we 
should  now  consider  ab  initio  all  aspects  of  the 
treaty. 

It  should  not  be  supposed,  however,  that  the 
treaty  text  before  us,  when  it  was  submitted  in 
Geneva  on  last  March  11,  was  a  brand  new  text. 
Rather,  it  was  the  culmination  of  the  ENDC's 
4  years  of  consideration  of  this  treaty  i^roject. 
It  contains  formulations  reflecting  a  broad  area 
of  agreement,  evolved  over  a  long  period  of 
negotiations  during  which  many  members  and 
nonmembers  of  the  ENDC  made  extensive  and 
detailed  contributions  to  it. 

It  is  a  matter  of  record  that  negotiations  on 
a  nonproliferation  treaty  began  in  the  Geneva 
Committee  in  1964.  Extensive  debate,  in  which 
all  participants  took  part,  went  on  virtually 
continuously,  with  only  intermittent  recesses, 
throughout  the  ensuing  4  years.  Many  proposals 
were  made  and  discussed,  emanating  both  from 
members  of  the  ENDC  and  from  nonmembers. 
As  is  usual  in  international  negotiations,  as  we 
well  know,  along  with  public  debate  intensive 
private  negotiations  took  place.  It  is  an  open 
secret  that  many  of  these  private  negotiations 
took  place  during  recesses  of  the  ENDC,  as  well 
as  during  sessions  of  that  body. 

Then,  on  Augu.st  24,  1967,  in  light  of  these 
discussions  and  negotiations,  the  United  States 
and  the  Soviet  Union,  in  discharge  of  their  re- 
sponsibilities as  cochairmen,  submitted  a  draft 
treaty  text.''  Following  the  submission  of  this 


°  For  President  Kennedy's  address  to  the  Nation  on 
July  26,  1963,  see  ihid.,  Aug.  12, 1963,  p.  234. 


°  For  text,  see  ibid.,  Sept.  11,  1967,  p.  319. 


JtTNE    10,    1968 


757 


text,  all  members  of  the  Committee  participated 
in  intensified  negotiations,  in  the  course  of  which 
major  suggestions  and  comiterproposals  were 
submitted  by  various  members.  Thereafter,  on 
January  18, 19G8,  a  revised  and  complete  treaty 
draft '  was  submitted,  incorporating  many  of 
these  suggestions  and  proposals.  There  then  fol- 
lowed nearly  2  months  of  even  more  intensified 
negotiations,  pursuant  to  the  mandate  of  the 
General  Assembly  in  Resolution  2346  (XXII) 
which  called  upon  the  ENDC  "urgently  to 
continue  its  work." 

The  result  was  the  final  draft  of  March  11, 
1968,  incoi"porating  further  substantive  changes 
suggested  by  various  governments. 

It  is,  of  course,  a  matter  of  record  that  3  days 
after  this  final  text  was  submitted  the  ENDC 
adjourned.  However,  we  should  recall  that  the 
March  15  date  for  submitting  the  report  of  the 
ENDC  was  set  by  the  General  Assembly  after 
intensive  consultations  between  the  nuclear- 
weapon  states  participants  and  non-nuclear- 
weapon  states,  which  culminated  in  Resolution 
2346  (XXII)  of  December  19, 1967.  Tlie  ENDC 
is  to  be  commended  for  having  met  that  date  set 
by  the  General  Assembly. 

This  record  demonstrates  that  the  draft  treaty 
that  lies  before  us  is  the  result  of  4  years  of  de- 
tailed negotiations  m  which  the  views  of  many 
governments,  nuclear  and  nomiuclear,  are  re- 
flected. This  is  not  to  say  that  every  specific  pro- 
posal or  amendment  that  was  put  forward  by 
one  or  more  governments  was,  or  could  be, 
adoi^ted.  Some  of  these  proposed  amendments 
canceled  ovit  others.  Some  aroused  no  interest  or 
support  from  other  governments.  Often,  several 
related  proposals  aimed  at  reaching  the  same 
general  goal  by  somewhat  different  means. 

Changes  in   Successive  Texts 

Thus,  there  were  large  areas  of  overlapping 
or  congruent  interest.  The  obvious  and  necessary 
course,  indispensable  in  negotiating  an  agree- 
ment, was  to  reconcile  divergent  interests  and  to 
fix  those  elements  which  were  most  likely  to 
make  the  treaty  as  widely  acceptable  as  possible. 
That  task  was  performed  by  the  cocliainnen  in 
consultation  with  members  of  the  Committee 
and  with  other  governments  which  had  dis- 
played a  keen  interest  in  its  work.  No  other 
procedure  was  or  is  possible. 


'  For  text,  see  ibid.,  Feb.  5,  1968,  p.  165.  (For  a  correc- 
tion in  .article  III.  see  ibid.,  May  20, 1968,  p.  64.5. ) 


By  way  of  illustration,  I  believe  that  it  would 
be  useful  if  I  were  to  list  the  changes  made  in 
the  successive  texts  on  the  basis  of  the  sugges- 
tions and  proposals  offered  at  Geneva  and  else- 
where. Incorporated  into  the  present  text  are 
the  following  important  and  vital  amendments 
which  were  not  part  of  the  initial  text  of 
August  24: 

Article  IV — an  extremely  vital  part  of  this 
draft  treaty — was  strengthened  to  meet  the  re- 
quests of  many  governments  for  strong  and 
positive  provisions  protectmg  and  promoting 
the  peaceful  uses  of  nuclear  energy. 

Article  V  was  added  in  order  to  remove  con- 
cern that  nonnuclear  parties  might  be  depend- 
ent merely  on  the  good  will  of  the  nuclear 
powers  for  the  performance  of  nuclear  explosive 
services  for  peaceful  puqjoses.  It  assures  that 
such  ser^'ices  will  be  available  under  appropri- 
ate international  procedures  and  that  the  charge 
for  the  device  used  will  be  at  low  cost — in  fact, 
below  the  cost  of  perfecting  tliose  devices  by  the 
nuclear  powers. 

Article  VI  was  added,  and  subsequently 
strengthened,  to  give  further  effect  to  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  treaty  should  embody  an  accept- 
able balance  of  obligations.  It  binds  the  parties 
to  seek  to  end  the  nuclear  arms  race  at  an  early 
date  and  to  seek  effective  nuclear  disarmament. 

A  new  preambular  paragraph  concerning  a 
comprehensive  test  ban  was  added  for  the  same 
purpose. 

Article  VII  was  added  to  amplify  the  impor- 
tance of  the  i^rinciple  that  nothing  in  this  draft 
treaty  affects  the  rights  of  the  parties  ta  estab- 
lish nuclear  free  zones  and  thus  to  accord  ap- 
propriate recognition  of  the  first  such  zone, 
established  by  the  Treaty  of  Tlatelolco  con- 
cluded by  the  Latin  American  countries. 

The  provisions  in  article  VIII  for  amending 
the  treaty  were  changed  to  meet  the  concern  ex- 
pressed by  several  governments  that  jjarties 
might  later  find  themselves  unwillingly  boimd 
by  unforeseen  amendments  ratified  by  a  ma- 
jority of  the  parties. 

The  provisions  in  article  X  regarding  the 
treaty's  duration  were  changed  in  order  to  meet 
the  concern  expressed  about  the  treaty's  having 
no  limit  in  time. 

Finally,  article  VIII  was  amended,  in  re- 
sponse to  proposals  put  forward  by  a  number 
of  nations  within  and  outside  the  ENDC,  to 
provide  for  review  conferences  every  5  years 
and  to  jirovide  further  that,  in  reviewing  the 
operation  of  the  treaty,  periodic  review  confer- 


758 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


ences  should  examine  the  purposes  of  the  pre- 
amble as  M'ell  as  the  provisions  of  the  treaty. 

Six  of  the  nine  major  chancres  whicli  I  have 
listed  were  incorporated  in  the  draft  of  January 
18, 1968.  They  were  made  after  consideration  of 
some  20  written  proposals,  plus  innumerable 
oral  comments.  Specifically,  there  were  six  writ- 
ten proposals  on  article  IV,  four  on  article  V, 
four  on  article  VI,  two  on  article  VII,  and  two 
each  on  amending  the  treaty  and  on  its  dura- 
tion. The  further  changes  incorporated  in  the 
text  of  March  11  were  derived  from  three  new 
written  proposals  concerning  article  VT  and 
four  concerning  article  WII,  as  well  as  several 
less  formal  suggestions. 

In  the  history  of  international  diplomacy  it  is 
hard  to  recall  a  treaty  more  painstakingly  nego- 
tiated, in  due  recognition  of  the  interests  of  so 
many  governments  and  of  its  worldwide  impact 
and  importance. 

It  is  nevertheless  true,  as  I  have  said,  that  not 
every  suggested  alteration  was  incorporated  in 
the  draft  treaty.  During  this  debate  we  have 
heard  arguments  in  favor  of  a  number  of  the 
suggestions  and  proposals  which  were  put  for- 
ward by  certain  delegations  in  the  EXDC  but 
were  not  adopted. 

However,  it  is  the  impression  of  my  delega- 
tion, after  listening  carefully  to  and  reviewing 
these  arguments,  that  the  adoption  of  all  the 
suggested  amendments  would  not  cure  the  more 
fimdamental  difficulty  that  seems  to  be  trou- 
bling some  of  those  who  now  argue  in  favor  of 
them.  It  has  been  stated,  for  instance,  that  the 
desire  to  emulate  the  example  of  those  which 
have  become  nuclear-weapon  powers  can  be 
eliminated  only  if  we  do  away  with  the  special 
status  of  superiority  associated  with  the  power 
and  prestige  conferred  on  those  powers  which 
possess  nuclear  weapons.  The  logical  and  ines- 
capable conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  this  is  that 
the  world  should  do  nothing  about  the  prolifer- 
ation of  nuclear  weapons  until  all  of  us  here, 
and  Communist  China  as  well,  are  able  to  do  far 
more  in  the  direction  of  nuclear  disarmament 
than  most  of  us  believe  can  be  done  practically 
in  the  immediate  future. 

In  this,  as  in  other  courses  of  international 
action  open  to  governments,  we  are  not  faced 
witli  a  choice  between  good  and  evil  or  between 
what  is  possible  and  what  would  be  ideal. 
Rather,  the  choice  is  between  what  is  helpful 
and  possible  and  what,  although  ideal,  could 
only  lead  to  inaction,  disagreement,  and  fnis- 
tration.  In  Geneva  that  choice  was  made  in 


favor  of  what  is  possible,  practicable,  and  help- 
ful. I  submit  that  this  was  the  wise  choice  and 
that  we  in  the  Assembly  should  reaffirm  it.  And 
I  strongly  hope  that  those  delegations  which 
may  still  remain  in  doubt  on  this  question  will 
decide,  after  careful  consideration  of  all  that 
has  been  said  and  will  be  said  here,  that  this 
draft  treaty  deserves  their  full  support.  It  is  a 
cliche,  but  it  deserves  repeating,  that  the  perfect 
should  never  be  the  enemy  of  the  good. 

Peaceful   Applications   Not  Hindered 

I  now  turn  to  a  particular  provision  of  the 
draft  treaty  on  which  there  has  been  consider- 
able discussion  in  this  debate:  the  prohibition 
against  the  development  by  nonnuclear  states  of 
nuclear  explosive  devices  for  peaceful  purposes. 
In  my  initial  intervention  of  April  26  I  dealt 
with  the  reasons  for  this  prohibition,  and  other 
speakers  have  also  addressed  themselves  to  this 
point. 

But  I  should  like  now  to  deal  with  one  par- 
ticular assertion,  an  important  one;  namely, 
that  this  prohibition  would  retard  the  scientific 
and  technological  development  of  the  nonnu- 
clear parties  to  the  treaty.  This  is  not  the  case. 
This  treaty  will  in  no  way  limit  the  freedom 
or  capacity  of  its  signatories  to  develop  peaceful 
applications  of  nuclear  energy — apart  from  nu- 
clear explosive  devices,  the  technologv  of  which 
is  essentially  indistinguishable  from  nuclear 
weapons.  Indeed,  the  treaty  binds  those  parties 
in  a  position  to  do  so  to  cooperate  with  develop- 
ing countries  in  the  peaceful  applications  of 
nuclear  energy ;  and  it  further  obligates  the  nu- 
clear powers — and  I  wish  to  emphasize  this  once 
again^ — to  make  available  to  treaty  signatories 
nuclear  explosions  for  peaceful  uses  on  a  non- 
discriminatory basis  and  at  a  cost  for  the  devices 
used  which  excludes  any  charge  for  research  and 
development,  which  is  the  major  charge  on  any 
nuclear  power  that  has  experimented  in  this 
area. 

"Wliile  this  treaty  was  still  in  the  process  of 
negotiation,  the  President  of  the  United  States 
gave  the  following  instructions  to  the  United 
States  negotiators :  ^ 

I  have  instructed  our  negotiators  to  exercise  the 
greatest  care  tliat  the  treaty  not  hinder  the  nonnuclear 
powers  in  their  development  of  nuclear  energy  for 
peaceful  purposes.  We  believe  in  sharing  the  benefits 
of  .scientific  progress  and  we  will  continue  to  act  accord- 
ingly.  Through   IAEA    [International  Atomic   Energy 


'  For  background,  see  ihid.,  Mar.  20, 1967,  p.  447. 


JrxE    10.    1968 


759 


Agency],  through  EURATOM  [European  Atomic  En- 
ergy Community],  and  through  other  international 
channels,  we  have  shared— and  will  continue  to  share— 
the  knowledge  we  have  gained  about  nuclear  energy. 
There  will  be  no  barrier  to  effective  cooperation  among 
the  signatory  nations. 

The  United  States  negotiators  followed  that 
directive  faithfully.  I  emphasized  in  my  last 
statement  the  importance  which  we  attach  to 
article  IV  in  furthering  international  coopera- 
tion in  the  field  of  nuclear  energy.  In  pursuance 
of  our  obligation  under  this  treaty,  the  United 
States  will  appropriately  and  equitably  share 
its  technological  knowledge  and  experience,  ac- 
quired at  great  cost,  with  the  parties  to  the 
treaty,  and  particularly  the  nonnuclear  parties, 
in  the  miportant  areas  of  the  peaceful  uses  of 
nuclear  energy.  This  treaty  does  not  ask  any 
country  to  accept  a  status  of  technological  de- 
pendency or  to  be  deprived  of  developments 
in  nuclear  research.  On  the  contrary,  this  treaty 
opens  the  way  for  greater  knowledge  and  greater 
opportunity  for  the  nonnuclear  powers  to  share 
information  and  move  forward  in  the  fields 
of  knowledge  related  to  nuclear  development. 

Tluis,  under  this  treaty,  the  great,  wide,  and 
varied  field  of  research  and  development  in  nu- 
clear science  and  technology  for  peaceful  uses 
will  not  only  remain  open  but  will  be  opened 
wider  to  all  parties  that  wish  to  engage  fully 
their  talents  and  capabilities  in  this  field.  I 
could  not  hope  to  set  forth  in  this  presentation 
all  the  facets  of  this  modern  science— that  would 
take  many  volumes  and  would  be  beyond  my 
capacity.  As  examples,  however,  and  to  remind 
us  all  of  the  depth  and  breadth  of  this  science 
and  technology,  let  me  mention  just  a  few  of 
these  areas  of  nuclear  science. 

The  whole  field  of  nuclear  science  associated 
with  electric  power  production  is  accessible  now, 
and  will  become  more  accessible  under  the 
treaty,  to  all  who  seek  to  exploit  it.  This  includes 
not  only  the  present  generation  of  nuclear  pow- 
er reactors  but  also  that  advanced  technology, 
which  is  still  developing,  of  fast  breeder  power 
reactors  which,  in  producing  energy,  also  pro- 
duce more  fissionable  material  than  they  con- 
siune. 

Many  nations  are  now  engaged  in  research 
in  an  even  more  advanced  field  of  science,  that  of 
controlled  thermonuclear  fusion.  The  future  de- 
velopments of  this  science  and  technology'  may 
well  lead  to  the  nuclear  reactor  of  the  future, 
in  which  the  fission  process  of  uranium  or  plu- 
toniiun  is  replaced  by  the  fusion  reactions  of 
hydrogen  isotopes  as  the  source  of  energy.  Con- 


trolled thermonuclear  fusion  technology  will  not 
be  affected  by  the  treaty  but,  on  the  contrary, 
will  be  accelerated  by  it.  ] 

The  same  will  be  true  of  the  development  and 
use  of  research  reactors  for  specialized  appli- 
cation in  science  and  engineering,  the  develop-      j 
ment  of  reactors  for  desalting  sea  water,  and      j 
the  very  important  uses  of  radioisotopes  in  agri-      | 
culture,  medicine,  and  the  physical  sciences. 

This  list  could  be  elaborated  at  great  length. 
The  point  is  that  there  is  no  basis  for  any  con- 
cern that  this  treaty  would  impose  inhibitions  | 
or  restrictions  on  the  opportunity  for  non-nu-  i 
clear-weapon  states  to  develop  their  capabilities 
in  nuclear  science  and  technology.  On  the  con- 
trary, under  the  express  provisions  of  the  treaty 
they  stand  to  gain  greater  assistance  through 
an  expanded  exchange  of  information  in  these 

In  this  context  some  further  comments  are 
in  order  on  the  subject  of  peaceful  nuclear  ex- 
plosions. The  specialized  technology  involved 
in  the  production  of  nuclear  explosive  devices 
is  not  such  a  crucial  element  in  other  aspects  ot 
nuclear  science  that  its  absence  would  retard 
progress  in  their  peaceful  application.  In  any 
case^  the  limited  amount  of  "spin-off"  for  such 
peaceful  applications  from  the  development  ot 
nuclear  explosive  devices  has  long  since  been 
made  available  by  the  United  States  to  all  coun- 
tries that  might  wish  to  use  it. 

It  should  also  be  realized  that  the  treaty  does 
not  forbid  anyone  to  engage  in  research  and  de- 
velopment in  the  conventional  engineering  tor 
peaceful  applications  of  nuclear  explosions,  it 
is  only  the  production  or  acquisition  of  the  ex- 
plosive device  itself  that  is  precluded;  and  it 
is  precluded  for  the  reason  I  have  stated:  that 
the  device  is  indistinguishable  from  a  nuclear 
weapon  There  exist  hundreds  of  reports,  avail- 
able to  all,  for  those  who  wish  to  begin  now  to 
study  peaceful  applications  of  nuclear  explo- 
sions. ^      .  .    ,,  „, 
In  conclusion,  I  wish  to  emphasize  again  that 
several  vears  of  arduous  negotiations  have  gone 
into  achieving  the  treaty  text  that  is  before  this 
committee.  This  complete  and  carefully  bal- 
anced text  embodies  the  widest  area  of  agree- 
ment that  we  believe,  and  have  found  from  the 
experience  of  the  last  4  years,  is  possible.  We 
are  convinced  that  the  treaty  will  be  effective 
and  will  accomplish  its  puri^ose— if  we  act  in 
time.  But  if  we  continue  merely  to  support  non- 
proliferation  in  principle,  while  delaying  the 
achievement  of  a  treaty  to  accomplish  it  in 


760 


DEPARTMENT    OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


practice — if  we  lose  precious  time  in  prolonging 
the  quest  for  a  broader  or  more  perfect  text — 
I  express  the  gravest  concern  lest  we  find  that 
we  acted  too  late  and  that  our  efforts  were 
futDe  and  wasted. 

Sly  Govermnent  strongly  believes  that  the 
moment  has  arrived  for  decisive  action  on  this 
treaty.  The  time  is  now.  The  place  is  here. 
History  will  have  every  reason  to  judge  us 
hai'shly  if  we  miss  this  opportunity  to  create 
a  more  stable,  secure,  and  peaceful  world  order. 


U.S.  Reviews  Efforts  To  Achieve 
Goals  for  South  West  Africa 

Statement  hy  Arthur  J.  Ooldherg 

U.S.  Representative  to  the  General  Assemhly  ^ 

This  debate  on  South  West  Africa  and  the 
report  of  the  Coimcil  on  South  West  Africa  = 
testifies  to  the  deep  concern  which  the  over- 
whelming majority  of  the  nations  of  the  world 
feel  because  of  the  contmuing  injustice  inflicted 
upon  the  people  of  South  West  Africa.  The 
United  States  fully  shares  that  concern  and  con- 
tinues to  seek,  both  inside  and  outside  the  United 
Nations,  ways  by  which  this  injustice  can  be 
redressed. 

It  may  be  useful  at  the  outset  to  recall  the  road 
we  have  traveled  on  this  issue  since  the  fall  of 
1966.  In  the  Assembly's  general  debate  that  year, 
South  West  Africa  was  a  leading  topic.  Speak- 
ing for  the  United  States,  I  made  clear  the  depth 
of  my  country's  opposition  to  South  Africa's 
policy  in  the  territory  and  of  our  commitment 
to  a  just  solution.  I  stated  that  continued  viola- 
tion by  South  Africa  of  its  plain  obligations  in 
this  matter  would  necessarily  require  all  nations, 
including  my  own,  to  take  such  an  attitude  into 
account  in  their  relations  with  South  Africa.^ 

A  month  later,  on  October  27,  1966,  after  in- 
tensive debate  and  negotiation,  the  Assembly 
took  a  decisive  stand  on  this  gi'eat  issue  when 
we  adopted,  by  an  overwhelming  vote.  Resolu- 
tion 2145.*  In  that  resolution  we  decided  that 
the  mandate  over  South  West  Africa  was  termi- 


'  Made  in  plenary  session  of  the  U.X.  General  Assem- 
bly on  May  20   (U.S./U.N.  press  release  69). 

'  U.N.  doc.  A/.5088  and  Corr.  1. 

'  For  a  statement  by  Ambassador  Goldberg  made  on 
Sept.  22,  1966,  see  Bulletin  of  Oct.  10,  1966,  p.  ")18. 

'  For  text,  see  ibid.,  Dec.  5,  1966,  p.  871. 


nated;  that  South  Africa  had  no  other  rights 
to  administer  the  territory ;  and  that  henceforth 
South  West  Africa  comes  under  the  direct  re- 
sponsibility of  the  United  Nations.  And  we 
called  upon  South  Africa  to  refrain  from  any 
actions  that  would  alter  the  territory's  interna- 
tional status. 

During  the  debate  on  Resolution  2145, 1  stated 
on  behalf  of  the  United  States  a  view  which 
found  expression  in  that  resolution  and  which 
I  believe  remains  valid  today.^  It  is  still  true 
that,  to  be  effective  on  this  most  important  issue, 
we  need  more  than  world  opinion  voiced  by 
words  in  a  resolution.  We  need  world  coopera- 
tion manifested  by  concrete  action  and  by  steps 
which  can  be  practically  implemented  and 
which  lie  within  the  capacity  of  this  organiza- 
tion. The  action  which  the  General  Assembly 
takes  should  therefore  be  both  intrinsically 
sound  and  widely  supported.  This  is  necessary 
for  the  sake  of  the  people  of  South  West  Africa, 
who  have  a  right  to  expect  from  us  not  only 
words  but  also  concrete,  helpful,  and  meaning- 
ful actions. 

I  have  also  stated  in  this  Assembly,  and  I  now 
reaffirm,  that  the  United  States  will  do  its  ut- 
most, by  all  appi'opriate  and  peaceful  means,  to 
help  carry  through  to  fruition  the  aims  which 
are  so  broadly  shared  and  which  are  embodied 
in  Resolution  2145." 

Immediately  upon  the  adoption  of  Resolution 
2145  in  October  19G6,  the  United  States  made 
representations  to  the  South  African  Govern- 
ment, calling  its  attention  to  the  resolution  and 
particularly  to  the  provisions  of  paragraph  7 
against  any  steps  by  South  Africa  to  alter  the 
international  status  of  South  West  Africa  and 
urging  that  South  Africa  respond  affirmatively 
to  the  resolution. 

The  United  States  also  promptly  reacted 
when  South  Africa  moved  to  apply  its  Terror- 
ism Act  to  South  West  Africa.  On  September  14, 
1967,  our  Ambassador  delivered  to  the  South 
African  Government  a  protest  against  this  ac- 
tion and  specifically  against  the  arrest  and  de- 
tention of  37  South  West  Africans  under  the 
Terrorism  Act,  in  clear  violation  of  Resolution 
2145.  We  made  a  further  demarche  to  the  same 
ell'ect  on  October  11, 1967. 

Wlien  the  South  African  Government  failed 


'  For  a  statement  by  Ambassador  Goldberg  made  on 
Oct.  12,  1966,  see  ibid..  Oct.  31,  1966,  p.  690. 

°  For  a  statement  by  Ambassador  Goldberg  made  on 
May  19,  1967,  see  ibid.,  June  12,  1967,  p.  892. 


JIJXE    10.    196S 


761 


to  give  a  satisfactory  reply,  the  United  States 
Government  again  api^roaclied  that  Government 
on  December  16,  1967,  and  reaffirmed  the  pro- 
test of  the  United  States  Govermnent  against 
the  continuing  application  of  the  Terrorism 
Act,  as  well  as  the  Suppression  of  Conmiunism 
Act,  to  the  Territory  of  South  West  Africa  and 
its  inhabitants  and  against  the  trial  of  the  South 
West  Africans  then  taking  place  in  Pretoria. 
We  stated  our  view  that  South  Africa,  in  apjily- 
ing  the  Terrorism  Act  as  well  as  the  Suppres- 
sion of  Communism  Act  to  inhabitants  of  South 
West  Africa,  was  derogating  from  the  obliga- 
tions of  the  mandate  which  it  had  assumed  in 
1920  as  a  "sacred  trust,"  namely,  "to  promote  to 
the  utmost  the  material  and  moral  well-being 
and  the  social  progress  of  the  inhabitants,"  and 
was  violating  the  rights  of  the  inliabitants  as 
created  by  the  mandate.  We  pointed  out  that  the 
Terrorism  Act  had  been  passed  in  flagrant  dis- 
regard of  Kesolution  2145  and  that  important 
parts  of  both  acts  failed  to  meet  even  the  mini- 
mal standards  which  international  law  imposes 
on  any  state  in  its  dealings  with  nationals  other 
than  its  own. 

The  United  States  again  took  diplomatic  ac- 
tion when  the  Security  Council  on  Januai-y  25, 
1968,  adopted  its  Eesolution  245 '  calling  upon 
South  Africa  to  discontinue  forthwith  its  illegal 
trial  of  the  South  West  Africans  and  to  release 
and  repatriate  them  and  inviting  all  states  to 
exert  their  influence  to  gain  its  compliance.  Pur- 
suant to  this  resolution,  we  made  further  rep- 
resentations to  the  South  African  Government, 
stating  the  view  that  the  trial  and  sentencing  of 
the  South  West  Africans  was  contrary  to  the 
international  obligations  of  South  Africa  and 
in  violation  of  the  international  status  of  the 
territory  and  the  rights  of  the  inhabitants.  And 
we  insisted  that  those  convicted  should  be  re- 
leased and  repatriated. 

Again,  within  the  past  few  weeks,  wlien  the 
South  African  Government  introduced  in  Par- 
liament the  miscalled  "homelands  bill,"  which  is 
plainly  designed  to  fragment  the  territory  on 
apartheid  principles,  my  Government  reacted 
promptly  in  protest.  On  May  4,  just  over  2  weeks 
ago,  we  presented  to  the  South  African  Govern- 
ment a  detailed  criticism  of  this  unjust  bill.  We 
pointed  out,  among  other  things,  that  the  bill 
allocates  the  largest  and  richest  part  of  the 
territory  of  South  West  Africa,  including  tlie 
economic  and  industrial  heartland,  to  the  wliite 


'  For  text,  see  iUd.,  Feb.  19,  196S,  p.  253. 


minority ;  that  it  consigns  the  non white  groups, 
who  constitute  the  large  majority  of  the  popula- 
tion, to  smaller  and  poorer  lands;  that  it  con- 
fers the  real  authority  over  this  nonwhite  ma- 
jority on  the  State  President  of  South  Africa, 
in  whose  election  they  will  have  no  voice;  that 
it  in  fact  further  entrenches  in  South  West 
Africa  the  South  African  system  of  apartheid; 
and  that  in  the  formulation  of  this  legislation 
the  nonwhite  majority  in  South  West  Africa 
have  had  no  real  or  meaningful  voice.  We 
pointed  out  that  this  bill,  if  enacted  and  applied 
to  the  territory,  would  be  in  violation  of  South 
Africa's  international  obligations  respecting 
South  West  Africa  and  m  further  contraven- 
tion of  the  resolutions  of  the  General  Assembly. 
We  adliere  to  the  views  expressed  in  this 
demarche. 

In  addition  to  these  diplomatic  elforts,  the 
United  States  has  adhered  scrupulously  to  the 
United  Nations  embargo  on  the  supply  of  arms 
and  militaiy  equipment  to  South  Africa.  My 
delegation  appreciates  the  acknowledgment  of 
our  policy  in  this  resjiect  by  representatives  of 
several  African  countries  during  this  debate, 
and  we  share  their  concern  at  the  fact  that  some 
other  countries  are  not  fully  meeting  their  obli- 
gations under  the  embargo. 

Now,  ]Mr.  President,  having  recoimted  these 
efforts,  I  must  candidly  agree  that  thus  far  the 
efforts  of  my  Government,  combined  with  those 
of  other  governments  and  the  United  Nations 
itself,  have  been  unavailing  against  the  obdurate 
attitude  of  South  Africa.  Nevertheless,  we  must 
persevere.  Wlien  we  adopted  Eesolution  2145 
and  thereby  took  upon  tlie  United  Nations  the 
responsibility  for  South  West  Africa,  we  em- 
barked on  a  formidable  undertaking  in  which 
easy  or  early  success  was  not  to  be  expected — 
and  in  which  we  must  above  all  refuse  to  give 
up  or  to  become  discouraged. 

My  own  Government  still  intends  to  do  its 
utmost,  by  all  approjiriate  and  peaceful  means, 
to  help  carry  through  to  fruition  the  aims  which 
are  so  broadly  shared  and  which  are  embodied 
in  Eesolution  2145. 

The  question  we  must  now  determine  is  this : 
Wliat  should  the  United  Nations  do  now  that 
will  be  practical  and  constructive? 

In  making  this  determination  we  must  recog- 
nize the  limitations  inherent  in  a  General  As- 
sembly of  124  sovereign  nations  attempting  to 
draw  up  a  realistic  and  detailed  blueprint  by 
which  the  United  Nations,  in  the  face  of  South 
Africa's  attitude,  can  discharge  the  responsibili- 


762 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE    BrTLLETIN 


ties  it  has  assumed  in  this  important  and  difficult 
matter.  We  must  a\-oid  mere  paper  resolutions 
reconunending  action  beyond  the  capacity  of 
this  organization  to  achieve,  for  such  resolu- 
tions can  only  raise  false  hopes  among  the  peo- 
ple who  look  to  us  for  help.  Instead,  we  must 
continue  our  search  for  concrete  and  practical 
ways  to  bring  relief  and  support  to  the  people 
of  South  "West  Africa  so  as  to  enable  them  to 
exercise  their  right  of  self-determination. 

There  are  a  number  of  fields  in  which  action 
may  be  possible  and  fruitful.  One  of  these  is  that 
of  assistance  to,  and  particularly  education  and 
training  for,  refugees  from  South  West  Africa. 
My  Government  agrees  with  Ambassador 
[Kichard  Maxmilian]  Akwei  of  Ghana,  who 
suggested  early  in  this  debate  that  the  United 
Nations  should  help  "to  prei^are  these  dis- 
placed persons  for  the  task  of  national  service." 
We  agree  also  with  Ambassador  [Max]  Jakob- 
son  of  Finland  that  tliis  matter  would  be  an  ap- 
propriate subject  for  a  separate  resolution  by 
the  General  Assembly. 

Furthermore,  the  United  States,  in  response 
to  your  invitation,  Mr.  President,  will  be  glad 
to  serve  on  the  proposed  seven-nation  committee 
to  adA'ise  the  Secretaiy-General  on  subventions 
to  African  institutions  to  enable  them  to  enroll 
students  under  the  United  Nations  educational 
and  training  program  for  refugees  from  South 
West  Africa  and  other  parts  of  southei'n  Africa. 
My  country,  which  has  several  hundred  re- 
fugee students  from  southern  Africa  in  its  own 
educational  institutions,  is  glad  to  cooperate  also 
with  this  United  Nations  program  which  serves 
the  same  important  end  of  jireparing  future 
leaders  for  that  part  of  Africa. 

Several  deleffations  have  also  suegested  in  the 
course  of  this  debate  that,  at  the  present  junc- 
ture, the  Security  Council  ought  to  be  enlisted 
in  our  efforts  to  bring  relief  and  support  to 
the  people  of  South  West  Africa  so  as  to  en- 
able them  to  exercise  their  right  to  self-deter- 
mination. 

It  will  be  recalled  that  Security  Council  in- 
volvement was  foreshadowed  in  paragraph  8 
of  Assembly  Kesolution  2145.  Last  Januarj', 
for  the  first  time,  the  Council  addressed  itself 
to  one  aspect  of  the  question ;  namely,  the  trial 
and  sentencing  of  33  South  West  Africans 
under  the  Terrorism  Act.  But  thus  far  it  has  not 
addressed  itself  to  the  question  as  a  whole.  The 
United  States  would  not  be  averse  to  enlisting 
the  Security  Council  in  our  efforts  in  an  appro- 
priate way. 


We  should  not  attempt  at  this  time  to  pre- 
judge what  type  of  action  the  Security  Council 
ought  to  take — although  it  might  well  prove 
useful  for  the  Council  to  concern  itself  with 
some  of  those  aspects  of  the  South  West  African 
problem  which  I  enumerated  a  moment  ago. 
Nor  can  any  one  forecast  that  there  will  be  fewer 
difficulties  in  the  Council  than  in  the  Assembly 
in  trying  to  reach  a  consensus  on  practical  and 
peaceful  action.  But  I  think  it  is  obvious  that 
the  existing  injustice  and  deprivation  of  human 
rights  in  South  West  Africa  and  the  violation 
by  South  Africa  of  its  international  obliga- 
tions with  respect  to  the  territory  cannot  be 
ignored. 

The  United  States  pledges  its  cooperation 
in  seeking  to  frame  a  realistic,  peaceful,  and 
practical  course  of  action  that  can  command 
the  necessary  wide  support  and  that  can  bring 
us  nearer  to  the  goals  which  this  Assembly 
joined  in  proclaiming  in  Eesolution  2145 :  the 
self-determination,  freedom,  and  independence 
of  South  West  Africa. 


THE   CONGRESS 


Funds  Requested  for  U.S.  Share 
of  IDA  Replenishment 

Statement  hy  Under  Secretary  Katzenhach  ^ 

Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  commit- 
tee :  I  am  pleased  to  speak  with  you  today  about 
the  resources  of  the  International  Development 
Association,  the  soft-lending  affiliate  of  the 
World  Bank.  I  ask  your  prompt  and  favorable 
resi^onse  to  the  President's  request  to  authoi'ize 
the  United  States  to  participate  in  an  immediate 
replenishment  of  the  funds  of  the  International 
Development  Association. 

The  proposed  amendment  to  the  Interna- 
tional Development  Association  Act  would  au- 
thorize the  appropriation,  without  fiscal-year 
limitation,  of  $480  million  as  the  United  States 
share  of  the  increase  in  IDA's  resources.  This 
amount  would  be  payable  in  three  equal  con- 

'  Made  before  the  House  Banking  and  Currency  Com- 
mittee on  Jlay  9  (press  release  101). 


JTTNE    10.    1968 


763 


secutive  annual  installments.  Thus,  an  appro- 
priation of  $160  million  will  be  needed  in  fiscal 
year  1969  and  a  like  amount  in  each  of  2  sub- 
sequent years.  The  resolution  under  considera- 
tion by  the  United  States  and  other  IDA  mem- 
bers calls  for  payment  of  the  first  installment 
in  November  1968.  Tlierefore,  it  is  necessary  for 
the  Congress  to  make  the  initial  appropriation 
of  $160  million  during  the  present  session. 

In  1960  the  member  countries  of  the  World 
Bank  established  IDA  to  meet  the  recognized 
need  for  greater  flows  of  development  capital 
to  the  less  developed  countries.  You  all  know 
this  institution's  formal  name:  the  Interna- 
tional Bank  for  Eeconstruction  and  Develop- 
ment. In  the  1950's,  the  World  Bank  was  a 
prime  mover  in  the  miraculous  job  of  recon- 
struction. For  the  1960's,  the  Bank  turned  to 
the  other  and  equally  important  lialf  of  its 
purpose — development. 

IDA  was  established  as  a  World  Bank  affil- 
iate to  contribute  to  this  vital  but  difficult  task. 
Then  as  now  it  required  three  ingredients:  re- 
sources in  large  quantities,  the  patient  and 
ongoing  support  of  the  high-income  countries, 
and  the  World  Bank's  expert  management  and 
rigorous  standards. 

In  nearly  8  years  of  operation,  IDA  has  com- 
mitted about  $1.7  billion  to  over  100  projects. 
Three-fourths  of  the  resources  have  been  di- 
rected to  projects  in  Asian  and  Middle  Eastern 
countries.  Projects  in  these  areas,  especially 
India  and  Pakistan,  naturally  attracted  the 
initial  resources  of  IDA.  These  regions  gener- 
ally have  the  largest  numbers  of  people,  the 
least  resources  per  capita,  and  the  greatest  needs 
for  the  catalytic  effect  of  seed  capital.  But  now 
the  emphasis  will  shift  to  other  parts  of  the 
world. 

In  its  initial  years,  IDA  focused  its  attention 
on  the  vital  needs  of  transportation,  power,  and 
industry.  In  the  past  3  years,  with  its  first  re- 
plenishment of  funds,  IDA  has  been  able  to 
meet  changing  priorities.  It  has  increasingly 
addressed  the  development  needs  occasioned  by 
the  surge  of  population  growth.  IDA  credits  for 
agricultural  projects  have  doubled  in  the  past 
3  years.  Its  loans  for  education  have  increased 
fivefold.  Looking  ahead,  I  expect  that  IDA  will 
apply  its  new  resources  and  experience  even 
more  broadly.  It  will  be  able  to  expand  its  work 
in  agriculture,  education,  water  supplies,  tele- 
communications, as  well  as  other  sectors. 


We  all  recognize  the  problems  which  now  face 
the  American  people,  the  Congress,  and  the 
administration.  We  must  choose  between  the 
essential  and  the  nonessential.  Some  of  the  pro- 
grams we  would  have  thought  essential  last  year 
may  not  now  meet  the  test. 

But  the  choice  is  not  one  of  foreign  versus 
domestic  needs.  We  must  not  withdraw  from  our 
responsibilities  abroad  any  more  than  we  can 
draw  back  from  our  responsibilities  at  home. 
We  have  essential  foreigii  interests  just  as  we 
have  essential  domestic  interests.  IDA  is  one  of 
them. 

In  1966,  the  President  stated  to  Congress :  ^ 

I  propose  that  the  United  States — in  ways  consistent 
with  its  balance-of-payments  policy — increase  its  con- 
tributions to  multilateral  lending  institutions,  par- 
ticularly the  International  Development  Association. 
These  increases  will  be  conditional  upon  appropriate 
rises  in  contributions  from  other  members.  We  are 
prepared  immediately  to  support  negotiations  leading 
to  agreements  of  this  nature  for  submission  to  the 
Congress.  We  urge  other  advanced  nations  to  join  us 
in  supporting  this  work. 

Since  that  time  the  administration  has  ex- 
amined closely  many  proposals  to  increase 
IDA'S  resources.  We  have  had  long  negotiations 
with  the  other  high-income  countries — the  so- 
called  part  I  members  of  IDA — and  have  gained 
their  support.  We  conclude  without  reservation 
that  tlie  proposal  which  Secretary  [of  the 
Treasury  Henry  II.]  Fowler  has  outlined  to 
you  merits  congressional  approval  at  this  time. 

Just  why  do  we  endorse  the  International  De- 
velopment Association  ?  Can  we  justify  pledging 
new  resources  from  the  United  States  and  others 
in  the  amount  of  $1.2  billion?  Are  these  funds 
really  needed  in  the  3  years  immediately  ahead  ? 
You  may  well  ask  these  questions. 

I  believe  each  has  a  positive  answer.  The  key 
thoughts  lie  in  the  concepts  which  the  Congress 
itself  has  urged:  burden-sharing,  seed  capital, 
self-help,  and  efficient  administration. 

Burden-sharing  is  the  keystone  of  IDA.  For 
every  $2  the  U.S.  will  contribute,  other  rich 
countries  will  appropriate  $3.  If  we  don't  con- 
tribute, they  won't.  It  also  means  that  if  we  put 
up  no  money,  the  poor  countries  will  be  short 
$1.2  billion  in  development  capital  they  other- 
wise would  receive.  We  have  worked  long  and 


'  For  President  Johnson's  foreign  aid  message  trans- 
mitted to  the  Congress  on  Feb.  1,  1966,  see  Bulletin 
of  Feb.  28, 1966,  p.  320. 


764 


DEPARTMENT    OF   STATE   BITLLETIN 


hard  to  j!;et  agreement  on  sharing  this  burden — 
a  principle  Congress  itself  has  often  empha- 
sized. If  we  fail  to  contribute  to  IDA,  we  not 
only  lose  the  contributions  of  others  but  also 
the  indispensable  addition  of  capital  on  con- 
cessional terms.  With  the  burden  of  debt  mount- 
ing dangerously  in  the  underdeveloped  world, 
concessional  terms  are  essential.  The  prospects 
for  achieving  self-sustained  growth  are  bleak 
indeed  if  capital  is  not  available  on  terms  the 
poor  countries  can  afford. 

Seed  capital — long-term  development  cap- 
ital— is  a  vital  but  precious  ingredient  for  the 
developing  countries  of  the  free  world.  Most  are 
too  poor  to  attract  adequate  quantities  of  de- 
velopment funds  from  jDublic  or  private  sources. 
None  of  the  countries  which  depend  upon  IDA 
has  readied  a  stage  of  self-sustaining  growth. 
And  without  initial  inputs  of  roads,  harbors, 
schools,  and  modern  agricultural  methods,  few 
if  any  will  be  able  to  do  so. 

Self-help  and  efficient  admmistration  of  de- 
velopment assistance  go  hand  in  hand.  ]Many  in 
the  Congress  have  favored  increased  channeling 
of  United  States  assistance  through  multilateral 
institutions.  Invariably  this  term  is  followed 
by  the  phrase  "such  as  the  "World  Bank  family." 
For  good  reason :  The  high  standards  of  project 
selection,  balanced  economic  programs,  inter- 
national competitive  bidding,  and  proper  use 
of  the  developing  country's  own  resources  have 
long  been  hallmarks  of  the  World  Bank  and 
IDA. 

These  are  the  basic  reasons  for  supporting 
IDA.  But  you  will  ask:  Why  $1.2  billion?  And 
do  we  really  have  to  appropriate  funds  in 
1968 — a  j-ear  in  which  so  many  other  require- 
ments have  to  be  postponed  ? 

Tv.o  years  ago,  Mr.  George  Woods,  who  was 
then  President  of  the  World  Bank  and  IDA, 
asked  that  part  I  countries  support  a  replenish- 
ment of  IDA  at  the  rate  of  $1  billion  per  year 
for  3  years  beginning  in  1969.  This  amount 
represented  a  fourfold  increase  from  the  level  of 
the  intial  3-year  replenishment  which  began  in 
1965.  Mr.  Woods  expressed  the  opinion  that  the 
developing  countries  not  only  required  this 
amount  of  resources  but,  more  importantly,  were 
in  a  position  to  absorb  effectively  this  level  of 
input  to  their  development  program.  After  care- 
ful analysis  we  concluded  that  Mr.  Woods  had 
indeed  not  overstated  the  need. 

You  are  all  aware  that  the  agreed-upon  level 


for  the  second  replenishment  of  IDA — $400 
million  annually  for  3  years — falls  far  short 
of  Mr.  Woods'  target.  You  may  not  be  aware 
that  IDA  at  the  present  time  has  virtually  no 
resources  available  to  commit  to  new  projects. 
Funds  from  the  first  replenishment  as  well  as 
special  donations  and  surplus  remittances  from 
the  World  Bank  have  essentially  all  been  com- 
mitted. Against  this  background,  a  replenish- 
ment of  $400  million  per  year  commencing  this 
November  must  truly  be  considered  a  minimum 
program. 

The  immediacy  of  the  need  is  self-evident. 
Failure  of  the  United  States  Government  to  au- 
thorize its  Governor  of  the  World  Bank  to 
support  the  proposed  IDA  replenishment  or  to 
appropriate  the  required  funds  would  lead 
others  to  withhold  appropriations.  With  a  40- 
percent  share,  the  United  States  has  a  key  posi- 
tion. Action  now  can  go  a  long  way  to  assure 
favorable  support  by  the  parliaments  of  the 
other  part  I  countries  before  summer.  Delay 
might  well  lead  to  a  collapse  of  the  agreement 
reached  after  long  negotiations.  It  would  seri- 
ously interrupt  the  flow  of  development  re- 
sources to  many  countries. 

"V^-Tiat  about  our  share?  Wlien  IDA  was 
founded  in  1960  we  put  up  42.6  percent  of 
funds  contributed  by  the  so-called  part  I  coun- 
tries— the  wealthy  countries.  At  the  first  re- 
plenishment in  1965  our  share  was  41.6  percent. 
Now  it  is  40  percent.  The  decrease  is  small.  But 
it  is  a  welcome  sign  others  are  willing  to  in- 
crease their  share  while  the  total  commitment 
has  grown  from  $750  million  in  1960  and  again 
in  1965  to  $1.2  billion  in  1968. 

The  proposal  before  you  represents  the  con- 
certed agreement  of  representatives  of  the  ma- 
jor industrial  countries  and  the  management 
of  the  World  Bank.  The  higher  level  of  annual 
contributions  and  the  balance-of-payments  safe- 
guards which  Secretary  Fowler  has  explained 
to  you  took  many  months  to  negotiate.  The 
agreement  on  protection  for  our  payments  posi- 
tion represents  an  important  breakthrough  in 
the  practices  of  multilateral  organizations.  We 
have  achieved  a  plan  that  accords  very  well  with 
our  national  interests,  both  near  term  and  long 
run. 

This  is  a  hard  year  for  all  Americans.  The 
demands  on  us  are  tremendous;  the  resources 
available  are  limited.  We  know  that  some  pro- 
grams will  have  to  be  sacrificed  or  postponed. 


JTTS^    10,    1968 


765 


I  have  tried  to  demonstrate  as  strongly  as  I 
know  how  that  this  replenisliment — in  the 
amount  we  have  requested — is  absokitely  essen- 
tial to  our  interests.  There  will  be  those  in  Con- 
gress and  elsewhere  who  will  argue  that  we  can 
postpone  or  reduce  our  contribution.  Let  me 
tell  you  what  such  a  decision  would  mean. 

If  we  act  on  IDA  now,  we  will  have  demon- 
strated to  the  poor  countries  that,  whatever 
our  other  burdens,  we  can  and  will  help  them 
help  themselves.  We  will  have  demonstrated, 
as  well,  that  this  Government  can  be  counted 
on  to  continue  the  policies  and  the  philosophy 
of  economic  assistance  developed  and  main- 
tained by  four  administrations  and  numerous 
Congresses. 

If  the  decision  is  to  postpone  or  reduce  our 
contribution,  the  leverage  will  be  in  the  other 
direction.  The  agreement  we  have  so  laboriously 
negotiated  would  certainly  collapse.  Perhaps 
it  could  be  resurrected  in  some  form,  perhaps 
not.  But  at  a  mmimum,  there  would  be  a  gi-ave 
interruption  in  the  flow  of  development 
resources. 

More  important  still,  the  whole  basis  of  our 
relations  with  the  developing  countries  would 
be  in  jeopardy.  Bilateral  economic  assistance 
programs  are  under  fire  in  this  country  and  in 
other  countries.  The  poor  nations  are  already 
beginning  to  wonder  how  much  more  bilateral 
aid  there  will  be.  Should  this  IDA  replenish- 
ment fail,  they  would  have  little  on  which  to 
base  their  long-term  development  plans.  If  the 
rich  coimtries  cannot  or  will  not  provide — both 
bilaterally  and  multilaterally — a  reliable  flow 
of  resources,  the  poor  countries  will  be  unable  to 
sustain  the  tough  austerity  and  self-help  pro- 
grams that  are  their  part  of  the  bargain — and 
which  we  have  urged  on  them. 

Development,  as  we  have  learned  to  our  sor- 
row, is  not  only  a  foreign  problem.  We  have 
seen  in  our  own  country  what  can  happen  when 
people  are  forgotten  and  deprived  of  the  re- 
sources to  help  themselves.  The  politics  of  de- 
spair are  no  diiferent  abroad  than  they  are  at 
home.  But  the  results  of  continued  neglect  may 
be  even  more  explosive  than  what  we  have  our- 
selves thus  far  experienced. 

The  road  to  economic  development  is  a  long 
and  arduous  one.  Once  begun  it  cannot  be  left  in 
midcourse.  To  do  so  means  the  waste  of  re- 
sources we  have  already  invested,  the  disruption 
of  the  development  process,  and  the  disillusion- 
ment of  the  millions  who  have  accepted  a  peace- 
ful path  to  economic  progress. 


TREATY   INFORMATION 


Current  Actions 


MULTILATERAL 

Bills  of  Lading 

Protocol  to  amend  the  international  convention  for  the 
unification  of  certain  rules  of  law  relating  to  bills 
of  lading  signed  at  Brussels  August  25,  1924   (TS 
931).  Done  at  Brussels  February  23,  1968.' 
Signatures:  Argentina,  Belgium,  Cameroon,  Canada, 
Republic  of  China,   Congo    (Kinshasa),  Finland, 
Federal    Republic    of    Germany,    Greece,    Italy, 
Liberia,   Mauritania,    Paraguay,   Philippines,   Po- 
land,    Sweden,     Switzerland,     United     Kingdom, 
United  States,  Uruguay,  Vatican  City. 

Disputes 

Convention  on  the  settlement  of  investment  disputes 
between  states  and  nationals  of  other  states.  Done 
at  Washington  March  18,  1965.  Entered  into  force 
October  14,  1966.  TIAS  6090. 
Ratification  deposited:  Switzerland,  May  15,  1968. 

Grains 

International  grains  arrangement,  1967,  with  annexes. 
Open  for  signature  at  Washington  October  15  untU 
and  including  November  30,  1967.' 
Accession  to  the  Wheat  Trade  Convention:  Nigeria, 

May  22,  1968. 
Ratification  to  the  Wheat  Trade  Convention:  Mexico, 

May  22,  1968. 

Hydrography 

Convention  on  the  International  Hydrographic  Orga- 
nization,  with   annexes.   Done  at  Monaco   May  3, 
1967.' 
Senate  advice  and  consent  to  ratification:  May  13, 

1968. 
Ratification  by  the  President:  May  17,  1968. 

Maritime   Matters 

Amendment  to  article  28  of  the  convention  on  tie 
Intergovernmental  Maritime  Consultative  Organiza- 
tion (TIAS  4044).  Adopted  at  Paris  September  28, 
1965.  Enters  into  force  November  3,  1968. 
Acceptance  deposited:  Maldive  Islands,  April  22, 
1968. 

Property 

Convention  of  Paris  for  the  protection  of  industrial 
property  of  March  20,  1883,  as  revised  (TS  579,  834, 
941,  TIAS  4931).  Done  at  Stockholm  July  14,  1967.' 
Ratification  deposited:  Ireland,  March  27,  1968. 

Safety  at  Sea 

Amendments  to  chapter  II  of  the  international  con- 
vention for  the  safety  of  life  at  sea.  1960   (TIAS 
5780).  Adopted  at  London  November  30,  1966.' 
Acceptance  deposited:  Canada,  April  23,  1968. 


'  Not  in  force. 


766 


DEPARTIirENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


Amendments  to  tJie  international  convention  for  the 
safety  of  life  at  sea,  1000  (TIAS  5780).  Adopted  at 
London  October  25,  1907.' 

Senate  advice  and  consent  to  accession:  May  13, 
1908. 

Telecommunications 

Partial  revision  of  the  radio  regulations  (Geneva, 
1959),  as  amended  (TIAS  4893,  5003),  to  put  into 
effect  a  revised  frequency  allotment  plan  for  the 
aeronautical  mobile  (R)  service  and  related  informa- 
tion, with  annexes.  Done  at  Geneva  April  29,  1906. 
Entered  into  force  July  1,  1907 ;  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  0332. 

Notification  of  approval:  Norway,  March  29,  1968. 
International  telecommunication  convention  with  an- 
nexes. Done  at  Montreaux  November  12,  1965.  En- 
tered into  force  January  1,  1967 ;  as  to  the  United 
States  May  29, 1967.  TIAS  6267. 

Ratifications  deposited:  Israel,  March  20,  1908 ;  Mali, 
March  14,  1968 ;  Upper  Volta,  April  5,  1968 ;  Vati- 
can City,  April  6, 1968. 
Accession  deposited:  Dominican  Republic,  March  20, 
1968. 

United   Nations 

Amendment  to  article  109  of  the  Charter  of  the  United 
Nations  (59  Stat  1031).  Done  at  New  York  Decem- 
ber 20,  1965." 
Ratification  deposited:  Sudan,  April  24,  1968. 

War 

Geneva  convention  relative  to  treatment  of  prisoners 

of  war ; 
Geneva  convention  for  amelioration  of  condition  of 
wounded    and    sick   in   armed   forces   in    the   field ; 
Geneva  convention  for  amelioration  of  conditions  of 
wounded,  sick  and  shipwrecked  members  of  armed 
forces  at  sea ; 
Geneva   convention   relative  to  protection  of  civilian 
persons  in  time  of  war. 

Dated  at  Geneva  August  12,  1949.  Entered  into  force 
October  21, 1950 ;  for  the  United  States  February  2, 
1956.  TIAS  3364,  3362,  3363,  and  3365,  respectively. 
Adherence  deposited:  Botswana,  March  29,  1908. 


BILATERAL 


Brazil 

Agreement  for  sales  of  agricultural  commodities  re- 
lating to  the  agreement  of  October  5,  1967.  Signed  at 
Rio  de  Janeiro  May  14,  1968.  Entered  into  force 
May  14,  1908. 

Colombia 

Agreement  relating  to  reciprocal  customs  privileges  for 
consular  officers.  Effected  by  exchange  of  notes  at 
Washington  May  9  and  10,  19(58.  Entered  into  force 
May  10,  1908. 

Morocco 

Agreement  for  sales  of  agricultural  commodities  relat- 
ing to  the  agreement  of  April  20,  1967  (TIAS  62.^0). 
Signed  at  Rabat  May  2,  196-8.  Entered  into  force 
May  2,  1968. 


Uruguay 

Agreement  for  sales  of  agricultural  commodities  relat- 
ing to  the  agreement  of  January  19,  1968  (TIAS 
6445).  Signed  at  Montevideo  May  7,  1908.  Entered 
into  force  May  7, 1968. 


'  Not  in  force. 


Recent  Releases 

For  sale  hy  the  Superintendent  of  Documents,  U.S. 
Government  Printing  Office,  Washington,  D.G.  201/02. 
Address  requests  direct  to  the  Superintendent  of 
Documents.  A  25-perccnt  discount  is  made  on  orders 
for  100  or  more  copies  of  any  one  publication  mailed 
to  the  same  address.  Retnittances,  payable  to  the 
Superintendent  of  Documents,  must  accompany  orders. 

International  Exchange  1967.  A  report  of  the  Bureau 
of  Educational  and  Cultural  Affairs  covering  all  as- 
pects of  the  U.S.  Government  worldwide  program  on 
educational  and  cultural  exchange.  Contains  numerous 
pictures  and  a  section  of  tables.  Pub.  8357.  Interna- 
tional Information  and  Cultural  Series  94.  54  pp.  40«f. 

Foreign  Student  Exchange  in  Perspective — Research 
on  Foreign  Students  in  the  United  States.  This  study 
evaluating  the  research  done  on  foreign  students  in 
the  United  States  was  prepared  by  Mrs.  Barbara  J. 
Walton,  a  private  consultant  on  international  educa- 
tion, for  the  Office  of  External  Research.  Pub.  8373.  In- 
ternational Information  and  Cultural  Series  96.  59  pp. 
45(1:. 

A  New  Step  Toward  Peace,  Text  of  an  address  to  the 
Nation  by  President  Lyndon  B.  Johnson,  broadcast 
from  the  White  House  on  March  31,  1968.  Pub.  8376. 
East  Asian  and  Pacific  Series  173.  19  pp.  15^. 

7th  Annual  Report  to  Congress.  A  report  by  the  United 
States  Arms  Control  and  Disarmament  Agency  for  the 
period  January  1,  1967,  to  January  18,  1968.  ACDA 
Pub.  45.  96  pp.  35<f. 

Explanatory  Remarks  About  the  Draft  Non-Prolifera- 
tion  Treaty.  This  publication,  issued  by  the  United 
States  Arms  Control  and  Disarmament  Agency,  con- 
tains the  texts  of  the  draft  treaty  of  March  11,  1068. 
and  the  draft  security  assurances  re.solution  submitted 
at  Geneva  on  March  7,  1968.  ACDA  Pub.  47.  19  pp.  15<}. 

Asian  Development  Bank.  Proc^s-verbal  of  rectification 
to  the  English  test  of  the  agreement  of  December  4, 
196.5— Signed  at  New  York  November  2,  1967.  TIAS 
6387.  3  pp.  50. 

Consular  Convention  with  Protocol  and  Notes.  With 
France — Signed  at  Paris  July  18,  1966.  Entered  into 
force  January  7,  1908.  TIAS  6389.  38  pp.  150. 

Atomic  Energy — Application  of  Safeguards  by  the 
I.VEA  to  the  United  States-Iran  Cooperation  Agree- 
ment. Agreement  with  Iran  and  the  International 
Atomic  Energy  Agency — Signed  at  Vienna  December  4, 
1964.  Entered  into  force  December  4,  1967.  TIAS  6390. 
10  pp.  100. 


JrxE   10.   1968 


767 


Atomic  Energy — Application  of  Safeguards  by  the 
IAEA  to  the  United  States-Indonesia  Cooperation 
Agreement.  Agreement  with  Indonesia  and  the  Inter- 
national Atomic  Energy  Agency.  Signed  at  Vienna 
June  19,  19G7.  Entered  into  force  December  6,  1967. 
TIAS  0391. 10  pp.  10«!. 

Investment  Guaranties.  Agreement  with  Gambia.  Ex- 
change of  notes — Dated  at  Bathurst  July  24  and 
November  4, 1967.  Entered  into  force  November  4, 1967. 
TIAS  G392.  6  pp.  5^. 

World  Health  Organization — Nomenclature  Regula- 
tions, 1967.  Adopted  by  the  Twentieth  World  Healtb 
Assembly  at  Geneva  May  22,  1967.  Entered  into  force 
January  1,  1968.  TIAS  6393.  8  pp.  100. 

Double  Taxation — Taxes  on  Income.  Agreement  with 
Belgium,  extending  the  supplementary  protocol  of 
May  21,  196.5,  to  the  convention  of  October  28,  1948,  as 
amended.  Exchange  of  notes — Signed  at  Brussels  De- 
cember 11,  1967.  Entered  into  force  December  11,  1967. 
TIAS  6394.  3  pp.  50. 

Agricultural  Commodities.  Agreement  with  the  Demo- 
cratic Republic  of  the  Congo — Signed  at  Kinshasa 
December  11,  1967.  Entered  into  force  December  11, 
1967.  TIAS  6396.  6  pp.  50. 

Agriculural  Commodities.  Agreement  with  Ghana, 
amending  the  agreement  of  March  3,  1967,  as  amended. 
Exchange  of  notes — Signed  at  Accra  December  18, 
1967.  Entered  into  force  December  18,  1967.  TIAS  6397. 
2  pp.  50. 

Trade  in  Cotton  Textiles.  Agreement  with  the  Bepublic 
of  Korea.  Exchange  of  notes — Signed  at  Washington 
December  11,  1967.  Entered  into  force  December  11, 
1967.  TIAS  6399.  13  pp.  100. 

Double  Taxation — ^Taxes  on  Income.  Convention  with 
Trinidad  and  Tobago — Signed  at  Port-of-Spain  Decem- 
ber 22,  1966.  Entered  into  force  December  19,  1967.  And 
extending  agreement.  Exchange  of  notes — Signed  at 
Port-of-Spain  December  19,  1967.  Entered  into  force 
December  19,  1967.  TIAS  6400.  9  pp.  100. 

Agricultural  Commodities.  Agreement  with  Indonesia, 
amending  the  agreement  of  September  15,  1967.  Ex- 
change of  notes — Signed  at  Djakarta  November  6, 1967. 
Entered  into  force  November  6,  1967.  TIAS  6401.  2 
pp.  5^. 


Trade.  Agreement  with  Argentina,  modifying  the  agree- 
ment of  August  3  and  8,  1966.  Exchange  of  notes — 
Signed  at  Buenos  Aires  December  18  and  27,  1967. 
Entered  into  force  December  27,  1967.  TIAS  6402. 
4  pp.  50. 

Agricultural  Commodities.  Agreement  with  the  Demo- 
cratic Republic  of  the  Congo,  amending  the  agreement 
of  March  15,  1967,  as  amended.  Exchange  of  notes — 
Signed  at  Kinshasa  December  15  and  21,  1967.  Entered 
into  force  December  21,  1967.  TIAS  6404.  3  pp.  50. 

Agricultural  Commodities.  Agreement  with  Ceylon — 
Signed  at  Colombo  October  27,  1967.  Entered  into  force 
October  27, 1967.  TIAS  6405. 12  pp.  10«i. 

Alien  Amateur  Radio  Operators.  Agreement  with  Fin- 
land. Exchange  of  notes — Signed  at  Helsinki  Decem- 
ber 15  and  27,  1967.  Entered  into  force  December  27, 
1967.  TIAS  6406.  3  pp.  50. 

Agricultural  Commodities.  Agreement  with  Indonesia — 
Signed  at  Djakarta  November  22,  1967.  Entered  into 
force  November  22,  1967.  TIAS  6407.  2  pp.  50. 

Education — Financing  of  Exchange  Programs.  Agree- 
ment with  Italy,  amending  the  agreement  of  December 
18,  1948,  as  amended.  Exchange  of  notes — Signed  at 
Rome  October  12  and  December  6,  1967.  Entered  into 
force  December  6,  1967.  TIAS  6408.  4  pp.  5<t. 

Fisheries — Northeastern  Part  of  the  Pacific  Ocean  off 
the  United  States  Coast.  Agreement  with  the  Union  of 
Soviet  Socialist  Republics,  extending  the  agreement 
of  February  13,  1967 — Signed  at  Washington  Decem- 
ber 18,  1967.  Entered  into  force  December  18,  1967. 
With  exchange  of  letters  relating  thereto  and  to  the 
agreement  of  December  14,  1964.  TIAS  6409.  5  pp.  50. 

Visas.  Agreement  with  the  Republic  of  China,  amend- 
ing the  agreement  of  December  20,  1955,  and  Feb- 
ruary 20,  1956.  Exchange  of  notes — Dated  at  Taipei 
July  11,  October  17,  and  December  7,  1956.  Entered  into 
force  January  1,  1957.  TIAS  6410.  3  pp.  50. 

Loan  of  Vessel — U.S.S.  Riley.  Agreement  with  the  Re- 
public of  China.  Exchange  of  notes — Signed  at  Taipei 
December  7  and  15,  1967.  Entered  into  force  Decem- 
ber 15,  1967.  TIAS  6411.  5  pp.  50. 

Agricultural  Commodities.  Agreement  with  India^ 
Signed  at  New  Delhi  December  30,  1967.  Entered  into 
force  December  30,  1967.  TIAS  6414.  4  pp.  50. 


768 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


INDEX     ■Juii'i  iO,  lOGS      Vol.  LVIII,  No.  1511 


I  Asia 

I  A  ItealLstif  View  of  Commuuisit  Chiua  (Katzen- 

►     bach) 737 

riic  Unitefl  States  and  the  Commuulst  Worlds 
(  Rostow ) 741 

Vtomic  Energy.  United  States  Diseusses  Se- 
curity Assurances  and  Draft  Nouproliferation 
Treaty   (Goldberg) 755 

.  hina 

\  Koalistie  View  of  Communist  China  (Katzen- 

bach) 737 

riic  United  States  and  the  Communist  Worlds 

I  Rostow ) 741 

Jommunism.  The  United  States  and  the  Com- 
munist   Worlds     (Rostow) 741 

Congress.  Funds  Requested  for  U.S.  Share  of 
IDA  Replenishment   (Katzenbach)     ....       763 

disarmament.  United  States  Discusses  Security 
Assurances  and  Draft  Nonproliferation  Treaty 
lioldberg)     .     .    ' 755 

-Economic  Affairs 

"luids  Requested  for   U.S.    Share   of   IDA   Re- 

I'lenishment   (Katzenbach) 763 

Hired  States  and  Spain  Hold  Economic  Talks 

Washington    (joint   statement)     ....       754 
To  Study  Effects  of  Imports  on  Domestic 
t'roducers    of    Footwear 754 


"oreign  Aid.  Funds  Requested  for  U.S.  Share  of 
IDA  Replenishment   (Katzenbach)     ....       703 

ndonesia.  Letters  of  Credence  (Sudjatmoko)     .       754 

'residential  Documents 

'resident  Bourguiba  of  Tunisia  Visits  the  United 

States 751 

'resident  Pledges  Resistance  to  Aggression  as 

Talks  Continue 750 

'ubiications.  Recent  Releases 767 

^outh  .Africa.  U.S.  Reviews  Efforts  To  Achieve 
Goals  for  South  West  Africa    (Goldberg)  761 

iouth  West  Africa.  U.S.  Reviews  Efforts  To 
Achieve  Goals  for  South  West  Africa  (Gold- 
berg)       761 

ipain.  United  States  and  Spain  Hold  Economic 
Talks  at  Washington   (joint  statement)     .     .       754 

reaty  Information 

'urrent  Actions 766 

'nited  States  Discusses  Security  Assurances 
and  Draft  Nonproliferation  Treaty  (Gold- 
I'crg) 755 

unisia.  President  Bourguiba  of  Tunisia  Visits 
the  United  States  (Bourguiba,  .lohnson)     .     .       751 

•S.S.R.  The  United  States  and  the  Communist 
Worlds    (Ro.stow) 741 

nited  Nations 

nited  States  Discusses  Security  Assurances  and 
Draft  Nonproliferation  Treaty   (Goldberg)     .       755 
.  '.S.  Reviews  Efforts  To  Achieve  Goals  for  South 
West  Africa  (Goldberg) 761 


Viet-Nam 

President  Pledges  Resistance  to  Aggression  as 
Talks  Continue    (Johnson) 7.")0 

The  United  States  and  the  Communist  Worlds 

(Rostow) 741 

U.S.  and  North  Viet-Nam  Hold  Fourth  Meeting 
at  Paris   (Harriman) 749 

Name  Index 

Bourguiba.   Habib 7.51 

Goldberg,  Arthur  J 7.55.  761 

Harriman,  W.  Averell 749 

Johnson,  President 750,  751 

Katzenbach.   Nicholas   deB 737. 763 

Rostow,  Eugene  V 741 

Sudjatmoko.    R.   Mangundiuingrat 754 


Check  List  of  Department  of  State 
Press  Releases:  May  20-26 

Press  releases  may  be  obtained  from  the  Of- 
tice  of  News,  Department  of  State,  Washington, 
D.C.  20520. 

Releases  issued  prior  to  May  20  which  appear 
in  this  issue  of  the  Bulletin  are  Nos.  101  of 
May  9  and  102  of  May  10. 

Sabject 

Harriman  :  3d  session  of  U.S.-North 
Viet-Nam  official  conversations. 
May  18  (printed  in  Bulletin  of 
June  3). 

Rostow:  "The  United  States  and 
the  Communist  Worlds." 

Katzenbach:  National  Press  Club, 
Washington,  D.C. 

Linowitz  :  "Our  Desert  Places :  The 
Urgent  Challenge  to  Education." 

Program  for  visit  of  Prime  Minister 
John  G.  Gorton  of  Australia. 

Harriman :  4th  session  of  U.S.- 
Noith  Viet-Nam  official  conversa- 
tions. 

Foreign  policy  conference  for  educa- 
tors, Washington,  D.C,  June  20- 
21. 

Exchange  of  letters  between  Presi- 
dent Johnson  and  President  San- 
chez of  El  Salvador. 

McGhee  sworn  in  as  Ambassador  at 
Large   (biographic  details  i. 

Assistant  Secretary  Palmer  to  visit 
Africa  (rewrite). 

Mrs.  Eugenie  Anderson  :  College  of 
St.  Catherine,  St.  Paul,  Minn, 
(excerpts). 

*  .Not  printed. 

t  Held  for  a  later  issue  of  the  Bulletin. 


No. 

Date 

110 

5/20 

111 

5/21 

112 

5/21 

tll3 

5/22 

*114 

5/22 

115 

.5/22 

*110 

5/23 

tin 

5/23 

*118 

5/24 

tll9 

5/24 

•120 

.5/24 

I 


i I  1 20      VW      NOiSOn 

9'^2  xoa  0  d 

sidi303a-s-iviy3s 

an  onand  noisoq 

J    030  asa 


Superintendent  of  Docu 
u.s.  government  printing  office 
washington.  d.c.    20402 


POSTAGE  AND    FEES    PAID 
U.S.  GOVERNMENT   PRINTING   OFFICE 


OFFICIAL  BUSINESS 


P. 


THE  OFFICIAL  WEEKLY  RECORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POLICY 


THE 

DEPARTMENT 

OF 

STATE 

BULLETIN 


Vol.  LVIII,  No.  1512 


June  17,  1968 


UNITED  STATES  AND  NORTH  VIET-NAM  HOLD  THIRD  WEEK 
OF  OFFICIAL  CONVERSATIONS  AT  PARIS 
/Statements  by  Ambassador  W.  Averell  Haniman  and  Texts  of  V.S.  Papers     7U'J 

PRESIDENT  JOHNSON'S  NEWS  CONFERENCES 

May  28  {Excerpts)      778 
May  30  {Excerpts)      781 

TASKS  AND  RESPONSIBILITIES  OF  THE  ATLANTIC  PARTNERSHIP 

Address  by  Vice  President  Humphrey     793 

GREATER  PROSPERITY  THROUGH  EXPANDED  WORLD  TRADE 
President  Johnson's  Message  to  the  Congress     807 


For  index  see  inside  back  cover 


THE   DEPARTMENT   OF  STATE 


BULLETIN 


Vol.  LVIII,  No.  1512 
June  17,  1968 


For  sale  by  the  Superintendent  of  Documents 

U.S.  Government  Printing  Office 

Washington,  D.C.  20402 

PRICE: 

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  tlio  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  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 
interest. 

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


■I 

II 


4 


I 

4 


II 


United  States  and  North  Viet-Nam  Hold  Third  Week 
of  OflScial  Conversations  at  Paris 


The  fifth  and  sixth  sessions  of  the  official  con- 
versations between  the  United  States  and  North 
Viet-Nam  were  held  at  Paris  May  27  and  May 
31.  Following  are  remarks  made  hy  Ambassador 
W.  Averell  Earriman,  the  head  of  the  U.S. 
delegation,  at  the  May  27  session  and  the  notes 
he  used  at  the  May  31  session,  together  with 
texts  of  the  two  papers  he  submitted  on  May  27. 


FIFTH  SESSION,  MAY  27 

Remarks  by  Ambassador  Harriman 

Press  release  122  dated  May  27 

Despite  my  suggestion  that  we  avoid  polemics, 
you  have  made  a  wide  variety  of  unfounded 
charges  and  accusations  in  your  last  two  state- 
ments. I  do  not  want  to  spend  our  time  here 
correcting  the  record,  but  among  your  many 
misrepresentations  I  find  some  wliich  are  so 
serious  that  I  again  feel  compelled  to  answer 
them. 

"You  spoke,  for  example,  of  certain  claims  of 
I  success  made  by  the  Viet  Cong  since  Tet  in  what 
you  have  called  the  Sixth  Communique.  These 
statistics  are  largely  erroneous.  Indeed,  the  mar- 
gin of  error  in  some  cases  is  extraordinary,  as 
I  shall  specify  in  a  moment.  I  find  it  difficult  to 
believe  that  the  Government  of  North  Viet-Nam 
actually  believes  the  figures  which  were  cited 
:Lt  oui"  last  meeting  and  can  only  conclude  that 
the  figures  are  being  used  to  deceive  your  citi- 
zens. We  hope  that  you  are  not  deceiving  your- 
self. If  your  Government  does  believe  these 
figures,  then  it  is  truly  unfortunate,  because 
they  are  not  only  grossly  wrong  but  are  sheer 
fantasy.  Nothing  could  be  more  dangerous  for 
a  government  than  to  base  its  assessment  of  how 
it  is  doing  and  how  its  opponents  are  doing  on 
information  as  wrong  as  that  which  you  have 
cited.  The  ironic  fact  about  this  information 
is  that  the  actual  losses  of  ih&  United  States, 
the  Government  of  the  Eepublic  of  Viet-Nam, 


and  its  other  allies  are  available  publicly  within 
a  few  days  after  they  are  collected  and  tabu- 
lated. Because  we  are  a  free  society,  it  would 
be  impossible  either  to  hide  the  information  or 
to  distort  it.  And  so  I  want  to  emphasize  that 
the  truth  about  the  size  of  Allied  losses  is  avail- 
able to  the  world. 

Here  are  the  accurate  statistics  concerning 
losses  in  the  time  frame  you  cited :  from  Janu- 
ary 30  to  May  11, 1968. 

You  stated  that,  and  I  quote :  "The  army  and 
the  people  of  South  Viet-Nam  have  wiped  out 
250,000  enemy  troops."  In  fact,  12,491  Allied 
soldiers  were  killed  in  action  during  this  period. 
In  the  total  of  250,000  you  alleged,  84,500  were 
soldiers  of  the  United  States  and  free- world 
forces.  In  fact,  6,160  United  States  and  free- 
world  forces  were  killed  during  that  period,  and 
the  other  6,331  were  South  Vietnamese.  Total 
Allied  woimded  in  the  same  weeks  was  54,747. 
The  Sixth  Communique  that  you  quoted  thus 
exaggerated  Allied  deaths  by  almost  2,000 
percent. 

You  claimed  that  three  armored  regiments 
and  one  paratrooper  unit  were  wiped  out  or 
badly  damaged;  in  fact  not  a  single  Allied  unit 
was  wiped  out  or  forced  to  withdraw  due  to 
casualties. 

The  most  "accurate"  statistic  you  used  was 
of  bridges  blown  up,  and  even  this  was  over- 
stated by  more  than  200  percent ;  instead  of  the 
400  you  claimed,  124  were  actually  blown  up. 

Your  Excellency,  all — I  repeat,  all — the  other 
figures  in  the  Sixth  Communique  are  exaggera- 
tions, with  the  degree  of  distortion  falling 
somewhere  within  the  range  I  have  just  cited. 

At  our  last  meeting  you  accused  the  United 
States  of  obstructing  peace  and  said  that  the 
whole  world  demands  certain  actions  by  the 
United  States.  This  distortion  of  public  record 
is  regrettable.  The  truth  is  that  repeatedly  in 
the  last  ?>yi  years  the  United  States  has  re- 
sponded favorably  to  third-party  initiatives, 
only  to  see  them  rebuffed  by  the  Democratic 


JUNE    17,    19G8 


769 


Kepublic  of  Viet-Nam.  I  do  not  propose  to  re- 
cite each  one  of  these  occasions  at  this  point. 
They  include  proposals  by  the  United  Nations 
Secretary-General,  the  Pope,  and  leaders  of 
African,  Asian,  and  European  nations — all  hop- 
ing to  help  find  a  path  txjward  peace.  I  would 
call  your  attention  to  them  and  refresh  your 
memory  by  submitting  this  outline  to  you. 
(Paper  submitted.) 

Your  Excellency,  the  Government  of  the 
Democratic  Republic  of  Viet-Nam  has  not  seen 
fit  to  treat  these  proposals — made  in  great  sin- 
cerity by  the  leaders  of  the  world — as  serious 
efforts  to  see  peace.  Instead,  the  Democratic 
Eepublic  of  Viet-Nam  has  rejected  them  all. 

Let  us  therefore  turn  away  from  distortions 
of  fact.  Let  us  instead  seek  here  to  find  a  way  to 
a  just  and  honorable  peace. 

In  your  remarks  of  May  22  you  talked  about 
the  actions  of  the  "army  and  the  people  of  South 
Viet-Nam."  But  the  world  knows  that  in  fact 
the  attacks  that  have  taken  place  in  Viet-Nam 
since  the  perfidious  Tet  attacks  were  conceived 
and  planned  in  Hanoi,  spearheaded  by  troops  of 
the  Regular  Army  of  North  Viet-Nam,  and 
fueled  with  weapons  and  ammunition  carried 
south  over  the  DMZ  and  through  Laos  by  North 
Vietnamese.  Nothing  is  gained  at  this  table  or 
anywhere  else  in  the  world  by  North  Viet-Nam 's 
persistent  attempts  to  deny  this  undeniable  fact 
and  claim  that  there  are  no  North  Vietnamese 
troops  in  the  South. 

If  tliat  claim  were  true — and  indeed  no  North 
Vietnamese  troops  were  in  South  Viet-Nam — 
then  we  would  not  be  bombing  the  North  and 
we  would  not  need  to  ask  for  restraint  from 
North  Viet-Nam.  The  DRV  would  be  risking 
nothing  by  agreeing  to  restraint  if  there  were, 
in  fact,  no  North  Vietnamese  troops  in  the 
South — since  in  that  case  there  would  be  nothing 
to  restrain. 

But  we  cannot  deal  here  in  hypothesis.  The 
facts  are  that  well  over  200,000  North  Vietnam- 
ese have  been  dispatched  into  South  Viet-Nam 
since  autumn  1964.  Most  of  these  have  become 
casualties  of  the  combat  or  fallen  prey  to  disease 
or  other  mishaps.  As  of  last  month,  we  estimated 
that  there  were  well  over  70,000  North  Vietnam- 
ese soldiers  in  North  Vietnamese  Army  units 
in  South  Viet-Nam  and  well  over  15,000  others 
in  nominally  Viet  Cong  units.  Even  more  are 
on  the  way.  In  recent  months  the  total  North 
Vietnamese  presence  has  increased  to  approxi- 
mately 70  percent  of  North  Vietnamese  and  Viet 
Cong  combat  forces  and  shows  signs  of  con- 
tinuing to  increase  rather  than  decrease. 


Your  Excellency,  I  do  not  know  why  your 
Government  feels  that  it  must  continue  to  deny 
the  undeniable  fact  that  it  has  large  numbers 
of  its  regular  forces  in  South  Viet-Nam.  Be- 
cause I  do  not  want  to  take  up  too  much  of  our 
time  today  with  reading  a  prepared  statement, 
I  have  prepared  for  you  a  special  paper  on  this 
crucial  issue,  and  I  would  like  to  give  it  to  you 
for  examination.  I  would  ask  of  you  that  you 
consider  it  carefully  and  not  pretend  that  it  is 
propaganda.  It  proves  without  fear  of  contra- 
diction that  the  South  has  been  subjected  to  a 
campaign  designed  to  destroy  it  and  that  that 
campaign  is  led  by  North  Vietnamese  and 
manned  by  North  Vietnamese  in  growing  num- 
bers. (Paper  presented.) 

Let  me  turn  now  to  one  of  the  most  striking 
breaches  of  the  1954  accords^  by  North  Viet- 
Nam:  the  conversion  of  the  demilitarized  zone 
into  a  highway  for  aggression.  It  was  not  the 
United  States  who  first  violated  the  demilitar- 
ized zone;  in  fact,  the  Democratic  Republic  of 
Viet-Nam  began  using  it  as  an  infiltration  route 
as  early  as  1958.  Since  the  spring  of  1966  entire 
regiments  of  the  North  Vietnamese  Army  have 
flagrantly  crossed  and  recrossed  the  demilitar- 
ized zone,  continuing  attacks  on  Allied  positions 
in  South  Viet-Nam  and,  after  suffering  heavy 
casualties,  pulling  back  into  the  sanctuary  of 
the  demilitarized  zone  or  North  Viet-Nam. 

Among  the  first  of  the  North  Vietnamese 
Army  units  involved  were  the  regiments  of  the 
324th  Division,  which  in  May  and  June  1966 
moved  through  the  zone  to  attack  in  Quang  Tri 
Province.  In  April-May  1967,  the  90th,  803d, 
and  812th  Regiments  of  the  324th  beseiged  Con  : 
Thien,  then  withdrew  into  the  demilitarized  j 
zone.  Moving  west,  elements  of  this  division  i 
once  more  penetrated  the  demilitarized  zone  and  i 
once  again  entered  South  Viet-Nam.  Since  then, ; 
this  division  has  relied  upon  the  sanctuary  of  j 
the  demilitarized  zone  as  a  normal  base  area  | 
and  attack  position.  Equipment  and  supplies  I 
have  been  stored  there.  Its  artillery  is  positioned 
there. 

A  more  recent  example  of  violation  of  the 
demilitarized  zone  is  furnished  by  the  opera- 
tions of  the  Nortli  Vietnamese  326th  Division. 
This  unit  moved  south  from  its  station  near 
Hanoi  in  early  1968  through  tlie  demilitarized 
zone  to  threaten  Allied  forces  in  northeastern 


'  For  text  of  the  Agreement  on  the  Cessation  of  Hos- 
tilities in  Viet-Nam,  July  20,  1954,  see  American  For- 
eign Policii,  1950-1955:  Basic  Documents  (Department 
of  State  publication  6446),  vol.  I,  p.  750. 


770 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE    BULLETIN 


Firet  Corps.  Within  the  past  several  (.lays,  tlie 
52d  Regiment  of  the  820th  Division  has  been 
engaged  in  the  area  of  Con  Thien,  wliile  other 
elements  of  the  division  have  been  located  near 
Dong  Ha.  Moreover,  in  these  attacks  and  else- 
where. Xorth  Vietnamese  troops  have  positioned 
and  tired  artillerj'  weapons  withm  or  across  the 
demilitarized  zone.  Since  these  talks  were  con- 
vened, the  North  Vietnamese  Army  has  fired 
many  hundreds  of  roimds  of  artillery  from  posi- 
tions within  the  demilitarized  zone  against  tar- 
gets in  South  Viet-Nam. 

In  response  to  this  extraordinary  invasion  in 
direct  violation  of  the  Geneva  accords,  the  Gov- 
ernments of  the  Republic  of  Viet-Xam  and  the 
United  States  had  no  choice  but  to  take  defen- 
sive actions  in  the  southern  portion  of  the  de- 
militarized zone.  I  can  state  that  Allied  forces 
have  entered  the  soutliern  half  of  the  demilitar- 
ized zone  only  as  necessary  to  provide  for  their 
own  security  and  the  defense  of  Quang  Tri. 

Let  me  repeat  my  proposal  that  we  join  in 
agreement  on  a  prompt  restoration  of  the  de- 
militarized zone  to  its  original  status,  in  ac- 
cordance with  articles  1  and  36  of  the  1054 
accords.  Truly,  this  would  be  a  step  toward 
peace. 

We  believe  that  the  currently  constituted 
International  Control  Commission  has  the 
authority  to  supervise  the  restoration  and 
demilitarization  of  the  demilitarized  zone  under 
article  36(b)  of  the  1954  accords  and  that  it 
should  assume  this  function.  Therefore,  if  you 
accept  the  proposal  I  have  made,  I  call  u])on 
you  to  join  with  us  in  a  request  to  the  Interna- 
tional Control  Commission  to  act  at  once  to 
provide  supervisory  machinery  to  assure  that 
the  demilitarized  zone  is  in  fact  respected.  This 
should  be  done  in  a  tlioroughly  effective  fash.ion 
and  not  simply  through  the  token  presence  tliat 
existed  prior  to  1966.  In  proposing  this  immedi- 
ate task  for  the  presently  constitut^-d  Interna- 
tional Control  Commission,  we  do  not  intend  to 
abandon  or  modify  the  suggestion  we  made 
May  13,-  proposing  a  supervisory  inspection 
mechanism  that  would  include  Asian  nations. 

This  specific  proposal  is  fully  consistent  with 
the  general  statement  concerning  restraint 
which  I  made  on  May  22.^  As  I  said  at  that  time, 
we  are  ready  to  try  to  establish  some  basis  from 
which  we  could  properly  consider  your  demand 
for  cessation  of  bombing  and  at  the  appropriate 
time  such  questions  as  withdrawal  or  "regroup- 
ment"  of  forces  other  than  those  of  South  Viet- 
Nam  from  the  territory  of  South  Viet-Nam. 
Therefore,  as  we  have  spoken  this  morning  of 


the  demilitarized  zone,  and  on  other  occasions 
of  the  problem  of  uifiltration,  we  are  ready  to 
discuss  witli  you  in  detail  certain  actions  re- 
lated to  the  bombing  of  North  Viet-Nam,  such 
as:  firing  of  artillei-y  from  and  across  the  de- 
militarized zone  into  South  Viet-Nam,  ground 
attacks  launched  from  the  demilitarized  zone 
area,  the  massive  increase  in  infiltration  that  has 
taken  place  since  March  and  continues  into 
May.  To  date  we  have  looked  in  vain  for  evi- 
dence of  restraint  on  the  part  of  the  Democratic 
Republic  of  Viet-Nam. 

Finally,  I  would  like  to  say  once  again  that  the 
callous  attacks  against  the  civilian  population 
of  Saigon  and  other  cities  of  South  Viet-Nam 
are  not  conducive  to  progress  in  Paris. 

President  Johnson's  speech  of  March  31  ■*  is 
the  basis  for  the  meetings  which  are  taking  place 
here  in  Paris.  We  reject  the  suggestion  of  being 
urged  Ijy  you  that  the  only  reason  for  our  meet- 
ings is  to  give  the  hour  and  date  of  the  cessation 
of  bombing.  This  suggestion  falls  by  its  own 
weight  because  if  that  were  the  reason,  no  meet- 
ing would  have  been  necessary.  Indeed,  the  very 
language  of  each  of  your  communications,  start- 
ing with  April  3,  has  indicated  that  you  were 
prepared  to  enter  mto  discussions  which  could 
lead  up  to  a  cessation  of  bombing.  We  are,  and 
have  consistently  stated  that  we  are,  ready  to 
discuss  the  question  of  cessation  of  bombing; 
but  we  have  pointed  out  that  it  is  necessary  to 
discuss  at  the  same  time  related  matters  on  the 
basis  of  the  President's  speech. 

Paper  on  Third-Party  Peace  Proposals 

Press  release  124  dated  May  28 

1.  On  April  1, 1965, 17  nonaligned  nations  de- 
livered an  appeal  for  a  peaceful  solution 
through  negotiations  without  preconditions.  On 
April  8,  1965,  the  United  States  Government 
welcomed  this  appeal  and  indicated  their  agree- 
ment with  its  principles.  On  April  19,  the 
Democratic  Republic  of  Viet-Nam  rejected  the 
proposal,  characterizing  it  as  inappropriate 
since  it  was  not  based  on  the  Democratic  Re- 
public of  Viet-Nam's  own  preconditions.  This 
established  a  pattern  that  was  to  be  repeated 
often  when  other  countries  of  the  world  at- 
tempted to  suggest  ways  to  end  the  conflict. 

2.  In  April  of  1965,  when  it  was  reported 
that  Secretary-General  U  Thant  was  consider- 


=  BtnxETiN  of  June  3,  1968,  p.  701. 

'  Ihi/I.,  June  10,  1968.  p.  749. 

*  For  text,  see  ibid.,  Apr.  15,  1968,  p.  481. 


JrXE   17,   1968 


771 


ing  visits  to  capitals,  including  Hanoi  and  Pe- 
king, to  discuss  a  peaceful  settlement  in 
Viet-Nam,  the  United  States  supported  the 
idea.  But  on  April  8,  1965,  Pi'ime  Minister 
Phan  Van  Dong  said  that  any  approach  tend- 
ing to  secure  United  Nations  intervention  in 
Viet-Nam  is  "inai:)propriate." 

3.  Also  in  April  1965,  the  Indian  Govern- 
ment proposed  a  mutual  cessation  of  hostilities, 
international  policing  of  the  borders  by  an 
Afro-Asian  patrol  force,  and  the  maintenance 
of  the  present  Vietnamese  bomidaries  as  long 
as  the  Vietnamese  people  desire.  The  United 
States  Government  was  considering  this  pro- 
posal with  interest  and  discussing  it  with  the 
Government  of  India  when,  on  May  6,  1965, 
Hanoi  Radio  amiounced  that  the  Democratic 
Republic  of  Viet-Nam  had  told  India  that  its 
proposal  was  "at  complete  variance  with  the 
spirit  and  basic  principles"  of  the  Geneva 
agreements  and  ran  counter  to  India's  status  as 
International  Control  Commission  Chairman. 

4.  In  Jime  1965,  the  Prime  Ministers  of  the 
Commonwealth  nations  proposed  that  a  special 
mission  visit  the  capitals  of  the  countries  in- 
volved to  "explore  the  circumstances  in  which 
a  conference  might  be  held  to  end  the  fighting 
in  Viet-Nam."  We  welcomed  the  Common- 
wealth initiative,  but  on  July  1,  1965,  Radio 
Hanoi  announced  that  tlie  Democratic  Repub- 
lic of  Viet-Nam  would  not  receive  tiie  Common- 
wealth peace  mission  because  it  doubted  Prime 
Minister  Wilson's  good  will  toward  peace. 

5.  On  December  2,  1965,  British  Foreign 
Secretary  Michael  Stewart  called  for  Soviet 
help  to  bring  peace  to  Viet-Nam  and  proposed 
a  conference  of  all  nations  mvolved  in  this 
fighting  to  arrange  a  cease-fire.  That  same  day, 
Secretary  Rusk  said  that  if  such  a  proposal 
"moves  things  along  it  would  be  very  accept- 
able from  our  point  of  view."  But  on  Decem- 
ber 17,  Hanoi  Radio  said  that  the  British 
proposal  sei-ved  the  "vile  purpose"  of  helping 
the  United  States  intensify  the  war  and  "re- 
jected all  British  plans  and  proposals  made 
imder  the  pretense  of  peace." 

6.  On  December  19, 1965,  Pope  Paul  VI  pub- 
licly appealed  for  a  truce  in  Viet-Nam  during 
the  holiday  season.  The  next  day,  the  White 
House  "welcomed  tliis  new  expression  by  the 
Pope  of  the  need  for  peace."  But  on  December 
28,  Ho  Chi  Minh  answered  the  Pope  by  charg- 
ing that  "the  United  States  leaders  want  war 
and  not  peace." 

7.  On  July  7,  1966,  Indian  Prime  Minister 
Gandhi  made  a  detailed  proposal  for  negotia- 


tions within  the  framework  of  the  Geneva 
agreements.  The  next  day,  the  Department  of 
State  "welcomed  Prime  Minister  Gandhi's  call 
for  a  confei'ence  as  we  welcome  all  initiatives 
that  might  lead  to  an  honorable  peace  in  Viet- 
Nam."  But  on  July  19,  the  North  Vietnamese 
army  journal,  Qvan  Doi  Nhan  Dan,  denounced 
the  initiatives  of  the  Indian  projDosal  and  de- 
nounced each  pomt  in  turn  as  imposing  miac- 
ceptable  obligations. 

8.  On  August  6,  1966,  the  Foreign  Ministers 
of  Thailand,  Malaysia,  and  the  Philippines 
signed  a  joint  statement  calling  for  Asian  na- 
tions to  join  in  a  peace  appeal  to  the  leaders  of 
all  comitries  involved  in  the  Viet-Nam  conflict. 
The  United  States  immediately  endorsed  the 
appeal  as  a  constructive  suggestion.  But  on  Au- 
gust 8,  Nhan  Dan,  the  newspaper,  denounced 
this  appeal. 

9.  On  September  19,  1966,  Pope  Paul  issued 
an  encyclical  containmg  a  plea  for  peace.  Presi- 
dent Joluison  made  a  statement  of  support  for 
the  appeal.  But  Radio  Hanoi  said  that  "certain 
religious  circles,  which  have  always  chonised 
the  United  States  imperialists'  peace  song,  have 
recently  made  pathetic  appeals  for  peace." 

10.  On  October  6,  1966,  British  Foreign  Sec- 
retary George  Brown  proposed  a  detailed  six- 
point  plan  and  asked  Soviet  Foreign  Minister 
[Andrei  A.]  Gromyko  to  join  him  in  reconven- 
ing the  Geneva  Conference.  The  United  States 
welcomed  this  effort.  But  on  October  8,  1966, 
Hanoi  "sternly"  rebuffed  the  Brown  proposal 
as  a  "rehash"  of  recent  United  States  efforts. 

11.  On  December  8,  1966,  Pope  Paul  ex- 
pressed the  hope  that  a  holiday  truce  would 
become  an  armistice  and  the  annistice  become 
the  occasion  for  sincere  negotiations.  United 
Nations  Secretary-General  U  Thant  endorsed 
the  Pope's  appeal  that  same  day.  On  December 
19,  Ambassador  Goldberg  sent  U  Thant  a  letter 
referring  to  Pope  Paul's  appeal  and  requestmg 
that  the  Secretary-General  take  whatever  steps 
he  considered  necessary  "to  bring  about  the  nec- 
essai-y  discussions."  The  United  States  assured 
U  Thant  that  we  would  cooperate  fully  with 
him  in  getting  such  discussions  started 
promptly  and  bringing  them  to  a  successful 
completion.  In  reply,  U  Thant  repeated  his 
previous  three-point  proposal.  But  on  January 
5,  1967,  Mr.  Mai  Van  Bo  said  that  the  Demo- 
cratic Republic  of  Viet-Nam  "rejects  all  inter- 
ventions by  the  United  Nations  .  .  .  because 
.  .  .  tJiis  intervention  would  be  contrary  to  the 
Gezieva  Agreements." 

12.  On  December  30, 1966,  Foreign  Secretary 


772 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETTN 


Brown  sent  messages  to  the  United  States,  the 
Democratic  Republic  of  Viet-Nam,  and  the  Re- 
public of  Viet-Xam  proposing  a  three-way 
meeting  to  arrange  a  cessation  of  hostilities.  On 
January  1,  1967,  President  Johnson  welcomed 
the  British  proposal.  But  on  January  3,  1967, 
North  Viet-Nam  called  the  British  proposal 
"the  deceitful,  shopworn  clamor  of  the  United 
States  imperialists." 

13.  On  March  28, 1967,  U  Thant  made  public 
a  text  of  a  March  14  proposal  for  a  genei-al 
standstill,  preliminary  talks,  and  reconvening 
of  the  Geneva  conference.  On  the  same  day,  the 
United  States  made  public  its  reply  accepting 
the  Secretary-General's  proposal.  But  on  April 
5,  1967,  North  Viet-Nam  denounced  U  Thant's 
proposal. 

14.  On  April  10,  1967,  the  Ceylonese  Prime 
Minister,  Dudley  Senanayake,  called  for  meet- 
ings between  the  Republic  of  Viet-Nam,  the 
National  Liberation  Front,  and  the  Democratic 
Republic  of  Viet-Nam  to  discuss  preconditions 
for  a  cease-fire.  On  April  12,  the  Republic  of 
Viet-Nam  expressed  its  willingness  to  meet  with 
representatives  from  the  other  side  and  to  send 
a  representative  to  Ceylon.  But  the  Democratic 
Republic  of  Viet-Nam  rejected  this  proposal. 

15.  On  April  11,  1967,  Canadian  Foreign 
Minister  Paul  Martin  offered  a  four-step  pro- 
posal for  a  cease-fire  in  Viet-Nam.  On  April  18 
the  Republic  of  Viet-Nam  welcomed  the  Cana- 
dian plan  and  proposed  some  specific  actions  to 
implement  it,  and  the  next  day  the  United 
States  Government  said  that  the  plan  offered 
"considerable  promise  for  deescalating  the  con- 
flict." The  United  States  responded  to  this  pro- 
posal by  calling  for  an  extension  of  the 
demilitarized  zone  through  a  withdrawal  of  all 
forces  10  miles  north  and  10  miles  south  of  the 
17th  parallel.  But  on  April  16  and  April  21,  the 
Democratic  Republic  of  Viet-Nam  called  Mar- 
tin's plan  "a  crafty  scheme  of  the  United  States 
imperialists." 

Paper  on  North  Vietnamese  Army 
in  South  Viet-Nam 

Press  release  125  dated  May  28 

The  North  Vietnamese  Army  in  South  Viet- 
Nam:  North  Vict-Nam's  aggression  against  the 
Republic  of  Viet-Nam. 

Over  200,000  men  have  been  dispatched  from 
North  Viet-Nam  to  South  Viet-Nam  since  au- 
tumn 1964.  Most,  of  these  have  become  casualties 
of  the  combat  or  fallen  prey  to  disease  or  other 
mishaps.  As  of  last  month,  we  estimated  that 


there  were  well  over  70,000  North  Vietnamese 
soldiers  in  North  Vietnamese  Army  units  in 
South  Viet-Nam  and  well  over  15,000  more  in 
Viet  Cong  units.  Even  moi'e  are  on  the  way.  In 
recent  months  the  total  North  Vietnamese  pres- 
ence has  increased  sharply  and  shows  signs  of 
continuing  to  increase  rather  than  decrease. 
Thus,  since  1964  there  has  been  a  dramatic  jump 
in  the  proportion  of  North  Vietnamese  Army 
units  opposing  Allied  forces.  In  December  1964, 
organized  North  Vietnamese  Army  units  (as 
distinct  from  northern  infiltrators  in  nominally 
Viet  Cong  units)  comprised  only  a  small  por- 
tion of  total  Communist  combat  strength  in 
South  Viet-Nam.  The  organized  North  Viet- 
namese Army  unit  strength  began  increasing 
sharply  in  early  1965.  Today,  North  Vietnamese 
Army  troops  account  for  approximately  70  per- 
cent of  the  total  combined  strength  in  the  Viet 
Cong  and  North  Vietnamese  Army  combat 
forces.  This  pronounced  increase  in  numbers  of 
noi'therners  has  been  accompanied  by  a  gi-owing 
dependence  upon  North  Vietnamese  Army  ord- 
nance. Both  Viet  Cong  and  North  Vietnamese 
Army  units  operating  in  South  Viet-Nam  today 
are  generally  equipped  with  late  model  Chinese 
and  Soviet  small  arms,  mortars,  and  artillery. 
Moreover,  the  North  Vietnamese  Army  has  re- 
cently introduced  into  South  Viet-Nam  Soviet- 
manufactured  armored  vehicles. 

Now,  we  can  demonstrate  that  North  Viet- 
namese presence  in  the  South  has  roots  running 
back  to  the  immediate  aftermath  of  Geneva, 
when  Le  Due  Tho  and  Le  Duan,  then  as  now, 
party  chiefs  in  Hanoi,  were  in  the  Saigon  region 
attempting  to  foment  insurrection  against  the 
legitimate  government  in  Saigon.  We  know  that 
as  early  as  1959  groups  of  infiltrators  from 
North  Viet-Nam  arrived  to  open  guerrilla  bases 
north  of  Saigon  in  war  zones  C  and  D.  "We  have 
captured  an  official  party  history  in  that  region 
which  is  explicit  that,  pursuant  to  a  May  1959 
decision  of  the  governing  Lao  Dong  party  in 
Hanoi,  a  military  campaign  was  launched  the 
following  autumn  to  overthrow  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  Republic  of  Viet-Nam.  The  role  of 
the  Democratic  Republic  of  Viet-Nam  in  these 
events  constitutes  aggression  and  patent  viola- 
tion of  the  Geneva  accords  of  1954.  This  was 
done,  as  I  have  pointed  out,  to  undermine  the 
progress  which  was  being  made  in  the  South. 

Building  of  a  military  apparatus  in  South 
Viet-Nam  proceeded  apace.  Let  me  give  a  spe- 
cific example.  In  1961,  the  271st  and  272d  Viet 
Cong  Regiments  were  formed  in  the  Saigon 
area  around  cadres  from  North  Viet-Nam;  in 


JrXE    17.    1968 


773 


1964,  the  273d  Eegiraent  was  created,  similarly 
with  cadres  recruited  and  trained  in  North  Viet- 
Nam.  These  units  were  the  primary  source  of 
the  insurgency  in  the  regions  north  of  Saigon. 

Beginning  in  1965,  the  Democratic  Republic 
of  Viet-Nam  elected  to  introduce  North  Viet- 
namese troops  into  the  region  north  of  Saigon. 
In  1964,  the  101st  Eegiment  of  the  North  Viet- 
namese Army  began  movement  into  South  Viet- 
Nam,  arriving  in  northern  war  zone  D  in  1965. 
In  mid- 1966,  it  was  attached  to  the  9th  Viet 
Cong  Division  for  combat  operations. 

The  9th  Division  was  repeatedly  engaged  in 
combat  in  which  its  units  suffered  casualties  so 
serious  that  North  Vietnamese  officers,  noncom- 
missioned officers,  and  soldiers  were  required  to 
fill  its  depleted  ranks.  Accordingly,  North  Viet- 
namese replacement  troops  were  infiltrated  into 
the  South  to  replenish  the  division. 

In  the  major  engagements  in  the  autumn  of 
1966  and  the  spring  of  1967  and  through  the  at- 
tacks on  Loc  Ninh  the  following  autumn,  the 
9th  Division  lost  thousands  more  of  its  person- 
nel. But  still  the  flow  of  newly  infiltrated  troops 
continued ;  and  though  many  of  the  newcomers 
were  ill-trained,  little  more  than  cannon  fodder, 
the  division  managed  to  participate  in  the  Tet 
offensive  and  the  attacks  of  this  month.  In  these 
most  recent  actions,  formations  of  the  division 
were  sharply  repulsed  en  route  to  Saigon.  Now 
the  process  of  again  refilling  the  ranks  is  under- 
way. But  these  units,  the  oldest  of  the  Viet 
Cong  regiments,  can  scarcely  claim  a  local  iden- 
tity any  longer.  Now  North  Vietnamese  Army 
soldiers  are  in  the  majority  in  their  ranks,  and 
their  leaders  and  their  weapons  are  of  the  Army 
of  North  Viet-Nam. 

The  infiltrators  from  North  Viet-Nam  des- 
tined for  the  Saigon  region  were  assisted  en 
route  by  the  559  Group,  a  special  transportation 
unit  of  the  North  Vietnamese  Army  organized 
in  May  1959  and  named  for  the  decision  to 
launch  military  operations.  This  unit  has  oper- 
ated and  expanded  the  infiltration  routes 
through  Laos  into  central  and  southern  South 
Viet-Nam. 

Over  these  routes,  the  North  Vietnamese 
Army,  in  mid  and  late  1964  deployed  elements 
of  its  325th  Division  into  South  Viet-Nam  in 
flagrant  violation  of  the  1954  Geneva  accords. 
The  introduction  of  these  and  other  elements  of 
the  325th  Division  was  part  of  a  plan  which 
aimed  at  cutting  South  Viet-Nam  in  half  and 
at  securing  a  logistic  support  system  which  in- 
cluded not  only  the  Laos  trails  but  also  access 


to  the  coast.  The  plan  involved  the  sending  of 
arms  into  South  Viet-Nam  by  sea — again  violat- 
ing the  Geneva  accords — as  evidenced  by  the 
sinking  of  an  arms-laden  100-ton  trawler  in 
Vung-Eo  Bay  in  February  1965.  Captured  doc- 
uments and  other  information  describing  how 
the  325th  Division  attempted  to  carry  out  that 
plan  indicate  that  it  repeatedly  suffered  heavy 
losses  in  battle  with  Allied  forces  and  repeatedly 
received  large  groups  of  replacement  personnel 
infiltrated  from  North  Viet-Nam.  The  1st,  5th, 
and  3d  Divisions  of  the  North  Vietnamese 
Army  are  now  operating  in  central  South  Viet- 
Nam. 

In  the  northern  provinces  of  South  Viet-Nam, 
the  Communist  combat  forces  are  now  almost 
entirely  composed  of  North  Vietnamese  troops. 
At  present,  of  22  regiments  under  command  of 
the  Army  of  North  Viet-Nam  in  First  Corps 
area,  only  one  is  a  Viet  Cong  regiment — and  the 
disproportion  of  North  Vietnamese  Army  to 
Viet  Cong  personnel  has  grown  markedly 
within  the  past  6  months.  In  January  1968  at 
least  40,000  main  force  troops — of  your  army 
and  of  the  Viet  Cong — were  operating  in  the 
First  Corps  area.  These  included  three  divisions 
of  the  North  Vietnamese  Army,  commanding 
13  of  your  army's  regiments  and  one  Viet  Cong 
regiment.  By  March  1968  main  forces  strength 
had  grown  to  at  least  60,000,  including  five  of 
your  army's  divisions  commanding  21  of  your 
army's  regiments  and  one  Viet  Cong  regiment. 

We  are,  then,  prepared  to  provide  evidence 
demonstrating  the  presence  of  the  North  Viet- 
namese Army  through  South  Viet-Nam.  Cases  i 
we  have  cited  are  only  part  of  the  story.  We 
have  available  a  multitude  of  captured  docu- 
ments, as  well  as  statements  of  North  Viet- 
namese defectors.  This  evidence  shows  the  utter 
falsity  of  the  version  of  history  you  have  tried 
to  propagate  and  establishes  a  very  different 
sequence  of  dates  in  the  escalation  of  the  war  in 
Viet-Nam  from  that  you  have  given. 

Thus,  the  insurgency  does  not  date  from  1961 
as  you  stated :  It  goes  back  at  least  to  1959  when 
the  Democratic  Republic  of  Viet-Nam  dis- 
patched subversive  cadres  into  the  South  to 
carry  out  aggression  against  the  people  and 
Government  of  South  Viet-Nam.  Likewise,  your 
Government  deployed  regular  forces  of  the 
North  Vietnamese  Army  into  South  Viet-Nam. 

Not  only  are  there  more  than  85,000  North 
Viet-Nam  Army  pereonnel  in  Soutli  Viet-Nam, 
but  recently  these  forces  have  been  employed  in 
sliameful  attacks  on  the  towns  and  cities  of 


774 


DEPART3IENT   OF   STATE   BtTLLETIN 


South  Viet-Nam.  In  the  offensive  hiunched  by 
your  forces  durintr  the  Tet  holiday  truce  earlier 
this  year,  North  Vietnamese  Army  forces  oc- 
cupied the  citadel  of  Hue,  one  of  the  historical 
monuments  of  the  Vietnamese  people.  Many 
thousands  -were  left  homeless  as  a  result  of  these 
attacks.  The  murder  of  more  than  a  thousand 
cirilians  in  that  city  by  Xorth  Vietnamese  forces 
has  already  been  described. 

In  the  recent  ilay  offensive.  North  Viet- 
namese Army  forces  were  committed  to  the  at- 
tack on  Saigon :  and  though  most  of  these  forces 
were  intercepted  and  defeated  short  of  the  city, 
the  few  that  did  reach  the  urban  areas  ejected 
the  populace  from  their  homes  and  dug  in,  de- 
liberately inviting  counterattack. 

Attacks  since  March  31st  directed  against 
civilian  lives  and  civilian  homes  have  no  mili- 
tary purpose.  These  attacks  show  beyond  dispute 
the  true  attitude  of  the  Democratic  Kepublic 
of  Viet-Nam  for  the  people  of  South  Viet- 
Nam — a  cynical  and  inhumane  disregard  for 
their  well-being.  North  Vietnamese  soldiers  and 
Viet  Cong  have  murdered  unarmed  civilians  at 
Hue.  slain  other  noncombatants,  including  re- 
porters, in  Saigon,  and  fired  rockets  and  recoil- 
less  artillery  at  random  into  cities.  The  case 
is  plain  that  it  is  North  Viet-Nam  which  has 
been  escalating  the  war  with  a  strategy  of  indis- 
criminate attack  upon  the  cities  of  South 
Viet-Nam. 


NOTES  USED  BY  AMBASSADOR   HARRIMAN 
AT  THE  MAY  31    SESSION 

Press  release  127  dated  May  31 

Your  Excellency,  in  five  meetings  to  date,  we 
have  failed  to  get  at  the  heart  of  the  problem 
we  face.  I  want  to  make  clear  the  position  of 
my  Government.  As  I  have  stated  repeatedly, 
we  remain  ready  to  discuss  the  cessation  of 
bombing  in  North  Viet-Nam  but  it  is  also 
necessary  to  discuss  related  matters  on  the  basis 
of  President  Jolmson's  speech  of  March  31st. 
Tliese  are  not  extraneous  matters  as  you  charged 
in  your  statement  at  the  last  meeting.  They  are 
the  central  issue,  and  it  is  you  who  have  tried  to 
evade  them  and  have  refused  to  discuss  them 
seriously. 

So  I  again  call  on  you  to  join  with  us  in  a 
meaningful  discussion  on  these  matters.  The 
President,  on  March  31,  stated  how  the  present 
limited  bombing  could  come  to  an  early  end. 
The  Pi-esident  restated  the  United  States  Gov- 


ernment position   in   his  press  conference  of 
May  28.  He  said :  ^ 

We  have  made  it  clear  if  North  Viet-Nam  responded, 
if  they  would  show  some  similar  restraint,  we  were 
prepared  to  make  further  decisions  to  try  to  reduce 
the  violence. 

That  has  been  our  position  since  the  formula  was 
presented  ...  on  March  31,  which  brought  about  the 
Paris  negotiations.  That  is  our  position  today,  and  it 
will  remain  our  position. 

Only  yesterday,  the  President  said : « 

...  if  Hanoi  will  take  responsive  action,  we  are 
ready  to  go  far  and  fast  with  them,  and  with  others, 
to  reduce  the  violence  and  to  build  a  stable  peace  in 
Southeast  Asia. 

To  date  we  have  looked  in  vain  for  restraint 
on  the  part  of  the  Democratic  Republic  of  Viet- 
Nam.  We  cannot  conceal  our  concern  at  the  sub- 
stantial and  increasing  number  of  troops  and 
supplies  that  are  moving  from  the  North  to  the 
South.  Moreover,  the  attacks  in  recent  days 
against  Allied  forward  positions  south  of  the 
demilitarized  zone  have  been  lamiched  by  North 
Vietnamese  troops  stagmg  out  of  the  demili- 
tarized zone  and  Laos. 

Surely  your  Government  must  recognize  that 
a  complete  cessation  of  bombing  when  such  ac- 
tions are  taking  place  would,  in  the  words  of  the 
President  on  March  31,  "immediately  and 
directly  endanger  the  lives  of  our  men  and  our 
allies."  The  President  called  attention  to  his 
concern  for  the  security  of  Allied  forces  in  his 
May  28  press  conference  when  he  said : 

The  other  side  has  sought  to  use  those  talks  ...  to 
see  if  we  could  be  pressured  to  stop  the  bombing  com- 
pletely in  the  southern  panhandle  of  North  Viet-Nam 
without  any  compensatory  action  on  their  part. 

At  the  present  time  they  are  pouring  men  and  sup- 
plies through  this  area  at  an  unprecedented  rate.  The 
.•supplies  go  directly  to  the  battle  in  South  Viet-Nam. 
We  are  destroying  something  over  20  percent  of  what 
is  coming  through  to  the  South. 

Without  our  attacks,  our  men  and  our  allies  would 
be  bearing  a  considerable  extra  burden.  It  would  be 
translated  into  casualties — American,  South  Viet- 
namese, Australian,  Korean,  Thai,  and  Filipino 
casualties. 

Those  casualties  have  been  very  heavy,  particularly 
since  the  I'aris  talks  began,  and  the  .stepped-up 
attacks.  .  .  . 

North  Vietnamese  and  Viet  Cong  killed  since 
these  talks  began  have  been  many  times  Allied 
killed;  but  in  callous  disregard  for  the  lives  of 
their  own  soldiers.  North  Vietnamese  and  Viet 


°  See  p.  778. 

'  For  President  Johnson's  news  conference  of  May  30, 

see  p.  781. 


JrxE    17.    10G8 


775 


Cong  commanders  continue  futile  and  hopeless 
attacks. 

As  I  have  said  before,  it  is  difficult  to  have 
meaningful  and  frank  discussions  while  you 
continue  to  deny  the  undeniable  fact  that  at 
least  85,000  North  Vietnamese  troops  are  now 
fighting  in  South  Viet-Nam  in  direct  violation 
of  the  Geneva  accords.  This  is  such  a  fantasy — 
and  the  world  knows  it — that  you  are  now  try- 
ing to  justify  it  by  implying  a  right  to  send 
North  Vietnamese  troops  into  South  Viet-Nam. 

You  asserted  at  our  last  meeting  that  any 
Vietnainese  has  the  right  to  fight  anywhere 
within  Viet-Nam.  Wliether  or  not  your  state- 
ments were  intended  to  convey  an  admission  of 
the  presence  of  North  Vietnamese  forces  in  the 
South,  they  raise  the  underlying  issue  of  the 
war:  North  Viet-Nam 's  invasion  of  South  Viet- 
Nam  in  direct  violation  of  the  1954  Geneva  ac- 
cords. That  North  Vietnamese  invasion  of  the 
South  is  the  reason  that  American  troops  are 
fighting  in  South  Viet-Nam.  It  is  the  reason 
we  are  bombing  the  North.  It  is  also  the  reason 
why  the  people  of  South  Viet-Nam  are  fighting, 
as  they  have  done  with  great  valor  and 
persistence. 

Fundamentally,  the  accords  of  1954  provided 
for  disengagement  of  the  combatants  by  with- 
drawal of  the  forces  north  and  south  of  the  de- 
militarized zone — as  prescribed  in  articles  1 
through  9  of  the  armistice  agreement.  They  pro- 
vided for  the  renunciation  of  further  use  of 
force  as  prescribed  in  article  24.  As  you  cor- 
rectly stated  at  our  last  meeting,  the  Geneva 
accords  forbid  North  and  South  Viet-Nam  "to 
either  resume  hostilities  or  pursue  a  policy  of 
aggression." 

Clearly,  North  Vietnamese  have  no  right  to 
invade  the  South.  At  the  conclusion  of  the 
Geneva  conference,  the  United  States  affirmed 
that  it  would  respect  the  accords.  On  July  21, 
1954,  the  United  States  said  that  it  would  not 
use  force  to  disturb  them  and  that  it  would  view 
aggression  in  violation  of  the  accords  with  grave 
concern.'  That  is  how  we  view  North  Vietnamese 
aggression  and  why  we  are  supporting  the  peo- 
ple and  Government  of  South  Viet-Nam. 

I  would  like  to  make  clear  the  position  of  my 
Government  on  reunification.  We  believe,  as  I 
said  on  May  13,  that  the  question  of  reunifica- 
tion is  a  matter  to  be  decided  freely,  without 


coercion,  by  the  people  of  North  Viet-Nam  and 
the  people  of  South  Viet-Nam. 

At  the  Manila  conference  in  October  1966,  the 
United  States  joined  with  five  other  nations  in 
endorsing  the  statement  of  the  Government  of 
the  Republic  of  Viet-Nam,  which  deplored  the 
partition  of  Viet-Nam  and  looked  toward  even- 
tual reunification  of  all  Viet-Nam.* 

The  Government  in  North  Viet-Nam  does  not 
now  speak,  nor  has  it  at  any  time  in  the  past 
spoken,  for  all  the  Vietnamese  people.  There  is 
no  basis  for  your  claim  to  such  a  right.  The  peo- 
ple of  South  Viet-Nam  have  rejected  that  claim. 
There  is  also  no  basis  for  your  contention  that 
North  Vietnamese  have  a  right  to  invade  and 
use  force  in  the  South. 

The  independence  and  sovereignty  of  the 
Government  of  the  Republic  of  Viet-Nam  can- 
not be  denied.  At  the  time  of  the  Geneva  ac- 
cords, its  sovereignty  was  recognized  by  34  other 
nations.  In  January  1957,  the  delegate  of  the 
Soviet  Union  to  the  United  Nations  Security 
Council  held  that  two  separate  states  existed 
in  Viet-Nam  which  differed  from  one  another  in 
political  and  economic  structure.  He  proposed 
admitting  North  and  South  Viet-Nam  to  the 
United  Nations  as  distmct  nations.  In  Februaiy 
1957,  the  General  Assembly  of  the  United  Na- 
tions, by  a  vote  of  40  to  8,  with  18  abstentions, 
adopted  a  resolution  that  the  Republic  of  Viet- 
Nam  was  fully  qualified  for  admission  to  the 
United  Nations.  At  that  time  the  Republic  of 
Viet-Nam  was  recognized  by  47  other  states. 
Today  that  Government  is  recognized  by  over  60 
nations,  is  a  member  of  12  specialized  agencies 
of  the  United  Nations  and  30  other  international 
organizations,  and  has  participated  in  over  48 
international  conferences.  Thus,  the  Democratic 
Republic  of  Viet-Nam  is  committing  aggression 
against  the  territory  of  another  state  when  it 
sends  its  ti-oops  south  through  Laos  and  across 
the  demilitarized  zone. 

This  is  in  clear  violation  of  the  Geneva  ac- 
cords. Most  recently,  this  has  been  dramatized 
by  the  continued  actions  of  the  320th  North 
Vietnamese  Army  Division.  For  the  second  tune 
since  President  Johnson's  March  31  address, 
that  division  has  violated  the  demilitarized  zone 
by   launching   through   it   operations   against 


'  Bulletin  of  Aug.  2,  19.'4,  p.  162. 


'  For  text  of  a  joint  communique  issued  at  tlie  close 
of  the  Manila  Summit  Meeting  on  Oct.  25,  1966,  see 
ibid.,  Nov.  14.  1966,  p.  730. 


776 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BtTLLETIN 


Allied  positions  south  of  the  zone.  In  late  April, 
the  320th  Division  crossed  the  zone  into  South 
Viet-Nani  and  enoajied  Allied  forces  for  5  days 
before  withdrawing  into  the  zone.  On  May  26, 
this  same  division  recrossed  the  demilitarized 
zone  to  attack  Allied  positions  at  Dong  Ha — at 
a  cost  of  over  400  North  Vietnamese  soldiers 
killed  in  action. 

A  similar  pattern  of  violation  has  occurred 
at  the  western  end  of  the  demilitarized  zone.  In 
late  April,  due  to  heavy  casualties,  the  304th 
Division  of  the  North  Vietnamese  Army  was 
forced  to  retire  from  Khe  Sanh  into  Laos ;  there 
it  refilled  its  ranks  with  fresh  troops  from  North 
Viet-Nam.  "Within  the  past  few  days,  units  of 
the  304th  Division  have  once  more  begim  to 
probe  the  defense  of  Khe  Sanh. 

I  liave  proposed  restoration  of  the  original 
status  of  tlie  demilitarized  zone.  It  was  the 
North  Vietnamese  Anny,  not  the  South  Viet- 
namese or  their  allies,  who  made  it  a  channel  for 
infiltration.  It  was  the  North  Vietnamese  who 
fortified  it  and  who  used  it  as  a  tactical  staging 
area  and  refuge. 

Restoring  the  demilitarized  zone  to  its  proper 
and  original  status  can  be  an  important  test  of 
good  faith.  We  believe  it  is  a  reasonable  test; 
and  as  I  have  stated  repeatedly,  we  are  prepared 
to  carry  it  out.  You  have  agreed  witli  us  as  to  the 
proper  lawful  status  of  the  demilitarized  zone. 
Altliougli  we  do  not  agree,  you  have  alleged  that 
only  our  side  is  violating  the  DMZ. 

If  you  honestly  believe  your  statements,  then 
surely  you  will  agree  to  jom  with  us  in  the 
restoration  of  the  DMZ.  For  to  take  your  claims 


at  face  value,  your  side  would  be  giving  up  noth- 
ing since  you  are  not  violating  the  DMZ,  while 
our  side  would  be  prevented  from  conmiitting 
the  violations  which  you  allege.  Thus,  if  your 
allegations  are  accurate,  the  demilitarization  of 
the  DMZ  would  benefit  only  your  side. 

Once  again  I  call  on  you  to  join  with  us  in  a 
request  to  the  International  Control  Commis- 
sion to  act  at  once  to  provide  supervisory  ma- 
chmery  to  assure  that  the  demilitarized  zone 
is  in  fact  respected.  If  you  are  unwilling  to  join 
in  such  a  request,  both  the  falsity  of  your  allega- 
tions and  your  own  knowledge  of  their  falsity 
will  be  apparent. 

Let  me  close  by  emphasizing  our  belief  that  a 
return  to  the  fundamentals  of  the  Geneva  ac- 
cords— which  we  both  say  we  desire — requires 
the  withdrawal  of  non-South  Vietnamese  forces 
from  South  Viet-Nam.  The  coimtries  fighting 
alongside  the  Govermnent  of  the  Republic  of 
Viet-Nam  have  stated,  in  the  Manila  com- 
munique and  subsequently,  that  they  are  pre- 
pared to  withdraw  their  forces  from  South  Viet- 
Nam  if  the  other  side  withdraws  its  forces  to 
the  North,  stops  the  infiltration,  and  the  level 
of  violence  thus  subsides. 

Finally,  to  return  to  the  question  of  bombing, 
I  want  to  repeat  our  position :  We  are  ready  to 
discuss  with  you  in  detail  matters  related  to  the 
bombing  of  North  Viet-Nam,  such  as:  firing 
of  artillery  from  and  across  the  demilitarized 
zone  into  South  Viet-Nam,  gromid  attacks 
launched  in  the  area  of  the  demilitarized  zone, 
and  the  massive  increase  in  infiltration  that  has 
taken  place  and  continues. 


JUNE    17,    19GS 


777 


President  Johnson's  News  Conference  of  May  28 


Following  are  excerpts  from  the  transcript  of 
a  news  conference  held  hy  the  President  in  his 
office  at  the  White  House  on  May  28. 

The  President:  ...  on  the  Vance  talks  this 
morning,  I  talked  with  Ambassador  [Cyrus  K.] 
Vance  at  some  length  before  our  breakfast  meet- 
ing. As  you  know,  he  is  home  on  consultations 
from  Paris.  He  and  Mrs.  Vance  spent  the  night 
at  the  White  House. 

Mr.  Vance  described  the  exchanges  which 
have  taken  place  in  Paris  and  gave  me  his 
evaluation  of  them  in  some  detail. 

As  you  Imow,  Ambassador  Vance  and  Ambas- 
sador [W.  Averell]  Harriman  are  associate 
spokesmen  for  us  in  Paris.  The  other  side  has 
sought  to  use  these  talks  for  two  purposes :  first, 
to  see  if  we  could  be  pressured  to  stop  the 
bombing  completely  in  the  southern  panhandle 
of  North  Viet-Nam  without  any  compensatory 
action  on  their  part. 

At  the  ])rescnt  time  they  are  pouring  men  and 
supplies  through  this  area  at  an  unprecedented 
rate.  The  supplies  go  directly  to  the  battle  in 
South  Viet-Nam.  We  are  destroying  something 
over  20  percent  of  what  is  coming  through  to 
the  South. 

Without  our  attacks,  our  men  and  our  allies 
would  be  bearing  a  considerable  extra  burden. 
It  would  be  translated  into  casualties — Ameri- 
can, South  Vietnamese,  Australian,  Korean, 
Thai,  and  Filipino  casualties. 

Those  casualties  have  been  very  heavy,  partic- 
ularly smce  the  Paris  talks  began,  and  the 
stepped-up  attacks  that  they  have  made. 

Our  negotiators.  Ambassador  Harriman  and 
his  associate,  Mr.  Vance,  have  made  it  clear 
that  we  have  already  taken  a  very  major  step, 
as  I  announced  in  my  March  31  speech,^  both 


^  For  text,  see  Bulletin  of  Apr.  15,  196S,  p.  481. 


personally  and  officially,  in  connection  with  the 
bombing  of  large  segments  of  their  population 
and  territory. 

We  have  withdrawn  some  90  percent  of  their 
population  from  the  area  that  we  bombed  and 
some  78  percent  of  the  territory.  We  have 
stopped  the  bombing  of  most  of  the  territory 
and  population  in  North  Viet-Nam. 

We  have  made  it  clear  if  North  Viet-Nam 
responded,  if  they  would  show  some  similar 
restraint,  we  were  prepared  to  make  further 
decisions  to  try  to  reduce  the  violence. 

That  has  been  our  position  since  the  formula 
was  presented  in  my  speech  on  March  31,  which 
brought  about  the  Paris  negotiations.  That  is 
our  position  today,  and  it  will  remain  our 
position. 

Second,  the  other  side  has  been  using  the 
occasion  of  these  talks  for  obviously  very  wide- 
ranging  propaganda.  They  have  been  unwilling 
to  enter  into  serious,  quiet  discussion  of  the 
conditions  for  ending  the  bombing  or  any  other 
matters  of  substance. 

On  the  other  hand,  Ambassador  Harriman 
and  Ambassador  Vance  have  been  putting  for- 
ward a  series  of  constructive  proposals,  includ- 
ing the  reestablisliment  of  an  effective  demili- 
tarized zone  and  the  implementation  of  the 
Laos  accord  of  1962. 

They  have  also  indicated  the  principles  that 
we  believe  should  govern  a  total  settlement  of 
the  problem,  mcluding  the  withdrawal  of 
forces  from  South  Viet-Nam  and  a  political 
settlement. 

I  discussed  with  Ambassador  Vance,  and  a 
number  of  my  other  advisers,  the  position  that 
had  been  taken  and  that  we  should  take  in  Paris 
in  the  future. 

While  our  men  deal  with  the  Communist 
forces  in  the  field,  we  shall  continue  patiently 


778 


DEPARTME>fT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


to  see  whether  the  Paris  talks  shall  yield  any- 
thing in  the  way  of  constructive  results. 

In  our  judgment,  it  is  time  to  move  from 
fantas}'  and  propaganda  to  the  realistic  and 
constructive  work  of  bringing  peace  to  South- 
east Asia. 

In  addition,  at  6  this  afternoon,  Ambassador 
Vance  will  meet  with  mo  here  at  the  "Wliite 
House,  and  I  have  invited  to  be  my  guests  the 
bipartisan  leadership  from  the  Congress.  We 
expect  Members  from  both  parties,  that  is,  the 
leadership  in  the  Senate  and  House,  to  be  pres- 
ent for  that  briefing. 

You  have  been  told  that  the  same  briefing 
given  to  me  was  given  to  the  Prime  Minister  of 
Australia  this  morning. 

We  are  submitting  a  message  on  the  Trade 
Expansion  Act.^  There  will  be  some  notes  on 
what  this  proposal  does. 

It  extends  the  provisions  of  the  Trade  Expan- 
sion Act  of  1962.  It  allows  the  President  to 
conduct  negotiations  for  tariff  reductions.  It 
eliminates  the  American  Selling  Price  system  of 
customs  valuation,  which  is  necessary  to  imple- 
ment the  last  of  the  Kennedy  Bound 
agreements. 

It  authorizes  specific  appropriations  to  pay 
our  share  in  the  General  Agreement  on  Tariffs 
and  Trade.  It  produces  a  new  adjustment  as- 
sistance program.  It  also  asks  as  a  part  of  this 
bill  an  extension  of  the  adjustment  assistance 
pro^nsions  of  the  Automotive  Products  Trade 
Act.'  This  Act  has  allowed  us  to  create  an  inte- 
grated U.S.-Canadian  auto  market  and  assist 
workers  in  firms  who  might  be  injured. 

It  comes  out  strongly  against  quota  bills  now 
pending  in  Congress.  It  makes  a  strong  state- 
ment on  the  need  to  join  with  other  nations  in 
eliminating  nontariff  barriers.  It  states  that  the 
President  will  shortly  sign  an  Executive  order 
to  initiate  a  full-scale  study  of  long-range 
American  trade  policy. 

I  think  that  is  all  that  I  have.  I  will  be  glad 
to  take  any  questions  that  you  may  have.  .  .  . 

Q.  Mr.  President? 

The  President:  Mr.  Lisagor? 

Q.  The  two  points  that  you  gave  us  that  the 
other  side  is  making,  were  those  Mr.  Vance's 


"  See  p.  SOT. 

'  For  background,  see  Bulletin  of  Nov.  15,  1965,  p. 
798. 


report  to  you  or  are  they  two  points  that  you 
have  concVaded  from  his  report? 

The  President:  Those  are  my  statements.  I 
don't  want  to  go  into  the  specifics  of  Mr.  Vance's 
report.  I  don't  think  we  will.  I  am  not  sure 
that  that  would  contribute  anything  to  the 
negotiations. 

Q.  Mr.  President,  did  Mr.  Vance  express  his 
hope  or  confidence  that  in  time  North  Viet-Nam 
will  Tnove  away — 

The  President:  I  don't  want  to  go  into  Mr. 
Vance's  report  or  the  details  of  his  conversa- 
tion. As  I  made  clear  to  Mr.  Lisagor,  Mr.  Yomig, 
I  don't  think  anything  can  come  from  this  that 
would  be  helpful.  I  would,  however,  not  be 
drawing  contrary  conclusions. 

Q.  Mr.  President,  the  Foreign  Relations  Com- 
mittee voted  down  funds  for  the  Asian  Bank 
and  deferred  funds  for  IDA  [International 
Development  Association^.  How  do  you  feel 
about  that? 

The  President:  I  think  all  Americans  should 
share  my  concern  about  the  effect  of  this  action. 
I  tliink  it  goes  to  the  fmidamental  American 
commitment  to  try  to  help  Asia  help  itself. 

I  do  not  think  it  is  wise  to  defer  this  action. 
The  forces  of  change  are  at  work  in  Asia,  and 
they  should  not  be  put  off.  If  we  act  now,  change 
can  be  progress ;  and  if  we  delay,  I  tliink  it  can 
be  tragic. 

I  would  hope  that  in  this  close  vote  the  Mem- 
bers who  have  doubts  could  try  to  resolve  those 
doubts  by  discussing  the  matter  with  Mr.  Black 
[Eugene  V.  Black,  special  adviser  to  the  Presi- 
dent on  Asian  economic  and  social  develop- 
ment], wlio  is  a  very  eminent  specialist  in  this 
field  and  a  great  American  whom  all  of  us 
respect. 

If  we  are  ever  to  get  away  from  the  aid-grant 
programs,  we  ought  to  try  to  encourage  the 
regional  development  banks  and  encourage 
other  nations  to  join  with  us  in  sharing  part  of 
this  load. 

I  believe  that  Mr.  Eugene  Black  has  made  a 
very  convincing  case.  I  would  hope  that  Mem- 
bers of  the  Congress  would  keep  an  open  mind 
and  see  if  there  could  not  be  a  meeting  of  minds 
that  would  permit  favorable  action  before  the 
session  ends. 


JUNE    17.    1968 


779 


President  Johnson  and  Mr.  Vance 
Review  Progress  of  Paris  Talks 

Ambassador  Gyrus  R.  Vance,  deputy  head  of 
the  U.8.  delegation  to  the  official  conversations 
rvith  North  Viet-Nam  which  began  at  Paris  on 
May  13,  reported  to  President  Johnson  on  May 
29  on  developments  during  the  first  2  \veeks  of 
the  talks.  He  then  accompanied  the  President  to 
a  White  House  ceremony  at  which  the  President 
signed  into  law  the  Consumer  Credit  Protection 
Act  {Public  Law  90-321).  Following  are  ex- 
cerpts from  remarks  made  by  President  Johnson 
on  that  occasion,  together  with  remarks  by  Am- 
bassador Vance. 


White  House  press  release  dated  May  29 

PRESIDENT  JOHNSON 

I  ask  your  indulgence  for  being  late.  We  had 
a  rather  extended  briefing  on  a  subject  that 
means  more  to  all  of  us  than  any  other  subject, 
and  that  is  how  we  can  get  peace  in  the  world. 

I  have  been  talking  to  Mr.  Vance  since  before 
8  o'clock  this  morning,  reviewing  all  the  devel- 
opments of  the  past  2  weeks.  He  is  preparing 
to  return  to  Paris.  He  has  been  briefing  our 
Cabinet  and  evaluating  for  us  the  developments 
there. 

I  assume  it  is  not  inappropriate  here  to  ob- 
serve that  back  last  August  we  searched  our 
minds  and  our  hearts  and  our  principles  and 
laid  down  a  program  which  was  subsequently 
announced  in  San  Antoiiio  ^  that  we  were  hope- 
ful would  lead  to  the  peace  table. 

That  program  was  rejected  outright,  and  we 
searched  many  other  avenues  and  many  other 
conferences. 

On  March  31st,^  I  reached  a  decision  that  if 
we  M'ould  take  the  unusual  step  of  exercising 
great  restraint  on  our  own  part  by  eliminating 
our  offensive  efforts  over  90  percent  of  the  popu- 
lation in  North  Viet-N"am  and  78  percent  of  the 
territory,  if  we  did  that  unilaterally  without 
expecting  anything  from  them  or  asking  any- 
thing from  them,  that  might  lead  to  the  talk 


^  For  an  address  by  President  Johnson  made  at  San 
Antonio,  Tex.,  on  Sept.  29,  see  Bdtxetin  of  Oct.  23. 
1967,  p.  519. 

'  For  President  Johnson's  address  to  the  Nation  on 
Mar.  31,  .see  ihid..  Apr.  15,  19GS,  p.  481. 


table  where  we  could  discuss  this  matter.  If  we 
could  talk,  that  might  lead  to  some  agreement 
sometime. 

It  was  an  adventure.  There  were  no  guaran- 
tees involved  about  what  it  would  do.  But  we 
thought  it  offered  new  hope.  I  didn't  feel  that  it 
was  a  matter  that  could  be  involved  in  partisan- 
year  politics  or  personal  ambition.  For  that  rea- 
son, I  said  that  we  will  do  this  to  try  to  get  to  the 
table,  and  to  convince  not  only  everyone  abroad 
but  everyone  at  home  that  it  is  no  election- j'ear 
gimmick,  I  made  the  additional  decision  not  to 
seek  reelection. 

We  have  gone  part  of  the  way.  We  are  at  the 
table.  It  took  us  a  month  to  get  there.  Some 
people  were  not  helpful  to  us  in  getting  there, 
but  we  are  there,  thank  goodness. 

The  next  question  is :  What  do  we  do  there  ? 
We  hope  we  make  progress.  We  don't  know. 
We  have  not  made  much  up  to  date.  We  can't 
see  the  future,  but  we  are  going  to  try.  That 
is  why  we  are  late.  Thank  you  for  your 
understanding. 

This  is  unusual,  and  I  don't  want  to  take 
much  more  of  your  time,  but  we  do  have  an- 
other man  who  has  given  8  or  9  years  of  his  life 
to  Federal  service  in  many  capacities — in  the 
legislative  branch  of  the  Government,  in  the 
military  branch  of  the  Government,  in  the  dip- 
lomatic branch  of  the  Government — and  he  is 
one  of  the  great  public  servants  of  our  time.  I 
want  him  to  take  the  next  few  minutes  of  your 
time  on  the  thing  that  is  most  in  your  heart: 
peace  in  the  world.  Cy  Vance. 


AMBASSADOR  VANCE 

As  a  result  of  the  speech  of  March  3lst  and 
the  actions  announced  therein,  we  are  now  at 
the  conference  table  in  Paris. 

It  took  us  a  month  to  get  to  the  conference 
table.  How  long  it  will  take  us  to  achieve  a  just 
and  honorable  peace  at  the  conference  table,  we 
do  not  know. 

The  road  ahead,  I  believe,  will  probably  be 
long  and  difficult.  However,  we  will  persevere 
in  our  search  for  a  just  and  honorable  peace  so 
that  peace  and  prosperity  may  be  brought  to 
Southeast  Asia  and  to  the  world. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  President. 


780 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE    BITLLETIN 


President  Johnson's  News  Conference  of  May  30 


Following  are  excerpts  from  the  transcript  of 
a  news  conference  held  hy  President  Johnson^ 
together  with  Pnme  Minister  John  G.  Gorton 
of  Australia  and  Gen.  Williani  O.  Westmore- 
land, at  the  L.B.J.  Ranch  at  Johnson  City,  Tex., 
on  May  30. 


OPENING  STATEMENTS  AND  REMARKS 


President  Johnson 


"We  are  delighted  to  have  with  us  today  the 
distinguished  Prime  Minister,  Mr.  Gorton,  and 
Mrs.  Gorton,  from  Australia.  Although  Mr. 
Gorton  and  I  had  met  before  in  Canberra,  this 
was  our  first  meeting  since  he  became  Prime 
Minister. 

We  took  the  occasion  to  spend  a  good  deal  of 
time  together  since  his  arrival  last  Monday. 

As  all  of  you  know,  the  ties  between  Australia 
and  the  United  States  grow  stronger  each  year. 
As  part  of  this  shared  vision,  and  to  honor  our 
common  interests  and  commitments,  our  men  are 
now  fighting  side  by  side  under  General  West- 
moreland's leadership  in  Viet-Nam. 

So  we  have  reviewed  together,  with  Ambassa- 
dor [Cyrus  R.]  Vance,  who  returned  from  the 
Paris  talks,  the  progress  of  the  Paris  talks. 

This  morning,  with  General  Westmoreland, 
we  reviewed  the  course  of  the  battle  on  the 
ground. 

As  a  result  of  our  talks,  I  am  confident  that 
we  have  strengthened  the  bonds  between  our 
two  countries  as  we  face  together  the  hard  but 
the  productive  tasks  which  lie  before  us  in  the 
months  ahead. 

It  now  gives  me  very  special  pride  to  award 
a  Presidential  Unit  Citation  to  the  D  Company 
of  the  6th  Battalion  of  the  Koyal  Australian 
Regiment  for  extraordinary  heroism  while 
serving  in  Viet-Nam. 


I  have  long  had  reason  to  know  personally 
what  we  have  learned  as  a  nation  over  the  past 
half  century  since  the  World  War.  That  is,  that 
in  a  fight,  there  is  no  better  man  to  have  by  your 
side  than  an  Australian. 

Only  yesterday  morning  I  received  a  typical 
report  of  Australians  in  combat.  A  very  small 
unit  of  the  Third  Royal  Australian  Regiment 
was  blocking  an  infiltration  route  toward 
Saigon  26  miles  northeast  of  the  capital.  About 
1,000  of  the  enemy,  some  fresh  from  North 
Viet-Nam,  threw  themselves  against  this  Aus- 
tralian base. 

Heavy  fighting  took  place  over  2  hours.  The 
enemy  withdrew,  leaving  44  dead  and  32 
weapons  on  the  battlefield.  Seven  prisoners  were 
captured. 

General  Westmoreland  sent  a  message  of  con- 
gratulations to  Major  General  MacDonald,  who 
commands  the  Australian  forces  in  Viet-Nam. 

That  is  the  kind  of  steady  courage  that  we 
have  come  to  expect  from  the  Australians.  I 
think  this  is  a  very  good  moment  to  remind  all 
of  the  American  people  of  this  fact. 

The  war  is  not  being  fought  in  Viet-Nam 
simply  by  Americans ;  it  is  being  fought  by  the 
South  Vietnamese,  the  Australians,  the  New 
Zealanders,  the  Koreans,  the  Thais,  and  the 
Filipinos. 

Together,  we  shall  bring  a  just  and  honorable 
peace  to  Southeast  Asia,  for  that  is  our  objec- 
tive— and  I  want  to  repeat,  that  is  our  only 
objective. 

From  last  summer  to  the  end  of  March  of 
this  year,  we  have  made  a  very  special  effort 
to  move  this  war  to  the  conference  table  and  to 
peace  talks. 

On  March  31,  in  a  speech  to  the  Nation,^  I 
said  that  we  would  undertake  a  major  unilateral 
act  of  deescalation.  We  would  lift  the  bombing 


■  For  text,  see  Bulletin  of  Apr.  15,  1968,  p.  481. 


JUNE    17,    19G8 


781 


from  most  of  the  territory  and  population  of 
North  Viet-Nam,  including  Hanoi  and  Hai- 
phong, and  we  would  free  our  hands  so  we  could 
concentrate  every  resource  at  our  command  in 
the  search  for  peace. 

At  that  time  I  announced  I  would  not  seek 
or  accept  the  presidential  nomination. 

I  felt  that  these  two  steps  might— just 
might— bring  Hanoi  to  the  conference  table. 

A  month  went  by,  but  that  has  now  happened, 
and  these  talks  are  being  conducted  in  Paris. 

I  cannot  report  to  the  American  people  any 
substantive  progress,  nor  can  I  even  report  that 
Hanoi  has  matched  our  restraint  with  theirs. 

But  if  Hanoi  will  take  responsive  action,  we 
are  ready  to  go  far  and  fast  with  them,  and 
with  others,  to  reduce  the  violence  and  to  build 
a  stable  peace  in  Southeast  Asia. 

We  have  done  everything  that  we  know  how 
to  do  to  bring  us  to  this  point.  We  shall  continue 
to  do  everything  that  we  know  how  to  do  to 
bring  peace  to  the  world. 

Now  it  gives  me  great  pleasure  to  present  the 
Presidential  Citation  to  the  distinguished  Prune 
Minister. 

We  would  be  glad  to  have  a  word  from  him 
if  he  cares  to. 

Remarks  by  Prime  Minister  Gorton 

I  accept  with  a  feeling  of  veiy  great  pride  in 
my  countrymen  this  Presidential  Citation 
which  has  been  awarded  for  their  heroism  in 
action.  So  I  shall  take  it  and  hand  it  to  the 
Chief  of  Staff  of  the  Australian  Army.  He  and 
all  Australians  will  feel  the  same  pride  that  I 
do,  that  this  has  been  presented  for  what  they 
on  that  day  did. 

I  would  like  to  thank  you,  too,  sir,  during 
this  brief  visit  to  the  United  States,  for  I  shall 
leave  tomorrow,  for  all  the  time  that  you  have 
put  aside  for  discussions  with  me  and  for  all 
the  time  which  your  senior  officials  and  Secre- 
taries of  relevant  Departments  have  put  aside 
for  discussions  with  me.  I  feel  that  this  has  been 
of  great  advantage  to  me,  and  I  believe  that  we 
know  each  other's  minds  as  to  the  problems  of 
the  Southeast  Asian  area  generally  and  as  to 
the  future  we  both  wish  to  see  in  the  Southeast 
Asian  area  generally — a  future  wliere  pros- 
perity is  able  to  be  based  upon  peace  and  peace 
is  able  to  be  based  on  an  absence  from  fear. 

I  thank  you,  sir. 


President  Johnson 

General  Westmoreland  arrived  here  earlier 
this  morning  and  briefed  me  and  Prime  IMin- 
ister  Gorton,  and  together  we  heard  a  somewhat 
detailed  report  from  the  Prime  Minister  of 
Australia  of  developments  in  South  Viet-Nam. 
I  should  like  to  ask  him  to  summarize  for  the 
American  people  and  for  those  of  you  who  have 
come  here  today  that  report  he  has  given  to  us. 
General  Westmoreland. 

Remarks  by  General  Westmoreland 

I  am  happy  to  summarize  my  discussion  on 
the  situation  in  Viet-Nam. 

First,  what  are  the  current  objectives  of  the 
enemy  ? 

In  my  opinion,  his  primary  objective  is  to 
destroy  the  government  of  South  Viet-Nam. 
This  has  been  his  objective  since  1958,  but  Hanoi 
is  now  emphasizing  this  objective  more  than 
ever  before. 

Secondly,  he  wants  to  develop  an  image  of 
strength  in  the  eyes  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States  and  the  world  in  the  hope  that  this  will 
bring  about  an  attitude  of  futility  toward  the 
success  of  our  objective  of  a  free  and  inde- 
pendent South  Viet-Nam. 

How  is  he  attempting  to  accomplish  these 
objectives? 

First,  by  resorting  to  terrorizing  the  people, 
creating  refugees,  and  attempting  to  coerce  the 
people  to  demonstrate  against  the  government. 

Second,  by  waging  a  massive  worldwide 
propaganda  campaign  based  on  distorted 
information. 

Third,  by  defeating  Vietnamese  troops  and 
isolating  them  from  the  American  and  free- 
world  forces. 

Fourth,  by  defeating  the  United  States  units 
for  pro])aganda  purposes. 

Finally,  by  seizing  territory  and  thereby 
strengthening  his  posture  in  the  South. 

The  enemy  is  having  to  deploy  ever  larger 
numbers  of  men  from  the  North,  and  the  war 
is  destined  to  become  increasingly  more  and 
more  of  a  North  Vietnamese  invasion  of  the  i 
South. 

The  North  Vietnamese  are  strangers  to  the 
people  in  the  South  and  are  iinfamiliar  with 
the  area.  In  fact,  now  over  72  percent  of  the 
oi'ganized  combat  forces,  excluding  guerrillas, 
are  North  Vietnamese. 


782 


DEP^VRTMENT  OF  STATE  BULLETIN 


It  is  estimated  that  there  are  a])pro.\imatcIy 
90,000  North  Vietnamese  soldiers  in  the  South, 
with  more  ari'iving  every  day. 

The  facade  that  the  enemy  has  carefully 
created,  that  this  is  a  war  of  the  people,  has 
been  destroyed  with  the  influx  of  hordes  of 
North  Vietnamese. 

But  in  spite  of  this  total  effort,  his  only  vic- 
tories of  the  last  few  years  have  been  in  the 
propaganda  field. 

In  this  connection,  I  am  confident  that  the 
enemy  is  receiving  false  reports  from  liis  field 
commanders.  This  partially  explains  his  alleged 
and  exaggerated  battlefield  successes,  which  are 
distorted  by  a  factor  of  from  three  to  twelve, 
and  in  some  cases  even  more. 

In  summary,  the  enemy  seems  to  be  approach- 
ing a  point  of  desperation;  his  forces  are  de- 
teriorating its  strength  and  quality. 

I  forecast  that  these  trends  will  continue. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  South  Vietnamese 
armed  forces  are  becoming  progressively 
stronger  and  more  effective.  Our  troops  and 
those  of  our  free-world  allies  continue  to  per- 
form in  magnificent  fashion. 

However,  we  must  be  prepared  for  continued 
heavy  fighting  ahead,  especially  in  the  north- 
em  area,  the  highlands,  and  around  Saigon. 

But  time  is  on  our  side.  Endurance  on  the 
battlefield  and  patience  at  home  are  required. 

President  Johnson 

Thank  you  very  much.  General  Westmore- 
land. It  is  very  difficult  to  give,  in  a  few  minutes, 
the  full  report  that  you  have  made  today. 

I  have  asked  the  General  to  take  the  statement 
that  he  dictated  and  reviewed  with  the  Prime 
Minister  and  mo  and  to  make  it  available  to 
you.^  You  will  have  an  opportimity  to  review 
the  details  of  it  much  more  at  length  than  he  has 
been  able  to  go  over  with  you  now. 

"VVe  are  very  happy  General  "Westmoreland 
is  returning  to  "Washington  to  take  the  place 
formerly  occupied  by  General  Black  Jack 
Pershing,  George  Marshall,  and  Dwight  Eisen- 
hower as  head  of  the  Chief  of  Staff  of  the 
United  States  Army  and  the  leader  of  the 
United  States  Army  in  this  country. 

His  performance  has  been  exceptional  and 
brilliant.  I  look  forward  to  working  very  closely 

,  with  hini  in  the  days  ahead. 

I     If  there  are  any  questions  that  you  care  to 
ask.  I  will  be  glad  to  receive  them. 


QUESTIONS  AND  ANSWERS 

Q.  Mr.  President,  in  view  of  the  stejy-up  of 
the  war  07i  the  enemy  side,  the  wvprecedented 
infiltration  of  inen  and  supplies,  do  you  have 
any  plan  to  reconsider  your  partial  bombing 

pause? 

The  President:  "We  have  under  consideration 
appropriate  actions  every  day.  They  are  con- 
stantly being  considered.  "What  is  the  proper 
course  to  bring  peace  in  the  world  ?  What  is  the 
proper  course  to  bring  an  end  to  the  war  in 
South  Viet-Nam? 


Q.  Mr.  President,  do  you  share  the  belief  of 
Cyrus  Vance  that  because  North  Viet-Nam  is 
at  the  conference  table  in  Paris,  it  eventually 
wants  peace  and  that,  therefore,  these  talks  are 
going  to,  as  Mr.  Vance  put  it,  move  to  the  end 
and  go  into  full-scale  peace  negotiations? 

The  President:  We  feel  that  as  a  result  of  our 
statement  back  in  March,  as  I  repeated  earlier, 
that  we  had  two  steps  to  take :  One  was  to  try 
to  get  Hanoi  to  the  conference  table.  That  has 
been  done. 

How  far  we  are  going  to  get  in  those  confer- 
ences is  pure  speculation.  We  don't  know.  We 
hope  that  we  can  have  a  satisfactory  conference 
that  will  produce  results. 

I  don't  care  to  speculate.  I  do  not  feel  it  has 
produced  any  substantive  results  to  this  date. 

I  think  we  must  all  continue  to  try  to  explore 
every  possible  avenue,  get  down  to  substantive 
discussions  as  soon  as  possible. 

But  as  to  what  the  outcome  might  be,  I  think 
I  would  rather  let  developments  take  care  of 
that. 


Q.  Mr.  President,  today,  in  light  of  what  has 
been  happening  in  France,  there  is  quite  a  run 
on  tlie  French  franc.  I  wonder  if  you  could  give 
us  your  'judgment  on  tohether  that  'will  increase 
or  decrease  the  pressures  on  the  U.S.  dollar. 

The  President:  We  are  very  hopeful  that  the 
leadership  of  France  and  the  people  of  France 
will  find  ways  and  means  to  bring  stability  in 
that  country. 

We  realize  that  the  developments  there  not 


=  See  p.  784. 


JrXE    17,    1968 


783 


only  have  a  serious  effect  on  France  but  on  the 
entire  world. 

The  leadership  of  France  is  taking  certain 
steps  and  putting  in  motion  certam  actions.  I 
don't  care  to  speculate  on  how  successful  those 
actions  will  be  or  what  their  outcome  will  be. 

I  do  know  that  it  is  very  important  to  the 
American  people  and  the  rest  of  the  world  that 
we  have  stability  in  France.  We  deeply  regret 
the  problems  that  face  the  French  people. 

•  •  •  •  • 

Q.  Did  General  W esttnoreland  report  that  his 
position  on  the  ground  has  been  weakened  hy 
the  partial  halt  in  bombing,  Mr.  President? 

The  President:  No. 


Q.  Mr.  President,  in  view  of  the  reports  of 
increased  casualties,  and  General  Westmore- 
land''s  report  to  you  on  battlefield  conditions, 
does  the  administration  foresee  any  needs  for  a 
step-up  or  an  increase  in  our  troop  strength  in 
Viet-Nam  beyond  what  you  have  already  an- 
nounced? 

The  President:  General  Westmoreland  has 
made  no  such  recommendation. 

The  press:  Thanh  you,  Mr.  President. 


General  Westmoreland  Reports 
on  Viet-Nam  Military  Situation 

Statement  by  Gen.  William  C.  Westmoreland  ^ 

On  the  occasion  of  Tet  at  the  end  of  January, 
the  enemy  launched  a  general  offensive  designed 
to  defeat  the  Vietnamese  armed  forces  and 
cause  them  to  defect,  isolate  the  American  and 
free-world  forces  from  the  Vietnamese,  create  a 
public  uprising,  and  capture  territory  to  divide, 
geographically,  the  country  as  he  did  in  Laos 
several  years  ago.  This  marked  a  change  in 
strategy  brought  about,  in  my  opinion,  because 
he  realized  that  in  view  of  our  commitment  and 
militai-y  successes  his  old  strategy  of  "pro- 
tracted war"  had  little  prospect  of  success.  The 


'Issued  at  Johnson  City,  Tex.,  on  May  30  (Wliite 
House  press  release).  Gen.  Westmoreland  has  relin- 
quished his  duties  as  Commander,  U.S.  Military  Assist- 
ance Command,  Viet-Nam,  to  become  Army  Chief  of 
Staff. 


enemy  expected  to  overrun  Khe  Sanh  as  a  first 
step  in  seizing  the  two  northern  provinces  of 
the  country,  to  seize  the  remote  areas  of  the 
higlilands  on  the  Laos  and  Cambodian  borders, 
and  to  isolate  Saigon  and  block  commerce  be- 
tween the  capital  city  and  the  fertile  delta.  The 
enemy  failed  in  all  of  these  objectives.  He  was 
stopped  and  defeated  in  the  northern  part  of 
the  coimtry  and  in  the  border  areas.  Saigon 
was  not  isolated.  He  was  rebuffed  by  the  peo- 
ple, who  did  not  respond  to  his  call  for  public 
uprisings.  Instead  of  the  South  Vietnamese 
armed  forces  being  defeated  or  responding  to 
propaganda  to  defect  to  the  enemy,  they  fought 
bravely  and  well.  The  aggressive  spirit  dis- 
played by  the  ARVN  [Army  of  the  Republic  of 
Viet-Nam]  during  and  after  the  Tet  offensive  is 
by  far  the  greatest  I  have  observed  in  my  almost 
41/^  years  in  South  Viet-Nam.  Our  alliance  and 
integrated  military  efforts  between  the  Viet- 
namese armed  forces  and  those  of  the  United 
States  and  free  world  are  stronger  and  more 
effective  than  ever. 

However,  the  enemy's  offensive  did  result  in 
approximately  8  percent  of  the  population  los- 
ing the  excellent  security  status  that  they  liad 
previously  enjoyed,  and  as  of  this  time,  only 
appi'oximately  one-third  of  this  loss  has  been 
regained. 

Between  the  5th  and  11th  of  this  month,  the 
enemy  again  attempted  to  worm  his  way  into 
Saigon  and  succeeded  in  penetrating  with  small 
forces  the  outer  areas  of  several  parts  of  the 
city.  His  apparent  purpose  was  to  bring  about 
the  destruction  of  homes  so  as  to  create  refugees, 
with  the  objective  of  influencing  these  unfor- 
timate  people  ultimately  to  demonstrate  against 
the  government.  In  fact,  yesterday  a  defector 
from  the  enemy's  ranks  stated  that  the  mission 
of  his  unit  was  to  raze  as  much  of  Saigon  as 
possible  by  infiltrating  the  city  to  force  fighting 
there  and  thus  bring  about  destruction  and 
affliction  upon  the  civilian  population. 

The  enemy  strategy  and  tactics  seem  to  be 
motivated  by  an  attitude  wliich  may  reflect  des- 
peration. Two  recent  defectors  in  the  grade  of 
lieutenant  colonel  abandoned  the  Communist 
cause  and  came  to  the  government  because  they 
considered  the  situation  hopeless  and  were  dis- 
traught because  of  the  impossible  orders  ema- 
nating from  Hanoi  that  required  suicidal 
attacks.  This  is  a  change  in  Communist,  doctrine 
which  has  prescribed  that  attacks  not  be  made 
unless  the  odds  were  favorable.  Also  recently, 
the  enemy  has  fired  rockets  indiscriminately  into 


784 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BUIiETTN 


populated  areas  with  apparently  no  purpose  in 
mind  except  to  harass  people  and  to  create  an 
impression  of  streng-th.  Again  this  is  a  depar- 
ture from  Communist  insurgency  doctrine.  As 
a  typical  example  of  this,  two  nights  before  I 
left  Saigon,  the  enemy  fired  nine  rounds  of  122- 
millimeter  rocket  in  the  middle  of  the  night, 
killing  five  and  wounding  38  civilians.  Of  these, 
four  children  were  killed  and  eight  wounded. 

The  cost  of  this  new  strategy  to  the  enemy 
has  been  tremendous.  Since  the  first  of  the  year, 
he  has  had  over  100,000  men  killed  on  the  battle- 
field, which  is  more  than  he  lost  in  all  of  1967 
and  approximately  twice  as  many  as  he  lost  in 
all  of  1066.  To  replace  these  great  losses,  the 
enemy  is  having  to  send  quantities  of  men  from 
tlie  Xorth,  since  he  can  recruit  in  the  South  but 
only  a  small  fraction  of  the  men  required.  I 
estimate  that  he  is  recruiting  less  than  3,000  men 
a  month  in  the  South,  and  many  of  these  are 
young  men  between  13  and  16  years  of  age.  Last 
month  I  estimate  that  he  brought  from  the  North 
more  than  15,000,  and  this  approximate  rate 
will  probablj'  continue  throughout  the  summer. 
On  the  other  hand,  these  replacements  are  of 
poor  quality,  many  being  under  17  or  over  35 
years  of  age.  I  myself  saw  a  young  North  Viet- 
namese soldier  in  an  American  hospital  several 
weeks  ago  who  was  15  years  of  age.  He  informed 
me  he  had  left  North  Viet-Nam  on  10  February 
and  had  received  only  15  days  training,  ten  of 
which  involved  propaganda  which  he  has  since 
learned  to  be  false  and  political  indoctrination, 
while  only  five  were  devoted  to  military 
training. 

During  the  past  year,  the  enemy  has  escalated 
in  his  weaponry.  He  has  introduced  a  new 
family  of  Soviet  weapons,  many  of  which  are 
manufactured  in  Communist  China  and  involve 
an  excellent  family  of  automatic  shoulder  arms, 
machine  guns,  antitank  rockets,  recoilless  weap- 
ons, and  artillery-type  rockets.  This  increase 
in  his  available  weapons  has  greatly  magnified 
the  enemy's  logistic  problems  and  has  resulted 
in  the  necessity  of  bringing  to  tlie  battlefield 
tonnages  of  munitions  unprecedented  in  his  ex- 
perience. In  fact,  the  loads  are  so  heax'y  and  the 
tonnages  so  great  that  it  is  now  difficult,  if  not 
impractical,  to  do  the  job  with  manual  labor. 
Therefore,  the  enemy  has  had  to  turn  to  trucks, 
which  in  turn  has  necessitated  a  major  construc- 
tion effort  to  develop  an  extensive  road  net 
through  Laos.  Now  he  is  attempting  to  extend 
this  road  net  into  South  Viet-Nam.  The  effec- 
tiveness of  our  air  strikes  in  interdicting  liis 


lines  of  communication  north  of  the  DMZ 
[demilitarized  zone]  and  the  limited  success  of 
his  roadbuilding  program  have  created  severe 
logistics  problems  for  the  North  Vietnamese 
Army. 

I  have  never  been  more  pleased  with  the  per- 
formance of  the  Vietnamese  armed  forces.  They 
have  continued  to  fight  bravely,  and  their  per- 
formance continues  to  improve.  I  can  remember 
back  in  1964  and  1965,  they  were  losing  approxi- 
mately one  man  for  every  enemy  soldier  that 
they  killed.  Now,  for  evei-y  man  they  lose,  the 
regular  forces  are  killing  over  eight  of  the  en- 
emy and  the  paramilitary,  regional,  and  popular 
forces  are  killing  approximately  four.  The  re- 
ceipt of  the  M-16  rifle  by  the  Vietnamese  in- 
fantry, airborne,  and  marine  units  has  had  an 
excellent  effect  in  enhancing  morale  and  bat- 
tlefield effectiveness.  The  distribution  of  this 
excellent  weapon  is  continuhig.  Since  nothing 
succeeds  like  success,  morale  and  fighting  qual- 
ity of  the  Vietnamese  forces  is  at  an  all-time 
high.  The  strength  of  the  Vietnamese  units  has 
never  been  better,  and  their  training  centers  are 
filled,  whereas  the  enemy  is  having  serious  mo- 
rale and  recruiting  problems. 

Wliat  are  the  current  objectives  of  the  enemy  ? 
In  my  opinion  his  primary  objective  is  to  de- 
stroy the  government  of  South  Viet-Nam.  This 
has  been  his  objective  since  1958,  but  Hanoi  is 
now  emphasizing  this  objective  more  than  ever 
before.  Secondly,  he  wants  to  develop  an  image 
of  strength  in  the  eyes  of  })eople  in  the  United 
States  and  the  world,  in  the  hope  that  this  will 
bring  about  an  attitude  of  futility  toward  the 
success  of  our  objective  of  a  free  and  independ- 
ent South  Viet-Nam. 

How  is  he  now  attempting  to  accomplish  these 
objectives?  First,  by  resorting  to  terrorizing 
the  people,  creating  refugees,  and  attempting  to 
coerce  the  people  to  demonstrate  against  the 
government.  Second,  by  waging  a  massive 
worldwide  propaganda  campaign  based  on  dis- 
torted information.  Third,  by  defeating  Viet- 
namese troops  and  isolating  them  from  the 
American  and  free-world  forces.  Fourtli,  by  de- 
feating United  States  units  for  propagandapur- 
poses.  Finally,  by  seizmg  territory  and  thereby 
strengthening  his  posture  in  the  South.  He  is 
having  to  deploy  even  larger  numbers  of  men 
from  the  North,  and  the  war  is  destined  to  be- 
come increasingly  more  and  more  of  a  North 
Vietnamese  invasion  of  the  South.  North  Viet- 
namese are  strangers  to  the  people  and  unfamil- 
iar with  the  area.  In  fact,  now  over  72  percent 


JUNE    17,    1968 
308-232 — 6S 


785 


of  the  organized  combat  forces — excluding 
guerrillas — are  North  Vietnamese.  It  is  esti- 
mated that  there  are  approximately  90,000 
North  Vietnamese  in  the  South,  with  more  ar- 
riving every  day.  The  facade  that  the  enemy  has 
carefully  created  that  this  is  a  war  of  the  people 
has  been  destroyed  with  the  influx  of  hordes  of 
North  Vietnamese. 

But  in  spite  of  his  total  effort,  his  only  vic- 
tories of  the  last  few  years  have  been  in  the 
propaganda  field.  In  this  connection,  I  am  con- 
fident that  the  enemy  is  receiving  false  reports 
from  his  field  commanders.  This  partially  ex- 
plains the  exaggeration  of  his  alleged  battlefield 
successes,  which  are  distorted  by  a  factor  of 


from  three  to  twelve  and  in  some  cases  even 
more. 

In  summary,  the  enemy  seems  to  be  approach- 
ing a  point  of  desperation.  His  forces  are  deteri- 
orating in  strength  and  quality.  I  forecast  that 
these  trends  will  continue.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  Vietnamese  armed  forces  are  becoming  pro- 
gressively stronger  and  more  effective.  Our 
troops  and  those  of  our  free-world  allies  con- 
tinue to  perform  in  magnificent  fashion.  How- 
ever, we  must  be  prepared  for  continued  heavy 
fighting  ahead,  especially  in  the  northern  area, 
the  higUands,  and  around  Saigon.  Time  is  on 
our  side.  Endurance  on  the  battlefield  and 
patience  at  home  are  required. 


Prime  Minister  Gorton  of  Australia  Visits  the  United  States 


Prime  Minister  John  G.  Gorton  of  Australia 
made  an  official  visit  to  the  United  States  May 
23-31.  He  met  with  President  Johnson  and  other 
Government  officials  in  Washington  May  26-28. 
Following  are  texts  of  an  exchange  of  greetings 
between  President  Johnson  and  Prime  Minister 
Gorton  at  a  welcoming  ceremony  in  the  East 
Room  of  the  White  House  on  May  27,  their 
exchange  of  toasts  at  a  dinner  at  the  White 
House  that  evening,  and  a  joint  communique 
issued  on  May  28  following  their  talks. 


EXCHANGE  OF  GREETINGS 

White  House  preBS  release  dated  May  27 

President  Johnson 

Mr.  Prime  Minister,  it  is  a  very  great  plea- 
sure for  Mrs.  Joliiison  and  me  to  welcome  you 
and  your  most  charming  wife  to  our  country. 

We  have  very  little  to  offer  in  the  way  of  sur- 
prises. Mrs.  Gorton  is  a  native  of  New  England. 
We  have  some  New  England  weather  for  her 
this  morning.  But  she  already  knows  all  of  our 
secrets  anyway.  Even  if  she  did  not,  you  your- 
self, Mr.  Prime  Minister,  are  the  Prime  Minister 
of  Australia — and  the  Australians  and  the 
Americans  have  so  much  in  common  that  we 


seem  to  understand  each  other  almost  on  sight 
anyway. 

Our  people  have  been  molded  by  the  same 
forces.  Both  of  our  continents  are  vast.  Both  of 
our  histories  are  young.  Both  of  our  govern- 
ments are  free.  All  of  our  people  were  drawn 
from  many  lands.  We  both  enjoy  an  abundance 
which  for  most  of  the  world  is  yet  just  a  dream. 

We  share  a  common  vision.  We  see  a  world 
where  might  does  not  make  right.  We  strive  for 
a  world  where  nations  can  live  together  in 
peace  and  freedom  under  the  rule  of  law. 

We  have  been  fighting  for  this  dream  for 
a  long  time  now.  Twenty-five  years  ago  we 
fought  side  by  side  from  the  Middle  East  to 
the  South  Pacific.  Today  we  are  fighting  side 
by  side  in  the  ricefields  in  Viet-Nam. 

I  do  not  know  how  close  we  may  be  to  suc- 
cess in  our  common — and  our  historic — cause. 

But  I  do  know  that  you,  Mr.  Prime  Minister, 
come  here  at  a  moment  of  very  historic  impor- 
tance. Our  American  aim  is  now,  as  it  has  been 
from  the  beginning,  to  achieve  peace  with  honor, 
a  peace  which  will  permit  the  people  of  Asia 
and  the  South  Pacific  to  work  out  their  own 
destiny  in  their  own  way.  We  have  never  sought 
anything  else,  and  we  will  not  accept  anything 
else. 

I  believe  that  Australia  shares  that  aim,  and 


786 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


I  look  forward  with  a  great  deal  of  anticipa- 
tion to  our  conversations  about  this — and  about 
many  other  common  concerns. 

Mr.  Prime  Minister,  you  and  your  country- 
men are  alwaj's  welcome  in  AVashington.  I  think 
you  will  soon  tind  that  although  you  are  half 
a  world  away  from  Australia,  you  are  still  very 
nuich  at  home. 

Thank  you  very  much. 

Prime  Minister  Gorton 

Thank  you,  Mr.  President,  on  behalf  of  all 
Australians,  for  the  honor  which,  through  me, 
}-ou  do  my  country. 

We  value  this  the  more  since  it  comes  from 
a  power  which  is  not  only  great  but  which,  since 
tlie  end  of  the  last  World  War,  has  assumed  all 
the  burdens  and  responsibilities  of  being  great. 

You  helped  reconstruct  Europe.  In  large  mea- 
sure, you  linanced  the  constructive  work  of  the 
United  Nations.  You  have  without  stint  given 
blood  and  treasure  to  protect  small  nations  from 
subjugation  by  force  or  by  threat.  And  you 
seek  to  raise  the  living  standards  of  people  in 
every  corner  of  the  world. 

For  this  your  country  has  received  scant 
thanks.  Yet  at  one  time,  through  sole  possession 
of  atomic  power,  you  could  have  imposed  your 
will  upon  the  world — and  did  not.  You  could 
have  chosen  to  conquer,  but  chose  to  set  free. 
You  could  have  looked  inward,  but  instead  you 
chose  to  look  out. 

If  the  United  Nations  has  not  brought  that 
end  to  war  which  its  founders  sought,  if  the 
world  is  still  torn  by  strife  as  it  is,  that  is  the 
fault  of  others,  not  of  yours. 

You  have  assumed,  sir,  as  I  said,  many  bur- 
dens, and  today  one  dominates  our  minds. 

Even  as  we  stand  here,  our  men  fight  in 
Viet-Nam  together,  as  they  fought  in  other 
wars,  to  protect  small  nations  fro;n  overthrow 
by  force  of  governments  elected  by  the  people. 
Even  as  we  stand  here,  diplomats  in  Paris  seek 
to  discover  whether  there  is  hope  of  ending  that 
fighting  and  securing  a  peace — just,  lasting, 
and  honorable — giving  to  the  people  of  South 
Viet-Nam  a  chance  themselves  to  choose  their 
future  path  without  fear  or  threat. 

You,  Mr.  President,  bore  the  lonely  weight 
of  decision  to  continue  to  resist  force  with  force. 
You,  Mr.  President,  by  your  recent  gesture, 
brought  the  North  Vietnamese  to  talk.  You, 
Mr.  President,  relinquished  chance  of  further 
office  to  give  those  talks  such  chance  of  success 


as  they  may  have.  And  for  that  we  admire  and 
salute  you. 

It  is  that  struggle  which  engrosses  us  today ; 
but  when  it  is  decided,  that  solution  will  be  one 
step  only  in  the  solution  of  other  problems  to 
which  men  and  nations  are  born,  which  have 
arisen  in  the  past,  which  exist  now,  and  which 
will  arise  in  the  future  in  a  world  in  transition. 

So  the  Revolutionary  W^ar  decided  whether 
America  would  or  would  not  be  independent. 
The  War  Between  the  States  decided  whether 
the  Union  would  continue  or  fragment.  The 
Second  World  War  decided  whether  the  world 
would  be  subject  to  Fascist  tyranny. 

Just  as  those  decisions  engrossed  the  hearts 
and  consciences  of  those  then  living  and  decided 
a  particular  matter  but  did  not  provide  solutions 
for  future  conflict  or  for  progress,  so  will  the 
outcome  of  the  war  in  Viet-Nam  decide  that 
matter — but  not  those  questions  for  decision 
arising  in  the  years  ahead.  As  Australians  see 
it,  those  problems,  although  worldwide,  are 
likely  to  be  most  acute  in  Asia. 

We  see  there  an  area  which  needs  an  economic 
and  teclmical  base  such  as  Europe  already  has. 
We  see  there  an  area  where  development  and 
progress  are  essential  if  the  peoples  of  those 
divergent  nations  are  to  support  and  defend 
something  dynamic  and  developing — not  some- 
thing stagnant. 

We  see  there  an  area  crying  for  technical 
skills,  a  more  experienced  administration,  a 
more  equitable  sharing  of  an  increasing  in- 
come— and  we  see  there  an  area  subject,  above 
all,  to  the  threat  of  subversion,  terrorism,  and 
aggression. 

In  some  way,  sir,  because  of  intei-nal  division, 
parts  of  Asia  are  reminiscent  of  the  Balkans 
before  World  War  I — and  in  some  ways  they 
may  pose  the  same  dangers,  dangers  aggi'avated 
by  the  eagerness  of  agitators  to  exploit  divisions. 

Perhaps,  Mr.  President,  though  I  don't  think 
so,  we  Australians  see  this  out  of  perspective 
because  it  is  here  that  we,  contiguous  to  Asia, 
part  of  the  Southeast  Asian  region,  live  and 
breathe  and  have  our  present  and  our  future. 
It  is  here  that  we  feel  that  we  can  best  conti'ib- 
uto  to  stability  and  to  progress  and  to  preserv- 
ing its  political  freedom  which  seeks  economic 
freedom  as  its  concomitant.  It  is  here  that  we 
can  play  our  part.  But  we  caimot  effectively 
play  it  alone. 

As  for  ourselves — we  are  not  a  great  power, 
though  we  are  destined  so  to  be. 

In  our  nation  are  new  frontiers  and  bound- 


JUXE    17.    1965 


r87 


less  opportunities  for  those  who  will  risk  in 
order  to  win,  for  those  who  will  work  in  order 
to  build,  for  those  who  will  endure  initial  hard- 
ship to  gain  distant  goals. 

We  shall  grow  in  numbers  and  in  industrial 
power  and  further  develop  the  use  of  our  nat- 
ural resources  and  in  growing,  Mr.  President, 
will  grapple  with  existing  problems  and  pre- 
pare for  those  which  wait  in  the  corridors  of 
the  future. 

But  for  the  present,  we,  who  for  two  centuries 
were  shielded  by  the  British  Navy,  have  as  our 
major  shield  the  ANZUS  [Australia,  New  Zea- 
land, and  United  States  Security]  pact;  and 
behind  that  and  because  of  that,  we  can  the 
sooner  grow  to  that  stature  we  shall  reach.  We 
shaU  the  sooner  reach  a  position  to  repulse  any 
attack  the  future  may  hold  from  any  quarter 
and  by  any  means.  We  can  the  sooner  grow  in 
capacity  to  offer  more  economic  and  technical 
assistance  to  the  governments  and  peoples  of 
our  region. 

I  do  not  mean  that  we  do  not  now  play  our 
part  in  defense,  as  we  do  in  aid,  or  in  seeking 
to  foster  trade,  which  may  be  more  important 
than  aid. 

But  I  do  mean  that  because  of  your  assist- 
ance, because  of  the  ANZUS  Treaty  and  what 
it  implies,  we  can  divert  to  building  a  future 
strength  resources  which  would  otherwise  be 
now  diverted  to  defense,  to  the  future  detri- 
ment of  defense  and  to  the  future  diminution  of 
our  ability  to  render  as  much  help  in  the  region 
as  we  would  wish. 

This  is  to  us  the  virtue  of  the  ANZUS  pact. 
And  allied  to  it  is  the  sure  Imowledge  that 
you — wliile  providing  that  sliield — recognize 
that  behind  it  we,  as  we  build  our  coimtry,  are 
free  to  make  and  will  make  our  own  foreign 
policy  decisions  subject  only  to  our  treaty 
obligations. 

Sir,  I  have  not  been  here  before  in  my  present 
office,  yet  I  feel  I  come  not  as  a  stranger.  On  too 
many  fields  of  battle  we  have  stood  together 
fighting  for  the  concept  of  freedom,  fighting 
against  aggression.  On  too  many  occasions  we 
have  cooperated  in  the  economic  plans  to  help 
the  world's  underprivileged  advance  their 
standards  of  living. 

There  is  too  much  common  heritage  of  a  sys- 
tem under  which  governments  are  chosen  by  a 
majority,  dismissed  by  a  majority,  protect  mi- 
nority rights,  yet  refuse  to  be  coerced  by  orga- 
nized minority  demonstrations.  There  are  too 
many  bonds  for  any  Australian  Prime  Minister 
ever  to  feel  that  here  he  is  a  stranger. 


And  so  as  in  the  past,  so  may  it  be  in  the 
future.  Looking  down  the  vista  of  the  years, 
I  hope  that  you  in  your  greatness  now,  and  we 
in  our  present  strength  and  our  greatness  to 
come,  will  together  give  protection,  stability, 
advancement,  encouragement,  will  help  to  fos- 
ter, along  with  and  depending  on  the  people 
who  live  in  that  region — a  new  world  in  Asia 
to  redress  the  balance  of  the  old. 

If  this  can  be  done,  if  we  can  do  this  together 
successfully,  then  the  price  to  be  now  paid  will, 
in  the  future,  be  thought  by  humanity  small. 

Thank  you,  sir. 


EXCHANGE  OF  TOASTS 

White  House  press  release  dated  May  27 

President  Johnson 

Mr.  Prime  Minister,  I  have  a  confession  to 
make  tonight:  I  have  been  talking  quite  pri- 
vately to  your  wife. 

I  hope  and  I  believe  this  was  not  a  violation 
of  protocol.  But  I  needed  advice.  Two  years  ago 
your  predecessor — our  late  and  beloved  friend, 
Harold  Holt — made  a  promise  to  me.  During 
our  visit  prior  to  the  Manila  conference,  in  the 
cool  of  the  evening  over  a  mint  julep,  he  very 
generously  said  that  if  things  ever  went  wrong 
here  in  the  United  States  I  would  always  have 
a  political  future  in  Australia.  Mr.  Prime  Min- 
ister, I  have  been  somewhat  curious  to  know 
whether  that  might  still  be  true. 

Bettina,  as  you  know,  Mr.  Prime  Minister,  is 
a  daughter  of  New  England.  She  said,  "Mr. 
President,  you  will  always  be  welcome.  But 
Australians  are  a  lot  like  you  Texans — you  are 
never  as  bad  as  they  say  you  are  when  they're 
mad  .  .  .  and  you  are  never  as  good  as  they 
say  you  are  when  they  love  you." 

Mr.  Prime  Minister,  let  me  assure  you  tonight 
that  I  do  not  intend — I  may  reassess  that  a  little 
later — I  do  not  intend  to  stand  for  office  in 
Canberra.  This  is  a  considerable  sacrifice,  since 
I  can  truthfully  say  there  is  no  place  outside  my 
own  native  land  where  I  really  feel  more  at 
home. 

Mr.  Prime  Minister  and  Mrs.  Gorton,  I  hope 
that  you  will  feel  equally  at  liome  here  in  Amer- 
ica, and  I  hope  that  you  will  come  to  visit  us 
often.  Lady  Bird  and  I  are  pleased  and  honored 
that  we  should  have  tliis  opportunity  to  be  the 
first  to  welcome  you  to  our  country  as  Prime 
Minister. 

The  friendship  that  joins  our  two  countries  is 


788 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BtlLLETIN 


a  vital  force  in  the  struggle  to  transform  the 
worlds  hopes  into  tomorrow's  realities.  It  is 
a  partnership  which  grows  stronger  and  deeper 
with  the  passage  of  time.  It  extends  from  trade 
and  mutual  defense  to  man's  newest  frontier — 
the  exploration  of  outer  space. 

Right  now  that  partnership  is  being  tested — 
tested  in  the  hardest  way  that  the  ties  between 
nations  can  be  tested,  and  that  is  by  the  commit- 
ment of  our  men  to  combat.  Tonight  we  are  in 
a  decisive  phase  of  the  struggle  for  peace  and 
order  in  Southeast  Asia.  Talks  have  begun,  but 
the  other  side  is  forcing  the  pace  of  battle;  it  is 
pouring  men  and  supplies  into  South  Viet-Nam 
at  an  imprecedented  rate. 

Let  me  tell  you  this : 

— In  Paris  we  shall  remain  patient  but  firm  in 
the  quest  for  an  honorable  peace.  Ambassador 
[Cyrus  R.]  Vance  will  be  here  in  the  morning 
to  report  to  me  and  the  Security  Council  and  to 
report  to  you,  Mr.  Prime  Minister,  on  the  devel- 
opments there. 

— In  Viet-Nam  tonight  your  men  and  ours 
and  the  gallant  South  Vietnamese,  the  South 
Koreans,  and  the  Tliais  who  have  fought  so  long 
for  the  right  of  self-determination — and  all  of 
our  allies — will  turn  back  this  offensive. 

— In  time — and  I  pray  it  may  be  soon — the 
other  side  will  turn  from  fantasy  to  reality, 
from  violence  to  genuine  peacemaking. 

I  know  there  are  some  in  Asia  and  elsewhere 
who  are  wondering  tonight  whether  the  United 
States  will  maintain  its  commitments  in  Asia, 
who  are  wondering  tonight  whether  the  strains 
of  this  struggle  will  lead  us  to  withdraw  and 
leave  two-thirds  of  humanity  to  its  fate  without 
American  assistance  or  American  support. 

As  you  so  well  know,  Mr.  Prime  Minister, 
with  your  years  in  political  life,  I  cannot  speak 
for  my  successor,  but  I  can  speak  for  myself, 
and  the  answer  is  no ;  we  will  not  withdraw  until 
there  is  an  honorable  peace.  I  do  not  think  that 
my  country  will  permit  us  to  do  otherwise. 

If  you  look  back  over  the  years  since  1941,  you 
will  see  how  steady  the  performance  of  the 
American  nation  has  been.  We  must  put  aside 
the  Senate  speeches  that  have  been  made  and 
the  debates  that  have  gone  on  and  you  will  see 
that  from  one  administration  to  another — from 
Republican  to  Democrat — the  United  States  of 
America  and  its  people  has  steadily  understood 
its  interests  in  Asia  and  has  acted  on  them. 

I  deeply  believe  that  this  will  be  true  in  the 
future  as  it  has  in  the  past.  All  the  energy  and 
influence  that  I  can  command  will  be  in  that 


direction.  I  think,  Mr.  Prime  Minister,  it  wUl 
be  true  for  a  very  simple  reason:  Every  year 
that  passes  brings  us  closer  to  Asia  and  brings 
us  closer  really  to  the  other  regions  of  the 
world — closer  in  terms  of  military  technology, 
closer  in  terms  of  communications,  closer  in  eco- 
nomic ties,  and  closer  In  terms  of  simple  human 
friendships. 

If  I  may  depart,  Mr.  Prime  Minister,  I  think 
you  will  be  interested  to  know  that  this  after- 
noon I  saw  a  report  that  on  the  list  of  choices 
for  R&R — rest  and  recreation — in  Viet-Nam, 
Australia  was  the  first  choice  of  the  American 
fighting  man. 

I  think  you  will  also  be  pleased  to  know  that 
of  the  thousands  who  have  gone  there,  who  have 
been  taken  into  your  homes — and  they  have  been 
entertained  as  if  they  were  their  own  sons — 
that  so  far  as  we  have  been  able  to  ascertain, 
there  has  not  been  one  single  misimderstanding 
or  violation  of  your  hospitality  or  your  cour- 
tesy— and  that  is  saying  something  of  Viet-Nam 
fighting  men  who  are  on  rest  and  recreation  in 
Australia. 

In  the  years  ahead,  we  hope  that  the  new  Asia 
that  is  being  born  will  be  increasingly  organized 
to  shape  its  own  destiny.  It  should  be  able  to 
do  more  for  itself  and  rely  less  on  the  United 
States.  But  I  have  no  doubt  that  there  will  be 
no  return  here  to  isolation.  I  have  no  doubt  that 
America  will  remain  th.e  partner  of  Australia, 
and  I  have  no  doubt  that  Australia  will  con- 
tinue to  give  leadership  to  the  new  Asia  and 
the  free  Asia  as  far  ahead  as  any  of  us  can  see. 

One  of  the  comforting  and  pleasing  devel- 
opments of  the  last  few  years  has  been  to  see  the 
leadership  that  the  Government  of  Australia 
has  given  to  this  huge  population  that  makes 
up  two-thirds  of  the  world ;  that  this  little  coun- 
try, through  its  leaders,  has  gone  out  and  met 
with  them,  visited  with  them,  exchanged  views 
with  them,  and  let  them  know  that  we  are  one 
and  that  we  are  trying  to  build  toward  a  better 
day  where  we  can  fight  the  enemies  of  hunger, 
disease,  and  poverty  that  are  rampant  in  that 
area. 

Mr.  Prime  Minister,  your  presence  tonight  is 
proof  that  this  partnership  is  still  vital  and  still 
growing.  We  are  so  pleased  that  you  could  bring 
your  Maine  lady  with  you  and  join  us  on  the 
boat  last  night  and  that  we  could  find  all  the 
differences  that  we  had  and  solve  most  of  them 
before  the  dinner  tonight. 

We  think  this  visit  of  yours,  so  soon  after 
you  have  taken  over  the  responsibilities  of  the 
Prime  Ministership,  will  be  of  great  help  to  us 


JUXE    17,    19G8 


r89 


and  will  endear  you  to  this  country. 

Mr.  Prime  Minister,  we  hope  that  your  visit 
here — and  you  will  be  visiting  other  parts  of 
our  country — will  give  you  an  insight  into  the 
affection  that  the  American  people  hold  for  the 
Australian  people.  In  sunshine  and  in  sorrow, 
we  have  stood  side  by  side. 

Although  Ed  and  Ann  Clark  found  it  so 
pleasant  out  there  that  they  dared  not  take  more 
than  2  years  of  it,  we  are  sending  you  some  other 
Texans  who  we  hope  will  be  rei^resentative  of 
this  country  and  be  concerned  with  the  future 
of  Australia. 

The  young  Ambassador  said  to  me,  Mr.  Prime 
Minister,  when  I  talked  to  him  about  two  or 
three  countries :  "Wliy  are  we  so  high  on  Aus- 
tralia?" I  said:  "If  I  could  be  Ambassador — 
and  I  am  not  sure  I  can  under  the  next  admin- 
istration— if  I  could  be,  the  one  country  that  I 
would  want  to  be  Ambassador  to  is  Australia." 
That  is  when  he  made  his  choice.  That  is  when 
he  decided  he  wanted  to  go  to  Australia. 

So,  Mr.  Prime  Minister,  we  welcome  you  and 
your  party.  We  know  that  our  talks  will  be 
fruitful.  We  assure  you  of  our  continuing  co- 
operation and  friendship. 

We  now  ask  you  to  join  us  in  a  toast  to  the 
great  lady  who  symbolizes  our  common  herit- 
age: Her  Majesty  the  Queen. 

Prime  Minister  Gorton 

I  must  first  of  all  thank  you,  sir,  for  extending 
such  a  warm  welcome  to  myself  and  to  my  Maine 
lady — that  is  spelled  with  an  "e." 

You  know,  sir,  you  have  spoken  tonight  of  a 
number  of  matters  which  beset  us  today.  But  in 
doing  so,  you  have  mentioned  other  matters 
which  beset  us  in  the  past  and  which  you  will 
remember  because  you  came  to  Australia  at  the 
time  when  these  things  were  threatening  then. 

You  went  on  missions  over  Papua  and  New 
Guinea  in  the  defense  of  Australia  at  the  time 
these  things  were  threatening.  I  flew  at  that 
stage  in  company  with  pilots  of  the  United 
States  Air  Force  who  had  come  to  see  what  was 
threatening  then  did  not  prevail — and  it  did  not 
prevail. 

These  difficulties,  these  problems,  are  borne  on 
me  tonight  more  than  they  ever  have  been  be- 
fore, because  I  stand  here  in  a  historic  residence 
and  my  mind  goes  back  to  the  time  when,  for 
example,  one  former  President  sat  here  and 
niourned  the  loss  of  more  Americans  in  con- 
flict than  have  been  lost  in  all  the  wars  since — 


between  1860  and  1865 — and  exercised  will  and 
exercised  judgment  in  order  to  see  that  a  nation 
due  to  become  great  did  become  great  and  did 
not  become  split. 

I  can  imagine  well — because  you  showed  me 
today  upstairs  the  room  in  which  this  great  man 
slept— what  those  5  years  or  6  years,  however 
long  it  was  that  man  sat  there,  beset  not  only  by 
an  enemy  across  the  Potomac — and  I  am  bound 
to  say  that  I  speak  as  a  convinced  Confederate ; 
at  least  I  would  have  been  then — but  not  only  by 
an  enemy  across  the  Potomac  but  by  the  Cop- 
perheads inside  the  Union,  by  the  riots  taking 
place  in  New  York  so  that  regiments  had  to  be 
brought  back  from  the  Army  of  the  Potomac 
to  put  it  down,  by  the  vilification  and  attacks 
of  Horace  Greeley  and  the  newspapers — and 
newspapers  are  now  much  the  same  as  they 
were  then — and  through  it  all,  because  the  end 
was  an  end  that  was  good,  he  saw  that  whatever 
was  required  to  be  done  was  done,  and  it  was. 

If  it  had  not  so  been  done,  then  there  would 
not  now  be  a  United  States  of  America. 

Things  don't  change  that  much.  I  know  that 
at  one  subsequent  stage,  part  of  the  house  in 
which  I  stand  apparently  inadvertently  caught 
fire.  But  that  has,  of  course,  nothing  to  do  with 
Australia,  sir.  I  daresay  that  peo;ile  responsible 
for  it  eventually  finished  up  in  Botany  Bay  as 
transportees. 

I  don't  think  that  I  should,  on  this  occasion — 
which  is  a  happy  and  a  festive  occasion — for 
too  long  talk  about  matters  that  are  too  serious. 

I  tried  this  morning  to  set  forth  what  Avistra- 
lians  think  about  what  you  are  doing  in  the 
United  States.  When  you  speak  of  leadership 
that  we  give,  we  give  that  leadership,  if  we  do — 
and  we  try  to — because  we  are  protected  and 
shielded  by  a  greater  power.  We  will  give  great- 
er leadership  in  the  future  because  we  will  have 
in  the  past  been  protected  and  shielded  by  a 
greater  power. 

The  coat  of  arms  of  my  own  country,  sir,  is 
borne  on  one  side  by  a  kangaroo  and  on  the  other 
by  an  emu.  Neither  one  of  these  creatures,  so 
the  botanists  tell  me,  is  physically  able  to  move 
backwards;  they  can  only  move  forward.  We 
will  and  we  have. 

There  is  little  time  for  figures  to  be  presented 
to  a  meeting  such  as  this,  but  at  least  in  the  last 
decade  one  can  say  that  the  gross  national  pro- 
duct of  my  country  has  doubled,  at  an  average 
rate  of  514  percent,  that  the  expenditure  on 
foreign  aid  has  doubled,  that  the  expenditure 
on  defense  has  trebled,  that  our  population  has 


790 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


increased  by  one-tliird.  But  that  is  all  in  the 
past. 

I  remember,  sir,  if  I  may  translate  it  a  little 
later  into  idiom,  something  -n-hich  struck  my 
mind  when  I  was  young.  All  of  the  past  is  pre- 
lude, which  means  "You  ain't  seen  nothing  yet." 

But  still  we,  like  you,  do  have  to  contribute 
more  than  we  would  wish  to,  to  the  protection 
of  other  peoples  against  attack,  to  the  building 
up  of  a  region  which  you  could  have  said — 
which  was  once  said  by  a  British  Prime  Min- 
ister— was  a  faraway  region  of  which  we  know 
notliing  but  whicli,  as  far  as  we  are  concerned, 
is  a  close  region  of  which  we  know  much. 

We  have  to  contribute  to  that  because  unless 
it  happens,  unless  the  people  living  there  have 
a  greater  chance  to  improve  their  living  stand- 
ards to  be  able  to  live  a  reasonable  and  decent 
life,  then  in  the  future  there  is  little  hope  for  a 
reduction  in  that  money  necessary,  but  in  one 
sense  wasted,  for  defense. 

So,  we  have  to  do  it,  and  you  make  it  possible 
for  us  to  do  it.  But  if  this  is  achieved,  if  it  is 
possible  to  beat  the  swords  into  plowshares,  if 
it  is  possible  to  translate  the  aircraft  into  fac- 
tories, if  it  is  possible  to  take  people  out  of 
imiform  to  be  productive,  then  we  can  see  in 
that  area  of  the  world  something  growing,  some- 
thing growing  not  only  for  tlieir  own  benefit 
but  for  our  own,  because  we  will  sell  them 
things ;  for  your  own,  because  you  will  sell  them 
things ;  for  our  own,  because  we  will  buy  from 
them  that  which  they  peculiarly  can  produce. 

And  we  may — who  knows,  because  man  is 
bom  to  travel  as  the  sparks  fly  upward — but  we 
may  achieve  an  era  nearer  to  a  time  when  men 
can  live  in  peace,  when  men  can  live  in  peace 
throughout  the  world,  when  these  great  politi- 
cal schisms  which,  for  so  long  as  I  can  remem- 
ber, have  torn  the  world  to  pieces  may  become 
muted  and  instead  of  people  saying  "I  will  run 
through  fascism  all  the  people  of  the  world," 
or  "I  will  run  through  communism  all  the  peo- 
ple in  the  world,"  we  may  have  instead  a  bro- 
therhood of  men. 

Who  knows  ?  I  don't,  but  I  am  sure  that  what 
you  are  doing  and  what  we  are  trying  to  help 
you  do  in  a  minor  way  is  the  only  method  by 
which  this  shining  goal  might  eventually  be 
achieved. 

So  I  do  not,  as  I  say,  wish  tonight  to  make 
too  serious  a  speech,  but  I  would  like  to  repeat 
a  tribute  that  I  made  this  morning,  and  that  is: 
that  the  power  inside  this  country,  utilized  as 
it  is  being  utilized  by  this  country,  is  to  me  the 


only  sure — not  sure — the  only  hopeful  beacon, 
not  only  for  this  country,  or  for  mine,  but  for 
the  peoples  generally  of  the  world. 

Well,  the  "Maine  lady"  of  whom  you  spoke, 
long  ago  said  to  me  sometliing  which  she  said  I 
was  to  remember  on  any  occasion  when  I  spoke 
to  a  gathering  of  people.  It  is  a  little  quatrain. 
It  says:  "I  love  the  finished  speaker,  I  really 
truly  do.  I  don't  mean  one  who  is  polished,  I 
just  mean  one  who  is  through." 

Mr.  President,  though  I  could  for  an  hour 
go  on  expressing  the  same  feelings  that  you 
liave  expressed,  I  think  it  is  unnecessary  because 
I  think  between  friends  short  exchanges  are 
understood  and  detailed  explanations  are  not 
required.  Therefore,  I  am  through. 


JOINT  COMMUNIQUE 

White  House  press  release  dated  May  28 

At  the  invitation  of  President  Lyndon  B. 
Johnson  of  the  United  States,  the  Rt.  Hon. 
J.  G.  Gorton,  Prime  Minister  of  Australia,  paid 
an  official  visit  to  Washington  on  May  27  and 
28.  This  was  Prime  Minister  Gorton's  first  visit 
to  the  United  States  since  assuming  office.  It 
afforded  the  President  and  the  Prime  Minister 
an  opportunity  to  exchange  views  on  matters 
of  mutual  concern,  including  the  situation  in 
Southeast  Asia. 


Australia-U.S.  Relations 

The  President  and  the  Prime  Minister  re- 
viewed the  current  state  of  Australia-U.S.  rela- 
tions. They  expressed  profound  satisfaction  that 
the  historic  partnership  between  their  two  coun- 
tries was  continuing  to  deepen  and  grow  in 
significance  for  the  security  and  progress  of  the 
Pacific  region.  They  reaffirmed  specifically  the 
importance  of  the  ANZUS  Treaty  as  an  expres- 
sion of  the  United  States'  continuing  strategic 
interest  in  the  region  and  the  continuing  co- 
operation of  the  two  Governments  in  the  main- 
tenance of  stability  and  security  in  Asia  and 
the  Pacific. 

The  Prime  Minister  and  the  President  ex- 
pressed their  gratification  with  the  existing  sci- 
entific cooperation  between  two  countries.  Such 
cooperation  has  advanced  the  state  of  science 
not  only  to  the  benefit  of  both  countries  but  to 
mankind  generally.  They  agreed  that  the  Spe- 
cial Assistant  to  the  President  for  Science  and 
Technology  and  a  team  of  leading  United  States 


JUNE    17,    196S 


791 


scientists  would  visit  Australia  soon  to  meet 
with  the  Australian  Minister  of  Education  and 
Science  and  his  colleagues,  to  identify  addi- 
tional areas  appropriate  for  cooperative  activi- 
ties and  explore  ways  in  which  the  close 
cooperation  between  the  American  and  Aus- 
tralian scientific  communities  could  be  broad- 
ened and  extended. 

Stressing  the  importance  of  the  soundness  of 
the  dollar  to  the  maintenance  of  prosperous  in- 
ternational economic  conditions,  the  Prime  Min- 
ister reiterated  his  full  support  for  the 
President's  program  to  reduce  the  United  States 
balance  of  payments  deficit.  The  President  as- 
sured the  Prime  Minister  that  the  United  States 
would  strive  to  avoid  undesirable  effects  on 
Australia  or  other  nations  of  measures  taken 
under  the  program. 

Vietnam 

The  President  and  the  Prime  Minister  re- 
viewed in  detail  the  situation  in  South  Viet- 
nam, where  Australian  and  American  forces 
are  fighting  side  by  side  to  assure  the  right  of 
the  Vietnamese  people  to  determine  their  own 
destiny  free  of  outside  interference.  They  agreed 
that  the  establishment  of  a  just  and  viable  peace 
called  both  for  a  strong  military  posture  and  for 
intensive  diplomatic  efforts. 

The  Prime  Minister  expressed  his  gratifica- 
tion that  the  President's  initiative  of  March  31  * 
had  led  to  conversations  with  North  Vietnam- 
ese representatives.  The  President  reviewed  in 
detail  the  progress  of  these  talks  to  date.  He  re- 
affirmed that  the  United  States  Government 
would  continue  to  consult  fully  with  the  Austra- 
lian Government  and  other  Allies  as  the  talks 
proceed.  They  agreed  that  the  Allied  nations 
which  have  helped  to  defend  the  Republic  of 


Vietnam  should  participate  in  any  settlement 
of  the  conflict. 

At  the  invitation  of  the  President  the  Prime 
Minister  joined  him  this  morning  at  his  meet- 
ing with  Mr.  Cyrus  Vance,  who  returned  from 
Paris  last  night.  Mr.  Vance  reported  to  the 
President  and  the  Prime  Minister  on  the  course 
of  the  discussions  in  Paris  with  the  representa- 
tives from  North  Vietnam. 

The  President  expressed  particular  apprecia- 
tion for  the  warm  hospitality  which  the  Aus- 
tralian people  have  extended  to  American 
servicemen  on  leave  from  Vietnam. 

Pacific  Regional  Cooperation 

The  President  and  the  Prime  Minister  re- 
viewed the  favorable  trends  in  regional  coopera- 
tion in  the  Pacific  area  which  had  been  noted 
at  the  ANZUS  and  SEATO  Council  meetings 
in  April  1968.  They  expressed  satisfaction  that, 
despite  Communist  expansionism,  many  con- 
structive forces  are  promoting  social  and  eco- 
nomic development  in  the  area.  They  reaffirmed 
a  liope  that  the  impressive  growth  of  regional 
groupmgs  in  Asia  would  continue,  and  ex- 
pressed willingness  to  assist  in  every  appropri- 
ate and  feasible  way. 

The  President  and  Prime  Minister  recognized 
that  the  United  Kingdom's  decision  to  acceler- 
ate withdrawal  of  its  military  forces  from 
Southeast  Asia  increased  the  need  for  regional 
consultation  and  cooperation.  The  President 
welcomed  Australia's  interest  in  the  area,  and 
assured  the  Prime  Minister  of  his  keen  interest 
in  the  progress  of  the  consultations  and  in  the 
outcome  of  the  forthcoming  Five  Power  Con- 
ference in  Kuala  Lumpur. 


'  For  President  Johnson's  address  to  the  Nation  on 
Mar.  31,  see  Bdi-letin  of  Apr.  15,  1968,  p.  481. 


r92 


DEPARTMENT    OF   STATE   BULLETIN' 


Tasks  and  Responsibilities  of  the  Atlantic  Partnership 


Address  hy  Vice  President  Humphrey ' 


Tonight  I  wish  to  share  with  you  my  thoughts 
about  a  fundamental  aspect  of  our  foreign 
policy:  our  relationship  with  the  continent  of 
Europe. 

Because  of  the  war  in  Viet-Nam,  it  has  been 
suggested — and,  by  some,  feared — that  Ameri- 
can foreign  policy  has  taken  a  permanent  Asian 
detour,  to  the  particular  detriment  of  our  long- 
standing and  more  familiar  relationship  with 
Europe. 

As  one  who  has  participated  in  policy  for- 
mulation during  this  period,  I  respond  by  say- 
ing this : 

Yes,  America  has  awakened  to  Asia.  There 
has  been  clear  and  present  trouble  there. 

America  has  awakened,  or  is  awakening,  at 
the  same  time  to  Latin  America  and  to  Africa. 

But  this  has  not  meant — nor  should  it  mean 
in  the  future — that  America  can  afford  to  attach 
anything  but  the  highest  importance  to  its 
relationship  across  the  Atlantic. 

America  has  learned  painfully  that  it  is  a 
Pacific  power.  But  America  is,  and  must  remain, 
an  Atlantic  power. 

For  in  the  calculation  of  problems  and  pos- 
sibilities in  this  world,  this  is  clear:  It  is  still 
Europe  and  America  which  together  have  both 
the  means  and  capacity  to  most  directly  and 
effectively  influence — for  the  better — the  world's 
future. 

I  will  not  recite  tonight  in  detail  all  the  joint 
achievements  of  these  past  two  decades:  the 
story  of  TVestem  Europe  coming  again  to  its 
feet,  of  its  movement  toward  economic  and 
political  unity,  of  our  joint  resistance  to  Com- 
munist pressures  from  the  East,  of  our  working 


'  Made  before  the  American  Iron  and  Steel  Institute 
at  New  York,  N.Y.,  on  May  23. 


together  to  bring  new  trade  and  economic 
growth  to  the  world,  of  our  steadfast  adherence, 
during  times  of  trouble,  to  democratic  institu- 
tions and  the  rights  of  man. 

Eather,  let  us  look  to  the  future. 

One  year  ago  I  went,  as  the  President's  repre- 
sentative, to  Western  Europe  with  this  basic 
message  about  the  future : 

TVe  welcome  your  new  strength,  prosperity 
and  unity.  Despite  its  occasional  pain  to  our- 
selves, we  welcome  your  new  spirit  of  independ- 
ence and  of  "Europeanism."  Let  us  now,  work- 
ing together  in  a  spirit  of  greater  equality,  raise 
our  sights  beyond  the  Atlantic  to  the  opportuni- 
ties which  lie  at  hand  in  the  wider  human 
society. 

I  was  encouraged  by  the  Western  European 
response  to  that  message.  Yet  I  also  came  home 
with  the  knowledge  that  both  Atlantic  partners 
were  in  for  a  period  of  adjustment : 

— Adjustment  by  us  to  the  idea  that  Western 
Europe  was  finally  approaching  the  capacity 
for  becoming  an  equal  partner  and  must  be 
treated  accordingly ; 

— Adjustment  by  Western  Europe  to  the  reali- 
zation that  equal  partnership  brought  with  it 
not  only  the  opportunity  for  new  status  and 
growth  but  also  the  responsibility  to  meet  wider 
challenges  reaching  far  beyond  the  Atlantic 
basin. 

Both  of  us  have  made  some  of  that  adjust- 
ment. But  neither  nearly  enough. 

If  our  Atlantic  partnership  is  to  grow  and 
prosper,  it  will  inevitably  mean  not  a  smaller 
role  for  us  but  a  larger  role  for  Western  Europe. 
And  that  is  as  it  should  be. 

An  outward-looking  Western  Europe — fac- 
ing not  only  the  Atlantic  but  the  world  at 


JITXE    17,    1968 


793 


large — can  once  again  become  a  leading  archi- 
tect of  human  destiny. 

And  as  that  happens,  we  can  take  not  alarm 
but  pride  in  the  fact  that — a  little  more  than 
20  years  later — a  Western  Europe  that  was  torn 
by  hate  and  war  has  risen  to  play  a  large  and 
peaceful  role  beside  us  on  the  world  stage. 

We  are,  then,  rapidly  approaching  that  time 
when,  as  Ambassador  George  Ball  put  it.  West- 
ern Europe  "knows  the  reality  of  roughly 
equivalent  power." 

I  know  your  industry  has  a  special  and  par- 
ticular interest  in  seeing  that  our  future  rela- 
tionship with  this  European  partner  is  one  based 
on  fair  play,  close  consultation,  and  a  respect 
for  the  problems  and  interests  of  each  partner- 
as  a  good  working  partnership  should  be  based. 

Tliat  must  surely  be  our  goal. 

The  shape  and  organization  of  that  equal 
Europe  is,  of  course,  up  to  Europeans. 

Our  hopes  have  never  been  disguised. 

They  have  been — as  my  previous  remarks 
have  implied— that  the  common  scientific,  tech- 
nological, economic,  and  commercial  institu- 
tions of  the  European  Community  might 
provide  the  foundation  for  common  political 
institutions  as  well. 

They  have  been  that  those  present  and  pos- 
sible future  institutions  might  be  open  to  all 
who  would  adhere  to  them,  including  Great 
Britain. 

They  have  not  been  hopes,  however — and 
must  not  be  in  the  future— put  forward  across 
the  Atlantic  as  a  take-it-or-leave-it,  "Made  in 
USA"  blueprint  for  Europeans  to  follow. 

If  those  hopes  are  even  partially  realized,  and 
I  believe  they  will  be,  it  will  be  largely  because 
we  did  not  press  forward  such  specific  blue- 
prints. It  will  be  because  our  partners  have  been 
able  to  make  their  own  decisions  in  their  own 
time  and  way. 

New  Priorities  of  a  New  Era 

Until  now,  my  remarks  have  dealt  almost  ex- 
clusively with  our  relationship  with  Western 
Europe. 

But  there  is  a  wider  Europe— a  Europe  where 
the  forces  of  human  emancipation  are  straining 
a  diminishing  Iron  Curtain,  a  Europe  which 
compels  now  our  full  attention. 

We  must  not  miss  the  unmistakable  signs  of 
change  in  some  of  the  nations  of  Eastern 
EuroiDe. 

Increasingly  they  are  following  their  own 


national  interests — which  are  not  always  identi- 
cal with  those  of  the  Soviet  Union. 

More  and  more  the  younger  generation  seeks 
to  cast  off  the  ideological  shackles  of  the  past 
and  to  participate  in  the  establishment  of  a 
more  democratic  society. 

The  dialog  grows  about  the  place  of  individ- 
ual freedom  in  modern  technical  society,  about 
labor's  right  to  strike,  about  the  role  of  opposi- 
tion parties.  And  steadily,  cautiously,  the  na- 
tions of  Eastern  and  Western  Europe  are 
drawing  together  into  one  wider  Europe. 

That  wider  Europe  is  still  divided. 

Germany  remains  divided,  despite  the  fact 
that  German  reunification  is  central  to  the  long- 
terra  peace  and  stability  of  the  world. 

Twenty-three  years  later,  there  is  no  peace 
settlement  of  World  War  II. 

Millions  of  men,  and  billions  of  dollai's,  are 
still  being  invested.  East  and  West,  in  the  long- 
standing aftermath  of  that  war  and  of  the  im- 
mediate postwar  period. 

So  let  us  speak  now  of  peace  and  security  in 
that  Euroi^e — which  is,  of  course,  in  the  end  re- 
sult the  peace  and  security  of  the  United  States. 

Let  us  speak  of  European  peace  and  security 
without  illusion,  but  with  the  approach  of  hard- 
headed  optimists  who  know  it  remains  the  work 
of  many  years. 

For,  if  things  seem  easier  in  the  East,  if  the 
Chairman  of  the  Soviet  Coimcil  of  Ministers 
no  longer  threatens  missiles  over  the  Parthenon, 
we  nonetheless  must  know  that  his  successors 
have  far  more  power  today  than  ever  before  to 
carry  out  such  a  threat,  should  they  choose  to 
do  so. 

NATO — ^the  most,  enduring  and  successful 
defense  alliance  in  history — continues  to  be  a 
necessity  for  Western  Europe  and  ourselves. 

NATO,  for  two  decades,  has  contained  ag- 
gressive power  and  deterred  war. 

But  over  the  long  run,  a  policy  of  contain- 
ment alone  becomes  obsolete — either  because  it 
fails  or  because  it  becomes  frozen  in  its  pattern 
of  success. 

If  it  fails,  there  is  war.  If  its  pattern  of  suc- 
cess becomes  inhibiting,  it  will  constrain  the 
forces  of  change  and  the  chances  for  a  new, 
more  positive  system  of  mutual  security. 

The  time  of  change  has  come. 

We  must  recognize  that,  largely  due  to  the 
success  of  our  policies,  we  are  in  a  new  period. 
It  can  be  a  period  in  Europe — if  we  maintain 
cohesion  and  solidarity  in  the  West— in  which 


794 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


we  can  break  through  to  peaceful  engagement 
witli  the  East. 

The  time  has  come  for  tlie  NATO  alliance 
to  look  to  that  new,  dynamic  vision  of  peaceful 
engagement. 

"When  I  visited  the  NATO  Council  last  year 
I  called,  on  behalf  of  our  Government,  for  such 
a  policy.^  Since  that  time,  NATO  ministers  have 
actively  explored  the  ways  and  means  of  mak- 
ing it  work,  of  transforming  our  alliance  from 
a  defensive  military  organization  to  an  active, 
vital  political,  social,  and  economic  tool  which 
may  through  peaceful  engagement  hasten  the 
replacement  of  the  Iron  Curtain  with  an  Open 
Door. 

Tlie  imperative  need  is  not  to  abandon 
NATO  or  to  abandon  its  functions  of  defense. 
It  is  to  modernize,  transform,  and  redirect  it 
toward  the  new  priorities  of  a  new  era. 

Deescalcting  the    Arms  Race 

Now  to  the  problem  of  those  millions  of  men 
and  billions  of  dollars  still  being  devoted  to  a 
rudimentary  balance  of  security  forces  in 
Europe : 

We  cannot  abandon  a  security  system  which 
has  worked  without  having  something  better 
replace  it. 

It  would  be  foolish  indeed  to  buy  time,  as  we 
have,  for  fundamental  change  to  take  place  and 
then  to  precipitously  cancel  the  whole  invest- 
ment at  the  first  signs  of  that  change. 

There  is  nothing  to  recommend  a  one-sided 
retreat — by  ourselves  or  our  allies — from  our 
responsibility  to  our  own  safety.  Such  action 
would  destabilize  a  perilous  equilibrium,  derail 
a  developing  detente^  resurrect  old  fears,  and 
intensify  lingering  insecurities. 

The  diplomacy  of  the  next  decade  must  recog- 
nize that  dramatic  changes  are  taking  place  in 
all  countries.  New  demands  by  people  all  over 
the  world — in  the  United  States  and  the 
U.S.S.R.,  in  France  and  Czechoslovakia,  in 
Britain  and  Poland,  in  Canada  and  Germany — 
will  inevitably  require  in  the  years  ahead  a  care- 
ful reexamination  by  all  governments  and  all 
leaders  of  the  priorities  of  both  domestic  and 
international  policies. 

We  would  be  blind  to  reality  if  we  did  not 


'For  an  address  by  Vice  President  Humphrey  made 
before  the  North  Atlantic  Council  at  Paris  on  Apr.  7, 
1967,  see  Bulletin  of  May  1, 1967,  p.  681. 


recognize  that  people  everywhere  are  insisting 
on  a  greater  allocation  of  their  respective  na- 
tional resources  to  the  building  of  freer  and 
more  modern  societies. 

For  everyone  the  costs  of  defense  and  security 
forces,  whether  paid  for  in  Moscow  or  Wash- 
ington, are  staggering  and  rising. 

The  time  is  coming  when  all  nations  and  gov- 
ernments involved  must  take  stock  of  new  cir- 
cumstances. Even  a  nation  as  wealthy  as  ours 
must  constantly  review  its  priorities. 

Surely  if  this  is  true  for  us,  it  must  be  true 
for  those  with  fewer  resources. 

The  task  of  statesmanship  in  the  1970's  is  to 
deescalate  the  arms  race — and  to  move  in  com- 
mon agreement  toward  a  systematic  scaling 
down  of  the  mutually  oppressive  burden  and 
cost  of  our  vast  military  complexes. 

This  must  be  done  in  concert  with  allies  and 
in  negotiation  with  adversaries.  But  it  must  be 
done  with  American  initiative — as  the  political 
leader  of  the  West. 

There  is  a  great  deal  now  to  recommend  a 
mutual  reduction  of  the  armed  forces  and  arma- 
ments facing  each  other  in  Europe. 

We  must,  as  I  indicated,  do  this  in  coopera- 
tion with,  and  with  the  support  of,  our  NATO 
allies. 

We  must  also  do  our  utmost  to  communicate 
to  the  leaders  of  the  Soviet  Union  that  we  seek 
such  reduction  of  forces  and  armaments  as  a 
tangible  means  of  reduction  of  tension — in 
short,  adding  to  their  security  as  well  as  ours. 

I  do  not  see  this  as  an  impossibility. 

I  know  from  close  personal  experience  what 
we  were  able  to  do  with  the  Soviet  Union  in  the 
case  of  the  nuclear  test  ban  treaty,  in  the  case 
of  the  treaty  banning  nuclear  weapons  from 
outer  space,  in  the  case  of  the  nuclear  non- 
proliferation  treaty  now  before  the  United 
Nations. 

I  would  hope  the  Soviet  Union — and  the 
other  countries  of  Eastern  Europe — might  find 
mutual  self-interest  in  such  a  proposal  (just 
as  I  hope  it  will  in  our  pending  offer  to  discuss 
the  whole  matter  of  offensive  and  defensive 
weapons  systems). 

For  it  is  the  perception  of  mutual  interest 
that  is  the  starting  point  for  agreement. 

I  repeat :  A  mutual  thinning  out  of  men  and 
armaments  in  Europe,  following  close  consulta- 
tion with  allies,  would  be  no  American-Soviet 
deal.  It  would  involve  and  be  to  the  benefit  of 
the  nations  of  both  Eastern  and  Western 
Europe. 


JTUTE    17,    1968 


795 


And  this  step  might,  in  time,  lead  to  other 
steps  which  could  one  day  bring  Europe 
together. 

Peaceful  Engagement  With  the  East 

There  is,  too,  the  opportunity  for  what  has 
been  called  "bridgebuilding"  to  the  East 
through  increasingly  accepted  commercial,  cul- 
tural, and  educational  means. 

Contact  has  been  increasing.  And  where  it  has 
taken  place,  I  believe  it  has  been  overwhelm- 
ingly to  the  good. 

The  old  notion  that  East-West  contact  might 
somehow  contaminate  our  freedom  has  long 
since  been  disproved.  And  members  of  the 
American  business  community  have  been  among 
the  first  to  disprove  it. 

It  is  in  this  area  that  we  can  do  something 
tangible  and  immediate  right  now  at  home. 

I  believe  we  must  give  the  President  the  dis- 
cretionary authority  to  remove  restrictions  to 
trade  and  investment  between  the  United  States 
and  Eastern  Europe.  There  are  legal  restric- 
tions now  impeding  this  which,  if  they  were 
valid  in  the  past,  now  serve  only  to  prevent 
Americans  from  helping  to  build  new  bridges 
East. 

Some  of  the  Eastern  European  countries  are 
already  members  of  GATT  [General  Agree- 
ment on  Tariffs  and  Trade],  the  world  trading 
forum.  Others  are  interested  as  well  in  the  work 
of  the  OECD  [Organization  for  Economic  Co- 
operation and  Development],  the  organization 
of  the  developed  nations  which  is  concerned 
with  economic  and  aid  policy.  This  might  even- 
tually be  followed  by  membership  in  other 
multilateral  organizations  involving  both  East 
and  West. 

And  if  these  forward  steps  can  be  taken  at 
a  government  level,  I  have  no  doubt  that  at  a 
private  level — businessman  to  businessman,  sci- 
entist to  scientist,  citizen  to  citizen — the  whole 
process  of  bringing  peaceful  and  democratic 
change  to  Eastern  Europe  can  be  accelerated. 

I  also  believe  that  the  now-famous  technology 
gap — which  is  in  fact  first  cousin  to  the  "brain 
drain"  and  is  now  being  described  by  Western 
Europeans  as  the  American  challenge — should 
in  fact  be  seen  by  us  not  just  as  an  American- 
Western  European  problem  but  as  a  further 
means  of  increasing  peaceful  engagement  with 
the  East. 


By  the  technology  gap  or  American  chal- 
lenge, I  mean  of  course  the  whole  broad  ad- 
vantage we  Americans  have  over  the  rest  of  the 
world  in  available  human  and  material  re- 
sources, scale  of  industrial  organization,  and 
capacity  for  scientific  and  technological  ex- 
pansion. 

We,  and  our  Western  European  partners, 
have  awakened  to  the  problem  this  gap  brings  to 
the  nation,  or  business  organization,  trying  to 
compete  with  us. 

Today  this  is  seen  by  Western  Europeans  as 
one  of  both  political  and  economic  concern  to 
them.  They  have  no  desire  to  be  swallowed  up 
by  us — nor  should  we  wish  it. 

Wliile  in  the  past  decade  Europeans  have 
made  gi'eat  progress  in  moving  toward  economic 
integi'ation,  this  has  not  yet  found  full  reflec- 
tion in  the  organization  of  enterprise  on  the 
scale  demanded  by  modern  requirements. 

Investing  in  Stability  and  Peace 

Choices  about  future  emphases — about  re- 
search and  development  budgets,  educational 
innovations,  the  benefits  of  competition  and  con- 
solidation, the  potential  growth  of  continental 
sources  of  talent  and  capital — these  are  clearly 
decisions  for  Europeans  to  make. 

We  should  do  everything  possible  to  encour- 
age them.  Thus  it  is  important  that  we  maintain 
a  continuous  exchange  of  technological  and  or- 
ganizational experience  between  Europe  and  the 
United  States,  a  flow  which  someday,  we  can 
hope,  might  include  Eastern  Europe  and  the 
Soviet  Union. 

I,  for  one,  would  welcome,  too,  the  time  when 
managers,  technicians,  researchers,  agricultur- 
ists, and  workers  of  many  countries  might 
stand  side  by  side  in  a  massive,  coordinated, 
nonpolitical  effort  in  the  under-  and  un-devel- 
oped  nations  of  the  world  to  bring  the  benefits 
of  the  technological  age  to  people  who  still  live 
on  the  dusty  roads  of  previous  centuries. 

And  I  believe  that  such  an  effort,,  once  offered 
or  undertaken,  should  be  open  for  participation 
to  all  nations — including  those  of  Eastern 
Europe  and  the  Soviet  Union. 

And  this,  finally,  brings  me  to  the  largest  of 
all  tasks  which  faces  not  only  the  Atlantic  part- 
nership but  all  who  profess  to  membership  in 
the  family  of  man. 


796 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BtTLLETTN 


Pope  Jolm  XXIII  said  it  well  in  his  encycli- 
cal Mater  et  Magistra: 

.  .  .  given  the  growing  interdependence  among  the 
peoples  of  the  earth,  it  is  not  possible  to  preserve  last- 
ing peace  if  glaring  economic  and  social  inequality 
among  them  persist 

We,  above  all,  who  share  the  European  her- 
itage, with  all  that  it  implies,  whose  nations  are 
today  rich  and  fortunate,  bear  special  obliga- 
tion to  those  who  live  in  glaring  economic  and 
social  inequality. 

I  speak,  of  course,  of  our  obligation  to  those 
nations  which  have  yet  to  reap  the  benefits  of 
a  first — far  less  a  second — technological  and 
social  revolution. 

Our  obligation  to  help  the  so-called  "third 
world"  is,  of  course,  in  our  self-interest.  It  is  not 
softheaded,  or  even  just  softhearted,  but  an  in- 
vestment in  the  stability  and  peace  of  vast  areas. 

But  it  is,  more  importantly,  a  moral  obliga- 
tion— the  very  obligation  Pope  John  spoke  of. 

We  have  a  moral  obligation — because  of  who 
we  are,  of  where  we  came  from,  of  the  teachings 
our  entire  civilization  represents — to  help  all 
men  lift  themselves  to  the  state  of  human  free- 
dom and  dignity  which  is  our  own  objective. 

And  as  our  fortimate  nations  have  this  re- 
sponsibility to  the  less  fortunate  nations  of  this 
earth,  so  do  we  have  this  responsibility  to  less 
fortunate  people  within  our  own  borders. 

Only  in  this  past  quarter-century  have  na- 
tions, on  a  scale  that  means  something,  begun 
to  truly  accept  this  concept. 

I  count  it  a  major  victory  for  America  that 
our  own  commitments  to  that  concept  since 
World  War  II — commitments  at  home  as  well 
as  in  the  world — have  led  others  to  follow.  We 
cannot  turn  back  now. 

This,  then,  is  the  task  of  we  the  people  who 
live  along  the  Atlantic :  to  end  the  "civil  wars" 
that  have  torn  the  European  Continent  for  gen- 
erations, to  make  that  continf^nt  again  one 
continent,  to  reduce  the  causes  of  tension  and 
conflict  wliich  divide  men  and  to  engage  men 
together  in  the  works  of  peace,  to  work  for  the 
day,  as  Adlai  Stevenson  expressed  it,  when  men 
have  learned  "to  live  as  brothers,  to  respect  each 
other's  differences,  heal  each  other's  wounds, 
promote  eacli  other's  progress,  and  benefit  from 
each  other's  knowledire."  ^ 


President  Johnson  Hails  Progress 
Since  Punta  del  Este  Meeting 

To  mark  the  first  anniversary  of  the  meeting 
of  American  Chiefs  of  State  held  at  Punta  del 
Este,  Uruguay,  April  12-U,  1967^  President 
Johnson  sent  letters  to  Latin  American  Chiefs 
of  State.  Following  is  the  exchange  of  letters 
'between  President  Johnson  and  President  Fidel 
Sanchez  Hernandez  of  El  Salvador. 


Press  release  117  dated  May  23 

PRESIDENT  JOHNSON'S  LETTER 

April  16,  1968 
Dear  Mr.  President:  One  year  has  passed 
since  we  met  in  Punta  del  Este.  During  tliis 
period  we  have  often  been  reminded  that  great 
achievements  can  only  come  from  great  effort, 
mutual  understanding,  and  the  workings  of  that 
most  valuable  dimension — time. 

We  have  made  an  auspicious  beginning.  The 
Inter- American  Cultural  Council  has  prepared 
a  regional  plan  to  modernize  teaching  methods 
and  to  harness  science  and  technology  to  our 
hemispheric  development  efforts.  We  have 
signed  a  new  and  stronger  International  Coffee 
Agreement,  established  a  Coffee  Diversification 
Fund,  and  founded  the  Inter- American  Export 
Promotion  Center  to  stabilize  and  increase 
Latin  America's  earnings  from  foreign  trade. 
The  six  percent  increase  in  food  production  dur- 
ing 1967  is  an  important  first  step  toward  mak- 
ing Latin  American  farms  produce  the  abun- 
dance of  which  they  are  capable.  We  have 
increased  the  resources  of  the  Inter- American 
Development  Bank  by  $400  million  and  the  Cen- 
tral American  Bank  for  Economic  Integration 
b}'  $35  million.  In  1967  alone,  the  Inter- Amer- 
ican Bank  loaned  almost  half  a  billion  dollars — 
the  greatest  annual  total  since  it  was  established. 
You  and  your  colleagues  have  taken  the  first 
steps  toward  the  establishment  of  the  Latin 
American  Common  Market. 

I  congratulate  you  and  all  Salvadorans  on 
your  accomplishments.  As  the  major  trading 
partner  your  country  continues  to  give  leader- 


'  For  an  address  by  Ambassador  Stevenson  made  on 
Oct.  24,  1963,  see  ihia.,  Nov.  18,  1963,  p.  766. 


'  For  statements  by  President  Johnson  and  text  of 
the  Declaration  of  the  Presidents  of  America,  see 
Bulletin  of  May  8, 1967,  p.  706. 


JTTNE    17,    1968 


■797 


ship  to  integration  through  the  Central  Ameri- 
can Common  Market.  The  steps  being  taken  to 
raise  revenues  will  pei'mit  greater  public  invest- 
ment in  agriculture  and  education.  Your  Gov- 
ernment's contribution  of  physical  facilities  for 
the  Central  American  Malaria  Research  Center 
will  advance  this  important  enterprise.  I  am 
pleased  that  we  are  working  together  to  develop 
an  educational  television  demonstration  project 
in  El  Salvador  for  Central  America.  I  have  also 
noted  with  satisfaction  El  Salvador's  contmued 
strengthening  of  democratic  institutions 
through  free  elections. 

Through  these  and  other  actions,  we  have 
begun  the  great  task  set  for  our  nations  in  the 
action  program  adopted  at  Punta  del  Este. 

On  behalf  of  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
I  reaffirm  our  resolve  to  support  your  continu- 
ing efforts  and  wish  you  and  your  people  well 
during  the  increasingly  active  and  challenging 
years  ahead. 

Lyndon  B.  Johnson 


achieve  peace  in  Viet-Nam.  Your  struggle  for 
lasting  peace  is  understood  by  democratic  peo- 
ples who  yearn  to  improve  their  present  stand- 
ards of  living,  since  the  battle  being  waged  in 
Viet-Nam  concerns  us  all :  to  stop  decisively  the 
subversion  that  seeks  to  exploit  man's  primary 
feelings,  not  to  elevate,  but  rather  to  destroy 
man  himself  and  change  him  into  a  thing, 
bereft  of  the  powers  of  reason.  Whatever  the 
results  may  be,  we  are  sure  that  your  determina- 
tion will  help  to  strengthen  the  system  of  inter- 
national moral  principles,  on  which  alone  the 
true  peaceful  association  of  all  nations  can  be 
based. 

I  thank  you  for  your  congratulations  to  the 
people  of  El  Salvador  for  the  progress  they 
have  made,  and  for  your  words  expressing  the 
determination  of  your  Government  to  sponsor 
aid  so  that  we  may  continue  our  efforts  to  reach 
the  goals  we  have  set  for  ourselves. 
Eespectfully, 

Fn)EL  Sanchez  Hernandez 
President  of  El  Salvador 


PRESIDENT  SANCHEZ'   LETTERS 

Mat  13,  1968 
Excellency  :  The  Ambassador  of  the  United 
States  to  El  Salvador  has  delivered  to  me  the 
message  which  you  sent  me  on  the  occasion  of 
the  first  anniversary  of  the  Meeting  of  the 
Presidents  of  America  at  Punta  del  Este, 
Uruguay. 

Like  you,  I  am  gratified  at  the  accomplish- 
ments achieved  in  the  hemisphere  during  the 
past  twelve  months,  among  them  the  prepara- 
tion by  the  Inter-American  Cultural  CounoU 
of  a  regional  progi-am  to  modernize  teaching 
methods  and  to  utilize  science  and  technology, 
the  signing  of  a  stronger  International  Coffee 
Agreement  and  the  creation  of  a  Coffee  Diversi- 
fication Fund,  the  foundation  of  the  Inter- 
American  Export  Promotion  Center,  increased 
resources  for  the  Inter- American  Development 
Bank  and  the  Central  American  Bank  for  Eco- 
nomic Integration,  and  the  first  steps  taken 
toward  the  establishment  of  the  Latin  American 
Common  Market. 

I  want  to  take  this  opportunity  to  tell  you 
that  the  Salvadoran  people  support  you  and 
congratulate  you  for  your  valiant  efforts  to 


U.S.  Regrets  Communist  Chinese 
Postponement  of  Warsaw  Meeting 

Department  Statement  ^ 

The  Chinese  Communists  informed  us, 
through  their  Embassy  in  Warsaw,  that  they 
wish  to  postpone  the  135th  meeting  in  the  series 
of  Ambassadorial-level  talks  from  May  29  until 
an  unspecified  date  in  November. 

We  replied  that  we  strongly  believe  these 
meetings  should  adhere  to  the  prearranged 
schedule,  which  was  set  and  agi'eed  to  by  both 
sides,  and  that  we  strongly  regretted  any  pro- 
longed postponement  as  they  suggest. 

They  continue  to  insist  that  the  talks  be  de- 
layed for  another  6  months.  So  under  these 
circumstances,  the  meeting  scheduled  for  to- 
morrow obviously  cannot  take  place. 

We  wiU  keep  in  touch  with  the  Chinese  side 
again  regarding  a  specific  date  for  the  next 
meeting. 

We  have  repeatedly  expressed  our  conviction 


'  Translated  from  Spanish. 


'  Read  to  news  correspondents  by  the  Department 
spokesman  on  May  28. 


r98 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


that  tlicse  exchanges  between  ourselves  and  Pe- 
king are  oi"  value  and  that  particularly  during 
periods  of  international  tension  they  should  oc- 
cur more,  and  not  less,  frequently. 

Long  gaps  between  meetings  do  not  contrib- 
ute to  the  purpose  of  maintaining  regular  con- 
tact or  to  the  solution  of  outstandmg  problems 
which  these  meetings  should  serve. 

Again,  we  regret  this  postponement  in  the 
talks,  which  is  exclusively  at  the  initiative  of 
the  Chinese  side. 

The  United  States  remains  ready  to  resched- 
ule the  135th  meeting  at  a  mutuallj-  agreeable 
time  in  the  near  future. 


Assistant  Secretary  Palmer 
Makes  5-Week  Visit  to  Africa 

The  Department  of  State  announced  on  May 
24  (press  release  119)  that  Assistant  Secretary 
for  African  Affairs  Joseph  Palmer  2d  would  de- 
part "Washington  May  30  for  a  5-week  visit  to 
16  African  countries. 

Assistant  Secretary  Palmer  has  had  more 
than  25  years  of  experience  in  African  affairs 
in  various  positions  in  the  Department  and  at 
African  posts,  including  Nairobi,  Salisbury,  and 
Lagos,  where  he  was  the  first  American  Am- 
bassador, lie  will  be  meeting  with  leaders  of 
the  African  nations,  studying  the  programs  and 
activities  of  the  U.S.  Government  in  these  coun- 
tries, and  conferring  with  the  xVmerican  Am- 
bassadors. In  a  number  of  cases  he  will  be  re- 
newing associations  with  official  and  unofficial 
Africans  whom  he  has  known  over  the  years  in 
Africa  and  in  the  United  States.  In  other  cases, 
he  will  be  visiting  countries  for  the  first  time 
and  taking  the  opportmiity  to  meet  their  lead- 
ers and  to  discuss  matters  of  common  interest. 

Assistant  Secretary  Palmer's  itinerary  is  as 
follows:  Dakar,  Senegal,  May  31-June  2; 
Bathurst,  Gambia,  June  2-3 ;  Conakry,  Guinea, 
June  3-6;  Freetown,  Sierra  Leone,  June  6-8; 
Abidjan,  Ivory  Coast,  June  8-9;  Ouagadougou, 
Upper  Yolta,  June  9-11;  Niamey,  Niger,  June 
11-13:  Fort  Lamy,  Chad,  June  13-16;  Bangui, 


Central  African  Republic,  June  16-18 ;  Yaounde 
and  Douala,  Cameroon,  June  18-21;  Libre- 
ville, Gabon,  June  21-23;  Kinshasa,  Lubum- 
baslii,  and  Kisangani,  Democratic  Republic  of 
the  Congo,  Jime  23-27;  Kigali,  Rwanda,  June 
27-29;  Bujmnbura,  Burundi,  June  29-30;  Bu- 
kavu.  Democratic  Republic  of  the  Congo,  June 
30 ;  thence  overland  to  Entebbe,  Uganda,  arriv- 
ing July  4;  Lagos,  Nigeria,  July  4r-7;  return  to 
Washington  July  8. 


Israel  Pays  Compensation  Claimed 
for  Men  Killed  on  U.S.S.  Liberty 

Department  Statement  ^ 

On  May  27,  the  Government  of  Israel  paid 
the  full  amomit  of  compensation  claimed  by  the 
United  States  Government  on  behalf  of  the 
families  of  the  31  men  killed  in  the  June  8, 1967, 
attack  on  the  U.S.S.  Liberty.  The  compensation 
totaled  $3,323,500. 

Payment  to  members  of  families  of  the  de- 
ceased will  be  initiated  as  soon  as  the  check  has 
been  deposited  in  the  Treasury. 

The  Department  is  preparing  other  categories 
of  claims  on  behalf  of  the  men  injured  in  the 
attack  for  presentation  to  the  Government  of 
Israel  as  the  necessary  information  becomes 
available. 


President  Appoints  Mr.  McGill 

to  Human  Rights  Year  Commission 

The  Wliite  House  annoimced  on  May  13  that 
tlie  President  has  appointed  Ralph  E.  McGill 
of  Atlanta,  Ga.,  as  a  member  of  the  President's 
Commission  for  the  Observance  of  Human 
Ri-hts  Year  1968. 


'  Read  to  news  corre.spondents  by  the  Department 
spokesman  on  May  28. 


JTJXE    17,    196S 


799 


The  United  States  Role  in  the  International  Economy 


iy  Anthony  M.  Solomon 

Assistant  Secretary  for  Economic  Affairs  '■ 


I  would  like  to  talk  to  you  today  about  recent 
developments  and  basic  trends  in  the  interna- 
tional monetary  system,  in  world  trade,  and  in 
the  United  States  balance  of  payments,  and 
then  look  ahead  and  try  to  assess  the  effects  of 
these  and  related  developments  on  the  role  of 
the  United  States  in  the  international  economy. 

It  used  to  be  said  that  when  the  United  States 
sneezed  the  rest  of  the  world  got  pneimionia. 
That  familiar  quip  was  a  graphic  way  of  point- 
ing up  the  dominant,  indeed  the  overwhelmmg, 
role  of  the  United  States  in  the  international 
economy.  We  were  the  world's  largest  market, 
supplier  of  goods,  source  of  capital  in  a  capital- 
hungi-y  world,  and  major  donor  of  military  and 
economic  aid.  The  dollar  was  eagerly  sought  to 
replenish  depleted  reserves  and  served  increas- 
ingly as  the  principal  transactions  currency  for 
the  conduct  of  world  trade  and  payments.  Be- 
cause of  our  large  reserves  of  gold,  we  were 
able  to  conduct  our  domestic  affairs  without 
anxiety  about  the  effect  on  our  international 
accounts.  Our  liquidity  was  more  than  ample  to 
sustain  continuing  deficits  m  our  balance  of 
payments,  and  our  deficits  contributed  to  ex- 
pandmg  world  trade  and  investment. 

The  familiar  quip  has  changed.  Now  it  is  said 
that  when  the  United  States  sneezes,  the  rest 
of  the  world  says  "Gesimdheit."  We  are  still 
the  largest  national  market  and  trading  nation ; 
but  with  the  reconstruction  and  integration  of 
the  countries  of  Western  Europe  and  the  ex- 
traordinary growth  of  Japan,  we  are  no  longer 
overwhelmmg.  United  States  recessions  affect 
the  economies  of  our  trading  partners  but  do  not 
swamp  them.  And  Western  Europe— the  Eu- 
ropean Economic  Community  alone — accomits 
for  a  far  larger  proportion  of  world  trade  than 
the  United  States. 


The  major  change  in  the  United  States  posi- 
tion over  the  past  two  decades  has  been  the 
gradual  decline  in  our  monetary  reserves.  We 
are  no  longer  free  to  conduct  our  business  with- 
out regard  to  its  effect  on  our  external  accounts 
and  our  liquidity  position. 

The  rest  of  the  world  now  holds  liquid  claims 
of  some  $32  billion,  about  half  as  central-bank 
reserves  and  half  as  working  capital  in  private 
hands;  and  these  dollars  in  any  crisis  of  con- 
fidence can  be  presented  to  us,  directly  or  in- 
directly, for  conversion  into  gold.  The  question 
is  sometimes  asked  why  there  should  ever  be  a 
crisis  of  confidence.  The  United  States  economy 
is  an  enormous  productive  machine  with  a  gross 
national  product  of  $800  billion.  Wliy  should  an 
annual  deficit  in  our  balance  of  payments  of 
two  or  three  or  four  billion  dollars  be  cause  for 
concern  either  to  us  or  to  foreign  dollar  holders  ? 
The  reason,  of  course,  is  uneasiness  whether  the 
United  States  can  continue  to  maintain  the 
value  of  the  dollar  relative  to  gold  and  other 
currencies. 

The  Two-Tier  Gold  Market 

The  dramatic  events  of  the  past  6  months — 
the  run  on  the  London  gold  market  following 
sterling  devaluation  in  November  and  again  in 
March  this  year — were  a  crisis  in  confidence. 
Some  dollar  holders  shifted  out  of  dollars  to 
other  strong  currencies  in  the  fear  that  the 
dollar  would  be  devalued  relative  to  these 
currencies,  and  the  dollar  holdings  of  central 
banks  swelled  as  a  result.  And  speculators 
moved  into  the  London  gold  market  in  the 


^  Address  made  at  Long  Beach,  Calif.,  before  the 
World  Trade  Week  luncheon  of  the  Town  Hall  of  Cali- 
fornia and  the  Chambers  of  Commerce  of  Los  Angeles 
and  Long  Beach  on  May  16  (press  release  106). 


800 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BUI/LETIN 


expectatioi\  that  the  price  of  gold  would  rise. 

The  crisis  of  confidence  was  surmounted.  The 
central-bank  members  of  the  gold  pool  that  had 
since  1961  been  purchasing  and  selling  gold  in 
the  free  market  to  stabilize  its  price  ceased 
supplying  gold  to  the  free  market,  recognizing 
that  to  continue  to  sell  would  serve  only  to  feed 
speculation  and  deplete  monetary  reserves. 

There  are  now  two  markets  in  gold,  the  so- 
called  two-tier  system :  a  free  commodity  market 
for  gold  in  which  price  is  set  by  private  supply 
and  demand,  and  a  separate  gold  market  for  the 
settlement  of  accounts  among  monetary  author- 
ities. In  this  official  gold  market,  the  price 
is  fixed.  It  continues  to  be  $35  an  ounce. 

Wliat  the  two-tier  system  does  is  to  insulate 
monetary  reserves  from  the  vagaries  of  private 
demand.  Whatever  the  price  may  be  on  the  free 
commodity  market  is  of  no  direct  concern  to 
monetary  authorities.  Wliether  the  free  market 
price  falls  below  $.35  an  ounce  because  newly 
mined  gold  and  private  dishoarding  exceed 
demand  or  the  price  rises  above  $35  an  ounce 
because  speculators  swell  demand,  the  official 
price  remains  at  $35  an  ounce  and  the  gold  held 
as  monetary  reserves  will  not  be  drained  out  of 
the  monetary  system. 

However,  the  two-tier  system  does  not  absolve 
us  from  the  necessity  to  bring  our  external 
accounts  into  balance.  If  we  were  to  continue 
recklessly  to  run  sizable  deficits,  central  banks 
would  seek  conversion  of  their  rising  dollar 
holdings  into  gold,  depleting  further  our  own 
monetary  reserves.  And  private  holders  of 
dollars  would  become  uneasy,  again  shifting  out 
li  of  dollars  into  other  currencies,  adding  thereby 
to  central-bank  holdings  that  can  be  presented 
to  us  for  gold.  In  short,  although  the  volume  of 
gold  in  the  monetary  system  as  a  whole  remains 
intact,  the  United  States  share  in  that  volume 
of  gold  is  not  fixed.  "We  can  lose  our  gold  to 
other  central  banks  if  they  become  convinced 
that  we  are  unwilling  or  unable  to  bring  our 
balance  of  payments  into  order. 

In  establishing  the  two-tier  gold  market,  the 
memljers  of  the  gold  pool  not  only  agreed  not 
to  sell  gold  to  the  free  market  but  stated  as 
well  that  they  no  longer  felt  it  necessary  to  buy 
gold  from  the  market.^  They  agreed  that  the 
existing  stock  of  monetary  gold  is  sufficient  for 
the  needs  of  the  international  monetary  system. 
They  made  this  decision  not  because  they  believe 


'  For  text  of  a  communique  Issued  at  Washington  on 
Mar.  17.  see  Bcxletin  of  Apr.  8,  1968,  p.  464. 


that  monetary  reserves  as  a  whole  are  adequate 
to  meet  the  liquidity  needs  of  an  expanding 
world  economy.  On  the  contrary,  they  recog- 
nize that  the  total  world  stock  of  reserve  assets 
must  grow  as  international  trade,  domestic  in- 
come, and  production  grow.  But  they  look  to 
the  special  drawing  rights  facility  in  the  Inter- 
national Monetary  Fund  to  provide  for  an 
orderly  and  adequate  growth  of  monetary 
reserves  in  the  future. 

Special   Drawing   Rights 

The  prospective  establislunent  of  the  special 
drawing  rights  facility  in  the  International 
Monetary  Fund — so-called  paper  gold — is  the 
second  dramatic  development  of  recent  months. 
It  will  be  a  major  forward  step  in  the  evolution 
of  the  world  monetary  system.  For  the  first  time 
in  history,  nations  have  agreed  to  cooperate 
in  the  conscious  and  deliberate  creation  of  a  new 
and  permanent  reserve  asset,  in  amounts  and  at 
a  rate  judged  to  be  necessary  to  meet  the  needs 
of  the  international  economy.  Special  drawing 
rights,  or  SDK's,  will  supplement  gold,  dollars, 
and  sterling  as  reserve  assets.  They  will  be 
created  by  fiat,  deriving  their  value  and  useful- 
ness by  treaty;  that  is,  by  the  agreement  of 
the  countries  concerned  to  regard  SDK's  as 
international  money  acceptable  in  the  settlement 
of  balances  among  monetary  authorities. 

The  amendment  to  the  Fund's  articles  of 
agreement  establishing  the  new  SDK  facility 
will  enter  into  effect  when  it  has  been  ratified 
by  65  Fund  members  having  80  percent  of  the 
total  voting  power  in  the  Fund.  We  are  hopeful 
the  necessary  ratification  by  Fund  members  will 
be  completed  by  the  spring  of  1969. 

The  establishment  and  activation  of  the  SDR 
facility  will  not  solve  our  balance-of -payments 
problem.  The  creation  of  SDK's  is  not  intended 
to  absolve  countries  from  the  necessity  to  bring 
their  payments  into  balance  over  time.  Its 
purpose  is  to  insure  that  the  supply  of  inter- 
national reserves  grows  as  the  volume  of  inter- 
national transactions  grows,  so  that  nations  will 
not  be  forced  by  the  general  insufficiency  of 
international  reserves  to  depress  domestic 
activity  or  restrict  international  trade  and 
capital  flows.  The  SDR  will,  however,  help  to 
build  up  our  reserve  position,  which  has  been 
weakened  by  years  of  heavy  deficits,  as  our 
balance-of -payments  position  improves. 

Wliat  do  these  developments,  the  two-tier  gold 


JUXE    1' 


1968 


801 


market  and  the  special  drawing  rights,  mean 
for  the  role  of  the  dollar  as  the  world's 
principal  reserve  and  transaction  currency  ?  As 
the  United  States  moves  progressively  toward 
equilibrium  in  its  external  accoimts — as  we 
are  determined  to  do — the  flow  of  dollars  to 
official  reserves  will  taper  off.  Indeed,  official 
dollar  holdings  should  contract  over  time  as 
central  banlcs  supply  dollars  from  their  reserves 
to  meet  the  operational  needs  of  world  com- 
merce. With  the  gold  component  of  monetary 
reserves  more  or  less  fixed  and  the  flow  of  dol- 
lars dimmishing,  SDK's  should  become  in  the 
long  run  the  dominant  element  in  the  inter- 
national reserve  mix. 

The  SDE  will  not,  however,  be  a  transaction 
currency.  Trade  will  not  be  denommated  in 
SDE's,  nor  will  private  persons  be  able  to  ac- 
quire SDE's  to  make  payments  for  goods  and 
services.  The  SDR  will  function  solely  as  a 
reserve  asset  which  can  be  transferred  only 
among  central  banks  in  return  for  con-vertible 
currencies  needed  for  making  international  pay- 
ments. The  dollar  should  continue  therefore  in 
its  role  as  the  world's  principal  transaction  cur- 
rency. This  is  not,  of  course,  an  unmixed  bless- 
ing. A  world  trading  currency  like  the  dollar 
and  the  pound  is  more  strongly  exposed  during 
a  crisis  of  confidence  than  a  "normal"  currency. 
Widely  held  private  dollar  balances  can  be 
highly  volatile  in  a  period  of  stress.  It  is  possible 
that  other  cun-encies  in  addition  to  the  dollar 
and  sterling  may  in  due  course  become  signifi- 
cant trading  currencies.  Thus,  if  the  European 
Community  should  in  the  years  ahead  establish 
a  common  currency,  such  a  common  currency 
might  well  become  a  major  trading  and  finan- 
cial currency.  Or  the  Japanese  yen  might  in  the 
years  ahead  perform  such  a  role  in  the  Asian 
trading  community. 

Recent  Developments  in  Trade 

I  should  like  to  turn  now  to  recent  develop- 
ments in  United  States  and  world  trade.  In  the 
past  2  years  our  trade  surplus  fell  significantly 
below  the  average  of  the  preceding  6  years,  and 
the  singularly  poor  performance  in  the  first 
quarter  of  this  year  is  causing  concern.  It  is 
difficult  to  disentangle  and  assess  all  the  con- 
tributing factors,  but  the  boom  and  mflation  of 
1966  and  the  resultant  rise  in  costs  and  prices 
that  is  still  continuing  and  indeed  accelerating 
are  certainly  a  key  factor. 


A  remarkable  degree  of  price  stability  pre- 
vailed in  the  United  States  in  the  early  years 
of  the  1960's,  and  United  States  unit  labor  costs 
declmed  between  1961  and  1965  while  costs  in 
other  countries  increased  substantially.  As  a 
result,  our  share  of  foreign  ijiarkets  in  manu- 
factured goods,  which  had  deteriorated  during 
the  decade  of  the  fifties,  stabilized.  In  1966  our 
costs  increased  about  as  rapidly  as  the  average 
of  other  countries.  Currently  they  are  rising  at 
a  rate  that  probably  exceeds  that  of  most  Euro- 
pean countries.  Thus  despite  the  slowdown  in 
our  domestic  activity  in  1967,  prices  of  our 
manufactured  goods  rose  by  3  percent,  and  labor 
costs  per  unit  of  output  in  manufacturing  by 
5  percent. 

The  recent  bulge  on  the  import  side  can  be 
explained  in  part  by  abnormal  steel  and  copper 
imports  in  response  to  strikes  or  threat  of 
strikes,  a  general  rise  in  consumer  goods  imports 
reflecting  sharply  rising  consumer  income  and 
spending,  and  automobile  imports  reflecting 
consumer  preference  for  small  low-cost  cars. 

If  our  prices  rise  faster  than  those  of  our 
major  competitors,  American  goods  suffer  in 
world  markets.  And  if  our  economy  is  over- 
heating, imports  rise  sharply.  Although  we  have 
become  much  more  sophisticated  in  the  art  and 
practice  of  economics,  neither  we  nor  any  other 
coimtry  has  yet  mastered  the  problem  of  com- 
bining cost-price  stability  with  full  employ- 
ment. That  is  problem  number  one  on  the  agenda 
of  practitioners  of  political  economy. 

The  best  way  of  maintaining  our  competitive 
position  is  through  a  strong  fiscal  policy.  There 
are  other  things  we  can  do.  I  noted  in  the  press 
recently  that  some  steel  companies  in  the  United 
States  have  begim  fighting  imports  with  a 
weapon  that  can  work ;  that  is,  with  price  cuts. 
And  when  in  the  late  fifties  our  imports  bulged 
because  of  consumer  preference  for  foreign  cars, 
Detroit  responded  then  in  a  dynamic  way,  and 
the  bulge  disappeared. 

An  increase  in  the  United  States  surplus  of 
exports  over  imports  is  essential  to  strengthen 
our  balance  of  payments  and  to  permit  the 
eventual  relaxation  of  the  restrictions  now 
necessary  to  maintam  our  payments  position, 
which  I  will  discuss  later.  Eestriction  of  imports 
is  no  answer,  since  it  would  lead  to  offsetting 
retaliatory  curbs  on  our  exports. 

^^Hiat  are  the  longer  term  prospects  for  the 
growth  of  world  trade  and  for  the  United  States 
share  in  that  growth?  In  the  postwar  period. 


802 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


world  trade  grew  at  an  unprecedented  rate, 
increasing  faster  than  world  income.  Is  this 
trend  likely  to  continue? 

The  Outlook  for  World  Trade 

In  traditional  trade  theory,  the  composition 
and  direction  of  trade  depend  largely  on  natural 
endowment,  and  are  typically  the  exchange  of 
manufactures  for  food  and  raw  materials.  It 
was  widel}'  believed  tliat  as  countries  indus- 
trialized, as  capital  acciunulated  and  tech- 
nology was  widely  diffused,  comparative  cost 
differences  among  countries  would  narrow.  In- 
ternational advantage,  based  on  natural  re- 
sources— climate,  soil,  minerals,  and  the  like — 
and  locational  advantages,  would  diminish. 
Capital  in  the  form  of  fertilizer  and  irrigation 
systems  would  substitute  for  poor  land  endow- 
ment, capital  in  nuclear  fuels  would  substitute 
for  poor  fossil  fuels,  and  capital  in  the  form  of 
labor-saving  machinery  would  compensate  for 
labor  shortage.  As  a  result,  there  woidd  be  no 
great  advantage  in  trade.  With  countries  re- 
sembling each  other  more  and  more  in  their 
basic  production  characteristics,  trade  would  be- 
come less  important.  It  would  grow  in  absolute 
amount  but  not  as  fast  as,  and  certainly  not — 
as  in  the  last  18  years — faster  than,  income. 
And  it  appears  that  in  the  50-year  period  1879- 
1929,  world  trade  in  manufactures  grew  only 
half  as  fast  as  world  manufacturuig  output. 

Today,  trade  among  industrial  countries  is 
typically  the  exchange  of  manufactures  foi- 
manufactures.  Manufactured  products  account 

j  for  about  60  percent  of  the  value  of  total  world 
trade,  up  from  25  percent  in  the  1920"s,  and  the 
proportion  is  still  growing.  Indeed,  we  trade 
vigorously  with  each  other  in  the  same  kinds  of 
goods.  We  buy  and  we  sell  to  each  other  chcmi- 

■  cals,  pharmaceuticals,  vehicles,  steel,  scientific 
instruments,  plastics,  electronics.  In  short,  we 
take  in  each  other's  washing.  The  key  factor  in 
this  development  was  doubtless  the  steady  re- 
duction in  barriers  to  trade  over  the  past  two 
decades.  But  another  fundamental  reason  in 
this  period  of  accelerated  technological  advance 
is  the  significant  cost  savings  from  large-scale 
production  and  more  intense  specialization. 
When  technologies  were  simpler  and  invest- 
ments in  development  relatively  modest,  it  was 
possible  to  produce  profitably  for  sale  in  the 
relatively  limited  scope  of  national  markets. 
With  the  burst  of  new  technologies  in  the  past 


two  decades,  the  optimiun  scale  of  output  ex- 
ceeds the  national  market  in  most  industrial 
countries.  Firms  must  look  to  the  world  mar- 
ket— to  exports — to  support  the  costs  of  inno- 
vation and  the  economical  scale  of  output. 

Thus,  while  we  are  the  leading  exporter  of 
aircraft,  we  also  import  aircraft  engines  from 
England,  and  the  wing  assemblies  we  import 
from  Canada  are  made  in  large  part  of  United 
States  components.  In  the  scientific  instruments 
industry  we  have  a  clear  lead  in  electronic  test 
and  measuring  instruments,  but  other  industri- 
alized comitries  have  a  strong  performance  in 
nuclear,  biomedical,  and  process-control  instini- 
ments.  We  all  produce  bulk  plastics,  but  United 
States  firms  have  a  conmianding  position  in  spe- 
cialized plastics  used  for  defense  and  space  pur- 
poses. We  import  about  $1  billion  of  simple  and 
complex  chemical  products  and  we  export  2iy^ 
times  that  amount  of  similar  products. 

It  is  reasonable  to  expect  this  development  to 
persist — to  see  more  and  more  intense  special- 
ization for  sale  to  a  global  market  and  to 
see  world  trade  continue  its  extraordmary 
growth — provided  we  keep  trade  barriers  dowii. 
The  Kennedy  Eound  of  trade  negotiations  is 
not  the  end  of  the  road  in  trade  lilieralization. 

The  transportation  revolution  that  is  in  its 
infancy  now  will  give  further  impetus  to  trade. 
About  half  the  cost  of  ocean  freight  is  handling 
at  both  ends.  The  high-speed  container  ships 
and  the  intermodal  use  of  containers — from 
truck  to  rail  to  ship — promise  substantial  re- 
duction in  transportation  costs.  Goods  ])re- 
I)acked  at  the  factory  in  some  inland  city  are 
not  vmpacked  again  until  they  arrive  at  the 
consiuner's  warehouse  in  a  foreig-n  inland  city. 
The  costs  of  breakage  and  pilferage  at  ports 
with  present  transportation  methods  are  not 
marginal ;  and  the  container  eluninates  losses 
from  pilferage  and  will  substantially  reduce 
breakage  claims  and  insurance  costs.  Speed 
loading  of  vessels  cuts  the  turnaround  time  for 
container  ships  from  days  to  hours.  The  devel- 
opment of  container  ships  is  only  just  begin- 
ning. By  1970  we  will  have  36  full  container 
ships  on  the  North  Atlantic,  at  least  five  for 
Australia,  and  at  least  sis  for  the  Mediterra- 
nean. In  due  course  we  will  see  the  development 
of  worldwide  networks  of  computerized  con- 
tainer-control systems. 

We  are  also  at  the  beginning  of  a  revolution 
in  air  freight.  The  belly  portion  of  the  Boeing 
747  will  accommodate  almost  as  much  cargo  as 


JTHSTE    17,    196S 


803 


an  entire  707.  And  containerization  in  the  sky 
with  one  or  more  standard  containers  moving 
from  plant  to  truck  to  rail  to  air  is  on  the 
agenda.  Air  shiiDments  are  growing  rapidly 
both  in  tonnage  carried  and  in  variety  of  cargo 
and  have  opened  up  new  markets  for  trade: 
lobsters  fi'om  Boston  carried  across  the  Atlan- 
tic; French  bread  from  Paris  delivered  to 
Washington;  fruits,  vegetables,  and  strawber- 
ries carried  in  all  directions ;  tropical  birds  from 
Iquitos,  Peru,  to  Miami.  But  air  freight  has 
tended  to  be  limited  to  high-value  goods  because 
of  the  weight  problem.  With  the  sharp  increase 
in  capacity  of  the  new  "jumbo"'  planes  and  the 
beginning  of  containerization,  the  possibility  is 
now  open  for  a  much  wider  spectrum  of  goods 
trans^jorted  by  air  across  national  boundaries  at 
lower  costs.  Indeed  one  can  speculate  whether 
in  time  it  will  become  cheaper  and  faster  to 
move  goods  from,  let  us  say,  Kansas  City  to 
Frankfurt  than  from  Kansas  City  to  Omaha. 
Maybe  this  means  we  should  be  devoting  more 
time  and  resources  to  improving  short-haul 
transportation  where  the  problems,  as  any 
commuter  will  miderstand,  are  most  formidable. 

The  Outlook  for  United  States  Trade 

IVliat  ai'e  the  longer  range  prospects  for 
United  States  trade  in  the  environment  we  fore- 
see of  expanding  world  trade? 

We  are  preeminently  innovators,  both  of  new 
products  and  new  processes,  strong  in  invention 
and  stronger  still  in  the  industrial  application 
and  exploitation  of  invention.  Our  economy  and 
our  outlook  are  favorable  to  innovation.  We 
are  a  large  and  unified  market  with  an  appetite 
for  new  products  and  the  income  to  indulge 
it;  our  high  wages  are  an  incentive  to  the  de- 
velopment of  new  labor-saving  processes;  we 
are  science  oriented,  investing  increasing  sums 
each  year  in  research  and  development.  Inno- 
vations and  technical  improvements  made  in 
response  to  the  demands  of  the  domestic  market 
spill  over  into  exports.  This  is  clearly  an  area 
of  strength  for  us. 

But  technological  advantage  in  a  product  or 
a  process  can  be  transitory.  Once  a  break- 
through has  been  made,  the  new  information 
is  spread  widely.  The  international  diffusion 
of  new  techniques  and  new  products  is  much 
moi-e  rapid  today  than  ever  before.  Where  the 
product  will  ultimately  be  made  most  profit- 
ably depends  on  more  traditional  elements  of 


advantage;  that  is,  on  underlying  cost  consid- 
erations. It  is  not  an  uncommon  experience  to 
find  our  industrial  competitors  producing 
cheaper  and  better  versions  of  products  we  have 
pioneered.  We  do  well  in  specialized  macliinery, 
new  chemical  products,  aircraft  equipment,  and 
consumer  goods  with  unique  features — in  short, 
in  products  where  our  iimovatmg  effort  is 
strong.  The  moral  is  clear:  the  critical  impor- 
tance of  maintaining  our  innovational  lead  and, 
equally,  the  critical  importance  of  cost-price 
restraint. 

As  more  and  more  countries  industrialize  and 
as  those  with  a  good  industrial  base  improve 
their  capabilities,  we  can  expect  a  progressively 
larger  voliune  of  simple  manufactures  to  be 
imported  from  abroad.  There  is  nothing  alarm- 
ing in  this  trend.  It  is  in  our  self-interest  to 
import  goods  that  have  lower  skill  requirements 
and  that  others  can  make  more  economically 
than  we.  Our  labor  can  move  into  higher  pro- 
ductivity fields  and  we  can  use  our  technical 
skills  to  make  improvements,  develop  new  uses, 
new  products,  and  new  processes,  and  create 
new  export  markets  thereby. 

If  we  look  ahead  in  specific  sectors,  we  can 
expect  much  greater  European  demands  in  the 
next  decade  for  labor-saving  machinery,  in 
which  United  States  producers  hold  a  marked 
competitive  edge.  The  growth  in  the  European 
labor  force  will  be  much  smaller  in  the  years 
ahead  than  in  the  recent  past  with  less  scope 
for  shifting  European  labor  out  of  agriculture 
or  unemployment  into  industrial  activity.  We 
have  a  dominating  lead  in  electronic  computers 
which  are  themselves  in  their  infancy,  with  an 
extraordinary  potential  for  invading  and  trans- 
forming almost  every  field  of  human  activity. 
We  are  preeminent  in  aircraft.  Our  commercial 
civilian  aircraft  exports — missiles  and  military 
aircraft  apart — were  about  $1.4  billion  last  year 
and  can  be  expected  on  a  conservative  estimate 
to  rise  to  $2  billion  a  year  within  the  next 
several  years. 

The  outlook  for  agricidtural  exports,  which 
accoimt  for  about  20  percent  of  the  total,  is  very 
favorable  in  feed  grains  and  soybeans,  each  of 
which  is  a  billion-dollar  export  now.  Feed  grains 
and  soybeans  are  related  to  meat  consumption, 
which  increases  rapidly  as  income  increases. 
We  anticipate  vigorous  growth  m  our  present 
markets ;  and  if  the  countries  of  Eastern  Europe 
move  to  upgrade  consumption  of  meats  and 
poultry,  as  they  may,  the  big  potential  market 


804 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


in  feed  grains  and  soybeans  in  that  part  of  the 
■world  will  open  up.  In  other  asjricultural  sec- 
tors like  tobacco  and  cotton,  the  outlook  is  less 
favorable.  We  will  be  doing  well  to  maintain 
the  volume  we  have  achieved.  In  wheat  our 
commercial  exports  mav  unfortunately  not 
reflect  the  very  favorable  competitive  advan- 
tage we  have,  because  of  import  barriers  in 
Western  Europe.  Japan  will  continue  to  be  an 
excellent  market  because  it  follows  a  sensible 
policy  of  buying  foods  at  low  world-market 
prices  and  exporting  manufactures.  But  West- 
ern Europe  appears  determined  to  maintain  its 
high  self-sufficiency  ratio  notwithstanding  the 
cost  in  higher  internal  food  prices  and  its  effect 
on  wage  levels. 

We  have  been  concerned  for  some  time  about 
the  threat  of  famine  in  the  underdeveloped 
world,  where  rapidly  rising  population  and  low 
agricultural  productivity  have  made  increasing 
food  imports  imperative.  But  it  is  jiossible — 
we  would  hope  probable — that  the  food-deficit 
developing  countries  are  now  on  the  brink  of 
an  agricultural  revolution.  The  components  of 
that  revolution — familiar  to  Western  Europe 
and  to  us — are  fertilizer  and  good  seed.  New 
seed  varieties  appropriate  to  tropical  climates — 
Philippine  rice,  Mexican  wheat — have  been 
developed  and  applied  with  dramatic  results, 
and  the  use  of  fertilizer  which  gives  a  10-to-l 
return  is  increasing  markedly.  This  should 
mean  less  gro-n-th  in  our  P.L.  480  outlet  for 
wheat,  vegetable  oils,  and  cotton,  unless  one 
assumes  a  significant  increase  in  per  capita  con- 
sumption in  the  poor  countries,  which  is  pos- 
sible but  not  predictable. 

The  U.S.  Balance  of  Payments 

Let  me  turn  now  to  our  balance-of-payments 
situation.  I  will  touch  on  this  only  briefly.  We 
have  had  a  balance-of-payments  problem  since 
the  late  fifties,  when  the  deficit  in  our  accoimts 
rose  shai-ply  from  its  previous  average  of  about 
$1  billion  a  year  to  more  than  $3  billion  and 
persisted  at  a  high  level. 

Over  these  years  we  have  taken  a  variety  of 
measures  to  come  into  balance.  We  have  tied  aid 
so  that  our  help  to  the  developing  countries 
would  be  reflected  in  goods  and  servnccs  and  not 
in  an  outflow  of  dollars  that  could  come  back  as 
a  claim  on  our  gold,  urged  our  militaiy  allies  to 
purchase  equipment  here  or  in  other  ways  to  off- 
set the  military  expenditures  we  were  making  in 


their  countries  in  the  common  defense,  encour- 
aged United  States  exports,  imposed  the  interest 
equalization  tax  to  reduce  the  flotation  of  for- 
eign securities  in  the  United  States,  and  estab- 
lished voluntary  guidelines  to  restrain  United 
States  investment  in  other  industrial  countries 
which  can  mobilize  their  own  savings  for  invest- 
ment and  growth. 

But  the  deficit  persists.  I  am  reminded  of  the 
quip  about  Hungary.  ""What  are  the  permanent 
characteristics  of  the  Hungarian  economy?"  a 
government  official  was  asked.  "Temporary  diffi- 
culties," he  replied. 

The  basic  problem  has  been  that  our  surplus 
on  current  account,  although  large,  has  not  been 
large  enough  to  co^-er  both  the  Government  pro- 
grams we  must  support  in  the  national  interest 
and  the  amounts  that  businessmen  are  lending 
and  investing  abroad.  Year  after  year  the  dol- 
lars we  paid  out  for  goods,  services,  lending,  and 
investment  exceeded  the  dollars  we  received — 
and  it  is  reasonably  clear,  as  the  dramatic  gold 
crisis  of  recent  months  sharply  revealed,  that  the 
world's  willingness  to  hold  dollars  is  not 
unlimited. 

Although  there  was  a  healthy  improvement  in 
our  balance-of-payments  situation  in  1965  and 
1966,  when  the  deficit  went  down  to  about  $1.3 
billion  in  each  of  these  years,  there  was  a  sharp 
deterioration  last  year,  when  the  deficit  rose  to 
$3.6  billion.  The  President,  therefore,  j^roposed 
a  stringent  and  balanced  program  affecting 
many  elements  in  our  international  accoiuits.^ 
But  the  main  thrust  of  the  new  restraint  pro- 
gram is  to  curb  foreign  lending  to,  and  invest- 
ment in,  the  other  strong  industrial  areas  and  re- 
duce the  outflow  of  funds  into  foreign  bank  de- 
posits and  foreign  financial  assets. 

Wliile  our  private  loans  and  investments  in- 
crease our  wealth  and  can  be  expected  to  yield 
good  returns  that  will  be  reflected  in  our  future 
accounts,  they  impair  our  present  cash  position. 
Our  long-term  assets  are  increasing  at  the  ex- 
pense of  an  increase  in  our  short-term  liabilities. 
As  reported  by  the  Department  of  Commerce 
last  September,  total  United  States  assets  and 
investments  abroad  exceeded  $111  billion — with- 
out counting  our  gold  stock — while  foreign  as- 
sets and  investments  in  the  United  States,  our 
liabilities,  totaled  only  $60  billion.  But  almost  90 
percent  of  our  assets  are  long-tenn  investments 
and  credits,  whereas  55  percent  of  our  liabilities 
are  short-term  claims.  In  business  terms,  we  are 

"  For  background,  see  iUd.,  Jan.  22,  1968,  p.  110. 


JUXE    17.    19fi8 


805 


not  liquid  enough ;  and  we  cannot  afford  increas- 
ing outflows  of  capital  at  the  expense  of  our  in- 
ternational liquidity. 

Our  preference  clearly  would  be  to  come  into 
balance  over  time  by  increasing  our  receipts 
from  trade,  from  increased  tourism  in  the 
United  States,  and  from  increased  investment 
here  by  other  rich  countries  rather  than  to  re- 
duce our  payments  by  restricting  capital  out- 
flows. But  we  are  imder  pressure ;  we  are  at  the 
point  after  years  of  persistent  heavy  deficits 
where  such  restraints,  however  unwelcome,  are 
necessary. 

In  this  connection  let  me  note  an  encouraging 
development :  increasing  purchases  by  European 
investors  of  United  States  securities,  especially 
equity  securities.  Since  July  1967,  foreign  pur- 
chases of  United  States  equities  averaged  $315 
million  a  quarter,  compared  with  about  $60  mil- 
lion a  quarter  in  the  preceding  18  months.  One 
can  hope  this  portends  a  change  in  the  sarongs 
and  investing  habits  of  Europeans,  a  shift  from 
their  preference  for  short-term  liquid  invest- 
ments to  the  holding  of  longer  term  assets.  I 
need  not  tell  you  in  this  audience  that  United 
States  securities  are  a  solid  investment,  strong 
in  growth  and  earning  potential.  Increasing  ac- 
quisitions by  Europeans  would  be  good  for  them 
and  good  for  us.  The  more  capital  flows  to  the 
United  States  from  other  industrial  countries, 
the  more  United  States  capital  can  flow  out 
without  impairing  our  international  accoimts. 

It  is  also  possible  that  in  the  years  ahead  the 
interest  of  European  and  Japanese  investors 
will  broaden  further  so  that  we  shall  see  sub- 
stantial direct  investments  by  them  in  the 
United  States.  There  has  been  much  talk  about 
the  multinational  corporation,  the  corporation 
with  subsidiaries  all  over  the  world.  Today  the 
United  States  dominates  the  international  in- 
vestment scene.  Indeed  the  outflow  of  United 
States  capital  for  direct  investment  abroad 
in  the  sixties  grew  at  a  much  faster  rate 
than  world  trade  or  United  States  exports.  To- 
day some  200  large  corporations  have  produc- 
tion facilities  in  six  or  more  countries.  But  these 
are  predominantly  American-based  companies. 
Only   about  30   European   companies   can  be 


called  "multinational"  in  this  sense,  and  the 
value  of  their  overseas  investments  are  a  frac- 
tion of  that  of  United  States  companies. 

But  with  the  growing  wealth  and  strength 
of  the  other  industrial  areas,  foreign  corpora- 
tions may  find  the  United  States  an  attractive 
market  for  direct  investment.  Indeed,  it  is  in 
their  interest  to  do  so.  They  are  concerned  about 
the  so-called  technological  gap.  If  they  exposed 
themselves  more  widely  to  the  challenge  of  the 
United  States  economy  not  by  export  promo- 
tion alone  but  by  establishing  operating  sub- 
sidiaries here,  they  could  participate  in  the  op- 
portunities and  benefit  from  the  climate  for 
innovation  that  this  economy  offers.  Some  of 
the  biggest  competitors  that  United  States  com- 
panies face  in  their  worldwide  operations  are 
firms  based  in  Switzerland,  a  small  coimtry.  So 
the  question  of  home-country  size  is  not  the 
crucial  one  if  the  company  specializes,  invests, 
and  reinvests  in  research  and  has  a  global 
approach. 

It  is  difficult  to  see  far  ahead.  Indeed,  it  is 
difficult  enough  for  us  to  understand  and  in- 
terpret the  present  environment  in  which  we 
live.  Marshall  McLuhan  has  said  it  well :  "We 
don't  know  who  discovered  water  but  we  are 
pretty  sure  it  wasn't  a  fish."  But  I  am  optimistic, 
notwithstanding  our  "temporary  difficulties." 
We  can  and  will  bring  our  economy  to  a  more 
stable  course  of  gi'owtli  by  using  the  fiscal  tools 
at  our  disposal.  We  can  and  will  bring  our  ex- 
ternal accounts  closer  toward  balance.  And  we 
can  expect  the  countries  of  Western  Europe  to 
contribute  to  a  smooth  process  of  adjustment 
by  pursuing  the  steady  expansion  of  their  do- 
mestic economies  and  encouraging  capital  out- 
flow. Wliat  we  should  not  do  is  permit  our  pres- 
ent difficulties  to  lead  us  to  reverse  our  historic 
liberal  trade  policies.  That  would  be  injurious 
to  us  and  to  the  world  as  a  whole.  As  the  indus- 
trial world  moves  toward  more  stable  growth 
and  the  international  monetary  system  provides 
the  liquidity  to  lubricate  world  trade  and  in- 
vestment, we  can  put  renewed  vigor  behind  the 
more  difficult  and  imperative  longrun  task: 
helping  the  developing  countries  accelerate  their 
growth. 


806 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


THE  CONGRESS 


Greater  Prosperity  Through  Expanded  World  Trade 


Message  From  President  Johnson  to  the  Congress  ■ 


To  the  Congress  of  the  United  States: 

A  nation's  trade  lines  are  its  life  lines.  Open 
trade  lines  and  active  commerce  lead  to  eco- 
nomic health  and  gi'owth.  Closed  trade  lines 
end  in  economic  stagnation. 

Franklin  D.  Eoosevelt  recognized  these  truths 
more  than  thirty  years  ago,  when  the  nation 
and  the  world  were  in  the  grip  of  Depression. 

On  that  IMarch  day  in  1934  when  he  asked  the 
Congress  to  pass  the  historic  Reciprocal  Trade 
Act,  he  pointed  to  America's  declining  world 
trade  and  what  it  meant  to  the  nation:  "idle 
hands,  still  machines,  ships  tied  to  their  docks." 

That  Act  set  in  motion  three  and  a  half  dec- 
ades of  descending  tariff  barriers  and  rising 
world  trade.  Our  producers  and  farmers  found 
new  markets  abroad,  and  American  exports  mul- 
tiplied twenty-fold. 

This  era  of  commercial  progress  was  capped 
by  the  Kemiedy  Eound  Agreements  reached  at 
Geneva  last  year — the  greatest  success  in  all  the 
history  of  international  trade  negotiations." 

When  I  reported  to  the  Congress  last  Novem- 
ber on  the  Kennedy  Eound,  I  said  it  would  mean 
new  factories,  more  jobs,  lower  prices  to  fami- 
lies, and  higher  incomes  for  American  workers 
and  for  our  trading  partners  throughout  the 
world.^ 

Already,  through  these  Agreements,  tariff 
l)arriers  everywhere  are  falling,  bringing  sav- 
ings to  consimiers,  and  opening  new  overseas 
markets  for  competitive  producers. 


'Transmitted  on  May  2S  (Wliite  House  pre.ss  re- 
lease ;  also  printed  as  H.  Doc.  322,  90th  Cong.,  2d  sess.). 

^  For  a  summary  of  the  agreement,  see  Bulletin  of 
July  24, 1067,  p.  95. 

'For  President  Johnson's  message  to  the  Congress 
of  XoT.  27.  1967.  see  iftrrf.,  Dec.  25,  1907,  p.  883. 


But  the  problems  and  the  promises  of  world 
trade  are  always  changing.  We  must  have  the 
tools  not  only  to  adjust  to  change,  but  to  turn 
change  to  our  advantage. 

To  prepare  for  the  era  of  world  trade  unfold- 
ing before  us  now,  I  submit  to  the  Congress 
today  the  Trade  Expansion  Act  of  1968.  This 
measure  will : 

— maintain  our  negotiating  authority  to  set- 
tle— advantageously — trade  jDroblems  and  dis- 
putes. 

— carry  out  the  special  Geneva  agreement  on 
chemicals  and  other  products. 

— improve  the  means  through  which  Ameri- 
can firms  and  workers  can  adjust  to  new  com- 
petition from  increased  imports. 

Our  International  Responsibilities 

The  Trade  Expansion  Act  of  1968  will 
strengthen  relations  with  our  trading  partners 
in  three  ways. 

First,  it  will  extend  through  June  30, 1970  the 
President's  authority  to  conduct  negotiations 
for  tariff  reductions.  This  authority  was  con- 
tained in  provisions  of  the  Trade  Expansion 
Act  of  1962  that  have  expired. 

Most  of  this  authority  was  used  in  negotiating 
the  Kennedy  Eound.  The  unused  portion  of  that 
authority  will  give  the  President  the  flexibility 
to  adjust  tariff  rates  as  future  developments 
might  require. 

For  example,  the  United  States  might  find  it 
necessary  to  increase  the  duty  on  a  particular 
article — as  the  result  of  an  "escape  clause"  ac- 
tion or  a  statutory  change  in  tariff  classification. 
In  such  event,  we  would  be  obliged  to  give  other 


JUNE    17.    1968 


807 


nations  compensatory  tariff  adjustments  for 
their  trade  losses. 

Without  this  authority,  we  would  invite  re- 
taliation and  endanger  American  mai'kets 
abroad. 

/  recommend  that  the  President\s  authority 
to  Tnake  these  tariff  adjustments  he  extended 
through  June  30, 1970. 

Second,  the  Trade  Expansion  Act  of  1968 
will  elimmate  the  American  Selling  Price  sys- 
tem of  customs  valuation.  This  action  is  neces- 
sary to  carry  out  the  special  agreement  reached 
during  the  Kennedy  Eound. 

The  American  Selling  Price  system  has  out- 
lived its  purpose.  It  should  be  ended. 

The  generally  accepted  method  of  valuing 
goods  for  tariff  purposes — which  we  and  all 
our  trading  partners  employ — is  to  use  the 
actual  price  of  the  item  to  the  importer. 

But  many  years  ago,  to  protect  a  few  of  our 
fledgling  industries,  we  imj^osed  on  competing 
foreign  goods — in  addition  to  a  substantial 
tariff — the  special  requirement  that  their  tariff 
value  be  determined  by  American  prices.  Today 
this  unusual  system  often  produces  tariff  pro- 
tection of  more  than  100  percent  of  the  import 
cost  of  the  product. 

Such  excessive  protection  is  both  unfair  and 
unnecessary. 

This  system  is  unfair  because  it : 

— Gives  to  a  few  industries  a  special  privilege 
available  to  no  other  American  business. 

— Eests  on  an  arbitrary  method  of  valuation 
which  no  other  nation  uses. 

— Diverges  from  the  provisions  of  the  Gen- 
eral Agreement  on  Tariffs  and  Trade. 

— Imposes  an  unjustified  burden  on  the  U.S. 
consumer. 

This  system  is  unnecessari/  because  the  few 
industries  which  it  covers  no  longer  need  special 
government  protection. 

It  applies  primarily  to  the  chemical  industry 
in  the  benzenoid  field.  Yet  chemicals,  and  ben- 
zenoids  in  particular,  are  among  our  most  effi- 
cient and  rapidly  expanding  industries.  They 
have  done  well  at  home.  They  have  done  well  in 
the  international  market.  They  are  in  a  strong 
position  to  face  normal  competition  from 
imports. 

A  supplementary  agreement  was  negotiated 
at  Geneva  which  will  lower  foreign  tariffs  on 
American  chemicals  and  reduce  certain  non- 
tariff  barriers — road  taxes  and  tariff  prefer- 
ences— on  American  automobiles  and  tobacco. 


To  receive  these  important  concessions,  the 
United  States  must  eliminate  the  American  Sell- 
ing Price  valuation  system  and  thereby  give  for- 
eign producers  of  chemicals  and  a  few  other 
products  normal  access  to  our  markets.  This 
bargain  is  clearly  in  our  national  interest — 
good  for  our  industries,  good  for  our  workers, 
and  good  for  our  consiuners. 

/  recommend  that  the  Congress  eliminate  the 
American  Selling  Price  system  to  remove  in- 
equities in  our  tariffs  and  enable  us  to  take  ad- 
vantage of  concessions  negotiated  in  the 
Kennedy  Round. 

Third,  the  Trade  Expansion  Act  of  1968  will 
jirovide  for  specific  funding  of  our  participation 
in  the  General  Agi-eement  on  Tariffs  and  Trade. 

This  is  the  procedure  we  follow  in  meeting 
our  financial  responsibilities  to  all  other  inter- 
national organizations. 

The  General  Agreement  on  Tariffs  and  Trade 
has  become  the  most  important  forum  for  the 
conduct  of  international  trade  relations.  The 
Kennedy  Eound  took  place  under  its  auspices. 
Yet  since  1947,  we  have  financed  our  annual 
contribution  to  this  Agreement  through  general 
contingency  fimds  rather  than  through  a  spe- 
cific authorization. 

/  recommend  that  the  Congress  authorize  spe- 
ciff,c  approp-riations  for  the  American  share  of 
the  expenses  for  the  General  Agreement  on 
Tariffs  and  Trade. 

Our  Needs  at   Home 

When  trade  barriers  fall,  the  American  peo- 
ple and  the  American  economy  benefit.  Open 
trade  lines : 

^Eeduce  prices  of  goods  from  abroad. 

— Increase  opportunities  for  American  busi- 
nesses and  farms  to  export  their  products.  This 
means  expanded  production  and  more  job 
opportunities. 

• — Help  improve  the  efficiency  and  competitive 
strength  of  our  industries.  This  means  a  higher 
rate  of  economic  growth  for  our  nation  and 
liigher  incomes  for  our  people. 

Some  firms,  however,  have  difficulty  in  meet- 
ing foreign  competition,  and  need  time  and  help 
to  make  the  adjustment. 

Smce  international  trade  strengthens  the  na- 
tion as  a  whole,  it  is  only  fair  that  the  govern- 
ment assist  those  businessmen  and  workers  who 
face  serious  problems  as  a  result  of  increased 
imports. 

The  Congress  recognized  this  need — in  the 


808 


DEPARTJMENT   OF   STATE    BULLETIN 


Trade  Expansion  Act  of  1962 — by  establisliing 
a  program  of  trade  adjustment  assistance  to 
businessmen  and  workers  adversely  affected  by 
imports. 

Unfortunately,  this  program  has  been  in- 
effective. The  test  of  eligibility  has  proved  to  be 
too  rigid,  too  technical,  and  too  complicated. 

As  part  of  a  comprehensive  trade  expansion 
policy,  I  propose  that  we  make  our  adjustment 
assistance  program  fair  and  workable. 

/  recommend  that  Congress  hroaden  the  ellgi- 
hility  for  this  assistance.  The  test  should  be 
simple  and  char:  relief  should  he  avail-ahle 
tchenever  increased  imports  are  a  siihstantial 
cause  of  injury. 

I  intend  to  pattern  the  administration  of  this 
program  on  the  Automotive  Products  Trade  Act 
of  1965.*  Determituitions  of  eligibility  toill  be 
made  jointly  by  the  Secretaries  of  Labor.,  Com- 
merce  and  Treasury. 

The  adjustment  assistance  provisions  of  Auto- 
motive Product  Trade  Act  of  1965  have  been 
successful.  They  have  well  served  American 
automobile  firms  and  their  workers  as  we  have 
moved  to  create  an  integrated  U.S.-Canadian 
auto  market. 

These  provisions  will  expire  on  June  30. 

/  recom/mend  that  the  Congress  extend  the  ad- 
justment assistance  provisions  of  the  Automo- 
tive Products  Trade  Act  through  June  30, 1971. 

Trade   Initiatives  for  the   Future 

The  measures  I  have  recommended  today  will 
help  us  carrj'  forward  the  great  tradition  of  our 
reciprocal  trade  policy. 

But  even  as  we  consolidate  our  past  gains, 
we  must  look  to  the  future. 

Fii'st  and  foremost,  we  must  ensure  that  the 
progress  we  have  made  is  not  lost  through  nexo 
trade  restrictions. 

One  central  fact  is  clear.  A  vicious  cycle  of 
trade  restrictions  harms  most  the  nation  which 
trades  most.  And  America  is  that  nation. 

At  the  present  time,  proposals  pending  be- 
fore the  Congress  would  impose  quotas  or  other 
trade  restrictions  on  the  imports  of  over  twenty 
industries.  These  measures  would  cover  about 
$7  billion  of  our  imports — close  to  half  of  all 
imports  subject  to  duty. 

In  a  world  of  expanding  trade,  such  restric- 
tions would  be  self-defeating.  Under  interna- 
tional rules  of  trade,  a  nation  restricts  impoi"ts 


'  For  background,  see  ibid.,  Nov.  15,  1965,  p.  793. 


only  at  the  risk  of  its  own  exports.  Restriction 
begets  restriction. 

In  reality,  "protectionist"  measures  do  not 
protect  any  of  us: 

— They  do  not  protect  the  American  working 
man.  If  world  markets  shrink,  there  will  be 
fewer  jobs. 

— They  do  not  protect  the  American  business- 
man. In  the  long  run,  smaller  markets  will  mean 
smaller  profits. 

— They  do  not  protect  the  American  con- 
sumer. He  will  pay  more  for  the  goods  he  buys. 

The  fact  is  that  every  American — directly  or 
indirectly — has  a  stake  in  the  growth  and 
vitality  of  an  open  economic  system. 

Our  policy  of  liberal  trade  has  served  this  na- 
tion well.  It  will  continue  to  advance  our  inter- 
ests in  the  future. 

But  these  are  critical  times  for  the  nation's 
economy.  "We  have  launched  a  series  of  meas- 
ures to  reduce  a  serious  balance  of  payments 
deficit.  As  part  of  this  program,  I  have  called 
for  a  major  long-run  effort,  to  increase  our  trade 
surplus.  This  requires  that  we  push  ahead  with 
actions  to  keep  open  the  channels  of  trade. 

Many  of  our  trading  partners  have  indicated 
a  willingness  to  cooperate  in  this  effort  by  ac- 
celeratuig  some  of  their  tariff  reductions  agreed 
to  in  the  Kennedy  Round,  and  by  permitting 
the  United  States  to  defer  a  portion  of  our  tariff 
reductions.  Furthermore,  a  number  of  Western 
European  countries  are  now  taking  more  active 
steps  to  achieve  a  higher  rate  of  economic 
growth.  This  promises  to  increase  the  demand 
for  our  exports  and  improve  our  trade  position. 

To  take  full  advantage  of  the  expanded  trad- 
ing opportunities  that  lie  ahead,  we  must  im- 
prove the  competitive  position  of  American 
goods.  Passage  of  the  anti-inflation  tax  is  the 
most  critical  action  we  could  take  now  to 
strengthen  our  position  at  home  and  in  world 
m-arkets.  The  tax  measure  I  have  recommended 
will  help  prevent  destructive  price  increases — 
which  can  sap  the  vitality  and  strength  of  our 
economy.  Continued  rapid  increases  in  our 
prices  would  mean  fewer  exports  and  higher 
imports. 

Second,  other  nations  must  join  with  us  to 
put  an  end  to  non-tariff  harriers. 

Trade  is  a  two-way  street.  A  successful  trade 
policy  must  be  built  upon  reciprocity.  Our  own 
trade  initiatives  will  foimder  unless  our  trad- 
ing partners  join  with  us  in  these  efforts. 

The  Keimedy  Round  was  an  outstanding  ex- 


809 


ample  of  international  cooperation.  But  major 
non-tariff  barriers  continue  to  impede  the  free 
flow  of  international  commerce.  These  barriers 
now  block  many  U.S.  products  from  competing 
for  world  markets. 

Some  non-tariff  barriers  violate  provisions  of 
the  General  Agreement  on  Tariffs  and  Trade. 
We  will  step  up  our  efforts  to  secure  the  prompt 
removal  of  these  illegal  restrictions. 

Other  non-tariff  barriers  may  not  be  illegal, 
but  they  clearly  hamper  and  hinder  trade.  Such 
barriers  are  found  in  all  countries ;  the  American 
Selling  Price  system  is  an  example  of  one  of 
our  non-tariff  barriers. 

We  have  initiated  a  major  international  study 
to  assess  the  effect  of  non-tariff  barriers  on 
world  trade. 

We  have  already  begun  action  in  the  Gen- 
eral Agreement  on  Tariffs  and  Trade  and  other 
international  organizations  to  deal  with  some 
of  these  non-tariff  barriers. 

Efforts  such  as  these  are  an  important  ele- 
ment in  our  trade  policy.  All  sides  must  be  pi'e- 
pared  to  dismantle  unjustified  or  unreasonable 
barriers  to  trade. 

Reciprocity  and  fair  play  are  the  essential 
standards  for  international  trade.  America  will 
insist  on  these  conditions  in  all  our  negotiations 
to  lower  non- tariff  barriers. 

Third,  we  rmist  develop  a  long-range  policy 
to  guide  American  trade  expansion  through  the 
1970's. 

I  have  directed  the  President's  Special  Rep- 
resentative for  Trade  Negotiations  to  make  an 
intensive  study  of  our  future  trade  requirements 
and  needs. 

I  would  hope  that  Members  of  the  Congress 
and  leaders  of  Labor,  Business  and  Agriculture 
will  work  with  the  Executive  Branch  in  this 
effort.  To  help  develop  the  foundations  of  a  far- 
reaching  policy,  I  will  issue  an  Executive  Or- 
der that  establishes  a  wide  basis  for  consultation 
and  assistance  in  this  important  work. 

An   Expanding   Era   in  World  Trade 

The  proposals  in  this  message  have  been 
shaped  to  one  purpose — to  develop  the  promise 
of  an  expanding  era  in  world  trade. 

We  started  on  this  road  three  and  a  half  dec- 
ades ago.  In  the  course  of  that  journey,  the 
American  farmer,  the  businessman,  the  worker 
and  the  consumer  have  benefitted. 

The  road  ahead  can  lead  to  new  levels  of 


prosperity  and  achievement  for  the  American 
people.  The  Trade  Expansion  Act  of  1968  will 
speed  us  on  the  way. 

I  urge  the  Congress  to  give  this  important 
measure  its  prompt  and  favorable  consideration. 

Lyndon  B.  Johnson 

The  White  House,  May  28,  1968. 


Convention  on  Customs  Council 
Transmitted  to  the  Senate 

Message  From  President  Johnson 

White  House  press  release  dated  May  20 

To  the  Senate  of  the  United  States: 

Today  I  ask  the  Senate  to  give  its  advice  and 
consent  to  accession  by  the  United  States  to  the 
Convention  Establishing  a  Customs  Coopera- 
tion Council.^ 

The  Council  is  the  major  international  organi- 
zation for  improving  and  simplifying  customs 
procedures.  It  started  out  as  largely  a  European 
organization.  Now  53  countries  are  members. 
Almost  all  our  major  trading  partners  partici- 
pate in  its  work. 

The  objectives  of  the  Convention  are  to  assist 
international  trade  by  working  for : 

— uniformity  and  simplicity  in  the  customs 
systems  of  its  members ; 

■ — solutions  to  customs  administration  prob- 
lems ; 

— cooperation  among  governments  in  these 
matters. 

The  Council's  recommendations  are  not  bind- 
ing but  they  are  widely  accepted  by  most  of  our 
major  trading  partners.  They  have  an  increas- 
ing importance  for  United  States  trade. 

The  United  States  sends  observers  to  meetings 
of  the  Council  and  its  Committees.  I  believe 
that  accession  to  the  Convention  would  be  of 
clear  advantage  to  the  United  States.  We  would 
have  increased  opportunities  to  participate  in 
the  Coimcil's  recommendations  and  to  benefit 
from  its  work. 

As  the  world's  largest  trading  nation,  we 
would  be  better  able  to  do  our  part  in  helping 


'  For  text,  see  S.  Ex.  G,  90th  Cong.,  2a  sess. 


810 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BT7LLETIN 


to  improve  customs  procedures  so  as  to  expand 
international  trade. 

I  recommend  that  the  Senate  give  favorable 
consideration  to  United  States  accession  to  this 
Convention. 

Ltndon  B.  Johnson 

The  Whtte  House, 
May  20, 1968. 


TREATY  INFORMATION 


Current  Actions 


MULTILATERAL 


1967  Report  on  Automotive  Trade 
With  Canada  Sent  to  Congress 

Letter  of  Transmittal 

White  House  press  release  dated  May  17 

To  the  Congress  of  the  United  States: 

I  am  pleased  to  transmit  to  the  Congress  the 
second  annual  report  on  the  operation  of  the 
Automotive  Products  Trade  Act  of  1965.^  By 
this  Act  Congress  authorized  implementation  of 
the  United  States-Canada  Automotive  Prod- 
ucts Agreement. 

The  Agreement  was  designed  to  create  a 
broader  U.S.-Canadian  market  for  automotive 
products  to  obtain  for  both  countries  and  both 
industries  the  benefits  of  specialization  and 
lai-ge-scale  production.  We  have  moved  far 
toward  this  goal. 

Automotive  trade  between  the  United  States 
and  Canada  was  $730  million  in  1964,  the  year 
before  the  Agreement  went  into  force.  Trade  in 
1967  was  over  $3.3  billion.  The  Agreement  has 
also  stimulated  increased  trade  in  allied 
products. 

Industry,  labor  and  consumers  in  both  coun- 
tries continue  to  benefit  from  this  growth  in 
commerce  and  from  the  increased  efficiency  made 
possible  by  the  Agreement.  It  is  dramatic  proof 
of  what  can  be  accomplished  when  friends  and 
neighbors  choose  the  path  of  cooperation. 


Lyndon  B.  Johnson 


The  White  House, 
May  17, 1968. 


'  The  Sl-page  report  Canadian  Aiitomohile  Agree- 
ment, Second  Annual  Report  of  the  President  to  the 
Congress  on  the  Operation  of  the  Automohile  Products 
Act  of  1065  ( printed  for  the  use  of  the  Senate  Commit- 
tee on  Finance)  is  for  sale  by  the  Superintendent  of 
Documents,  U.S.  Government  PrintiBg  Office,  Wash- 
ington, D.C.  20402  (35  cents) . 


Exhibitions 

Convention  regarding  international  exhibitions.  Signed 

at    Paris    Noveml)er   22,    1928.    Entered    into   force 

January  17, 1930. 

Accession  deposited:  United  States,  May  24, 19(58. 

Enters  into  force  for  the  United  States:  June  24, 1968. 
Protocol  modifying  the  convention  of  1928  relating  to 

International  exhibitions.  Signed  at  Paris  May  10, 

1948.  Entered  into  force  May  5, 1949. 

Accession  deposited:  United  States,  May  24,  1968. 

Enters  into  force  for  the  United  States:  June  24,  1968. 
Protocol  modifying  Article  IV  of  the  convention  signed 

at  Paris  November  22, 1928,  as  modified,  dealing  with 

international  exhibitions.  Done  at  Paris  November  16, 

1966.' 

Accession  deposited:  United  States,  May  24, 1968. 

Finance 

Tarbela  Development  Fund  agreement.  Done  at  Wash- 
ington May  2,  1968.  Open  for  signature  imtil  May  15, 
1968.  Entered  into  force  May  2, 1968. 
Signatures:  Canada,  France,  International  Bank  for 
Reconstruction    and    Development,    International 
Bank  for  Reconstruction  and  Development  as  Ad- 
ministrator of  the  Indus  Basin  Development  Fund, 
Italy,  Pakistan,  United  Kingdom,  United  States, 
May  2, 1908. 

Maritime  Matters 

Convention  on  the  Intergovernmental  Maritime  Con- 
sultative Organization.  Signed  at  Geneva  March  6, 
1948.  Entered  into  force  March  17,  1958.  TIAS  4044. 
Signature:  Uruguay,  May  10,  1968." 

Amendment  to  article  28  of  the  convention  on  the  inter- 
governmental   maritime    consultative    organization 
(TIAS  4044).  Adopted  at  Paris  September  28,  1965. 
Enters  into  force  November  3, 1968. 
Proclaimed    hy   the   President:   May   24,    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, 1966.  TIAS  .5881. 
Ratification  deposited:  Mexico,  April  5, 1968. 

Safety  at  Sea 

Amendments  to  the  international  convention  for  the 
safety  of  life  at  .sea,  1960  (TIAS  5780).  Adopted  at 
London  October  25, 1967.' 
Accepted  hy  the  President:  May  24,  1968. 


'  Not  in  force. 

'  Signed  without  reservation  as  to  acceptance. 


JUNE    IT.    196$ 


811 


Trade,  Transit 

Convention  on  transit  trade  of  landlocked  states.  Done 
at  New  York  July  8,  1965.  Entered  into  force  June  9, 
1967.' 
Accession  deposited:  Burundi,  May  1, 1968. 


PUBLICATIONS 


BILATERAL 

Guyana 

Agreement  relating  to  the  reciprocal  granting  of  au- 
thorizations to  permit  licensed  amateur  radio  opera- 
tors of  either  country  to  operate  their  stations  in  the 
other  country.  Effected  by  exchange  of  notes  at 
Georgetown  May  6  and  13,  1968.  Entered  into  force 
May  13, 1968. 

Japan 

Agreement  concerning  Naniw  Shoto  and  other  islands, 
with  exchange  of  notes.   Signed  at  Tokyo  April  5, 
1968. 
Enters  into  force:  June  26, 1968. 

Korea 

Agreement  for  sales  of  agricultural  commodities  relat- 
ing to  the  agreement  of  March  25,  1967,  as  amended 
(TIAS  6272,  6455).  Signed  at  Seoul  May  10,  1968. 
Entered  into  force  May  10,  1968. 

Luxembourg 

Agreement  amending  annex  B  of  the  mutual  defense 
assistance  agreement  of  January  27,  1950.  Effected 
by  exchange  of  notes  at  Luxembourg  May  9  and  17, 
1968.  Entered  into  force  May  17,  1968. 

Montserrat 

Agreement  relating  to  the  establishment  of  a  Peace 
Corps  program  in  Montserrat.  Effected  by  exchange 
of  notes  at  Bridgetown  and  Montserrat  April  3  and 
May  16,  1968.  Entered  into  force  May  16,  1968. 

Pakistan 

Agreement  for  sales  of  agricultural  commodities  relat- 
ing to  the  agreements  of  May  11  and  August  3,  1967 
(TIAS  6258,  6320).  Signed  at  Islamabad  May  16, 
1968.  Entered  into  force  May  16,  1968. 

Tunisia 

Agreement  for  sales  of  agricultural  commodities  relat- 
ing to  tie  agreement  of  March  17,  1967  (TIAS  6323). 
Signed  at  Tunis  May  17,  1968.  Entered  into  force 
May  17, 1968. 


'  Not  in  force  for  the  United  States. 


Recent  Releases 

For  sale  hy  the  Superintendent  of  Documents,  U.S. 
Government  Printing  Office,  Washington,  D.C.  20'i02. 
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. 

Double  Taxation — Taxes  on  Income.  Convention  with 
Canada,  modifying  and  supplementing  the  convention 
of  March  4,  1942,  as  modified  and  supplemented — 
Signed  at  Washington  October  25,  1966.  Entered  into 
force  December  20,  1967.  TIAS  6415.  7  pp.  100. 

Trade  in  Cotton  Textiles.  Agreement  with  the  Philip- 
pines, amending  the  agreement  of  September  21,  1967. 
Exchange  of  notes — Signed  at  Washington  Decem- 
ber 26,  1967.  Entered  into  force  December  26,  1967. 
TIAS  6416.  3  pp.  50. 

Investment  Guaranties.  Agreement  with  Senegal — 
Signed  at  Dakar  June  12,  1963.  Entered  into  force 
provisionally  June  12,  1963.  TIAS  6417.  4  pp.  50. 

Slavery.  Supplementary  Convention  with  other  govern- 
ments— Done  at  Geneva  September  7,  1956.  Entered 
into  force  with  respect  to  the  United  States  Decem- 
ber 6.  1967.  TIAS  6418.  60  pp.  200. 

Surplus  Property — Rescheduling  of  Payments  Under 
Agreement  of  May  28,  1947.  Memorandum  of  agree- 
ment with  Indonesia — Signed  at  Djakarta  December  30, 
1967.  Entered  into  force  December  30,  1967.  TIAS  6419. 
5  pp.  50. 

Settlement  of  the  Pious  Fund  Claim.  Agreement  with 
Mexico.  Exchange  of  notes — Signed  at  Tlateloleo  and 
M(5xico  August  1,  1967.  Entered  into  force  August  1, 

1967.  TIAS  6420.  7  pp.  10^. 

Amendments  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  Nations 
Food    and    Agriculture    Organization,    as    Amended. 

Adopted  at  the  14th  session  of  the  Food  and  Agricul- 
ture Organization,  Rome,  November  4r-23,  1967.  TIAS 
6421.  2  pp.  50. 

Trade  in  Cotton  Textiles.  Arrangement  with  Japan. 
Exchange  of  notes — Signed  at  Washington  January  12, 

1968.  Entered  into  force  January  12,  1968.  Effective 
January  1, 1968.  TIAS  6437.  30  pp.  15^. 


812 


DEPARTJIENT  OF  STATE  BULLETIN' 


INDEX     June  17,  19GS     Vol.  LVIIL  No.  1512 


Africa.    Assistant    Secretary    Palmer   Makes   0- 

Week  Visit  to  Africa 799 

Australia 

President  Johnson's  News  Confereuce  of  May  30 

(excerpts) TNI 

Prime  Minister  Gorton  of  Australia  Visits  tlie 
United  States  (Gorton,  JoLusou,  (romniuiii- 
que)       78G 

Canada.  1967  Report  on  Automotive  Trade  Willi 

Canada  Sent  to  Congress  (. J olinson)    ....       811 

China.  U.S.  Regrets  Communist  Cliinese  I'ost- 
pouemeut  of  Warsaw  Meeting  (Department 
statement) 798 

Congress 

Convention  on  Customs  Council  Transmitted  to 

the  Senate  (.Johnson) 810 

Greater   Prosperity   Through   E.xpaudod   World 

Trade  (President's  me.ssage  to  Congress)  .  .  807 
1907  Report  on  Automotive  Trade  With  Canada 

Sent  to   Congress    (.Johnson) 811 

Economic  Affairs 

Convention  on  Customs  Council  Transmitted  to 

the  Senate  (Johnson) 810 

Greater  Prosperity   Through   Expanded    World 

Trade  (President's  mes.sage  to  Congress)  .  .  807 
19(i7  Report  on  Automotive  Trade  With  Canada 

Sent  to  Congress  (Johnson) 811 

President  Johnson's  Xews  Conference  of  May  28 

(excerpts) 778 

The    United    States   Role   in   the    International 

Economy    (Solomon) 800 

El  Salvador.  President  Johnson  Hails  Progress 
Since  Punta  del  Este  Meeting  (Johnson, 
Sanchez) 797 

Europe.  Tasks  and  Responsibilities  of  the  At- 
lantic Partnership   (Humphrey) 793 

France.  President  Johnson's  News  Conference  of 
May  30  (excerpts) 781 

Human  Rights.  President  Appoints  Mr.  McGill 

to  Human  Rights  Year  Commission     ....       799 

Israel.  Israel  Pays  Compensation  Claimed  for 
Men  Killed  on  U.S.S.  Liberty  (Department 
statement) 799 

Latin  America.  President  Johnson  Hails  I'rog- 
ress  Since  Punta  del  Este  Meeting  (Johnson, 
Sanchez) 797 

Military  Affairs 

General    Westmoreland    Reports    on    ^■iet-Nam 

Military  Situation  (Westmoreland)  ....  784 
President  Johnson's  News  Conference  of  May  30 

(excerpts) 781 

North  Atlantic  Treaty  Organization.  Tasks  and 
Responsibilities  of  the  Atlantic  Partnership 
(Humphrey) 793 

Presidential  Documents 

Convention  on  Customs  Council  Transmitted  to 

the  Senate 810 

Greater  Prosperity  Through   Expanded   World 

Trade 807 

1907  Report  on  Automotive  Trade  With  Canada 

Sent  to  Congress 811 

President  Johnson  and  Jlr.  Vance  Review  Prog- 
ress of  Paris  Talks 780 

President  Johnson  Hails  Progress  Since  Punta 

del  Este  Meeting 797 

President  Johnson's  News  Conference  of  May  28 

lexcerpts) "Vs 

I'li'sident  Johnson's  News  Conference  of  May  30 

I  excerpts) *.     .       781 

Prime  Minister  Gorton  of  Australia  Visits  the 

United  States 786 


Publications.  Recent  Releases 812 

Trade 

Greater   Prosperity   Through    Expanded   World 

Trade  (Pre.sidei)t's  message  to  Congress)     .     .       807 

1907  Report  on  Automotive  Trade  With  Canada 

Sent  to  Congress  ( Johusson) 811 

The   United    States    Role   in    the    International 

Economy    (Solomon) 800 

Treaty  Information 

Convention  on  Customs  Council  Transmitted  lo 

the  Senate  (Johnson)     810 

Current  Actions 811 

Viet-Nam 

General    Westmoreland    Reports    on    Viet-Nam 

Military  Situation  (W'estmoreland)     ....       784 

I'resident  Johnson  and  Jlr.  Vance  Review  Prog- 
ress of  Paris  Talks 780 

President  Johnson's  News  Conference  of  May  28 

(excerpts) 778 

I'resident  Johnson's  News  Conference  of  May  30 

(excerpts) 781 

Prime  Minister  Gorton  of  Australia  Visits  the 
United  States  (Gorton,  Johnson,  communi- 
que)        786 

United  States  and  North  Viet-Nam  Hold  Third 
Week  of  Official  Conversations  at  Paris 
(Harriman,  U.S.  papers) 769 

Name  Index 

Gorton.  John  G 781, 786 

Harriman,  W.  Averell 769 

Humphrey,  Vice  President 793 

John.son,  President 778, 780 

781,  786,  797,  807,  810,  811 

McGill,  Ralph 799 

Sanchez  Hernandez,  Fidel 797 

Solomon,  Anthony  M 800 

Vance,  Cyrus  R 780 

Westmoreland,  Gen.  William  C 781, 784 


No. 
tl21 


Date 

5/27 


122    5/27 


Check  List  of  Department  of  State 
Press  Releases:  May  27-June  2 

Pre.ss  releases  may  be  obtained  from  the  Office 
of  News,  Department  of  State,  Washington,  D.C. 
20520. 

Releases  issued  prior  to  May  27  which  appear 
in  this  issue  of  the  Buli.kti,\  are  Xos.  106  of 
May  16,  117  of  May  23,  and  119  of  May  24. 

Subject 

Linowitz :  "Putting  the  Alliance  In- 
to Perspective." 

Harriman:  fifth  session,  U.S.- 
North  Vietnamese  official  conver- 
sations. 

Rusk:  interview  for  Uungci  Shunjti 
of  Tokyo. 

U.S.-North  Vietnamese  official  con- 
versations: U.S.  paper  on  third- 
party  peace  projiosals. 

U.S.-North  Vietnamese  otliiial  (on- 
versations:  U.S.  paper  on  .North 
Vietnamese  Army  in  South  Viet- 
Nam. 

Program  for  visit  of  President  Jose 
Joaquin  Trejos  Fernandez  of  the 
Republic  of  Costa  Rica. 

Harriman :  sixth  session,  U.S.- 
North  Vietnamese  official  conver- 
sations. 


*Xot  printed. 

fHeld  for  a  later  issue  of  the  Bulletin. 


tl23 

5/28 

124 

5/28 

125 

5/28 

*126 

5/31 

127 

5/31 

U.S.   GOVERNMENT  PRINTINS  OFFICE:  1966 


SUPERINTENDENT  OF  DOCUMENTS 
.S.   GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
WASHINGTON.  D.C.     20402 


OFFICIAL  BUSINESS 


POSTAGE  AND    FEES    PAID 
U.S.  GOVERNMENT   PRINTING  OFFICE 


THE  OFFICIAL  WEEKLY  RECORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POLICY 


THE 

DEPARTMENT 

OF 

STATE 

BULLETIN 


Vol.  LVIII,  No.  1513 


June2i,  1968 


RETURN  TO  GLASSBORO 
AddrcHS  by  President  Johnson     813 

U.S.  REVIEWS  NORTH  VIETNAMESE  VIOLATIONS  OF  AGREEMENT  ON  LAOS 

Remarks  hy  Ainba^mdor  W.  Averell  Harriman     817 

SECRETARY  RUSK  INTERVIEWED  FOR  JAPANESE  MAGAZINE     821 

SECURITY  COUNCIL  BANS  ALL  TRADE  WITH  SOUTHERN  RHODESIA 

U.S.  Statements  and  Text  of  Resolution     84S 


For  index  see  inside  hack  cover 


THE   DEPARTMENT   OF  STATE 


BULLETIN 


Vol.  LVIII,  No.  1513 
June  24,  1968 


For  sale  by  the  Superintendent  of  Documents 

U.S.  Government  Printing  Office 

Wasbington,  D.C.  20402 

PRICE: 

S2  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,  1906). 

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.xed  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  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 
interest. 

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


".  .  .  the  old  antagonisms  which  we  call  the  ^cold  war''  must 
fade.  .  .  .  I  believe  that  the  txoo  great  powers  who  met  here 
.  .  .  last  year  have  begun — have  begun  however  haltingly — to 
bridge  the  gulf  that  has  separated  them,  for  a  quarter  of  a 
century." 


Return  to  Glassboro 


Address  by  President  Johnson ' 


I  am  glad  to  return  to  Glassboro.  I  shall  al- 
ways remember  this  town  as  a  place  of  warm 
friendship  and  hospitable  people.  The  world 
will  remember  Glassboro,  I  hope,  as  a  place 
where  underetanding  between  nations  was  ad- 
vanced by  the  United  States  and  the  Soviet 
Union. 

It  was  last  June,  about  a  year  ago,  that  Chair- 
man [of  the  Council  of  Ministers  of  the  Soviet 
Union  Aleksei  N.]  Kosygin  and  I  sat  down  in 
President  [of  Glassboro  State  College  Thomas 
E.]  Robinson's  living  room  for  2  days  of  dis- 
cussions.^ Our  talks  ranged  over  the  whole 
globe,  but  we  talked  mainly  about  four  urgent 
matters : 

First,  we  discussed  the  steps  toward  peace  in 
the  Middle  East. 

Second,  we  discussed  ways  to  move  the  con- 
flict in  Viet-Nam  from  the  battlefield  to  the  con- 
ference table. 

Third,  we  tried  to  move  forward  a  treaty  ban- 
ning the  spread  of  nuclear  weapons. 

Fourth,  we  stressed  the  need  for  broad  talks 
at  high  levels  between  our  two  coimtries  to  halt 
the  arms  race  in  strategic  weapons. 

The  year  since  then  has  been  eventful  and 
uncertain — like  the  age  that  we  live  in.  We  have 
lived  through  a  year  of  achievement — and  frus- 
tration. Too  often,  the  frustration  seemed  to 
obscure  hope.  Too  often,  angry  recriminations 
seemed  to  dominate  the  public  dialog  in 
America. 

But  hope  and  achievement  are  certainly  there 

^  Made  at  commencement  exercises  at  Glassboro  State 
College,  Glassboro,  N.J.,  on  June  4  (White  House  press 
release). 

'For  background,  see  Bui-letin  of  July  10,  1967, 
p.  35. 


to  see.  Our  relations  with  the  Soviet  Union  offer 
an  example.  This  has  been  a  time  of  unusual 
strain  and  difficulty.  But  what  period  in  our 
history  has  been  more  productive  in  promoting 
cooperation  between  our  two  countries? 

Many  feared  that  the  war  in  Viet-Nam 
would  prevent  any  progress.  Many  predictions 
were  made  to  this  effect.  But  despite  the  predic- 
tions and  despite  the  difficulties,  we  have  agreed 
upon  a  treaty  outlawing  armaments  in  outer 
space.  We  have  negotiated  a  treaty  banning  the 
spread  of  nuclear  weapons,  and  it  has  now  been 
tabled.  We  have  achieved  a  civil  air  agreement 
that  permits  Soviet  Union  planes  to  land  in  the 
United  States  and  United  States  planes  to  land 
in  the  Soviet  Union.  And  we  are  moving  toward 
other  agreements. 

So  I  think  my  return  visit  to  Glassboro  is  a 
good  time  to  reflect  upon  that  progress — al- 
though in  this  day  and  time,  to  talk  about 
progress  sometimes  is  taboo.  It  is  a  good  time, 
I  think,  also  to  talk  about  some  principles  that 
underlie  our  search  for  peace,  principles  which 
I  hope  that  each  of  you  and  that  all  Americans 
would  do  well  to  remember.  They  are  principles 
which  are  underscored  by  the  events  of  this 
tumultuous  year  since  the  Glassboro  meeting. 

Making  Peace  Is  a  Tough,  Slow  Business 

The  first  one,  often  stated  but  often  over- 
looked, is  this:  Making  peace  is  a  tough,  diffi- 
cult, slow  business — often  much  tougher  and 
often  much  slower  than  making  war. 

Certainly  these  months  have  taught  us  that 
peace  cannot  be  bought  by  the  cheap  cui'rency 
of  wishful  thinking  or  by  slogans.  It  cannot  be 
won  by  withdrawal,  isolation,  or  indifference 
or  wishing  that  we  could  have  peace  or  by  de- 


JUNE    24,    1968 


813 


siring  peace.  Nor  can  it  be  achieved  by  tlie  ex- 
pensive currency  of  nuclear  weaponry. 

Peace  must  be  earned,  and  that  requires  a  con- 
tinuous process  of  building — building  brick  by 
brick,  agreement  by  agreement.  That  requires 
patience.  That  requires  sturdiness.  That  re- 
quires judgment. 

The  cause  of  peace  demands  responsibility 
and  demands  restraint  from  all  of  vis — from  the 
young  and  from  the  old,  from  the  political  lead- 
ers and  the  candidates  and  from  the  plain  citi- 
zens, from  the  officeholders  and  from  the 
officeseekers. 

Today  in  two  areas  of  danger  and  conflict — 
the  Middle  East  and  Viet-Nam — events  drive 
home  the  difficulty  of  making  peace. 

In  the  Middle  East  it  has  been  almost  a  year 
since  the  6-day  war,  a  year  in  which  millions 
have  been  denied  peace  and  progress. 

The  people  of  that  region  deserve  a  peace  that 
is  based  upon  a  true  and  a  lasting  settlement — a 
settlement  which  respects  the  integrity  of  every 
nation,  which  frees  every  nation  from  the  threat 
of  attack ;  a  settlement  which  the  nations  of  the 
region  themselves  should  reach.  So  far,  progress 
has  not  been  very  satisfying.  But  we  shall  con- 
tinue, and  we  must  continue,  to  try. 

The  United  States  has  been  working  every 
day,  in  world  capitals  and  in  the  United  Na- 
tions, trying  to  promote  a  fair  and  a  stable 
peace. 

Ambassador  [Gunnar]  Jarring,  acting  with 
the  authority  of  the  United  Nations  Security 
Council,  is  in  contact  with  the  parties.  The 
United  States  strongly  supports  the  Security 
Coimcil  resolution  of  November  22,  1967,'  and 
Ambassador  Jarring's  peacemaking  efforts. 
And  we  are  urging  that  neither  side  pass  up  any 
reasonable  path  to  negotiations. 

In  Viet-Nam  the  agonizing  difficulties  of 
building  peace  are  made  clear  every  day,  just  as 
they  are  in  the  Middle  East. 

Two  months  ago,  with  a  major  act  of  deescala- 
tion  taken  upon  our  initiative,  we  brought  about 
the  talks  in  Paris.  We  have  moved  at  least  a  step 
closer,  I  hope,  toward  peace  in  Southeast  Asia. 
But  as  yet,  the  other  side  has  had  nothing  of 
substance  to  say  to  those  of  us  who  seek  a  just 
peace  in  Asia. 

First,  in  response  to  our  concrete  proposals 
the  other  side  has  offered  only  propaganda. 

Second,  their  representatives  in  Paris  continue 
to  deny  a  fact  which  all  the  world  knows  to  be 

'  For  text,  see  ibid.,  Dec.  18, 1967,  p.  843. 


814 


true :  the  massive  presence  of  their  North  Viet- 
namese troops  in  South  Viet-Nam. 

Finally,  the  North  Vietnamese  in  Paris  will 
say  to  us  only,  "Stop  the  rest  of  your  bomb- 
ing"— at  a  time  when  North  Vietnamese  sup- 
plies and  material,  more  North  Vietnamese  sup- 
plies and  material  than  ever  before,  are  flooding 
into  South  Viet-Nam. 

An  honorable  peace  requires  some  gestures  on 
the  other  side  toward  peace.  Thus  far,  we  have 
met  with  little  more  than  bellicose  statements 
and  evasions. 

So — until  the  men  in  Hanoi  face  the  real 
problems  of  ending  the  war — we  must  stand  firm 
and  fast.  We  must  stand  patiently  and  hope- 
fully but  with  determination,  too. 

Progress  Toward   Control  of  Nuclear  Weapons 

A  second  principle  in  the  search  for  peace  is 
this :  The  road  there  is  far  less  rocky  when  the 
world's  two  greatest  powers — the  United  States 
and  the  Soviet  Union — are  willing  to  travel  part 
of  the  way  together. 

Our  progress  toward  a  nuclear  nonprolifera- 
tion  treaty  in  the  past  year  gives  evidence  of 
this. 

The  control  of  nuclear  weapons  is  a  matter 
which  goes  far  beyond  the  interest  of  the 
United  States  and  the  Soviet  Union.  It  touches 
the  life  of  every  nation  and  every  human  being 
on  this  earth. 

One  of  my  first  acts  upon  becoming  President 
of  the  United  States  was  to  immediately  instruct 
our  negotiators  to  seek  actively  a  nonprolifera- 
tion  treaty.  Now,  after  more  than  4  long  years 
of  discussion,  a  treaty  to  prevent  the  spread  of 
nuclear  weapons  has  been  laid  before  the  United 
Nations  General  Assembly.* 

I  do  not  want  to  anticipate  the  vote  of  the 
United  Nations  on  this  treaty.  But  I  do  hope — ■ 
and  I  do  believe — that  an  overwhelming  major- 
ity of  the  nations  will  support  it.  If  tliey  do, 
and  if  we  build  upon  this  treaty  in  the  years 
to  come,  then  we  can  all  remember  the  year  1968 
as  a  year  of  victory  in  the  world,  a  year  in  which 
manlrind  took  its  most  creative  step  since  the 
dawn  of  the  atomic  age. 

But  beyond  the  treaty,  there  is  much  more] 
to  be  done.  The  nations  which  we  are  asking  to 
forgo  nuclear  weapons  are  now,  in  turn,  urging 
the  two  great  powers,  the  United  States  and  the 


'  For  background  and  text  of  the  draft  treaty,  see 
iiid.,  May  20, 1968,  p.  635. 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN: 


I 


Soviet  Union,  to  scale  down  the  nuclear  arms 
race;  and  these  nations  deserve  an  answer 
from  us.  The  answer  can  only  be  found  in 
disarmament. 

For  our  part,  the  United  States  is  ready  now 
to  move  unmediately  in  the  direction  of  dis- 
armament if  our  two  nations  can  reach  binding 
agreements  which  preserve  the  security  of  each 
nation.  The  United  States  is  ready  now  to  begin 
such  agreements. 

Steps  Toward   Peace   During   Past  Year 

A  third  principle  underscored  in  the  last  year 
is  this :  Peace  will  be  achieved  not  only  by  re- 
solving the  bitter  conflicts  of  today.  Even  after 
we  end  these  conflicts,  there  remains  another 
task:  to  build  a  pattern  of  cooperation  in  the 
world. 

The  Middle  East,  Viet-Nam,  the  nuclear  arms 
race — these  are  all  conflicts ;  and  as  we  all  know, 
conflicts  are  the  stuff  of  headlmes.  Conflicts  are 
the  life-or-death  issues  of  foreign  policy.  They 
are  our  daily  fare — the  bi-eakfast,  the  lunch,  the 
dinner — of  those  who  are  responsible  for  Amer- 
ica's security  today. 

But  during  the  past  year,  the  work  of  peace 
has  been  gomg  on  in  many  ways  that  rarely 
make  headlines — on  some  issues  which  are  less 
than  life-or-death  matters.  But  as  these  issues 
touch  on  our  relations  with  another  great  power, 
the  Soviet  Union — which  you  good  people  here 
at  Glassboro,  at  the  college  and  in  the  com- 
munity, did  so  much  to  try  to  help  us  promote — 
they  are  important  nonetheless. 

During  the  last  year  we  completed  work  with 
the  Soviet  Union  on  a  treaty  forbidding  weap- 
ons in  outer  space. 

During  the  last  year  we  completed  work  with 
the  Soviet  Union  on  an  agreement  to  assist 
astronauts  downed  in  either  coimtry. 

"We  completed  work  during  the  last  year  on  a 
new  consular  treaty. 

"We  completed  work  during  the  last  year  on 
an  agreement  permitting  the  Soviet  Union's 
planes  to  land  in  the  United  States  and  the 
planes  of  the  United  States  of  America  to  land 
in  the  Soviet  Union. 

Only  yesterday  your  Government  began  talks 
with  the  Soviet  Union  about  a  renewal  of  our 
cultural  exchange  agreement  with  the  Soviet 
Union. 

Xow,  we  believe  genuinely  that  every  one  of 
those  steps  is  a  step  toward  peace. 

The  disagreements  between  the  Soviet  Union 


JUXB    24,    1968 


and  the  United  States,  of  course,  have  not  been 
removed — not  by  any  means. 

— We  believe  that  there  should  be  a  realistic 
enforcement  of  the  1962  Geneva  accords  on 
Laos.  We  believe  that  agreements  solemnly 
made  should  be  solemnly  honored. 

— We  have  been  unable  to  cooperate  on  steps 
toward  a  successful  peace  in  the  Middle  East. 

— We  have  yet  to  win  an  agreement  which 
would  avoid  a  costly  anti-ballistic-missile  race 
between  the  United  States  and  the  Soviets.  We 
are  ready  to  make  such  an  agi-eement — and  we 
urge  the  Soviets  to  join  us,  as  we  urged  them  to 
set  a  date  for  such  a  meeting  when  we  met  here 
at  your  college  campus. 

But  in  the  last  year  we  have  made  some  prog- 
ress. We  have  proved  that  we  can  agree,  can 
agree  in  part,  on  some  occasions  at  least  on  some 
issues.  We  have  proved  that  our  two  countries 
can  behave  as  responsible  members  of  the  fam- 
ily of  nations. 

And  that  is  a  hopeful  sign  indeed. 

To  those  of  you  who  helped  us  to  that  end, 
again  I  say  thank  you. 

New  Programs  of  Cooperation  Proposed 

There  are  many  other  fields  in  which  we 
should  begin  to  build  new  programs  of  coopera- 
tion. Today  in  response  to  the  invitation  of  your 
great  Governor,  Governor  [of  New  Jersey  Rich- 
ard J.]  Hughes,  and  your  president.  President 
Robinson,  to  come  back  to  Glassboro,  I  want 
to  make  some  additional  suggestions  in  the  form 
of  proposals. 

Scientists  from  this  country  and  the  Soviet 
Union — and  from  50  other  countries — have 
already  begim  an  international  biological  pro- 
gram to  enrich  our  understanding  of  man  and 
his  environment. 

I  propose  that  we  make  this  effort  a  perma- 
nent concern  of  our  nations.  I  propose  that  the 
United  States  scientists  join  with  the  scientists 
of  the  Soviet  Union  and  other  nations  to  form 
an  international  council  on  the  human  environ- 
ment. 

Second,  I  propose  that  we  step  up  our  efforts 
to  develop  a  global  satellite  commimications 
system.  The  United  States  believes  that  better 
communications  are  essential  to  mutual  under- 
standing between  nations.  That  is  why  we  pro- 
posed such  a  system  in  1963.  Now,  more  than  60 
nations,  large  and  small,  have  joined.  We  look 
forward  to  the  day  when  the  Soviet  Union  and 


815 


I 


the  nations  of  Eastern  Europe  will  join  the 
system. 

Finally,  I  can  suggest  other  opportunities  for 
cooperation  between  the  United  States,  the 
Soviet  Union,  and  other  nations — cooperation 
to  extend  our  knowledge,  cooperation  to  develop 
our  resources  which  man  has  scarcely  touched. 

There  is  the  problem  of  exploring  the  deep 
ocean  floor. 

There  is  the  American  proposal  for  an  inter- 
national decade  of  undersea  exploration. 

There  is  the  continuing  exploration  of  the 
Arctic  and  the  Antarctic.  In  the  Antarctic  we 
are  already  working  with  the  Soviet  Union, 
and  the  area  has  been  freed  from  military  ten- 
sion by  our  treaty  of  1962. 

Finally,  there  is  the  great  task  of  turning 
to  productive  uses  the  great  rain-rich  forests  of 
the  tropics. 

"WHiile  great  conflicts  persist,  we  tend  to  over- 
look these  opportunities.  But  it  is  by  small 
threads,  too,  that  we  will  weave  a  strong  fabric 
of  peace  in  the  world. 

A  great  scientist  was  once  asked  what  moved 
him  to  seek  out  the  great  principles  of  physics. 
He  replied:  "I  hope  that  I  leave  this  world  a 
little  more  orderly  than  I  found  it." 

It  was  with  this  aim  that  I  came  here  last 
year  to  meet  with  Chairman  Kosygin.  And  it  is 
with  this  aim  that  I  come  here  again  today. 

I  hope  that  those  of  you  in  this  year's  gradu- 
ating class  will  recognize  the  sacrifices,  the  in- 
vestment, the  hopes  that  have  gone  into  bring- 
ing you  to  this  day. 

I  hope  that  you  will  realize  that  we  will  now 
look  to  you  to  give  back  to  society  not  only  the 
great  investment  that  society  has  made  in  you 
but  will  produce  for  it  not  only  return  of  that 
investment  but  rich  dividends  that  will  flow 
from  it. 

Hope  for  a  More  Orderly  World 

I  believe  that  the  old  antagonisms  which  we 
call  the  "cold  war"  must  fade,  and  I  believe  they 
will  fade  under  stable,  under  enlightened, 
leadership. 

I  believe  that  all  of  the  nations  of  the  world 
will  try  to  develop  and  provide  that  leadership, 
as  I  believe  we  have  developed  it  and  are  pro- 
viding it  here  at  Glassboro  this  morning. 

I  believe  that  the  nations  of  the  world  that 
are  now  haunted  by  the  ancient  hatreds— still 
fearful  of  new  steps  toward  accommodation — 
will  m  time,  someday,  come  to  use  their  talents 


and  their  resources  to  enrich  the  whole  human 
family. 

After  all,  that  is  our  excuse  and  tliat  is  our 
justification  for  being  here — to  better  humanity. 

I  believe  that  the  two  great  powers  who  met 
here  in  your  hospitable  surroundings  last  year 
have  begun — have  begun  however  haltingly — to 
bridge  the  gulf  that  has  separated  them  for 
a  quarter  of  a  century.  And  in  this  day  when 
some  are  not  too  hopeful,  I  am  ojjtimistic  and 
I  believe  that,  with  the  leadership  that  you  and 
the  leaders  of  your  nation  and  the  leadership 
of  people  like  you  in  other  nations  through  their 
leaders,  we  can  bridge  the  gulf  tliat  has  sep- 
arated us  for  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century. 

I  believe  that  other  nations  that  are  now 
locked  in  bitterness  and  strife  will  some  day 
come  to  understand  their  own  responsibilities 
for  world  peace  and  for  world  progress.  And 
thus  the  threat  of  disaster  for  us  all  will 
subside. 

We  must  recognize  that  there  is  another 
world  and  that  we  are  a  part  of  that  world. 
We  must  recognize  that  we  cannot  long  exist  as 
a  lone  fortress. 

Now,  the  threats  that  I  spoke  of  will  not 
subside  over  night.  We  will  continue  to  face 
grave  and  serious  difficulties.  We  will  face  re- 
verses and  setbacks.  The  right  answers  will  often 
seem  unclear. 

There  will  be  much  frustration  and  abuse.  But 
I  hope  that  you  and  all  our  fellow  citizens  will 
try  in  the  days  ahead  to  display  the  fortitude 
and  display  the  forbearance  and  disjjlay  the  un- 
derstanding that  has  symbolized  the  Glassboro 
that  I  know- — the  Glassboro  that  extended  the 
friendly  hand  last  year,  the  Glassboro  that  said 
to  two  leaders:  "Yes,  we  will  be  ready  in  an 
hour  to  provide  an  atmosphere  and  the  accom- 
modations necessary  in  the  hope  that  something 
fruitful  will  eventually  develop."  This  forbear- 
ance and  this  fortitude  are  going  to  be  essential 
in  this  age. 

Our  calling — your  calling  and  my  calling — 
is  to  seek  the  answers,  not  the  slogans ;  to  strive 
to  tip  the  balance  in  the  right  direction,  from 
war  to  peace,  from  hostility  to  reconciliation, 
from  stalemate  to  progress. 

Our  calling,  yours  and  mine,  in  the  words  that 
I  repeated  only  a  moment  ago,  is  to  leave  this 
world  a  little  more  orderly  than  we  found  it. 

Wlien  we  look  at  the  headlines  and  we  re- 
view the  map  of  Asia  or  the  map  of  Europe  or 
the  map  of  our  own  States,  when  we  undertake 
the  assignment  of  leaving  this  world  a  little 


I 


816 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


more  orderlj'  than  we  found  it,  we  have  plenty 
of  objectives.  We  have  an  agenda  that  is  full. 

But  tlie  town  of  Glassboro — and  this  wonder- 
ful college  campus — will  always  be  associated 
with  the  goal  of  leaving  this  world  a  little  more 
orderly  than  we  found  it. 

I  want  to  thank  the  president  and  the  faculty 
and  everv  member  of  this  college  graduating 
class  for  giving  me  this  pleasant  assignment 
and  giving  me  something  to  remember  always. 


U.S.  Reviews  North  Vietnamese 
Violations  of  Agreement  on  Laos 

Following  is  the  text  of  notes  ii^sed  hy  Am- 
iassador  W.  AverelJ  Hamman,  head  of  the 
U.S.  delegation,  at  the  session  of  the  official 
conversations  hetioeen  the  United  States  and 
North  Viet-Nam  held  at  Paris  on  June  5. 

Press  release  131  dated  June  5 

Your  Excellency,  I  want  to  stress  again  what 
I  have  said  in  every  meeting.  We  arc  ready 
now — today — to  discuss  the  question  of  the  ces- 
sation of  bombing  and  related  matters.  You 
have  asked  that  we  acknowledge  or  determine 
our  responsibility  for  the  cessation  of  all  bomb- 
ing. As  we  have  stated,  this  has  never  presented 
an  insurmountable  obstacle  for  us,  and  we  are 
prepared  in  fact  to  cease  bombardment  at  the 
appropriate  time  and  circum.stance.  Accord- 
ingly, I  hope  we  can  proceed  forthwith  to 
discuss  related  matters.  I  hope  this  will  start 
before  the  close  of  our  meeting  today.  But  first 
I  must  call  your  attention  to  the  situation  in 
Laos. 

On  May  30  the  Prime  Minister  of  Laos, 
Prince  Souvanna  Phouma,  spoke  to  his  Parlia- 
ment of  the  crushing  burden  imposed  on  his 
nation  by  the  presence  of  the  North  Vietnamese 
Army  in  Laos.  His  small  country  now  has  to 
maintain  an  army  of  more  than  00,000  men  to 
defend  against  the  invaders  and  has  to  support 
over  half  a  million  refugees  who  have  fled 
Communist-controlled  areas.  The  Prime  Minis- 
ter stressed  that  the  aggression  had  turned  Laos 
into  an  "active  transit  route"  for  North  Viet- 
namese troops  headed  for  South  Viet-Nam.  The 
same  day  that  the  Prime  Minister  spoke,  the 
Royal  Laotian  Government  released  proof  that 
there    were    some    40,000    North    Vietnamese 


soldiers  in  Laos.  These  include  25,000  North 
Vietnamese  regular  soldiers  in  57  battalions  of 
the  North  Vietnamese  Army  and  12,000  other 
North  Vietnamese  in  Laos  maintaining  and 
securing  the  lines  of  communication  of  the 
North  Vietnamese  Army  which  pass  through 
Laos  to  South  Viet-Nam.  Additionally,  some 
3,000  North  Vietnamese  now  serve  in  mixed 
North  Vietnamese  and  Patliet  Lao  military 
units. 

As  you  well  know,  the  Government  of  North 
Viet-Nam  committed  itself  not  to  "use  the  ter- 
ritory of  the  Kingdom  of  Laos  for  interference 
in  the  internal  affairs  of  other  countries''  and  to 
"respect  and  observe  in  every  way  the  sover- 
eignty, independence,  neutrality,  unity  and  ter- 
ritorial integrity  of  tlie  Kingdom  of  Laos." 
These  are  the  actual  words  from  the  Geneva 
Declaration  of  1962,^  signed  by  the  Democratic 
Republic  of  Viet-Nam.  The  deeds  of  North 
Viet-Nam  belied  the  words  to  which  it  com- 
mitted itself. 

During  the  negotiations  in  Geneva  in  1961-62, 
North  Viet-Nam  consistently  refused  to  concede 
that  North  Vietnamese  troops  were  in  fact  in 
Laos.  At  that  time  about  10,000  North  Viet- 
namese troops  were  there.  Yet,  only  40  North 
Vietnamese  were  withdrawn  under  ICC  [Inter- 
national Control  Commission]  observation. 

The  United  States,  obeying  in  every  detail 
the  agreements,  dismantled  its  military  advis- 
ory mission,  withdrawing  66G  American  mili- 
tary personnel  and  403  Filipino  civilian  tech- 
nicians through  ICC  checkpoints. 

But  substantial  numbers  of  North  Viet- 
namese military  personnel  remained.  Beginning 
in  1963,  additional  North  Vietnamese  Army 
units  began  to  enter  Laos  in  increasing  num- 
bers. Today  North  Vietnamese  forces  in  Laos 
are  at  an  alltime  high-^some  40,000. 

Considering  the  size  of  that  country,  there  are 
proportionately  even  more  North  Vietnamese 
soldiers  in  Laos  than  in  South  Viet-Nam.  Since 
thei-e  can  be  no  justification  for  the  presence  of 
those  troops,  you  try  to  deny  that  they  are  there. 
But  the  facts  speak  too  loudly  to  be  denied.  I 
will  briefly  review  some  of  those  facts. 

It  is  a  fact  that  North  Viet-Nam  is  waging 
not  one  war  but  several  ware  in  Laos;  iji  the 
south  of  that  country  North  Viet-Nam  has  built 
a  complex  of  roads,  paths,  storage  areas,  and 
depots  which  had  previously  been  known  as  the 
Ho  Chi  Minh  Trail.  In  addition,  there  are  niili- 


'  For  text,  see  Bulletin  of  Aug.  13,  1962,  p.  259. 


JUTfB    24,    1968 


817 


taiy  bases  and  camps  from  which  North  Viet- 
namese troops  attack  South  Viet-Nam  across 
international  borders.  In  other  military  opera- 
tions, North  Vietnamese  troops  are  attacking 
troops  of  the  Royal  Government  of  Laos,  not 
only  in  south  Laos  but  also  in  the  center  and 
in  the  north. 

We  offer  the  following  eight  categories  of 
proofs  of  North  Viet-Nam's  violations  of  the 
Geneva  agreement  of  1962. 

Fii-st,  the  International  Control  Commission 
has  rendered  three  reports  based  on  incontro- 
vertible proof,  including  the  interrogation  of 
North  Vietnamese  soldiers  who  were  either 
captured  or  surrendered  to  the  Royal  Lao 
Army. 

The  International  Control  Commission  was 
aslved  by  the  Royal  Lao  Government  on  many 
other  occasions  to  investigate  violations.  It  was 
unable  to  perfoiin  the  function  assigned  to  it  in 
the  Geneva  agreements  because  access  to  the 
areas  in  question  was  refused  by  the  Pathet  Lao, 
acting  in  collusion  with  North  Vietnamese. 

Second,  there  are  the  complaints  lodged  by 
the  Royal  Government  of  Laos  about  specific 
violations  of  the  1962  Geneva  agreements  which 
resulted  in  no  reports  by  the  International  Con- 
trol Commission  because  of  Poland's  opposition 
to  investigations.  Those  complaints  are  of  the 
greatest  interest.  Among  the  most  recent  com- 
munications to  the  ICC  made  public  by  the 
Royal  Lao  Government  was  one  of  December  30, 
1967,  about  the  role  of  the  North  Vietnamese 
Army  in  attacks  upon  Lao  Government  defend- 
ers of  Nam  Bac,  Phalane,  Lao  Ngam,  and 
Yangteuil.  On  February  29, 1968,  another  com- 
munication to  the  ICC,  which  has  not  yet  been 
made  public,  described  North  Vietnamese  Ai-my 
participation  in  offensives  in  Tlia  Thom, 
Atopeu,  Lao  Ngam,  Phalane,  and  Saravane. 

Third,  there  is  the  communique  issued  after 
consultations  in  Vientiane,  called  in  1964  by  the 
British  cochairman  of  the  Geneva  conference. 
Those  consultations  took  place  under  article  4 
of  the  1962  agreement.  They  resulted  in  a  call 
on  June  29, 1964,  for  a  cease-fire  and  withdrawal 
of  all  North  Vietnamese  forces  from  Lao  ter- 
ritory. 

Fourth,  the  Royal  Lao  Government  has  is- 
sued two  "White  Books  on  North  Vietnamese 
interference  in  Laos  in  violation  of  the  Geneva 
agreement.  Those  Wlute  Books  contain  exten- 
sive documentation  based  on  the  interrogation 


of  North  Vietnamese  prisoners  and  other  evi- 
dence. They  are  dated  December  3,  1964,  and 
August  25, 1966. 

Fifth,  the  Royal  Lao  Government  has  made 
specific  complaints  about  North  Vietnamese 
aggression  to  the  United  Nations  General  As- 
semblies in  every  year  since  1963.  They  establish 
the  record  of  continuous  violations  of  the  1962 
Geneva  agreement  ever  since  North  Viet-Nam 
affixed  its  signature  to  it.  The  world  has  not 
paid  sufficient  attention  to  the  appeals  for  help 
from  the  Prime  Minister  of  Laos.  The  war 
in  that  unliappy  country  has  been  too  long 
the  "forgotten  war."  It  is  time  the  world 
became  more  aware  of  this  war — and  that 
the  states  which  have  undertaken  responsibili- 
ties for  the  neutrality  of  Laos  live  up  to  those 
responsibilities. 

Sixth,  the  Ho  Chi  Minli  Trail— which  has  be- 
come a  vast  complex  of  roads,  trails,  and  water- 
ways in  Laos — has  been  under  constant  aerial 
surveillance  since  mid-1964.  We  have  helped  in 
this  at  the  request  of  the  Royal  Lao  Govern- 
ment. A  vast  amount  of  photographic  evidence 
attests  to  the  constant  improvement  and  exten- 
sion of  this  logistic  network  over  the  years.  This 
evidence  also  proves  that  military  supplies  have 
moved  and  are  continuing  to  move  southward. 
These  photographs  and  other  evidence  are  avail- 
able and  can  be  provided  to  you  if  you  wish  to 
review  them. 

Seventh,  there  is  the  testimony,  as  supplied 
by  the  Lao  Government,  of  members  of  the  Lao 
Armed  Forces  as  well  as  Lao  civilians  wlio  liave 
seen  this  logistic  system  and  the  North  Viet- 
namese bases.  Some  of  these  witnesses  have  been 
held  prisoner  by  North  Vietnamese  forces.  Nu- 
merous eyewitness  reports  of  tliese  North  Viet- 
namese violations  are  therefore  available. 

Eighth,  the  greatest  mass  of  incontrovertible 
evidence  of  the  North  Vietnamese  presence  in 
south  Laos  comes  from  the  persomiel  who  have 
been  captured  or  who  have  rallied  to  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Viet-Nam  in  South  Viet-Nam.  From 
these  reports,  the  movement  of  specific  units  of 
the  North  Vietnamese  Army  through  Laos  can 
be  documented  by  dates  and  precise  routes.  For 
example,  the  activities  of  the  927th  North  Viet- 
namese Army  Battalion  or  the  559th  Transpor- 
tation Group  are  fully  documented  m  a  series 
of  repoi-ts. 

There  is  still  more  proof  available.  There  are 
more  witnesses  and  observers,  tliere  are  photo- 


818 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


graphs,  weapons  that  have  been  exhibited  by 
the  Eoyal  Lao  Government,  diaries  of  North 
"\^ietnamese  soldiers  who  have  been  captured  in 
Laos  and  in  South  Viet-Nam,  documents  of  the 
Nortli  Vietnamese  Army  with  names  and  unit 
numbers,  tape  recordings — all  these  show  that 
to  deny  North  Vietnamese  aggression  in  Laos  is 
to  insult  the  intelligence  of  the  world  public. 
Soldiers  of  the  North  Vietnamese  Army  have 
repeatedly  made  statements,  which  were  pub- 
licly witnessed  and  recorded  on  tape,  in  which 
they  told  how  they  invaded  Laos,  how  they  used 
Laos  as  a  means  for  carrying  the  war  to  South 
Viet-Xam,  or  how  they  spearheaded  the  attacks 
of  the  Pathet  Lao  who  are  fighting  the  Koyal 
Lao  Government. 

If  you  deny  the  presence  of  North  Vietnamese 
Army  troops  in  and  moving  through  Laos,  you 
should  be  willing:  to  let  the  International  Con- 
trol Commission  go  to  the  Mu  Gia  Pass  and  ob- 
serve there  whether  troops  and  war  materiel 
are  pouring  into  Laos  from  North  Viet-Nam, 
to  let  International  Control  Commission  teams 
be  stationed  at  other  points  of  ingress  from 
North  Viet-Nam  into  Laos  and  at  the  points 
where  highways  that  you  have  built  lead  from 
Laos,  directly  or  indirectly,  into  South  Viet- 
Nam.  If  nothing  is  happening  there,  these  im- 
partial observers  will  so  report.  I  note  that  in 
those  portions  of  Laos  under  control  of  the 
Royal  Lao  Government,  the  ICC,  diplomats 
fi'om  all  nations,  including  Commimist  nations, 
and  the  press  can  travel  freely.  In  those  areas, 
no  violations  of  the  Geneva  accords  have  ever 
been  demonstrated. 

Let  us  talk  honestly.  You  know  that  your 
troops  are  in  Laos ;  we  know  it ;  the  Lao  people 
know  it ;  and  the  world  knows  it.  This  question 
is  of  course  one  which  in  the  first  instance  con- 
cerns the  Royal  Lao  Government.  That  Govern- 
ment has  called  for  a  full  application  of  the  1962 
agreements.  We  support  that  demand. 

"What  we  are  asking  is  that  you  coojierate  with 
us  and  the  other  signatories  to  return  to  the  full 
and  honorable  observance  of  the  1962  agree- 
ments. We  believe  that  to  this  end  there  must 
be  effective  control  by  disinterested  third 
parties. 

We  therefore  invite  you  to  join  with  us  in  urg- 
ing the  strengthening  of  the  mechanism  of  the 
International  Control  Commission  for  Laos  so 
that  it  can  more  effectively  verify  compliance. 
The  United  States  is  prepared  to  see  the  Inter- 


national Control  Commission  investigate  any 
alleged  violations  by  us.  Are  you  prepared  to 
have  the  International  Control  Conmaission  in- 
vestigate the  alleged  violations  of  the  agree- 
ment by  your  coimtry  ? 

If  your  Government  is  prepared  to  observe 
the  1962  agreement  and  to  agree  to  effective  ver- 
ification by  all  parties,  then  many  things  would 
become  possible  in  Southeast  Asia  that  now 
seem  unattainable  in  the  jiresent  atmosphere  of 
violence. 

The  L^nited  States  seeks  nothing  for  itself 
in  Laos.  We  seek  no  bases  there,  no  privileged 
position,  no  military  advantage  of  any  kind. 
We  do  not  wish  to  see  Laos  threatened.  In  ac- 
cordance with  the  1962  Geneva  agreement,  we 
respect  the  desire  of  Laos  to  be  neutral — and  ex- 
pect other  signatories  to  do  the  same. 

Nor  do  we  seek  any  advantages  for  ourselves 
in  South  Viet-Nam.  If  the  Government  in 
North  Viet-Nam  genuinely  believes  that  the 
United  States  is  fighting  to  obtain  bases  for  ag- 
gression or  to  establish  a  colonial  rule  as  you 
have  said,  it  is  wrong :  It  misreads  history,  mis- 
judges the  American  people,  and  miscalculates 
the  purpose  of  the  United  States  Government. 

On  October  25,  1966,  at  Manila,  President 
Johnson  joined  with  six  other  heads  of  state  to 
affirm  their  respect  for  the  sovereignty  and  ter- 
ritorial integrity  of  their  neighbors.^  The 
United  States  and  other  allies  of  the  Republic 
of  Viet-Nam  pledged  that  their  forces  would  be 
withdrawn  from  South  Viet-Nam  as  North 
Vietnamese  forces  are  withdrawn,  infiltration" 
ceases,  and  the  level  of  violence  thus  subsides. 
For  its  part,  the  Government  of  the  Republic 
of  Viet-Nam  stated  that  as  these  conditions  were 
met,  it  would  ask  its  allies  to  remove  their  forces 
and  evacuate  their  installations. 

Let  me  reaffirm  that  the  United  States  seeks 
neither  military  bases  nor  any  other  favored 
position  in  South  Viet-Nam  as  the  outcome  of 
this  war.  We  look  forward  to  the  day  when  our 
troops  can  be  withdrawn.  Our  objectives  are 
strictly  limited.  We  believe  that  comitries  of 
Southeast  Asia  should  be  free  to  determine  their 
own  internal  affairs  and  their  international  po- 
sition as  the  peoples  of  those  countries  see  fit. 
In  Viet-Nam  we  want  no  military  presence,  no 
bases,    no    alliances.   We    have    no    desire   to 


'  For  texts  of  the  JIanila  conference  documents,  see 
md.,  Nov.  14, 19GG,  p.  730. 


JUNT>    24,    196S 


819 


threaten  or  harm  the  people  of  North  Viet-Nam 
or  to  invade  your  country. 

Your  Excellency,  I  will  close  by  repeatmg 
our  readiness  to  discuss  the  cessation  of  bombing 
and  related  matters  with  you.  It  is  certainly  not 
the  United  States,  at  whose  initiative  these  con- 
versations are  taking  place,  who  can  be  accused 
of  evading  these  issues. 

We  are  prepared  to  discuss  them  now. 


President  Hails  Fifth  Anniversary 
of  Organization  of  African  Unity 

Following  is  the  text  of  a  message  from  Presi- 
dent Johnson  to  President  Joseph  Mobutu  of 
the  Democratic  Repiiblic  of  the  Congo,  who  is 
this  year''s  President  of  the  Organization  of 
African  Unity. 

May  25, 1968 
Dear  Mr.  President  :  As  the  world  celebrates 
the  fifth  amiiversary  of  the  Organization  of 
African  Unity,  I  want  you  to  know  the  deep 
interest  with  which  we  in  the  United  States 
have  watched  its  growth  and  followed  its 
achievements. 

Measured  within  the  span  of  world  histoiy, 
five  years  is  only  a  passing  moment.  But  meas- 
ured against  its  record,  the  O.A.U.  can  take  just 
pride  in  its  major  accomplishments : 

It  has  made  solid  contributions  to  keepmg 
the  peace  in  Africa  and  to  the  settlement  of 
disputes. 


It  has  focused  the  conscience  of  the  world  on 
the  cause  of  freedom  and  justice  in  Southern 
Africa. 

It  has  enlianced  the  Continent's  economic 
prospects  by  encouraging  regional  organiza- 
tions. 

We  share  with  you  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples expressed  in  the  Charter  of  the  O.A.U. : 
"the  inalienable  right  of  all  people  to  control 
their  own  destiny ;  freedom,  equality,  justice  and 
dignity  .  .  .  for  African  peoples;  the  total 
emancipation  of  the  African  territories  which 
are  still  dependent;  and  the  responsibility  to 
harness  the  natural  and  human  resources  of 
Africa  for  the  total  advancement  of  its  peoples." 
We  are  also  proud  of  our  special  historical  rela- 
tionship to  Africa,  which  has  so  enriched  our 
own  national  culture.  Most  of  all,  Amei-ica  and 
Africa  share  a  common  vitality  and  purpose. 
The  world  looks  to  both  of  us  for  the  answers  to 
age-old  problems. 

I  am  certain  that  time  will  not  diminish  the 
abiding  faith  of  my  countrymen  in  the  realiza- 
tion of  Africa's  aspirations.  Nor  will  it  change 
our  determmation  to  help  the  O.A.U.  to  reach 
its  goals. 

Today  all  Americans  join  me  in  saluting  the 
African  statesmen  who  had  the  vision  to  create 
this  organization  and  the  strength  and  wisdom 
to  carry  forward  its  purpose.  We  pledge  our 
support  in  helping  you  build  the  Africa  you 
desire. 

With  warmest  personal  regards. 
Sincerely, 

Lyndon  B.  Johnson 


820 


DEPARTSIENT   OF    STATE    BtlLLETIN 


Secretary  Rusk  Interviewed  for  Japanese  Magazine 


Following  is  the  transcript  of  an  interview 
icith  Secretary  Rusk  on  May  17  hy  Kei  WaJcai- 
zumi  for  puhlicatlon  in  tlie  July  issue  of  Bungei 
Shunju  of  Tokyo,  a  monthly  magazine. 

Press  release  123  dated  May  28 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary.,  the  people  of  Japan — and, 
I  am  sure,  th.e  peopl-e  of  many  countries  of  the 
world — xoerc  greatly  impressed  hy  the  Presi- 
dent's March  31  speech  ^  in  which  he  took  a  uni- 
lateral step  toivard  deescalating  the  conflict  in 
Viet-Nam  and,  at  tlie  same  time,  announced  his 
decision  neither  to  seek  nor  to  accept  the  noynina- 
tion  of  the  Democratic  Party  for  the  Presi- 
dency. Japanese  welcomed  his  historic  statement 
as  well  as  the  positive  response  of  North  Viet- 
Nam.  We  sincerely  wish  an  early  and  honorable 
peace  acceptahle  to  all  parties  concerned. 

Since  the  delicate  negotiations  are  going  on  in 
Paris  at  this  moment,  I  do  not  want  to  ask  any 
questions  which  might  interfere  with  tlie  prog- 
ress of  those  negotiations.  I  would  like  to  have 
your  thoughts  on  some  fundamental  tnatters  of 
U.S.  foreign  policy  in  Asia  and  the  Pacific,  par- 
ticularly as  it  concerns  Japan. 

Mr.  Secretary,  some  Japanese  feel  that  the 
Presidenfs  speech,  in  the  context  of  recent  de- 
velopments in  Viet-Nam,  signals  a  basic  modifi- 
cation of  U.S.  policy  toward  Asia.  Is  this  tlie 
case? 

Secretary  Rusk:  Not  at  all,  Mr.  Wakaizumi, 
not  at  all. 

President  Johnson's  March  31  speech  was 
another  in  a  long  series  of  efforts  to  move  the 
conflict  in  Viet-Nam  to  the  negotiating  table. 
Peace — a  lasting  and  honorable  peace — has  al- 
ways been  our  aim  in  Asia.  Aggression  is  the 
enemy  of  peace.  That  is  why  we  are  fighting  in 
Viet-Nam,  to  defeat  aggression  and  to  win  a 
peace  in  which  the  Soutli  Vietnamese  people  can 
work  out  their  own  future.  If  armed  aggression 
can  succeed  in  South  Viet-Nam,  then  the  peace 
will  be  secure  nowhere  in  Asia.  So,  we  are  de- 


'  BurLi,ETiN  of  Apr.  15, 1968,  p.  481. 


termined  that  armed  aggression  will  not  succeed 
in  Viet-Nam.  We  have  been  from  the  beginning. 
We  still  are. 

There  has  been  no  change  in  our  policy.  We 
have  never  sought  more  than  an  honorable  set- 
tlement of  the  conflict.  But  we  will  never  accept 
anything  less. 

The  March  31  speech  made  it  crystal  clear  that 
we  will  meet  our  commitments  in  Asia.  We  are 
prepared  to  negotiate  in  good  faith.  But  we  will 
never  abandon  our  commitments  or  compromise 
the  bright  future  of  Asia. 

You  should  remember  that  American  policy 
in  Asia  and  our  involvement  in  Viet-Nam  has 
been  developed  under  four  American  Presidents 
representing  both  political  parties.  There  is  no 
question  in  my  mind  that  our  policy  toward  Asia 
has  the  broad  support  of  the  American  people. 
Our  policy  is  not  the  work  of  one  man — or  of 
any  one  party.  It  is  the  result  of  the  determina- 
tion of  the  American  people  to  put  our  full 
weight  behind  the  organization  of  peace  in  the 
world. 

And  once  peace  is  achieved,  we  stand  ready 
to  use  our  economic  and  teclinological  resources 
in  a  more  generous  measure  than  is  now  possible 
to  continue  tlie  work  of  building  a  new  Asia 
with  a  better  life  for  its  people. 

Q.  To  put  it  bluntly,  it  is  widely  believed  in 
my  country  that  tlie  United  States  has  virtually 
lost  the  war  in  Viet-Nam  amd  that  sooner  or 
later,  regardless  of  the  progress  of  negotiations, 
the  United  States  will  have  to  withdraw.  Ac- 
cording to  this  point  of  view,  the  day  will  come 
when  the  United  States  will  turn  its  back  on 
Asia  and  adopt  some  kind  of  neoisolationism. 
Since  we  are  presently  linked  with  tlie  United 
States  in  a  security  pact,  we  are  deeply  in- 
terested in  being  able  to  count  on  a  trustworthy 
ally.  I  woxdd  be  most  interested  in  your  reaction 
to  tlie  assessment  of  the  situation  which  I  have 
just  menticmed. 

A.  I  see  no  basis  for  the  belief  that  the  United 
States  has  "virtually  lost  the  war  in  Viet-Nam," 
as  you  put  it.  The  Limar  New  Year  offensive, 


JUNE    24,    1968 


821 


launched  by  the  Communists  in  the  midst  of  a 
sacred  holiday,  got  the  Communists  lots  of  pub- 
licity. It  also  got  them  enonnous  casualties. 
Despite  depleted  ranks  because  of  holiday 
leaves,  the  South  Vietnamese  Army  fought  back 
hard  and  effectively.  Tlie  popular  uprismg  that 
the  enemy  called  for  over  and  over  in  their  radio 
broadcasts  and  that  they  forecast  in  the  orders 
to  their  forces  simply  never  came  about. 

To  the  contrary,  this  cruel  attack  on  the  cities 
served  to  harden  the  determination  of  the  South 
Vietnamese  to  defend  themselves.  Voluntary  en- 
listments went  up  rapidly  in  February.  A  new 
mobilization  law  has  passed  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. 18-  and  19-year-olds  are  being 
drafted  for  the  first  time.  And  new  moves  have 
been  undertaken  to  unprove  the  weapons  and 
the  training  of  the  Vietnamese  Army. 

The  siege  of  Klie  Sanh,  which  the  Com- 
munists planned  as  an  American  Dien  Bien  Phu, 
was  broken.  The  enemy  suffered  fearsome  losses, 
while  ours  were  moderate. 

No,  I  can  see  no  signs  that  the  enemy  is  doing 
well  at  all. 

Nor  is  there  any  question  of  a  United  States 
withdrawal  from  Asia.  We  are  a  Pacific  power 
as  well  as  an  Atlantic  power.  We  believe  world 
peace  requires  political  and  economic  strength 
among  the  nations  of  free  Asia.  We  intend  to  go 
on  contributing  to  that  strength  as  we  have  in 
the  past.  When  necessary,  as  in  Korea  and  Viet- 
Nam,  we  are  prepared  to  resist  aggression ;  for 
unchallenged  aggression  is  a  mortal  danger  to 
the  peace  and  stability  of  Asia. 

With  respect  to  Japan,  President  Johnson 
told  your  Prime  Minister  last  fall  that  the 
United  States  commitment  to  your  country  can 
be  coimted  upon.^  I  can  assure  the  people  of 
Japan  that  the  United  States  will  not  fail  to 
honor  that  commitment. 

Q.  Your  answer  reminds  me  of  the  imfortant 
speech  President  Johnson  made  to  the  American 
Alumni  Council  in  July  1966?  At  that  time  he 
said  that  tlie  first  essential  for  peace  in  Asia 
was  the  determination  of  the  United  States  to 
meet  its  obligations  in  Asia  as  a  Pacific  power. 
In  view  of  your  statement.,  it  would'  appear  that 
that  determination  has  not  diminished. 

Now  certain  critics  hoth  in  the  United  States 
and   elsewhere   feel   that   U.S.   obligations   in 


'  For  background,  see  Bulletin  of  Dec.  4,  1967,  p. 
742. 
•  For  text,  see  ihid.,  Aug.  1, 1966,  p.  158. 


Europe  and  elsewJiere,  in  addition  to  its  com- 
mitment in  the  Pacific,  leave  the  United  States 
overextended.  They  point  to  your  country's 
domestic  proUems.  and  also  to  world  monetary 
problems,  as  reasons  for  reducing  the  scope  of 
U.S.  interests  overseas.  Do  you  feel  that  the 
breadth  of  U.S.  commitments  hampers  its  abil- 
ity to  respond  flexibly  to  situations  as  they  arise 
around  the  world? 

Cooperation  Between  Nations 

A.  The  United  States  has  the  resources  and 
the  will  to  meet  its  commitments  both  to  the 
American  people  and  to  our  friends  abroad. 
Look  at  the  record  of  the  last  25  years.  Look  at 
Iran,  Berlin,  Greece,  Korea,  Lebanon,  and  now 
Viet-Nam.  And  there  have  been  others. 

We  have  not  reduced  our  forces  in  NATO  as 
a  result  of  the  Viet-Nam  war.  We  continue  to 
maintain  a  strategic  reserve  in  the  United  States 
to  deal  with  any  sudden  crisis  that  might  arise. 
In  fact,  we  are  now  strengthening  that  reserve. 
Of  course,  we  expect  others  to  carry  their  share 
of  the  burden.  And  some  are  doing  so.  There 
are  five  Asian  nations  fighting  beside  U.S.  and 
Vietnamese  soldiers  against  the  aggi-ession  from 
the  North.  Many  others,  including  Japan,  are 
o-iving  nonmilitary  assistance  to  South 
Viet-Nam. 

In  the  future  we  expect  to  see  our  allies  play 
an  expanding  role  not  only  in  protecting  the 
security  of  the  free  world  but  in  providing  the 
economic  assistance  which  will  make  that  world 
stable  and  prosperous.  It  is  right  that  free  na- 
tions should  make  whatever  contribution  they 
can  to  the  security  of  their  neighbors  and  the 
peace  of  their  area.  And  it  is  right  that  pros- 
perous nations  should  help  their  poorer  neigh- 
bors build  a  better  life  for  their  people. 

The  United  States  has  the  resources  to  meet 
its  conraiitments.  But  it  is  difficult  for  us  to  ask 
our  people  to  sacrifice  if  others  are  not  doing 
their  part.  In  recent  years  more  and  more  na- 
tions have  come  to  realize  the  need  to  share  their 
strength  with  their  neighbors.  Japan,  for  in- 
stance, has  been  playing  an  important  role  in 
regional  development.  You  are  making  a  major 
contribution  to  the  Asian  Development  Bank. 
You  are  playing  an  equal  role  with  us  in  helping 
Indonesia.  This  is  heartening  to  us,  and  it  makes 
it  easier  for  us  to  continue  to  carry  our  share 
of  the  burden.  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  future 
will  bring  an  ever-greater  measure  of  coopera- 
tion between  nations.  I  am  sure  that  Japan  will 


822 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BTTLLETIK 


play  a  leading  role  in  that  cooperation,  par- 
ticularly in  Asia.  I  am  sure  that  others  will  fol- 
low Japan's  lead.  ^Njid  I  am  sure  that  my 
coimtry  will  play  its  full  role. 

Q.  Since  we  are  talking  about  international 
commitments  to  bring  about  peace  and  security, 
I  am  interested  in  having  had  your  thoughts  on 
the  role  Japan  might  flay.  I  feel  personally  that 
economic  developnfient  and  political  stability  of 
Southeast  Asia  are  intimately  related  to  Asian 
peace  and  that  Japan  is  uniquely  qualified  to 
assist  in  achieving  these  ends.  As  you  mentioned, 
the  Asian  Development  Bank,  in  which  Japan 
and  the  United  States  are  major  participants, 
is  a  first  step  in  this  direction.  I  woidd  be  in- 
terested in  what  you  and  the  United  States 
Government  think  some  of  the  next  steps  in 
international  cooperation  for  development 
might  be. 

A.  The  nations  of  Asia  are  now  beginning  to 
realize  the  importance  of  working  together  for 
their  common  interests.  Japan,  as  the  greatest 
industrial  power  in  Asia,  can  obviously  be  of 
prime  importance  in  that  endeavor.  There  is 
much  to  be  done  in  Asia,  and  Japan  can  play 
a  very  constructive  role  in  helping  to  achieve 
the  economic  progress  and  the  political  coopera- 
tion which  are  essential  for  peace  and  stability 
in  that  area.  The  burden  is  a  heavy  one  and 
cannot  be  carried  by  the  United  States  or  any 
other  country  alone.  It  is  for  that  reason  that 
we  feel  that  Japan's  participation  in  this  task 

,      is  vital. 

I  No  nation  stands  to  benefit  more  than  Japan 
from  a  peaceful,  prosperous,  progressive  Asia. 
No  nation  is  in  a  better  position  than  Japan  to 
help  make  that  kind  of  Asia  a  reality.  The  exact 
form  of  your  contribution  is  something  for  the 
Japanese  people  and  Government  to  decide.  But 
we  look  to  Japan  for  a  great  contribution. 

Peking's  Militant  Stance 

Q.  Unfortunately,  economic  development  is 
not  a  sufficient  condition  for  bringing  about 
peace.  Diplomatic  and  other  means  are  also  es- 
sential for  reducing  tensions.  As  President 
Johnson  said  in  the  speech  wh  ich  I  have  already 
mentioned:  '■'■[The)  essential  for  peace  in  Asia 
which  may  seem  the  most  difficult  of  all  (is) 
reconciliation  between  nations  that  now  call 
themselves  enemies.  A  peaceful  rtmirdand  China 
is  essential  to  a  peaceful  Asia.''' 

Because  of  yearning  for  peace  and  of  our 


geographical  position,  we  Japanese  are  par- 
ticularly interested  in  the  possibility  of  such  a 
process  of  accommodation.  We  ourselves  have 
been  trying  to  keep  trade  and  cidtural  contact 
with  ChiTia.  Therefore,  we  are  greatly  interested 
in  your  views  on  the  future  of  relations  with 
mainland  China  and  on  possible  policies  which 
might  help  to  bring  about  an  accommodation. 

A.  I  recognize  and  have  spoken  of  the  need 
for  working  toward  a  lessening  of  tensions  be- 
tween China  and  the  United  States. 

I  hope  that  Peking  will  change  its  absolute 
opposition  and  resistance  to  efforts  we  have 
undertaken  in  this  direction. 

For  example,  there  has  been  a  steady  relaxa- 
tion of  our  restrictions  on  the  travel  of  Ameri- 
cans to  mainland  China  and  of  mainland 
Chinese  to  the  United  States,  although  Peking 
does  not  see  fit  to  take  advantage  of  this. 

In  1961  President  Kennedy  quietly  suggested 
the  United  States  might  be  prepared  to  supply 
food  at  a  time  when  the  Chinese  were  importing 
a  good  deal  of  food.  That  offer  was  rejected. 

Last  spring  we  tried  on  a  small  scale  to  permit 
the  licensing  of  the  sale  of  certain  drugs  helpful 
in  fighting  diseases  which  we  believed  were 
spreading  in  parts  of  the  mainland.  Again  it 
was  rejected. 

We  continue  to  meet  with  the  mainland 
Chinese  in  Warsaw  at  the  ambassadorial  level, 
and  we  have  dealt  with  them  in  the  1954  Geneva 
Conference  on  Indochina  and  the  1961-62 
Geneva  Conference  on  Laos. 

However,  Peking's  leaders  have  continued  to 
hold  to  their  very  militant  stance  in  foreign 
affairs.  They  go  on  aiding  and  encouraging 
what  they  call  "national  wars  of  liberation." 
They  continue  to  develop  their  nuclear  arsenal 
and  explode  nuclear  weapons  in  the  atmosphere. 

We  hope,  nevertheless,  that  Peking  will  cease 
its  self-isolation,  will  change  its  dedication  to 
the  violent  revolutionary  overthrow  of  govern- 
ments, and  will  decide  that  it  wants  to  reenter 
the  family  of  nations. 

I  might  remind  you  of  what  the  President 
said  in  his  state  of  the  Union  speech  on  Jan- 
uary 10,  1967:* 

We  shall  coutlnue  to  hope  for  a  reconcUlatiou  be- 
tween the  people  of  mainland  China  and  the  world 
community — including  working  together  in  all  the  tasks 
of  arms  control,  security,  and  progress  on  which  the 
fate  of  the  Chinese  people,  like  their  fellow  men  else- 
where, depends. 


*  For  excerpts,  see  ibid,,  Jan.  30, 1967,  p.  158. 


JTJNB    24,    1968 


823 


We  would  be  the  first  to  welcome  a  China  which 
decided  to  respect  her  neigWwr's  rights.  We  would  be 
the  first  to  applaud  her  were  she  to  apply  her  great 
energies  and  intelligence  to  improving  the  welfare  of 
her  people.  And  we  have  no  intention  of  trying  to  deny 
her  legitimate  need.s  for  security  and  friendly  relations 
with  her  neighboring  countries. 

The  Ryukyu  Islands  and  Asian  Security 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  I  have  just  participated 
in  a  conference  on  the  subject  of  Okinawa  at 
Stanford  University.  Since  it  affects  the  ties  of 
friendship  between  our  two  countries,  I  should 
like  to  raise  this  one  urgent  problem.  As  you 
know,  all  Japanese,  including  the  people  of  the 
Ryukyus,  strongly  desire  the  early  reversion  of 
the  administrative  rights  to  Japan.  We  realize 
that  this  problem,  too,  is  intimately  related  to 
the  problem  of  establishing  peace  in  Asia,  hut 
at  least  we  should  like  to  get  a  clear  date  for 
Okinawa's  return  as  soon  as  possible. 

A.  The  President  had  very  frank  and  useful 
talks  with  Prime  Minister  Sato  here  in  Wash- 
infrton  last  November  about  the  Eyultyu 
Islands  question.  The  Prime  Minister  told 
President  Johnson  of  the  desire  of  the.Tapanese 
people  for  restoration  of  administrative  rights 
over  the  Ryukyus.  The  President  informed  the 
Prime  Minister  that  he  fully  understands  the 
desire  of  the  Japanese  people  for  the  reversion 
of  these  islands.  At  the  same  time,  they  both 
recognized  that  the  United  States  military  bases 
on  these  islands  continue  to  play  a  vital  role  in 
assuring  the  security  not  only  of  Japan  but  of 
other  free  nations  in  the  Far  East. 

This  question  is  closely  linked  to  future  de- 
velopments in  Asia,  and  therefore  I  cannot  at 
this  time  give  you  a  definite  timetable  for  rever- 
sion. Nevertheless,  vre  understand  the  Prime 
Minister's  desire  for  reaching  an  agreement 
within  a  few  years  on  a  satisfactory  date  for 
reversion.  Therefore,  we  agreed  last  year  to 
keep  this  question  under  joint  and  continuing 
review.  In  the  meantime,  I  am  pleased  by  the 
agreement  we  have  already  reached  for  the  re- 
turn of  the  Bonin  Islands.^ 

Prime  Minister  Sato  and  President  Johnson 
also  recognized  the  need  to  take  steps  to  promote 
the  economic  and  social  welfare  of  the  people 
of  the  Ryukyus  and  to  foster  greater  identifica- 
tion witii  Japan  proper,  in  order  to  reduce  the 
stresses  which  will  come  at  such  time  as  admin- 
istrative rights  are  restored  to  Japan.  They 

•  For  background,  see  iWd.,  Apr.  29, 1968,  p.  570. 


therefore  agreed  to  establish  an  Advisory  Com- 
mittee to  the  High  Commissioner  of  the  Ryukyu 
Islands.  This  Committee  is  now  operating  in 
Naha,  and  I  understand  that  in  a  few  short 
months  it  has  already  come  up  with  some  very 
constructive  actions. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretary,  we  all  know  that  nothing 
is  more  important  to  tlie  peace  of  the  world 
than  the  improvement  of  relations  between  the 
two  superpowers — the  United  States  and  the 
U.S.S.R.  Japanese  relations  ivith  the  Soviet 
Union  have  been  improving;  we  have  been  en- 
couraged by  recent  signs  of  progress  in  Soviet- 
U.S.  relation,  such  as  the  ratification  of^  a 
consular  convention  between  yo-ur  two  countries. 
The  nuclear  nonproli fetation  treaty  also  holds 
out  prospects  for  a  more  peaceful  world.  Un- 
fortunately, tliese  prospects  are  marred  by  the 
continued  development  and  testing  of  nuclear 
weapons  at  the  very  time  when  nonnuclear 
poioers  are  being  asked  to  renounce  their 
nuclear  option. 

Japan  is  7nore  painfully  aware  of  the  horrors 
of  nuclear  war  than  any  other  nations.  We  trust  ; 
thai  you  share  that  awareness.  Although  Japan 
is  now  the  toorWs  third  greatest  industrial 
power  with  the  obvious  capability  of  building 
nuclear  weapons,  we  are  most  reluctant  to  do  so. 
Nevertheless,  toe  cannot  be  at  ease,  nor  can  toe 
feel  certain  that  the  cause  of  peace  is  being  ad- 
vanced, so  long  as  testing  and  development  of 
nuclear  weapons  continues.  Mr.  Secretary,  we 
feel  strongly  about  the  urgency  of  measures  to 
achieve  realistic  and  effective  arms  control  and 
disarmament.  We  are  anxious  to  have  your  ap- 
praisal of  the  prospects  for  progress  in  the  near 
future. 

U.S.-Sovief  Relations 

A.  I  have  devoted  a  great  deal  of  my  time 
to  the  task  of  improving  Soviet-American 
relations. 

There  has  been  some  progress.  We  have  sue-    i 
cessfully  negotiated  the  space  treaty,  the  civil    ! 
air  agreement,  and  the  agreement  on  the  return 
of  astronauts,  as  aycII  as  the  consular  convention    \ 
which  you  mentioned.  Most  important  of  all  is 
the  joint  proposal  for  a  nonproliferation  treaty. 
We  have  managed  to  do  all  this  at  the  very  time 
that  the  Viet-Nam  conflict  was  complicating    ; 
our  relations  with  the  Soviet  Union.  So  Ithink   I 
there  is  ground  for  hope  and  progress  in  the 
future. 


824 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


In  particular,  we  woiild  like  to  get  talks 
started  between  ourselves  and  the  Soviets  on 
limiting  strategic  otfensive  and  defensive  mis- 
siles. We  are  convinced  that  there  is  a  mutual 
interest  in  stopping  the  accumulation  and  refine- 
ment of  these  weapons.  The  President  stated 
publicly  on  February  12  his  hope  that  talks  on 
this  subject  could  start  soon.*^ 

We  also  would  like  to  see  the  Soviets  work 
with  us  to  settle  the  Middle  East  crisis.  That  is 
a  dangerous  situation.  It  is  a  situation  in  which 
we  think  there  is  need  for  U.S.-Soviet 
cooperation. 

We  would  like  to  have  Japan's  support  for 
these  eiforts.  I  think  Japan  can  plaj'  a  verj' 
useful  role  in  working  for  a  wide  adliei-ence  to 
the  nonproliferation  treaty.  As  you  know,  tliat 
proposal  was  worked  out  very  painstakingly 
at  Geneva.  It  takes  into  account  the  views  of 
many  nations,  including  Japan. 

Q.  Mr.  Secretai^,  we  have  been  discussing 
major  questions  of  world  peace  and  security. 
You  deal  with  such  issues  daily.  Because  you 
have  been  so  close  to  these  major  loorld  ques- 
tions, in  closing  I  toould  be  'particularly  inter- 
ested in  any  thoughts  you  would  like  to  share  on 
your  hopes  and  fears  for  the  future  of  mankind 
in  this  nuclear  age. 

A.  As  I  said  in  my  response  to  an  earlier 
question,  I  am  certain  that  tlie  future  will  see 
a  world  in  which  cooperation  between  nations 
is  conmionplace. 

I  am  not  pessimistic  about  tlie  future.  I  am  not 
pessimistic  at  all.  The  recovery  of  Japan  is  an 
example  of  what  free  men  can  do  in  conditions 
of  peace  and  security.  All  over  Asia  a  new 
society  is  coming  into  being.  The  progress  of 


°  For  text  of  President  Johnson's  letter  transmitting 
the  7th  annual  report  of  the  U.S.  xVrms  Control  and 
Disarmament  Agency,  .see  White  Houte  press  release 
dated  Feb.  12. 


Korea,  of  Thailand,  of  Malaysia,  Singapore,  and 
the  Republic  of  China — all  tliis  is  dramatic 
proof  that  men  can  work  togetlier  to  conquer 
their  ancient  enemies  of  poverty  and  sickness 
and  ignorance.  Prosperitj',  hope,  a  better  life 
for  the  people  of  the  world — ^those  are  the  con- 
ditions of  peace.  That  is  what  we  have  to  work 
for,  to  create  the  conditions  of  peace.  Peace  is 
too  important  to  be  left  to  chance.  It  is  essential 
that  the  nations  of  the  world  invest  their  re- 
sources and  their  energies  in  the  task  of  organiz- 
ing the  peace — of  creating  the  conditions  of 
peace. 

I  think  we  have  made  great  progress.  At  the 
very  moment  that  the  tragic  war  of  Viet-Nam 
has  gone  on,  the  building  of  a  new  Asia  has  also 
gone  on.  The  future  does  not  lie  in  the  fighting 
and  the  desolation  of  Viet-Nam  battlefields.  It 
lies  in  the  schools  that  have  been  built  in  Thai- 
land, the  factories  that  have  been  built  in  Japan. 
It  lies  in  the  miracle  rice  strains  developed  in 
the  Philippines.  It  lies  in  the  great  work  that  is 
going  on  to  develop  tlie  Mekong  Valley  for  the 
benefit  of  a  hundred  million  people. 

I  believe  that  mankind  now  has,  for  the  first 
time  in  history,  the  tools  and  the  knowledge  to 
build  a  peace.  I  believe  science  and  technologj' 
puts  within  our  hands  the  ability  to  solve  our 
problems,  to  give  a  better  life  to  all  our  people. 
But  we  will  miss  this  chance  if  we  do  not  recog- 
nize it  and  work  for  it.  The  key  is  cooperation 
between  nations. 

I  believe  that  the  nations  of  the  world  are 
coming  to  see  this  truth.  And  I  believe  that  the 
young  people  of  the  world  see  it  more  clearly 
than  the  rest  of  us.  There  is  much  hard  work  yet 
to  be  done.  There  will  be  dangers  to  meet  and 
sacrifices  to  bear  in  the  future  as  in  tlie  past.  But 
I  believe  profoundly,  Mr.  Wakaizumi,  that  the 
people  and  the  nations  of  the  world  will  meet 
the  challenge.  I  envy  the  young  people  who  are 
just  coming  into  this  world.  They  will  know  a 
better  world  than  we  have  known. 


tTTXE    24,    1968 


825 


I 


President  Signs  Bill  Authorizing  U.S.  Support 
for  Increase  in  Capital  of  Inter-American  Bank 


Following  is  a  statement  ly  President 
Johnson  made  at  the  White  House  on  June  J,, 
upon  signing  H.R.  15361^,'-  together  with  hack- 
ground  information  on  the  hill  released  hy  the 
White  House  that  day. 


STATEMENT  BY  PRESIDENT  JOHNSON 

White  House  press  release  dated  June  4 

We  are  quite  honored  this  morning  to  have 
with  us  a  valued  friend  and  partner  from  Costa 
Kica.  By  happy  coincidence,  we  were  able  to 
greet  President  Trejos  with  new  evidence  of  our 
coimnitment  to  the  Alliance  for  Progress. 

The  Congress  has  now  passed  a  bill  that  au- 
thorizes us,  the  United  States,  to  support  a  $1 
billion  increase  in  the  capital  of  the  Inter- 
American  Development  Bank.  The  subscription 
share  of  the  United  States  in  tliis  increase  is 
almost  $412  million.  With  the  new  authority, 
the  Bank  can  now  enter  the  private  capital  mar- 
kets of  the  world  for  new  investment  in  the 
development  of  this  great  hemisphere  of  ours. 

So  this  morning  I  asked  you  to  come  here  to 
the  East  Room  so  that  I  could  take  this  oppor- 
tunity to  pay  tribute  to  the  Inter-American 
Bank,  its  distinguished  President,  Board  of 
Directors,  and  staff  for  their  achievement  in 
building  an  institution  that  is  so  i-esponsive  to 
present  needs  and  with  such  vision  of  future 
challenges  and  opportunities.  President  Trejos 
and  I  spent  most  of  our  time  this  morning  talk- 
ing about  what  good  had  resulted  from  tliis 
development. 

The  past  5  years  have  been  years  of  unparal- 
leled growth,  as  you  can  see  in  the  charts  ^  that 
we  have  put  here  in  the  room  this  mornmg. 

—The  Bank  will  have  tripled  its  capital 
resources  with  this  new  authorization. 

— Its  loan  portfolio  has  increased  175  percent, 
to  almost  $21/2  billion. 


*  As  enacted,  the  biU  is  Public  Law  90-325. 

*  Not  printed  here. 


—These  loans,  in  turn,  have  generated  an 
additional  $4  billion  of  investment. 

The  Inter-American  Bank  was  established  in 
1959  during  the  administration  of  President 
Dwight  David  Eisenhower  and  was  established 
with  the  bipartisan  support  of  the  United  States 
Congi-ess.  It  was  my  great  privilege  to  be  the 
majority  leader  of  the  Senate  at  that  time  and 
to  introduce  the  bill  that  authorized  the  United 
States  participation  hi  the  Bank. 

When  I  became  President,  the  Bank  had  $1.4 
billion  to  draw  on,  of  which  the  United  States 
had  contributed  ahnost  $850  million  of  that  $1.4 
billion.  I  am  very  proud  that  during  my  Presi- 
dency the  Bank's  resources  have  now  climbed 
to  $6  billion,  from  $1.4  billion,  with  the  United 
States  adding  $2.7  billion  of  that  as  the  United 
States  share. 

I  am  equally  proud  that  in  tliis  period  the 
Latin  American  members  have  greatly  in- 
creased the  ratio  of  their  contribution  for  the 
Bank's  special  operations.  In  1964  it  stood  at 
11  to  1 ;  today  it  stands  at  3  to  1.  This  vitality 
has  won  the  respect  and  the  support  of  the  coxin- 
tries  outside  our  regional  system.  Six  countries 
in  Europe,  Canada,  Israel,  and  Japan  are  in- 
vesting over  $200  million  in  the  development  of 
the  hemisphere  through  the  Inter-American 

Bank. 

I  had  the  pleasure  of  discussing  the  possi- 
bility of  Australia's  interest  in  this  only  last 
week  with  the  Prime  Minister  of  that  great 
country. 

So  we  know  from  experience  that  capital 
investment,  to  be  truly  productive,  must  be 
jomed  by  investment  m  the  health  and  educa- 
tion and  the  well-being  of  the  people.  The 
Bank's  portfolio  reflects  this  balance  of  invest- 
ment between  man  and  machine: 

—Agricultural  loans  are  bringing  almost  6  ; 
million  acres  of  farmland  into  production,  and  j 
they  are  helpuig  more  than  500,000  farmers  with 
individual  credits. 

—Industrial  loans  are  at  work  in  49  large 
plants  and  2,700  smaller  businesses. 


826 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


— Eoad  loans  have  built  or  improved  more 
than  2,000  miles  of  main  highways  and  nearly 
10,000  miles  of  farm-to-market  roads. 

— Water  and  sewage  loans  have  built  3,000 
city  iind  rural  water  systems  and  270  sewage 
systems,  benefiting  almost  40  million  people. 

— Housing  loans  have  built  over  300,000  units 
for  low-income  families  totalmg  2  million 
people. 

— Education  loans  have  modernized  120  cen- 
ters of  higher  learning. 

"Wliile  the  Bank  wrestles  with  the  needs  of  the 
present,  its  planners  are  now  at  work  on  the 
requirements  of  the  future.  With  great  vision, 
the  Bank  has  assumed  leadership,  together  with 
the  Inter-^Vmerican  Committee  on  the  Alliance 
for  Progress,  in  encouraging  the  physical  inte- 
gration of  Latin  America. 

During  1961,  1962,  and  1963,  an  average  of 
$203  million  per  j'ear  was  appropriated.  If  this 
session  of  the  Congress  appropriates  the  amount 
authorized,  as  we  have  asked,  we  will  have  more 
than  doubled  the  yearly  United  States  appro- 
priations during  the  last  5  years;  since  1963  we 
will  have  appropriated  an  average  of  $430  mil- 
lion per  year. 

Dr.  HeiTera  [Felipe  Herrera,  President  of  the 
Inter- American  Development  Bank],  the  bill 
I  am  about  to  sign  carries  the  pledge  of  the 
United  States  support  to  the  Bank,  to  the 
Alliance  for  Progress,  and  to  the  inter- American 
system. 

If  you  want  to  see  what  we  are  accomplish- 
ing by  this  cooperation  of  the  Inter- American 
Bank,  the  Alliance  for  Progress,  the  World 
Bank,  and  our  other  programs,  you  only  have 
to  look  at  the  very  fine  record  of  the  people  of 
Costa  Rica. 

I  obseiwed  a  few  minutes  ago,  in  welcoming 
their  great  and  distinguished  President,^  the 
liigh  priority  that  they  gave  to  education  in 
Costa  Rica,  the  6-percent  increase  in  farm  pro- 
duction last  year,  the  large  industrial  growth 
of  11  percent,  and  a  400-percent  increase  in 
Central  American  trade. 

So  there  we  have  people  who  are  concentrat- 
ing on  education.  They  are  concentrating  on 
fann  production,  concentrating  on  industrial 
growth,  concentrating  on  regional  trade.  That  is 
making  better  lives  for  all  of  the  people  of  that 
country.  That  is  setting  an  example  that  the 
rest  of  the  hemisphere,  I  think,  is  very  proud 
of  and  can  profit  by. 


'  See  p.  828. 


I  believe  what  the  Alliance  for  Progress  and 
the  inter- American  system  have  done  is  a  major 
contribution  to  social  justice  and  economic  de- 
velopment and  freedom  in  this  hemisphere. 

There  are  now  before  the  Congi-ess  other 
items  that  are  essential  to  the  achievement  of 
this  goal,  such  as  our  second  installment  of 
the  Inter-American  Bank's  Fund  for  Special 
Operations,  the  replenislmient  of  the  Interna- 
tional Development  Association.  All  of  these  are 
vital  to  maintaining  the  momentum  of  develop- 
ment that  has  been  achieved  dm-ing  the  past  5 
years. 

Someday  I  hope  that  I  will  be  able  to  come 
and  see  what  you  have  done  with  this  Bank  and 
with  the  Alliance  for  Progress  in  this  hemi- 
sphere, working  together.  I  want  to  see  first 
hand  what  this  great  institution,  the  Inter- 
Ajnericau  Bank,  is  doing  to  touch  the  lives  of 
these  millions  of  people  that  we  have  mentioned 
this  morning. 

I  want  to  see  what  you  are  doing  to  unite 
the  hemisphere  with  strong  ties  of  industry  and 
comjnunication.  I  want  to  see  what  you  are 
doing  in  cooperation  with  the  Alliance  for 
Progress  and  the  other  programs  we  are  having 
to  conquer  these  ancient  enemies  of  aU  of  us: 
the  enemies  of  disease,  ignorance,  and  poverty. 

We  want  to  pay  special  tribute  to  you,  Dr. 
Herrera,  today  for  your  leadership  and  for  the 
success  that  this  Bank  has  had.  We  particularly 
want  to  thank  President  Trejos  for  being  here 
on  this  occasion  so  we  could  honor  not  only  him 
but  his  people,  who  have  helped  us  to  make  a 
success  in  all  of  these  adventui'es. 

Thank  you  very  much. 


BACKGROUND  INFORMATION 

The  President  on  June  4  signed  H.R.  15364, 
which  authorizes  the  United  States  to  vote  for 
a  $1  billion  increase  in  the  callable  capital  of 
the  Inter-American  Development  Bank.  The 
United  States  subscription  share  of  this  amount 
is  $411,760,000.  The  increase  will  enable  the 
Bank  to  raise  additional  resources  for  Latin 
America's  development  in  the  world's  capital 
markets. 

The  Bank's  callable  capital  is  the  part  of  its 
ordinary  capital  resources — its  "hard  loan" 
window — which  constitutes  a  guarantee  of  the 
securities  which  the  Bank  issues  in  the  world's 
capital  markets.  It  is  subject  to  call  only  when 
required  to  meet  obligations  arising  from  Bank 


JUNE    24,    1968 


827 


borrowings  or  loan  guarantees.  To  date  the 
Bank  has  borrowed  more  than  $500  million  in 
such  markets. 

The  increase  in  the  Bank's  ordinary  capital 
resources  follows  by  5  months  action  taken  by 
the  Bank's  member  countries  to  increase  the 
Bank's  Fund  for  Special  Operations  by  $1.2 
billion. 

The  increases  stem  from  a  decision  taken  by 
the  Bank's  Board  of  Governors  in  April  1967 
at  its  eighth  annual  meeting  in  Washington 
recommending  that  the  member  countries  take 
action  to  augment  the  resources  of  the  Bank  to 
maintain  its  lending  volume  for  Latin  America's 
economic  and  social  development. 

The  new  increase  will  raise  the  Bank's  au- 
thorized ordinary  capital  resources  to  $3,150 
million.  Of  that  sum,  $383,650,000  has  actually 
been  paid  in,  $2,395,180,000  is  callable,  and  the 
remainder  is  available  for  subscription  by  new 
members.  Wlien  the  U.S.  subscription  has  been 
completed,  it  will  total  $1,173,520,000,  of 
which  sum  $150  million  has  been  paid  in  and 
$1,023,520,000  represents  callable  capital.  The 
remainder  is  to  be  subscribed  by  the  Bank's 
Latin  American  member  countries  or  is  avail- 
able for  subscription  by  future  members. 

The  $1  billion  increase  in  the  ordinary  capital 
resources  is  scheduled  to  enter  into  effect  on 
October  31,  1968.  Each  member  nation  is  to 
subscribe  a  number  of  shares  proportionate  to 
its  present  subscription.  One  half  of  the  increase 
is  scheduled  to  be  subscribed  in  1968  and  the 
other  in  1970. 

The  $1.2  billion  increase  in  the  Fund  for 
Special  Operations — the  Bank's  "soft  loan" 
window — became  effective  on  December  29, 1967. 
The  increase,  $900  million  of  which  will  be 
provided  by  the  United  States,  is  payable  in 
three  equal  tranches,  the  last  of  which  is  due  in 
1969,  and  raises  the  total  contributions  to  the 
Fund  from  the  current  $1,121,436,000  to  $2,303,- 
709,000.  The  United  States  share  of  the  lat- 
ter figure  is  $1.8  billion;  the  remainder  is 
Ijeing  provided  by  the  Latin  American  member 
countries. 

The  Bank  also  administers  the  $525  million 
Social  Progress  Trust  Fund,  which  has  been 
entrusted  to  it  by  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment within  the  framework  of  the  Alliance  for 
Progress.  The  Bank  also  has  resources  available 
to  it  from  borrowings,  participations,  funds 
under  administration,  and  parallel  arrange- 
ments with  six  European  coimtries,  Israel,  Can- 
ada, and  Japan,  totaling  $214  million. 


President  Trejos  of  Costa  Rica 
Visits  the  United  States 

President  Jose  Joaquin  Trejos  Fernandez  of 
the  Repuhlic  of  Costa  Rica  made  an  official  visit 
to  the  United  States  June  3-7.  He  met  with 
President  Johnson  and  other  Government  of- 
ficials in  Washington  June  4--6.  Following  is  an 
exchange  of  greetings  hetween  President  John- 
son and  President  Trejos  at  a  welcoming  cere- 
mony on  the  South  Laion  of  the  White  House 
on  June  ^,  together  toith  the  advance  text  of 
President  Johnson's  toast  at  a  dinner  at  the 
White  House  that  evening  and  a  portion  of 
President  Trejos^  reply. 


EXCHANGE  OF  GREETINGS 


White  House  press  release  dated  June  4 

President  Johnson 

President  Trejos,  Mrs.  Johnson  and  I  wel- 
come you  and  Mrs.  Trejos  here  to  Wasliington 
as  very  old  friends  of  the  United  States  of 
America. 

Twenty-one  years  ago  you  were  a  student 
here  with  us.  Eleven  years  ago  you  were  here  as 
our  guest  at  the  Department  of  State.  Today 
you  come  here  as  the  guest  of  all  of  the  people 
"of  the  United  States. 

We  Americans  know,  Mr.  President,  that 
your  country  is  famous  for  many  qualities,  but 
three  above  all : 

— Tlie  fragrance  of  your  coffee 

— The  beauty  of  your  women 

— The  vitality  of  your  democracy 

Fortunately,  it  is  the  virtue  of  democracy  that 
men  are  not  compelled  to  choose  between  such 
blessings.  At  least  that  is  true  in  Costa  Rica. 

Other  nations,  our  own  included,  may  well 
envy  the  advanced  stage  of  your  democracy — 
where  men  count  it  as  their  inalienable  right  to 
enjoy  a  good  cup  of  coffee  and  to  always  have  it 
served  by  a  very  beautiful  woman. 

In  this  time  of  worldwide  ideological  tur- 
moil, the  concepts  of  freedom,  self-determina- 
tion, representative  democracy  all  have  been 
much  distorted. 

For  a  nation  to  label  itself  a  democracy  is  not 
enough.  One  must  really  look  behind  the  label 
to  determine  the  genuineness  of  the  real  product. 

Costa  Rica  is  one  place  where  I  believe  the 
label  fits  the  product. 


828 


DEP.^RTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


Your  record  of  elections  and  peaceful  trans- 
fers of  power  is  very  plain  for  all  of  tlio  jicoplo 
of  the  world  to  see. 

President  Trejos,  your  country  has  more 
schools  than  barracks.  Your  country  has  more 
teachers  than  soldiers.  You  devote  one-third  of 
your  entire  national  budget  to  education.  The 
payoff  is  in  your  high  level  of  literacy  and  your 
success  in  building  a  sound  economy  with  real 
social  justice. 

A  little  over  a  year  ago,  you  will  recall,  we 
were  together  at  Punta  del  Este.  We  measured 
the  advances  under  tlie  Alliance  for  Progi-ess. 
We  measured  the  advances  against  the  goals  tliat 
we  seek. 

We  all  agreed  that  we  stOl  have  a  long  way 
to  go,  but  we  all  know  that  we  are  really  mov- 
ing. 

In  Costa  Rica  you  are  making  the  Alliance 
work.  It  is  reflected  in  the  high  priority  tliat  is 
given  to  education,  in  your  more  than  6-percent 
increase  in  farm  production  last  year,  in  your 
industrial  growth,  which  has  averaged  11  per- 
cent per  year  during  the  past  several  years. 

Mr.  President,  it  is  dramatically  demon- 
strated in  the  400-percent  increase  in  regional 
trade  achieved  by  Costa  Eica  and  its  partners 
of  the  Central  American  Common  Market. 

These  figures  tell  a  story  of  real  progress.  It 
is  a  record  that  cheers  all  of  your  friends,  Mr. 
President,  in  the  United  States  and  should  cheer 
all  friends  of  democracy  throughout  the  world. 

Mr.  President,  we  are  glad  that  you  have 
come.  We  want  you  to  feel  at  home  in  this  city. 
Tliis  first  house  of  the  land  is  your  house. 

Bienvenidos. 

President  Trejos  ^ 

White  House  press  release  dated  June  4 

Mr.  President,  thank  you.  Thank  you  very 
much  for  your  kind  words  so  graceful  and  so 
inspired. 

It  is  a  great  privilege  and  an  honor  for  me 
to  bring  you  the  message  of  greetings,  of  friend- 
ship, and  of  affection  on  the  part  of  the  people 
and  of  the  Govermnent  of  Costa  Rica. 

It  is  a  message  that  comes  from  a  hard-work- 
ing people  that  bases  its  means  of  education  as 
its  best  hope  for  development  and  progress. 

It  is  a  fraternal  greeting  coming  from  a  peo- 
ple that  expresses  sincere  friendship  to  the  peo- 
ple of  the  United  States,  not  only  because  it 
believes  that  geography  has  marked  a  common 


'  President  Trejos  spoke  in  Spanish. 


destiny  for  all  of  the  nations  of  the  American 
Continent  but  also  because  it  shares  with  its 
people  the  same  ideals  of  liberty,  of  justice,  of 
respect  for  tlie  great  dignity  of  the  human  l^eing, 
and  of  love  for  tlie  democratic  standai'd,  ac- 
cording to  which  the  people  can  freely  choose 
the  go^'ermnellt  that  they  wish  to  carry  out  their 
own  aspirations. 

This  message  comes  also  from  a  people  that 
considers  that  these  ideals  are  just  as  alive  to- 
day as  they  were  during  the  American  Revolu- 
tion. In  the  restless  world  of  our  time,  it  is  up 
to  us  to  give  these  ideals  new  vigor  and  adapt 
them  to  the  circumstances  of  the  era  in  order 
that  they  continue  reaching  the  heart  of  the 
patriots  of  each  nation  as  they  \\a\q  done  in  the 
Western  World — these  humanist  ideals  through- 
out the  centuries. 

I  also  bring  you,  Mr.  President,  the  affec- 
tion of  the  people  of  Costa  Rica,  that  not  only 
supports  these  ideals  which  they  share  with  the 
people  of  the  United  States  but  live  these  ideals 
fully  and  effectively. 

I  am  also  a  bearer  of  the  aspirations  of  a 
country  that  is  working  for  a  larger  amount 
of  dignity  in  the  life  of  each  family. 

So  we  are  working  for  a  larger  degree  of 
dignity  in  the  life  of  each  Costa  Rican  family, 
and  together  with  all  of  the  people  of  Latin 
America,  hope  that  we  will  give  a  new  impetus 
to  a  greater  degree  of  fairness  in  the  economic 
relationships  in  the  contemporary  world. 

President  Johnson  and  Mrs.  Johnson,  may 
God  preserve  forever  the  best  attributes  of  the 
people  of  the  United  States  and  give  to  you 
and  to  your  distinguished  family  the  greatest 
hajjpiiiess. 


EXCHANGE  OF  TOASTS 


President  Johnson 

White  House  press  release  dated  June  4  ;  advance  text 

Mr.  President,  we  welcome  you  to  this  first 
house  of  the  land  as  the  democratic  leader  of  a 
country  with  a  long  democratic  tradition.  Costa 
Rica  has  always  been  in  the  forefront  of  our 
hemisphere's  continuing  crusade  to  strengthen 
the  practice  of  democracy.  You  share  our  desire 
to  see  the  frontiers  of  freedom  extended 
throughout  the  world. 

The  revolutionary  times  in  which  we  live 
teach  three  lessons  about  the  quest  for  free- 
dom. They  are  not  new,  but  recent  events  give 
them  new  meaning. 


JUNE    24,    1968 

309-384—68- 


829 


The  first  is  that  tyranny  cannot  suppress  the 
liuman  longing  for  liberty.  This  ancient  truth 
remains  as  valid  in  the  world  of  modern  tech- 
nology and  ideology  as  it  did  many  centuries 
ago,  when  our  common  creed  of  freedom  devel- 
oped on  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean. 

The  second  is  that  the  defense  of  liberty  some- 
times carries  a  heavy  price.  The  people  of  South 
Viet-Nam  and  their  allies  know  that  freedom 
does  not  come  fre«.  I  pray  that  the  aggressors 
will  come  to  understand  the  full  depth  of  our 
resolve  to  "pay  any  price,  bear  any  burden  .  .  . 
to  assure  the  survival  and  the  success  of  liberty." 

Tlie  third  is  that  democracy  does  not  come 
in  a  single  model.  Each  people  knows  how  best 
to  adapt  the  mechanics  of  representative  gov- 
ernment to  its  special  needs.  We  do  not  seek  to 
impose  a  particular  system.  But  we  will  defend 
the  right  of  a  people  to  determine  their  own 
destiny,  free  from  coercion;  and  we  are  not 
fooled  by  false  models. 

Mr.  President,  Costa  Rica  and  the  United 
States  may  differ  in  size,  but  they  are  equal  in 
what  counts  most:  their  love  of  freedom.  That 
is  the  most  cherished  bond  that  unites  our  two 
countries. 

The  United  States  remembers  how  quickly 
Costa  Rica  joined  our  cause  after  Pearl  Harbor. 
We  remember  the  prompt  offer  of  ports  and  air- 
fields during  the  Cuban  missile  crisis.  We 
remember  that  Costa  Rican  guardsmen  stood 
shoulder  to  shoulder  with  our  soldiers  and  those 
of  other  American  Republics  to  keep  the  peace 
in  the  Dominican  Republic  and  safeguard  the 
right  of  self-determination  for  the  Dominican 
people.  I  am  grateful  to  you,  personally,  Mr. 
President,  for  your  strong  moral  support  in  the 
defense  of  freedom  in  Asia. 

Ladies  and  gentlemen,  may  I  ask  you  to  rise 
to  toast  the  cause  of  liberty  throughout  the 
world  and  one  of  its  great  champions.  President 
Jose  Joaquin  Trejos — teacher,  scholar,  states- 
man, citizen-president  of  the  sister  Republic  of 
Costa  Rica. 

President  Trejos  ^ 

Weekly  Compilation  of  Presidential  Documents  date  June  10 

We  are  pleased,  Mr.  President,  by  the  great 
interest  in  the  Costa  Rican  nation  and  the  con- 
stant increase  in  the  centers  of  teaching  which 
we  have  carried  to  even  the  most  remote  and 
smallest  of  our  towns  and  villages,  trying  to 
make  them  every  day  better  and  more  complete. 

We  are  stimulated  by  the  constant  clamor  of 


our  rural  and  urban  communities  to  have  better 
services  of  public  health  and  hygiene. 

It  is  a  source  of  great  satisfaction  to  us  to  see 
the  constant  demands  of  our  simple  farmers  to 
have  better  ways  of  communication,  roads  and 
highways  that  go  deeper,  and  the  opening  up 
of  new  areas. 

But  most  of  all,  we  are  proud  of  the  passion 
of  the  Costa  Rican  people  in  the  defense  of 
the  liberties  of  man  and  of  his  dignity  as  a  hu- 
man being,  and  for  the  respect  of  the  results 
of  the  ballot  box. 

You,  Mr.  President,  who  began  your  life  as 
a  public  servant  by  teaching  young  people  as  a 
gi-ammar  school  teacher,  and  I  who  left  my 
place  as  a  professor  to  accept  the  public  office 
which  I  now  hold,  agree  in  the  high  esteem  that 
we  give  to  the  educational  activity  of  the  gov- 
ernment to  this  high  concept  that  we  have  of 
the  school  and  of  the  educator  as  shapers  of 
the  future  of  our  countries  and  of  the  high  place 
that  we  grant  them  as  key  pieces  in  a  strategy 
for  the  development  of  people. 

We  have  been  fortunate  in  Costa  Rica.  The 
imagination  of  our  leaders  for  independence 
Mas  captured  in  the  early  days  by  the  ideals  of 
Jefferson,  of  Paine,  of  Adams,  and  of  Hamilton, 
who,  together  with  other  great  men,  were  build- 
ing this  grand  experiment  of  a  democratic  sys- 
tem of  govermnent. 

Later  on  in  the  century,  the  apostle  of  the 
poorest  man  and  his  disciples  for  a  broader  dis- 
semination of  primary  schools  as  an  indispens- 
able base  of  effective  democracy  found  a  favor- 
able response  in  our  governments  which,  since 
that  time,  set  forth  as  slogans  of  action  to  build 
more  roads  and  to  open  more  schools. 

We  still  share  this  and  hold  this  aspiration, 
but  not  as  just  a  total  program  of  the  govern- 
ment which  exhausts  thus  the  lists  of  the  duties 
of  the  government,  because  to  those  postulates 
which  I  have  mentioned,  we  have  added  during 
this  century  the  ideals  in  insuring  better  health 
for  the  people,  a  larger  degree  of  social  justice 
for  the  workers. 

Since  by  good  foi-tune  we  have  been  able  to  do 
without  military  expenditures  that  other  na- 
tions have  to  take,  practically  all  of  our  total 
public  income  is  devoted  to  expenses  in  the  field 
of  education,  health,  social  welfare,  and  public 
roads. 

You  have  been  kind  enough  to  praise  my 
country  because  of  its  vocation  for  peace  and 
for  democratic  life. 


'  President  Trejos  spoke  iu  Si>anish. 


830 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


On  m}-  part,  I  must  tell  you,  interpreting  the 
sentiments  of  the  Costa  Rioan  people,  we  ad- 
mire you  for  the  struggle  that  this  powerful 
nation  is  waging  on  1,000  fronts  in  favor  of  the 
survival  of  democra(\v  and  the  fighting  abroad 
against  totalitarianism  and  in  your  intei-nal 
fighting  against  incomprehension  and  the  iner- 
(ia  that  serve  as  a  brake  to  social  progress. 

We  know  of  your  efforts  to  achieve  the  elim- 
ination of  social  inequalities  and  to  ease  the  life 
of  the  groups  that  are  more  weak  economically 
and  of  your  effoi-ts  to  give  the  Alliance  for  Pro- 
gress the  dimensions  that  are  re^^uired  in  order 
that  we  may  make  of  our  America  the  continent 
of  hope. 

On  liehalf  of  my  i>eople,  on  behalf  of  Costa 
Rica,  I  tell  you.  thank  you  very  much,  I'resident 
Johnson. 

I  know  that  I  faithfully  interpret  the  senti- 
ments of  the  Costa  Rican  people  in  expressing 
our  gratitude  to  you  as  I  have  just  done.  But  I 
would  like  To  give  the  Costa  Rican  people,  who 
you  have  praised  so  highly,  an  opportunity  for 
3'ou  to  know  how  great  their  appreciation  for 
your  country  and  for  you  is. 

I  take  pleasure  in  extending  to  you  the  warm- 
est invitation  for  you  to  visit  Costa  Rica  to- 
gether with  Mrs.  Johnson  as  our  most  distin- 
guished guests  at  a  time  which  you  consider 
opportime. 

I  still  have  the  hope  that  your  duties  will  not 
be  an  obstacle  for  you  to  accept  this  invitation. 

Until  I  can  speak  in  my  own  country  these 
words,  let  me  express  now  my  most  fervent  hope 
for  the  United  States  of  America,  for  you,  its 
distinguishetl  President,  and  for  your  gracious 
First  Lady,  Mrs.  Johnson. 

President  Johnson,  Mrs.  Johnson,  ladies  and 
gentlemen,  nothing  that  I  could  have  brought 
with  me  in  writing  could  really  express  in  any 
sense  tlie  deep  sentiment  and  emotion  that  I 


feel  at  this  time  and  that  the  members  of  the 
party  accompanying  me  feel  in  being  here  on 
this  occasion  becau.se  I  feel  this  is  a  feeling  of 
perhaps  one  that  has  never  been  achieved  before 
that  inter- American  friendship  is  a  reality. 

I  say  this  because  in  looking  aroimd  me  I  see 
the  faces  of  friendship  that  surround  us  and 
even  more  than  faces  of  friendship,  perhaps  I 
see  the  expressions  of  brotherhood  on  the  faces 
of  each  and  every  one  of  the  persons  who  are 
with  us  here. 

The  feeling  that  I  am  talking  about  is  this 
atmosphere,  this  spirit  that  flows  around  us  and 
binds  us,  perhaps  above  anything  else  that  we 
might  think  of,  because  this  is  the  spirit  that  we 
feel  that  we  must  all  exert  every  possible  effort 
to  do  everything  that  we  can  to  raise  the  dignity 
of  man  throughout  the  world,  to  do  this  to  each 
family  of  each  man  throughout  all  the  countries 
of  the  world. 

Because  to  raise  the  dignity  of  man,  to  elevate 
the  dignity  of  man  means  to  provide  him  with 
an  atmosphere  in  which  he  can  live  with  free- 
dom in  its  fullest  dimension. 

We  cannot  conceive  that  he  can  begin  to  do 
this  if  any  man  is  subject  to  a  dictatorship,  no 
matter  what  its  nature  or  orientation  might  be. 

So,  we  find  and  we  feel  that  human  dignity 
and  democracy  are  united  as  one.  I  sec  that  here. 
AVliat  gives  me  this  emotion,  and  that  is  a  very 
natural  one  and  a  historical  one,  and  for  a 
thousand  reasons  I  feel  this  is  an  event  that  we 
will  always  treasure  for  the  rest  of  our  lives 
because  it  represents  the  spirit  that  we  share 
which  is  in  turn  a  representation  of  the  noblest 
hinnanist  ideals  of  man. 

Ma}'  God  bless  our  continent,  Latin  America 
and  the  United  States,  in  our  own  united  goal 
that  we  be  united  in  the  future  and  may  God 
bless  this  great  family  of  President  and  Mrs. 
Johnson. 


JUNE 


1968 


831 


Our  Desert  Places:  The  Urgent  Challenge  to  Education 


hy  Sol  M.  Linowitz 

U.S.  Representative  to  tlie  Organization  of  American  States  ^ 


The  nations  of  the  world  will  either  learn 
how  to  understand  each  other  and  learn  how  to 
communicate  that  understanding  or  all  the  cen- 
turies and  eons  of  man's  accumulated  knowl- 
edge will  not  have  discovered  the  one  secret  that 
could  save  it  from  itself.  Without  international 
understanding  and  cooi^eration,  the  work  of  the 
scholar  and  the  scientist  will  matter  little  re- 
gardless of  the  secrets  they  unlock  or  what 
frontiers  of  the  mind  they  conquer. 

Here  on  a  university  campus,  where  the  past 
meets  the  present  to  create  tomorrow,  we  would 
do  well  to  recall  Justice  Jackson's  warning  that 
the  world  fears  not  the  primitive  nor  the  ig- 
norant man  but  the  educated  one  who  has  it 
in  his  power  to  destroy  civilization — or  con- 
versely, to  attain  the  richest  and  still  imdreamed 
of  possibilities  of  the  new  ei'a. 

It  is  a  critical  time.  It  is  also  a  good  time,  an 
unparalleled  time  to  extend  the  reach  of  the 
human  species  and  to  realize  the  vision  of  man's 
true  potential. 

It  is  a  time  when  knowledge,  both  scientific 
and  technical,  races  so  far  ahead  of  learning  that 
we  go  to  sleep  at  night  in  one  kind  of  a  world 
and  wake  up  to  face  the  dawn  in  another  com- 
pletely different. 

It  is  a  time,  perhaps  above  all,  to  see  our  lives 
not  only  in  terms  of  sheer  physical  survival  but, 
as  Keats  put  it  so  exhilaratingly,  as  "values  of 
soul  making."  We  therefore  will  not  serve  our- 
selves, or  the  future,  if  we  believe  that  the  sweep- 
ing changes  that  enable  man  to  chase  the  dawn 
across  the  black  reaches  of  outer  space  are 
limited  to  science  and  technology.  For  no  less 
sweeping  is  the  social  upheaval  that  equally,  and 


'  Excenrt  from  an  address  made  before  a  convocation 
of  the  School  of  International  Service  of  American 
University  at  Washington,  D.C.,  on  May  22.  (For  full 
text,  see  press  release  113.) 


in  many  ways  even  more,  has  forever  changed 
the  pattern  of  our  lives. 

It  is  the  difficulty  in  too  many  places  of  com- 
prehending the  full  meaning  and  realizing  the 
full  potentialities  of  this  revolution  that  adds 
to  the  danger.  For  just  as  the  heavens  have  been 
brought  to  our  doorstep,  so  has  two-thirds  of 
humanit3% 

And  who  are  the  people  of  the  world  with 
whom  we  are  living  at  this  time  of  anxiety  and 
paradox  ? 

During  the  next  60  seconds  200  human  beings 
will  be  bom  on  this  earth.  One  hundred  and 
sixty  of  them  will  be  colored — black,  brown, 
yellow,  red.  About  half  will  be  dead  before  they 
are  a  year  old.  Of  those  who  survive,  approxi- 
mately half  will  be  dead  before  they  reach  their 
16th  birthday.  The  survivors  who  live  past  16 
will  have  a  life  expectancy  of  about  30  years. 
They  will  be  hungry,  tired,  sick  most  of  their 
lives.  Only  a  few  will  learn  to  read  or  write. 
They  will  till  the  soil,  working  for  their  land- 
lords, living  in  tents  or  mud  huts.  They — as 
their  fathers  before  them — will  lie  imder  the 
open  skies  waiting,  watching,  hoping. 

These  are  the  people  of  our  earth.  And  if  one 
thing  is  clear,  it  is  that  we  are  aU  in  this  age 
together — for  better  or  worse.  We  share  the 
future,  or  we  share  nothing. 

But  with  ideas  and  information  now  circling 
the  earth  faster  than  any  space  capsule — strip- 
ping away  any  insulation  enjoyed  by  the  white 
^Yestem  World  as  surely  as  they  have  stripped 
away  the  mysteries  of  time  and  distance — the 
people  who  eke  out  an  existence  in  some  God- 
forsaken jungle  or  slum  of  civilization  know 
that  we  share  the  world's  benefits  and  rich  yeai's 
and  they  share  its  deprivations  and  lean  years. 

There  can  be  no  security  for  anyone  in  a 
world  of  injustice  and  resentment,  and  we  must 
do  our  part  to  assure  that  the  prisoners  of 


832 


DEPARTJIENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


poverty  become  full  partners  in  progress.  Here 
education  is  an  indispensable  part  of  the  equa- 
tion. For  our  salvation  and  theirs  is  in  learning 
how  to  better  manage  the  affairs  of  this  earth — 
learning  how  to  do  a  better  job  of  living  with 
each  other — learning  how  to  do  away  with  the 
ancient  inequities  and  discrimination  that  now 
frastrate  the  dream  of  a  better  life  in  larger 
freedom. 
Robert  Frost  once  wrote: 

They  cannot  scare  me  with  their  empty  spaces 

.  .  .  where  no  human  race  is. 

I  have  it  in  me  so  much  nearer  home 

To  scare  myself  with  my  own  desert  places. 

It  is  within  the  "desert  places"  of  our  world 
society  that  the  future  remains  to  be  won,  and 
people  like  you  must  lead  the  way.  For  you 
understand  that  the  fight  for  freedom  may  be 
contained  on  the  battlefield  but  it  will  be  won 
or  lost  in  the  jungle  school  of  Ghana,  the  remote 
instruction  lean-to  of  Northeast  Brazil,  and  the 
ghetto  schools  of  New  York  and  Washington. 
These  are  the  true  breeding  grounds  of  free- 
dom. And  here  is  the  real  challenge  to  educa- 
tion. How  to  learn  quickly  to  do  what  must  be 
done,  to  educate  both  tlie  quick  and  the  slow, 
to  conquer  the  islands  of  poverty  and  igno- 
rance— and  the  prejudice  that  feeds  on 
ignorance — to  make  knowledge  move  quickly 
in  a  planetary  society  in  which  learning  is  the 
key  to  cooperation. 

Our  cumulative  talents  will  in  due  course 
lead  us  not  only  to  explore  the  perimeters  of  the 
solar  system  but  also  to  expand  the  boundaries 
of  civilization  and  perhaps  even  to  re-create  the 
chemistry  of  life  itself.  But  what  significance 
will  these  things  have  to  children  living 
centuries  in  the  past,  doomed  to  starvation, 
denied  equal  opportunity  and  dignity?  The  task 
of  education,  therefore,  is  not  merely  to  com- 
municate what  is  new  at  the  frontier  of  knowl- 
edge; it  is  to  draw  all  people  in  all  nations  as 
close  to  those  frontiers  as  the  tools  of  education 
can  take  them.  The  problem  grows  more  urgent 
day  by  day  as  knowledge  acceleratei5  at  a  faster 
and  faster  pace,  pushing  the  uneducated  ever 
more  backward  in  time. 

We  in  America  have  managed,  in  large  meas- 
ure, to  cope  with  the  dislocations  and  crises  of 
change  in  our  community  through  the  under- 
standing and  confidence  that  come  from  educa- 
tion. But  if  with  all  our  confidence  and  under- 
standing and  education — and  we  are  among  the 


best  educated  nations  in  the  world — we  still  ex- 
perience turmoil  and  unrest  and  if  members  of 
our  domestic  community  are  alienated  from  the 
society  around  them,  we  can  begin  to  see  the 
dimensions  of  the  problem  beyond  our  borders, 
a  problem  continental  and  intercontinental  in 
its  implications  and  solutions. 

Indeed,  if  we  but  look  about  us  in  our  own 
hemisphere  we  can  readily  see  that  the  educa- 
tional problems  faced  by  New  York,  Chicago, 
Boston,  and  Washington  differ  in  degree  only 
from  those  confronting  the  large  cities  of  Latin 
America.  Here,  even  as  in  virtually  all  other 
urban  crises,  such  as  housing  and  public  serv- 
ices, there  is  a  distinct  parallel  and  we  can  learn 
from  each  other  how  to  get  through  the  vast 
social  upheavals  of  our  day.  In  finding  solu- 
tions, we  are  no  longer  diplomats  or  educators 
or  students,  we  are  developers,  all  in  what  is  in 
essence  still  a  grand  improvisation :  the  develop- 
ment of  the  most  precious  of  all  resources — the 
human  resource.  And  our  success — or  our  fail- 
ure— will  be  written  in  what  we  achieve — or  do 
not  achieve — in  education. 

Urgency  of  the  Problem  in  Latin  America 

Basically,  the  educational  problem  in  Latin 
America,  as  in  every  underdeveloped  area,  is 
a  twofold  one.  First,  we  must  help  bring 
literacy  to  the  mass  of  the  people  so  they  can 
take  advantage  of  the  new  life  the  Alliance  for 
Progress  seeks  to  create.  j\nd  second,  there  is 
the  need  to  train  them  for  a  racing  science  and 
technology  that  is  already  outstripping  today's 
familiar  tools  of  teaching.  And  again,  if  this 
poses  a  pi'oblem  for  us  in  our  own  land,  as  it 
does,  it  is  not  difficult  to  see  the  scope  of  the 
problem  in  Latin  America. 

Moreover,  new  factories  and  a  modernized 
agriculture  only  intensify  the  problem,  for  they 
require  people  able  to  master  complexities  not 
only  technological  and  economic  but  social  as 
well.  For  without  educated  and  trained  people, 
we  will  see  the  paradoxical  effect  of  an  increased 
unemployment  preventing  any  improvement  in 
the  standard  of  living. 

The  extent  of  the  job  can  be  best  realized 
when  we  understand  that  almost  50  percent  of 
the  population  of  a  continent  of  220  million 
people  is  illiterate ;  that  while  70  percent  of  the 
children  between  the  ages  of  7  and  14  have 
enrolled  in  primary  school,  vast  numbers  drop 
out  and  only  22  percent  go  on  to  secondary 


OTTNE    24,    1968 


833 


school.  Only  4  percent  of  the  population  will 
go  on  to  a  university,  and  just  a  fraction  will  be 
graduated.  Stark  as  they  are,  however,  there  is 
a  source  of  encouragement  in  these  figures,  for 
they  show  improvement  over  what  they  were 
at  the  beginning  of  the  decade. 

But  the  solution  of  the  problem  will  obviously 
take  time — and  we  do  not  have  time!  Yet,  as 
Marshal  Lyautey  said  when  told  it  would  take 
a  tree  50  years  to  gi-ow :  "All  tlie  more  reason 
for  planting  it  today." 

This  shortage  of  time  was  recognized  by 
President  Kennedy.  President  Jolinson  recog- 
nizes it,  too;  and  when  he  met  with  the  other 
Presidents  of  the  American  Republics  at  Punt  a 
del  Este  13  months  ago,  a  key  element  of  the 
declaration  they  issiied  was  devoted  to  the  prob- 
lem.^ "We  will  vigorously  promote  education 
for  development,"  they  said.  "We  will  harness 
science  and  technology  for  the  service  of  our 
peoples." 

The  Inter- American  Cultural  Council  of  the 
OAS  is  now  moving  ahead  with  their  initiative. 
It  has  set  up  a  $25  million  special  fund  for 
multinational  educational  and  science  programs 
in  the  universities,  and  this  in  itself  is  a  develop- 
ment of  profound  and  exciting  potential  for  the 
entire  sphere  of  international  education. 

The  programs  being  developed  by  tlie  Council 
distinguish  wherever  necessaiy  between  ob- 
jectives to  be  achieved  at  multinational  levels 
and  those  which  can  be  more  effectively  reached 
through  national  initiative.  The  differentiation 
is  both  gratifying  and  practical.  It  reminds  us, 
above  all,  of  the  indispensable  contribution  to 
be  made  by  the  individual  nation.  That  is  the 
place  where  we  find  the  self-identity,  the  co- 
hesion, tlie  shared  aspirations,  and  the  pride  in 
accomplislmient  which  are  the  requisites  for  de- 
velopment in  education  or  in  any  other  field. 
Multinational  activities  can  only  enhance  the 
impulse  and  the  aims  that  must  come  from 
within  the  country  itself,  and  I  cannot  guess 
where  the  impulse  will  be  foimd  if  not  in  the 
national  spirit. 

And  in  no  segment  of  the  population  is  this 
spirit  more  evident  than  among  the  university 
students  and  the  other  young  people  of  Latin 
America  who  today  constitute  the  majority  of 
the  population.  It  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  tell 
them  how  important  it  is  for  them  to  receive 
an  education  and  to  build  societies  that  insure 


their  people  the  greatest  degree  of  freedom,  in- 
dividual dignity,  and  opportimity.  They  are 
determined  to  do  so,  with  or  without  us. 

If  we  are  to  succeed  in  helping  them,  there- 
fore, we  must  first  understand  their  needs  and 
aspirations  and  what  it  is  they  want  to  achieve. 
This  will  require  us  to  abandon  old  stereotypes 
and  attitudes  in  favor  of  more  sjTnpathy  and 
better  imderstanding.  It  also  requires  us  to 
understand  that  Latin  America  today  is  a 
ciiicible  in  which  not  only  our  hopes  and  aspira- 
tions but  what  we  are  doing  to  help  bring  about 
a  better  world  are  daily  being  tested. 

Strengthening  Cultural  Ties 

Yet  for  many  decades  the  chief  characteristic 
of  our  attitude  toward  the  people  of  Latin 
America  was  ignorance.  Tliere  was  little  interest 
in  their  liistory  or  problems  or  culture,  even  in 
our  imiversitics,  which  was  one  place  you  would 
have  expected  to  find  it.  Even  now,  7  years  after 
the  Alliance  for  Progress,  there  are  only  a 
relatively  small  number  of  academic  centers  in 
our  country  for  the  study  of  Latin  American 
affairs. 

Most  American  college  students  today  per- 
haps can  name  one  or  two  Latin  American 
jjainters  and  composers.  But  how  many  can 
name  a  single  poet  or  writer  or  even  a  President  ? 

This  cultural  ignorance  has  been  more  our  loss 
than  theirs,  for  knowledge  of  Latin  American 
culture  is  not  just  information  and  legend  about 
an  underdeveloped  or  quaint  area  but  an  im- 
portant part  of  the  common  knowledge  of  the 
educated  American.  It  is  for  our  own  spiritnal 
and  intellectual  life  and  fulfillment  that  we  need 
more  knowledge  and  access  to  the  music,  the  art, 
the  philosophy  of  Latin  America.  And  it  is  here 
that  universities,  such  as  this  one,  can  play  their 
part. 

Should  not  our  universities,  in  accordance 
with  a  suggestion  made  by  the  President,^  es- 
tablish Alliance  for  Progi-ess  centers  that  could 
serve  as  focal  points  of  expanded  teaching  of 
Latin  history  and  culture  and  civilization?  They 
could  be  places  where  Latin  students  could  meet 
with  government  officials,  artists,  business, 
labor,  and  community  leaders,  where  they  could 
get  a  better  imderstanding  and  feeling  for  our 
country. 


'  For  text  of  the  declaration,  see  Bulletin  of  May  8, 
1967,  p.  712. 


'  For  a  statement  liy  President  Johnson  made  at 
Punta  del  Este,  Urugnay.  on  Apr.  13,  1967,  see  il>id., 
p.  708. 


834 


DEPARTSrENT   OF   STATE   BTJLLETIN 


^i 


Perhaps,  also,  a  Latin  American  Cultural 
Foundation  could  be  set  up  under  public  or 
private  auspices.  It  would  be  made  up  of  men  of 
letters  and  arts,  and  its  jiurpose  would  be  to 
honor  outstanding  cultural  achievements  of 
Latin  Americans  and  to  translate  their  works 
into  English. 

And  I  believe  there  could  be  and  should  be 
much  greater  exchange  of  faculties  and  students 
among  our  universities,  including,  I  would  hope, 
an  intei-change  of  professors  in  which  uni- 
versities here  and  in  Latin  America  would  pair 
themselves  and  set  up  joint  chairs — for  the  study 
of  Latin  Ajnerican  civilization  at  our  universi- 
ties and  for  the  study  of  United  States  life  at 
theirs. 

These  are  all  steps  for  strengthening  the  cul- 
tural ties  between  us — ties  leading  to  the  better 
understanding  that  is  so  essential,  in  my  judg- 
ment, to  the  ultimate  success  of  the  Alliance  and 
to  the  successful  education  job  with  which  it  is 
interwoven.  And  understanding  must  include 
recognition  that  if  the  Alliance  is,  finally,  to 
succeed,  it  must  take  root  in  the  hearts  and  the 
minds  of  the  people  of  Latin  America.  It  must 
become  not  the  symbol  of  any  handout  from  a 
rich  neighbor  to  a  poor  one  but  the  symbol  of 
friendship  and  understanding  between  equals, 
the  unfurled  banner  of  our  mutual  aspiration 
for  hiunan  worth. 

Mutual  Aims 

I  think  we  have  learned  in  our  comitry  in  such 
fields  as  race  relations  and  tolerance  among  re- 
ligious groups  that  sympathy  and  understand- 
ing are  the  result  of  personal  contact,  of  people 
rubbing  shoulders,  learning  about  each  other  in 
the  heat  of  contact  and  discussion. 

What  we  must  learn,  then,  about  Latin  Amer- 
ica is  that  its  people  are  dedicated  to  dignity 
and  purpose.  They  must  learn  tliat  we  stand 
with  the  men  of  vision  in  their  hemi.sphere; 
with  those  who  believe  hunger,  disease,  and 
illiteracy  can  be  ended;  with  those  who  are  cer- 
tain the  entrenchment  of  the  oligarchies  and  the 
privileged  few  can  be  ended  peacefully;  with 
those  who  are  striving  for  a  unified  continent 
in  which  the  governments  are  committed  to 


democracy,  reform,  and  progress.  They  must 
learn  that  their  aims  are  our  aims,  their  future 
our  future. 

This,  I  believe,  is  the  only  way  to  win  the 
friendship  of  the  Latin  American  university 
students  and  indeed  all  the  young  people  who 
have  been  and  are  such  vital  features  of  Latin 
American  cultural,  social,  and  political  devel- 
opment. 

Walt  Whitman  once  said  that  "The  proof  of 
a  poet  is  that  his  country  absorbs  him  as  affec- 
tionately as  he  has  absorbed  it."  The  young  poets 
and  writers  and  philosophers  of  Latin  xlraerica, 
with  their  strong  love  of  country,  express  the 
hopes  and  longings  of  their  people.  They  can 
move  the  country  with  an  idea,  and  they  and  all 
the  other  restless  young  men  and  women  of 
Latin  America  are  the  mystique  that  is  now  so 
vitally  needed  to  bring  success  to  the  entire  de- 
velopment and  educational  effort  in  their 
continent. 

Even  as  young  people  everywhere,  they  are 
prone  to  impatience.  They  ai-e  also  more  willing 
to  blame  the  Yankee  for  their  problems  than  to 
understand  the  difficulties  in  solving  them.  Yet 
these  are  the  people  we  must  reach,  the  people 
in  whom  we  must  arouse  a  vision  of  grandeur 
that  in  turn  will  spark  the  enthusiasm  and  loy- 
alties of  all  the  people.  They  are  searching  for 
a  revolution  of  social  justice;  and  we  must  con- 
\ince  them  that  this  is  our  aim,  too,  but  that  it 
can  be  fought  and  won  peacefully. 

The  drama  of  dying  on  the  barricades,  of 
course,  is  a  much  more  commanding  concept 
than  that  of  an  unromantic  struggle  to  live  a 
better  life.  But  it  is  precisely  here  that  Latin 
American  youth,  as  well  as  our  own,  must  now 
chart  new  directions.  For  the  critical  struggle 
is  going  to  be  between  those  who  believe  in 
democratic  development  under  freedom  and 
those  of  the  left  and  the  right  to  whom  freedom 
is  unimportant.  The  students  and  the  members 
of  the  cultural  community,  for  the  most  part, 
know  that  art,  and  culture  camiot  express  itself 
in  a  closed  society.  They  know  that  tyranny  is 
the  natural  enemy  of  creativity,  and  I  am  con- 
vinced they  will  not  be  found  wanting  in  any 
true  test. 


jrxE 


19G8 


835 


The  Nuclear  Nonproliferation  Treaty: 
A  Preventive  and  a  Positive  Measure 


by  William  C.  Foster 

Director,  U.S.  Arms  Control  and  Disarmament  Agency  ^ 


Generally  we  celebrate  only  those  things 
which  cling  together,  and  rarely  those  which  fly 
apart.  And  so  it  is  indeed  a  distinctive  privilege 
to  join  you  here  m  observing  the  30th  anniver- 
sary of  atomic  fission. 

I  would  like  to  begin  by  congratulating  the 
organizers  of  "Nuclear  Week."  I  think  the  idea 
of  holding  this  observance  of  30  years'  devel- 
opment in  the  peaceful  uses  of  nuclear  energy 
was  an  inspired  one;  and  I  understand  that  in 
its  execution  this  initiative  has  already  proven 
to  be  extremely  interesting  and  useful. 

Although  this  "Nuclear  Week"  has  been  con- 
cerned essentially  with  peaceful  uses,  the  dual 
quality  of  nuclear  fission  is  a  truism ;  and  so  I 
trust  it  will  not  be  a  breach  of  the  rules  if  I  talk 
for  a  moment  about  both  the  "good"  and  "bad" 
aspects  of  tliis  very  ambivalent  force  of  nature, 
with  i^articular  reference  to  nuclear  weapons 
and  our  efforts  to  prevent  their  spread. 

We  think  of  the  nonproliferation  treaty  - 
mainly  as  the  next  step  in  a  process  of  arms  con- 
trol measures  designed,  among  other  things,  to 
stop  the  spread  of  nuclear  weapons — the  pre- 
^aous  steps  having  been  the  limited  test  ban 
treaty,  the  treaties  providing  for  the  preventive 
denuclearization  of  Antarctica  and  of  outer 
space,  and  the  Treaty  of  Tlatelolco,  aimed  at 
creating  a  Latin  American  nuclear  free  zone. 
Essentially,  of  course,  it  is  the  next  step  in  tliis 
process;  and  with  its  far-reaching  implications 
for  world  security,  it  is  unquestionably  the  most 


^Address  made  before  a  luncheon  sponsored  by 
'Nuclear  Week  in  New  York"  at  New  York,  NY.  on 
May  23. 

•For   text   of   the    draft    treaty,    see   Bulletin    of 
May  20, 1967.  p.  643. 


important  arms  control  measure  yet.  I  would 
say  that  the  nonpi'oliferation  treaty  differs  from 
the  preceding  steps,  however,  in  that  it  is  not 
only  a  preventive  measure  but  also  a  positive 
measure,  aimed  at  promotmg  peaceful  nuclear 
uses  on  a  global  basis.  In  other  words,  it  deals 
not  only  with  the  "bad"  but  also  with  the  "good" 
aspect  of  the  nuclear  duality. 

About  2  years  ago,  when  it  first  became  ap- 
parent that  the  nonproliferation  treaty  was  be- 
coming a  real  possibility,  questions  and  doubts 
began  to  be  raised  in  many  parts  of  the  world 
as  to  the  effects  it  might  have  on  peaceful  nu- 
clear programs,  and  some  rather  baleful  pre- 
dictions were  made.  We  undertook  a  long  series 
of  consultations  with  various  governments  in 
an  effort  to  answer  the  questions  which  had  been 
raised.  I  would  say  that  this  effort  was  success- 
ful ;  but  at  the  same  time  I  would  add  that  in 
the  process  we  learned  a  good  deal,  so  that  in 
the  end  we  were  able  to  come  up  with  a  treaty 
draft  which  not  only  would  not  liinder  peace- 
ful programs  but  would  actually  promote  and 
accelerate  them. 

Article  IV  of  the  treaty  draft,  for  exami:)le, 
provides  that : 

Parties  to  the  Treaty  in  a  position  to  do  so  shall  .  .  . 
cooperate  in  contributing  alone  or  together  with  other 
States  or  international  organizations  to  the  further 
development  of  the  applications  of  nuclear  energy  for 
peaceful  purposes,  esiwcially  in  the  territories  of  non- 
nuclear-weapon  States  Party  to  the  Treaty. 

Incidentally,  I  think  this  is  one  answer  to 
those  who  say  the  non-nuclear- weai>on  countries 
would  not  be  getting  much  out  of  this  treaty. 
It  is  true  that  we  have  already  made  such  con- 
tributions on  a  voluntary  basis,  but  this  article 


836 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


involves  the  United  States  in  a  commitment 
which,  without  the  treaty,  we  woukl  be  under 
no  obligation  whatever  to  make. 

The  treaty  also  provides  other  technological 
benefits  for  its  non-nuclear-weapon  signatories ; 
but  these  have  been  discussed  extensively  both 
at  the  disarmament  conference  in  Geneva  and 
here  at  the  United  Nations,  and  I  will  not  at- 
tempt to  detail  them  here.  Rather,  I  would  like 
for  a  moment  to  glance  at  the  corollnry;  that  is, 
what  benefits  the  treaty  may  hold  for  the  Amer- 
ican peaceful  nuclear  progi-am  and  our  industrj-. 

To  begin  with,  it  is  evident  that  as  nuclear 
programs  are  accelerated  in  the  non-nuclear- 
weapon  countries,  American,  as  well  as  other, 
suppliers  of  fuel  and  equipment  will  stand  to 
benefit.  In  this  connection,  the  essential  pro- 
\-ision  of  the  treaty  is,  of  course,  article  III,  the 
safeguards  article.  Now  that  we  have  at  last 
been  able  to  negotiate  a  suitable  safeguards 
article,  a  foreign  customer  for  a  power  reactor, 
for  example,  will  be  able  to  ai-rive  at  a  pur- 
chase agreement  promptly,  without  having  to 
go  thi-ough  what  might  otherwise  be  a  long 
process  of  negotiation  as  to  whether  the  reactor 
would  be  under  safeguards,  and  if  so,  what  kind. 
This,  of  course,  assumes  tliat  his  country  has  ac- 
cepted the  safeguards  called  for  by  article  III. 

As  the  nonproliferation  treaty  aj^proaches 
worldwide  application,  moreover,  it  will  act  to 
reduce  and  finally  remove  any  tendency  to  dis- 
criminate against  some  reactor  manufacturers 
in  favor  of  others  who  might  ofi'er  weaker  safe- 
guards or  even  none  at  all.  In  other  words,  by 
standardizing  safeguards  and  thus  removing 
them  from  the  marketplace,  the  nonprolifera- 
tion treaty  will  be  a  most  important  step  toward 
putting  suppliers  on  an  equal  footing  in  this 
res]iect.  As  the  worldwide  use  of  nuclear  power 
reactors  gi-ows,  it  will  be  increasingly  useful  to 
both  customer  and  supplier  to  know  that  all 
their  transactions  will  be  carried  out  on  the 
basis  of  a  uniform,  nondiscriminatory  sj'stem  of 
safeguards. 

Recently  there  have  been  some  stories  in  the 
press,  spurred  by  opponents  of  the  treaty,  to  the 
effect  that  the  international  safeguards  system 
it  calls  for  will  be  very  expensive.  To  begin 
with,  any  calculations  on  this  subject  can  only 
be  quite  speculative  at  this  time.  Moreover,  I 
suspect  that  the  tentative  figures  which  have 
been  advanced  are  highly  overblown  since  they 
do  not  take  into  account  the  virtual  certainty 


that  unit  costs  of  safeguardmg  will  be  reduced 
as  increased  efficiency  is  introduced,  based  both 
on  improved  instnunentation  and  on  the  evolu- 
tion of  the  safeguards  system  from  its  present 
small  scale  to  a  full-scale  and  going  operation. 
The  relevant  question,  in  any  case,  is :  What  will 
safeguards  costs  be  as  related  to  the  cost  of  the 
nuclear  power  i^roduced?  Even  without  the  ex- 
pected improvements  in  efficiency,  safeguards 
costs  should  be  less  than  1  percent  of  the  cost 
of  the  power  produced. 

It  is  also  pertinent  to  note  that  safeguards  will 
not  be  paid  for  directly  by  electric  utilities  or  by 
their  customers.  They  will  be  paid  for  by  the 
International  Atomic  Energy  Agency,  which  in 
turn  receives  its  money  from  assessments 
against  the  governments  of  member  countries. 

Finally,  of  course,  these  costs  are  a  small  price 
to  pay  to  check  nuclear  proliferation  and  thus 
help  reduce  the  risks  of  nuclear  war.  Consider- 
ing the  alternative — worldwide  production  of 
enough  unsafeguarded  plutonium  to  make 
thousands  of  bombs  per  year — the  cost  of  safe- 
guards is  modest  indeed. 

Before  leaving  the  subject  of  safeguards  there 
is  one  incidental  point  I  would  like  to  make. 
It  is  interesting  to  note  the  evolution  of  Soviet 
thinlving  on  this  subject.  For  at  first,  as  you  may 
recall,  they  had  no  interest  in  safeguards  at  all ; 
and  now  they  have  agreed  to  international  safe- 
guards inspections  on  the  territories  of  Warsaw 
Pact  countries.  I  think  this  marks  a  considerable 
advance  for  the  principle  of  international  in- 
spection; and  perhaps  it  is  not  going  too  far  to 
read  it  as  a  favorable  portent  for  a  more  en- 
lightened attitude  in  the  future  toward  interna- 
tional mspection  on  Soviet  territoi-y  itself. 

Retumuig  to  the  treaty  in  general:  If  I 
thought  that  the  nonproliferation  treaty  oifered 
nothing  more  than  what  is  specifically  written 
into  it,  I  would  still  be  strongly  in  favor  of  it — 
from  the  standpoint  of  world  security,  first  of 
all,  but  also  for  the  encouragement  it  offers  to 
peaceful  nuclear  progress.  However,  it  must  be 
viewed  in  a  broader  context  as  a  vast  worldwide 
undertaking  in  arms  control,  opening  the  way 
toward  further  measures.  And  let  us  not  forget 
that  there  must  he  further  measures.  Others 
have  said  it,  and  I  will  say  it  now :  Despite  its 
universal  benefits,  I  do  not  believe  that  the 
nonproliferation  treaty  can  last  unless  it  is  fol- 
lowed within  a  reasonable  time  by  additional 
arms  control  steps,  especially  with  regard  to  the 


JUNE    24,    1968 


837 


nuclear  arms  race  between  oui-selves  and  the 
Soviet  Union. 

If  logic  is  of  any  account,  moreover,  1  would 
add  that  it  points  inexorably  in  that  direction. 
As  Mr.  McNamara  pomted  out  in  his  San  Fran- 
cisco statement  of  last  September :  ^ 

The  blunt  fact  is  .  .  .  tbat  neither  the  Soviet  Union 
nor  the  United  States  can  attacli  the  other  without 
being  destroyed  in  retaliation ;  nor  can  either  of  us 
attain  a  first-strike  capability  in  the  foreseeable  future. 

By  "first-strike  capability,"  of  course,  he 
meant  not  only  the  ability  to  strike  first  but  in 
domg  so  to  eliminate  substantially  the  opposing 
side's  ability  to  retaliate.  Given  the  U.S.-Soviet 
potential  for  mutual  devastation,  the  concept  of 
"superiority"  in  nuclear  weaponry  indeed  be- 
comes a  matter  of  lunited  significance.  One 
might  well  ask  whether  we  couldn't  spend  the 
bilfions  of  dollars  and  the  billions  of  rubles  more 
productively,  while  still  maintaining,  or  per- 
haps even  improving,  our  mutual  security. 

As  the  President  stated  in  his  message  of  Feb- 
ruary 12  to  the  Congress  transmitting  the  an- 
nual report  of  the  Arms  Control  and  Dis- 
armament Agency : 

...  the  United  States  urgently  desires  to  begin 
discussions  with  the  Soviet  Union  about  the  buildup  of 
offensive  and  defensive  missiles  on  both  sides.  Such 


'  Ibid.,  Oct.  9, 1967,  p.  443. 


discussions— and  it  is  important  to  note  that  the  Soviet 
Union  has  agreed  to  them,  in  principle  at  least— will 
aim  at  finding  ways  to  avoid  another  costly  and  futile 
escalation  of  the  arms  race. 

The  President  also  pointed  out  that  "The  ob- 
ligations of  the  non-proliferation  treaty  will 
reinforce  our  will  to  bring  an  end  to  the  nuclear 
arms  race."  And  he  added:  "The  world  will 
judge  us  by  our  performance." 

Li  this  comiection,  I  am  encouraged  to  note 
that  Mr.  Kuznetsov  [Vasily  V.  Kuznetsov,  First 
Deputy  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  the 
U.S.S.R.],  speaking  at  the  United  Nations 
earlier  this  week,  remarked  that  the  Soviet 
TJnion  was  "prepared  to  agree  on  concrete  steps 
aimed  at  limitmg  and,  subsequently,  reducing 
strategic  means  of  delivery  of  nuclear  weapons." 


Lexers  of  Credence 

Senegal 

The  newly  appointed  Ambassador  of  the 
Republic  of"  Senegal,  Cheikh  Ibrahima  Fall, 
presented  his  credentials  to  President  Johnson 
on  June  5.  For  texts  of  the  Ambassador's  re- 
marks and  the  President's  reply,  see  Department 
of  State  press  release  dated  June  5. 


838 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


The  Protectionist  Counterattack  on  Trade   Liberalization 


by  William  M.  Roth 

Special  Representative  for  Trade  Negotiations  ^ 


The  retailers  of  this  country — and  the  con- 
sumers they  serve — have  benefited  greatly  from 
the  liberal  trade  policies  which  the  United 
States  has  followed  for  the  past  tlurd  of  a 
century.  They  have  enabled  you  to  ofl'er  your 
customers  a  wide  choice  in  st3'le,  price,  quality, 
and  variety — wider  than  any  other  people  in 
history  have  enjoyed. 

Some  imports  give  an  added  zest  to  life;  they 
appear,  for  example,  on  the  gourmet  shelves  of 
supermarkets  and  in  the  showcases  of  high- 
fashion  boutiques.  Others  are  a  source  of  bar- 
gam  buys  for  Americans  of  modest  means,  help- 
ing them  to  stretch  their  limited  budgets  a  little 
further. 

All  of  you  know  by  experience  the  importance 
of  variety  in  the  goods  you  display.  Affluent 
-Americans  have  grown  highly  selective.  They 
tend  to  look  at  many  different  items  before  they 
buy.  The  greater  the  range  of  goods  you  can 
offer  them,  the  more  likely  it  is  that  something 
will  strike  their  fancy.  If  they  find  what  they 
want,  they  are  likely  to  come  again.  If  they 
don't,  they  may  cross  you  off  their  list  for  good. 

Last  year,  as  you  know,  the  Kennedy  Rornid 
of  trade  negotiations  came  to  a  successful  con- 
clusion. The  tariff  cuts  resulting  from  it  began 
this  year  and  will  be  completed  by  1972.  There- 
fore, better  bargains  should  be  forthcoming  in 
imported  furniture,  clocks,  gourmet  foods,  bone 
chinaware,  and  many  other  items.  More  foreign 
producers  will  be  encouraged  to  look  to  the 
American  market  and  tailor  their  products  to 
American  tastes. 

There's  a  law  in  physics  that  for  every  action 
there  is  an  equal  and  opposite  reaxjtion.  It  seems 
to  work  the  same  way  in  trade  matters.  For  no 
sooner   had   the   Kennedy    Round   been   con- 


'  Address  made  before  the  American  Retail  Federa- 
tion at  Washington,  D.C.,  on  May  6. 


eluded — the  biggest  step  forward  in  trade 
liberalization  in  history — than  the  protection- 
ists launched  a  counterattack. 

It  began  last  year  with  the  mtroduction  in 
Congress  of  bills  to  protect  a  score  of  American 
industries  by  limiting  the  imports  of  competi- 
tive items  from  abroad.  Here  are  some  of  the 
many  consumer  products  involved :  radios,  foot- 
wear, tape  recorders,  stainless  steel  flatware, 
clothes  made  of  wool  or  synthetic  fibers,  mink 
pelts,  fish,  meat,  and  dairy  products. 

All  in  all,  the  products  affected  by  these  im- 
port quota  bills  account  for  some  $6.7  billion — 
42  percent — of  our  dutiable  imports. 

Yet  despite  the  scope  and  strength  of  this  new 
protectionism  all  too  many  businessmen  seemed 
reluctant  to  take  it  seriously.  They  had  been 
lulled  into  complacency  because  for  a  number 
of  years  past,  scores  of  protectionist  bills  have 
been  introduced  at  the  begimiing  of  each  session 
of  Congress  only  to  sink  without  a  trace. 
Wlaerever  I  went,  people  told  me  not  to  worry, 
that  history  would  repeat  itself. 

I  warned  them — and  I  warn  you  now — that 
we  cannot,  we  simply  cannot,  risk  taking  this 
for  granted.  This  time  it  is  different,  this  time  it 
is  serious.  Indeed,  what  has  happened  in  recent 
weeks  shows  how  deadly  serious  are  the  dangers 
we  confront. 

Just  over  a  month  ago,  at  the  first  constitu- 
tional opportmiity  this  year,  the  appearance  on 
the  Senate  floor  of  a  House  measure  extending 
Federal  excise  taxes,  a  motion  was  made  to  at- 
tach a  comprehensive  textile  import  quota  to  it 
as  an  amendment. 

If  this  were  enacted,  and  if  we  were  unable 
to  negotiate  a  comprehensive  worldwide  textile 
arrangement,  it  could  result  in  the  sharp  curtail- 
ment of  imports  of  every  kind  of  textile  product. 
I  understand  that  the  Associated  Merchandising 
Corporation  has  estimated  that  the  cuts  could 


JtJNE    24,    1968 


839 


amount  to  28  percent  in  clothing  (suits,  sweat- 
ers, dresses,  and  many  other  items)  and  15  per- 
cent in  floor  coverings  and  tapestries. 

Needless  to  say,  import  cuts  of  this  magnitude 
would  result  in  substantially  higher  prices  to 
consumers.  That  is  perhaps  the  major  purpose 
of  import  qviotas. 

Despite  the  far-reaching  consequences  of  this 
textile  amendment,  there  was  only  an  hour  of 
debate  on  it,  far  too  little  for  a  measure  which 
would  affect  every  consumer  in  America.  I  am 
pleased  to  say  the  Senators  from  both  sides  of 
the  aisle  took  advantage  of  this  opportunity — 
limited  as  it  was — to  speak  cogently  against  it. 
But  in  the  end  the  advocates  of  the  quota  pre- 
vailed. The  key  vote  was  on  a  motion  to  table, 
defeated  54  to  35.  Then  the  amendment  was 
adopted  by  a  vote  of  55  to  31. 

I  have  cited  these  figures  because  I  liope 
that  you  will  note  them  down  and  remember 
them.  They  show  more  clearly  than  any  words 
the  power  the  protectionist  drive  has  attained. 

Dangers  of  Omnibus  Quota  Bill 

Last  week  a  new  threat  emerged:  the  intro- 
duction of  an  omnibus,  across-the-board  quota 
bill.  Unlike  the  bills  I  have  previously 
mentioned,  this  is  not  focused  on  a  particular 
industry  or  product.  On  the  contrary,  it  pro- 
vides for  the  automatic  application  of  import 
quotas  whenever  certain  arithmetic  tests  are 
met. 

Tine  indications  are  that  the  bill  would  result 
in  quotas  being  imposed  against  a  very  wide 
range  of  imports.  It  would  seem  to  apply  to 
imports  of  products  where  domestic  supply  is 
inadequate  and  where  domestic  demand  is  grow- 
ing, products  as  diverse  as  newsprint  and  Scotch 
whiskey.  It  would  also  require  quotas  on  the 
products  of  many  healthy  and  growing 
American  industries — such  as,  for  example, 
automobiles,  aluminum,  scientific  instruments, 
and  photographic  equipment. 

All  this  would  add  up  to  wholesale  Govern- 
ment intervention  in  commercial  affairs— a 
matter  of  obvious  concern  to  an  organization 
like  yours,  one  of  whose  basic  principles  is 
opposition  to  such  Government  controls. 

The  sponsors  of  the  bill  have  been  at  pains  to 
sugar-coat  its  contents.  They  have  given  it  an 
attractive  but  utterly  misleading  label:  the 
"Fair  International  Trade  Act."  They  claim 


that,  instead  of  calling  for  sharp  rollbacks  in 
imports,  as  most  quota  bills  have  in  the  past, 
their  bill  would  base  quotas  in  most  cases  on 
the  level  of  imports  during  the  most  recent 
calendar  year.  They  claim  that  it  would  allow 
foreign  suppliers  to  participate  proportionally 
in  the  future  growth  of  the  American  market 
for  the  product  concerned. 

All  this,  if  so  (and  the  bill  is  so  loosely  drawn 
that  it  is  not  at  all  clear  it  justifies  these  claims) , 
may  look  fair  and  reasonable  at  first  sight- 
merely  a  matter  of  live-and-let-live.  But  suppose 
a  similar  quota  system  were  to  be  applied  to 
retail  trade.  If  a  store  threatened  to  get  too  far 
ahead  of  its  competitors,  a  quota  would  be 
clamped  upon  it.  The  growth  of  its  sales  would 
liencef  orth  be  limited  to  the  rate  at  which  retail 
sales  generally  were  expanding.  If  that  were  to 
happen,  there  would  be  precious  little  incentive 
for  alert  and  aggressive  merchandising ! 

It  is,  indeed,  the  very  antithesis  of  the  basic 
concepts  of  our  competitive,  market-oriented 
economic  system. 

This  bill  calls  for  careful  watching.  Its 
sponsors  claim  the  support  of  over  30  industries, 
including  many  which  have  not  hitherto  asked 
for  quotas. 

State  and  Local  Measures 

American  trade  policy  is  in  real  danger  of 
bludgeoning  by  blunt  weapons  such  as  this  new 
omnibus  import  quota  bill.  But  it  also  faces  the 
risk  of  being  nibbled  to  bits  in  State  capitals  or 
even  county  courthouses. 

There  is  already  a  good  deal  of  protectionism 
embedded  in  State  laws  and  local  statutes,  but 
a  concerted  campaign  is  underway  to  move 
much  further  in  this  direction. 

It  has  already  drawn  its  first  blood.  Just  last 
month,  Erie  County  (the  coimty  in  which 
Buffalo  is  located)  enacted  a  resolution  forbid- 
ding the  use  of  imported  steel  and  steel  products 
on  public  projects,  unless  a  strike  or  other  labor 
problem  disrupted  domestic  supplies. 

Even  more  recently,  a  "Buy  American"  bill 
was  approved  by  the  Pennsylvania  State  Senate 
by  a  lopsided  vote  of  45  to  4. 

If  enacted,  its  provisions  would  be  triggered 
through  the  insertion,  by  any  interested  person 
in  the  State,  of  notices  in  two  newsj^apers  declar- 
ing that  a  particular  foreign  country  discrim- 
inates against  the  procurement  for  its  public 


840 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE    BULLETIN 


works  of  products  made  in  Pennsylvania.  Thirty 
days  after  the  notice  appeared,  it  would  be 
added  for  a  period  of  360  days  to  a  blacklist 
maintained  by  the  State's  Department  of  Com- 
merce. In  order  to  use  aluminum  or  steel  ma- 
terials from  a  country  so  listed  in  a  State- 
financed  project,  a  contractor  would  have  to 
prove  in  a  county  court  that  it  had  not  discrim- 
inated against  any  Pennsylvania  product  during 
the  year  before  its  blacklistino;.  And  discrimin- 
ation is  so  loosely  defined  that  it  could  be  inter- 
preted to  cover  trade  practices  that  are  not 
actually  discriminatory. 

A  similar  but  even  more  drastic  bill — apply- 
ing to  steel,  aluminum,  glass,  tile,  cement,  brass, 
and  copper — has  been  reported  favorably  by  a 
joint  committee  in  Massachusetts  and  is  now 
before  both  houses  of  the  State's  legislature.  The 
steel  industry  is  reportedly  pressing  for  similar 
measures,  under  such  labels  as  "fair  trade"  and 
"trade  equalization,"  in  a  number  of  other 
major  industrial  States. 

These  bills  do  not  yet  affect  your  own  inter- 
ests as  directly  as  quota  bills  do  at  the  national 
level.  But  they  do  affect  you  as  substantial  tax- 
payers interested  in  getting  the  best  value  for 
the  public  dollar.  Moreover,  if  one  industry  is 
.successful  in  securing  protective  measures  at 
the  State  level,  others  will  seek  to  do  likewise, 
with  consequences  that  may  affect  you  more  di- 
rectly. I  therefore  urge  you  to  watch  for  these 
bills  in  your  State  legislatures  and  to  seek  public 
hearings  on  them,  rather  than  let  them  slip 
quietly  tlirough,  as  they  might  otherwise  all  too 
easil}'  do. 

Potential   Damage  at  Home  and  Abroad 

I  have  dealt  so  far  with  specific  protectionist 
measures.  I  should  like  to  conclude  with  some 
general  observations  about  the  damage  that  this 
resurgent  protectionism  could  do  at  home  and 
abroad  if  it  is  successful  in  breaking  through 
to  any  substantial  degree. 

First,  protectionism  would  feed  the  forces  of 
inflation ;  for  imports  are  a  major  factor  tending 
to  head  off  unreasonable  price  rises.  And  as  you 
all  know,  the  harder  your  customers  are  hit  by 
inflation,  the  less  money  they  will  have  to  spare 
for  spending  on  less  essential  items. 

Second,  quotas  imposed  by  us  are  certain  to 
lead  to  quotas  imposed  by  others  on  our  exports 
to  them ;  and  in  choosing  their  targets,  they  are 
likely  to  select  the  industries  whose  prospects 


for  export  growth  are  strongest.  This  in  turn 
will  affect  the  purchasing  power  of  many  of 
our  workers  and  farmers. 

Finally,  a  few  words  on  the  international  re- 
percussions of  unilateral  action  on  our  part.  We 
as  a  people  believe  deeply  in  the  rule  of  law. 
Since  the  end  of  the  war,  we  have  been  working 
patiently  and  persistently  to  establish  it  in  inter- 
national trade.  We  took  a  leadmg  part  in  found- 
ing the  General  Agreement  on  Tariffs  and 
Trade,  a  set  of  mutually  agreed  rules  to  which 
all  the  major  trading  nations,  including  our 
own,  have  subscribed. 

If  we  should  permit  ourselves  to  sink  back 
into  protectionism,  we  would  be  on  the  road  to 
undermining  the  very  foundations  of  GATT. 
If  we  should  enact  anything  like  the  omnibus 
quota  bill  which  was  introduced  last  week,  it  is 
hard  to  see  how  this  world  forum  of  trade  pol- 
icy— which  we  ourselves  took  the  lead  in  creat- 
ing— could  survive  the  blow. 

We  would,  in  effect,  be  repealing  the  rule  of 
law  in  international  trade.  We  would  be  turning 
the  clock  all  the  way  back  to  1930.  Wlien  we 
imposed  the  high  tariffs  i:)rescribed  by  the 
Smoot-Hawley  Act  of  that  year,  the  other  na- 
tions promptly  retaliated  in  kind.  During  the 
next  4  years,  the  value  of  world  trade  fell  by 
two-thirds.  Exports  by  the  United  States 
dropped  70  percent,  and  our  share  of  the  world 
market  by  a  third. 

The  very  stnacture  of  world  trade  is  threat- 
ened today  as  it  has  not  been  since  1930.  It  is 
threatened  by  American  industries  that  have 
lost  confidence  in  their  ability  to  compete  in 
the  open  market  and  are  seeking  to  replace  it 
by  a  veritable  labyrinth  of  bureaucratic  controls 
and  restrictions. 

I  cannot  believe  that  the  United  States,  the 
acknowledged  economic  giant  among  nations, 
would  elect  so  craven  and  self-defeating  a 
course.  It  would  be  costly  to  you  and  costly 
to  your  customers.  More  than  that,  it  would  be 
disastrous  for  the  world  economy  of  which  we 
are  an  integral  part. 

It  is  we  who,  by  virtue  of  our  size  and 
strength,  bear  the  responsibilities  of  leadership. 
It  is  we  who  will  lead  the  world  forward  in  con- 
tinued trade  liberalization  and  expansion  or 
backward  in  disorderly  retreat  to  the  beggar- 
thy-neighbor  trade  policies  of  a  bygone  age. 
"For,"  as  it  says  in  Scripture,  "if  the  trumpet 
give  an  uncertain  sound,  who  shall  prepare  him- 
self to  the  battle  ?" 


JUNE    24,    1968 


841 


THE   CONGRESS 


Department  Supports  Participation 
in  International  Coffee  Agreement 

Statement  hy  Anthony  M.  Solomon 
Assistant  Secretary  for  Economic  Affairs  ^ 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  welcome  the  opportunity  to 
appear  before  this  committee  today  in  support 
of  U.S.  participation  in  the  revised  Interna- 
tional Coffee  Agreement,  which  President 
Johnson  transmitted  to  the  Senate  on  April  23, 
1968,  for  its  advice  and  consent  to  ratification.- 

The  International  Coffee  Agreement  has 
stabilized  the  price  of  coffee  at  levels  equitable 
to  producers  and  consumers.  We  consider  that 
the  accomplishments  of  the  present  agreement 
and  the  improvements  in  the  revised  agreement 
merit  the  continued  support  and  participation 
of  the  United  States.  Our  support  is  crucial.  As 
chart  1  *  before  the  conmiittee  and  attached  to 
my  statement  shows,  this  coimtry  continues  to  be 
the  world's  largest  imisorter  of  coffee,  consum- 
ing 44.2  percent  of  total  world  imports  in  1966. 
However,  owing  to  rapid  consumption  growth 
in  Europe  (including  Eastern  Europe),  that 
area,  as  a  whole,  now  consumes  more  than  we 
do. 

Negotiated  in  1962,  the  International  Coffee 
Agreement  was  signed  by  the  United  States  on 
September  28  of  that  year.  The  Senate  gave  its 
advice  and  consent  to  ratification  on  May  21, 
1963,  and  on  December  27,  1963,  the  United 
States  deposited  its  instrument  of  ratification. 
The  agreement  entered  into  force  provisionally 
in  the  summer  of  1963  and  definitively  in  De- 
cember 1963.  Full  U.S.  participation,  however, 
began  in  the  summer  of  1965  after  the  enact- 
ment on  May  22  of  that  year  of  our  implement- 
ing legislation,  the  International  Coffee  Agree- 
ment Act  of  1965.  The  present  agreement 
expires  on  September  30, 1968,  at  the  completion 
of  the  fifth  full  coffee  year  after  its  entry  into 

'  Made  before  the  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign  Re- 
lations on  June  4  (press  release  128).  The  full  text 
of  the  hearings  will  be  published  by  the  committee. 

°  For  text  of  the  agreement,  see  Ex.  D,  90th  Cong., 
2d  sess. ;  for  text  of  President  .Johnson's  letter  of 
transmittal,  see  Bulletin  of  May  20,   1968,   p.   664. 


force.  The  new  agreement,  which  was  signed  by 
the  United  States  on  March  21, 1968,  would  ex- 
tend for  a  further  5-year  period,  or  until 
September  30, 1973. 

By  any  objective  assessment,  the  Coffee 
Agreement  stands  as  a  milestone  in  interna- 
tional cooperation.  Of  the  54  countries  which 
signed  the  agi'eement  in  1962  only  two  small  im- 
porting countries  have  not  joined.  Membership 
has  now  grown  to  67  nations — 42  exporting 
members  and  25  importing  members — covering 
approximately  98  percent  of  the  world  trade  in 
coffee.  Discussions  within  the  International 
Coffee  Council — composed  of  representatives  of 
the  member  governments — have  often  been 
heated  and  protracted,  reflecting  the  paramount 
importance  of  coffee  exports  to  many  of  the  pro- 
ducing members.  But  cooperation  and  prag- 
matic solutions  have  surmounted  the  problems 
and  difficulties  that  have  arisen. 

Under  the  agreement's  system  of  export 
quotas — which  are  designed  to  keep  exports 
roughly  in  line  with  demand — a  price  structure 
has  been  evolved  that  is  fair  to  consumers  and 
remunerative  to  producers.  Coffee  earnings  of 
developing  countries  have  stabilized,  and  disas- 
trous price  fluctuations  with  damaging  conse- 
quences for  both  producer  and  consumer  have 
been  avoided.  Chart  2,^  depicting  the  spot  prices 
for  three  major  types  of  coffe«  together  with  the 
U.S.  annual  average  import  price,  shows  the 
stabilizing  effects  of  the  agreement.  The 
stable  trend  of  prices  since  the  inauguration  of 
the  agreement  contrasts  markedly  with  the 
fluctuations  of  the  previous  decade.  The  average 
U.S.  import  price  in  1967  was  about  10  percent 
above  the  average  of  the  two  years  preceding 
the  signing  of  the  agreement  but  about  10  per- 
cent lower  than  the  price  in  1964  (when  U.S. 
participation  in  the  agreement  was  being  de- 
bated) and  25  percent  lower  than  the  average 
in  the  10-year  period  1953-62  preceding  the 
agreement. 

Consumer  interests  have  been  carefully  pro- 
tected in  other  ways.  Flexibility  in  the  quota 
mechanism  has  permitted  adequate  supplies  of 
the  various  types  of  coffees  to  be  made  available 
to  meet  changes  in  market  demand.  Procedures 
for  contract  registration  and  a  prohibition 
against  government  interference  in  commercial 
disputes  have  served  to  protect  the  trade  from 
adverse  complications  in  these  areas  caused  by 
the  operation  of  the  agreement. 


'  Not  printed  here. 


842 


DEPAETaiENT   OF   STATE   BUIXETIN 


There  have  been  areas,  however,  in  wliich  the 
present  agi-eement  has  not  fully  lived  up  to  our 
hopes.  The  problem  of  overproduction  is  still 
with  us.  Although  there  has  been  a  net  reduction 
in  world  stocks  over  the  past  two  coffee  market- 
ing years,  stocks  today  are  still  above  what  they 
were  in  19G2.  In  addition,  some  producing  coun- 
tries with  substantial  surplus  production  have 
not  fully  observed  export  quota  restrictions. 

These  deficiencies  received  priority  attention 
when  the  member  coimtries  began  negotiations 
in  early  1967  to  strengthen  and  improve  the 
agreement. 

It  was  found  possible,  working  within  the 
provisions  of  the  1962  agreement,  to  make  sub- 
stantial improvements  in  the  machinery  to  en- 
force export  quotas.  Further  improvements  in 
this  important  area  are  currently  under  dis- 
cussion. 

The  new  agreement  retains  the  essential  form 
and  purpose  of  its  predecessor,  but  there  have 
been  several  significant  additions  and  modifica- 
tions. I  would  like  to  summarize  briefly  the 
more  important  ones. 

First,  the  new  agreement  provides  a  mecha- 
nism to  insure  that  specific  production  goals  for 
each  exporting  member  country  will  be  estab- 
lished and  carried  out.  By  1973,  when  the  new 
agreement  expires,  production  m  each  comitry 
should  approximate  its  internal  consumption, 
permitted  exports,  and  appropriate  stocks. 
Severe  penalties  are  provided  for  noncompli- 
ance witli  these  production  goals,  including 
witliliolding  of  quota  increases  and  eventual 
expulsion  from  the  coffee  organization.  Import- 
ing countries  agree  not  to  provide  financial  as- 
sistance for  the  pursuit  of  production  policies 
contrary  to  the  established  goals. 

Second,  to  assist  in  production  control  and 
in  the  diversion  of  resources  from  coffee  to  other 
more  economic  production,  a  compulsory  Diver- 
sification Fund  has  been  established,  based 
substantially  on  the  resources  made  available 
to  the  producers  by  the  agreement.  The  statutes 
of  the  Fund  are  now  being  drawn  up  and  must 
be  approved  by  the  Coffee  Council  by  December 
31,  1968.  Exporting  members  contribute  to  the 
Fimd  a  minimum  of  GO  cents  per  bag  for  exports 
to  quota  markets  in  excess  of  100,000  bags  per 
year.  Over  the  5-year  period  of  the  new  agree- 
I  ment  this  will  provide  about  $150  million.  We 
expect  that  the  World  Bank,  possibly  joined 
by  other  international  financial  agencies,  will 
participate  in  the  achninistration  of  the  Fund 


to  insure  that  projects  are  teclinically  and  finan- 
cially sound.  We  regard  this  venture  as  promis- 
ing and  important  and,  subject  to  a  satisfactory 
agreement  on  the  statutes  of  the  Fund,  have 
offered  to  lend  up  to  $15  million  to  the  Fund 
and  to  match  assistance  from  other  cofl'ee  con- 
suming countries  up  to  an  additional  $15  mil- 
lion. The  United  States  expects  to  have  an 
important  voice  in  the  Fund. 

Third,  the  new  agreement  authorizes  a  semi- 
automatic system  for  adjusting  the  quotas  of 
the  various  types  of  coffee  when  significant 
price  movements  occur  within  that  variety.  This 
system  is  well  designed  to  meet  the  interest  of 
consumers  by  assuring  an  adequate  supply  of 
the  various  types  of  coffee  at  reasonable  price 
levels. 

Fourth,  an  entirely  new  article  has  been 
incorporated  in  the  agreement  prohibiting  dis- 
crimination by  members  in  the  export  and  re- 
export of  processed  coffee  as  compared  to  green 
coffee.  This  problem  arose  primarily  in  connec- 
tion with  exports  of  soluble  coffee  from  Brazil. 
Our  representatives,  supported  by  virtually  all 
other  consuming  and  producing  countries,  suc- 
cessfully maintained  that  governmental  meas- 
ures providing  special  price  advantages  to 
processed  coffee  exports  are  not  only  unfair 
under  the  agreement  but  also  a  threat  to  its 
price  stabilization  functions. 

Under  the  terms  of  the  new  article  on  proc- 
essed coffee,  if  an  importing  country  believes 
that  discrimination  in  favor  of  processed  coffee 
exports  persists  despite  the  prohibition  in  the 
article,  it  may  ask  for  mediation  by  the  Execu- 
tive Director  of  the  International  Coffee  Orga- 
nization. If  his  mediation  fails  to  resolve  the 
dispute  within  30  days,  an  impartial  arbitra- 
tion panel  is  appointed  to  examine  the  facts.  If 
the  panel,  on  the  basis  of  all  the  information  at 
its  disposal,  determines  that  discrimination 
exists,  it  is  to  measure  the  extent  of  the  discrimi- 
nation. The  exporting  country  is  given  30  days 
to  remove  discrimination  found  by  the  panel ;  if 
it  fails  to  do  so  the  importing  country  may  act 
up  to  the  extent  of  the  discrimination  found. 

Finally,  the  new  agreement  includes  a  revi- 
sion of  the  export  quotas  assigned  to  individual 
exporting  coimtries  which  removes  a  large 
measure  of  the  dissatisfaction  some  of  them  felt 
over  their  assigned  share.  We  believe  these  new 
basic  quotas  also  better  reflect  current  consumer 
demand. 

These  changes  and  modifications  substan- 
tially remedy  the  shortcomings  which  became 


JXTNE    24,    1968 


843 


apparent  in  the  provisions  of  the  current  agree- 
ment. They  also  provide  an  effective  framework 
for  an  attack  on  the  root  cause  of  the  coffee 
problem — overproduction — and  enhance  the 
prospect  that  in  time  the  agreement's  quota  pro- 
vision may  be  relegated  to  a  contingency  or 
standby  basis. 

The  obligations  of  the  United  States  under 
the  new  agreement  remain  essentially  un- 
changed. We  shall  be  required  to  comply  with 
the  import  and  export  control  procedures  and 
to  furnish  statistics  on  our  coffee  trade.  As  in 
the  present  agreement,  our  contribution  to  the 
administrative  expenses  of  the  agreement  will 
not  exceed  the  pro  rata  share  based  on  our  vot- 
ing strength. 

In  the  operation  of  the  agreement  and  the 
renegotiation  of  its  provisions  we  have  had  the 
benefit  of  close  and  cooperative  consultations 
with  representatives  of  the  U.S.  coffee  trade. 
Members  of  the  Foreign  Affairs  Committee  of 
the  National  Coffee  Association,  the  major  trade 
organization  of  our  coffee  industry,  have  made 
practical  and  forthright  suggestions  on  the 
questions  which  have  arisen  in  connection  with 
the  operation  of  the  agreement.  I  wish  at  this 
time  to  express  appreciation  for  the  constructive 
response  of  the  association  membership  to  the 
important  national  interests  at  stake  in  the 
agreement.  I  understand  that  the  board  of  direc- 
tors of  the  association  has  sent  to  the  chairman 
of  this  committee  a  copy  of  its  recent  resolu- 
tion supporting  ratification  of  the  agreement 
and  approval  of  the  proposed  implementing 
legislation. 

The  successful  operation  of  the  agreement  to 
date  and  the  significant  improvements  agreed 
upon  during  the  renegotiation  reflect  the  im- 
portance attached  to  the  agreement  by  all  its 
members,  particularly  the  exporting  countries. 
Coffee  continues  to  be  the  single  most  important 
agricultural  commodity  in  world  trade  with 
current  annual  shipments  valued  at  approxi- 
mately $2.3  billion.  As  chart  3  *  shows,  for  a 
number  of  countries  in  Latin  America  and 
Afi-ica,  coffee  remains  the  principal  source  of 
foreign  exchange.  Colombia  (67  percent),  Ethi- 
opia (61  percent),  Uganda  (52  percent),  Haiti 
(52  percent),  El  Salvador  (50  percent),  and 
Brazil  (47  percent)  are  major  cases  in  point. 
The  member  exporting  countries  regard  the 

'  Not  printed  here. 


Coffee  Agreement,  with  its  stabilizmg  influence 
on  their  foreign  earnings,  as  a  major  instnmient 
in  their  efforts  to  promote  orderly  economic 
and  social  development.  They  have  evidenced 
this  by  undertaking  major  commitments  to 
strengthen  and  enlarge  the  effectiveness  of  the 
agreement. 

In  Latin  America,  U.S.  participation  ui  the 
Coffee  Agreement  is  considered  a  critical  test  of 
hemispheric  solidarity.  This  was  true  of  the 
first  agreement  and  is  still  true  of  its  renewal. 
This  view  was  strongly  expressed  by  all  the 
heads  of  American  states  at  Pimta  del  Este  last 
April. 

A  collapse  of  the  agreement  could  have  seri- 
ous and  far-reaching  consequences.  The  export 
earnings  of  developing  countries  might  fluctu- 
ate from  year  to  year  by  as  much  as  one-half  to 
a  billion  dollars.  A  decrease  in  our  exports  to 
those  countries  would  almost  surely  follow.  For- 
eign aid  from  the  United  States  and  other 
sources  for  economic  development  would  be  can- 
celed out  to  the  extent  of  the  decreased  earnings 
and  the  destructive  effects  of  instability.  A  nimi- 
ber  of  producer  governments  in  Africa  and 
Latin  America  could  be  placed  in  serious  politi- 
cal straits. 

In  the  long  run  the  termination  of  the  agree- 
ment would  also  hurt  consumers.  Coffee  prices 
might  fall  initially,  but  the  bust-boom  cycle 
which  plagued  this  commodity  prior  to  the 
agreement  woiild  almost  certainly  resume  and 
probably  in  more  virulent  form.  A  return  to  the 
high  retail  price  levels  reached  during  several 
years  in  the  1950's — $1.10  per  pound  in  1954 
and  $1.03  per  pound  in  1956 — might  result.  As 
our  chart  4^  shows,  comparing  green  and 
ground  coffee  wholesale  price  indices  with  other 
selected  indices,  coffee  prices  have  remained  at 
remarkably  low  levels. 

The  continuation  of  the  agreement  requires 
continued  U.S.  membership.  As  President  John- 
son has  stated  in  his  recommendation  on  the 
agreement  to  the  Senate : 

Without  that  machinery,  we  could  return  to  the  days 
of  ruinous  coffee  price  swings,  disrupting  the  econ- 
omies of  many  friendly  nations,  impairing  world  coffee 
trade,  and  endangering  the  continued  flow  of  coffee  at 
reasonable  prices  to  the  tables  of  American  families. 

For  these  reasons,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  urge  that 
this  committee  report  favorably  to  the  Senate 
the  International  Coffee  Agreement  of  1968. 


844 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIlf 


INTERNATIONAL  ORGANIZATIONS  AND   CONFERENCES 


Security  Council  Bans  All  Trade  With  Southern  Rhodesia 


Following  are  statements  made  in  the  U.N. 
Security  Council  by  Deputy  U.S.  Representa- 
tive Williain  B.  Buffum  and  U.S.  Representa- 
tive Arthur  J.  Goldberg  during  the  debate  on 
the  situation  in  Southern  Rhodesia.,  together 
with  the  text  of  a  resolution  adopted  by  the 
Council  on  May  29. 


STATEMENT  BY  AMBASSADOR  BUFFUM, 
MARCH  20 

U.S./CN.  press  release  45 

The  dismaying  events  of  the  past  2  weeks  in 
Southern  Khodesia  have  brought  us  together 
once  again  here  to  consider  the  tragic  situation 
in  that  territory.  Three  condemned  African 
prisoners  appealed  in  vain  from  an  execution 
order  issued  by  an  illegal  regime.  Reprieves  were 
then  granted  to  these  prisoners  by  Her  Majesty 
the  Queen,  acting  fully  within  her  rights  as  the 
acknowledged  sovereign  of  Southern  Rhodesia. 
But  thereupon  the  Smith  regime,  in  deliberate 
defiance  of  her  authority,  proceeded  to  hang 
them,  along  with  two  other  condemned  prison- 
ers. Public  opinion  throughout  the  world,  in- 
cluding my  own  country,  has  responded  to 
these  events  with  a  sense  of  outrage. 

As  long  ago  as  last  August,  an  official  spokes- 
man in  Salisbury  stated  that  the  regime  there 
had  reached  a  decision  to  proceed  with  such  ex- 
ecutions on  what  he  termed  ironically  "humani- 
tarian grounds."  He  also  said  that  there  were 
82  "remaining  cases"  in  which  death  sentences 
■were  pending  and  that  they  would  be  "dealt 
with  systematically  and  decisions  taken  on  each 
case  as  soon  as  it  is  possible  to  do  so." 

Since  that  time,  we  regret  to  say,  the  number 
awaiting  execution  has  increased  to  over  100. 
Five  condemned  prisoners,  including  the  three 


reprieved  by  the  Queen,  have  already  been  put 
to  death.  Forty-seven  have  had  their  sentences 
commuted  by  the  regime  for  reasons  unknown 
to  us. 

But  what  of  those  scores  who  remain  under 
sentence  of  death  ?  Presumably  they  are  still  to 
be  "dealt  with  systematically."  We  know  that 
several  of  them  have  been  sentenced  under  a 
recent  amendment  to  Southern  Rhodesia's  Law 
and  Order  (Maintenance)  Act,  which  now  bears 
a  most  disconcerting  resemblance  to  legislation 
we  are  accustomed  to  find  wherever  oppressive 
and  arbitrary  government  exists.  This  amend- 
ment, which  the  illegal  regime  put  into  force 
last  November  over  the  objections  of  the  Con- 
stitutional Council,  prescribes  a  mandatory 
death  penalty  for  persons  who,  "with  intent  to 
endanger  the  maintenance  of  law  and  order," 
possess  "any  arms  of  war." 

Like  South  Africa's  Terrorism  Act,  the  new 
Rhodesian  amendment  violates  the  essence  of 
civilized  justice  by  placing  upon  the  accused, 
and  not  the  accuser,  the  burden  of  proving  be- 
yond a  reasonable  doubt  that  he  did  not  intend 
to  "endanger  the  maintenance  of  law  and  order." 
And  like  South  Africa's  Terrorism  Act,  the 
Southern  Rhodesian  Law  and  Order  (Mainte- 
nance) Amendment  Act  carries  a  broad  and 
ambiguous  definition  of  "terrorism,"  conviction 
of  which  can  itself  carry  the  death  penalty. 

Mr.  President,  the  United  States  condemns 
as  an  outrage  the  hanging  of  the  five  condemned 
men  by  the  Smith  regime,  hangings  which  in  the 
opinion  of  the  sovereign  authority  for  Southern 
Rhodesia  were  illegal.  INIoreover,  we  share  the 
worldwide  sense  of  alarm  at  the  prospect  that 
more  hangings  may  follow,  pursuant  to  legisla- 
tion which  violates  the  most  elementary  stand- 
ard of  human  justice. 

But  these  developments,  however  grim  in 
themselves,  must  concern  this  Council  m  a  much 


JUNE    24,    1968 


845 


■wider  sense,  for  they  do  give  confirmation  to 
our  long-held  forebodings  about  the  entire  pol- 
icy on  which  the  regime  in  Salisbury  embarked 
over  2  years  ago.  Step  by  step,  ever  since  its 
unilateral  and  illegal  declaration  of  independ- 
ence in  1965,  the  Smith  regime  has  maintained 
and  reinforced  the  Draconian  powers  by  which 
it  deprives  the  Rhodesian  people  of  rights  to 
which  they  are  entitled  as  citizens  under  the 
1961  Constitution — and  as  human  beings  under 
the  United  Nations  Charter,  the  Universal  Dec- 
laration of  Human  Rights,  and  international 
law.  It  has  even  moved  to  embrace  the  odious 
racial  policies  of  South  Africa,  particularly  in 
regard  to  living  accommodations,  property 
ownership,  and  the  use  of  public  facilities.  In 
Southern  Rhodesia  today,  this  is  referred  to  as 
"separate  develoj^ment;"  and  this  is  a  term,  of 
course,  which  we  have  all  come  to  know  as  a 
euphemism  for  apartheid. 

In  all  these  laolicies,  the  authorities  in  Salis- 
bury have  acted  in  flagrant  defiance  of  the  au- 
thority of  the  United  Kingdom  and  in  flagrant 
defiance  of  the  resolutions  of  this  Security 
Council. 

Knowing  all  of  this,  Mr.  President,  we  dare 
not  close  our  ears  to  the  banging  of  the  gallows 
trap  in  Salisbury.  That  soimd  must  end  any 
lingering  doubts  about  the  nature  of  the  Smith 
regime,  its  intention  toward  the  future,  and  its 
contemptuous  disregard  for  the  rights  of  those 
who  constitute  the  overwhelming  majority  of 
the  population.  There  is  ample  evidence  that 
in  its  determination  to  perpetuate  minority  rule 
in  Southern  Rhodesia,  the  regime  there  is  mak- 
ing ever  more  remote  the  possibility  of  human 
understanding  among  the  races  in  Southern 
Rhodesia. 

Mr.  President,  now  more  than  ever,  the 
United  States  looks  upon  the  situation  in  South- 
ern Rhodesia  with  shock  and  grave  concern.  We 
are_  dismayed  by  the  regime's  inhumanity  and 
by  its  defiance  of  sovereign  authority  in  its  deal- 
ings with  the  prisoners.  And  we  are  gravely  con- 
cerned about  the  future.  For  while  my  Govern- 
ment has  made  every  effort  to  assure  full  com- 
pliance on  the  part  of  our  own  country  with  the 
selective  mandatory  sanctions  which  "the  Coun- 
cil imposed  against  Southern  Rhodesia  by  its 
Resolution  232  of  December  1966,^  we  share 
the  recognition  already  expressed  around  this 
table  that  the  sanctions  applied  thus  far  have 
simply  not  achieved  their  desired  goal. 


'  For  text,  see  Bulletin  of  Jan.  9,  1967,  p.  77. 


Accordingly,  while  my  Government  will  con- 
tinue to  comply  fully  with  the  mandatory  sanc- 
tions of  Resolution  232,  we  earnestly  hope  that 
this  Council  can  and  will  quickly  and  unani- 
mously find  ways  to  achieve  what  I  believe  is  a 
common  objective  shared  by  us  all.  We  were 
very  pleased  to  hear  yesterday  from  the  dis- 
tinguished representative  of  the  United  King- 
dom, Lord  Caradon,  that  his  Government  as 
the  sovereign  authority  is  willing  to  enter  im- 
mediately in  consultations  to  this  end,  and  I 
should  liie  to  pledge  to  hhn  and  to  the  Council 
now  the  full  and  constructive  cooperation  of  the 
United  States  in  such  discussions. 

Mr.  President,  the  regime  in  Southern  Rho- 
desia must  change  its  present  unlawful  and  dis- 
astrous policies.  That  regime,  representing  only 
a  small  minority,  cannot  be  allowed  to  continue 
to  impose  upon  the  majority  of  the  population 
a  system  whicli  defies  the  sovereign  authority 
and  flagrantly  violates  the  rights  and  interests 
of  the  people  and  the  ftmdamental  moral  law 
recognized  by  all  mankind. 

In  closing,  sir,  I  would  just  briefly  call  at- 
tention to  the  performance  of  those  countries 
which  have  experienced  special  problems  in 
carrying  out  the  will  of  this  Council  to  the  best 
of  their  abilities.  In  this  comiection,  I  feel  we 
should  express  our  sympathy  with  the  difficulties 
faced  by  countries  such  as  Zambia,  whose  non- 
racial  jiolicv  contrasts  so  sharply  with  the  de- 
plorable policies  now  being  followed  in  South- 
ern Rhodesia. 

Let  us  now,  Mr.  President  and  colleagues,  as 
members  of  this  Council,  find  ways  to  unite  on 
action  that  will  meet  this  new  and  more  odious 
phase  of  the  Southern  Rhodesian  tragedy  and 
bring  the  people  of  that  territory  the  relief,  the 
tranquillity,  indeed  the  justice  which  they 
deserve. 


STATEMENT  BY  AMBASSADOR   GOLDBERG, 
MAY  29 

U.S./U.N.  press  release  83 

The  policy  of  my  Government  remains  to  seek 
a  peaceful  solution  of  the  Rhodesian  problem 
that  will  insure  political  justice  and  equal  op- 
portunity for  all  Rhodesians  regardless  of  race. 
We  have  given  and  will  continue  to  give  our  full 
support  to  the  efforts  of  the  United  Kingdom 
and  the  United  Nations  directed  to  that  end. 

Our  Government  is  very  much  gratified  that 
10  weeks  of  exceedingly  difficult  consultations 


846 


DEPARTSIENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


have  produced  a  resolution  that  commands  tlie 
unanimous  support  of  the  Council  and  will  con- 
tribute to  our  goal.  Although  all  delegations  on 
this  Council  have  played  a  constructive  role  in 
the  various  discussions  that  have  ensued,  the 
major  credit  for  the  tinal  product  must  go  to 
the  representative  of  the  United  Kingdom,  the 
African  and  Asian  members  of  the  Coimcil,  and 
the  Latin  American  members,  all  of  whom  dis- 
played the  most  commendable  negotiating  skills 
and  a  sincere  desire  to  preserve  the  Council's 
unanunity  on  this  important  issue  on  which  it 
is  so  difficult  to  achieve  unanimity. 

It  is  very  significant  to  me  that  in  unani- 
mously adopting  this  resolution  we  for  the  first 
time  have  achieved  the  affirmative  vote  of  all 
pennanent  members  of  the  Council  for  a  reso- 
lution on  Southern  Rhodesia. 

The  measures  contained  in  the  resolution  we 
have  just  adopted  are  consistent  with  the  United 
States  policy  on  Southern  Rhodesia. 

The  resolution  just  approved  extends  manda- 
tory economic  sanctions  from  a  selected  list  of 
products  to  all  trade  with  Rhodesia.  The  United 
States  will,  of  course,  apply  these  mandatory 
provisions  with  the  same  vigor  we  have  applied 
those  of  Resolution  232. 

The  architects  of  the  resolution  have  also 
shown  wisdom  in  using  phrasing  that  takes  into 
accoimt  various  practical,  legal,  humanitarian, 
and  other  factors.  Operative  paragraph  5,  for 
example,  recognizes  that  many  states  do  not 
have  the  legal  possibility  to  bar  entry  to  their 
territories  of  their  own  nationals,  as  several 
members  of  the  Council  have  pointed  out.  The 
language  of  paragraphs  9  and  10  is  not  of  a 
mandatory  character,  being  a  "request"  and  an 
expression  of  need. 

The  United  States  will  give  careful  consider- 
ation to  these  paragraphs.  In  so  doing  we  will 
have  to  take  into  account  our  profound  belief 
in  a  free  flow  of  information  and  communica- 
tion throughout  the  world,  which  we  feel  should 
apply  to  Rhodesia  as  well.  I  would  also  say  that 
the  United  States  has  no  trade  representation 
there. 

In  closing,  I  wish  to  say  that  my  Government 
deeplj'  regrets  and  deplores  that  the  regime  in 
Salisbury  has  intensified  its  efforts  to  main- 
tain its  illegal  control  over  the  Rhodesian  peo- 
ple. In  these  circumstances,  there  is  no  alterna- 
tive but  to  midertake  to  make  the  sanctions  pro- 
gram as  effective  as  possible,  as  we  have  done 
today.  Based  on  the  history  of  the  program  to 
date,  we  are  imder  no  illusions  that  even  in  the 


strengthened  form  it  will  produce  a  quick  and 
clear-cut  solution.  We  do  expect,  however,  that 
the  resolution  the  Council  has  just  adopted — 
particularly  those  passages  pertaining  to  the 
implementation  of  sanctions,  which  we  wel- 
come— will  produce  a  tighter  and  more  effective 
program.  AJnd  I  pledge  you  that  my  Govern- 
ment will  play  its  full  part  in  bringing  this 
about  and  hopefully  expects  other  member  gov- 
ernments to  do  the  same. 

We  are  hopeful  that  the  Council's  unanimous 
action  today  will  bring  nearer  the  day  and  time 
when  a  government  representing  all  of  the  peo- 
ple of  Rhodesia  on  sound  democratic  principles 
will  be  welcomed  into  the  community  of  nations. 


TEXT  OF  RESOLUTION  = 

Tlie  Security  Council, 

Recalling  and  reaffirming  its  resolutions  216  (196.5) 
of  12  November  1965,  217  (1965)  of  20  November  1965, 
221  (1966)  of  9  April  1966,  and  232  (1966)  of  16  De- 
cember 1966, 

Taking  note  of  resolution  2262  (XXII)  adopted  by 
tlie  General  Assembly  on  3  November  1967, 

Noting  with  great  concern  that  the  measures  taken 
so  far  have  failed  to  bring  the  rebellion  in  Southern 
Rhodesia  to  an  end, 

Reaffirming  that,  to  the  extent  not  superseded  in  this 
resolution,  the  measures  provided  for  in  resolutions 
217  (1965)  of  20  November  1965,  and  232  (1966)  of 
16  December  1966,  as  well  as  those  initiated  by  Mem- 
ber States  in  implementation  of  those  resolutions,  shall 
continue  in  effect, 

Oravely  concerned  that  the  measures  talcen  by  the 
Security  Council  have  not  been  complied  with  by  all 
States  and  that  some  States,  contrary  to  resolution  232 
(1966)  of  the  Security  Council  and  to  their  obligations 
under  Article  25  of  the  Charter,  have  failed  to  prevent 
trade  with  the  illegal  regime  in  Southern  Rhodesia, 

Condemning  the  recent  inhuman  executions  carried 
out  by  the  illegal  r<5gime  in  Southern  Rhodesia  which 
have  flagrantly  affronted  the  conscience  of  manljind 
and  have  been  universally  condemned. 

Affirming  the  primary  responsibility  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  Kingdom  to  enable  the  people  of 
Southern  Rhodesia  to  achieve  self-determination  and 
independence,  and  in  particular  their  responsibility  for 
dealing  with  the  prevailing  situation, 

Recognizing  the  legitimacy  of  the  struggle  of  the  peo- 
ple of  Southern  Rhodesia  to  secure  the  enjoyment  of 
their  rights  as  set  forth  in  the  Charter  of  the  United 
Nations  and  in  conformity  with  the  objectives  of  Gen- 
eral Assembly  resolution  1514   (XV), 

Reaffirming  its  determination  that  the  present  situa- 
tion in  Southern  Rhodesia  constitutes  a  threat  to  in- 
ternational peace  and  .security. 

Acting  under  Chapter  VII  of  the  United  Nations 
Charter, 


'U.N.  doc.  S/RES/253(1968)  ;  adopted  unanimously 
by  the  Security  Council  on  May  29. 


JXXNE    24,    19G8 


847 


1.  Condemms  all  measures  of  political  repression, 
including  arrests,  detentions,  trials  and  executions 
which  violate  fundamental  freedoms  and  rights  of  the 
people  of  Southern  Rhodesia,  and  calls  upon  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  Kingdom  to  take  all  possible 
measures  to  put  an  end  to  such  actions ; 

2.  Calls  upon  the  United  Kingdom  as  the  administer- 
ing Power  in  the  discharge  of  its  responsibility  to  take 
urgently  all  effective  measures  to  bring  to  an  end  the 
rebellion  in  Southern  Rhodesia,  and  enable  the  people 
to  secure  the  enjoyment  of  their  rights  as  set  forth  in 
the  Charter  of  the  United  Nations  and  in  conformity 
with  the  objectives  of  General  Assembly  resolution  1514 
(XV); 

3.  Decides  that,  in  furtherance  of  the  objective  of 
ending  the  rebellion,  all  States  Members  of  the  United 
Nations  shall  prevent : 

(o)  The  import  into  their  territories  of  all  commodi- 
ties and  products  originating  in  Southern  Rhodesia  and 
exported  therefrom  after  the  date  of  this  resolution 
(whether  or  not  the  commodities  or  products  are  for 
consumption  or  processing  in  their  territories,  whether 
or  not  they  are  imported  in  bond  and  whether  or  not 
any  special  legal  status  with  respect  to  the  import  of 
goods  is  enjoyed  by  the  port  or  other  place  where  they 
are  imported  or  stored)  ; 

(6)  Any  activities  by  their  nationals  or  in  their 
territories  which  would  promote  or  are  calculated  to 
promote  the  export  of  any  commodities  or  products 
from  Southern  Rhodesia  ;  and  any  dealings  by  their 
nationals  or  in  their  territories  in  any  commodities  or 
products  originating  in  Southern  Rhodesia  and  exported 
therefrom  after  the  date  of  this  resolution,  including 
in  particular  any  transfer  of  funds  to  Southern  Rho- 
desia for  the  purposes  of  such  activities  or  dealings ; 

(c)  The  shipment  in  vessels  or  aircraft  of  their 
registration  or  under  charter  to  their  nationals,  or  the 
carriage  (whether  or  not  in  bond)  by  land  transport 
facilities  across  their  territories  of  any  commodities  or 
products  originating  in  Southern  Rhodesia  and  exported 
therefrom  after  the  date  of  this  resolution ; 

{d)  The  sale  or  supply  by  their  nationals  or  from 
their  territories  of  any  commodities  or  products 
(whether  or  not  originating  in  their  territories,  but 
not  including  supplies  intended  strictly  for  medical  pur- 
poses, educational  equipment  and  material  for  use  in 
schools  and  other  educational  institutions,  publica- 
tions, news  material  and,  in  special  humanitarian  cir- 
cumstances, food-stuffs)  to  any  person  or  body  in 
Southern  Rhodesia  or  to  any  other  person  or  body  for 
the  purposes  of  any  business  carried  on  in  or  operated 
from  Southern  Rhodesia,  and  any  activities  by  their 
nationals  or  in  their  territories  which  promote  or  are 
calculated  to  promote  such  sale  or  supply ; 

(c)  The  shipment  in  vessels  or  aircraft  of  their 
registration,  or  under  charter  to  their  nationals,  or  the 
carriage  (whether  or  not  in  bond)  by  land  transport 
facilities  across  their  territories  of  any  such  commodi- 
ties or  products  which  are  consigned  to  any  person  or 
body  in  Southern  Rhodesia,  or  to  any  other  person  or 
body  for  the  purposes  of  any  business  carried  on  in  or 
operated  from  Southern  Rhodesia  ; 

4.  Decides  that  all  States  Members  of  the  United 
Nations  shall  not  make  available  to  the  illegal  regime 
in  Southern  Rhodesia  or  to  any  commercial.  Industrial 
or  public  utility  undertaking,  including  tourist  enter- 


prises, in  Southern  Rhodesia  any  funds  for  investment 
or  any  other  financial  or  economic  resources  and  shall 
prevent  their  nationals  and  any  persons  within  their 
territories  from  making  available  to  the  regime  or  to 
any  such  undertaking  any  such  funds  or  resources  and 
from  remitting  any  other  funds  to  persons  or  bodies 
within  Southern  Rhodesia  except  payments  exclusively 
for  pensions  or  for  strictly  medical,  humanitarian  or 
educational  purposes  or  for  the  provision  of  news 
material  and  in  special  humanitarian  circumstances, 
food-stuffs ; 

5.  Decides  that  all  States  Members  of  the  United 
Nations  shall : 

{a)  Prevent  the  entry  into  their  territories,  save  on 
exceptional  humanitarian  grounds,  of  any  person 
travelling  on  a  Southern  Rhodesian  passport,  regard- 
less of  its  date  of  issue,  or  on  a  purported  passport 
issued  by  or  on  behalf  of  the  illegal  regime  in  Southern 
Rhodesia ;  and 

( 6 )  Take  all  possible  measures  to  prevent  the  entry 
into  their  territories  of  persons  whom  they  have  reason 
to  believe  to  be  ordinarily  resident  in  Southern  Rho- 
desia and  whom  they  have  reason  to  believe  to  have 
furthered  or  encouraged,  or  to  be  likely  to  further  or 
encourage,  the  unlawful  actions  of  the  illegal  regime 
in  Southern  Rhodesia  or  any  activities  which  are  cal- 
culated to  evade  any  measure  decided  upon  in  this 
resolution  or  resolution  232  (1966)  of  16  December 
1966; 

6.  Decides  that  all  States  Members  of  the  United 
Nations  shall  prevent  airline  companies  constituted  in 
their  territories  and  aircraft  of  their  registration  or 
under  charter  to  their  nationals  from  operating  to  or 
from  Southern  Rhodesia  and  from  linking  up  with  any 
airline  company  constituted  or  aircraft  registered  in 
Southern  Rhodesia ; 

7.  Decides  that  all  States  Members  of  the  United 
Nations  shall  give  effect  to  the  decisions  set  out  in 
operative  paragraphs  3,  4,  5  and  6  of  this  resolution  not- 
withstanding any  contract  entered  into  or  licence 
granted  before  the  date  of  this  resolution ; 

8.  Calls  upon  all  States  Members  of  the  United  Na- 
tions or  of  the  specialized  agencies  to  take  all  possible 
measures  to  prevent  activities  by  their  nationals  and 
persons  in  their  territories  promoting,  assisting  or  en- 
couraging emigration  to  Southern  Rhodesia,  with  a 
view  to  stopping  such  emigration ; 

9.  Requests  all  States  Members  of  the  United  Nations 
or  of  the  specialized  agencies  to  take  all  possible 
further  action  under  Article  41  of  the  Charter  to  deal 
with  the  situation  in  Southern  Rhodesia,  not  excluding 
any  of  the  measures  provided  in  that  Article ; 

10.  Emphasixes  the  need  for  the  withdrawal  of  all 
consular  and  trade  representation  in  Southern  Rho- 
desia, in  addition  to  the  provisions  of  operative  para- 
graph 6  of  resolution  217  (1965)  ; 

11.  Calls  upon  all  States  Members  of  the  United  Na- 
tions to  carry  out  these  decisions  of  the  Security  Coun- 
cil in  accordance  with  Article  25  of  the  United  Nations 
Charter  and  reminds  them  that  failure  or  refusal  by 
any  one  of  them  to  do  so  would  constitute  a  violation  of 
that  Article ; 

12.  Deplores  the  attitude  of  States  that  have  not 
complied  with  their  obligations  under  Article  25  of 
the  Charter,  and  censures  in  particular  those  States 
which  have  persisted  in  trading  with  the  illegal  regime 


848 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


in  defiance  of  the  resolutions  of  tlie  Security  Council, 
and  which  have  given  active  assistance  to  the  regime ; 

13.  Vrgcs  all  States  Members  of  the  United  Nations 
to  render  moral  and  material  assistance  to  the  people  of 
Southern  Rhodesia  in  their  struggle  to  achieve  their 
freedom  and  independence; 

14.  I'rgcs,  having  regard  to  the  principles  stated  in 
Article  2  of  the  United  Xations  Charter,  States  not 
Members  of  the  United  Nations  to  act  in  accordance 
with  the  provisions  of  the  present  resolution ; 

15.  Requests  States  Members  of  the  United  Nations, 
the  United  Nations  Organization,  the  specialized  agen- 
cies, and  other  international  organizations  in  the 
United  Nations  system  to  extend  assistance  to  Zambia 
as  a  matter  of  priority  with  a  view  to  helping  her  solve 
such  special  economic  problems  as  she  may  be  con- 
fronted with  arising  from  the  carrying  out  of  these 
decisions  of  the  Security  Council ; 

16.  Calls  upon  all  States  Members  of  the  United  Na- 
tions, and  in  particular  those  with  primary  responsi- 

^  bility  under  the  Charter  for  the  maintenance  of  inter- 
national peace  and  security,  to  a.ssist  effectively  in  the 
implementation  of  the  measures  called  for  b.v  the  pres- 
ent resolution  ; 

17.  Considers  that  the  United  Kingdom  as  the  ad- 
ministering Power  should  ensure  that  no  settlement  is 
reached  without  taking  into  account  the  views  of  the 
people  of  Southern  Rhodesia,  and  in  particular  the 
political  parties  favouring  majority  rule,  and  that  it  is 
acceptable  to  the  people  of  Southern  Bhodesia  as  a 
whole ; 

18.  Calls  upon  all  States  Members  of  the  United  Na- 
tions or  of  the  specialized  agencies  to  reiwrt  to  the 
Secretary-General  by  1  August  1968  on  measures  taken 
to  Implement  the  present  resolution ; 

19.  Requests  the  Secretary-CJeneral  to  report  to  the 
Security  Council  on  the  progress  of  the  implementation 
of  this  resolution,  the  first  report  to  be  made  not  later 
than  1  September  1968 ; 

20.  Decides  to  establish,  in  accordance  with  rule  28 
of  the  provisional  rules  of  procedure  of  the  Security 
Council,  a  committee  of  the  Security  Council  to  under- 
take the  following  tasks  and  to  reiwrt  to  it  with  its 
observations : 

(o)  To  examine  such  reports  on  the  implementation 
of  the  present  re-solution  as  are  submitted  by  the 
Secretary-General ; 

( 6 )  To  seek  from  any  States  Members  of  the  United 
Nations  or  of  the  specialized  agencies  such  further  in- 
formation regarding  the  trade  of  that  State  (including 
information  regarding  the  commodities  and  products 
exempted  from  the  prohibition  contained  in  operative 
paragraphs  (d)  above)  or  regarding  any  activities  by 
any  nationals  of  that  State  or  in  its  territories  that 
may  constitute  an  evasion  of  the  measures  dmded 
upon  in  this  resolution  as  it  may  consider  necessary 
for  the  proper  discharge  of  its  duty  to  rejwrt  to  the 
Security  Council ; 

21.  Requests  the  United  Kingdom,  as  the  administer- 
ing Power,  to  give  maximum  assistance  to  the  com- 
mittee, and  to  provide  the  committee  with  any  informa- 
tion which  it  may  receive  in  order  that  the  measures 
envisaged  in  this  resolution  and  resolution  232  (1966) 
may  be  rendered  fully  effective ; 

22.  Calls  upon  all  States  Members  of  the  United  Na- 
tions, or  of  the  specialized  agencies,  as  well  as  the  spe- 


cialized agencies  themselves,  to  supply  such  further 
information  as  may  be  sought  by  the  Committee  in 
pursuance  of  this  resolution  ; 

23.  Decides  to  maintain  this  item  on  its  agenda  for 
further  action  as  appropriate  in  the  light  of  develop- 
ment.?. 


U.S.  Abstains  on  Security  Council 
Resolution  on  Jerusalem 

Following  is  a  statement  made  in  the  U.N. 
Security  Council  on  May  21  by  U.S.  Repre- 
sentative Aj'thur  J.  Goldberg,  together  with  the 
text  of  a  resolution  adopted  by  the  Council  that 
day. 


STATEMENT  BY  AMBASSADOR  GOLDBERG 

U.S./U.N.  press  release  70 

Mr.  President,  the  United  States  liad  strongly 
hoped  that,  in  dealing  with  the  question  of  Jeru- 
salem, it  would  have  been  possible  for  this 
Council  to  act  with  the  same  mianimous  agree- 
ment that  has  characterized  the  handling  of 
every  facet  of  the  Middle  East  situation  which 
has  come  before  the  Council  since  the  Middle 
East  war  erupted  last  June. 

We  backed  up  that  hope  with  intensive  con- 
sultations to  formulate  the  elements  of  a  resolu- 
tion which  coidd  command  unanimous  support. 
We  greatly  regret  these  efforts  were  not  success- 
ful and  that  our  hope  was  not  fulfilled.  Wliile 
sharing  many  of  the  concerns  which  have  moti- 
vated members  of  the  Council  to  support  the 
resolution  presented  by  Pakistan  and  Senegal, 
the  United  States  finds  it  impossible  to  lend  its 
supiDort  to  that  resolution. 

I  wish  to  use  this  occasion  to  explain  briefly 
the  reasons  we  have  come  to  this  conclusion. 

Fundamental  to  our  position  have  been  two 
convictions:  first,  that  this  Council  should  en- 
courage and  support  the  peacemaking  process 
we  initiated  last  fall  in  Security  Council  Resolu- 
tion 242;  ^  second,  that  this  Council  and  indeed 
all  concerned  should  avoid  any  action  that  might 
prejudice  the  efforts  to  achieve  a  just  and 
lasting  peace  in  the  area,  including  actions  or 
measures  purporting  to  alter  the  status  of 
Jerusalem. 

We    find   the    resolution    placed   before   us 


'  For  text,  see  Buxletin  of  Dec.  18,  1967,  p.  843. 


JUNE    24,    1968 


849 


seriously  deficient  on  these  two  counts.  Our  own 
view  has  been  and  remains  that  the  future  of 
Jerusalem  is  a  problem  which  falls  within  the 
purview  of  Security  Council  Resolution  242 
and  of  Ambassador  [Gunnar]  Jarring's  man- 
date. I  wish  to  reaffirm  the  view  of  the  United 
States  Government  that  the  United  States, 
while  agreeing  that  Jentsalem  is  a  most  impor- 
tant issue,  does  not  believe  that  the  problem  of 
Jerusalem  can  realistically  be  dealt  with  apart 
from  other  aspects  of  the  situation  in  the  Mid- 
dle East  with  which  the  November  22  resolution 
is  concerned.  Nor  do  we  believe  that  Jerusalem 
can  be  excluded  from  the  scope  of  the  Novem- 
ber 22  resolution.  Rather,  we  consider  it  essen- 
tial that  a  peaceful  and  accepted  settlement  in 
conformity  with  the  November  22  resolution 
encompass  all  aspects  of  the  Middle  East  prob- 
lem, including  Jerusalem. 

We  have  sensed  general  agreement  with  this 
view  among  the  members  of  the  Council.  Never- 
theless, the  resolution  presented  and  to  be  voted 
on  this  afternoon — in  our  view — unfortunately 
would  work  in  the  direction  of  separating  out 
and  dealing  with  in  isolation  one  particular  as- 
pect of  the  Middle  East  situation,  the  question 
of  Jerusalem.  This  is  not  the  course  envisaged 
in  Resolution  242  of  last  November — the  resolu- 
tion which,  we  believe,  must  remain  the  touch- 
stone of  all  steps  toward  a  desirable  settlement 
in  the  Middle  East.  It  is  not,  accordingly,  a 
course  which  my  Goverrmient  favors — with  re- 
gard to  Jerusalem  or  any  other  of  the  many 
specific  problems  which  must  be  resolved  to  ar- 
rive at  the  peaceful  and  accepted  settlement 
called  for  in  Resolution  242. 

As  I  stated  to  the  Council  on  May  9,-  the 
United  States  believes  that  one  of  the  most  con- 
stnictive  contributions  this  Council  could  make 
at  this  juncture  of  the  difficult  search  for  a 
Middle  Eastern  settlement  would  be  an  explicit 
expression  of  its  support  for  the  peacemaking 
efforts  in  which  Ambassador  Jarring,  at  the 
behest  of  this  Council  acting  unanimously,  has 
been  and  remains  engaged.  The  absence  of  this 
element  from  the  resolution  before  the  Council 
is  a  further  reason  my  Government  cannot 
support  it. 

Further,  the  United  States  is  not  in  a  position 
to  vote  favorably  on  a  text  which  contains  spe- 
cific— and  selective — reference  to  two  General 
Assembly  resolutions  on  which  we  previously 
abstained  for  reasons  explained  at  the  time  of 
their  adoption.^ 

Mr.  President,  the  United  States  has  made  a 


maximum  effort  to  build  upon  the  basis  which 
exists  for  unanimity  in  this  Coimcil's  disposi- 
tion of  the  question  immediately  before  us  in  this 
debate.  We  have  been  prepared  to  declare  that 
vmilateral  actions  and  measures  by  Israel  can- 
not be  accepted  and  are  not  recognized  as  alter- 
ing or  prejudging  the  status  of  Jerusalem  and  to 
call  upon  Israel  to  refrain  from  such  actions.  At 
the  same  time,  we  have  regarded  it  as  essential 
that  the  Council  call  upon  all  parties  to  avoid 
all  acts  that  might  prejudice  efforts  to  achieve 
a  just  and  lasting  peace  in  the  area  and  express 
its  support  for  Ambassador  Jarring's  efforts 
under  Resolution  242. 

For  the  members  of  the  Council,  the  search 
for  a  peaceful  and  accepted  settlement  is  not 
only  an  opportunity ;  it  is  a  responsibility.  It  is 
one  which  all  members  of  this  Council  assumed 
when  they  empowered  the  Secretary-General's 
representative  to  promote  agreement  and  assist 
efforts  to  achieve  such  a  settlement.  I  very  much 
regret  that  it  has  not  been  possible  today  to 
preserve  the  unanimity  which  has  characterized 
the  Council's  work  since  the  tragic  conflict  of 
last  June.  It  is  my  profound  hope  that  it  will 
be  possible  to  return  to  unanimity  in  the  coming 
days  and  weeks. 

Having  participated  all  through  this  past 
year  in  the  strenuous  efforts  of  the  Security 
Council  concerning  the  Middle  East,  I  find  that 
my  dominant  impression  comes  not  from  any 
expressions  of  hostility  or  bitterness,  which  are 
unfortunate  but  perhaps  inevitable;  it  comes 
rather  from  those  few  decisive  moments  in  which 
15  nations,  representing  all  the  diverse  interests 
and  cultures  of  the  world,  were  able  to  rise 
above  their  particular  predilections  and  unite  on 
the  necessity  that  is  common  to  us  all  in  this 
world  in  which  survival  still  remains  an  open 
question :  the  necessity  to  live  together  in  peace 
and  tolerance. 

From  those  decisive  moments — especially  that 
moment  last  November  22,  which  will  certainly 
live  in  United  Nations  history — I  do  not  derive 
any  false  comfort;  for  hard  tasks  lie  ahead.  But 
I  do  derive  much  hope  from  this  record,  because 
it  proves  what  we  can  do  together  at  our  best. 
And  I  pray,  Mr.  President,  that  in  future  days 
this  Council  will  perform  again  and  again  at  its 
best,  imtil  it  has  overcome  even  the  most  stub- 
born difficulties  on  the  road  toward  peace. 


'  iriid.,  June  3, 1968,  p.  732. 
'For   background,   see   ibid., 
and  July  31, 1967,  p.  14S. 


July  24,   1967,  p.   112, 


850 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


TEXT  OF  RESOLUTION* 

The  Security  Council, 

RecaUi)ig  General  Assembly  resolutious  2253 
(ES-V)  and  2204  (ES-V)  of  4  and  14  July  19G7, 

Hainnff  considered  the  letter  (S/8560)  of  the  Perma- 
nent Representative  of  Jordan  on  the  situation  in 
Jerusalem  and  the  report  of  the  Secretary-Greneral 
(S/8146), 

Having  heard  the  statements  made  before  the  C!oun- 
cil, 

Xoting  that  since  the  adoption  of  the  above-mentioned 
resolutions,  Israel  has  taken  further  measures  and 
actions  in  contravention  of  those  resolutions. 

Bearing  in  mind  the  need  to  work  for  a  just  and 
lasting  peace, 

Reafflrming  that  acquisition  of  territory  by  military 
conquest  is  inadmissible, 

1.  Deplores  the  failure  of  Israel  to  comply  with  the 
General  Assembly  resolutions  mentioned  above ; 

2.  Considers  that  all  legislative  and  administrative 
measures  and  actions  taken  by  Israel,  including  ex- 
propriation of  land  and  properties  thereon,  which  tend 
to  change  the  legal  status  of  Jerusalem  are  invalid 
and  cannot  change  that  status ; 

3.  Urgently  calls  upon  Israel  to  rescind  all  such 
measures  already  taken  and  to  desist  forthwith  from 
taking  any  further  action  which  tends  to  change  the 
status  of  Jerusalem ; 

4.  Requests  the  Secretary-General  to  report  to  the 
Security  Council  on  the  implementation  of  the  present 
resolution. 


Current  U.N.  Documents: 
A  Selected  Bibliography 


TREATY  INFORMATION 


Current  Actions 


MULTILATERAL 


Grains 

International  grains  arrangement,  1967,  with  annexes. 

Open  for  signature  at  Washington  October  15  until 

and  including  November  30,  1967.' 

Acceptance  to  the  Wheat  Trade  Convention  deposited: 
Japan,  June  4,  1968. 

Ratification  to  the  Wheat  Trade  Convention  de- 
posited: South  Africa,  June  5,  1968. 

Acceptance  to  the  Food  Aid  Convention  deposited: 
Japan   (with  a  statement),  June  4,  1968. 

Health 

Constitution   of  the   World   Health   Organization,  as 
amended.  Done  at  New  York  July  22,  1946.  Entered 
into  force  April  7,  1948 ;  as  to  the  United  States 
June  21,  1948.  TIAS  1808,  4643. 
Acceptance  deposited:  Southern  Yemen,  May  6,  1968. 

Space 

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 
signature  at  Washington,  London,  and  Moscow  Janu- 
ary 27,  1967.  Entered  into  force  October  10,  1967. 
TIAS  6347. 
Ratification  deposited:  New  Zealand,  May  31.  1968. 


Mimeographed  or  processed  documents  (such  as  those 
listed  below)  may  be  consulted  at  depository  libraries 
in  the  United  States.  £7.A'.  printed  publications  may  be 
purchased  from  the  Sales  Section  of  the  United  N<i- 
tions.  United  Nations  Plaza,  N.Y. 


General  Assembly 

International  Law  Commission.  Third  Report  on  Rela- 
tions Between  States  and  Inter-Governmental  Orga- 
nizations.   Prepared    by    the    Special    Rapporteur. 
A/CX.4/203.  March  20,  1968.  39  pp. 
1968  Special  Committee  on  the  Question  of  Defining 
Aggression.  Survey  of  Previous  United  Nations  Ac- 
tion on  the  Question  of  Defining  Aggression.  Memo- 
randum prepared  by  the  Secretariat  A/AC.134/1. 
Slarch  24,  1968.  14  pp. 
Committee  on  the  Peaceful  Uses  of  Outer  Space : 
Information  furnished  by  the  United  States  on  ob- 
jects launched  into  orbit  or  beyond.  A/AC.105/ 
INF.185.  April  1,  1968.  4  pp. 
Information   furnished  by   the   U.S.S.R.   on  objects 
launched  into  orbit  or  beyond.  A/AC.105/INF.186. 
April  22,  1968.  3  pp. 


*  U.N.  doc.  S/RES/252  (1968)  ;  adopted  by  the  Coun- 
cil on  May  21  by  a  vote  of  13  to  0,  with  2  abstentions 
(U.S.). 


BILATERAL 


Brazil 

Convention  for  the  avoidance  of  double  taxation  with 
respect  to  taxes  on  income.  Signed  at  Rio  de  Janeiro 
March  13,  1967.' 

Senate  advice  and  consent  to  ratification:  Jime  6, 
1968,  with  reservations. 

Colombia 

Agreement  relating  to  the  extension  of  the  loan  of  the 
destroyer  U.S.S.  Bale.  Effected  by  exchange  of  notes 
at  Bogotd  April  17  and  30,  1968.  Entered  into  force 
April  30,  1968. 

France 

Convention  with  resi)ect  to  taxes  on  income  and  prop- 
erty, vsith  exchange  of  notes.  Signed  at  Paris  July 
28,  1967.' 

Senate  advice  and  consent  to  ratification:  June  6, 
1968,  with  reservations. 

Iceland 

Agreement  for  sales  of  agricultural  commodities  under 
title  I  of  the  Agricultural  Trade  Development  and 


'  Not  in  force. 


JTJNT)    24,    1968 


851 


Assistance  Act  of  1954,  as  amended  (68  Stat.  454,  as 
amended;  7  U.S.C.  1691-1736D),  with  annex.  Signed 
at  Reykjavik  May  29,  1968.  Entered  into  force 
May  29,  1968. 

Japan 

Arrangement  relating  to  Japan's  contribution  for 
United  States  administrative  and  related  expenses 
for  Japanese  fiscal  year  1968  pursuant  to  the  mutual 
defense  assistance  agreement  of  March  8,  1954. 
Effected  by  exchange  of  notes  at  Tokyo  May  24, 1968. 
Entered  into  force  May  24,  1968. 

Nicaragua 

Agreement  relating  to  the  establishment  of  a  Peace 
Corps  program  in  Nicaragua.  Effected  by  exchange 
of  notes  at  Managua  May  23  and  25,  1968.  Entered 
into  force  May  25, 1968. 

Philippines 

Convention  for  the  avoidance  of  double  taxation  and 
the  prevention  of  fiscal  evasion  with  respect  to  taxes 
on  income.  Signed  at  Washington  October  5,  1964.' 
Senate  advice  and  consent  to  ratification:  June  6, 
1968,  with  reservations. 

Agreement  relating  to  the  employment  of  Philippine 
nationals  in  the  United  States  military  bases  in  the 
Philippines,  with  agreed  minutes.  Signed  at  Manila 
May  27, 1968.  Entered  into  force  May  27,  1968. 

Tonga 

Agreement  relating  to  the  establishment  of  a  Peace 
Corps  program  in  Tonga,  with  exchange  of  letters. 
Effected  by  exchange  of  notes  at  Suva  and 
Nuku'alofa  May  17  and  27,  1968.  Entered  into  force 
May  27,  1968. 


PUBLICATIONS 


'  Not  in  force. 


Recent  Releases 

For  sale  ty  the  Superintendent  of  Documents,  U.S. 
Government  Printing  Office,  Washington,  D.C.  20^02. 
Address  requests  direct  to  the  Superintendent  of 
Documents.  A  25-percent  discount  is  7nade  on  orders 
for  100  or  more  copies  of  any  one  puhlication  mailed 
to  the  same  address.  Remittances,  payable  to  the  Su- 
perintendent of  Documents,  must  accompany  orders. 

Agricultural  Commodities.  Agreement  with  Pakistan- 
Signed  at  Islamabad  December  26,  1967.  Entered  into 
force  December  26,  1967.  TIAS  6422.  4  pp.  50. 

Single  Convention  on  Narcotic  Drugs,  1961 — Addition 
of  Codoxime  to  Schedule  I.  Notification  by  the  United 
Nations — Dated  December  7,  1967.  Entered  into  force 
with  respect  to  the  United  States  December  7,  1967. 
TIAS  6423.  1  p.  50. 

Agricultural  Commodities.  Agreement  with  Viet-Nam^ 
Signed  at  Saigon  October  24,  1967.  Entered  into  force 
October  24,  1967.  TIAS  6424.  3  pp.  50. 

Exchange  of  Official  Publications  and  Government 
Documents.  Convention  with  other  governments. 
Adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  United 
Nations  Educational,  Scientific  and  Cultural  Organiza- 
tion (UNESCO)  at  Paris  December  3,  1958,  with 
procfes-verbal  signed  at  Paris  October  18,  1960.  Date  of 
entry  into  force  with  respect  to  the  United  States  June 
9, 1968.  TIAS  6439.  26  pp.  15<f. 


852 


DEPARTMENT   OF   STATE   BULLETIN 


INDEX     June  24,  1968     Vol.  LVIII,  No.  1513 

Africa.  President  Hails  Fifth  Anniversary  of 
Organization  of  African  Unity  (meissage  to 
I're.sident  Mobutu) 820 

Asia.  Secretary  Rusk  Interviewed  for  Japanese 
Magazine  (transcript) 821 

Atomic  Energy.  The  Nuclear  Nonproliferation 
Treaty :  A  Preventive  and  a  Positive  Step 
(Foster) 836 

China.  Secretary  Rusk  Interviewed  for  Japanese 
Magazine  (transcript) 821 

Congress.  Department  Supports  Participation  in 
International  Coffee  Agreement  (Solomon)     .      842 

Costa  Rica 

President  Signs  Bills  Authorizing  U.S.  Support 
for  Increase  in  Capital  of  Inter-American 
Bank  (Johnson) 826 

President  Trejos  of  Costa  Rica  Visits  the  United 

States  (Johnson,  Trejos) 828 

Disarmament 

The  Nuclear  Nonproliferation  Treaty :  A  Pre- 
ventive and  a  Positive  Step  (Foster)     .     .     .       836 

Secretary  Rusk  Interviewed  for  Japanese  Mag- 
azine   (transcript) 821 

Economic  Affairs 

Department  Supports  Participation  in  Interna- 
tional Coffee  Agreement  (Solomon)     ....      842 

President  Signs  Bills  Authorizing  U.S.  Support 
for  Increase  in  Capital  of  Inter-American 
Bank  (Johnson) 826 

The  Protectionist  Counterattack  on  Trade  Lib- 
eralization (Roth) 839 

Educational  and  Cultural  Affairs.  Our  Desert 
Places:  The  Urgent  Challenge  to  Education 
(Linowitz) 832 

Japan.  Secretary  Rusk  Interviewed  for  Japanese 
Magazine  (transcript) 821 

Laos.  U.S.  Reviews  North  Vietnamese  Violations 
of  Agreement  on  Laos  (Harriman)     ....      817 

Latin  America 

Our  Desert  Places:   The  Urgent  Challenge  to 

Education  (Linowitz) 832 

President  Signs  Bills  Authorizing  U.S.  Support 
for  Increase  in  Capital  of  Inter-American 
Bank  (Johnson) 826 

Near  East 

Return  to  Glassboro  (Johnson) 813 

U.S.  Abstains  on  Security  Council  Resolution  on 
Jerusalem  (Goldberg,  text  of  resolution)     .     .      849 

Presidential  Documents 

President  Hails  Fifth  Anniversary  of  Organiza- 
tion of  African  Unity 820 

President  Signs  Bill  Authorizing  U.S.  Support 
for  Increase  in  Capital  of  Inter-American 
Bank 826 

President  Trejos  of  Costa  Rica  Visits  the  United 

States 828 

Retnrn  to  Glassboro 813 

Publications.  Recent  Releases 852 

Ryukn  Islands.  Secretary  Rusk  Interviewed  for 
Japanese  Magazine  (transcript) 821 

Senegal.  Letters  of  Credence  (FaU)     ....      838 

Southern  Rhodesia.  Security  Council  Bans  All 
Trade  With  Southern  Rhodesia  (Bnffum, 
Goldberg,  test  of  resolution) 845 


Trade.  The  Protectionist  Counterattack  on  Trade 
Liberalization  (Roth) 839 

Treaty  Information 

Current  Actions 851 

The  Nuclear  Nonproliferation  Treaty :  A  Pre- 
ventive and  a  Positive  Step  (Foster)     .    .    .      836 

U.S.S.R. 

Return  to  Glassboro  (Johnson) 813 

Secretary  Rusk  Interviewed  for  Japanese  Mag- 
azine   (transcript) 821 

United  Nations 

Current    U.N.    Documents 851 

Security  Council  Bans  All  Trade  With  Southern 
Rhodesia  (Buffum,  Goldberg,  text  of  resolu- 
tion)       845 

U.S.  Abstains  on  Security  Council  Resolution  on 
Jerusalem  (Goldberg,  text  of  resolution)     .    .      849 

Viet-Nam 

Return  to  Glassboro  (Johnson) 813 

Secretary  Rusk  Interviewed  for  Japanese  Mag- 
azine   (transcript) 821 

U.S.  Reviews  North  Vietnamese  Violations  of 
Agreement  on  Laos  (Harriman) 817 

Name  Index 

Buffum,  William  B 845 

Fall,    Cheikh    Ibrahima 838 

Foster,  William  C 836 

Goldberg,  Arthur  J 845,  849 

Harriman,    W.    Averell 817 

Johnson,  President 813,  820,  826,  828 

Linowitz,  Sol  M 832 

Roth,    William    M \      839 

Rusk,  Secretary 821 

Solomon,  Anthony  M '.      842 

Trejos  Fernandez,  Jos6  Joaquin     ......      828 


No. 


nate 


Check  List  of  Department  of  State 
Press  Releases:  June  3-9 

Press  releases  may  be  obtained  from  the  OfiBce 
of  News,  Department  of  State,  Washington,  D.C. 
20520. 

Releases  issued  prior  to  June  3  which  appear 
in  this  issue  of  the  Bulletin  are  Nos.  113  of 
May  22  and  123  of  May  28. 

Subject 

Solomon :  Senate  Foreign  Rela- 
tions Committee. 

Trezise :  Senate  Subcommittee 
on  International  Finance. 

Katzenbach :  commencement  ad- 
dress at  State  University  of 
New  York,  Stony  Brook. 

Harriman :  U.S.-North  Vietnam- 
ese official  conversations 
(notes). 

G.  Mennen  Williams  sworn  in  as 
/Embassador  to  the  Philippines 
(biographic  details). 

Rusk :  death  of  Senator  Robert 
F.  Kennedy. 

Harriman:  death  of  Senator 
Robert  F.  Kennedy. 


128  6/4 
tl29  6/4 
*130        6/4 


131         6/5 


•132        6/6 


•133        6/6 


*1.'54 


6/6 


•Not  printed. 

tHeld  for  a  later  issue  of  the  Bulletin. 


U  S.   GOVERNMENT  PRiNTING  OFFICE.  I96B 


Superintendent  of  Documents 

u.s.  government  printing  office 

washington.  d.c.   20402 


OFFICIAI.  BUSINESS 


POSTAGE   AND    FEES    PAID 
U.S.  GOVERNMENT   PRINTING  OFFICE 


THE  OFFICIAL  WEEKLY  RECORD  OF  UNITED  STATES  FOREIGN  POLICY 


THE 

DEPARTMENT 

OF 

STATE 

BULLETIN 


^ 


Boston  Public  Library 
ijperintendent  of  Documents 

OEC  101963 

DEPOSITORY 


Yolume  LVIII,  Nos.  H88-1513 


January  1-June  2^,  1968 


i 


INDEX 


Number 

Date 

of  Issue 

Pages 

1488 

Jan. 

1,  1968 

1-  32 

1489 

Jan. 

8,  1968 

33-  68 

1490 

Jan. 

15,  1968 

69-104 

1491 

Jan. 

22,  1968 

105-128 

1492 

Jan. 

29,  1968 

129-160 

1493 

Feb. 

5,  1968 

161-188 

1494 

Feb. 

12,  1968 

189-220 

1495 

Feb. 

19,  1968 

221-260 

1496 

Feb. 

26,  1968 

261-300 

1497 

Mar. 

4,  1968 

301-340 

1498 

Mar. 

11,  1968 

341-358 

1499 

Mar. 

18,  1968 

369-400 

1500 

Mar. 

25,  1968 

401^28 

Number 

Dale  of  Issue 

Pages 

1501 

Apr.      1,  1968 

429-456 

1502 

Apr.     8,  1968 

457-180 

1503 

Apr.   15,  1968 

481-512 

1504 

Apr.  22,  1968 

513-548 

1505 

Apr.  29,  1968 

549-572 

1506 

May    6,1968 

573-600 

1507 

May  13,  1968 

601-628 

1508 

May  20,  1968 

629-668 

1509 

May  27,  1968 

669-700 

1510 

June    3,  1968 

701-736 

1511 

June  10,  1968 

737-768 

1512 

June  17,  1968 

769-812 

1513 

June  24,  1%8 

813-852 

Corrections  for  Volume  LVIII 

The  Editor  of  the  Bulletin  wishes  to  call  attention  to  the  following  errors 
in  Volume  LVIII: 

January  8,  p.  49:  The  title  should  read:  "North  Atlantic  Council  Meets  at 
Brussels."  The  first  sentence  of  the  italic  introductory  paragraph  should  read : 
"The  North  Atlantic  Council  held  its  regular  ministerial  meeting  at  Brussels 
December  12-14." 

January  22,  p.  110:  The  footnote  should  read:  "Issued  at  Johnson  City, 
Tex.,  on  Jan.  1.  .  .  ." 

February  5,  p.  166,  first  column:  In  the  text  of  the  Draft  Treaty  on  the 
Non-Proliferation  of  Nuclear  Weapons  which  was  submitted  to  the  Geneva 
Disarmament  Conference  on  January  18,  paragraph  3  of  article  III  should 
read :  "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  process- 
ing, use  or  production  of  nuclear  material  for  peaceful  purposes  in  accordance 
with  the  provisions  of  this  Article  and  the  principle  of  safeguarding  set  forth 
in  the  Preamble." 

April  8,  p.  478,  second  column:  Subparagraph  I.e.  of  the  attachment  to 
the  Canadian  note  of  March  13  should  read:  "e.  Operational  movements  to 
provide  military  support  to  civil  authorities  in  emergencies  resulting  from 
enemy  attack,  or  to  civil  authorities  in  disasters  other  than  those  resulting 
from  enemy  attack,  should  require  informal  clearance  through  military  chan- 
nels only,  following  a  decision  by  the  receiving  Government  that  military 
support  of  civil  authorities  is  required." 

May  20,  p.  663,  first  column :  The  last  two  sentences  in  the  third  full  para- 
graph should  read:  "If  these  provisions  are  meaningful,  they  must  carry  their 
thrust  into  the  boundaries  of  member  states.  Human  rights  violations  on  this 
planet  (except  in  Antarctica  or  outer  space)  occur  in  the  territories  of  states." 


DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE 

Publication  8401 

Released   October    1968 


For  sale  by  the  Superintendent  of  Documents,  U.S.  Government  Printing  Office,  Wasliington,  D.C.  20402 
Price  30  cents  (single  copy).  Subscription  Price :  $16  per  year  ;  $7  additional  for  foreign  mailing 


INDEX 

Volume  LVIII,  Numbers  1488-1513,  January  1-June  24,   1968 


Abel,  Elie,  261 

Abrams,    Creighton    W.:     36,    550n; 

Johnson,  76,  573 
ACDA.   See   Arms   Control   and   Dis- 
armament Agency 
Ackley,  H.  Gardner,  109,  456 
Aden.  See  Soudiem  Yemen 
Afghanistan,  agricultural  development 

(Battle),  612 
Africa  {see  also  Organization  of  Afri- 
can Unity  and  individual  coun- 
tries) : 
Chinese  Communist  influence  (Kat- 

zenbach),  739 
Conference  of  Independent  African 
States   (Tubman),  529  quoted 
Denuclearization  of  (Goldberg),  636 
Problems:    Humphrey,    129;   John- 
son, 404 
Racial  discrimination  (Johnson),  60 
Regional   cooperation:    754;   Hum- 
phrey,    130;     Johnson,     162; 
Rusk,  2,  726 
Trade:    Humphrey,   130;  Solomon, 

387 
U.S.  aid:  Humphrey,  131;  Johnson, 

249,  326;  Rusk,  726 
U.S.     relations:     Humphrey,     129; 

Johnson,  820 
Visit  of  Assistant  Secretary  Palmer, 

799 
Visit  of  Vice  President  Humphrey: 
129n;  Humphrey,  129 
African    Development    Bank:     Himn- 
phrey,    130,   603;   Johnson,   249, 
323;  E.  V.  Rostow,  365;  Rusk,  2 
Special   Fund,   U.S.   appropriations 
request:    Johnson,   324;   Rusk, 
447 
Agency  for  International  Development 
(see  also  Alliance  for  Progress  and 
Technical  assistance),  695 
Administration  (Rusk),  448 
Annual  reports  FY  1966  and  1967, 
transmittal  to  Congress  (John- 
son), 252 
Appropriations    request    FY    1969; 
Johnson,   246,  248,  284,  324; 
Rusk,  725 
Balance    of    payments    costs    reduc- 
tion:  290;  Johnson,  216,  248, 
284,  325;  Rusk,  447 
Viet-Nam     FY-1969     program 
(Grant),  594 
Aggression  {see  also  China,  Commun- 
ist;    Communism;     and     Soviet 
Union)  :  Rusk,  515;  SE.\TO,  518 


Aggression — Continued 

Indirect:     Cleveland,    688;    E.    V. 

Rostow,  495 
Nuclear  capabilities  as  a  deterrent 

(Fischer),  27 
Prevention  and  suporession:    John- 
son,  73,   457,   460,  463,  485; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  406,  432,  438, 
495,    744;    Rusk,    229,    822; 
SEATO,  518 
Threat  of  (Katzenbach),  203 
U.N.  definition  of,  proposed  (Gold- 
berg), 187 
Viet-Nam.  See  Viet-Nam 
Agricultural    surpluses,    U.S.    use    in 
overseas     programs,     agreements 
with    {see    also    Food    for    Free- 
dom) :  Bolivia,  220;  Brazil,  767; 
Ceylon,  Chile,   160;  China,   128; 
Congo     (Kinshasa),     104,     160; 
Ghana,    104,   400;   Greece,   668; 
Iceland,  851 ;  Indonesia,  104,  128, 
428;    Israel,    548;    Jordan,    572; 
Korea,  400,  812;  Morocco,  767: 
Pakistan,    220,     812;     Paraguay, 
160;  Sierra  Leone,  259;  Somalia, 
456;  Tunisia,  812;  Uruguay,  260, 
767;  Viet-Nam,  188,  400,  479 
Morocco  program    (Solomon),  425 
.'Vgriculture  {see  also  Agricultural  sur- 
pluses. Food  and  Agriculture  Or- 
ganization,  Food   for  Peace,   and 
name  of  product)  : 
Africa:  Humphrey,  130;  Rusk,  726 
Cooperatives,    Honduras     (Oliver), 

619 
India:    Battle,  612;   Johnson,  326; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  359;  Rusk,  725 
Less  developed  countries,  moderni- 
zation,  need   for:    321;  Hum- 
phrey,   369,    370,    430,    603; 
Johnson,  324;  Kotschnig,  239; 
Oliver,    442;    E.    V.    Rostow, 
362;  Rusk,  447 
Nuclear    energy    research    (Rusk), 

634 
Pakistan:  77;  Battle,  612;  Rusk,  725 
Products,    Kennedy    Round    reduc- 
tion, 296 
Rice   research:    Grant,   597;   Hum- 
phrey, 370;  Johnson,  324;  Kat- 
zenbach, 205;  Rusk,  4,  727,  825 
Trade    liberalization    problems 

(Roth),  14 
Tropical  rain  forest  resources  (John- 
son), 816 
Turkey :   E.  V.  Rostow,  561;  Rusk, 

726 
U.S.  (Johnson),  459 


Agriculture — Continued 

U.S.    port-of-entry   procedures   sim- 
plified, announcement,  621 
Viet-Nam:  Grant,  595;  Rusk,  727 
Agronsky,  Martin,  273,  651 
AID.    See    Agency    for    International 

De\elopment 
AIFLD   (American  Institute  for  Free 
Labor      Development) :      OUver, 
566,  620 
Aiken,    George   D.    (E.    V.    Rostow), 

432 
Akhmatova,  Anna  (Goldberg),  452 
Algeria,  treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  700 
Algiers  Charter  (E.  V.  Rostow),  361, 

364 
Alianza  para  el  Progreso.  See  Alliance 

for  Progress 
Alliance  for  Progress   {see  also  Inter- 
American  Development  Bank)  : 
Accomplishments   and    goals:    331; 
Johnson,     718,    826;    Katzen- 
bach, 695;  Linowitz,  310,  834; 
Oliver,  8,  442,  563,  584,  617; 
W.  W.  Rostow,  693;  Rusk,  724; 
Stroessner,  489 
Appropriations    request    FY    1969: 
Johnson,   248,   249,   323,  325; 
OUver,  501;  Rusk,  725 
Five-year      plan:      Johnson,      615; 

Mora,  719 
Partners  of  the  Alliance   (Oliver), 

440,  566 
Principles    of    and    U.S.    support: 
Johnson,  246,  490,   567,   718; 
Linowitz,     533;     Oliver,     385, 
418;  E.  V.  Rostow,  434 
Punta  del  Este  conference,  prospects 
from:    Humphrey,   430;   John- 
son, 488,  566,  614,  797,  829; 
Oliver,   417,   584:   Rusk,    116, 
447;  Sanchez,  798;  Stroessner, 
491 
7th  anniversary  (Humphrey),  429 
American    Challenge,    The    {Le   Defi 

Amcrknin),  239,  395 
American  ideals:    Green,   723;  Hum- 
phrey, 129,  132.  603,  797;  John- 
son, 38,  74,  163,  403,  486,  816; 
Linowitz.  376 :  E.  V.  Rostow,  438; 
Rusk,  230,  579 
American  Institute  for  Free  Labor  De- 
velopment (Oliver),  566,  620 
American  Samoa  (Johnson),  70 
Amity  and  economic  relations,  treaty 

with  Thailand,  699,  700 
Andean     Development     Corporation : 
Johnson,  614;  Oliver,  586 


INDEX,  JANUARY  TO  JUNE  1968 


853 


Anderson,  Eugenie,  480 
Antarctic     Treaty:      Goldberg,     642; 
Johnson,  816;  Katzenbach,  646; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  746;  Rusk,  633 
Measures    re    furtherance    of   prin- 
ciples  and   objectives,   current 
actions,  U.S.,  626 
Antigua,    U.S.    special    representative 

(Mann),  designation,  300 
ANZUS     (Australia,    New    Zealand, 
United  States):  79;  Gorton,  788 
17th   meeting,    Wellington,   text   of 
final  communique,  523 
Apartheid:  664;  BulTum,  846;  Gold- 
berg, 92,   186,  474,  762;  Green, 
721;  Wilkins,  663 
Aptheker  v.  Secretary  of  State  (Gold- 
berg), 454 
Arab-Israeli  conflict  (Rusk),  2,  670 
Allegations     of     U.S.     interference, 
U.S.    replies:     Goldberg,    509; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  218 
Arab  states,  effect  on  (Battle),  603 
Background:    Battle,  609;   Meeker, 

467;  E.  V.  Rostow.  41,  45 
Cease-fire,    U.N.    condemnation    of 
Israeli   violations :    503 ;   Gold- 
berg,  508;    text   of   resolution, 
510 
International  law  aspects  (Meeker), 

466 
International    observers,    need   for: 

Battle,  711;  Goldberg,  623 
Refugees:    Battle,   610,   711;   Gold- 
berg, 185;  Johnson,  752;  E.  V. 
Rostow,  218 
Soviet   influence    and   role:    Battle, 
713;  Meeker,  469;  E.  V.  Ros- 
tow, 746;  Rusk,  122,  825 
U.N.   role   and  U.S.   support:    174, 
509,    753;   Battle,   711;   Gold- 
berg, 180,  307,  508,  622,  731, 
733;    Johnson,    162,    752; 
Meeker,  467;  E.  V.  Rostow,  47, 
218;  Rusk,  122 
UNEF    withdrawal,    effect:     Foun- 
tain,  20;  Meeker,  466;  E.  V. 
Rostow,  45 
U.S.  balance  of  payments,  effect  on, 

288 
U.S.   position:    Battle,    710;   Gold- 
berg, 307,  508,  509,  732,  849; 
Johnson,  36,  60,  173,  751,  814; 
E.    V.    Rostow,    43,    46,    218; 
Rusk,  117 
Washington-Moscow    hot    line,    use 
of:  Battle,  714;  Johnson,  162 
Arab  states.  See  .Arab-Israeli  conflict. 
Near  and  Middle  East,  and  indi- 
vidual countries 
Aragon,  Louis,  453 
Argentina : 

Food  Aid  Convention,  pledge  (San- 
derson), 592 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  127,  128. 

700*  7^°'  '^'^^'  ^^''  ^^^'  ^^^' 
Armaments     {see    also    Disarmament 
and  Nuclear  weapons) : 
Arms  race: 

International  arms  traffic,  prob- 
lem of:  Humphrey  555,  795; 
Johnson,  328;  E.  V.  Rostow, 
362;  Rusk,  118,  230 


854 


Armaments — Continued 
Anns  race — Continued 

Middle   East:    174,   305;   Battle, 
610,     711,     713;    Goldberg 
181;     Johnson,     174,     752 
Katzenbach,  717;  E.  V.  Ros 
tow,  43,  47,  218,  685,  744 
Rusk,  122 
Soviet-U.S.  discussions,  proposed 
Foster,  837;  Humphrey,  602 
795;  Johnson,  641   (quoted) 
813,     815,     838     (quoted) 
Katzenbach,  713;  Rusk,  581, 
633,  825 
Deep   ocean   floor,   need   for   arms 
control  measures   (Rusk),  672 
East   Europe   and   So\'iet   weapons, 
threat     to     Western     Europe: 
Cleveland,     690;     NAC,     50; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  685 
Korean    veterans,    U.S.    supply    of 

small  arms,  344 
Latin   America,  elimination   of  un- 
necessary     military      expendi- 
tures:     Katzenbach,      717; 
Linowitz,  313 
South    Africa,    allegations    of    U.S. 
arms    supply    (Goldberg),    94, 
762 
Viet-Nam:     ClifTord,     607;     Rusk, 
207;  Westmoreland,  785 
Armed  forces: 

Canada-U.S.   agreement  on   tempo- 
rary    cross-border     movement, 
texts  of  notes,  477,  700 
Geneva      conventions      (1949)      re 
treatment     in     time     of     war: 
Botswana,  767;  Malawi,  340 
NATO.  See  NATO 
U.S.: 

Distinguished  Service  Medals  and 
other  awards  (Johnson),  76, 
462,  750 
Korea,  in:  344,  576;  McNamara, 

272;  Rusk,  302,  354 
Reservists  recalled  to  active  duty: 

192;  Rusk,  192 
Strength  of:  Johnson,  162;  Rusk, 

822 
Viet-Nam.  See  Viet-Nam 
Armijo,  Faustino,  754 
Arms      Control      and      Disarmament 
Agency,  U.S.: 
Annual   report    (Johnson,   quoted), 

838 
Appropriations  requests    (Johnson), 

209,  248 
Deep  ocean  floor  nuclear  arms  con- 
trol study  (Sisco),  19 
ASEAN.  See  .Association  of  Southeast 

Asian  Nations 
Asia,  South  Asia,  and  Southeast  Asia 
{see  also  ANZUS,  Asian  and  Pa- 
cific Council,  Association  of 
Southeast  Asian  Nations,  South- 
east Asia  Treaty  Organization, 
and  individual  countries)  : 
Australia,    role    of:     Gorton,    787; 

Johnson,  789;  Rusk,  4 
Communism:      Bundy,     177,     382; 
Gorton,  787;  Katzenbach,  203, 
274,  739;  E.  V.  Rostow,  407, 
435;    Rusk,     208,    515,    670; 
SEATO,  518 
Rejection    of    and    countermeas- 
ures:     E.    V.    Rostow,    499; 
Rusk,  4,  5,  727 


Asia — Continued 

Economic  and  social  development 
{see  also  Regional  cooperation 
and  development  and  U.S. 
aid,  infra)  :  Bundy,  176;  Gor- 
ton, 787;  Johnson,  575; 
Katzenbach,  205;  E.  V.  Ros- 
tow, 407;  Rusk,  517,  670,  823, 
825;  SEATO,  518 
Japan,  role  of:   E.  V.  Rostow,  434; 

Rusk,  822,  823 
Korea,  role  of:   Bundy,  177;  John- 
son, 575;  Rusk,  3,  301,  825 
1967  major  developments:  Johnson, 

162;  Rusk,  3 
Regional  cooperation  and  develop- 
ment: 679,  792;  ANZUS,  523; 
Johnson,  71,  323;  Katzenbach, 
205;  E.  V.  Rostow,  434,  435; 
Rusk,  5,  116,  518,  728 
Communist    participation,     ques- 
tion    of:      Harriman,     703; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  747 
Security,    importance:    678;    John- 
son,   676;    Katzenbach,    274; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  407,  499;  Rusk, 
208,  230,  580 
Thailand,  role   in    (Johnson),   674, 

676 
U.S.  aid:  Bundy,  654;  Rusk,  821 
U.S.     appropriations     request     FY 
1969:  Johnson,  246,  248,  249,, 
326,  327;  Rusk,  725 
U.S.  national  interests:  Bundy,  175,  , 
655;     Johnson,    575;    Katzen- 
bach, 202,  274;  E.  V.  Rostow, 
436 
U.S.  relations  and  objectives;   577; 
Harriman,      703 ;      Humphrey, 
602;  Johnson,  575,  789;  Rusk, 
208,  822 
Viet-Nam,  importance  to  the  secu- 
rity   of:    678;    ANZUS,    523; 
Bourguiba       (quoted),       746; 
Bundy,  175,  177;  Clifford,  607; 
Johnson,    73,     75,    485,    789; 
Katzenbach,     202,    204,    274; 
Lee       (quoted),      500;      Park  I 
(quoted),    4;    E.    V.    Rostow, 
435;   Rusk,   5,   208,  515,  583, 
727,  821;  Sato  (quoted),  178; 
SEATO,  518 
Visit    of    President    Johnson:     69; 
Johnson,  79 
Asian    and    Pacific    Council:     Bundy,. 
177,      178;      Katzenbach,     205; 
Rusk,  5,  301,518 
Asian     Development     Bank:      Bundy, 
178;    Humphrey,    603;    Johnson, 
779;  Katzenbach,   205;  Rusk,  5, 
116,  230,  518,  822 
Appropriations    request    FY    1969: 
Johnson,    163,   247,   250,   284, 
322,  324;  E.  V.  Rostow,  365; 
Rusk,  447 
ASPAC.  See  Asian  and  Pacific  Council 
Aspinall,  Owen  S.,  70 
Association    of    Southeast    Asian    Na- 
tions: ANZUS,  523;  Katzenbach,! 
205;  Rusk,  5,  518;  SEATO,  518 
Astronauts: 

Envoys  of  manlund:   Goldberg,  84; 

Reis,  81,83 
Rescue    and   return    of.    See    Outer 
space 
Ataturk,  Kemal  (quoted),  559 


1.1, 


DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE  BULLETIN 


•fiat 

Ail 

Ail 

( 

I 


JD£: 


Atlantic  Alliance.  See  North  Atlantic 

Treaty  Organization 
Atlantic  Community  (E.  V.  Rostow), 

682 
Atomic  energy,  peaceful  uses  of: 

Agreements   re  application  of  safe- 
guards.     See      under     Atomic 
Energy  Agency,  International 
Background  (Rusk),  632 
Cooperation  in,  bilateral  agreements 
with:  Greece,  668;  Japan,  420, 
428 
Latin  America,  Treaty  of  Tlatelolco, 
under:    556;   Humphrey,  555; 
Johnson,  314 
Nuclear  nonproliferation  treaty  pro- 
visions: 643,  644;  Foster,  836; 
Goldberg,  634,  635,  758;  Katz- 
enbach,  647 
Nuclear  Week  (Foster),  836 
Atomic  Energy  Agency,  International: 
Safeguards: 

Application  of  to  existing  bilateral 

agreements  with:    Denmark, 

428;    Indonesia,    Iran,    31; 

Korea,  188 

Importance  of  and  U.S.  support: 

Rusk,  632;Sisco,  63 
Nuclear    nonproliferation    treaty, 
provision  for  application  of: 
165,    166.  643,  644;  Foster, 
837;    Goldberg,    638;   Katz- 
enbach,  647 
U.S.  application  to  nuclear  facili- 
ties:   Goldberg,    640;    Rusk, 
633;  Sisco,  64 
Atthakor,  Bunchana,  167 
Australia      [see     also     ANZUS     and 
SE.\TO): 
Asia,  role  in:  Gorton,  787;  Johnson, 

789;  Rusk,  4 
Economic  progress    (Gorton),  790 
Food  Aid  Convention,  pledge  (San- 
derson) ,  592 
Prime  Minister  Holt,  tribute  to  and 
regrets  on  death  of:    Johnson, 
69,  70,  71,  73,  74,  77,  79,  788; 
McEwen,  70 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  127,  160, 
220,  339,  400,  428,  626,  627, 
700 
U.S.  capital  inflow  maximum,  290 
U.S.  relations,  791 
U.S.  visit  of  Prime  Minister  Gorton, 

786 
Viet-Nara,  military  and  other  aid: 
71,    792;    Gorton,    787:    John- 
son, 69.  74,  781,  786,  789 
Visit   of   President  Johnson    (John- 
son), 70 
Austria : 

Foreign  Relations  of  the  United 
States:  Diplomatic  Papers, 
1945,  Volume  III,  European 
Advisory  Commission ;  Austria; 
Germany,  released,  628 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  400,  428, 

548,  626,  627,  700 
U.S.  visit  of  Chancellor  Klaus,  556 
Automotive  traffic.  See  Road  traffic 
Aviation : 

Air  transport  (Solomon),  803 
Aircraft : 

C-5A  cargo  plane  (Johnson) ,  403 
U.S.  aircraft,  reply  to  allegations 
of   bomb   damage   to   Soviet 
vessel,  145 


Aviation — Continued 
Aircraft — Continued 

U.S.  helicopter  offered  for  ICC 
surveillance  work  in  Cam- 
bodia, 134 
U.S.  nuclear-armed  bomber  acci- 
dent in  Greenland  (Rusk), 
272 
Civil   aviation,   U.S.-Czechoslovakia 

talks  concluded,  321 
Port-of-entry  procedures  simplified, 

announcement,  621 
Southern  Rhodesia,  U.N.  sanctions 

against  operation  in,  848 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.: 

Air    navigation    aids,    agreement 

with  Panama,  548 
Air     services     transit     agreement 
(1944),   international:    Bur- 
undi, 219 
Air    transport    agreements    with: 
Germany,     599;     Indonesia, 
220,  255;  Mexico,  368;  So- 
viet Union,  700 
Civil     air     transport     agreement 
with     Soviet     Union:     734; 
Johnson,  162,  813,  815;  E.V. 
Rostow,  746;  Rusk,  2,  824 
Civil  aviation,  international,  con- 
vention    (1944),     Burundi, 
219 
NORAD    (North    American   Air 
Defense    Command)     agree- 
ment with  Canada,  548,  571 
U.S.  airpower,  effectiveness   (John- 
son), 73 
U.S.    discounts   for   tourists    (John- 
son), 507 
Avila,  Rogue  Jacinto,  430 
Azhari,  Yusuf  Omar,  404 


B 


Babel,  Isaak   (Goldberg),  452 
Badinga,  Leonard  Antoine,  167 
Balance  of  payments: 

Surplus  countries,  responsibilities  of: 

286,  319;  Johnson,  282 
U.K.,  464,  526 
U.S.: 

Agreement  with  China  re  dispo- 
sition of  New  Taiwan  dollars 
generated  as  a  consequence 
of  U.S.  economic  assistance, 
400 
AID  balance  of  payments  costs 
reduction:  290;  Johnson, 
216,  248,  284,  325;  Rusk, 
447 
Exports,    effect   of.   See   Exports, 

U.S.:  Expansion,  need  for 
Improvement  of,  need  for  and 
U.S.  restraints:  285,  526; 
Fowler,  525;  Johnson,  6,  105, 
107,  108,  110,  163,250,  279, 
280,  324,  444,  473,  484,  506, 
699;  Katzenbach,  136,  142, 
765;  Kotschnig,  240;  Mc- 
Ghee,  393,  395;  E.  V.  Ros- 
tow, 137,  140,  361,  367; 
Roth,  242;  Rusk,  117,  120, 
123,  228;  Solomon,  800,  802, 
805 


INDEX,  J.\NUARY  TO  JUNE  1968 


Balance  of  payments — Continued 
U.S. — Continued 

Improvement  of — Continued 
Overseas  reactions:  792;  Dem- 
ing,  136,  139;  Johnson, 
809;  Katzenbach,  135, 
136,  138,  140,  141,  168; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  135,  138, 
139,  142,  562,  684 
NATO    foreign    exchange    costs. 

See  NATO 
Travel,  effect  on.  See  Touring  and 

tourism 
U.A.R.  and  Sudan  cotton  imports, 
effect  of  proposed  U.S.  bill 
(E.  V.  Rostow),  219 
U.S.  agencies  directed  to  cut  ci- 
vilian overseas  personnel  and 
travel:    290,   567;   Johnson, 
113,  215,  216,  282,  325,  505 
Viet-Nam,  effect  on:    287,   288; 
Deming,  142;  Johnson,  110, 
631;  Katzenbach,  140,  142 
Ball,  George  W.:  quoted,  794;  John- 
son, 630 
U.S.    representative    to    U.N.,    ap- 
pointment: Johnson,  604;  con- 
firmation, 735 
Barbados : 

Alliance  for  Progress,  extension  to 

(Oliver),  416 
Ambassador    to    U.S.,    credentials, 

167 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  31,  456, 
479 
Barnett,  A.  Doak   (quoted),  175,  178 
Baruch  Plan:  Katzenbach,  646;  Rusk, 

632 
Battle,  Lucius  D.,  608,  710 
Battle  Act  (Solomon),  423 
Bay  of  Pigs  (McNamara),  265,  269 
Belgium: 

Gold  price  stability,  support  for,  464 
Income  tax  protocol,  announcement, 

188 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  104,  220^ 
428,512,  700,  766 
Berger,  Samuel  D.,  192,  456 
Berlin:  Johnson,  37;  Rusk,  355 
Bembaum,  Maurice  M.,  419 
Biafra,  278 

Big-power  responsibilities:  Battle,  613; 
Bourguiba,  752;  Cleveland,  687; 
Gaud,  145;  Goldberg,  308;  Gor- 
ton, 787;  Humphrey,  601,  603, 
797;  Johnson,  164,  247,  403,  439, 
486,  674,  681,  816;  Katzenbach, 
170,  202,  228,  230,  716;  E.  V. 
Rostow,  42,  406,  432,  438,  494, 
559,  561,  742;  Rusk,  728;  Stroess- 
ner,  491;  Wilson,  316 
Bills  of  lading,  protocol  to  amend  in- 
ternational convention  (1924): 
Argentina,  Belgium,  Cameroon, 
Canada,  China,  Congo  (Kin- 
shasa) ,  Finland,  Germany, 
Greece,  Italy,  Liberia,  Mauri- 
tania, Paraguay,  Philippines, 
Poland,  Sweden,  Switzerland, 
U.K.,  U.S.,  Uruguay,  Vatican- 
City,  766 
Black,  Eugene  R.:  679;  Johnson,  779 
Blumenthal,   W.    Michael    (Johnson), 

90 
Boggs,  Hale,  675 
Bohlen,  Charles  E.,  68,  421 
Bolivar,  Simon :  534,615  (quoted) 


855 


Bolivia  {see  also  Andean  Development 
Association),  treaties,  agreements, 
etc.,  220,  626,  627 

Bonesteel,  Charles  H.:  344;  Rusk,  262 

Bonin  Islands,  Japanese  administra- 
tion resumed:  U.  A.  Johnson, 
570;  Rusk,  824;  Takeo,  571;  text 
of  joint  U.S.-Japanesc  statement, 
570 

Bourguiba,  Habib,  746  (quoted),  751, 
752 

Botswana,    treaties,    agreements,    etc., 

220,  259,  479,  599,  767 
Bowles,  Chester:    119,  133,  134,  320; 

Rusk,  118,  119 
Braderman,  Eugene  M.,  11,  146,  398 
Brandt,  Willy  (E.  V.  Rostow),  683 
Brazil : 

Agricultural  and  economic  develop- 
ment:    Johnson,     324;    Rusk, 
725 
Coffee  production  and  prices,  332 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  428,  626, 

700,  767,  851 
U.S.  private  aid  to  (Oliver),  440 
Bringle,  "Bush"  (Johnson),  76 
Brogan,  Sir  Denis,  742 
Brosio,  Manlio,  356 
Browning,  Robert,  314 
Budget  of  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment, FY   1969    (Johnson),   108, 
247,  459,  462,  484 
Buffum,  William  B.,  253,  511,  845 
Bukovsky,  Vladimir  (Goldberg),  453 
Bulgaria,  treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  31, 

368,  626,  627,  700 
Bull,  Odd  (U  Thant,  quoted),  623 
Bunche,  Ralph,  344 
Bundy,  WilUam  P.,  71,  175,  378,  651; 

Johnson,  549 
Bungei  Shunju  interview  of  Secretary 

Rusk,  transcript,  821 
Bunker,  Ellsworth:  550;  Johnson,  76, 

221,  549,   550,   573;   Westmore- 
land, 514 

Bureau  of  International  Expositions, 
U.S.  membership  urged  (John- 
son), 52 

Burke,  Edmund  (quoted),  310 

Burma,  Communism,  threat  of: 
Bundy,  382;  Katzenbach,  274; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  408,  435,  499,  670 

Burns,  John  A.,  179,578 

Burundi,  treaties,  agreements,  etc., 
219,812 

Byelorussian  S.S.R.,  radio  regulations 
(Geneva,  1959,  as  amended)  to 
put  into  eflfect  revised  frequency 
allctment  plan  for  aeronautical 
mobile  (R)  service  and  related 
information,  599 

c 

Califano,  Joseph  A.,  106 
Cambodia: 

Communist  presence  on  Cambodian 

territory:   Katzenbach,  274;  E. 

V.  Rostow,  408, 435,  499;  Rusk, 

305,  515,  670 

Possible  U.S.  action:    124,    133; 

Johnson,     107;    Rusk,     118, 

120,  123 

Geneva    conference,    U.S.    position 

(Rusk),  118,  119 
ICC  role.  See  International  Control 
Commission 


Cambodia — Continued 

Neutrality.  See  Neutrality  and  non- 

alinement 
U.S.   accidental  violations  of  Cam- 
bodian territory,  124 
U.S.    mission:     Bowles,    134;    joint 
communique,  text,   133;  Rusk, 
118,  119 
U.S.  representative  (Bowles),  de- 
signation, 119 
Cameroon,    treaties,   agreements,   etc., 

700,  766 
Canada : 

Automotive    Products    Trade    Act 

(Johnson),  779,  809,  811 
Food  Aid  Convention,  pledge  (San- 
derson), 592 
ICG  membership,  responsibilities  of 

(Rusk),  208 
Income  tax  conventions,  entry  into 

force,  66 
International    Monetary    Fund    re- 
serve  assets   quota    (Johnson), 
698 
Kennedy  Round  tariff  cuts,  acceler- 
ation (E.  V.  Rostow),  684 
Maclean's    interview    of    Secretary 

Rusk,  206 
Temporary    cross-border   movement 
agreement  with  U.S.,   texts  of 
notes,  477,  700 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  68,  127, 
128,  220,  339,  428,  548,  627, 
668,700,766,811 
U.S.  capital  inflow  maximum,  290 
U.S.  tourists,  question  of  border  con- 
trols (Katzenbach),  138 
Viet-Nam,     position     on      (Fraser, 
Rusk),  206 
Canter,  Jacob,  419 
Castroism.  See  Cuba 
Cater,  Douglass,  109 
Center  for  Cultural  and  Technical  In- 
terchange Between  East  and  West, 
National  Review  Board  appoint- 
ments, 179 
CENTO    (Central   Treaty   Organiza- 
tion), 613 
Central  America,  economic  integration 

(Johnson),  325 
Central  American  Bank  for  Economic 
Integration:    Johnson,  567,   797; 
Sanchez,  798 
Central  American  Common  Market: 
Johnson,  567,  615,  718,  798,  829; 
Oliver,  585;  E.  V.  Rostow,  365 
Central    American    Malaria    Research 

Center  (Johnson),  798 
Central  Treaty  Organization,  15th  ses- 
sion, London,  final  communique, 
613 
Cereals  agreement  (1967):  Argentina, 
Australia,  Canada,  U.K.,  U.S.,  127 
Ceylon : 

Agricultural   development    (Battle), 

612 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  160,  700 
Chad,  treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  627, 

700 
Chamizal  agreement  (Rusk),  2 
Chapman,  Leonard  F.:  358;  Rusk,  357 
Chile   (see  also  Andean  Development 
Corporation) : 
Economic  progress:    Johnson,  325; 
Rusk,  725 


Chile — Continued 

Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  103,  160, 
339,  368,  400,  428,  626,  627, 
700 
China,   Communist    (see  also   Aggres- 
sion, Communism,  and  Sino-Soviet 
relations) : 
Africa,  influence  (Katzenbach),  739 
Asia,  threat  to:  Battle,  611;  Bundy, 
177,     382;     Katzenbach,     203, 
274,  739;  E.  V.  Rostow,  435; 
Rusk,  209,  515,  670;  SEATO, 
518 
Internal    problems:    Johnson,    162; 
Katzenbach,    203,    205,    737; 
Rusk,  4 
Near  and  Middle  East,  in  (Battle), 

611 
Nuclear  development:  ANZUS,  523; 

Goldberg,  759;  Rusk,  823 
U.N.     membership,     question     of: 
Bundy,    655;    Goldberg,     183; 
Katzenbach,  739 
U.S.  position  and  relations:  Bundy, 
655,  656;  Humphrey,  601,  602; 
Johnson,  38,  162;  Katzenbach, 
737;  E.  V.  Rostow,  747;  Rusk, 
209,  581,  823 
U.S.  trade  embargo:    Sohlen,  421; 

Katzenbach,  740 
Viet-Nam,  military  and  other  sup- 
port:  Johnson,  36;  E.  V.  Ros- 
tow, 409,  415,  435,  436,  744; 
Rusk,  208;  SEATO,  519;  West- 
moreland, 785 
Warsaw    meeting    with    U.S.    post- 
poned, 798 
World  relations  and  goals:  Katzen- 
bach, 204,  737;  E.  V.  Rostow, 
747;  Rusk,  208,  209,  823 
China,  Republic  of  (see  also  Taiwan) : 
Economic      development:       Bundy, 
177;    Kotschnig,    239;    E.    V. 
Rostow,  407,  434;  Rusk,  4,  825 
Matsu    and    Quemoy,    question    of 

evacuation  (Bundy),  655 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  123,  160, 
259,  400,  479,  626,  627,  668, 
700,  766 
U.S.  aid  (Johnson),  569 
U.S.    relations    (Katzenbach),    737, 
738 
Christian,    George:     108,    513,    551; 

Johnson,  223,  342 
Churchill,   Sir  Winston,   quoted,   201, 

604 
CICYP    (Inter-American  Council  for 
Commerce      and      Production) : 
Oliver,  502 
Civil    Aeronautics    Board    (Johnson), 

507 
Civil     Disorders,     National     Advisory 
Commission:  Green,  722;  Wilkins, 
663 
Civil   rights    (see   also   Human   rights 
and  Racial  discrimination)  : 
President's  National  Advisory  Com- 
mission    on     Civil     Disorders: 
Green,  722;  Wilkins,  663 
Southern  Rhodesia    (BufTum),  845 
U.S. :  Clifford,  605  ;  Humphrey,  60 1 ; 
Johnson,    132    (quoted),   459; 
Linowitz,  376,  534;  E.  V.  Ros- 
tow, 405,  493,  561;  Rusk,  579, 
669;  Wilkins,  662 


856 


DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE  BULLETIN  j 

i'l 


Civil  rights — Continued 
Women : 

India  (Battle),  612 
Political     rights     of,     convention 
(1953):  Italy,  512;  Tunisia, 
368 
Civilian  persons  in  time  of  war,  Geneva 
convention      (1949):      Botswana, 
767 ;  Malawi,  340 
Claims: 

Foreign  Claims  Settlement  Commis- 
sion  FY    1969   budget  request 
(Johnson),  248 
Indonesia,  deadline  set  for  certain 

property  in,  217 
Territorial  claims,  U.S.  statement  to 
protocol   II  of  Treaty  of  Tla- 
telolco,  556 
Clark,  Edward  A. :  7 1 ,  53 1 ,  622 ;  John- 
son, 790 
Clay,  Henry  (quoted),  168 
Cleveland,  Harlan,  687 
Clifford,  Clark:  Agronsky,  274;  Bundy, 
381,  651  ;  Fritchey,  277;  Johnson, 
223,  487,  514,  549,  674;  Lisagor, 
272;  E.  V.  Rostow,  499 
Address  and  transcript  of  news  con- 
ference, 552,  605 
Cocoa  agreement,  international:  E.  V. 
Rostow,  366;  Rusk,   1;  Solomon, 
387,  391 
COCOM  (Coordinating  Committee): 

Bohlen,  421;  Solomon,  423 
CofTee: 

Diversification  Fund:  338:  Johnson, 
567,  665,  797;  Katzenbach, 
666;  Oliver,  585;  Sanchez,  798; 
Solomon,  843 
International  Coffee  Agreement, 
1962: 
Current     actions:      C>prus,     31; 

Guinea,  400 
Importance    and    U.S.    support: 
Johnson,    567;    OMver,    385, 
584;  E.  V.  Rostow,  365;  Solo- 
mon, 387,  389 
Third    annual    report:     Johnson, 
330;  text,  330 
International     Coffee     Agreement, 
1968 :  Johnson,  664,  797,  844 
(quoted);  Katzenbach,  665; 
Sanchez,  798;  Solomon,  842 
Collective  security  {see  also  Mutual  de- 
fense) :    Goldberg,   757;  Johnson, 
718;  Rusk,  316,  669,  822 
AiXZUS.  See  ANZUS 
NATO.  See  North  Atlantic  Treaty 

Organization 
NORAD  (North  American  Air  De- 
fense    Command)      agreement 
with  Canada,  548,  571 
SEATO.  See  Southeast  Asia  Treaty 

Organization 
Treaty   of   Tlatelolco,    protocol    II, 

U.S.  statement,  556 
U.S.  commitments,  importance 
of  dependability:  Humphrey, 
601 ;  Johnson,  461 ;  E.  V.  Ros- 
tow, 408,  432,  494,  561;  Rusk, 
208,  230,  583 
U.S.  security  arrangements,  impor- 
tance to  world  peace:  E.  V. 
Rostow,  406,  494;  Rusk,  117, 
353,  580 


Collingwood,    Charles    (Bundy),    651 
Colombia   (see  also  Andean  Develop- 
ment Corporation) : 
Financial  and  social  refonns  (John- 
son), 325 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  400,  627, 
700,  767,  851 
Commerce,  Secretary  of,  authority  to 
regulate  foreign  investment  (John- 
son), 105,  112 
Commodity  trade   problems   {see  also 
name  of  product)  : 
Less     developed     countries:      298; 
Humphrey,  603 ;  E.  V.  Rostow, 
363,  365;  Solomon,  387 
Liberia,  531 
Philippines,  148 
Common  market.  See  name  of  market 
Communications      {see      also      Radio 
aw^  Telecommunications) :  Hum- 
phrey, 603;  Linowitz,  832 
English  language  as  a  medium  (Bat- 
tle), 612 
Satellites   (Johnson),  675 

Global    commercial     communica- 
tions satellite  system:   John- 
son, 815;  Rusk,  673 
Interim    and    special    arrange- 
ments:    Turkey,    699; 
Uganda,  127 
INTELSAT  (E.  V.  Rostow),  680 
Latin  America  (Johnsonl,  615 
N.A.TO   (Cleveland),  690 
TRANSIT  (Navy  navigation  sat- 
ellite system),  540 
Space  vehicle  tracking  and  communi- 
cations     stations,      agreements 
with:     Malagasy,     160;    U.K. 
(Bermuda),  260;  U.K.  (Grand 
Bahama  Island),  735 
Thai-U.S.  direct  telephone  service, 

675 
Washington-Moscow  hot  line:   Bat- 
tle, 714;  Johnson,  162,  210;  E. 
V.  Rostow,  746 
Communism      {see  also      Aggression; 
China,    Communist;    and    Soviet 
Union)  : 
Asia.  See  under  Asia 
Coexistence:  Cleveland,  690;  NAG, 
51;   E.   V.   Rostow,   407,   409, 
433,  744 
Ideology:   Bohlen,  421;  E.  V.  Ros- 
tow, 743 
Nationalism:    Bohlen,    422;    Hum- 
phrey,  601,   794;  Katzenbach, 
717;  Meeker,  469;  E.  V.  Ros- 
tow, 748;  Rusk,  670 
Propaganda  (Goldberg),  94,  96 
Rejection     and     countcrmeasures: 
Bundy,  178;  Johnson,  38,  327, 
404;    Katzenbach,    204,    717; 
Linowitz,  312,  532;  NAG,  51; 
Oliver,  418;  E.  V.  Rostow,  435; 
Rusk,  2,  4,  208,  264,  670,  727 
U.S.  role:  678;  Johnson,  459;  E.  V. 

Rostow,  495,  499,  560 
Viet-Nam.  See  Viet-Nam 
Wars   of   national    liberation:    200; 
Bundy,  177;  E.  V.  Rostow,  408, 
415,  435,  744;  Rusk,  354,  515, 
582,  823;  SEATO,  519 
World    goals:    E.    V.    Rostow,    42; 
Rusk,  229 
COMSAT.    See    Global    commercial 
communications    satellite    system 
under  Communications 


Conference    of    Independent    African 

States  (Tubman,  quoted),  529 
Conferences,    international     {see    also 
subject),  calendar  of  meetings,  61, 
449 
Congo,   Democratic   Republic   of   the 
(Kinshasa)  : 
Angola-based   mercenaries,  problem 

of  (Goldberg),  182 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  104,  160, 

626,  627,  766 
U.N.  debt  owed  to   (Fountain),  21 
Visit  of  Vice  President  Humphrey, 
I2n 
Congress,  U.S.: 

Documents  relating  to  foreign  policy, 
lists,  155,  252,  339,  427,  473, 
569,  599,  730 
Legislation : 

Balance-of-payments       restraints : 
Fowler,   525;   Johnson,    105, 
110,  163,  248,279,472,504, 
809;  Katzenbach,  765;  Rusk, 
447 
Federal    Reserve    notes    gold    re- 
quirement, removal  of:   293, 
464;  Johnson,  163,  280,  283, 
462,  505 
Foreign   aid   bill,    reductions   in: 
143n;  Gaud,   143;  Humphrey, 
131;  Johnson,  322,  328,  779; 
Katzenbach,  764,  766;  Rusk, 
727,  729 
Inter  -  American        Development 
Bank,  capital  increase :  John- 
son, 246,  250,  323,567,826; 
E.    V.    Rostow,    365;    Rusk, 
446 
Tax  surcharge:  291 ;  Fowler,  525; 
Johnson,  111,  245,  279,  282, 
459,  462,  483,  505,  506,  699, 
809;  Roth,  243 
U.N.  standby  forces,  improved  ar- 
rangements (Fountain),  20 
Legislation,  proposed: 

Adjustment  assistance  criteria,  lib- 
eralization:    297;     Johnson, 
284,  779,  808 
American  Selling   Price,  elimina- 
tion of:    297;  Johnson,  284, 
779,  808;   Roth,    13,   243 
Asian    Development    Bank,    U.S. 
contribution   to  special  fund 
for  Southeast  Asia:  Johnson, 
163,  247,  250,  284,  322,  324; 
E.    V.    Rostow,    365;   Rusk, 
446 
Cotton  imports  from  U.A.R.  and 
Sudan,  permanent  restriction 
(E.  V.  Rostow),  217 
East- West  Trade  Relations  Act  of 
1966:  Bohlen,  421;  Johnson, 
284;    Rusk,    581;    Solomon, 
425 
Export  expansion  program;  290; 

Johnson,  113,  282,  504 
Export-Import  Bank: 

Appropriations   request    (John- 
son), 113,  504 
Extension    of:     290;    Johnson, 
250,   282;   Solomon,   425, 
426 
Food   for   Freedom:    Humphrey, 
372;  Johnson,  163,251,  284, 
324,  329 


INDEX,  J.^NUARY  TO  JUNE  1968 


k 


857 


Congress,  U.S.— Continued 

Legislation,  proposed— Continued  ^ 

Foreign  aid  program  tY  lyba. 
Humphrey,  372;  Johnson, 
163  246,  322,  459;  Lmowitz, 
375;  Rusk,  445,  724 

Inter-American  Bank  Fund  for 
Special  Operations  (John- 
son), 827 

International  Development  Asso- 
ciation: Johnson,  163,  24b, 
250,284,322,323,779,827; 
Katzenbach,  763;E.  V.  Ros- 

tow,  366 
Kennedy  Round  implementation: 
Johnson,  779,  808;  Roth,  13, 
839  ,      , 

Marine    science    and    technology 
programs,   FY    1969:     541; 
Johnson,  163,  537;  Sisco,  19 
Non-immigration     Visa     Act    of 
1968:     568;   Johnson,   472, 
505,  507 
Tariff-reducing   authority,   exten- 
sion of  (Johnson),  284.  807 
Touring  restraints :    Johnson,  108, 
112,  163,  282,  505;  Katzen- 
bach, 136,  137;  Rusk,  117 
Trade    Expansion    Act    of    1968 

(Johnson),  779,  807 
Trade  protectionist  quotas:    297; 
Johnson,     283,     779,     809; 
Roth,  242,  839 
Travel  to  restricted  areas,  crimi- 
nal   penalties    for:     Katzen- 
bach,  53;   text   of   proposed 
bill,  53 
Senate  advice  and  consent: 

Bureau   of  International   Exposi- 
tions, U.S.  membership  urged 
(Johnson),  52 
Customs  cooperation  council  con- 
vention, proposed  (Johnson), 
810 
Food  aid  convention:    Humphrey, 
370;  Johnson,  329;  Sander- 
son, 590,  592 
Human  rights  conventions,  ratifi- 
cation   urged:    Green,    721; 
Johnson,  232 
International   Coffee   Agreement, 
1968:      Johnson,    664,    797, 
844    (quoted)  ;   Katzenbach, 
665;  Solomon,  842 
International  exhibitions,  conven- 
tions  (1928)    and  protocols, 
667 
International  grains  arrangement: 
Johnson,     329;     Roth,     13; 
Sanderson,  590 
International      Monetary      Fund 
Agreement,         amendment: 
Fowler,  526;  Johnson,   283, 
696;  Solomon,  801 
1967  record  (Rusk),  2 
OAS  Charter  protocol  of  amend- 
ment:   626;    Johnson,    614; 
Linowitz,  615 
Senate  confirmations,  68,  300,  456, 

622.627,700,735 
Viet-Nam,   position    on:     Johnson, 
35,  40,  485;  Katzenbach,  202; 
Rusk,  207 
Conservation      {see     also     Fish     and 
fisheries) : 


Conservation — Continued 

Nature  protection  and  wildlife  pres- 
ervation in  the  Western  Henu- 
phere,      convention      (1940): 
Chile,    103 
Tavera  Dam,  694 

Water  resources  joint  study,  agree- 
ment with  Iran,  472,  627 
Consular  relations: 

Consular  convention  with — 

France,  31;  1853  convention  ter- 
minated, 31 
Soviet  Union:  Johnson,  162,  815; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  746;  Rusk.  2, 
824 
Consular    officers,    agreement    with 
Colombia  re  reciprocal  customs 
privileges,  767 
South  Africa,  closing  of  Port  Eliza- 
beth consulate,  627 
Southern  Rhodesia,  U.N.  sanctions, 

848 
Vienna  convention    (1963):     Chile 
400;  Czechoslovakia,  572;  Hon- 
duras, 479;  Mali,  626;  Nigeria, 
400;  Somalia,  626 
Continental  shelf: 
Breadth,  541 

International    convention     (1958): 
Pollack,  214 
Coordinating  Committee  (COCOM) : 

Bohlen,  421;  Solomon,  423 
Costa  Rica: 

Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  340,  479, 

627 
U.S.  visit  of  President  Trejos,  828 
Cotton,  Norris  (Sisco),  19 
Cotton,  U.A.R.  and  Sudan  long-staple 
cotton  imports,  permanent  restric- 
tions, question  of  (E.  V.  Rostow), 
217 
Cotton  textiles: 

Bilateral    agreements   re    trade    in: 
China,  400;  Greece,  400,  546; 
Japan,   187,   220;   Korea,    101, 
104;  Philippines,  188;  U.A.R., 
104,  548 
GATT  arrangement  re  internation- 
al trade  in,  1962  protocol:  Po- 
land, Netherlands  for  Surinam, 
259 
Long-term  arrangement   (1962)    re 
international  trade,  as  amend- 
ed:   Netherlands  Antilles,    104 
Council  of  Economic  Advisers,  Annual 

Report  of  (excerpts),  285 
Cox  v.  Louisiana  (Goldberg),  454 
Crampsey,  Leo   (quoted),  357 
Cuba: 

Communist     policies :     Katzenbach, 
717;  Linowitz,  312,  532;  Rusk, 
2,  670 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  259,  700 
U.S.  policy  (Linowitz),  310-311 
U.S.  trade  embargo:    Bohlen,  421; 
Solomon,  424 
Cuban    missile    crisis:     Johnson,    37, 

210,  Rusk,  356 
Cultural  relations  and  programs   {see 
also    United    States    Information 
Agency)  : 
Center  for  Cultural  and  Technical 
Interchange  Between  East  and 
West,  National   Review   Board 
appointments,  179 


Cultural  relations — Continued 

Educational,  scientific,  and  cultural 
materials : 
Importation     of,     agreement 
(1950):    Malta,  400;  Niger, 
735 
Visual     and     auditory    materials 
agreement    (1949)    re  inter- 
national circulation:     Niger, 
735 
Germany,    U.S.    exhibitions     (Mc- 

Ghee),  395 
Importance  (Oliver),  384 
Inter-American     Cultural     Council 
meeting,    Venezuela:     Agenda 
and  U.S.  representatives,  419; 
Johnson,  420;  Linowitz,  834 
Japan-U.S.  4th  Conference  on  Cul- 
tural   and    Educational    Inter- 
change:    444;  final  communi- 
que, 587;  resolution,  588 
Latin  America   (Linowdtz),  834 
Soviet  Union-U.S.   (Johnson),  252, 
815 
Cushman,  Robert  E.  (Westmoreland), 

514 
Customs  {see  also  Tariff  policy,  U.S.) : 
Consular    officers,    agreement    with 
Colombia  re  reciprocal  customs 
privileges,  767 
Containers  convention  (1956)  with 
annexes  and  protocol:  Australia 
(to  territories  of  Papua,  Norfolk 
Island,  Christmas  Island,  Cocos 
(Keeling)    Islands,   and   Trust 
Territory  of  New  Guinea),  339; 
Israel,  Romania,  67 
Customs    cooperation    council    con- 
vention,      ratification       urged 
(Johnson).  810 
Port-of-entry  procedures  simplified, 

announcement,  621 
Private  road  vehicles,  customs  con- 
vention   (1954)    on  temporary 
importation  of:    Iran,  667 
Touring,  customs  facilities  for,  con- 
vention (1954),  Iran,  667 

Cyprus: 

Treaties,   agreements,   etc.,   31,   68, 

699,  700 
U.N.  peace  force  extended : 

December    1967:    Goldberg,    95, 

182;  text  of  resolution,  96 
March  1968  (Buffum),  511 
U.N.  peacekeeping  operations: 
Batde,  610;  Fountain,  23  ;  Gold- 
berg,  307;   Johnson,   89,    162; 
NAC,  49;Rusk,  2 
U.S.  income  tax  convention  termi- 
nated, 127 
Czechoslovakia : 

Civil  aviation  talks  concluded,  321 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  512,  548, 
572,  599,  626,  627,  700 

D 

Dahomey,  international  telecommuni- 
cation convention  (1965),  with 
annexes,  259 

Daniel,  Price  (Johnson),  507 

Daniel,  Yuli  (Goldberg),  452 

Davidson,  Philip,  277 

Davis,  Savllle,  107,651 

Davis,  Sid.  107 


858 


DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE  BULLETIN 


Debre,  Michel  (Katzenbach),  139 
Defense    {see  also  Collective  security 
and  Mutual  defense) : 
National  security:   Humphrey,  130; 
Johnson,  162;  E.  V.  Rostow,  42, 
405,431,494 
International  peacekeeping  agen- 
cy,  relation   to    (Goldberg), 
309 
Unrestricted   travel   of   U.S.   citi- 
zens, effect  on  (Katzenbach), 
53 
Soviet-U.S.  nuclear  standoff:  Cleve- 
land, 687;  Foster,  838 
U.S.S.  Pueblo,  equipment  and  classi- 
fied information  (McNamara), 
263 
DSfi  Americain,  Le,  293,  395 
De  Gaulle,  Charles  (Johnson),  38 
Deming,  Frederick  L.,  136,  138,  139, 

140,  142 
Democracy  and  democratic  principles: 
56;  Humphrey,    129,  601;  John- 
son, 630,  828,  829;  Rusk,  349 
Asia  (Bundy),  176 
Japan  ( Rusk ) ,  3 
Latin  America:  Linowitz,  312,  533, 

835;  Oliver,  563,  618 
Ry-ukyu  Islands  (Johnson),  319 
Somali  Republic  (Egal),  470 
U.S.  See  U.S.  elections 
Viet-Nam.  See  Viet-Nam 
Deniau,  Jean-Francois,  319 
Denmark,    treaties,    agreements,    etc., 
127,  220,  428,  548,  626,  627,  667, 
700 
Desalination: 

Nuclear  energy  uses  (Rusk),  634 
U.S.-Iran  joint  water  resources  study 
agreement,  472 
Dethlefsen,  Meriyn  H.,  226 
Diaz  Ordaz,  Gustavo:  Humphrey,  554; 

Johnson,  314 
Diplomatic   relations   and   recognition 
(Rusk),  207 
Diplomatic  privileges  and  immuni- 
ties,   U.N.    discussion     (Gold- 
berg), 187 
Noru-ecognition : 
Biafra,  by  U.S.,  278 
Southern   Rhodesian   government 
(Humphrey),  132 
Recognition,   international    law   as- 
pects: Goldberg,  84;  Reis,  83 
Vienna  convention  (1961):  Austra- 
lia, 400;  Bulgaria,  Chile,  Gui- 
nea, 368;  Honduras,  455 ;  Mali, 
Somali,   626;   Spain,   68;   Tu- 
nisia, 400 
Optional  protocol :  Australia,  400 ; 
Guinea,  368 
Diplomatic  representatives  abroad.  See 

Foreign  Service 
Diplomatic  representatives  in  the  U.S., 
credentials:     Barbados,     167;    El 
Salvador,  430 ;  Gabon,  167 ;  India 
404;  Indonesia,  754;  Israel,  404 
Maldive    Islands,     167;    Nigeria 
404 ;  Panama,  404;  Paraguay,  430 
PhiUppines,    631;    Senegal,    838 
Sierra  Leone,  167  ;  Somali  Repub- 
Uc,  404;  Thailand,  167 
Disarmament     (see    also    Armaments, 
Arms   Control   and   Disarmament 
Agency;  and  Nuclear  weapons)  : 
Johnson,  815 ;  Meeker,  465 ;  NAC, 
49,  51;  Rusk,  671 


Disarmament — Continued 
Europe  (Humphrey),  795 
General    and    complete,    need    for: 
166;  Fisher,  28;  Goldberg,  309, 
634,  641;  Johnson,  210;  Kat- 
zenbach, 649 
U.S.  and  Soviet  draft  treaties  com- 
pared (Fisher),  28,  97_ 
Disaster  relief,  agreement  with  Mex- 
ico, 668,  693 
Disputes,  pacific  settlement  of  (see  also 
United     Nations:      Peacekeeping 
operations):  Meeker,  465;  Rusk, 
670 
International    convention     (1907): 
Lebanon,  479 
Dobrovolsky,  Aleksei  (Goldberg),  453 
Dominican  Republic: 

Community     development    projects 

(Ohver),  620  _ 
Tavera    Dam    project    agreement: 

694;  Katzenbach,  695 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  127,  259, 

428,  626,  627,  668,  767 
U.S.  special  representative  (Mann), 
designation,  300 
Donne,  John,  534 

Double  taxation,  conventions  for  the 
avoidance  of:  Belgium,  188;  Bra- 
zil, 851;  Canada,  66,  68,  128; 
Cyprus,  68,  (termination)  127; 
Philippines,  852;  Trinidad  and 
Tobago,  66,  68,  104,  128 
Drugs: 

Communist  China,  U.S.  proposal  re 
licensing  of  sale  to  (Rusk),  823 
Narcotic,  single  convention  (1961)  : 
Australia,     160;     Chile,     400; 
Gabon,  512;  Guatemala,  160 
Schedule    IV,    addition    of    sub- 
stances acetorphine  and  etor- 
phine,  entry  into  force,  456 
Duke,  Angier  Biddle,  480 


East  African  Community:  Humphrey, 

130;Rusk,  2,  726 
East-West  relations:   558;  Fisher,  97; 
Humphrey,    604,    796;   McGhee, 
236;NAC,  49;Rusk,  2,  670 
Detente:   Cleveland,  690;  NAC,  51 
Germany,  role  in :  155;  Katzenbach, 
171 ;  McGhee,  234;  E.  V.  Ros- 
tow, 682 
NATO,  effect  and  role:  Cleveland, 
690;  Katzenbach,    171;   E.  V. 
Rostow,  684 ;  Solomon,  426 
East-West    Trade    Relations    .^ct    of 
1966:    Bohlen,   421;   Humphrey, 
796;   Johnson,   284;   Rusk,   581; 
Solomon,  426 
EGA   (Economic  Commission  for  Af- 
rica): Humphrey,  130 
ECAFE.  See  Economic  Commission  for 

Asia  and  the  Far  East 
ECE    (Eonomic   Commission  for  Eu- 
rope) :  Solomon,  427 
Economic   and   Social   Council,   U.N., 

documents,  lists  of,  625,  733 
Economic  and  social  development  (see 
also  Economic  commissions,  For- 
eign aid  programs.  Organiza- 
tion for  Economic  Cooperation 
and  Development,  and  name  of 
country)  : 
Africa  (Humphrey),  130 


Economic,  social  development — Con. 
Agriculture,  health,   education,   key 
sectors:  Humphrey,  371;  John- 
son, 38,  246,  252,  315,  322,  575, 
789;  Rusk,  673,  725,  825 
Asia.  See  Asia 
Industrialization,  need  for  effect  of 

(Kotschnig),  238  _ 
Internal  stability,  relation  to:  Bat- 
de,  608,  611;  Linowitz,  312 
533;  Oliver,  564;  E.  V.  Rostow, 
495;  Rusk,  448,  582,  673,  725, 
728 
Latin    America.     See   Alliance    for 

Progress 
Less  developed  countries.    See  Less 

developed  countries 
Middle   East    (E.   V.  Rostow),  43, 

365,  434 
Paraguay    (Stroessner),  492 
Problems:   Linowitz,  373,  832;  Oli- 
ver, 443,  563;  E.   V.  Rostow, 
438 
SE.'^TO  programs,  520 
Self-help:     Johnson,     246;     Oliver, 

618,620;  Rusk,  582 
U.S.:  Fowler,  525;  Johnson,  6,  163, 

484;  Rusk,  228 
U.S.  aid  programs.   See  Foreign  aid 
policy,  U.S. 
Economic     Commission     for     Africa 

(Humphrey),  130 
Economic    Commission   for   Asia    and 
the   Far   East:    539,   679;   Katz- 
enbach, 205 
Economic  Commission  for  Europe  (Sol- 
omon), 427 
Economic  policy  and  relations,  U.S.: 
Domestic  policy: 

Consumer  Credit  Protection  Act, 

780 
Economic  report  of  the  President 

(excerpts) :  Johnson,  279 
Tax  surcharge,  need  for:  291; 
Deming,  139;  Fowler,  525; 
Johnson,  7,  106,  111,  245, 
279,  282,  459,  462,  483,  505, 
506,  699,  809;  Katzenbach, 
169;  E.  V.  Rostow,  135,  139, 
243;  Roth,  243;  Solomon, 
802 
Foreign  policy: 

Bank  credit,  control  of  extension : 
290;  Johnson,   112,  282;  E. 
V.  Rostow,  137;  Roth,  242; 
Rusk,  121 
Israeli    bonds:     Deming,    138; 
Katzenbach,  138 
Coimcil  of  Economic  Advisers,  an- 
nual report    (excerpts),   285 
Johnson  Act  (Solomon),  426 
U.S.  Treasury  bonds,  foreign  pur- 
chase (E.  V.  Rostow),  142 
Economic    Report    of    the    President 
Transmitted  to  the  Congress  Feb- 
ruary   1968,    Together    with    the 
Report  of  the  Council  of  Economic 
Advisers,    (excerpts),   279 
Ecuador  (see  also  Andean  Development 
Corporation),      treaties,      agree- 
ments, etc.,  626,  627 
Education  (see  also  Cultural  relations 
and    programs;    Educational    ex- 
change    programs;     Educational, 
scientific,  and  cultural  materials; 
and  Foreign  students  in  the  U.S.) : 


INDEX,  JANUARY  TO  JUNE  1968 


859 


Education — Continued 

Costa  Rica:  Johnson,  829;  Trejos, 
830 

Importance:  Humphrey,  371 ;  John- 
son, 38,  89,  420;  Linowitz,  375, 
833;  E.  V.  Rostow,  683 

India  (Battle),  612 

International  Education  Year: 
Goldberg,  156,  185;  text  of 
U.N.  resolution,  158 

Japan-U.S.  Conference  on  Cultural 
and  Educational  Interchange, 
4th:  final  communique,  587; 
resolution,  588 

Latin  America  {see  also  Alliance 
for  Progress)  :  Johnson,  567, 
718,  827;  Linowitz,  833;  Rusk, 
725 

Research  in  foreign  affairs,  FAR 
guidelines,  announcement  and 
text,  55 

Southwest  African  refugees  (Gold- 
berg), 763 

Television  and  other  new  media 
(Johnson),   70,    163,   798 

Viet-Nam:  Grant,  595,  596;  Harri- 
man,  704;  Johnson,  327 
Educational,    scientific,    and    cultural 
materials: 

Importation  of,  UNESCO  agree- 
ment (1950):  Malta,  400;  Ni- 
ger, 735 

International    circulation    of    visual 
and  auditory  materials,  agree- 
ment   (1949)    for   facilitating: 
Niger,  735 
Educational,    Scientific    and    Cultural 
Organization,      U.N.,      Intergov- 
ernmental   Oceanographic    Com- 
mission: 539;  Popper,  544 
Educational  exchange  programs: 
Bilateral  agreement  with  Italy,  160 
Importance  and  need  for:  Linowitz, 

835;  Oliver,  384 
Japan-U.S.  Conference  on  Cultural 
and    Educational    Interchange, 
4th,  444,  589 
Egal,  Mohamed  Ibrahim,  470,  471 
Egypt.    See  United  Arab  Republic 
Eighteen-Nation    Disarmament    Com- 
mittee, 164 

Eisenhower,  D wight  D.:  Johnson,  514; 

quoted,  375 
Eisenhower,  Milton  S.,  419 
Eklund,  Sig\'ard  (Sisco),  63 
El  Salvador: 

Ambassador  to  U.S.,  credentials,  430 
Political   progress,    (Johnson),    793 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  300,  626, 
627 
Eliot,  T.S.  (quoted),  270 
Emerson,  Ralph  Waldo  (quoted),  719 
Enders,  Thomas  O.,  700 
Eshkol,  Levi:  172,  173;  Rusk,  121 
Ethiopia : 

Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  456,  700 
Visit  of  Vice-President  Humphrey, 
129n  ^ 

Europe  {see  also  European  Economic 
Community,  European  Free  Trade 
Association,  and  names  of  individ- 
ual countries) : 


Europe — Continued 

Eastern  (see  also  East- West  relations 
and  East- West  Trade  Relations 
Act  of  1966),  increasing  inde- 
pendence:  Bohlen,  422;  Hum- 
phrey,  601,   794;  Katzenbach, 
717;  Meeker,  469;  E.  V.  Ros- 
tow, 748;  Rusk,  670 
Foreign    Relations    of    the    United 
States:       Diplomatic       Papers, 
1945,    Volume    III,    European 
Advisory  Commission;  Austria; 
Germany,  released,  628 
Foreign    Relations    of    the    United 
States:       Diplomatic      Papers, 
1945,  Volume  IV,  Europe,  re- 
leased, 736 
Foreign    Relations    of    the    United 
States:       Diplomatic      Papers, 
1945,    Volume    V,  Europe,  re- 
leased, 300 
German    reunification,     importance 
to:   319;  Humphrey,  794;  Mc- 
Ghee,  234;  N.^C,  49,  51 
Influence  of,  changes  in  (E.  V.  Ros- 
tow), 41 
Labor  market:     291;  Solomon,  804 
NATO.  See  North  Atlantic  Treaty 

Organization 
Regional  marine  programs,  542 
U.S.    investment,    effect    on    (Kot- 

schnig),  241 
Western:    E.  V.  Rostow,  434:  Rusk, 
670 
Kennedy  Round:     Johnson,   88; 

E.  V.  Rostow,  684 
Technological    gap :     Humphrey, 
795;  Katzenbach,  170;  Solo- 
mon, 806 
U.S.   capital  inflow  moratorium, 

290 
U.S.  commitments.  See  North  At- 
lantic   Treaty    Organization 
U.S.      relations     and      interests: 
Humphrey,     793 ;     Johnson, 
172   (quoted),  657;  Katzen- 
bach,    168;    McGhee,    234; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  680 
Viet-Nam,    effect     on:     Clifford, 
605;  Humphrey,  793;  John- 
son,   37,    575;    McGhee, 
235 
European    Communities,    Commission 
of,  meeting  with  President  John- 
son, 319 
European      Economic       Community: 
286,   291,   296,   338;  Humphrey, 
794;  McGhee,  235,  394;  Oliver, 
586,   587;    E.    V.    Rostow,    365; 
Rusk,  670;  Solomon,  800 
Food      Aid      Convention,      pledge 

(Sanderson),  592 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  340,  428, 

548 
U.K.  proposed  membership:   Hum- 
phrey, 794;  Katzenbach,   168; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  633 
Value-added  tax  measures,  possible 
adjustments  (Katzenbach),  141 
European     Free     Trade    Association: 

296;  Oliver,  586;  Rusk.  670 
Evans,  Frank  E.  (Harrlman),  708 
Executive  orders: 

Capital   transfers  abroad,    (11387), 
114 


Executive  orders — Continued 

Human  Rights  Year,  1968,  Presiden- 
tial Commission  for  the  Observ- 
ance of,  estabUshment  (11394), 
232 
Ryukyu    Islands,    administration   of 
(11395),  320 
Exploration    of    the    sea,    convention 
(1964)  for  international  council: 
Italy,  339 
Entrance  into  force,  339 
EXPO  67,  288 
Export-Import  Bank: 

Appropriations     request     FY     1969 
(Johnson),  113,  247,  248,  250, 
382 
Supplementary  appropriation 

(Johnson),  504 
Export    Expansion    Program,    pro- 
posed:    290;  Johnson,  247,  250, 
504;   Roth,   243;   Solomon,   425, 
426 
Official  change  of  name  (Johnson), 
444 
Exports  (see  also  Export-Import  Bank 
Imports;  Tariffs  and  trade,  genv 
eral  agreement  on;  and  Trade): 
Coffee.  See  Coffee 
Europe,   effect   of   U.S.   investment 

(Kotschnig),  241 
Germany  (McGhee),  392 
Inter-.^merlcan    Export    Promotion 
Center:     Johnson,    576.    797; 
Sanchez,  798 
Less  developed  countries: 

Need   for   expansion:    298;   Kot- 
schnig, 239;  Roth,  14;  Solo- 
mon, 387;  Table,  298 
Philippines    (Braderman),   12 
Southern  Rhodesia,  U.N.  sanctions, 

848 
U.S.,  expansion  of,  need  for  and  pro- 
posed measures:  290;  Johnson, 
7,  113,  282,  444.  504,  506; 
Katzenbach,  137;  Roth,  242, 
839;   Solomon,  388,  426,  802 


Falrhall,  Allen,  71 
Fall,  Bernard  (E.  V.  Rostow),  409 
Fall,  Cheikh  Ibrahlma,  838 
Fanfani,  Amintore:  Johnson,  78;  Kat- 
zenbach, 139 
FAO.  See  Food  and  Agriculture  Orga- 
nization, U.N. 
FAR  (Foreign  Area  Research  Coordi- 
nation Group),  55 
Far  East.  See  Asia  and  names  of  indi- 
vidual countries 
Federal   Reserve   System:     293,   464; 
Johnson,  105,  112,  283,  462,  484, 
505 
Finland,  treaties  agreements,  etc.,  259, 

428,  479,  626,  627,  700,  766 
Fish  and  fisheries: 

Fish    protein    concentrates:      540; 

Johnson,  322,  324,  537 
Great  Lakes  Fisheries  Commission, 
U.S.       Commissioner       (Law- 
rence), 650 
Soviet  hydroacoustic  tests,  possibility 

of  fish  damage,  16 
State  Department  responsibility  for 
U.S.  international  fishery  poli- 
cies (Pollack),  212 


860 


DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE  BULLETIN   ,. 


Fish  and  fisheries — Continued 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc. : 

Fishing  and   conservation   of  the 
living  resources  of  the  high 
seas,    international     conven- 
tion,   1958:     542;    Pollack, 
214 
Mexico-U.S.    fishery   zone   boun- 
daries agreement:     540;  an- 
nouncement, 398 
1967  international  fishery  agree- 
ments,    U.S.     participation, 
540 
North  Atlantic,  conduct  of  fishing 
operations,     convention 
(1967),   540 
Ciurent      actions:        Belgium, 
Canada,    Denmark,    Ger- 
many,     Ireland,     Nether- 
lands,    Norway,     Poland, 
Spain,  Sweden,  219 
Northeastern  Pacific  Ocean  off  the 
coast  of  the  United   States, 
certain   fishery   problems   in, 
agreement  with  Soviet  Union 
extending,   67,   68,   600 
Fisher,  Adrian  S.:   26,  97,  164,  164n; 

Johnson,  162,313 
Food  Aid  Convention,  1967: 

Current  actions:    Japan,  851;  Swe- 
den, 735;  Switzerland,  668 
U.S.  ratification  urged:    Humphrey, 
370;  Johnson,  329;  Sanderson, 
590,  592 
Food  aid  programs.  See  War  on  hunger 
Food  and  .■\gricultural  Organization: 
539;  Pollack,  212;  Popper,  544; 
L  Sisco,  17 

Food  and  population  crisis  {see  also 
Population):  321;  Johnson,  38, 
163,  284,  324,  575;  Linowitz,  372, 
375:  E.  V.  Rostow,  360,  361; 
Rusk,  447;  Solomon,  805 
Near  East  and  South  Asia  (Battle), 

608 
Ocean  food  resources,  538 
Food  for  Freedom:    Humphrey,  370; 
Johnson,  163,  329 
Appropriations    request    FY    1969: 
Johnson,  248,  251,  284;  Lino- 
witz, 375;  Rusk,  445 
Extension,     proposed :      Humphrey, 
372;   Johnson,    247,    251,   324 
1967  report,  transmittal  (Johnson), 
568 
Food  for  Peace  Act,  1966  (Solomon), 

425 
Food  for  work  projects  (Humphrey), 

370 
Footwear,  imports,  effect  on  domestic 

producers,  754 
Force,  use  of.  See  Aggression 
Ford  Foundation  (Rusk),  4 
Foreign  aid  programs,  U.S.   (See  also 
Agency  for  International  Develop- 
ment, Alliance  for  Progress,  Eco- 
nomic   and    technical    aid.    Food 
for  Freedom,  and  Peace  Corps) : 
Balance    of    payments,    effect    on: 
Johnson,  105,  247,  248;  Katz- 
enbach,   765;  Kotschnig,   240: 
E.  V.  Rostow,  367;  Rusk,  447 
Budget  FY  1969,  authorization  and 
appropriations    request    (John- 
son), 246,  322,  459 
Economic    and    military    assistance 
program  FY  1969  (Rusk),  724 


Foreign  aid  programs,  U.S. — Con. 

Multilateral  framework :  Goldberg, 
185;  Humphrey,  603;  Johnson, 
246,  247,  249,  323,  779;  Kat- 
zenbach,  764;  Oliver,  419; 
Rusk,  446,  582,  726 

National  interests:  Gaud,  143;  John- 
son, 7,  322,  328;  Katzenbach, 
715:  Linowitz,  373;  Oliver, 
419;  E.  V.  Rostow,  438,  560; 
Rusk,  228,  446,  448,  724 

Percent  of  Gross  National  Product: 
Gaud,  143;  Katzenbach,  716; 
Linowitz,  374;  Oliver,  443; 
Rusk,  446,  448,  729 

Principles  and  objectives:   Johnson, 

245,  247,  252,  284,  457;  Kat- 
zenbach, 171 ;  Oliver,  618;  E.  V. 
Rostow,  359;  Rusk,  445,  724 

Reduction  in,  problems  of:  143n; 
Gaud,  143;  Humphrey,  131; 
Johnson,  322,  328,  779;  Kat- 
zenbach, 764;  766;  Rusk,  727, 
729 

Self-help   principle:    Johnson,    163, 

246,  247,  249,  251,  323,  569; 
Katzenbach,  764;  Oliver,  385, 
618,  620;  E.  V.  Rostow,  434; 
Rusk,  447,  582 

Viet-Nam,    effect    on:     Kotschnig, 
240;  Oliver,  443;  Rusk,  443 
Foreign  aid  programs  of  other  coun- 
tries (Johnson),  323 
Germany  (McGhee),  234,  393 
Foreign   Area   Research   Coordination 

Group,  55 
Foreign   investment   in   U.S.,   encour- 
agement, need  for  (Johnson),  113 
Foreign  policy,   U.S.    {see  also   Com- 
munism,   Viet-Nam,    and    World 
peace) : 
Briefing       conferences,       regional : 
Knoxville:    715n;  Katzenbach, 
715 
Congressional  documents  relating  to, 
lists,  155,  252,  339,  427,  473, 
569,  599,  730 
Foreign   aid,   role   of:    Gaud,    143; 
Johnson,  328 ;  Katzenbach,  715 ; 
Rusk,  445,  724 
Foreign    Relations    of    the    United 
States:       Diplomatic       Papers, 
1944;  Volume  VII,  The  Amer- 
ican   Republic,    released,     188 
Foreign    Relations    of    the    United 
States:       Diplomatic       Papers, 
1945;  Volume  II,  General:  Po- 
litical  and  Economic  Matters, 
released,  31 
Foreign    Relations    of    the    United 
States:       Diplomatic      Papers, 
1945;    Volume   III,   European 
Advisory  Commission;  Austria; 
Germany,  released,  628 
Foreign    Relations    of    the    United 
States:       Diplomatic      Papers, 
1945,  Volume  IV,  Europe,  re- 
leased, 300 
Foreign    Relations    of    the    United 
States:       Diplomatic      Papers, 
1945,   Volume   V,  Europe,  re- 
leased, 300 
National  interests   (E.  V.  Rostow), 

405,  433 
1967  accomplishments:  Johnson,  88; 
Rusk,  1 


Foreign  policy,  U.S. — Continued 

Peace,  primary  concern :  538 ;  John- 
son, 457;  Rusk,  301 
Principles,  objectives,  and  problems: 
Goldberg,  306 ;  Katzenbach, 
715;  E.  V.  Rostow.  431,  562, 
686;Rusk,  580,  669 
Responsibilities: 

Burden  of  (Rusk),  207 
Presidential:    Johnson,    39,    341, 
462,  485;   McNamara,   265, 
269 
U.S.  citizens:    Johnson,  39,  439, 
457,  460,  630;  Katzenbach, 
718;   Linowitz,    377;    E.   V. 
Rostow,  493,  684;  Rusk,  207 
U.N.    as   an    instrument   of    (Gold- 
berg), 306 
Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States: 
Diplomatic  Papers,  1044,  Volume 
VII,  The  American  Republics,  re- 
leased, 188 
Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States: 
Diplomatic  Papers,  1945,  Volume 
II,    General:    Political   and  Eco- 
nomic Matters,  released,  31 
Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States: 
Diplomatic  Papers,  1945,  Volume 

IV,  Europe,  released,  736 
Foreign  Relations  of  the  United  States: 

Diplomatic  Papers,  1945,  Volume 

V,  Europe,  released,  300 
Foreign  Service,  U.S.: 

Ambassador  at  large  (McGhee),  627 
Appointments  and  designations,  300, 

456 
Marine  security  guards  (Rusk),  357 
U.S.  overseas  personnel  and  travel, 
reduction  directed:    290,  567; 
Johnson,    113,    215    216,    282, 
325,  460,  505 
Foreign    Service    Institute,    Viet-Nam 
training  center  graduates   (John- 
son), 463 
Foreign  students  in  the  U.S.   (see  also 
Educational  exchange  programs), 
Norwegian  (King  Olaf  V),  660 
Foster,  William  C:    164n,  401,  836; 

Johnson,  210 
Fountain,  L.  H.,  20 
Four  freedoms   (Wilkins),  660 
Fowler,  Henry  H.:  525;  Johnson,  484; 

Katzenbach,  764 
France : 

Franc,  stability  (Johnson),  783 
Germany,  relations   (E.V.  Rostow), 

683 
Nuclear  testing,  atmospheric  (ANZ- 

US),  523 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  31,  103, 
340,  428,  548,  626,  700,  811, 
851 
U.S.  .Ambassador  (Shriver),  confir- 
mation: 627 ;  Johnson,  487 
L'.S.  relations:  Johnson,  38;  Katzen- 
bach, 168 
Viet-Nam: 

Opposition  to  U.N.  action  (Gold- 
berg), 181 
Peace  talks,  selection  as  site:  679; 
Johnson,  629 
Frankel,  Max,  107,  263 
Frankfurter,  Felix  (quoted),  557 
Franklin,  Benjamin  (quoted),  373 
Fraser,  Blair,  206 

Freedom:    Humphrey,    130;  Johnson, 
457,  674;  Wilkins,  660 


INDEX,  JANU.\RY  TO  JUNE  1968 


861 


Freedom,  Medals  of  (Johnson),  76 
Freedom    of    speech    and    expression 

(Goldberg),  452 
U.S.:   Harriman,  706;  Katzenbach, 
201;  Rusk,  349 
Frei,  Eduardo  (Linowitz),  313 
Friendship,  commerce,  and  navigation 

treaty  with  Thailand,  699,  700 
Fritchey,  Clayton,  273 
Frost,  Robert  (quoted),  833 
Fulbright,  J.W.:  494  (quoted) ;  Bundy, 

379;  Lisagor,  378;  Rusk,  121 
Fulbright  program,  589 

G 

Gabon : 

Ambassador  to  U.S.,  credentials,  167 
Single  convention  on  narcotic  drugs, 
1961,  512 
Galanskov,  Yuri  (Goldberg),  453 
Gandhi,    Mrs.    Indira    (quoted),    360 
Gardner,  John  W.,  109 
Gaud,  William  S.,  143 
General  Assembly,  U.N. : 

Documents,  lists  of,  254,  545,  625, 

851 
Nuclear     nonproliferation     draft 

treaty,  role  in  (Fisher),  164 
Oceanographic  research :  126;  Gold- 
berg,   125,    183;   Popper,  543; 
Rusk,  672 
Rescue-and-return  agreements,  reso- 
lutions on  and  U.S.  support: 
Goldberg,     83;     Johnson,     85; 
Reis,  80 
Resolutions: 

Astronauts    and    space    vehicles, 
rescue  and  return  of,  and  lia- 
bihty  for  damages,  80,  85 
International  Education  Year,  158 
Ocean    research.   Ad   Hoc    Com- 
mittee, 126 
South   West  Africa,   question  of, 
94 
22d     session,     review     (Goldberg), 
180,  183 
Geneva  conference,  1962,  cochairmen, 
responsibilities  of:   Johnson,  482; 
SEATO,  519;  Wilson,  318 
Geodetic  survey  agreement  with  Mali, 

259 
Germany : 

Foreign    Relations    of    the    United 
States:       Diplomatic      Papers, 
1945,    Volume    III,    European 
Advisory  Commission;  Austria; 
Germany,  released,  628 
Reunification:    E.  V.  Rostow,  496, 
682;  Rusk,  206 
Importance  to  peace  of  Europe: 
319;    Humphrey,    794;    Mc- 
Ghee,  234;  NAG,  49,  51 
Germany,  Federal  Republic  of: 

Foreign  exchange  of  costs  of  U.S. 
forces:    Johnson,    109;    E.    V. 
Rostow,  137;  Rusk,  123 
German-Franco     relations     (E.     V. 

Rostow),  683 
Gold    price    stability,    support    for, 

464 
NATO  forces:    155;  Johnson,  89 
Nuclear    weapons,    renunciation    of 
manufacture   of:    155;   Fisher. 
97 
Official    representative    of    German 
people,  155 


Germany,  Fed.  Rep.  of — Continued 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  220,  259, 

340,  428,  479,  599,  700,  766 
U.S.   Ambassador    (Lodge),  confir- 
mation, 627 
U.S.    relations    and    interests    (Mc- 
Ghee),  234,392 
Gestido,  Oscar,  condolences  on  death 

of,  5 
Ghana : 

Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  104,  400, 

626,  627,  700 
U.N.  debt  to  (Fountain),  21 
Visit  of  Vice-President  Humphrey, 
129/! 
Gibbon,  Edward  (quoted),  244 
Ginzburg,  Aleksandr  (Goldberg),  453 
Glassboro  conference    (Johnson),   36, 

162,  813 
Godley,  G.  McMurtrie,  480 
Gold: 

"Gold  pool"  nations  policies  for  mar- 
ket stability:  Johnson,  505; 
Solomon,  800 ;  communique, 
464 
Gold  standard:  292,  464,  527;  Fow- 
ler, 525;  Johnson,  6,  106,  163, 
280,  283,  460,  462,  505,  697 
Goldberg,  Arthur  J. : 

Addresses,       correspondence,       and 
statements: 
Aggression,   U.N.   definition,    187 
Arab-Israeli  conflict: 

Israeli  military  action,  U.S.  sup- 
port for  U.N.  resolutions, 
508,  509 
U.N.  role,  180,  307,  622,  731, 
732 
Astronauts     and     space     vehicles 
assistance-and-return     agree- 
ment, 83,  125,  183 
Congo,   problem   of   mercenaries, 

182 
Cyprus,  U.N.  peace  force  extend- 
ed, 95 
U.N.  peacekeeping,  182,  307 
Diplomatic  privileges  and  immu- 
nities, 187 
Food  aid  to  less  developed  coun- 
tries, 185 
Foreign  policy,  306 
Freedom   of   speech    and    expres- 
sion, 452 
Human  rights,  U.N.  role,  185 
International      Education      Year, 

156,  185 
Jerusalem,    status    of,    731,    732, 

849 
Korea : 

Communist  activities,  193,  194, 

197,  307 
U.N.  role,   184,   193,   194,   198 
U.S.  Command,  special  report, 
199 
Latin  American  nuclear-free  zone, 

184,  638 
Nauru,  186 
Nuclear  weapons  nonproliferation 

treaty,    180,    184.  635,   755 
Ocean  research,  125,  183 
South  Africa's  violation  of  South 
West  African  rights,  92,  186, 
474,476,761 
Southern  Rhodesia,  186,  846 
Southern  Yemen,  65,  183 


Goldberg,  Arthur  J. — Continued 
Addresses — Continued 
U.N.: 

Capital  development  fund,  185 
Chinese    representation,     ques- 
tion of,  183 
Financial  and   personnel   man- 
agement, 186 
Membership,   Security   Council 
study  of  criteria  requested, 
159 
"Micro-states",  182 
Peacekeeping  role,  25  (quoted), 

184,  306 
22d  session,  review,  180 
UNRWA  and  Middle  East  refu- 
gees, 184 
U.S.S.  Pueblo,  193  194,  307 
Viet-Nam,  U.N.  inability  to  act, 
181,  307 
Consultations  on  Viet-Nam   (John- 
son), 630 
Meeting  with  U.N.   Secretary-Gen- 
eral U  Thant:   343;  Johnson, 
342 
Ocean  research,  position  on  (Sisco), 

18 
Outer  space  treaty  negotiations,  U.S. 

representative,  100 
U.N.  resignation  as  U.S.  representa- 
tive (Johnson),  604 
Goldstein,  Ernest,  106 
Gollan,  John  (quoted),  453 
Gomulka,  Wladyslaw  (Goldberg),  453 
Gonzalez,  Henry  B.,  173 
Gorton,  John  Grey,  71,  782,  786,  787, 

790 
Grant,  James  P.,  594 
Grant,  Walter,  346 

Great  Lakes  and  St.  Lawrence  Seaway 
agreement  with  Canada  re  pilot- 
age services,  668 
Great  Lakes  Fishery  Commission,  U.S. 

Commissioner  (Lawrence),  650 
Greece  (see  also  Cyprus)  : 

Constitutional  referendum,  469 
Cotton  textile  agreement  with  U.S., 

announcement  and  text,  546 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  259,  400, 

428,  668,  700,  766 
Turkey,  relations  with  (Battle),  610 
Green,  James  Frederick,  720 
Greenland,  U.S.  nuclear-armed  bomb- 
er accident   (Rusk),  272 
Greenwald,  Joseph  A.,  10,  16,  320 
Grenada: 

Peace  Corps  program,  128 
U.S.  special  representative  (Mann), 
designation,  300 
Guatemala: 

Political  problems    (Linowitz),  535 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  160,  220, 
259,  299,  300 
Guinea,  treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  368, 

400 
Gulf  of  Tonkin,  resolution    (Bundy), 

379 
Guyana,  treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  368, 
479,  700,  812 

H 

Haiti,   treaties,  agreements,   etc.,  626, 

627 
Hall,  John  W.,  444 
Halsted,  Anna  Roosevelt:  232;  Green, 

721 


862 


DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE  BULLETIN 


Hamilton,    Alexander:     374;    Oliver, 

441 
Harriman,    VV.   Avcrell:    Green,   721; 
Johnson,   482,    549,   574;    Rusk, 
577 
Addresses  and  statements,  701,  704, 

706,749,769,775,817 
Human    Rights    Year    Commission, 

U.S.  representative,  232 
Viet-N am  peace  negotiations:  Chris- 
tian, 513:  Johnson,  78 
Hasluck,  Paul,  71 
Havk-aii  (Johnson),  69  573,  578 
Hayes,  Rutherford  B.,  589 
Health  and  medical  research : 

Central  .American  Malaria  Research 

Center  (Johnson),  798 
Protein  additives,  importance:  Gold- 
berg, 185;  Johnson,  322,  324 
Radioisotope  uses  (Rusk),  634 
U.S.   port-of-entry   procedures   sim- 
plified, announcement,  621 
Viet-Nam:  Grant,  596;  Rusk,  727 
World  Health  Organization,  consti- 
tution   (1946):    Southern   Ye- 
men, 851 
World  health  problems   (Johnson), 
38 
Hellwig,  Fritz,  319 
HemisFair,  621 

Commission     for     Federal     exhibit 
(Clark),  531 
Henri,    Ernst    (Rostovsky) :     Katzen- 

bach,  203 
Herrera,  Felipe:    Johnson,  827;  Kat- 

zenbach,  695 
Herter,  Christian  (Johnson),  90 
Herzl,   Theodor    (E.   V.   Rostow),   44 
Hibbs,  Robert  J.,  491 
High  seas,  sovereign  immunity  of  vvfar- 
ships  in :  Meeker,  468 ;  Rusk,  265 
Hightower,  John,  380 
Hilsman,  Roger  (Rusk),  272 
Historical  summaries: 

Communist   China's   foreign    policy 

(Katzenbach),  738 
Communist-U.S.    relations     (E.    V. 

Rostow),  741 
Gold  reserves,  292 
Israel,  modem  State  of  (E.  V.  Ros- 
tow), 44 
Middle  East  crisis  (E.  V.  Rostow), 

44 
U.S.  foreign  policy  (E.  V.  Rostow), 

41 
Viet-Nam:     773;    Harriman,    704; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  409 
Holt,   Harold,   tribute   to   and   regrets 
on  death  of:  Johnson,  69,  70,  71, 
73,  74,  77,  79,  788;  McEwen,  70 
Holy  See.  See  Vatican  City  State 
Holyoake,  Keith:  518;  Rusk,  515 
Honduras: 

AID  projects  (Oliver),  618,  619 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  455,  479 
Hori,  Shinsuke,  16 
Homer,  Garnett  D.,  106 
Homig,  Donald  F.,  419 
"Hot     line".     See     Communications: 

Washington-Moscow  hot  line 
Human  rights  (see  also  Civil  rights)  : 
Conventions,   need   for   U.S.    ratifi- 
cation:   Green,   721;  Johnson, 
232 
Elimination  of  religious  intolerance, 
draft      convention,      prospects 
(Goldberg),  185 


Human  rights — Continued 

Human  Rights  Year,  Presidential 
Commission  for  the  Observance 
of:  507;  Green,  721;  Johnson, 
231,  232 ;  membership,  232,  799 
South  West  Africa,  violation  of  by 
South  Africa:  Buffum,  253; 
Goldberg,  92,  186,  474,  476; 
Humphrey,  131 
Southern  Rhodesia:    847;   Buffum, 

846 
U.N.  High  Commissioner  for  (Wil- 

kins),  663 

U.N.      International      Conference: 

Green,  721;  Wilkins,  661 

U.S.  delegation,  chairman,  664 

U.N.     Universal     Declaration     of: 

Green,  720;  Goldberg,  452 
U.S.:  Humphrey,  129,  132;  Wilkins, 

662 
U.S.  support  (Johnson),  574 
Humphrey,  Hubert  H.  (Johnson),  659 
Addresses  and  remarks: 

Africa,    U.S.    common    problems 

and  aspiration,  129 
Alliance  for  Progress,  7th  anniver- 
sary, 429 
Atlantic  partnership,  793 
Freedom  and  peace,  601 
Treaty  of  Tlatelolco,  protocol  II, 

554 
War  on  hunger,  369 
U.S.  special  envoy  to  inauguration  of 
Liberian      President      Tubman 
(Johnson),  529 
Hungary,  treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  68, 

626,  627,  700 
Hunt,  Forest  J.  (Rusk),  357 
Hyde,  Adesanya  K.,  167 
Hydrographic    Organization,    Interna- 
tional, 540 
Convention,  1967:   Argentina,  626; 
China,   Cuba,   Dominican   Re- 
public,    259;     Finland,     479; 
France,  626;  Germany,  Greece, 
Guatemala,    India,    Indonesia, 
Iran,  Japan,  New  Zealand,  Nor- 
way,       Pakistan,        Paraguay, 
Poland,  Spain,  Sweden,  Turkey, 
U.A.R.,  Yugoslavia,  259;  U.S., 
766 


IAEA.  See  Atomic  Energy  Agency,  In- 
ternational 
IBRD.   See  International  Bank  for  Re- 
construction and  Development 
ICC.       See      International      Control 

Commission 
Iceland,  treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  128, 
259,  300,  512,  548,  626,  627,  700, 
851 
ICSU  (International  Council  of  Scien- 
tific Unions),  212,  540 
ID.\.    See  International  Development 

Association 
IMCO.  See  Maritime  Consultative  Or- 
ganization, International 
IMF.    See  Monetary  Fund,  Interna- 
tional 
Immigration  {see  also  Visas)  : 

Canadian  acceptance  of  U.S.  draft 

evaders  (Rusk),  208 
Port-of-entry  procedures   simplified, 

announcement,  621 
Southern  Rhodesia,  U.N.  sanctions, 
848 


Imperialism  (E.  V.  Rostow),  43 
Imports    {see   also   Customs;   Exports; 
Tariffs  and  trade,  general  agree- 
ment on;  and  Trade)  : 
Educational,  scientific  and  cultural 
materials,  agreement  (1950)  on 
importtion     of:      Malt,     400; 
Niger,  735 
Footwear,   effect   on   domestic   pro- 
ducers of,  754 
Private  road  vehicles,  customs  con- 
vention   (1954)     on    the    tem- 
porary   importation    of:     Iran, 
667 
Southern  Rhodesia,  U.N.  sanctions, 

848 
U.S.   {see  also  Tariff  policy,  U.S.): 
Katzenbach,  141 
Cotton,  long-staple,  from  U.A.R. 
and  Sudan,  national-interest 
considerations     of     proposed 
legislation    (E.   V.   Rostow), 
217 
State     laws     and    local    statutes 

(Roth),  840  _ 
Steel  company  price  cuts    (Solo- 
mon), 802 
Textile   import   quota   legislation 

(Roth),  839 
Viet-Nam  imports   (Grant),  595, 
597 
Income  tax: 

Bilateral  agreements  with:  Belgium, 

104;  France,  851 
Conventions  for  relief  of  double  tax- 
ation. See  Double  taxation 
India: 

Agricultural    development:     Battle, 
612;  Johnson,  326;  E.  V.  Ros- 
tow, 359 
Ambassador  to  U.S.,  credentials,  404 
Communist  threat  to:   Katzenbach, 
203;  E.  V.  Rostow,  408.  435 
Economic     development:      Katzen- 
bach, 764;  Rusk,  725 
Pakistan,   relations    (Battle),   611 
Political  development  (Battle),  612 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  128,  259, 

627,  699,  700 
U.N.  debt  to  (Fountain),  21 
U.S.  aid   (Johnson),  246,  249,  324 
Indian    Ocean    expedition    (Pollack), 

212 
Indonesia: 

Air  transport  agreement,  announce- 
ment and  text,  255 
Ambassador  to  U.S.,  754 
Communist  threat  to:    Katzenbach, 
203;  E.  V.  Rostow,  408,  435, 
499;  Rusk,  515 
Economic     and     political     develop- 
ment: Bundy,  173;  Humphrey, 
370;  Johnson,  327,  485;  Katz- 
enbach,   205;    E.    V.    Rostow, 
434,  495;  Rusk,  4,  728 
Southeast  Asia  free  trade  area,  pro- 
posed, 149 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  31,   104, 
128,  220,  259,  368,  428,  668, 
700 
U.S.  aid:   Johnson,  248;  Rusk,  822 
U.S.   claims,   deadline,   217 
Indus     Basin,     Tarbela    Development 

Fund  agreement,  811 
Industrial  Development,  International 
Symposium  on   (Kotschnig),  238 


INDEX,  JANUARY  TO  JUNE   1968 


863 


Industrial  property,  convention  (1883, 

as  revised)   1967:   Ireland,  766 
Industry-Government   Advisory    Com- 
mission on  Travel,  397 
Inflation  {see  also  Economic  policy  and 
relations    and    Taxes)  :    Deming, 
139;  Johnson,  106,  107,  108,  245, 
279;  Katzenbacli,  139,  169;  E.  V. 
Rostow,    135,    139;    Roth,    242- 
243;  Solomon,  802 
Information  activities  and  programs: 
Atomic  energy  for  peaceful  purposes, 
exchange  of  scientific  informa- 
tion on,  165 
Bureau  of  International  Expositions 

(Johnson),  52 
Contract  research  results,  advisabil- 
ity of  open  publication,  57 
HemisFair,    Commissioner    (Clark) 

for  Federal  exliibit,  531 
Importance  (Oliver),  384 
International     exhibitions,     conven- 
tion    (1928)     and    protocols: 
U.S.,  667,  811 
Soviet  failure  to  give  notice  of  scien- 
tific tests,  16 
Insecurity    of    Nations,    The    (cited), 

309 
INTELSTAT  (E.  V.  Rostow),  680 
Inter-American  Council  for  Commerce 
and     Development     (CICYP) : 
Oliver,  502 
Inter-American  Cultural  Council  meet- 
ing, Venezuela:  Agenda  and  U.S. 
representatives,      419;      Johnson, 
420;  Linowitz,  834 
Inter-American    Development    Bank: 
694;  Johnson,  614,  718;  Katzen- 
bach,  695 ;  Rusk,  230 
Capital  increase:  827;  Johnson,  567, 
797,  826;  Oliver,  442,  586;  E. 
V.  Rostow,  365 ;  Sanchez,  798 
U.S.    appropriations    request    FY 
1969:     Johnson,     246,    250, 
323 ;  Rusk,  446 
Executive    Director     (Clark),    con- 
firmation, 622 
Inter-.\merican      Export      Promotion 
Center:  Johnson,  567,  797;  San- 
chez, 798 
Inter-American  Indian  Institute,  con- 
vention    (1940)      providing     for 
creation  of:  Chile,  339 
International   Air   Transport   Associa- 
tion (Johnson),  507 
International  Bank  for  Reconstruction 
and    Development:     539;    Hum- 
phrey, 603;  Johnson,  249;  Katz- 
enbach,  764;  Kotschnig,  240;  E. 
V.  Rostow,  366;  Rusk,  230,  582, 
673;  Solomon,  843 
International  Development  Associa- 
tion.  See   International  Devel- 
opment Association 
Tarbela  Development   Fund   agree- 
ment   (1968),  signature,   811 
International    Boundary    and    Water 

Commission,  U.S. -Mexico,  398 
International  conferences: 

Calendar  of  meetings,  61,  449 
U.S.     participation,     cuts     directed 
(Johnson),  216 
International  Control  Commission:  709 
(quoted);    Harriman,    706,    771, 
777;  Rusk,  208 


International  Control  Com. — Con. 
Cambodia,     role     in:      124,      133; 
Bowles,    134;    Harriman,    706; 
Rusk,  118,  119,  120,  350 
U.S.  offer  of  helicopters  for  ICC 
surveillance  work,  134 
Laos,  lack  of  access  to:    Harriman, 
818;  Rusk,  670;  SEATO,  519 
International  cooperation : 

Contract    research    programs,    58 
Environmental     problems    and     re- 
sources, U.S.-Germany  collabo- 
ration   (McGhee),   236 
Human  environment  and  biological 
research,  proposed  international 
council  (Johnson),  815 
Marine    sciences:     538;    Goldberg, 

125;  Pollack,  211 
Need  for  and  U.S.  support:   John- 
son,   89,   815;   Linowitz,    832; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  360;  Rusk,  582, 
825 
Peaceful    use    of    atomic    energy: 
165;    Goldberg,    760;   Johnson 
(quoted),  759;  Rusk,  634 
War   on   hunger:    Humphrey,   370; 
Rusk,  673 
International     Council     of     Scientific 

Unions:   540;  Pollack,  212 
International  Court  of  Justice,  Statute 
(1945):    Mauritius,  668;  South- 
ern Yemen,  104 
International    Decade    of    Ocean    Ex- 
ploration,    proposed      (Popper), 
543_,  544 
International     Development     Associa- 
tion: Johnson,  284,  779;  Kotsch- 
nig, 240;  Rusk,  230 
Appropriations     and     authorization 
request  FY  1969:  Johnson,  246, 
250,  322,  323;  Rusk,  446 
U.S.     financial    support:     Johnson, 
163;   Katzenbach,    763;   E.   V. 
Rostow,  366;  Rusk,  446 
International  Education  Year:    Gold- 
berg, 156,  185;  text  of  U.N.  reso- 
lution, 156 
International  Executive  Service  Corps: 

Johnson,  325;  Oliver,  440 
International  Finance  Corporation,  ar- 
ticles of  agreement   (1955):   In- 
donesia, 668 
International       grains       arrangement 
(1967)    with   annexes:    Johnson, 
323,   329;  Roth,   13;  Sanderson, 
590 
Current  actions :  Barbados,  456 ;  Ire- 
land, 699;  Japan,  851 ;  Mexico, 
766;  Nigeria,  766;  Saudi  Ara- 
bia,   428;    South   Africa,    851; 
Sweden,  735 ;  Switzerland,  668 
International    Human    Rights    Year: 
507,   799;  Green,   721;  Johnson, 
231,  232 
International  Hydrographic  Organiza- 
tion. See  Hydrographic  Organiza- 
tion, International 
International  law  (Goldberg),  309 
Arab-Israeli  crisis  (Meeker),  466 
Common  law  of  mankind    (Rusk), 

229,  671 
Freedom  of  the  seas  (Johnson),  537 
Marine  development:   538;  Popper, 

545;  Rusk,  582 
Nuclear  energy  (Katzenbach),  646 
Outer     space     (Rusk),     582,     626 
(quoted) 


International  law — Continued 
Rule  of  law:    E.  V.  Rostow,   745; 

Rusk,  669 
South  Africa,  actions  in  South  West 

Africa  (Goldberg),  474 
Space    law,    development    of:     80; 

Goldberg,  84 
U.N.  role  (Goldberg),  180 
U.S.S.  Pueblo,  seizure  of,  as  a  breach 
of:    193;  Goldberg,   196,  308; 
Meeker,  468;  Rusk,   191,  262, 
265,  302,  353 
International  monetary  system: 

Liquidity,  importance:   Johnson,  6; 
E.   V.   Rostow,  361;  Solomon, 
800 
Modernization :      Humphrey,     603 ; 

Johnson,  696 
Pound  sterling.  See  United  Kingdom 
Soundness,  depends  on  dollar:   287, 
292,  464,   792;  Deming,    136; 
Fowler,  525;  Johnson,  110,  163. 
280,  283,  444,  483,  506,  699; 
E.  V.  Rostow,   138;  Solomon, 
800,  802 
International  organizations,  U.S.  sup- 
port:   Cleveland,   692;   Rusk,   2, 
446,  671 
International  Red  Cross: 

South   West  Africa,  role  in   (Gold- 
berg), 476 
U.S.  request  for  Viet-Nam  investi- 
gation (Harriman),  706 
U.S.S.   Pueblo    personnel,   U.S.   re- 
quest for  intercession  of:    193; 
Rusk,  302 
International  Rice  Research  Institute: 
Humphrey,      370;      Katzenbach, 
205 ;  Rusk,  4 
Internationa!  Symposium  on  Industrial 

Development  (Kotschnig),  238 
International  waterways:   Battle,  610, 
711;  Johnson,  752;  Meeker,  466; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  45,  218 
International  Year  for  Human  Rights: 
507,   799;  Green,   721;  Johnson, 
231,  232 
Investment        disputes,        convention 
(1965)  on  the  settlement  of:  Den- 
mark, 667;  Indonesia,  368;  Singa- 
pore, 299;  Somalia,  428;  Switzer- 
land, 766 
Investment  guaranties,  bilateral  agree- 
ments with:  Barbados,  479;  Bots- 
wana, 220;  Ethiopia,  456;  Paki- 
stan, 572 
Investment  of  private  capital  abroad: 
AID  role  (Rusk),  448 
Balance  of  payments,  effect  on:  288; 
Johnson,  1 10,  281 ;  Katzenbach, 
140;  Kotschnig,  240;  McGhee, 
396;  E.  V.  Rostow,  140;  Roth, 
242;  Rusk,  121;  Solomon,  805 
Capital  transfers  abroad :  289 ;  John- 
son, 105,  114,  282,  460,  505 
Germany  (McGhee) ,  393,  395 
Interest  equalization  tax  list:  Dem- 
ing, 140;  Katzenbach,  141 
Korea,  576 

Latin  America:  Johnson,  826;  Oli- 
ver, 385,  442,  503 
Less  developed  countries,  need  for: 
Humphrey,  371,  603;  Johnson, 
325;  Kotschnig,  240;  Linowitz, 
374;  Oliver,  584;  E.  V.  Rostow, 
361,  367 


864 


DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE  BULLETIN 


Investment — Continued 

Philippines:    149,   152;  Bradennan, 

12 
Southern  Rhodesia,  U.N.  sanctions. 

848 
Spain,  754 
Thailand,  678 
Turkey  (Rusk),  726 
IOC  (Intergovernmental  Oceanograph- 
ic  Conunission,  UNESCO),  539, 
544 
Iran: 

Economic    progress:     Battle,    611; 

Rusk,4;  Wilkins,  661 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  31,  259, 

626,  627,  667 
Water  resources  study,  joint  agree- 
ment, 472 
Iraq,  Universal  Postal  Union  Consti- 
tution (1964)  and  protocols,  31 
Ireland,  treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  128, 
220,  259,  340;  512,  548,  626,  627, 
699,  700,  766 
Is  Innocence  Enough?,  742 
Isolationism:   Johnson,  439,  458,  460, 
789;  Kalb,  136:  Oliver,  10;  E.  V. 
Rostow,  405,  431,  438,  494,  562, 
681;  Rusk,  580 
Communist     China     (Katzenbach), 
739 
Israel  (see  also  Arab-Israeli  conflict) : 
Ambassador     to     U.S.,    credentials, 

404 
Bonds,  private  U.S.  funding:  Dem- 

ing,  138;  Katzenbach,  138 
Compensation     for     USS     Liberty 

deaths,  799 
Economic     progress:     Battle,     710; 

E.  V.  Rostow,  434 
Militarv  parade  May  2,  U.S.  posi- 
tion (Goldberg),  732 
Modem  state  of,  development  and 
need  for  acceptance  of:  Battle, 
609,  711;  E.  V.  Rostow,  43 
Soviet  position  (Rusk),  122 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  67,  456, 
512,  548,  572,  626,  627,  700, 
767 
U.S.  economic  aid  (Johnson),  569 
U.S.  military  aid,  study  of,  174 
U.S.  relations  and  interests   (John- 
son), 36 
Visit    of    Prime    Minister    Eshkol: 
'  172;  Rusk,  121 

Italy: 

Gold  market  stability,  support  for, 

464 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  104,  160, 
220,  259,  339,  428,  512,  626, 
627,  699,  700,  766,  811 
U.S.  Ainbassador  (Ackley) :    John- 
son, 109;  confirmation,  456 
U.S.    travel    restraints,    reaction    to 

(Katzenbach),  140 
Visit  of   President  Johnson    (John- 
son), 77,  73 
ITU.  See  Telecommunications  Union, 

International 
Ivory  Coast: 

Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  368,  479, 
700 
■j     Visit  of  Vice-President  Humphrey, 
™  129n 

Iwo  Jima,  Marine   Corps  Memorial: 

U.  A.  Johnson,  570;  Miki,  571 
lyalla,  Joe,  404 


Jackson,  Justice  Robert,  372 
Jamaica,     treaties,     agreements,     etc., 

512,  700 
Japan: 

Atomic  energy,  agreement  with  U.S. 

on  peaceful  uses  of,  420 
Bonin  Islands  returned  to  adminis- 
tration of:  U.  A.  Johnson,  570; 
Rusk,  824;  Miki,  571;  text  of 
joint  Japan-U.S.  statement,  570 
Bungei  Shunju  interview  of  Secre- 
tary Rusk,  transcript,  821 
Economic     and     political     develop- 
ment:    Bundy,     177;     E.     V. 
Rostow,  407;  Rusk,  3,  825 
Food   Aid   Convention,   pledge   and 

reservation  (Sanderson),  592 
International    Monetary    Fund    re- 
serve  assets   quota    (Johnson), 
698 
Joint     U.S.-Japan     Committee     on 
Trade    and    Economic   Affairs, 
subcommittee  meeting,   115 
Kennedy  Round  tariff  cuts  accelera- 
tion  (E.  V.  Rostow),  684 
Role  of:    E.   V.   Rostow,  434,  680; 

Rusk,  822,  823,  825 
Ryukyu  Islands,  question  of  return 

to  (Rusk),  824 
Softwood     log     trade,     U.S.-Japan 

talks,  15,  398 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  220,  259, 
428,  599,   700,  812,   851,  852 
U.S.  balance-of-payments  restraints, 
reactions   to    (E.   V.   Rostow), 
137,  139 
U.S.  capital  inflow  maximum,  290 
U.S.   cotton   textile  agreement,  an- 
nouncement, 187 
U.S.-Japan  Conference  on  Cultural 
and    Educational    Interchange, 
4th:     444;  final  communique, 
537 
U.S.  relations:   E.  V.  Rostow,  680; 

Rusk,  3 
Viet-Nam,      nonmilitary      aid      to 
(Rusk),  822 
Jarring,    Gunnar:      174;    Battle,   610, 
712,    714;    Goldberg,    181,    184, 
307,   508,   623,   731,   732,   850: 
Johnson,   36,    162,   814;   Meeker, 
467;   E.   V.  Rostow,   218;   Rusk, 
117,  122 
lefferson,  Thomas  (quoted),  132,  564 
■jenks.  Sir  Wilfred,  672 
Jerusalem,    status    of:      Battle,    711; 
Goldberg,   731,   732,  849;  E.  V. 
Rostow,  47,   218;   Sec.C.  resolu- 
tion text,  851 
Johnson,   Harold   K.    (Johnson),   487 
Johnson,  Lyndon  B.: 

Addresses,  remarks,  and  statements: 

Aggression,  73,  457,  460,  463,  485 

Alliance   for  Progress,   566,   718, 

797,  826 

Appropriations      request,      FY 

1969,  248,  325 

American  ideals,  38,  74,  163,  403, 

486,  816 
American  Samoa,  70 
Asia,  71,  79.  162,  323,  485,  574, 
676,  789 
Appropriations      request      FY 
1969,  246,  248,  249,  326, 
327 


Johnson,  Lyndon  B. — Continued 
Addresses — Continued 

Asian  Development  Bank,   779 
Appropriations      request      FY 
1969,  163,  247,  250,  284, 
322,  324 

Astronauts  and  space  objects,  assist- 
ance-and -return  agreement, 
85,  162 

Balance  of  payments,  6,  105,  107, 
110,  163,  215,  216,  279,  282, 
324,444,473,484,504,631, 
669,  809 

Big-power  responsibility,  164,  247, 
403,  439,  486,  674,  681,  813 

Cambodia,  107 

Christmas  message  to  the  Nation, 
79 

Communication  satellites,  615, 
675,815 

Communist  China,  38,   162 

De  Gaulle,  38 

Economic  and  social  develop- 
ment, world  problems,  38, 
246,  252,  315,  322,  789 

Europe,   U.S.    relations,   37,    172 
(quoted),  575,  657 

Export-Import  Bank,  113,  247, 
248,  250,  282,  444,  504 

Exports,  need  to  increase,  7,  113, 

282,  504,  506 
Foreign  aid  programs : 

1969    budget,    246,    284,    322, 

459 
Principles    and    objectives,     7, 
163,   245,   247,   252,  322, 
328,  457,  569,  779 
Foreign  policy,  88,  457 

Presidential    responsibility,    39, 
341,  485 
France,     stability    of    franc    and 

other  problems,  783 

General  Westmoreland,  341,  342 

Appointment  as  .\rmy  Chief  of 

Staff,  487,  783. 

Glassboro  conference,  36,  162,  813 

Gold  standard,  6,  163,  280,  283, 

460,  462,  505,  697 
Goldberg,    resignation    as    U.N. 

representative,  604 
Harold  Holt,  69,  70,  71,  73,  74, 

77,  79,  788 
Hawaii,  69 

Human  rights,  231,  232,  574 
Indonesia,  327,  485 
Inflation.  See  Tax  surcharge 
Inter-American      Development 
Bank,  increase  in  capital,  826 
International     Development     As- 
sociation, 246,  250,  323,  779 
InternaUonal  Monetary  Fund,  89, 

114,269,280,283 
Investment     of     private     capital 
abroad   105,    110,   114,   280, 
505 
Isolationism,  439,  458,  460,   789 
Israel,  U.S.  interests,  36 
Kennedy   Round,    88,    113,    280, 

283,  504,  506,  779,  807 
Korea : 

Communist  terror  tactics,  189, 

343 
Economic  progress  and  U.S.  aid, 

248,327,328 
Pueblo    incident.     See    U.S.S. 

Pueblo 
U.S.  relations,  226,  343,  574 


INDEX,  JANUARY  TO  JUNE  1968 


865 


Johnson,  Lyndon  B. — Continued 
Addresses — Continued 

Laos  accords,  33,  714,  778,  815 

Latin  America: 

Inter-American  Export  Promo- 
tion Center,  567,  797 
Treaty  of  Tlatelolco,  313 

Marine  research,  163,  213  (quot- 
ed), 537,  539  (quoted),  816 

Mexico-tj.S.  Border  Commis- 
sion, 629 

Mexico,  U.S.  relations,  578 

Middle  East  conflict,  36,  60,  162, 
_    173,  751,814 

Military  assistance  programs,  FY 
1969  appropriations  request, 
322,  328 

NATO,  37,  88,  109,  112 

National  security,  162 

1967  developments,  162,  280 

Non-immigration  Visa  Act  of 
1968,  472,  505,  507 

Nuclear  nonproliferation  treaty, 
89,  162,  164,  210,  641 
(quoted),  759  (quoted),  813 

Nuclear  weapons,  question  of  use 
in  Viet-Nam,  341 

Organization  of  American  States, 
718 
Charter,    protocol    of    amend- 
ment, 614 

Political  rights,  132  (quoted) 

Politics,  490 

Pope  Paul,  visit  with,  77,  78,  79, 
106,  107,  161 

Presidential  advisers,  460,  461 

Presidential  candidacy,  position 
on,  486,  780,  782 

Presidential  Unit  Citations,  750, 
781 

Responsibilities,  39,  341,  462,  485 

Ryukyu  Islands,  direct  election  of 
chief  executive,  319 

Sargent  Shriver,  487 

Secretary'  Rusk,  tribute,  462 

Soviet  Union,  U.S.  relations,  37, 
162,  226,  813 

State  of  the  Union,  e.xcerpts,  161 

Tax  surcharge,  106,  107,  245,  279, 

282,  459,  462,  483,  505,  506, 
699,  809 

Television,  524 

Tourism  restraints,  need  for,  105, 

106,  108,  112,  163,282,460, 

505 
Trade    Expansion    Act    of    1968, 

779,  807 
Trade   protection   quotas,    7,   89, 

283,  809 

Travel,    foreign   visitor   program, 

282,  505,  507 
Treaty  of  Tlatelolco,  313 
U.S.  economy,  6,  163,  279,  484 
U.S.  public  opinion,  460,  524,  630 
U.S.  unity,  need  for,  459,  486,  630 
U.S.S.  Pueblo,  189,  223,  226,  343, 

631 
Uruguay,  death  of  President  Ges- 

tido,  condolences,  5 
Viet-Nam    {for  details  see   Viet- 
Nam)  : 
Bombing,  U.S.  position,  34,  161, 
223,  226,  460,  482,  524, 
778,  780,  781 
Communism,  rejection  of,  463 
Communist  morale,  225 


Johnson,  Lyndon  B. — Continued 
Addresses — Continued 
Viet-Nam — Continued 

Communist  Tet  offensive,  221, 

222,  225,  342,463,481 
Consultation     with     President 
Park  of  Korea,  573,  574, 
630 
National  Liberation  Front,  34, 

35 
Negotiations  for  peaceful  settle- 
ment: 
Conferences    with    Ambassa- 
dor   Bunker    and    other 
advisers,  549,  550,  573, 
629,  778,  780,  781,  782 
Contacts,  513 
Paris   talks,    629,    778,   780, 

782,  789,  814 
U.S.  representatives,  482 
Nuclear   weapons,   question   of 

use  of,  341 
Peace,     prospects,     conditions, 
and  U.S.  goal,  33,  39,  77, 
78,  79,  106,  341,  343,  460, 

462,  463,  481,  484,  487, 
524,  573,  814 

Self-determination,     34,      460, 

463,  674 

Situation  reports,  33,  75,   161, 

222,  604,  750,  778,  781, 

783 

U.S.  airpower,  effectiveness,  73 

U.S.     appropriations    requests, 

249,   327,   483 
U.S.  commitments,  35,  40,  74, 
161,  458,  459,  462,  676, 
789,   830 
U.S.      military      and      civilian 
awards,    presentations    of, 
76,  79,  462,  750,  781 
U.S.  military  force,  39,  73,  223, 

226,  343,  459,  483,  488 
U.S.  national  interests,  485 
U.S.  prisoners,  treatment,  78,  79 
U.S.  public  opinion,  484,  630 
Communist  misinterpretation 
of,  33,  34,  35,  39,  161, 
457,  460 
U.S.  role,  35,  483,  550,  630 
U.S.  strategy,  222,  224 
Vietnamese  army,  36,  482,  483, 

630 
Vietnamese     Government,     33, 

35,  482 
Vietnamese  people,  463 
War  on  hunger,  329,  537,  569 
War  on  poverty,  662  (quoted) 
World  peace,  403,  439,  490,  813 
Advisers,  460,  461 
Asia,  visit  to,  69,  70,  79 
Correspondence,    memoranda,    and 
messages: 
AID  reduction  in  balance  of  pay- 
ments costs,  requests,  216 
Alliance    for    Progress    Chiefs    of 
State     meeting,     Punta     del 
Este,  1st  anniversary,  797 
Inter-American  Cultural  Council 

meeting,  420 
Laos  National  Day,  714 
Organization    of    African    Unity, 

5th  anniversary,  820 
U.S.  agencies,  reduction  urged  in 
overseas  personnel  and  travel, 
215,  216 
Leadership  (E.  V.  Rostow),  493 


Johnson,  Lyndon  B. — Continued 
Meetings  with: 

General  Westmoreland,  513,  514, 
573 

Heads  of  State  and  officials  of,  re- 
marks and  joint  communi- 
ques: Australia,  71,  786;  Aus- 
tria, 556;  Costa  Rica,  828; 
Israel,  172;  Italy,  78;  Korea, 
72,  573,  574,  630;  Liberia, 
527;  Norway,  657;  Pakistan, 
76;  Paraguay  ,  488;  Pope 
Paul,  77;  Somalia,  470;  Thai- 
land, 674;  Tunisia,  751; 
U.K.,  314;  Viet-Nam,  72 

NATO  Secretary  General,  356 

U.N.  Secretary-General  U  Thant, 
342,  343 

U.S.-Mexico  Border  Commission, 
309 
Messages  to  Congress: 

AID  annual  reports  FY  1966  and 
1967,  transmittal,  252 

Arms  Control  and  Disarmament 
Agency,  3-year  extension  au- 
thorization and  appropria- 
tions request,  209 

Automotive  Products  Trade  Act 
of  1965,  2nd  annual  report, 
transmittal,  811 

Budget  FY  1969  (excerpts),  245 

Bureau  of  International  Exposi- 
tions, U.S.  membership 
urged,  52 

Coimcil  of  Economic  Advisers, 
annual  report  (excerpts), 
transmittal,  285 

Customs  Cooperation  Council 
Convention,  transmittal,  810 

Economic  report  of  the  President 
(excerpts),  279 

Food  for  Freedom,  1967  report, 
568 

Foreign  aid  program,  FY  1969, 
247,  322 

International  coffee  agreement: 
Renewal,  664,  844   (quoted) 
Third  annual  report,  transmit- 
tal, 330 

International  grains  arrange- 
ment, transmittal,   329 

International  monetary  fund  spe- 
cial drawing  rights  ratifica- 
tion urged,  696 

Marine  resources  and  engineering 
development,  2nd  annual  re- 
port, transmittal,  537 

Peace  Corps,  6th  annual  report, 
transmittal,  505 

State  of  the  Union,  excerpts,  161 

Trade  Expansion  Act  of  1968, 
807 

U.N.,  U.S.  1966  participation  re- 
port, 59 

U.S.  exports,  need  for  increase, 
504 

Visas  for  certain  short-term  visi- 
tors, proposed  elimination  of, 
472 
News    conferences,     transcripts    of, 
105,  221,  341,  487,  604,  629, 
778,  781 
Policies:    Fowler,  525;  Mora,  719; 
Percy,    273     (quoted);    E.    V. 
Rostow,   745;   W.   W.  Rostow, 
693 


866 


DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE  BULLETIN 


Johnson,  Lyndon  B. — Continued 

Television     and     radio     interviews, 
transcripts  of,  33 
Johnson,  U.  Alexis,  570 
Johnson  Act   (Solomon),  426 
Joint  Chiefs  of  Staff  (Johnson),  487, 

783 
Joint     Export     Association     Program 

(Johnson),  113 
Joint  U.S.-Japan  Ccmmittee  on  Trade 
and    Economic    Affairs,    subcom- 
mittee meeting,  115 
Joint     U.S.-Mexican      Trade      Com- 
mittee, 3rd  annual  meeting,  com- 
munique, 10 
Jordan  {see  also  Arab-Israeli  conflict)  : 
Battle,  711;  Goldberg.  623 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  547,  572, 

700 
U.S.  military  assistance:  305;  Rusk, 
122 
Judicial   and   extrajudicial   documents 
in  civil  and  commercial  matters, 
convention     0965)     on     service 
abroad:  U.K.,  103 
Jung,  Ali  Yavar,  404 
Justice  Department,  FY   1969  budget 
request  (Johnson),  248 

K 

Kalb,   Marvin,   136,   273,  651 
Kashmir.    See  India  and  Pakistan 
Katzenbach,    Nicholas    deB.    (Rusk), 
124 
Addresses,  correspondence,  remarks, 
and   statements,   53,    135,   168, 
201,  646,  665,  695,  715,  729, 
737,  763 
Interviews,  transcripts,  136,  273 
Meetings,  613,  694,  754 
Katzenbach  Committee,  145 
Kazen,  Abraham,  173 
Keimedy,  John  F.  (quoted),  486,  496, 
536,  601 
Bay  of  Pigs  (McNamara),  265,  269 
Kenya  (see  also  East  African  Commu- 
nity),    visit     of     Vice-President 
Humphrey,  129n 
Kemer,  Otto  (Green),  722 
Keynes,    John    Maynard    (McGhee), 

394 
Kiesinger,  Kurt:   Johnson,  37;  E.  V. 

Rostow,  683 
King  Hussein   (E.  V.  Rostow),  218 
King  Olav  V,  657,  658,  659 
King,     Martin    Luther,     Jr.:     513n; 
Green,   723;  King  Olaf  V,  660; 
Wilkins,  662,  663 
King,  Samuel  L.,  368 
Kipling,  Rudyard  (quoted),  317 
Klaus,  Josef,  557 
Komer,  Robert:  Grant,  595;  Johnson, 

76 
Korea: 

Unification:    Goldberg,   184;  Rusk, 

206 
War,  question  of  (Bundy),  383 
Korea,  North: 

DMZ  violation.  See  Korea,  Republic 

of:   Communist  activities  in 
U.S.  trade  embargo   (Bohlen),  421 
Korea,  Republic  of: 

Asia,  role  in:  Bundy,  177;  Johnson, 
575;  Rusk,  3,  301,  825 


Korea — Continued 

Communist  activities  in:  72,  189, 
193,  199,  200,  344,  522,  575; 
Bundy,  382;  Goldberg,  193, 
197,  198,  199,  307;  Johnson, 
189,  343;  Rusk,  191,  261,  301, 
357 
U.N.    Command,   special   report, 

199 
Viet-Nam,  linked  to,  522 
Cotton  textile  agreement,  announce- 
ment and  text  of  note,  101 
Economic  development:  576;  John- 
son, 327;  E.  V.  Rostow,  407, 
434;  Rusk,  301,  727 
Meetings  of  President  Johnson  and 
President   Park:    72;   Johnson, 
573,  574,  630 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  104,  128, 
188,  400,   548,  699,   700,  812 
U.S.  aid:     72;  Johnson,  248,  328, 

569;  Rusk,  727 
U.S.  forces:    344,  576;  McNamara, 

272;Rusk,  302,  354 
U.S.  relations  (Johnson),  574 
Pueblo  incident,  effect  on:    344; 
Johnson,     226,    343;    Rusk, 
191;  Vance,  344 
U.S.  visit  of  President  Park:    573, 

574;  Johnson.  630 
Viet-Nam,  aid  to :   576;  Bundy,  177; 
Johnson,  575,  781,  789;  Rusk, 
3,  301,  516;  SEATO,  519 
Korean  war:    E.  V.  Rostow,  435,  495; 

Rusk,  301,  356 
Kosygin,   Aleksei    N.:    350;   Johnson, 

36,  226 
Kotschnig,  Walter  M.,  238 
Kraft,  Joseph,  379 
Krauthoff,  Louis  C,  II,  115 
Kuwait,    radio    regulations     (Geneva, 

1959),  partial  revision,  700 
Kuznetsov,  Vasily  V.   (Johnson),  838 
Ky,  Nguyen  Cao  (Johnson),  75 


Labor:    Johnson,  111,  282;  Roth,  15 
Adjustment  assistance:    297;  John- 
son, 284,  779,  808 
American   Institute  for  Free  Labor 

Development  (OUver),  620 
Europe:     291;  Solomon,  804 
Labor      Organization,      International, 
emplo>Tnent  at  sea,  minimum  age 
for  children,  convention  ( 1936) ; 
Bermuda,  160 
Landlocked  states,  convention  (1965) 
on  transit  trade  of :   Burundi,  812; 
Hungary,  68;  Laos,  300 
Laos: 

Communist        infiltration:  521; 

Bundy,  382;  Harriman,  703, 
705,  817;  Johnson,  33;  Katzen- 
bach, 203,  274;  E.  V.  Rostow, 
408,  435;  Rusk,  123,  191,  208, 
305,  355,  515,  670,  727; 
SEATO,  519;  Westmoreland, 
785 
Conference     on,     U.S.     willingness 

(Rusk),  119 
Economic   development    (Rusk),   4 
National  Day:    Johnson,  714;  Rusk, 

714 
Neutrality.  See  Neutrality 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  300,  626, 
627 


Laos — Continued 

U.S.-North       Viet-Nam      meetings 

(Bundy),  651 
U.S.     relations:      Harriman,     819; 
Johnson,  327 
Laos  accords:     521,   679;   Harriman, 
703,  705,  709,  750,  817;  Johnson, 
33,    714,    778,   815;   McNamara, 
270;   Rusk,    123,    191,   305,  355, 
515,  670,  714;  SEATO,  519 
Lashkova,  Vera  (Goldberg),  453 
Latin  America: 

Andean  Development  Corporation: 

Johnson,  614;  Oliver,  586 
Chinese  Communist  influence  (Kat- 
zenbach), 739 
Communications:      Johnson,     615; 

Mora,  719 
Communism,  rejection  of  and  coun- 
termeasures:     Johnson,  404; 
Katzenbach,      717;      Linowitz, 
312,    532;     Oliver,    418; 
Rusk,  2,  670 
Economic     and     political     change, 

methods  (Oliver),  416 
Economic     integration      [see     also 
Latin  American  Common  Mar- 
ket):    Humphrey,    430;   John- 
son, 162;  Oliver,  442;  Rusk,  1, 
118,447 
Foreign    Relations    of    the    United 
States:       Diplomatic      Papers, 
1944,  Volume  VII,  The  Ameri- 
can Republics,  released,   188 
Inter-American    Export    Promotion 
Center:     Johnson,    567,    797; 
Sanchez,  798 
Military   expenditures,   unnecessary, 
ehmination     of:     Katzenbach, 
717;  Linowitz,  313 
Nuclear-free    zone    treaty    (1967): 
Goldberg,     184,     638;     Hum- 
phrey, 554,  602;  Johnson,  313; 
Katzenbach,  646;  Rusk,  633 
Current    actions:       U.K.,    U.S., 

547 
Text  and  U.S.  statement,  555 
Political      development:      Johnson, 
490;  Linowitz,  312,  533,  835; 
Oliver,    386,    502,    563,    617; 
Rusk,  725 
U.S.    foreign    policy    and    national 
interests:     Linowitz,  310,  532; 
OHver,   384,   565,   585;   Rusk, 
725 
Latin    American     Common     Market: 
Johnson,  567,   614,   797;   Oliver, 
385,  584;  E.  V.  Rostow,  365;  W. 
W.  Rostow,  692;  Sanchez,   798; 
Stroessner,  489 
Latin  American  Cultural  Foundation 

(Linowitz),  835 
Latin    American    Free    Trade    Area: 
Johnson,   567,    718;   Oliver,   585 
Laurel -Langley     Trade     Agreement: 

146;  Braderman,  11 
Lawrence,  W.  Mason,  650 
Le  Monde  (Goldberg) ,  453 
Lebanon,    treaties,    agreements,    etc., 

300,  479,  626,  627,  735 
Lee     Kuan     Yew:       500      (quoted); 

Katzenbach,  203 
Lemnitzer,  Lyman  (McGhee),  235 
LeRoy,    Catherine     (Harriman),    708 
Less  developed  countries: 
Agriculture.  See  Agriculture 


INDEX,  JANUARY  TO  JUNE  1968 


867 


Less  developed  countries — Continued 
Arms  races,  problems  of:   Johnson, 
328;  Katzenbach,   717;  E.  V. 
Rostow,  362;  Rusk,   118 
Commodity     trade     problems.     See 

Commodity  trade  problems 
Economic  and  social  development: 
Harriman,  371;  E.  V.  Rostow, 
41,  361;  Rusk,  117 
Industrialized  countries,  role  of: 
298,    319;    Goldberg,     185; 
Humphrey,     369;     Johnson, 
284,   779;  Katzenbach,   171, 
765;    Kotschnig,    234;    Mc- 
Ghee,   393;   E.   V.   Rostow, 
366,    562,   684;   Rusk,   448, 
582,  728,  822 
Education,    importance    to:     Gold- 
berg,    157;     Humphrey,     371; 
Johnson,    89,     163;    Linowitz, 
375,  833 
Food    production.    See    Agriculture 
and  Food  and  population  crisis 
Kennedy    Round,    importance    to: 

296;  Roth,  14,363 
Trade  preferential  treatment:     147, 
298,     321;     Braderman,     11; 
Humphrey,  130,  430;  Johnson, 
89,  284;  Oliver,  385,  584;  E. 
V.    Rostow,    361;    Roth,    15; 
Rusk,    1 
U.S.  aid  {see  also  Foreign  aid  pro- 
grams,  U.S.):     Johnson,    163, 
457;  Katzenbach,   716;  E.  V. 
Rostow,  367,  434;  Rusk,  445, 
724,  728 
U.S.     investment,     mandatory     re- 
straints, 290 
L'Humanite  (Goldberg),  453 
Liberia: 

Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  700,  766 
U.N.  debt  to  (Fountain),  21 
U.S.  visit  of  President  Tubman,  527 
Vice-President      Humphrey,      U.S. 
special  envoy  to  inauguration  of 
President  Tubman    (Johnson), 
529 
Visit  of  Vice-President  Himiphrey, 
129n 
Liechtenstein,  treaties,  agreements,  etc., 

68,  400 
Life  magazine,  226 
Lincoln,  Abraham  (quoted),  458 
Linowitz,  Sol  M.,  310,  372,  532,  615, 

832 
Lippmann,  Walter  (Katzenbach),  202 
Lisagor,  Peter,  106,  263,  378,  779 
Literary  Gazette  (Moscow),  cited,  203 
Litvinov,  Pavel:  455  (quoted)  ;  Gold- 
berg, 453 
Load    lines,    international    convention 
(1966)     on:     India,    Italy,    699; 
Maldive  Islands,  339;  Mauritania, 
103;  Morocco,  339;  Norway,  599 
Loc  Nguyen  Van:  72;  Grant,  598 
Locke,  Eugene  (Johnson),  76 
Lodge,  Henry  Cabot,  627 
Longo,  Luigi  (Goldberg),  453 
Lopez,  Salvador  P.,  631 
Lord  Acton  (Rusk),  230 
Lord  Coke  (quoted),  647 
Lord  Keynes  (quoted),  715 
Ludorf,  Joseph  F.  (Goldberg),  474 
Luxembourg,  treaties,  agreements,  etc., 

188,  220,  259,  428,  512,  812 
Lyautey,  Marshal   (quoted),  834 


M 

MacDonald,    Major    General     (John- 
son), 781 
Maclean,    Canadian    magazine    inter- 
view of  Secretary  Rusk,  206 
Macy,  John  W.  (Johnson),  216 
Maghreb,  753 
Maheu,  Rene,  157 

Malagasy    Republic,    treaties,    agree- 
ments, etc.,  160,  220,  368 
Malawi,  treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  127, 

128,340,428,548 
Malaysia : 

Communism,  threat  of  (E.  V.  Ros- 
tow), 408,  435,  499 
Economic    and     political     develop- 
ment:    Bundy,     178;    Katzen- 
bach, 205 ;  Rusk,  4,  825 
Southeast  Asia  free  trade  area,  pro- 
posed, 149 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  127,  700 
U.K.  forces,  proposed  withdrawals: 
523,  792 ;  Rusk,  4;  SEATO,  520 
Maldive  Islands: 

Ambassador  to  U.S.,  credentials,  167 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  339,  626, 
627,  766 
Mali,   treaties,  agreements,   etc.,   259, 

626,  767 
Malta,  treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  400, 

599,  700 
Mann,    Frederic    R.,    300 
Mansfield,  Mike,  273,  656 
Margain,  Hugo,  10 

Marine  Corps  security  guards,  action 
at  U.S.  Embassy  in  Saigon  com- 
mended: 358;  Rusk,  357 
Marine   research    (see   also   Fish   and 
fisheries) : 
Deep  ocean  exploration,  internation- 
al developments  and  need  for 
comprehensive      study:       541; 
Goldberg,    125,    183;  Johnson, 
163,   213    (quoted),  537,  816; 
Pollack,     211;     Popper,     543; 
Rusk,  582,  672;  Sisco,  17 
Fish     protein     concentrates:      540; 
Johnson,  322,  324,  537 
Marine   Science   Affairs:    A    Year    of 

Plans  and  Progress,  53  7n 
Maritime    Consultative    Organization, 
Intergovernmental:   539;  Pollack, 
212;  Sisco,  17 
Convention,  1 948 :  Peru,  735 ;  Uru- 
guay, 811 
Convention,   amendment   to   article 
28:   Maldive  Islands,  766;  Ni- 
geria, 160;  U.S.,  31,  188,811 
Maritime   matters    (see    also    Interna- 
tional waterways) : 
International   waterborne   transpor- 
tation, Inter-American  conven- 
tion (1963)  :  Paraguay,  299 
Maritime  traffic,  international,  con- 
vention on  facilitation  of,  with 
annexes :         Denmark,        220 ; 
France,  103 
National  Maritime  Day,  1968,  proc- 
lamation, 620 
North  Atlantic  ice  patrol,  agreement 
(1956)    re    financial    support: 
Israel,  456 
Marks,  Leonard  (Katzenbach),  740 
Marriage,  convention  (1962)  on:  Tu- 
nisia, 368 
Marshall,  James  C.  (Rusk),  358 


Martin,  Graham,  104 

Martin,  Paul  (Rusk),  207 

Martin,    William    McChesney:     112; 

Johnson,  484 
Mauritius : 

Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  103,  127 

668,  766 
U.N.  membership:    625n;  Pedersen, 
624 
McAllister,  W.  W.,  173 
McCain,  John  S.  (Johnson),  573 
McCloy,  John  J.  (McGhee),  235 
McEwen,  John,  70 
McGhee,  George  C,  234,  392,  627 
McGill,  Ralph  E.,  799 
McKinney,  Frank  E.,  700 
McKinney,  Robert  M.:  397;  Johnson, 

105,  113,507 
McLuhan,  Marshall  (quoted),  806 
McMahon,  Brien  (Rusk),  632 
McMahon,  William,  71 
McNamara,     Robert     S.:     261,     276 
(quoted);    Johnson,    221,    487; 
Lisagor,  379 
McNeill,  William  (quoted),  176 
Meany,  George  (Johnson),  39 
Medal  of  Freedom  awards  (Johnson), 

76 
Meeker,  Leonard  C,  465 
Mekong    Valley    development:     679; 
Bundy,    178;  Johnson,  485,  575, 
676;  Katzenbach,  205;  Rusk,  4, 
728,  825 
Merrill,  Robert  (Johnson),  316 
Meteorological      research :       Johnson, 

537;Rusk,  582,  634 
Mexico: 

Chamizal  agreement  (Rusk),  2 
Disaster-relief  agreements,  668,  693 
Joint  Mexican-U.S.  Trade  Commit- 
tee, 3i-d  annual  meeting,  com- 
munique, 10 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  31,  104, 
188,  259,  368,  479,  668,  700, 
735,  766,  811 
U.S.  fishery  zone  boundaries  agree- 
ment, announcement,  398 
U.S.  Interparliamentary  Conference, 

8th  (Johnson),  578 
U.S.-Mexico     Border     Commission, 
309 
2nd  plenary  session:    693;  John- 
son, 629;  W.  W.  Rostow,  692 
U.S.-Mexico   Boundary  and   Water 

Commission,  398 
U.S.   radio  broadcasting  agreement 

signed,  159 
U.S.  tourists,  question  of  border  con- 
trols (Katzenbach),  138 
Micronesia: 
ANZUS,  523  _ 

Status  Commission  proposed  (Katz- 
enbach), 729 
Miki,  Takeo,  571 

Military  aircraft.  See  under  Aviation 
Military  assistance:  Johnson,  105,  112; 
E.   V.   Rostow,   434;  Rusk,  446 
Appropriations    request    FY    1969: 
Johnson,  322,  328;  Rusk,  448, 
728 
Israel,  U.S.  study,  174 
Jordan,  U.S.  assistance:  305;  Rusk, 

122 
Korea,  U.S.  supplementary  aid,  344 
U.S.      staff     reductions     requested 

(Johnson),  215 
Viet-Nam.  See  Viet-Nam 


868 


DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE  BULLETIN 


Military  bases: 

Philippines,   agreementSj    300,   428, 

852 
Ryuk>-u  Islands  (Rusk),  824 
Thailand,  use  by  U.S.,  678 
Mills,  Wilbur  D.,  754 
Missiles.  See  Armaments 
Momyer,  William   (Johnson),  76 
Monaco,    radio    regulations    (Geneva, 
1959,    as    amended),    partial    re- 
vision, 700 
Monetary  Fund,  International: 

Aid  to  less  developed  countries:   E. 

V.  Rostow,  366;  Rusk,  582 
Finance    Ministers    and    Group    of 

Ten,  Stockholm  meeting,  525 
Officially-held  gold  reserves,  policies, 

464 
Special   drawing   rights:    285,   294, 
525;  Fowler,  526;  Johnson,  89, 
114,    280,    283,    696;    Katzen- 
bach,  169;  McGhee,  236;  E.  V. 
Rostow,  361;  Solomon,  801 
Monnet,  Jean  (Johnson),  88 
Montserrat,     Peace     Coips     program 

agreement,  812 
Mora,    Jose:     719;    Humphrey,    429; 

Johnson,  718;  Linowitz,  616 
Mori,  Haruki,  1 15 
Morito,  Tatsuo,  444 
Moro,  Aldo  (Johnson),  78 
Morocco : 

Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  68,  339, 

512,  626,  627,  767 
U.S.  agricultural  sales  program  pol- 
icy (Solomon),  425 
Morse,  Wayne  (Rusk),  447 
Mutual  defense: 

Agreements  with:  Japan,  852,  Ltix- 

embourg,  812 
U.S.-Asian    Jilliances:     576;    Rusk, 

208, 354 
U.S.      national      security     interests 
(Rusk),  580 
Mutual  Security'  Act   (Solomon),  424 
Myrdal,  Gunnar  (quoted),  372 

N 


Nam  Ngum  Dam   (Rusk),  4 
Nanpo  Shoto  and  other  islands,  agree- 
ment with  Japan,  599,  812 
Narcotic  drugs.    See  Drugs,  narcotic 
National     Advisory     Commission     on 
Civil  Disorders:  Green,  722;  Wil- 
kins,  663 
National  Maritime  Day,  1968,  procla- 
mation, 620 
Nationalism : 

Asia  (Bundy),  176 
Eastern  Europe:  Bohlen,  422;  Hum- 
phrey,  601,   794;  Katzenbach 
717;  Meeker,  469;  E.  V.  Ros 
tow,  748;  Rusk,  670 
India  and  Pakistan  (Battle),  611 
Middle    East:    Battle,    609;    E.    V. 

Rostow,  42 
North   Viet-Nam    (E.   V.  Rostow) 

409,  436 
Peacekeeping,  obstacle  to  (Meeker) 
466 
Nauru,  Trust  Territory  of  (Goldberg) 

186 
Near  and  Middle  East  {see  also  Arab 
Israeli  conflict) : 
Arms  race.  See  Armaments 


Near  and  Middle  East — Continued 
Palestine      refugees,      problem      of 

_  (Goldberg),  184 
Political    and    economic    problems: 
Battle,  608;  E.  V.  Rostow,  42, 
_  48,  434 
Soviet  interests  and  aid:  Battle,  713; 

E.  V.  Rostow,  44 
U.S.  position  and  role:   174;  Battle, 
713;   Katzenbach,   716;   E.   V. 
Rostow,  217,  365 
U.S.  travel  restrictions:   383;  Katz- 
enbach, 53 
Nepal,  treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  626, 

627 
Netherlands : 

Gold  market  stability,  support  for, 

464 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  128,  220, 
428,  548,  700 
Netheriands  Antilles,  104,  220 
Surinam,  259 
Neutrality  and  nonalinement: 

Cambodia:    124,  133,  134;  Bowles, 
134;   Harriman,   706,   709;   E. 
V.  Rostow,  415;  Rusk,  118,119, 
305,  350 
Laos:  521;  Harriman,  703,  819;  E. 
V.    Rostow,    415;    Rusk,    123, 
714;  SEATO,  519 
Southeast  Asia  (Rusk),  583 
New    York   Times  v.   Sullivan    (Gold- 
berg), 453 
New  Zealand    (see  also  ANZUS  and 
Southeast  Asia  Treaty  Organiza- 
tion) : 
Asia,  role  In  (Rusk),  4 
Military   aid    to    Viet-Nam    (John- 
son), 781 
SEATO  Council  of  Ministers  meet- 
ing,   Wellington:     Rusk,    515; 
text  of  final  communique,  515 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  259,  627, 

700,  851 
U.S.   capital  inflow  maximum,   290 
Newly    independent    nations:     Gaud, 
143;  Rusk,  230 
Asia  (E.  V.  Rostow),  407 
Mauritius  (Pedersen),  624 
"Micro-States"      (Goldberg),      159, 
182 
Newman,  Edwin,  380 
Newsweek,  107 
N'icaragua,   treaties,   agreements,   etc., 

626,  627,  852 
Niger,  treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  599, 

626,  627,  735 
Nigeria : 

Ambassador    to    U.S.,    credentials, 

404 
Government  of,  U.S.  support,  278 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  160,  299, 

400,  668,  766 
U.N.  debt  to  (Fountain),  21 

1967  developments:  285;  Goldberg, 
180;  Johnson,  162,  280;  Rusk, 
I,  116 

1968  prospects  and  opportunities 
(Roth),  242 

Non-nuclear  weapon  states,  conference, 
proposed    (Goldberg),    194,    640 

North  American  Air  Defense  Command 
(NORAD),  agreement  with  Can- 
ada, 548,  571 


North    Atlantic    Council,    ministerial 
meeting,  Luxembourg,  1967,  text 
of  final  communique  and  annex, 
49 
North  Atlantic  Treaty  Organization: 
Armed  forces: 

Germany,     under     NATO     com- 
mand, 155 
Manpower     levels     and     deploy- 
ment: Johnson,  37,  88;  Mc- 
Ghee, 235;  NAG,  49;  E.  V. 
Rostow,  684;  Rusk,  822 
U.S.  balance  of  payments,  effect 
on:      290;      Deming,      142; 
Johnson,    109,    112;  Katzen- 
bach,  137,   142,   171;  E.  V. 
Rostow,  137,  685;  Rusk,  123 
Collective  defense  function:   Cleve- 
land, 690;  Clifford,  605;  Hum- 
phrey,  794;  Katzenbach,    170; 
McGhee,   234;   NAG,   50,  51; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  685;  Rusk,  354 
Communications     satellite     (Cleve- 
land), 690 
East-West      relations,      effect      on: 
Cleveland,     670;    Katzenbach, 
171;  E.  V.  Rostow,  684;  Solo- 
mon, 426 
French    withdrawal,    settlement    of 
problems  arising  from:    Cleve- 
land, 689 ;  Johnson,  37,  88 ;  Mc- 
Ghee, 235;  E.  V.  Rostow,  562; 
Rusk,  1 
Modernization:       Cleveland,      689; 
Humphrey,  795;  McGhee,  235; 
NAC,  50;  E.  V.  Rostow,  434, 
680;  Rusk,  1 
Secretary    General    Brosio,   meeting 

with  President  Johnson,  356 
U.S.-Italian   discussions    (Johnson), 
78 
Norway: 

Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  220,  259, 

428,  548,  599,  626,  627,  767 
U.S.  visit  of  King  Olav,  657 
Nuclear-free  zones: 

Africa  (Goldberg),  636 
Latin  America   (Goldberg),  184 
Treaty  of   Tlatelolco:    Goldberg, 
638,    758;   Humphrey,   602; 
Johnson,    313;    Katzenbach, 
646;  Rusk,  633 
Current    actions:    U.K.,    U.S., 

547 
Protocol   II:    Humphrey.   554; 
text   and   U.S.   statement, 
555 
Nuclear  nonproliferation  treaty  pro- 
visions:    166,    644;    Goldberg, 
758 
Nuclear         nonproliferation         treatv 
(1968):     558;    Cleveland,    68?'; 
Fisher,  164;  Goldberg,  180,   184, 
635,   755;  Humphrey,  555,  795; 
Johnson,  37,  89,    162,   164,  210, 
641  (quoted),  759  (quoted),  813, 
814;  King  Olaf  V,  660;  Meeker, 
465;  E.  V.  Rostow,  684,  745,  746; 
Rusk,  2,  118,  581,  633,  671,  824 
Background:    Goldberg,   636,    757; 
Humphrey,    602;    Katzenbach, 
646 


INDEX,  J.\NUARY  TO  JUNE  1968 


869 


Nuclear — Continued 
Costs  (Foster),  837 
Japan,  role  in  (Rusk),  825 
Nonnuclear  states,  importance  to  and 
obligations    under:     165,    644; 
Fisher,  37;  Foster,  836;  Gold- 
berg, 634,  758 
Security  assurances:  166,644,645c; 
Fisher,   97;   Foster,   401,   837; 
Goldberg,   637,   755;  Johnson, 
210;   Katzenbach,   647;   Rusk, 
671 
Soviet    position:     Fisher,     27,    97; 
Foster,  401,  837 ;  Goldberg,  637, 
756;  Johnson,  164 
Text,  165,  643 
Nuclear  test  ban  treaty,  1963:  Cleve- 
land, 687;  Humphrey,  602,  795; 
Katzenbach,   646 ;   Meeker,   465 ; 
E.  V.  Rostov/,  746;  Rusk,  633,  671 
Current  actions:   Botswana,  479 
Nuclear   test   ban   treaty,   comprehen- 
sive, need  for:   643;  Rusk,  634 
Nuclear  tests,   Communst  China  and 
France,      continued      atmosphere 
testing  (ANZUS),523 
Nuclear  war,  dangers  of:   165;  Fisher, 
26,  99;  Goldberg,  634,  757;  John- 
son, 39,  75,  641   (quoted) ;  Rusk, 
3,  229,  632 
Nuclear  weapons:  Goldberg,  638;  Kat- 
zenbach,    717;     Rusk,    633;     U 
Thant  (quoted),  633 
Arms  race:  165,  166,  555,  643,  644; 
Humphrey,  602;  Johnson,  641 
(quoted);     Katzenbach,     650; 
Meeker,  465;  Rusk,  671 
Cutoff  on   production  and  transfer 
of   materials   to   peaceful  uses, 
U.S.     proposals:     Fisher,     28; 
Rusk,  633 
Germany,  renunciation  of  manufac- 
ture of:    155;  Fisher,  97 
Nuclear  blackmail  (Cleveland),  689 
Nuclear-free  zones.  See  Nuclear-free 

zones 
Nuclear    powerplants    as    potential 
sources   of  plutonium    (Sisco), 
63 
Soviet  proposed  convention  of  non- 
use  of  (Fisher),  26 
U.N.  report  (Fisher),  98 
U.S.    nuclear-armed    bomber    acci- 
dent in  Greenland  (Rusk),  272 
U.S.-Soviet  nuclear  standoff:  Cleve- 
land, 687;  Fisher,  27;  Foster, 
838 
Viet-Nam,  question  of  use  in  (John- 
son), 341 

o 

OAU.  See  Organization  of  African 
Unity 

O'Brien,  Robert  J.  (quoted),  357 

Oceanographer,  U.S.  research  vessel: 
540;  Johnson,  213  (quoted) ;  Pol- 
lack, 212 

Oceanographic  Commission,  Intergov- 
ernmental: Pollack,  212;  Sisco,  17 

Oceanographic  research.  See  Marine 
research 

Oil,  pollution  of  the  sea  by:  539;  John- 
son, 537 


Oil — Continued 

International  convention  (1954)  for 
the    prevention    of:     Morocco, 
512;  Nigeria,  299 
Okinawa  (Johnson),  319,  320 
Okrent,  Dan,  346 
Oliver,  Covey  T.,  8,   384,  416,  440, 

501,  563,  584,  617 
Organization   for  Economic   Coopera- 
tion and  Development: 
Consortium  for  Turkey  (E.  V.  Ros- 

tow),  561 
East-West   trade   discussions    (Solo- 
mon), 427 
Temporary  tariff  advantages  for  less 
developed       countries:        298; 
Humphrey,  370;  Johnson,  284; 
Rusk,  1 
U.S.  balance  of  payments  restraints, 
reactions:      Katzenbach,     169; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  138 
Organization  for  European  Economic 
Cooperation:   286;  McGhee,  236 
Organization  of  African  Unity:   531; 
Humphrey,    131;   Johnson,   520; 
Rusk,  2 
Organization  of  American  States: 
Charter,  protocol  (1967)  of  amend- 
ment (Rusk),  1 
Current  actions:  Guatemala,  299 ; 
Mexico,  735;  Paraguay,  299; 
U.S.,  626 
Summary  of  amendments,  616 
U.S.  ratification:    626;  Johnson, 
614;  Linowitz,  615 
Importance    of    and    U.S.    support 

(Linowitz),  311,  532 
Inter-American    Cultural    Council : 
419;   Johnson,   420;   Linowitz, 
834 
Secretary  General  Mora  and  Assist- 
ant Secretary  General  Sanders, 
retirement:       Johnson,       718; 
Mora,  719 
Secretary-General  Plaza  Lasso,  elec- 
tion  of    (Linowitz),    311,   532 
Oshima,    Aniami     l\5.    A.    Johnson), 

570 
Otepkacase  (Rusk),  120 
Outer  space: 

Liability  for  damage  from  space  ve- 
hicles, need  for  agreement  on: 
Goldberg,  84;  Reis,  80;  Rusk, 
672 
Nuclear  energy  uses  in  (Rusk),  634 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.: 

Exploration  and  use  of,  principles 
(1967):      Goldberg,      642; 
Humphrey,  602,  795;  John- 
son,   59,    813;    Katzenbach, 
646;  Meeker,  465;  E.  V.  Ros- 
tow, 746;  Rusk,  2,  633,  672, 
824 
Current  actions:   Austria,  400; 
Iceland,  300;  Mexico,  259; 
Morocco,    68 ;    New    Zea- 
land, 851;  Pakistan,  572; 
Poland,     259 ;     Romania, 
572;  Tunisia,  599;  Turkey, 
512;  Uganda,  627 
Registration  with   U.N.   Secre- 
tary-General, U.S.  Mission 
announcement,  and  text  of 
3-power  note,  100 


Outer  space — Continued 
Treaties — Continued 

Rescue  and  return  of  astronauts 
and    space    vehicles,    agree- 
ment, 1967: 
Current     actions :      Argentina, 
Australia,  Austria,  Bolivia, 
Bulgaria,  626,  627;  Can- 
ada,   627;    Chile,    China, 
626,  627;  Colombia,  627; 
Congo     (Kinshasa),     626, 
627;  Costa  Rica,  627;  Cy- 
prus, 699;  Czechoslovakia, 
Denmark,  Duminican  Re- 
public, Ecuador,  El  Salva- 
dor, Finland,  Ghana,  Hai- 
ti, Hungary,  Iceland,  Iran, 
Ireland,  Israel,  Italy,  626, 
627;    Korea,    699;    Laos, 
Lebanon,  Maldive  Islands, 
Morocco,  Nepal,  626,  627; 
New  Zealand,  627;  Nica- 
ragua, Niger,  626,  627;  Ni- 
geria,    668 ;      Philippines, 
627;  Poland,  Portugal,  Ro- 
mania, Somalia,  626,  627; 
Soviet  Union,   627;   Swit- 
zerland, Tunisia,  626,  627; 
U.K.,  627;  Uruguay,  626, 
627;U.S.,  627;  Venezuela, 
Yugoslavia,  626,  627 
U.S.    support:     Goldberg,    83, 
125,     183;     Johnson,     85, 
815;  Reis,  80;  Rusk,  582, 
672,  824;  text,  86 
Space  vehicle  tracking  and  com- 
munications  stations,   agree- 
ments with:   Malagasy,  160; 
U.K.        (Bermuda),       260; 
(Grand     Bahama      Island), 
735 
U.S.     position:     Humphrey,     603; 
Rusk,  230,  582 


Pacheco  Areco,  Jorge   (Johnson),  5 
Pacific  Islands  Tiiist  Territory   (AN- 
ZUS),  523 
Status  commission  proposed   (Katz- 
enbach), 729 
Pakistan: 

Economic    and    political    progress: 
Johnson,   326;   E.   V.   Rostow, 
434;  Rusk,  725 
IDA  aid  (Katzenbach),  764 
India,  relations   (Battle),  611 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  220,  259, 

548,  572,  700,  811,  812 
U.S.  aid:  Battle,  612;  Johnson,  246, 

249 
Visit  of  President  Johnson,  76 
Palmer,  Bruce  (Johnson),  76 
Pahner,  Joseph,  2nd,  799 
Pan  American  Day  and  Pan  American 
Week,  proclamation,  566 

Panama: 

Agreement  re  furnishing  by  the  FAA 
of  certain  services  for  air  navi- 
gation aids,  548 
Ambassador  to  U.S.,  credentials,  404 
Cooperative  housing   (Oliver),  618 


870 


DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE  BULLETIN 


Paraguay : 

Ambassador    to    U.S.,    credentials, 

430 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  160,  259, 

299,  766 
U.S.   visit   of   Pi"esident   Stroessner, 
488 
Parcel  post  agreement  with  Trinidad 

and  Tobago,  600 
Pardo,  Ar\-id :  Pollack,  212;  Sisco,  17 
Park,  Chung  Hee:  4  (quoted),  72,  344, 
573;  Johnson,  630 
Communist    assassination    attempt : 
189,  199,  522,  575;  Goldberg, 
193,    194,    197,   307;  Johnson, 
189,  343;  Rusk,  192,  262,  301 
Pasternak,  Boris    (Goldberg),  452 
Peace  Corps  program   (Oliver),  440 
Agreements   establishing :    Grenada, 
128;  Montserrat,  812;  Nicara- 
gua, Tonga,  852 
Appronriations     request     FY     1969 

(Johnson),  248,  250 
Liberia,  531 

6th    annual    report,    transmittal 
(Johnson),  505 
Pedersen,  Richard  F.,  624 
i     Pell,  Claiborne  ( Sisco ) ,  1 7 
Percy,  Charles  H.,  273 
Pereyaslavl-Zalesskiy,     Soviet     vessel, 

145 
Peru    (see  also  Andean  Development 
Corporation),       treaties,      agree- 
ments, etc.,  428,  735 
Peterson,  Dean  Freeman,  668 
Philippines: 

Ambassador    to    U.S.,    credentials, 

631 
Bataan    Pol    Terminal    at    Kitang 
Point,  agreement  re  relinquish- 
ment of,  700 
Communism,  threat  of:   E.  V.  Ros- 
tow,  408;  SEATO,  519 

(Investment  of  foreign  private  capi- 
tal, problems   and   needs,    149, 
152 
Laurel-Langley     trade     agreement: 

142;  Braderman,  11 
Rice    production    research:     Hum- 
phrey,    370;     Johnson,     324; 
Katzenbach,  205;  Rusk,  4,  825 
Southeast  Asia  free  trade  area,  149 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  188,  300, 

428,  627,  700,  766,  852 
U.S.   Ambassador    (Williams),  con- 
firmation, 735 
I       U.S.  food  aid  (Johnson),  569 
Viet-Nam,    aid    to:    Johnson,    781; 
Rusk,  4 
Piie,  Douglas  (Bundy),  380 
Pilnyak,  Boris   (Goldberg),  452 
Plaza  Lasso,  Galo,  31  In,  532n 
Poland: 

ICC  membership:    Harriman,  818; 

Rusk,  120 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  220,  259, 
340,  512,  548,  626,  627,  700, 
766 
Pollack,  Herman,  211 
Pollution  of  the  sea  by  oil:  539;  John- 
son, 537 
International    convention     (1954): 
Morocco,  512;  Nieeria,  299 
Pope  John  XXIII   (quoted),  797 
Pope  Paul  VI   (Johnson),  77.  78,  79, 
106.  107,  161 
:  Popper,  David  H.,  593,  664 


Population  growth: 
Africa  (Rusk)  726 
Family  planning  programs,  need  for 
and  U.S.  support:    Humphrey, 
369,   603;  Johnson,  284,  324; 
Linowitz,  376;  E.  V.  Rostow, 
362;  Rusk,  447,  581,  725 
Latin  America  (Rusk),  725 
Porter,  William  J.,  344 
Portugal,     treaties,    agreements     etc., 
104,  259,  340,  428,  548,  626,  627, 
700 
Postal  matters: 

Parcel   post   agreement  with   Trini- 
dad and  Tobago,  600 
Postal    Union,    Universal,    constitu- 
tion   (1964)    with   final  proto- 
cols: Argentina,  259;  Barbados, 
31;  Botswana,  259;   Iraq,  31; 
Israel,      572;      Jordan,      547; 
Liechtenstein,  68:  Mexico,  811; 
Romania,     63;     Senegal,     31; 
U.K.  and  territories,  599 
Postal  Union  of  the  Americas  and 
Spain,    convention,    rules    and 
regulations  of  the  International 
OfBce:  Canada,  339 
Parcel  post  agreement  (1966),  339 
Prebisch,  Raul,  360 
Presidential  Unit   Citations:     Gorton, 

782;  Johnson,  750,  781 
Prince  Sihanouk:     133;  Johnson    107; 

Rusk,  118,  120,  123 
Prince  Souvanna  Phouma:    Harriman, 

817;  Rusk,  355 
Prisoners: 

Geneva  convention  (1949)  re  treat- 
ment of  prisoners  of  war:   Bots- 
wana, 767;  Malawi,  340 
Viet-Nam,  U.S.  prisoners,  treatment 
of  (Johnson),  78,  79 
Proclamations  by  the  President: 

General  Agreement  on  Tariffs  and 
Trade,  Geneva  (1967),  Procla- 
mation to  Carry  Out,  Protocol 
(3822),  90 
National      Maritime      Day,      1968 

(3847),  620 
Pan  American  Dav  and  Pan  Ameri- 
can Week,  1968  [3844),  566 
Worid  Trade  Week,   1968   {3837), 
506 
Propaganda  (Oliver),  617 
Public  Law  480   (Johnson),  251,  568 
Marine  science  activities  funded  by 

excess  currencies,  540 
Yugoslavia,  barred  from  (Solomon), 
425 
Publications: 

Canadian  Autotnobile  Agreeement, 
Second  Annual  Report  of  the 
President  to  the  Congress  on 
the  Operation  of  the  Automo- 
bile Products  Act  of  1965,  re- 
leased, 811  n 
Congressional  documents  relating  to 
foreign  policy,  lists,  155,  252, 
339,  427,  473,  569,  599,  730 
Economic  Report  of  the  President 
Transmitted  to  the  Congress 
February  1968,  Together  With 
the  Annual  Report  of  the 
Council  of  Economic  Advisers, 
released,  279n 
International  exchange  of,  conven- 
tion (1958):  Luxembourg, 
259;  Malta,  599;  U.S.,  220 


Publications — Continued 

Official  publications  and  govern- 
ment documents,  international 
exchange  between  states,  con- 
vention (1958):  Luxembourg, 
259;  U.S.,  220 
State  Department: 

Foreign  Relations  of  the   United 
States:     Diplomatic    Papers, 
1944      Volume      VII,     The 
American       Republic,       re- 
leased,  188 
Foreign  Relations  of  the   United 
States:     Diplomatic    Papers, 
1945,    Volume   II,    General: 
Political  and  Economic  Mat- 
ters, released,  31 
Foreign  Relations  of  the  United 
States :     Diplomatic    Papers, 
1945,  Volume  III,  European 
Advisory    Commission;    Aus- 
tria, Germany,  released,  628 
Foreign  Relations  of  the  United 
States :     Diplomatic    Papers, 
1945,    Volume   IV,    Europe, 
released,  736 
Foreign  Relations  of  the  United 
States:     Diplomatic    Papers, 
1945,    Volume    V,    Europe, 
released,  300 
Recent  releases,  lists  of,  32,  260, 
300,  340,  456,  480,  600,  628, 
736,  767,  812,  852 
Treaties  in  Force:  A  List  of  Trea- 
ties and  Other  International 
Agreements    of    the    United 
States  in  Force  on  January  1, 
1968,  released,  260 
U.S.  Participation  in  the  U.N.: 
Report   by  the  President   to 
the    Congress   for    the    Year 
1968,  released,  59n. 
United  Nations: 

Documents,  lists  of,  254,  545,  625, 

733,  851 
You    in    Human    Rights     (pam- 
phlet) :  Green,  723 
Pueblo  incident.  See  U.S.S.  Pueblo 
Pye,  Lucian  W.  (quoted),  175,  178 

Q 

Quimby,  Thomas  H.  £.,  220 
R 

Rabin,  Yitzhak,  404 
Racial  discrimination   (see  also  South 
Africa  and  Southern  Rhodesia)  : 
Green,  720;  Johnson,  60 
Apartheid:  664;  Buffum,  846;  Gold- 
berg, 92,  186,  762;  Green,  721; 
WUkins,  663 
International  convention  (1965)  on 
the  elimination  of:  Brazil,  Ire- 
land, Italy,  626;  Luxembourg, 
Madagascar,  220 
U.S.     position:      Humphrey,     129; 
Johnson,  575 
Radio: 

Broadcasting  in  the  standard  band, 
agreement    with    Mexico,    159, 
188 
Frequencies  allocated  for  transmis- 
sion of  oceanographic  data,  539 


INDEX,  J.\NU.\RY  TO  JUNE  1968 


871 


Radio — Continued 

Licensed   amateur   radio   operators, 
agreements  re  reciprocal  oper- 
ation:    Finland,    239;    Guate- 
mala, 220;  Guyana,  812 
Philippines   and   Greece,   new   U.S. 

facilities   in    (Johnson),   252 
Radio  regulations  (Geneva,  1959,  as 
amended)  : 
Partial  revision  re  maritime  mo- 
bile  services:    Algeria,   Aus- 
tralia, Austria,  Belgium,  Bra- 
zil,      Bulgaria,       Cameroon, 
Canada,  Ceylon,  Chad,  Chile, 
China,  Colombia,  Cuba,  Cy- 
prus,   Czechoslovakia,    Den- 
marli,  Ethiopia,  Finland, 
France,   group   of   territories 
represented  by  French  Over- 
seas Post  and  Telecommuni- 
cations    Agency,     Germany, 
Ghana,   Greece,   Guyana, 
Hungary,  Iceland,  India,  In- 
donesia, Ireland,  Israel,  Italy, 
Ivory  Coast,  Jamaica,  Japan, 
Jordan,   Korea,  Kuwait,  Li- 
beria, Malaysia,  Malta,  Mex- 
ico,    Monaco,     Netherlands, 
New  Zealand,  Pakistan,   Po- 
land,    Portugal,     Portuguese 
Overseas  Provinces,  Romania, 
Senegal,     Singapore,     South 
Africa,  Spain,  Sweden,  Switz- 
erland, Togo,  Tunisia,  Tur- 
key,   U.S.S.R.,    U.K.,    U.S., 
Territories  of  U.S.,  Venezu- 
ela,   Viet-Nam,    Yugoslavia, 
700 
Partial  revision  to  put  into  effect 
a  revised  frequency  allotment 
plan  for  aeronautical  mobile 
(R)    service:    Bulgaria,    31 
Byelorussian      S.S.R.,      599 
Germany,  479;  Guinea,  400 
Guyana,  479;  Ireland,  259 
Norway,  767;  Paraguay,  259 
Soviet      Union,      Ukrainian 
S.S.R.,  599 
Ramgoolam,  Sir  Seewoosagui,  625 
Rather,  Dan,  33,  107 
Raybum,  Sam  (quoted),  161 
Re,  Edward  D.,  300 
Red  Cross.  See  International  Red  Cross 
Refugees : 

Arab-Israeli     conflict.     See     Arab- 
Israeli  conflict 
Palestine,   problem   of    (Goldberg), 

184 
Southwest  Africa  (Goldberg),  763 
Viet-Nam.  See  Viet-Nam 
Regional    cooperation    and    develop- 
ment: Humphrey,  130,  430;  Kot- 
schnig,  239;  E.  V.  Rostow,  364 
Asia.  See  Asia 

Latin    America.    See    Alliance    for 
Progress,  Latin  American  Com- 
mon Market,  and  Latin  Amer- 
ican Free  Trade  Association 
Marine  science  and  technology,  542 
Middle  East,  need  for  (E.  V.  Ros- 
tow), 48 
U.    S.    support:     Humphrey,    603; 
Johnson,  323,  326,  779;  E.  V. 
Rostow,  434,  562,  681:  Rusk, 
447,  726 


Reis,  Herbert,  80 

Reischauer,  Edwin  (quoted),  175,  178 

Rey,  Jean,  319 

Reynolds,  Frank,  34 

Rice: 

Rice    Research    Institute,    Interna- 
tional:  Humphrey,  370;  John- 
son,   324;    Katzenbach,    205; 
Rusk,  4,  825 
Viet-Nam:  Grant,  597;  Rusk,  727 
Rivera,  Julio,  430 
Road  vehicles: 

Automotive  Products  Trade  Act  of 
1965 : 
Adjustment    assistance    extension 

needed:  Johnson,  779, 809 
2nd    annual    report,    transmittal, 
(Johnson),  811 
Private,   temporary  importation  of, 
customs     convention     (1954): 
Iran,  667 
Robert  College  (E.  V.  Rostow),  559 
Robinson,  James,  378 
Rockefeller    Foundation:     Humphrey, 

370;  Rusk,  4 
Rogers,  Warren,  262 
Romania,  treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  67, 

572,  626,  627,  700 
Roosevelt,    Eleanor:     723     (quoted)  ; 

Green,  720 
Roosevelt,  Franklin  D.:  (quoted),  129, 
315,  530,  698,  807;  Johnson,  231, 
403,  458,  528,  696 
Rostovsky  (Ernst  Henri) :  Katzenbach, 

203 
Rostow,  E.  v.:  41,  135,  137,  138,  139, 
140,  142,  217,  320,  359,  405,  431, 
493,559,  680,  741;  Rusk,  124 
Rostow,  Walter  W.,  71,  106,  692 
Roth,  Wilham  M.:   13,  115  (quoted), 

242,  839;  Johnson,  90 
Rubin,  Seymour  J.,  244 
Rusk,  Dean: 

Addresses,   messages,   remarks,   and 
statements: 
Africa,  2,  726 

Agency  for  International  Develop- 
ment, 447  725 
Aggression,  229,  515,822 
American  ideals,  228,  579 
Arms  race,  118,  122,  230,  671 
Soviet-U.S.     proposed     discus- 
sions, 581,  633,  825 
Asia: 

Appropriations       request      FY 

1969,  725,  727 
Communism,    threat    of,    208, 

354,515,670 
Economic  progress  and  regional 
cooperation,  517,  670,  823, 
825  _ 
1967  major  developments,  3 
Atomic  energy  peaceful  uses,  632 
Balance  of  payments,    117,    120, 

123,  228,  447 
Bonin  Islands,  824 
Cambodia,  neutrality.  Communist 
violations  and  U.S.  position, 
118,  119,  123,  305,  350,  515 
Canada,  207 
China,  Republic  of,  4 
Civil  rights,  579,  669 
Collective  security,  230,  353,  516, 

580,  669 

Common    interests    of    mankind, 

581,  673 
Communications  satellites,  673 


Rusk,  Dean — Continued 
Addresses — Continued 
Communism,  208,  582 
Communist   China,   4,   209,   581, 

823 
Europe,  670 

Food  and  population  crisis,  447 
Foreign  aid: 

Appropriations      request      FY 

1969,  445,  724 
U.S.  national  interest,  228,  446, 
448,  582,  724 
Foreign  policy,  580,  669 
Greenland,  loss  of  U.S.  nuclear- 
armed  bomber,  272 
Hilsman,  Roger,  272 
Indonesia,  4,  728 
International     Control     Commis- 
sion, 118,  119,   120,  350 
International     cooperation,     582, 

634,671,825 
Israel,  U.S.  visit  of  Prime  Minis- 
ter Eshkol,  121 
Japan,  3,  822 
Jordan,    U.S.    military    assistance 

under  review,  122 
Korea,  3,  191,  262,  301,  354,  727 
Laos: 

Communist     infiltration,     123, 
191,  208,  305,  355,  515, 
670,  727 
Laos  National  Day,  714 
Latin  America,  447,  670,  724 
Marine     security     guards     com- 
mended, 357 
Middle  East,  117,  122 
Military  assistance  programs,  122, 

446,  448,  728 
Multilateral    agencies,    U.S.    sup- 
port, 446 
1967  progress  report,  1,  116 
Nuclear    nonproliferation    treaty, 

633,  671 
Ocean  floor  research,  672 
Outer  space  treaties,  672 
Pueblo   incident,    190,    192,   261, 

262,265,271,301,352 
Responsibilities,  207 
Rule  of  law  in  international  af- 
fairs, 669 
Ryukyu  Islands,  824 
Science  and  technology,  582 
SEATO,  role  of  and  U.S.  support, 

515 
Soviet  Union,  relations  and  efforts 

to  improve,  581,  824 
State    Department,    work    of,    2, 

672 
Thailand,  191,  727 
U.N.  peacekeeping  problems,  516, 

580,  671 
Viet-Nam    {]ot  details  see   Viet- 
Nam)  : 
Antipersonnel  weapons,  use  of, 

207 
Bombing : 

U.S.  deescailation,  517,  579, 

669 
U.S.  position,  116,  121,  230, 
268,  272,  304,  305,  346, 
350,  352,  355 
Communist  Tet  offensive,  263, 
266,   268,  302,  305,   355, 
516,  821 
Economic  development,  346 
Importance  to  Asia,  515,  821 
National  Liberation  Front,  347 


872 


DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE  BULLETIN 


Rusk.  Dean — Continued 
Addresses — Continued 
Viet-Nam — Continued 

Negotiations  for  peaceful  settle- 
ment: 
Communist   proposals,   clari- 
fication,  116,   118,   119, 
121,  122,  123,  268,  350 
Contacts,  no  lack  of,  347 
U.S.    willingness,    304,    305, 
355,  517,579,  670 
Peace : 

Prospects   for,   5,   206,    208, 

346,  354,  530,  582 
U.S.  goal,  116,  123,230,  821 
Peace    talks,    alternative    sites, 

577,  579,  582 
Political  development,  4,   207, 

348,  349 
Reunification,  206 
Situation     reports,     116,     206, 

302,  346 
U.S.    commitment,    230,    583, 

821,822 
U.S.  policy  and  objectives,  346, 

821    _ 
U.S.  public  opinion,  207,  304, 

349,  352,  821 
\'ietnamese     army,     303-304, 

517,  822 
\'ietnamese  rejection  of  Com- 
munism,   264,    270,    303, 
348 
War  on  poverty,  673 
Wiietapping,    questions    of,    120, 

122 
World  order,  580,  669,  728 
World   peace,   2,   228,  301,   354, 
579,  825 
News    conferences,    transcripts    of, 

116,  190,  346 
Senator  Brien  McMahon  Memorial 

Award,  632rt 
TeleWsion    (and    radio)    interview, 

transcript,  261 
Tribute  (Johnson),  462 
Russell,  Richard  B.,  191 
Rwanda,     treaties,     agreements,     etc., 

626,  627 
Ryuk>-u  Islands: 

Advisory   Committee    to    the   High 
Commissioner: 
Agreement  with  Japan   re  estab- 
lishment of:  220;  Rusk,  824 
U.S.    representative    (Vass),    ap- 
pointment, 378 
Chief  executive,  direct  election  for 

(Johnson),  319,  320 
Reversion    to    Japan,    question    of 
(Rusk),  824 


Safety  of  life  at  sea,  convention 
(i960),  international:  Australia, 
220;  Jamaica,  512;  Maldive  Is- 
lands, 339;  Mauritania,  South 
Africa,  127;  U.S.,  767 
Amendments    (1967):    U.S.:     767, 

811;  Rusk,  2 
Amendments  to  chapter  II :  Canada, 
766;  China,  668;  Lebanon, 
299;  Netherlands  (including 
Netheriands  Antilles),  220; 
Norway,  Viet-Nam,  548 
Saif  al-Dhalai   (Goldberg),  65 


St.  Christopher-Nevis-.Anguilla,  U.S. 
Special  Representative  (Mann), 
designation,  300 
St.  LawTence  Seaway  and  Great  Lakes, 
agreement  with  Canada  re  pilot- 
age services,  668 
St.  Lucia,  U.S.  Special  Representative 

(Mann),  designation,  300 
Samoa,  American  (Johnson),  70 
San  Marino,   Universal   Postal   Union 
Constitution     (1964)     with    final 
protocols,  68 
Sanchez  Hernandez,  Fidel,  798 
Sanders,  William  (Johnson),  718 
Sanderson,  Fred  H.,  590 
Santayana,  George   (quoted),  372 
Sanz   de    Santamaria,    Carlos    (Hum- 
phrey), 429 
Saragat,   Guiseppe    (Johnson),   78 
Sartre,  Jean-Paul  (Goldberg),  453 
Satellites.     See    Communications    and 

Outer  space 
Sato,    Eisaku:     178    (quoted);    E.    V. 

Rostow,  137;  Rusk,  3,  824 
Sattar,  .Abdul,  167 

Saudi  .Arabia,  Wheat  Trade  Conven- 
tion (1967),  428 
Scalapino,  Robert  (quoted),  175,  178 
Scherer,  Ray,  33 
Schiller,  Karl  (quoted),  396 
Schultze,  Charles  L.,  109 
Science   and    technology:    Humphrey, 
603;    Johnson,    420;    NAG,    50; 
Rusk,   582,   672,   825;    Solomon, 
803 
Asia  (Bundy),  176 
Australian-U.S.  cooperation,  791 
"Technological  gaps":   Battle,  611; 
Humphrey,    796;    Katzenbach, 
170;  Kotschnig,  241;  Linowitz, 
833;  E.  V.  Rostow,  683;  Solo- 
mon, 806 
SCOR  (Special  Committee  on  Oceano- 
graphic  Research):   Pollack,  212 
Sealab  III,  research  vessel,  540 
Security  Council,  U.N.: 

Arab-Israeli  conflict,  resolutions  on 
and   U.S.   support.    See  Arab- 
Israeli  conflict 
Documents,  lists  cf,  545 
Korea,  request  for  urgent  meeting: 
192;  Goldberg,  193,  194;  Rusk, 
192 
Middle    East,    role    in.    See    Arab- 
Israeli  conflict 
Peacekeeping  responsibility  {see  also 
under    U.N.)  :     Buffum,    511; 
Foster,    401;    Goldberg,    755; 
Rusk,  580 
Resolutions: 

Cyprus  peacekeeping  force,  exten- 
sion, December  1967-March 
1968,  96        _ 
Israel,  condemnation  for  violations 
of  Middle  East  cease-fire,  510 
Jerusalem,  851 

South    Africa,    condemnation    of 
actions  re  South  AVest  Afri- 
cans: 
January,  254 
March,  477 
Southern      Rhodesia,      complete 
trade  ban,  847 
Resolutions,    draft,    security    assur- 
ances   against    use    of    nuclear 
weapons,  401 


Security  Council,  U.N. — Continued 

South    .Africa,    resolutions    on    and 

U.S.    support:     Buffum,    253; 

Goldberg,   92,    186,   474,   476, 

761 

Soviet  veto  power  (Goldberg),  307, 

308 
22nd    session,    review    (Goldberg), 

180 
U.N.  membership,  request  for  study 
of  criteria  (Goldberg),  159,  182 
U.S.S.  Pueblo,  role  in  recovery  of: 
Goldberg,    193,    194;    Meeker, 
468;  Rusk,  192,  261,  302 
Viet-Nam,  U.S.  position  on  role  of: 
Goldberg,  181,  307;  Harriman, 
772;  Johnson,  60;  E.  V.  Ros- 
tow, 431,  498 
Self-determination : 

Asia  (Johnson),  786,  789 
Micronesia  (Katzenbach),  729 
Middle    East:    Battle,    610;    E.   V. 

Rostow,  43 
Nigeria,  278 

Rhodesia:  847  ;  Humphrey,  132 
South  West  Africa  (Goldberg),  763 
U.S.     support:      Humphrey,      129; 
Johnson,   527,   557,   575,   674, 
718,    820;    Katzenbach,    716; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  560 
Viet-Nam.  See  Viet-Nam 
Senaga,  Hiroshi,  398 
Senegal : 

Ambassador  to  U.S.,  credentials,  838 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  31,   700 
U.N.  debt  to  (Fountain),  21 
Servan-Schreiber,    Jean-Jacques,    289, 

395 
Shakespeare,  WiUiam  (quoted),  643 
Sharp,  U.  S.  G.:   Johnson,  549;  Kat- 
zenbach, 273 
Ships  and  shipping: 

Container  ships  (Solomon),  803 
IMCO  fire  safety  standards,  539 
Intelligence  ships:    Cleveland,  687; 
Goldberg,     197,     198;    McNa- 
mara,  271 ;  Meeker,  468;  Rusk, 
265,271,301,353 
Gulf  of  Tonkin,  379 
National  Maritime  Day,  1968,  proc- 
lamation, 620 
NATO  "Matchmaker"  Naval  Train- 
ing Squadron  (NAG),  50 
Oceanographic  research  vessels,  540 
Soviet  motor  vessel,   U.S.   reply  to 

allegations  of  damage  to,  145 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.: 

ILO  Convention  (1936)  on  mini- 
mum age  for  employment  of 
children    at    sea;    Bermuda, 
160 
International      maiitime      traffic, 
convention  on  facilitation  of, 
with      annexes :      Denmark, 
220;  France,  103 
International    waterbome    trans- 
portation,       Inter-American 
convention     (1963):      Para- 
guay, 299 
Load  lines,  international  conven- 
tion on  ( 1966) :  India,  Italy, 
669;   Maldive   Islands,   339; 
Mauritania,     103;    Morocco, 
339;  Norway,  599 
Pilotage  services  on  Great  Lakes 
and    St.    Lawrence    Seaway, 
agreement  with  Canada,  668 


INDEX,  JANUARY  TO  JUNE  1968 


873 


ships  and  shipping — Continued 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc. — Con. 
U.S.  naval  vessels,  bilateral  agree- 
ments  re   loans    of:    China, 
160;  Colombia,  851;  Korea, 
Malta,  700 
U.S.  craft,  lack  of  advance  notice 
to  vacate  Soviet  test  area,  16 
U.S.S.  Pueblo  seizure  of.  See  U.S.S. 
Pueblo 
Sholokhov,  Mikhail   (Goldberg),  453 
Shriver,    Robert    Sargent,    Jr.:     627; 

Johnson,  487 
Sierra  Leone: 

Ambassador    to    U.S.,    credentials, 

167 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  259,  368 
Singapore : 

Communism,  rejection  of   (Katzen- 

bach),  205 
Economic     and     political     develop- 
ment:   Bundy,    178;    Rusk,    4, 
825 
Southeast  Asia  free  trade  area,  pro- 
posed, 149 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  259,  299, 

700 
U.N.  forces,  proposed  withdrawal: 
523,    792;    Rusk,   4;    SEATO, 
520 
Sino-Soviet  relations:  Henri  (quoted), 
203;  Katzenbach,  717;  E.  V.  Ros- 
tow,  435,  741 
Sinyavsky,  Andrei   (Goldberg),  452 
Sisco,  Joseph  J.,  17,  63,  192 
Slavery,     slave     trade     and      institu- 
tions   and    practices    similar    to 
slavery,    supplementary    conven- 
tion (1956):   Spain,  104 
Sloane,  William,  352 
Smith,  Frederick,  Jr.,  548 
Softwood  log  trade,  U.S. -Japan  talks, 

15,  398 
Solomon,  Anthony  M.,  115,  387,  423, 

800 
Solzhenitsyn,    Aleksandr     (Goldberg), 

453 
Somali  Republic: 

Ambassador  to  U.S.,  credentials,  404 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  428,  456, 

626,  627 
U.S.  visit  of  Prime  Minister  Egal, 

_  470 
Visit  of  Vice  President  Humphrey, 
129n 
South  Africa: 

Allegations    of    U.S.    arms    supply 

(Goldberg),  94,  762 
Apartheid:  Goldberg,  92,  186,  474, 
762;  Green,  721;  Wilkins,  663 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  127,  512, 

700,  851 
U.S.    consulate    at    Port    Elizabeth, 

closure,  627 
Violation  of  rights  of   South   West 
Africa,   U.N.  condemnation  of 
and     U.S.     support:     Buflfum, 
253;   Goldberg,   92,    186,  474, 
476,     761;     Humphrey,     131; 
Johnson,  820 
South  Pacific  (Green),  723 
South    West    Africa,    rights   of,    U.N. 
and  U.S.  supports:  Buflfum,  253; 
Goldberg,     92,     186,     474,     476, 
761;    Humphrey,    131;    Johnson, 
60 


Southeast  Asia  Treaty  Organization: 
Johnson,    35,    40,    676;    E.    V. 
Rostow,  408,  435;  Rusk,  354 
Council  of  ministers  meeting,  Well- 
ington: Rusk,  515;  text  of  final 
communique,  518 
Southern    Rhodesia:    Goldberg,    186, 
846;    Humphrey,    132;   Johnson, 
60 
Security  Council   total   trade  ban: 
BuflFum,    845;   Goldberg,   847; 
text  of  resolution,  847 
Southern  Yemen: 

Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  104,  851 
U.N.   membership    (Goldberg),   65, 
183 
Soviet  Union: 

Armed    forces,    threat    to    Europe: 
Cleveland,   690;  NAC,  50;  E. 
V.  Rostow,  685 
Arms   talks   on   defensive   weapons, 
proposed     discussions :     Foster, 
837;     Humphrey,     602,     795; 
Johnson,    641     (quoted),    813, 
815,    838     (quoted);    Katzen- 
bach,   718;    Rusk,    581,    633, 
825 
Astronauts  and  space  vehicles,  as- 
sistance-and-return    agreement, 
depository  government  under: 
87;  Goldberg,  84;  Reis,  83 
Civil  air  transport  agreement,  an- 
nouncement   and    text    of    ex- 
change of  notes,  735 
Communist  China,  position  on  (Hen- 
ri, quoted),  203 
Cuba,  relations  (Rusk),  717 
Disarmament,  U.S.  and  Soviet  posi- 
tions compared   (Fisher),  97 
Fisheries  agreements  with  U.S.,  ex- 
tensions of,  67 
Geneva    conferences,    co-chairman, 
responsibilities      as:      Johnson, 
482;    SEATO,    519;    Wilson, 
318 
Germany,  Federal  Republic,  U.S.  re- 
ply to  Soviet  allegations  against, 
155 
Intelligence  ships:   Cleveland,  687; 
Goldberg,    197,    198;    Meeker, 
468;  Rusk,  265,  271,  301,  353 
International  Grain  Agreement,  ab- 
stention  (Sanderson),  594 
Korea: 

Unification,    opposition    to    U.N. 

role   (Goldberg),   184 
U.S.    requests    to    North    Korea, 
role  in:  190;  Rusk,  190,  272 
Middle  East: 

Arms  shipments:  Battle,  611,  713; 
Katzenbach,  718;  E.  V.  Ros- 
tow, 43,   44,   218,  685,   744 
Influence   and  role:   Battle,  713; 
Meeker,  469;  E.  V.  Rostow, 
746;  Rusk,  122 
Nonuse    of    nuclear    weapons,    pro- 
posed convention   (Fisher),  26 
Nuclear  nonproliferation  treaty,  role 
and  support:  Fisher,  27;  Foster, 
401,  837;  Goldberg,  637,  756; 
Johnson,  164 
Nuclear  standoff  position  with  U.S.: 
Cleveland,     687;    Fisher,     27; 
Foster,  838 


Soviet  Union — Continued 

Oceanography  and  fishery  research, 
international    cooperative    pro- 
grams, 542 
Scientific   tests,  failure   to  give  no- 
tice, 16 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  68,  599, 

600,  627,  700 
U.N.,  use  for  anti-U.S.  propaganda; 
Fisher,   97;  Goldberg,   94,   96, 
509,  622 
U.S.      cultural     exhibit,     proposed 

(Johnson),  252 
U.S.    relations    and    efforts    to    im- 
prove:   Cleveland,   687;  John- 
son,   162,    226,    284;    Katzen- 
bach, 204,  718;  Meeker,  469; 
E.   V.   Rostow,   741;   Rusk,   2, 
581 
Viet-Nam,  effect  on:  Johnson,  37, 
813;  Rusk,  824 
U.S.  reply  to  allegations  of  attacks 
on  Soviet  ship  at  Haiphong,  145 
U.S.    trade,    importance    (Bohlen), 

421 
Viet-Nam: 

Military      and      other      support: 
Cleveland,  687;  Johnson,  36, 
37;  E.  V.  Rostow,  408,  744; 
Rusk,     121;     Westmoreland, 
785 
Opposition  to  U.N.  action:  Gold- 
berg,   181,  306;   E.  V.   Ros- 
tow, 498 
Peace  negotiations,  role  in:  John- 
son, 482;  E.  V.  Rostow,  499, 
500,  746 ;  Rusk,  517;  SEATO, 
519 
Visit  of  U.K.  Prime  Minister  Wilson, 

317 
Washington-Moscow  hot  line,  use  of: 
Battle,  714;  Johnson,  162,  210; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  746 
Writers,  denial  of  freedom  of  speech 
to  (Goldberg),  452 
Spain: 

Economic  talks  concluded,  754 
Postal  Union  of  the  Americas  and 
Spain,  convention,  and  rulej 
and  regulation  of  the  Interna- 
tional Office  to  the  Postal 
Union,  and  Parcel  post  agree- 
ment (1966):  Canada,  339 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  68,   104, 

220,  259,  428,  548,  700 
U.S.  Ambassador  (McKinney),  con- 
firmation, 700 
Special  Committee  on  Oceanographic 

Research  (Pollack),  212 
Spivak,  Lawrence,  264 
Spock,  Benjamin,  352 
State  Department: 

Appointments  and  designations,  104, 
220,  244,  368,  480,  548,  668, 
700 
Appropriations     request     FY     1969 

(Johnson),  248 
Assistant  Secretary  of  State   (Re), 

confirmation,  300 
Chief  of  Protocol   (Duke),  designa- 
tion, 480 
Committee  on   International  Policy 
in     the    Marine     Environment 
(Pollack),  212 
Publications.  See  Publications 


874 


DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE  BULLETIN 


State  Department— Continued 

Science     and     technology     interests 

(Rusk),  582 
Work  of  (Rusk),  2,  672 
State  of  the  Union,  excerpts   (John- 
son ) ,  161 
Stevenson,  Adlai  (quoted),  309 
Strategic  trade  controls:   Bohlen,  421; 

Solomon,  423 
Stroessner,  Alfredo,  489,  491 
Sudan: 

Long-staple  cotton  imports,  proposed 
legislation    on    permanent    re- 
striction of  ( E.  V.  Rostow)  ,217 
U.N.  Charter  amendment  to  article 
109,  767 
Sudjatmoko,  R.  Mangundiningrat,  754 
Sugar: 

Conference  to  negotiate  new  sugar 
agreement  planned  (E.  V.  Ros- 
tow), 366 
Philippine  exports  to  U.S.,  proposed 

agreement,  148 
Sugar       agreement,       international 
(1958),    protocol    for    further 
prolongation    of:    Costa    Rica, 
Mexico,  479;  Poland,  Portugal, 
339;  U.S.,  68 
Surplus  property,  agreement  with  In- 
donesia  re   rescheduling   of   pay- 
ments, 220 
Suu,  Phan  Khac  (Rusk),  303 
Sweden,  treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  220, 

259,400,428,700,735,766 
Switzerland : 

Food      Aid      Convention,      pledge 

(Sanderson),  592 
Gold  market  stability,  support  for, 

464 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  127,  428, 
626,  627,  668,  700,  766 
Syrian  Arab  Republic : 

U.N.  Charter,  amendment  to  article 

109,  188 
U.S.  travel  restrictions  lifted,  383 


Taiwan  (see  also  China,  Republic  of) : 
Taiwan  dollars  generated  as  a  con- 
sequence   of    economic    assist- 
ance furnished  to  China,  agree- 
ment re  disposition  of,  400 
U.S.  food  aid  (Johnson),  569 
Takase,  Jiro,  398 

Tanzania  (see  also  East  African  Com- 
munity),     economic,      technical, 
and  related  assistance  agreement, 
340 
Tarbela  Development  Fund  agreement, 
1968:     Canada,    France,    IBRD, 
Italy,  Pakistan,  U.K.,  U.S.,  81 1 
Tariff   Commission,   U.S.,   budget   re- 
quest FY  1969  (Johnson),  248 
Tariff  policy,  U.S.  (see  also  Economic 
policy  and  relations;  Tariffs  and 
trade,  general  agreement  on;  and 
Trade) : 
American  Selling  Price,  elimination 
of:    297;    Johnson,    284,    779, 
808;  Roth,  13,243 
Most  -  favored  -  nation    treatment 
(Braderman),  12 


Tariff  policy — Continued 

Philippines,    preferential    trade    re 

iationship,  147 
Protectionism,  dangers  of:  297,  319 
Johnson,  7,  89,  283,  779,  809 
E.  V.  Rostow,  135,  137,  362 
Roth,  13,  242,  839;  Rusk,  117 
Solomon,  395 
Public  hearings  on  future  U.S.  trade 

policies,  115 
Tariff-reducing  authority,  need  for 
extension   of    (Johnson),    284, 
807 
Tariffs  and  trade,  general  agreement 
on: 
Agreements,    exchanges    of    notes, 
procis-verbal,  and  protocols: 
Accessions  to,  current  actions  on: 
Argentina,     protocol :      Chad, 
627;  Czechoslovakia,  512; 
Denmark,       128;       EEC, 
France,   340;   India,   627; 
Malawi,  Netherlands,  128; 
Norway,    259;   South   Af- 
rica, 512;  U.K.,  128,  512 
Iceland,  protocol :  Austria,  548; 
Czechoslovakia,  512,  548; 
Denmark,  128,  548;  EEC, 
France,  Iceland,  548;  In- 
dia, 627;  Malawi,  Nether- 
lands,  128,  548;  Norway, 
Portugal,  259,  548;  Pakis- 
tan, Spain,  Turkey,  U.S., 
548 
Ireland,    protocol :    Czechoslo- 
vakia, 512;  Denmark,  1 28 ; 
EEC,    340;    India,    627; 
Ireland,      Malawi,      1 28 ; 
Norway,     Portugal,     259 ; 
South  Africa,  U.K.,  512; 
U.S.,  548 
Korea,      protocol :      Denmark, 

Malawi,  128 
Poland,  protocol :  Czechoslo- 
vakia, 512;  EEC,  France, 
340;  India,  627;  Norway, 
259;  South  Africa,  512; 
U.S.,  548 
Switzerland,  protocol:  Malawi, 

127 
Tunisia,  provisional,  4th  procJs- 
verbal:      Australia,     627; 
U.S.,  548,  627 
United     Arab    Republic,    pro- 
visional : 
Second    proc  Js-vcrbal :     Ma- 
lawi, 128 
Third     proces-verbal:      Aus- 
tralia, 627 
Yugoslavia,  protocol :  Denmark, 
India,    Malawi,    128 
Article  VI,  implementation:  Bel- 
gium,     Canada,      Denmark, 
EEC,  Finland,  France,  Ger- 
many,   Greece,    512;    Italy, 
428,    512;    Japan,    Luxem- 
bourg, Netherlands,  Norway, 
Sweden,    Switzerland,    U.K., 
U.S.,  428;  Yugoslavia,  627 
Chemicals,   supplementary   agree- 
ment    re:      Belgium,     EEC, 
France,     Italy,    Switzerland, 
U.K.,  U.S.,  428 


Tariff  and   trade,   general  agreement 
on — Continued 
Agreements — Continued 

Geneva  (1967)  protocol:  Aus- 
tralia, Austria,  Belgium, 
Brazil,  Canada,  Chile,  428; 
Czechoslovakia,  428,  512; 
Denmark,  Dominican  Repub- 
lic, EEC,  Finland,  France, 
Germany,  Greece,  428;  Ice- 
land, India,  627;  Italy,  428, 
512;  Luxembourg,  Malawi, 
Netherlands,  Peru,  Portugal, 
South  Africa,  Spain,  Sweden, 
Switzerland,  Turkey,  U.S., 
428;  Yugoslavia,  627 
Protocol  to  introduce  Part  IV  and 
amend  Annex  I :  Belgium, 
512;  Dominican  Republic, 
127;  Germany,  340;  Italy, 
259;  Luxembourg,  512; 
Malaysia,  127;  Upper  Volta, 
259 
World  grains  arrangement,  mem- 
orandum of  agreement  on 
basic  elements  for  negotia- 
tion :  Argentina,  Australia, 
Belgium,  Canada,  Deiunark, 
EEC,  Finland,  France,  Ger- 
many, Italy,  Japan,  Luxem- 
bourg, Netherlands,  Norway, 
Sweden,  Switzerland,  U.K., 
U.S.,  428 
GATT-UNCTAD     Trade     Center 

(E.V.  Rostow),  364 
Indirect    taxes,    provisions    for    ad- 
justments   (Katzenbach),    141 
Kennedy  Round   (see  also  Interna- 
tional    grains     arrangement)  : 
10,    285;    Johnson,    113,    162, 
280,  283,  504,  506,  807;  King 
Olaf    V,    660;    McGhee,    235, 
236;  E.  V.  Rostow,  361;  Rusk, 
1 
Implementation,  importance:    88, 
90,  291;  Johnson,  779,  808; 
Roth,  13,  839 
Less  developed  countries,  impor- 
tance to:  296;  Roth,  14,  363 
Tariff  cuts,  operation  of  and  ef- 
fect: Johnson,  809;  McGhee, 
394;    E.    V.    Rostow,    684; 
Roth,  243 
U.S.   proposed   bill   to  bar   U.A.R. 
and     Sudan     cotton     imports, 
effect  on   (E.V.  Rostow),  219 
Tavera  dam:  694;  Katzenbach,  695 
Taxation : 

European  taxes,  border  effects:  291 ; 

Katzenbach,  169;  Roth,  244 
Germany,  change  to  value-added  tax 

system  (McGhee),  394 
Interest  equalization  tax,  extension, 

291 
U.S.    anti-inflation    tax    proposals: 
29 1 ;  Deming,  139;  Fowler,  525 ; 
Johnson,  7,  106,  111,  245,  279, 
282,  459,  462,  483,  505,  506, 
699,    809;    Katzenbach,     169; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  135,  139,  243; 
Roth,  243 ;  Solomon,  802 
France,  position  of  (Katzenbach), 
139 


INTDEX,  JANUARY  TO  JUNE   1968 


875 


Technical  assistance   {see  also  Agency 
for     International     Development 
and  Alliance  for  Progress) : 
China,  programs  of  (Rusk),  4 
Economic,    technical,    and    related 
assistance,  agreement  with  Tan- 
zania, 340 
Less  developed   countries,  need   for 

(Kotschnig),  239 
U.S.,  purpose:  Johnson,  248;  Lino- 

witz,  374;  Oliver,  385 
U.S.   college  and  university  contri- 
butions to  AID  (Johnson),  325 
Technology.    See    Science    and    tech- 
nology 
Telecommunications  {see  also  Radio)  : 
International         telecommunication 
convention     (1965)     with    an- 
nexes:   China,  479;  Dahomey, 
259;  Dominican  Republic,  767; 
India,  259;  Israel,   767;  Ivory 
Coast,  479;  Liechtenstein,  400; 
Mexico,    31;    Singapore,    259; 
Sweden,  Trinidad  and  Tobago, 
400;  U.K.  overseas  territories, 
colonies,      and      dependencies, 
599;     Upper    Volta,     Vatican 
City,     767;     Viet-Nam,     340; 
Yugoslavia,  Zambia,  400 
Television,  effect  on  public  opinion 
(Johnson),  524 
Telecommunication     Union,     Interna- 
tional:  539;  Pollack,  212;  Sisco, 
17 
Telles,  Raymond:   309,  693;  Johnson, 

629 
Tempelsman,  Maurice,  507 
Terminiello    v.    Chicago    (Goldberg), 

454 
Territorial  asylum  (Goldberg),  187 
Territorial  sea: 

Geneva  convention,  1958,  U.S.  posi- 
tion (Meeker),  466,  468 
U.S.S.  Pueblo,  allegations  of  viola- 
tions by.  See  U.S.S.  Pueblo 
Textile  import  quota  bill  (Roth),  839 
Thailand     {see     also     Association     of 
Southeast  Asia) : 
Ambassador  to  U.S.,  credentials,  167 
Amity  and  economic  relations  treaty 

with  U.S.,  699,  700 
Asia,  role  in  (Johnson),  674,  676 
Communism,    danger   of:    Johnson, 
327;    Katzenbach,    203,    274; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  408,  435,  499; 
Rusk,  191,  208,  515,  670 
Economic    and    political    progress: 
678;     Bundy,     177;     Johnson, 
674;  Katzenbach,   205;   E.  V. 
Rostow,  434;  Rusk,  4,  727,  825 
Pa  Mong  dam,  679 
S.E.  Asia  free  trade  area,  proposed, 

149 
SE.\TO  communique,  518 
U.S.  visit  of  Prime  Minister  Thanom 

Kittikachorn,  674 
Viet-Nam,  military  and  other  aid: 
522,   678;   Johnson,  674,  677, 
781,  789;  E.  V.  Rostow,  412; 
Rusk,  4 
Visit  of   President  Johnson    (John- 
son), 73,  79 
Than  Khac  Sun,  264 
ThanatKhoman  (Rusk),  515 
Thanom  Kittikachorn,  675,  677 


Thieu,    Nguyen    Van:    72,    275,   483 
497;  Bunker,  551;  Clifford,  553 
Grant,  598;  Johnson,  34,  35,  524 
Rusk,  303 
U.S.  visit  (Johnson),  630 
Thomas,  Helen,  106 
Thompson,  Llewellyn   (Johnson),  482 
Tiran,  Strait  of  {see  also  Arab-Irsaeli 

conflict) :  E.  V.  Rostow,  45 
Tlatelolco,  Treaty  of  (1967).  See  La- 
tin   America:    Nuclear-free    zone 
treaty 
Togo,  radio  regulations  (Geneva,  1959, 
as  amended),  partial  revision  re 
maritime  mobile  service,  700 
Tonga,  Peace  Corps  progr.im,  852 
Tonkin   Gulf   incident:    Bundy,    379; 

Rusk,  121 
Touring  and  tourism : 

Customs        facilities,        convention 

(1954):  Iran,  667 
Foreign  visitors,  encouragement  of: 
397,  621;  Johnson,   282,   505, 
507 
Special    Task    Force    (Johnson), 
113 
Nonimmigrant   visas,   issuance,   and 
reciprocal  waiver  of  fees:   568; 
Johnson,  472,  505,  507 
Agreement  with  Israel,  548 
Port-of-entry   procedures   simplified, 

announcement,  621 
Southern  Rhodesia,  U.N.  sanctions, 

848 
U.S.  restraints:   288,  290;  Johnson, 
105,   106,   108,   110,   l"l2,   163, 
216,  282, 460,  505 ;  Katzenbach, 
137:  Roth,  242;  Rusk,  117,  120 
Canadian    and    Mexican    border 
controls,  question  of  (Katzen- 
bach), 138 
Overseas   reactions:    Katzenbach, 
136,  140;  E.  V.  Rostow,  137 
Trade  {see  also  Agricultural  surpluses; 
Economic    policy    and    relations, 
U.S. ;   European   Economic  Com- 
munity; Exports;  Imports;  Tariff 
policy,    U.S. ;    and    Tariffs     and 
trade,  general  agreement  on) : 
Cotton.  See  Cotton  textiles 
East-West  trade:    558;   Humphrey, 

796 
Expansion,  need  for  (Johnson) ,  698, 

808,  810 
Latin  America  {see  also  Latin  Amer- 
ican Common  Market)  :  John- 
son, 797,  827;  Oliver,  385,  584 
Less  developed  countries,  preferen- 
tial tariff  rates  for:    147,  298, 
332;     Braderman,     11;     Hum- 
phrey,  130,  603;  Johnson,  89, 
284;  Oliver,   385,  584;   E.  V. 
Rostow,   361,   364;   Roth,    15; 
Rusk,  1 
Non-tariff  trade  barriers:   147,  296; 
Johnson,  113,  779,  808;  Roth, 
4,  244 
Southern  Rhodesia,  U.N.  sanctions: 
848;   Buffum,    846;   Goldberg, 
848 
Transit  trade  of  landlocked  states, 
convention    (1965):     Burundi, 
812;  Hungary,  68;  Laos,  300 
U.N.   Commission  on   International 
Trade  Law,  U.S.  representative 
(Rubin),  designation,  244 


Trade — Continued 
U.S.  trade: 

Argentina,    agreement    amending 

status  of  trade,  128 
Balance  of  payments.  See  Balance 

of  payments 
Canada,  automotive  products 

(Johnson),  779,  809,  811 
Eastern  Europe  and  Soviet  Union, 
need  for:  Bohlen,  421 ;  Hum- 
phrey,   796;    Johnson,    284, 
506;    Rusk,    581;    Solomon, 
425 
Encouragement    of    international 
trade  and  investment,  agree- 
ment   with:     Trinidad    and 
Tobago,  66,  68,  104,  128 
Europe  (Solomon),  803 
Fair     International     Trade     Act 

(Roth),  840 
Germany  (McGhee),  234,  392 
Japan  (Rusk),  3 

Softwood  log  trade,  15,  398 
Joint  U.S.-Japan  Committee  on 
Trade  and   Economic  Af- 
fairs,  subcommittee   meet- 
ing, 115 
Joint  Mexican-U.S.  Trade  Com- 
mittee, 3rd  annual  meeting, 
communique,  10 
National    Maritime    Day,    1968, 

proclamation,  620 
Philippines:  146;  Braderman,  11 
Policy:    Johnson,    113;   Solomon, 
387 
Public  hearings  on  future  U.S. 

trade  policy,  115 
Study  of:    Johnson,   779,  810; 
Roth,  14 
Spain,  754 

U.A.R.  (E.  V.  Rostow),  219 
World  trade,  U.S.  role  in:  John- 
son, 6,  506;  Solomon,  802 
Wheat.  See  Wheat 
World  Trade  Week,  1968,  proclama- 
tion, 506 
Trade   Expansion  Act  of  1962   (Solo- 
mon), 425 
Trade  Expansion  Act  of  1968  (John- 
son), 779,  807 
TRANSIT   (N,ivy  navigation  satellite 

system),  540 
Travel  {see  also  Touring  and  tourism)  : 
Communist  China,  U.S.  restrictions 
eased:  Katzenbach,  740;  E.  V. 
Rostow,  747,  748;  Rusk,  823 
Middle  East  travel  restrictions,  383 
Official  U.S.  travel  abroad,  cuts  di- 
rected: 290,  568;  Johnson,  113, 
215,  216,  282,  325,  460,  505 
Restricted  areas  to,  criminal  penal- 
ties    asked     for    U.S.     citizens 
(Katzenbach),  53 
U.S. -Canada  agreement  on  tempo- 
rary    cross-border     movement, 
texts  of  notes,  477 
Treasury  bonds  (E.  V.  Rostow),  142 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  31,  67,  103, 
127,  160,  188,  219,  259,  299,  339, 
368,  400,  428,  455,  479,  512,  547, 
572,  599,  626,  667,  699,  735,  766, 
811,  851 
Treaties  in  Force :  A  List  of  Treaties 
and  Other  International  Agree- 
ments of  the  United  States  in 
Force  on  January  I,  1968,  re- 
leased, 260 


876 


DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE  BULLETIN  U: 


Trejos  FemAndez,  Jos^  Joaquin:  829, 

830;  Johnson,  826 
Trinidad  and  Tobago : 

Alliance    for    Progress   extended    to 

(Oliver),  416 

Income  tax  and  trade  and  investment 

convention,  entry  into  force,  66 

Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  68,  104, 

128,400,600 

Truman,    Harry    (quoted),   42,    657; 

E.  V.  Rostow,  407,  433 
Truman  doctrine:  Clifford,  606;  E.  V. 

Rostow,  559 
Trust  Territory  of  Nauru  (Goldberg), 

185 
Trust  Territory  of  the  Pacific:    523; 

Katzenbach,  729 
Tsurumi,  Kiyohiko,  398 
Tubman,     VVilUam    U.S.,    528,     529 

(quoted),  530 
Tunisia: 

Economic  progress  (E.  V.  Rostow), 

434 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  368,  400, 

548,  599,626,627,  700,  812 
U.S.  aid,  753 
U.S.   visit  of   President  Bourguiba, 

Visit   of  Vice-President  Humphrey, 
129n 
Turkey: 

Economic  progress:    Johnson,   326; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  434,  561;  Rusk, 
725 
Greece,  relations  with  {see  also  Cy- 
prus) ;  Batde,  610 
Treades,  agreements,  etc.,  259,  428, 

512,  699,  700 
U.S.  relations  (E.  V.  Rostow),  559 
Twain,  Mark  (quoted),  490 
Tyler,  John  (quoted),  740 
Tyler,  Veronica  (Johnson),  316 

u 

U  Thant:  Goldberg,  307;  quoted,  156, 
623,  638 
Cyprus,  offer  of  good  offices  (Gold- 
berg), 182 
Meeting    with    President    Johnson: 

343;  Johnson,  342 
Space   vehicles   and    astronauts   re- 
turn-and-rescue  agreement,  role 
in:  86;Reis,  82 
Udall,  Stewart  L.  (McGhee),236 
Uganda   (see  also  East  African  Com- 
munity),     treaties,      agreements, 
etc.,  127,  627 
Ukrainian    S.S.R.,    radio    regulations 
(Geneva,   1959,  as  amended)    to 
put  into  effect  revised  frequency 
allotment    plan    for   aeronautical 
mobile  (R)  service  and  related  in- 
formation, 599 
U.\CITR.\L    (United   Nations   Com- 
mission  on    International   Trade 
Law),  244 
lUNCTAD.  See  United  Nations  Con- 
ference  on   Trade   and   Develop- 
ment 
lUNCURK  (United  Nations  Commis- 
sion for  the  Unification  and  Re- 
habilitation of  Korea)  :  Goldberg, 
184 
UNEF.  See  United  Nations  Emergency 
Force 


UNESCO      (Educational,     Scientific, 
and  Cultural  Organizadon,  U.N.), 
539,544 
Unger,  Ferdinand  T.,  320 
UNICEF   (United  Nations  Children's 

Fund),  539 
Union   of   So%net   Socialist  Republics. 

See  Soviet  Union. 
United  Arab  Republic  (see  also  Arab- 
Israeli  conflict)  : 
Long-staple  cotton  imports,  perma- 
nent restrictions  proposed  legis- 
_  lation  (E.V.  Rostow),  217 
Political  developments  and  problems 

(E.V.  Rostow),  43 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  104,  128, 
259,  548,  599,  627 
United  Kingdom: 

Asian  forces,  proposed  withdrawal: 
523,    792;   Rusk,   4;   SEATO, 
520 
Astronauts   and    space    vehicles    as- 
sistance-and-return    agreement, 
depository  government  under: 
87 ;  Goldberg,  84;  Reis,  83 
European    Common    Market,    pro- 
posed entry:    Humphrey,   794; 
Katzenbach,  168;  E.  V.  Rostow, 
683  _ 
Food      Aid      Convention,      pledge 

(Sanderson),  592 
Gold  market  stability,  support  for, 

464 
IAEA  safeguards  (Rusk),  633 
International    Monetary    Fund    re- 
serve assets  quota    (Johnson), 
698 
Nuclear    production    of    electricity 

(Rusk),  634 
Nuclear  weapons  security  assurances 
draft  resolution,  cosponsorship : 
Foster,  401 ;  Goldberg,  756 
Pound    sterling    devaluation:     285, 
288,  464,  526  ;  Johnson,  6,  1 1 1 , 
280,    697;    Katzenbach,     136; 
E.   V.   Rostow,    135;  Rusk,   1; 
Solomon,  800 
Southern  Rhodesia,  primary  respon- 
sibility for:  847,  849;  Buffum, 
845 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  103,  127, 
128,  260,  428,  512,  547,  599, 
627,700,735,766,811 
Bermuda,    territorial   application, 

160 
Overseas  territories,  colonies,  and 
dependencies,  599 
Treaty  of  Tlatelolco,  protocol,  ad- 
herence (Katzenbach),  646 
U.S.  capital  inflow  maximum,  290 
U.S.  relations:   Johnson,  314;  Wil- 
son, 316 
Viet-Nam     peace     talks,     role     in: 
Johnson,     482;     Rusk,     517; 
SEATO,  519;  Wilson,  3 1 8 
Visit  of  Prime  Minister  Wilson,  314 
United  Nations: 

Deep   ocean   research:    539;   Gold- 
berg,  125,   183;   Pollack,  212; 
Popper,  543;  Rusk,  672;  Sisco, 
17 
Documents,  lists  of,  254,  545,  625, 

733,851 
Human   rights,   role  in:    Goldberg, 
452;  Green,  720;  Wilkins,  663 


United  Nations — Continued 
Membership : 

Chinese    representation,    question 
of:  Bundy,  655 ;  Goldberg,  183; 
Katzenbach,  739 
Mauritius:  6257j;  Pedersen,  624 
Security  Council  study  of  criteria 
requested    (Goldberg),    159, 
182 
Southern  Yemen  (Goldberg),  65 
Peacekeeping  operations: 

Irish  proposal  (Fountain),  23,  24 
Preserving,    strengthening,    finan- 
cing, and  U.S.  support:  558 
Buffum,  511;  Fountain,  20 
Ghandhi       (quoted),      360 
Goldberg,     180,     184,    306 
Gorton,    787;   Johnson,   60 
Meeker,  466 ;  E.  V.  Rostow, 
743;  Rusk,  516,  580,671 
Secretary  General.  See  U  Thant 
Security   assurances   against   use   of 
nuclear  weapons:    Rusk,   671; 
Sec.C.res.,  401 
South    West   Africa,    human    rights 
violations  by  South  Africa,  reso- 
lutions on,  and   U.S.   support: 
94;  Buffum,  253;  Goldberg,  92, 
186,  474,  476,  761 ;  Humphrey, 
_  131;  Johnson,  820 
Soviet     propaganda:      Fisher,     97; 

Goldberg,  94,  96,  509,  622 
Specialized  agencies,  work  of  (Gold- 
berg), 156 
Trust  territories,  supervision    (Kat- 
zenbach), 729 
22nd    session,    review    (Goldberg), 

180 
U.S.    financial   and   other   support: 

Humphrey,  603  ;  Rusk,  446 
U.S.   participation,    1966,   transmit- 
tal of  annual  report  (Johnson), 
59 
U.S.     Representative     (Ball),     ap- 
pointment (Johnson),  604 
Confirmation,  735 
U.S.  Representative  (Goldberg),  res- 
ignation (Johnson),  604 
Work  of  (Kotschnig),  238 
United  Nations  Charter : 

.\mendment  to  article  109:  Italy, 
104;  Ivory  Coast,  368;  Luxem- 
bourg, 188;  Madagascar,  Sierra 
Leone,  368;  Sudan,  767;  Syria, 
188,  Venezuela,  31 
Current    actions:     Mauritius,    668; 

Southern  Yemen,  104 
Principles  of  and  U.S.  support:  Fos- 
ter, 401;  Goldberg,  306,  757; 
Meeker,    465;    E.    V.    Rostow, 
359;  Rusk,  208,  228,  516,  669; 
Wilkins,  663 
United    Nations   Commission    for   the 
Unification  and  Rehabilitation  of 
Korea  (Goldberg),  184 
United    Nations    Commission    on    In- 
ternational Trade  Law,  244 
United    Nations    Conference    on    Hu- 
man Rights:  Green,  721;  Wilkins, 
661 
U.S.  delegation,  chairman,  664 
United  Nations  Conference  on  Trade 
and  Development,  2nd:  147,298; 
Johnson,  284;  Oliver,  584 
Algiers    Charter    (E.    V.    Rostow), 

351,  364 
GATT-UNCTAD     Trade     Center 
(E.  V.  Rostow),  364 


INT)EX,  JANUARY  TO  JUNE  1968 


877 


United  Nations  Conference  on  Trade 
and  Development — Continued 
Importance    and    goals:     147,    298 
Humphrey,  370;  Johnson,  284 
Oliver,  584;  E.  V.  Rostow,  359 
Solomon,  387 
U.S.  delegations,  announcement,  320 
(U  Thant,  quoted),  156 
United  Nations  Development  Decade 

(U  Thant,  quoted),  156 
United     Nations     Development     Pro- 
gram: 539;  Johnson,  59 
United  Nations  Emergency  Force,  Mid- 
dle East  withdravifal,  effect:  Foun- 
tain,   20;    Meeker,    466;    E.    V. 
Rostow,  45 
United  Nations  High  Commissioner  for 

Human  Rights  (Wilkins),  663 
United    Nations    Industrial    Develop- 
ment Organization:  Johnson,  59; 
Kotschnig,  239 
United  Nations  Peacekeeping  Force  in 
Cyprus: 
Extension  of,  December  1967-March 
1958:  Goldberg,  95,  182;  text, 
96 
U.N.  Secretary  General  offer  of  good 

offices  (Goldbert;),  182 
U.S.  financial  support   (Goldberg), 
96 
United     Nations    Relief    and     Works 
Agency  for  Palestine  (Goldberg), 
184 
United  Nations  Truce  Supervision  Or- 
ganization:    Goldberg,    509;     U 
Thant,  623 
UNRWA  (United  Nations  Relief  and 
Works     Agency    for    Palestine) : 
Goldberg,  184 
United  States  citizens  and  nationals : 
Criminal  penalties  asked  on  travel 
to     restricted     areas     (Katzen- 
bach),  53 
Foreign  policy,  responsibilities   for: 
Johnson,  39,  439,  457, 460,  630 ; 
Katzenbach,      718;      Linowitz, 
377;  E.  V.  Rostow,  493,  684; 
Rusk,  207 
Latin  American  relations,  role  in — 

(Oliver),  9 
Television,  effect  on  (Johnson),  524 
United  States  elections:  Johnson,  676; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  493 
Communist    China    news    coverage, 
U.S.    offer:    Katzenbach,    740; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  748 
President  Johnson's  decision  not  to 
become   a   candidate:    Gorton, 
787;  Johnson,  486,   780,   782; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  562 
United  States  Information  Agency,  ap- 
propriations    request     FY     1969 
(Johnson),  248,  252 
United  States-Mexico  Conmiission  for 
Border  Development  and  Friend- 
ship:   309,  693;  W.  W.   Rostow, 
692 
United  States  savings  bonds,   (Rusk), 

228 
United   States  Student   Press  Associa- 
tion, 346 
United  States  Travel  Service,  supple- 
mentary appropriation  (Johnson), 
505 
Upper  Volta,  treaties,  agreements,  etc., 
259,  767 


Uruguay: 

President  Gestido,  death  of  (John- 
son ) ,  5 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  260,  626, 
627,766,  767,811 
U.S.S.  Liberty  (McNaraara),  271 

Israeli  compensation,  799 
V. S.S.Pueblo:  189,  190,  192,344,576; 
Bundy,  382;  Goldberg,  193,  194, 
307;  Johnson,  189,227,343,631; 
McNamara,     265,     271;     E.    V. 
Rostow,  407;  Rusk,  190,  262,  263, 
265,  272,  301 ;  Vance,  344 
Crew,  treatment  of :  193,  356;  John- 
son, 223;  Rusk,  261,  302 
Diplomatic  talks:  Bundy,  383,  656; 
Goldberg,   308;  Johnson,   223, 
226 ;  Katzenbach,  278;  Meeker, 
468;  Rusk,  261,353 
Location:   189;  Goldberg,  194,  308; 
McNamara,  263;  Meeker,  468; 
352 


Vance,  Cyrus:  344,  345,  780,  792;  Bat- 
tle, 610;  Goldberg,  96,  182,  307; 
Johnson,  162,  343,  574,  778,  780, 
789;  Rusk,  577 
Vargas,  Jesus,  520 
Vass,  Laurence  C,  398 
Vatican  City  State: 

Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  766,  767 
Visit  of   President  Johnson    (John- 
son), 77,  78,  79,  161 
Vaughan,  Hilton  Augustus,  167 
Velasquez,  Jorge  T.,  404 
Venezuela   (see  also  Andean  Develop- 
ment Corporation: 
Economic   development    (Johnson), 

325 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  31,   626, 
627,  700 
Veth,  Kenneth  (Johnson),  76 
Viet-Nam,  North: 

Leadership  (E.  V.  Rostow),  409 
Soviet  vessel  in  Haiphong  Harbor, 
U.S.  reply  to  allegations  of  dam- 
age to,  145 
U.S.  aims:    Clifford,  606;  Johnson, 
461;  E.  V.  Rostow,  415,  497, 
745;Rusk,  355,  670 
U.S.   trade  embargo:    Bohlen,  421; 

Solomon,  424 
U.S.     travel    restrictions     (Katzen- 
bach), 53 
Viet-Nam,  Republic  of: 

Amnesty  {Chieu  Hoi)  :  Grant,  595; 

E.  V.  Rostow,  498 
Background:    773;  Harriman,  704; 
Katzenbach,  202 ;  E.  V.  Rostow, 
409,  436 
Bombing  pauses: 

Communist     violations:      Bundy, 
653;    Clifford,    552;    Harri- 
man, 701,  775;  Johnson,  34, 
161,   676,   778,   814;   E.   V. 
Rostow,  498;  Rusk,  117,  305, 
347,  351 
Prospects  from:  Bundy,  380,  383; 
E.    V.    Rostow,    432;    Rusk, 
304,  350,  517 
Reciprocal,  U.S.  willingness:  Har- 
riman, 817;  Johnson,  34,  77; 
E.    V.    Rostow,    432,    498; 
Rusk,  355 
U.K.  position  (Wilson),  317 


Viet-Nam,  Republic  of — Continued 
Bombing  pauses — Continued 

U.S.  position:    Bundy,  380;  Clif- 
ford, 552;  Johnson,  161,  227, 
460;  Kraft,  382;  E.  V.  Ros- 
tow,  498;   Rusk,    116,    121, 
208,  230,  268,  272,  304,  347, 
517;  Wilson,  317 
U.S.   unilateral   action  522,   576, 
679;    Bundy,    653;    Clifford, 
552,    553;    Harriman,    701; 
Johnson,  482,  524,  574,  778, 
781,  784,  814;  E.  V.  Rostow, 
562;   Rusk,   517,   577,   579, 
669;  SEATO,  518 
Communist  response:  Christian, 
513;    Clifford,    553,    554; 
Harriman,    775;    Johnson, 
513,  549,  629 
Continuation,  question  of  (Har- 
riman) 703,  750,  771,  775 
Casualties: 

Civilian    (Rusk),   207,  302,   516 
Communist:     521;    Bundy,    381; 
Harriman,  775;  Johnson,  221, 
225;  McNamara,  262;  E.  V. 
Rostow,  436;  Rusk,  822 
Reliability  of  estimates  on:  Har- 
riman,    769 ;    McNamara, 
264,    266;    Westmoreland, 
783 
U.S.,    Vietnamese,    and    allied: 
Harriman,      769;      Johnson, 
221,  225,  778;  Katzenbach, 
204;  E.  V.  Rostow,  497 
Chieu  Hoi:    Grant,  595;  E.  V.  Ros- 
tow, 498 
Civil  Operations  and  Revolutionary 
Development    Support    (COR- 
DS) :  Grant,  595 
Civil  war,  question  of :  E.  V.  Rostow, 

408;  Rusk,  304,  516 
Communism,  rejection  of:  521  ;  Har- 
riman, 704;  Johnson,  463;  Kat- 
zenbach,  276;   E.    V.   Rostow, 
412,  437:  Rusk,  264,  303,  348, 
516;  Westmoreland,  784 
Communist  aggression  and  subver- 
sion: 
Chinese    position     and    support: 
Johnson,  36;  E.  V.  Rostow, 
409,    415,    435,     436,    744; 
Rusk,    208;    SEATO,    519; 
Westmoreland,  785 
Civilians,  attacks  on:    775;  Har- 
riman,  702,   705,  706,   711; 
Johnson,  459;  E.  V.  Rostow, 
411;  Rusk,  303,  516;  West- 
moreland, 782,  784,  785 
Communist      morale :       Johnson, 

225;  Rusk,  267 
Communist  position  and  objec- 
tives: Johnson,  34,  458,  459, 
481,604,  751  ;E.  V.  Rostow, 
415;  Westmoreland,  782,  785 
Communist  responsibility  for  sit- 
uation: Bundy,  175;  Harri- 
man, 702,  704,  770,  776;  ICG 
( quoted ),  709 ;  Johnson,  457 J 
Katzenbach,  274;  E.  V.  Ros- 
tow, 436,  496;  Rusk,  191, 
206,  267,  304,  351,  516; 
SEATO,  519 
Escalation  to  larger  war,  questions 
of:  Johnson,  39,  461,  484; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  415 


878 


DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE  BULLETIN 


Viet-Nam,  Republic  of — Continued 
Communist  aggression — Continued 
Guerrilla   warfare:    Johnson,   73; 
Katzenbach,     273;     McNa- 
niara,  270 
Laos,   use   as    infiltration   route: 
Bundy,  382;  Harriman,  703, 
705,    817;   Rusk,    123,    305, 
355:    SEATO,    519;    West- 
moreland, 785 
Manpower  and  makeup  of  forces: 
E.  V.  Rostow,  414;  Rusk,  267 
Military  failures:    Clifford,  553; 
Johnson,    161,    225;    McNa- 
mara,  261,  266;  E.  V.  Ros- 
tow, 415;  Rusk,  354 
North  Vietnamese  forces,  presence 
of:  773 ;  Harriman,  707,  749, 
770,     776;     Johnson,     814; 
Westmoreland,  783 
Propaganda:    Bundy,    378,    380; 
Johnson,     457,     461,     778; 
Rusk,     1 23 ;    Westmoreland, 
_  782,  785 
Soviet   position   and   aid:    Cleve- 
land, 687;  Johnson,  36,  37; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  408,  415,  498, 
744;    SEATO,    519;    West- 
moreland, 785 
Strategy:   Johnson,  789;  Katzen- 
bach,    204;     Westmoreland, 
784 
Test  case :   Bundy,   1 77 ;  Katzen- 
bach, 203 ;  E.  V.  Rostow,  409, 
438,  495;  Rusk,  515;  SEA- 
TO, 519 
Tet  offensive:   521,   775;  Bundy, 
378;  Harriman,  769 ;  Johnson, 
221,   224,   342;   McNamara, 
267;E.V.  Rostow,  432,  498; 
Rusk,    117,    302,    305,    347, 
355;  Westmoreland,  784 
Psychological   failure:    Bunker, 
550;   Johnson,    221,    224, 
463,      481 ;      Katzenbach, 
274;      McNamara,      265; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  436;  Rusk, 
263,  267,  516,  822;  West- 
moreland, 514,  784 
Results:    Bundy,    381;    Grant, 
594,    597;   Johnson,    221, 
224,    225,     461;    Katzen- 
bach,   273,    277;    McNa- 
mara, 266;  Rusk,  303,  516, 
784.821;  SEATO,  519 
Communist      misinterpretation      of 
U.S.  and  other  dissent:  Harri- 
man, 706;  Johnson,  33,  34,  35, 
39,  161,  457,  460,  484;  Rusk, 
349,517 
Deescalation      {see     also     Bombing 
pauses) :  Harriman,  702;  Rusk, 
350 
Demilitarized  zone:  Harriman,  702, 
706,   709,   750,   771;  Johnson, 
33,778 
Communist  violations:  Harriman, 
707,  770;  Rusk,  305 
Economic  and  social  development: 
72;    CliflFord,    606;    Harriman, 
703,  704;  E.  V.  Rostow,  412; 
Rusk,  4,  346 
U.S.  appropriations  and  authori- 
zation    request     FY     1969: 
Grant,    594;    Johnson,    249, 
327;  Rusk,  727 
Fishery  development  programs,  540 


Viet-Nam,  Republic  of — Continued 
Geneva  accords:  Bundy,  552;  Harri- 
man, 776;  Johnson,  33;  E.  V. 
Rostow,  431;  Rusk,  119 
Communist  violations :  Harriman, 
704,  776;  E.  V.  Rostow,  496 
Peace,  as  a  basis  for:   73;  Bundy, 
654;    Harriman,    702,    705; 
Johnson,  35,  484;  E.  V.  Ros- 
tow, 499 
Khe  Sanh:    Bunker,  550;  Clifford, 
553;  Johnson,  221,  750;  Katz- 
enbach, 275;  McNamara,  268; 
Rusk,  822;  Westmoreland,  514 
Military  and  other  aid  from  foreign 
countries:     71,    72,    522,    576, 
678,  792;  Bundy,  177;  Gorton, 
787;  Johnson,  69,  74,  674,  677, 
781,   786,  789;  E.  V.  Rostow, 
412;  Rusk,  3,  4,  301,  516,  583, 
822;  SEATO,  519, 520 
National  Liberation  Front  (see  also 
Negotiations    for   peaceful   set- 
tlement;   NFL    representation, 
infra),    control:     Bundy,    378, 
382;  Johnson,  34;  E.  V.  Ros- 
tow, 410,  500;  Rusk,  347 
National     reconciliation      (pacifica- 
tion):   72;   Bundy,   381,   382; 
Harriman,    702;   Rogers,   269; 
Rusk,  516 
Negotiations  for  peaceful  settlement 
(see  also  Bombing  pauses:  U.S. 
unilateral  action,  supra) : 
Alternative     sites:     Bundy,     651, 
656;  Christian,  551 ;  Clifford, 
553;     Johnson,     549,     574; 
Rusk,  577,  579,  582 
Communist     position     and     pro- 
posals,       clarification        of: 
Bundy,   378;   Clifford,   554; 
Johnson,  161,  222,  343  ;  Katz- 
enbach, 275;  E.  V.  Rostow, 
415,    432;    Rusk,    116,    118, 
122,  123,  230,  268,350,352, 
355 
Communist  rejection:   72;  Harri- 
man, 770;  Johnson,  40,  224, 
342,   460,   462,  481;   E.   V. 
Rostow,  415,  498;  Rusk,  269, 
305,517 
Consultation  with  allies  and  ad- 
visers:   72,    577,    679,    792; 
Johnson.  71,  513,  549,  573, 
629,   630;   Rusk,    116,    119, 
121 
Contacts,    questions    of:     Bundy, 
378;  Rusk,  347 
NLF    representation:     72;    Bundy, 
378,  382,  654;  Johnson,  34,  35, 
225;   Katzenbach,   276;  E.   V. 
Rostow,  431,498 
Paris    talks:    679,    792;    Gorton, 
787;    Harriman,    701,    749, 
769,  775,  817;  Johnson,  629, 
676,  751,  778,780,  782,  783, 
789;  E.  V.  Rostow,  741,  748; 
Vance,  780 
Communist     position:      Harri- 
man,  776;   Johnson,   778, 
814 
Contact,  establishment  of :  576; 
Christian,    513;    Clifford, 
553,    554;   Johnson,    513, 
549,  629 
U.S.  representatives:  Christian, 
513;  Johnson,  482 


Viet-Nam,  Republic  of — Continued 
Negotiations,  etc.- — Continued 
Peace  efforts  of  other  countries: 
Harriman,    769,    771;   John- 
son, 341;  Rusk,  351;  Wilson, 
317 
Pope     Paul,     visit     of     President 
Johnson    (Johnson),   77,   78, 
79,  106,  161 
Press,     role     and     responsibility 

(Bundy),  656 
San  Antonio  formula:   343,  522; 
Bundy,    378,    380;    Clifford, 
552;  Johnson,  34,  161,  223, 
342,  481;  Katzenbach,  275; 
Kraft,    382;   E.   V.   Rostow, 
498;    Rusk,    116,    230,    268, 
272,    304,    305,    352,    517; 
Wilson,  318 
SEATO  communique,  518 
Soviet    and     Chinese     influence: 
E.    V.    Rostow.    498,    500; 
Rusk,  121 
U    Thant    proposals    and    peace 
efforts:    Bundy,    378;    John- 
son, 342 ;  Rusk,  352 
U.S.    willingness:    522;    Clifford, 
607;  Goldberg,  307;  Harri- 
man, 701;  Johnson,  40,  60, 
77,  341,  460,  462,  481,  751; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  415,  431,  432, 
498;  Rusk,  5,  123,  206,  269, 
304,  305,350,356,517,670, 
821 
Neutrality  (Harriman),  705 
Nuclear   weapons,   question   of   use 

(Johnson),  341 
Pacification.  See  National  reconcilia- 
tion 
Peace : 

Geneva  accords  as  a  basis  for.  See 

Geneva  accords,  supra 
Prospects  for:  343;  Johnson,  106, 
484,  487,  573;  Rusk,  5,  206, 
354,  580,  582;  Vance,  780; 
Wilson,  317 
U.S.    conditions    for:     72,    679; 
Harriman,    705,    709,    775; 
Johnson,  33,  778;  Rusk,  206, 
346,  580,  583 
U.S.  goal:   72,  77,  522,  576,  792; 
ANZUS,  523;  Clifford,  607; 
Goldberg,    307;     Harriman, 
770;  Humphrey,  602;  John- 
son,  33,    39,    73,    161,   460, 
463,481,524,573,  781,786, 
813;  Katzenbach,  275;  Rusk, 
116,    206,    230,    270,    517, 
582,821 
Political     development:     72,     521; 
Bunker,    550;    Clifford,    607; 
Harriman,      702,      706,      749; 
Johnson,  33,  75,  161,  327,  404, 
482,    524,    550;    Katzenbach, 
276;  E.  V.  Rostow,  412,  437, 
496;     Rusk,     4,     206,     517; 
SEATO,  519 
Communist    participation,     ques- 
tions   of:    72,    521;    Bundy, 
382,    654,    655;    Harriman, 
702:    Katzenbach,    276;    E. 
V.  Rostow,  437,  498;  Rusk, 
207,348 
Percentage    of    voters:    Johnson, 

34;  E.V.  Rostow,  411 
Presidential   candidates,  selection 
of  (Rusk),  349 


INDEX,  J.\NUARY  TO  JUNE  1968 


879 


Viet-Nam,  Republic  of — Continued 
Port  facilities  (Grant),  595 
Prisoners,   treatment  of    (Johnson), 

78,  79 
Pueblo  incident,  effect  and  relation: 
Bundy,  382;  Johnson,  189,  223; 
Rusk,  262 
Refugees:    Grant,    595;    Harriman, 
704;  Johnson,  327;  Rusk,  303 
Reunification:     Bundy,     652,    655; 
Harriman,      702,     706,     776; 
Johnson,   484;   E.   V.    Rostow, 
410,  431;  Rusk,  206,583 
Revolutionary     Development     Pro- 
gram. See  Economic  and  social 
development 
Saigon    Embassy,    Marine    security 
guards      action      commended : 
358;  Rusk,  357 
Secure  areas:  Johnson,  161 ;  Katzen- 
bach,  277;  E.  V.  Rostow,  412, 
437;  Rusk,  206,  266 
Self-determination:     72,    521,    576, 
679,  792;  Bourguiba,  753;  Gor- 
ton, 787;  Harriman,  701,  706, 
749,    819;    Johnson,    34,    460, 
463,    484,   674,    789;   Katzen- 
bach,  274;  E.  V.  Rostow,  415, 
479;  Rusk,  583 
Seven-nation    meeting,    Wellington, 

communique,  521 
Sovereignty  of  (Harriman),  776 
Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  188,  340, 

400,  479,  548,  700 
U.N.  role  and  U.S.  support:   Gold- 
berg, 181,  307;  Harriman,  772; 
Johnson,  60 ;  E.  V.  Rostow,  43 1, 
498 
U.S.  air  operations.  See  U.S.  mili- 
tary operations,  infra 
U.S.  appropriations,  supplementary, 
need   for   (Johnson),   223,  483 
U.S.  balance  of  payments,  effect  on: 
287;    Deming,    142;    Johnson, 
110,  631 ;  Katzenbach,"l40,  142 
U.S.  commitment:  678  ;  Bundy,  654; 
Clifford,  606 ;  Johnson,  40,  74, 
161,  461,  482,  676,  751,  814, 
830;  E.  V.  Rostow,  500,  745; 
Rusk,  206,  352,  356,  517,  583, 
669,  821,  822 
Congressional   support:    Johnson, 

35,  485;  Rusk,  207 
Gidf  of  Tonkin  incident,  effect  on 

(Bundy),  379 
Importance  of  dependability: 
Bundy,  177;  Johnson,  458, 
462,  789;  Katzenbach,  202, 
204;  E.  V.  Rostow,  408,  415, 
432,  435,  494,  560;  Rusk, 
580;  Sato  (quoted),  178 
U.S.  Deputy  Ambassador  (Berger), 

designation,  456 
U.S.   military   equipment:    Clifford, 

552,  607 ;  Westmoreland,  785 
U.S.  military  forces: 

General  Westmoreland,  transfer: 
341,  342;  Johnson,  487,  783 
Manpower  levels  and  deployment: 
522;   Bundy,    382;    Clifford, 
554;  Johnson,  223,  343,  488, 
631,  784;  Rusk,  517 
Reservists:  Clifford,  552;  John- 
son, 483 
Performance   and   morale:    John- 
son, 73,  75,  226,  459;  Rusk, 
304,  357;  Westmoreland,  514 


Viet-Nam,  Republic  of — Continued 
U.S.  military  forces — Continued 
Performance  and  morale — Con. 
Awards:  491  ;  Johnson,  76,  79, 
226,462,750 
Withdrawal,  conditions  for:  Har- 
riman, 703,  777,  819;  John- 
son,  484,   778;  Katzenbach, 
277;E.V.  Rostow,  415,  431; 
Rusk,  206,  267,  348,  583,  822 
U.S.  military  intelligence:    Katzen- 
bach,   277;    McNamara,    267; 
Rusk,  302 
U.S.  military  operations: 

Accidental   violations   of  Cambo- 
dian territory,  124 
Antipersonnel    weapons,    use    of 

(Rusk),  207 
Communist  allegations  of  U.S.  at- 
tacks and  U.S.  replies:   145; 
Harriman,  706 
Costs:    Johnson,   221,   224,   225; 

Katzenbach,  274 
Gulf  of  Tonkin  incident,  effect  on 

(Bundy),  379 
Results:  Johnson,  73,  161;  E.  V. 
Rostow,  414;  Rusk,  206,  347, 
351,  821 ;  Westmoreland,  785 
Stalemate,  question  of:  E.  V.  Ros- 
tow, 412  ;  Rusk,  5 
Strategy:  Johnson,  222,  224,  488, 
750;   McNamara,   268,   270, 
272;Rusk,  230,  268,  270 
U.S.    national    interests:     Johnson, 
485;   Katzenbach,   202;   E.   V. 
Rostow,  416,  438,  500 
U.S.  objectives:    Bundy,    176;  Clif- 
ford, 606;  Harriman,  701,  819; 
Johnson,    77,    227,    460,    484; 
Katzenbach,  201,273,276;  Mc- 
Namara,  270;   E.   V.   Rostow, 
412,  415,  498;  Rusk,  355,  517 
U.S.  personnel  exempted  from  pro- 
posed    reductions      (Johnson), 
215 
U.S.  policy:  CHfford,  606;  Johnson, 
35;  Rusk,  821 
Legahty  (Harriman),  704 
U.S.   public  opinion:    Johnson,  39, 
460,  484,  630:  Katzenbach,  201 
273;  E.  V.  Rostovr,  431,  493, 
500;  Rusk,  207,  304,  352,  821 
Communist  misinterpretation: 

Harriman,  706;  Johnson,  33, 

34,  35,  39,  161,  457,  460, 
484;  Rusk,  349,  517 

Vietnamese  Army: 

Manpower  levels  and  perform- 
ance: 522,  576,  678;  Bundy, 
381;  Bunker,  550;  Clifford, 
606;    Grant,    598;    Johnson, 

35,  482,  483,  630;  Mc- 
Namara, 266,  437 :  E.  V.  Ros- 
tow, 437,  497,  500;  Rusk, 
517,  822;  Westmoreland,  514, 
783,  784,  785 

U.S.  supplementary  role:  Clifford, 

553,  607;  Johnson,  35,  483, 

630,  674;  E.  V.  Rostow.  413 

Vietnamese   Goverimient,   tasks   of: 

Bunker,  550;  Grant,  595,  597; 

Johnson,  482 ;  Katzenbach,  276 ; 

E.  V.  Rostow,  411,  437,  497; 

Rusk,  270,  303,  727;  SEATO, 

519 


Viet-Nam,  Republic  of — Continued 
Vietnamese    people,    character   and 
will:    Johnson,  463 ;  E.  V.  Ros- 
tow, 496;  Rusk,  270;  SEATO, 
519 
Visit  of  President  Johnson,  74 
World  opinion:    Bundy,    178;   Clif- 
ford, 605  ;  Gorton,  782 ;  Katzen- 
bach,   203;    Rusk,    209,    583; 
Sanchez,   798;   Sato    (quoted), 
178 
Virata,  Cesar,  146 
Visas: 

Nonimmigrant  visas,  issuance,   and 
reciprocal  waiver  of  fees:    568; 
Johnson,  472,  505,  507 
Agreement  with  Israel,  548 
Philippines,  problems  of  U.S.  busi- 
nessmen, 153 
VITA  Corporation   (Johnson),  325 
Vivanco,  Jose:  309,  693;  Johnson,  629 
Voluntary  organizations,  covert  finan- 
cial assistance,  Katzenbach  Com- 
mittee report,  145 

w 

Wakaizumi,  Kci,  821 
Waldeck-Rochet,  453 
Waldheim,  Kurt  (Goldberg),  84 
War  on  hunger:   296;  Goldberg,  185; 
Johnson,  323,  329,  537, 569;  Rusk, 
2,  447,  581;  Sanderson,  590 
2nd    international    conference,    ad- 
dresses:   Humphrey,  369;  Lino- 
witz,  372 
War     on    poverty:    Humphrey,     602; 
Johnson,  245,  280,  662  (quoted) ; 
Linowitz  832;  E.  V.  Rostow  359; 
Rusk  673 
Ward,  Barbara  (quoted),  373 
Warnke,  Paul  C,  30  (quoted),  98 
Washington,  George  (quoted),  306 
Water  for  Peace  (Rusk),  2,  581 

Director    (Peterson),    appointment, 
668 
Water  resources: 

Iran,    agreement    re    development, 

472,  627 
Tavera     Dam:    694;     Katzenbach, 
695 
Wells,  H.G.  (quoted),  156 
Western  Hemisphere,  nature  protection 
and  wildlife  preservation,  conven- 
tion (1940):  Chile,  103 
Westmoreland,         William         C:    75 
(quoted),  782,  784;  Johnson,  74, 
221,  224,  341,  342,  513,  573,  674, 
750;  Katzenbach,  273;  E.  V.  Ros- 
tow, 497;  Rusk,  304 
Army  Chief  of  Staff  (Johnson),  487, 

488,  783 
Oak  Leaf  Cluster  award  (Johnson), 
76 
Wheat: 

International      Wheat      Agreement 
(1962),  1967  protocol  for  fur- 
ther    extension      (Sanderson), 
590 
Current  actions :  Costa  Rica,  340 ; 
El  Salvador,  Guatemala,  300; 
Lebanon,  735;  Mexico,  Por- 
tugal, 104;  Switzerland,  668; 
U.A.R.,  599 


880 


DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE  BULLETIN 


Wheat — Continued 

Research:    77;  Humphrey,  370 
Wheat  trade  convention  (1967): 
Current  actions:   Barbados,  456; 
Ireland,    699;    Japan,    851; 
Mexico,  Nigeria,  766;  Saudi 
Arabia,   428;    South   Africa, 
851;  Sweden,   735;  Switzer- 
land, 668 
U.S.    ratification    urged:     Hum- 
phrey,   370;    Johnson,    329; 
Sanderson,  590 
Wheeler,  Earle  G.  (Bundy),  380 
Whitehead,    Alfred    North    (quoted), 

376 
Whitman,  Walt  (quoted),  835 
WHO   (World  Health  Organization), 

851 
Wickman,  Krister,  526 
Wilen,  Dennis,  346 
Wilkins,  Roy,  661,  664,  721   (quoted) 
WiUiams,  G.  Mennen,  735 
Wilson,  Harold:   314,  316,  613;  John- 
son, 37,  342,  343 
Wilson,  Woodrow  (quoted),  665 
Wiretapping  (Rusk),  120,  122 
WMO.     See     World     Meteorological 

Organization 
Wolfe,  Thomas  (quoted),  133 
Women: 

India  (Battle),  612 
Political      rights      of,      convention 
(1953):   Italy,    512;    Tunisia, 
368 
Woods,  George  D.:    143;  Humphrey, 
371 ;  Katzenbach,  765;  Kotschnig, 
240 
World  Food  Program  (Sanderson) ,  593 
World  Health  Organization,  constitu- 
tion   (1946):    Southern    Yemen, 
851 


AVorld    Meteorological    Organization : 
539;  Pollack,  212;  Popper,   544; 
Sisco,  17 
^Vo^ld  order  (see  also  Collective  secur- 
ity) : 
Interdependence  of  modern  world : 
Cleveland,  691  ;  Goldberg,  306; 
Humphrey,   603 ;   Johnson,   89, 
1 1 0,  46 1 ,  G8 1 ,  8 1 6 ;  Katzenbach, 
169 ;  E.  V.  Rostow,  48,  366, 406, 
434,  438,  494;  Rusk,  228,  446, 
724 
U.S.  role:  Cleveland,  687;  CHfford, 
606;  Katzenbach,    171;  E.  V. 
Rostow,  435,   562;  Rusk,  354, 
580,671,  728 
World   peace:    Eshkol,   172;  Johnson, 
246,  315 
Dangers  to:  576,  847;  Johnson,  814; 
E.  V.  Rostow,  42,  47 ;  Rusk,  670 
Economic      considerations :       Gandhi 
(quoted),     360;     Gaud,     144; 
Humphrey,  369,  797;  Johnson, 
162,    284,    322,   490;   Katzen- 
bach, 171  ;  Linowitz,  373;  Pope 
John    XXIII     (quoted),    797; 
Rusk,  673,  825;  Wilkins,  662 
Soviet-U.S.     responsibility:     Cleve- 
land, 687 ;  Goldberg,  309;  E.  V. 
Rostow,  742 
U.S.    commitments,    importance    of 
dependability:      Bundy,      177; 
Johnson,  404,  674;  E.  V.  Ros- 
tow, 406:  Rusk,  580,  583 
U.S.  goal:    39,   538;  Johnson,  403, 
439,  457,  460,  490,  578,  813; 
Linowitz,  376;   E.  V.  Rostow, 
434,562;  Rusk,  2,228,301 


World  peace — Continued 

Viet-Nam,  importance  to:  ANZUS, 
523;  Bourguiba  (quoted),  747; 
Johnson,  814;  Katzenbach,  203, 
274;  E.  V.  Rostow,  432;  Rusk, 
515 
World  tradeweek,  1968,  proclamation, 

506 
World  War  III.  See  Nuclear  war,  dan- 
gers of 
World  Weather  Watch,  539 
Wyndham  White,  Eric  (Roth),  13 
Wyzner,  Eugeniusz  (Goldberg),  85 


Vale,  Gordon,  346 

Yemen,    Saudi    Arabia-U.A.R.    agree- 
ment (Rusk),  2 
Yevtushenko,  Yevgeni  (Goldberg),  453 
Yost,  Charles  W.  (quoted),  309 
Yugoslavia: 

Treaties,  agreements,  etc.,  128,  259, 

400,  626,  627,  700 
U.S.  trade  and  aid  restrictions  (Sol- 
omon), 425, 426 


Zambia : 

International        telecommunications 
convention     (1967)     with    an- 
nexes, 400 
Problems    resulting    from    Southern 
Rhodesian  situation:  849;  Buf- 
fum,  846 
Visit  of  Vice  President  Humphrey, 
129n 
Zoroaster  (quoted),  663 
Zweig,  Stefan  (quoted),  557 


INDEX,  J.\NU.\RY  TO  JUNE   1968 


881 


U.S.   SOVERNMENT  PRINTING   OFFICE:  I96S 


BOSTON  PUBLIC  LIBRARY 


3  9999  06352  784  8