United States. Dept. of State. Office of Public Co.

Department of State bulletin (Volume v. 46, Jan- Mar 1962) online

. (page 64 of 101)
Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 46, Jan- Mar 1962) → online text (page 64 of 101)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


hanced influence and responsibility of the General
Assembly of today, this highly democratic princi-
ple is workable and not inconsistent with the in-
terests of the United States. Moreover, no one
has found a suitable alternative.

Actually there is a great power which is regu-
larly outvoted in the Assembly, but it is not the
United States. It is the Soviet Union, whose
aims and actions so often inspire widespread dis-
tnist. That has been true in the most recent
sessions of the Assembly. But I am not going to
belabor you with cases in point unless you so
desire.

The underlying reason for the basic identity of
interest between the United States and the ma-
jority at the United Nations is not far to seek.
Unlike the Soviet Union, our purpose is not con-
quest but community — a conununity in which the
small and weak need not fear the big and power-
ful.

U.N. Defends Freedom of Small Nations

The whole history of the United Nations could
he told as a series of attempts, more or less success-
ful, to uphold the independence of small and vul-
nerable nations. Iran, Greece, Indonesia, Israel,
Korea, Egypt, Lebanon, and Laos, and finally, the
Congo — all these are nations wliose independence



was threatened in one way or another from the
outside and which got some measure of help from
the United Nations in their hour of trouble.

The one case wliich has presented the organiza-
tion with its greatest challenge has been the
Congo. If the United Nations had not been avail-
able to answer the appeal of the new Congolese
GoveiTunent in 1960, it seems certain that there
would have been a direct confrontation there be-
tween the great powers. The Soviet Union had
smuggled aircraft and trucks and technicians into
the Congo, against the resolutions of the United
Nations, in an attempt to turn the Lumimaba gov-
ernment to its purposes. It was the United Na-
tions, acting as the instrument of the world
community on the request of the legitimate gov-
enmient, that prevented this attempt from
succeeding.

The U.N. acted also to prevent secessions which
would have carved the Congo into little spheres
of influence, whether under Russian or European
sponsorship. It has struggled to preserve for that
tortured nation one of the greatest gifts it inlier-
ited from its former Belgian ruler: its unity. It
begins to look as if the Congolese Govermnent, in
partnerehip with the U.N., can begin to repair
some of the ravages of the past 2 years and turn
its attention to the great task of building a viable
independent nation.

This United Nations action in the Congo is
somethmg quite new in histoiy. The vacumn of
power which was left by the sudden departure of
the former colonial ruler has been filled not by a
new imperial master far worse than the old but
by the community of nations, acting to help a new
fellow member to cross the dangerous gulf to
independence.

The capacity of the United Nations to take such
effective action has been developed not by revision
of the charter but by adapting the present charter
to the urgent requirements that arose. For ex-
ample, the authority of the General Assembly,
and its ability to use that authority effectively on
urgent matter's of war and peace when the Secu-
rity Council is tied up with the veto, is one such
adaptation.

A second is of equal importance: the growth of
significance of the Office of the Secretary-General.
Contrary to the Soviet contention Mr. Hammar-
skjold was never a usurper. But more and more
over the years the General Assembly and the



322



Department of State Bulletin



Security Council made decisions which required
large-scale esecuti\e action. He showed that he
could meet that need as well as serve a uniquely
valuable diplomatic function. His successor,
U Thant of Burma, a man of admirable qualities,
has shown tliat he too is a man of action and a
faithful and able servant of the community.

It would be foolish to contend tliat the United
Nations has been doing a flawless job or that it
cannot be improved. There have been mistakes
in the Congo. There have been some recent votes
in the General Assembly which we consider un-
wise and ill-considered. There is an unwillingness
in some cases to see the tragic implications of the
use of anned force, as in the recent case of the
Indian seizure by force of Goa, on which I was
moved to speak forcefidly in the Security
Council.!"

But it scarcely serves a useful end to judge the
United Nations solely by the points at which it
has failed. I often wonder whether those who
judge it in this way would be happier if the United
Nations had stood aside completely from the real,
tough events of the world, where failure is always
a possibility.

Unifying Purpose Behind U.N. Efforts

Underlying all the questions at issue in the
United Nations is the more basic question : Wlaat
is the unifying purpose behind those efforts?
What is the game we are playing ?

As far as the United States is concerned, I be-
lieve the game at the United Nations is exactly our
national style. It is a game in which it is not neces-
sary to defeat and crush an opponent in order to
score a point. In fact the highest points are scored
wheii a great action is taken with the greatest
unanimity.

The United Nations is dedicated by its charter
"to be a center for harmonizing the actions of na-
tions" in pursuit of certain common aims. The
goals are clearly set forth — the promotion of inter-
national peace and security, the prevention of
war, collective action against aggression, peaceful
settlement of disputes, cooperation for economic
and social progress in lai-ger freedom, observance
of international law and justice, and the advance-
ment of dependent territories toward self-govern-
ment and self-determination.



'° Bulletin of Jan. 22, 1962, p. 145.
February 26, 1962



Taken together these aims constitute an enor-
mous harmony of interest — a framework of stand-
ards of conduct within which a great deal of dis-
agreement and friction can be contained and an
immense wealth of talent and resources combmed
for the common good.

We in the United States have — and I hope we
always will have — that spirit of liberty which, as
Judge Leai-ned Hand said, "is the spirit that is not
too sure that it is right." But in the United Na-
tions there are others who are much too sure that
they are right. It is that quality in the Soviet
Union, and in the other totalitarian powers, and
imfortunately to a certain extent in some of the
nations of the non-Communist world — that quality
of superrightness, and of intolerance and unwill-
ingness to listen and leam, which is to a great ex-
tent at the root of the world's troubles, because it
gives rise to impatience and anger and to violent
solutions.

Seen in that light the United Nations possesses
an incalculable civilizing value for the nations of
the world. It teaches tolerance. It teaches free
and frank exchange in open debate. It teaches
accommodation. And the exhausting process of
trying to muster the necessary two-thirds majority
for a resolution, in a parliamentary body of
over 100 sovereign nations, is a most civilizing
experience.

It requires the kind of skill in which our country,
with its great internal variety and nearly two cen-
turies of representative government, is extraordi-
narily rich. By contrast the delegates of the
Soviet Union, which has no democratic tradition
at home, have had to try to acquii'e it at the United
Nations by painful hard knocks.

I don't think the Soviets can ever really succeed
at the United Nations imtil they have outgrown
the notion that success consists in crushing some-
body else. Among the non-Commimist nations,
both old and new, we sometimes find either a too
stubborn resistance to inevitable change and
growth or at the other extreme an insistence on
forcing the pace in an atmosphere of violence and
hatred. But both these tendencies would be far
greater than they are if it were not for the effect
of United Nations diplomacy in wearing down the
sharp corners of national policies.

This basic character of the United Nations
would be congenial to the United States in any



323



era. But in the present era we face dangers which
make it a vital necessity.

If we were to neglect our own responsibilities
in the United Nations, or if it degenerated because
of financial failure or for any other reason into
what Dag Hammarskjold called a mere "static
conference machinerj^," then it would fail of its
real purposes and might even be perverted to serve
the purposes of its enemies. I do not think that is
going to happen. I do not think the faithful
members, including this country, will let it liappen.
Eather I expect that the United Nations will con-



tinue to adapt to changing requirements and that
it will prove far more creative and enduring in the
drama of our time than the seemingly efficient but
actually vei-y primitive institutions of communism.
And as an American I believe that, -v^hatever
the storms we may face in the years ahead, the
United Nations will remain one of the chief ele-
ments in our country's security. For through its
processes we can make the most of those common
aims which bind us to the vast majority of man-
kind.



Peaceful Coexistence and U.S. National Security

ly Theodore O. Achilles

Special Assistant to the Under Secretary for Political Affairs'^



You have already heard peaceful coexistence
discussed penetratmgly and eloquently by four
speakers of unusual distinction. It is not easy
to follow in their footsteps, but I am glad to have
been asked to speak on peaceful coexistence and
U.S. national security. That is an aspect of the
problem of direct concern not only to us as a
nation but to each of us individually. It might
be a matter of life or death for us.

The relationship between peaceful coexistence
and our national security depends very largely
upon the extent to which it is a firm policy of the
Soviet Government or merely a tactic. A lot
depends upon the answer to this question, and
it is not an easy one to answer. The phrase was
coined by the Kussians, not by us. Yet tlie con-
cept that any form of relationship between na-
tions should be peaceful is fundamental to our
own foreign policy and always has been. Co-
existence between nations is in a sense inevitable,
unless one of them becomes nonexistent, but the
phrase is not a very happy one, particularly in a
rapidly changing world. The words "peaceful
competition" would better express our idea of re-
lations with the Soviet Union.



' Address made before the Stanford University Foreign
Policy Institute at Palo Alto, Calif., on Feb. 2 (press
release 68 dated Jan. 31 ) .



The basic Soviet objective, as revealed by its
leaders for half a century, remains totally un-
changed — worldwide Soviet domination, by peace-
ful means if possible. The Peiping regime has
had a shorter life, but its basic objective has never
changed — its own worldwide domination, through
inevitable conflict.

Certainly their tactics change. A favorite de-
vice of the Kremlin is to play alternately upon
the world's emotions of fear and hope. Periods
of threats of nuclear destniction alternate with
periods of apparent reasonableness, with emphasis
on "peaceful coexistence" and "relaxation of ten-
sions." The world is learning to be less deceived
by these abrupt shifts in the Kremlin's tune and
to study its motives more sharply and realistically.

Many books have been written about their strat-
egy, tactics, and methods. One of the best I have
seen is Protracted Conflict by Strausz-IIupo and
others of the Foreign Policy Eesearch Institute.
It well describes the Soviet long-range view of the
struggle, its all-embracing strategy, its integrated
use of force and the threat of force, economic war-
fare and assistance, negotiation, espionage, con-
spiracy, subversion, and confusion as methods.

Wliere does peaceful coexistence fit into this pic-
ture? Lenin had advocated coexistence as a tactic
in time of weakness, but tlie current intensive ex-



324



Departmenf of State Bulletin



port sales of the plirase began only in the late
fifties. This was at a time when Moscow sought
(o appear reasonable, when it believed its policies
could be pursued better by soft words than by
tlu-eats. It was coined in Moscow for export to
replace the concept of "cold war." "Let us get
away from this concept of a cold war," said the
Kremlin. "Let ns all follow policies of peaceful
coexistence." They have souglit to implant the
idea that the two concepts are different. In attack-
ing rex-ent statements by the President and other
American leaders, they have charged tliem with
"going back to the worst days of the cold war."

Oddly enough — or not so oddly to those who
fully understand Soviet tactics and their piracy
of democratic concepts — "peaceful coexistence"
comes much closer to our concept of international
relations than theirs. "Cold war" is a much better
description of their policy than of ours. We seek
peaceful relations, cooperation, and competition;
tliey seek total victory, preferably through other
means than total war.

In this sense their use of the phrase "peaceful
coexistence" must be considered strictly tactical.
It is designed to delude the free world, to keep it
oif balance, to lull it into complacency, to inhibit
the free world while preser\ing a free hand for the
Communist conspiracy. Let us not be deceived.
Let us never forget basic Soviet objectives.

Their concept of negotiations is completely dif-
ferent from om-s. Ours is to find mutuality of
interest as a basis for mutually satisfactory solu-
tions of problems. Theirs is to advance one more
step toward their ultimate objective.

To what extent is the concept of peaceful co-
existence more than a devious tactic, a weapon, or
an anesthetic? To what extent can we consider it
a policy of the Soviet Government ?

Lenin advocated coexistence with capitalist
states as a desirable tactic for theU.S.S.R. in time
of weakness, a tactic for buying time — time to
develop strength. The U.S.S.R. has grown pro-
digiously in strength since Lenin's time, but it still
finds coexistence useful as a tactic. Has it become
more than that ? Have pressures developed within
the Soviet Union, within the Kremlin itself, which
make at least the "peaceful" part of the conce])t
something more fundamental, something impor-
tant to Russian national interests?

Certainly since Lenin's day the hydrogen bomb,
the multimegaton bomb, has become a fact of life.
It is certainly something which those who deter-

February 26, 7962

G2S674 — 62 3



mine our militai-y and foreign policy have long
since taken carefully into account. Presumably
the Kremlin has also given it much thought. The
powers that be in the Kremlin, dedicated to ad-
vancing Soviet national interests above all things,
must have contemplated the cfi'ecls of nuclear war
upon "Mother Russia," upon the citadel of Soviet
communism and upon the industrial structure they
have exerted such effort to build.

Peiping shows less concern with thermonuclear
weapons. China has enormous human resources
spi-ead thin over vast areas. The oriental mind
thinks in vei-y long-range terms.

Moscow's preoccuiaation with nuclear war, how-
ever, as yet shows no signs of inhibiting its predi-
lection for "wars of national liberation," brushfire
wars which it can persuade others to fight for it by
proxj' as in Laos or Viet-Nam, nor for the use of
nuclear blackmail to frighten the West from time
to time.

Rift in Communist World

There are undoubtedly internal pressures work-
nig to some extent, however limited, upon the
Kremlin. These are probably contradictory. On
the one hand, too great a relaxation of tensions,
too great a relief from fear of war, would under-
mine the Soviet regime and make more difficult
the allocation of resources to war production at the
expense of consumer goods. On the other, there
is no doubt of the strong desire of the Soviet peo-
ple for peace and a better life. The slight im-
provements since Stalin's death in relaxation of
control and in the standard of living mean so much
to the Russian people that they would be hard
even for the Kremlin to reverse.

In any event, Moscow is sure to continue vigor-
ously its struggle for the minds of people in the
uncommitted, the lesser developed nations. Tliis
is basic to its concept of peaceful coexistence as it
is to oure of cooperation and peaceful competition.

Nevertheless there can be no doubt as to the
reality of the rift, in the Communist camp during
the last 2 years. A central element in that grow-
ing rift has been this question of peaceful co-
existence. Peiping insists that world domination
can come only through violent struggle. Moscow
insists that the same end can be achieved by other
means.

On January 17 an article in Pravda, the Soviet
Union's most authoritative newspaper, stated



325



flatly that peaceful coexistence had been made
necessary by a "scientific and teclmical revolution
in the military field produced by the creation of
thermonuclear weapons which threaten mankind
with imprecedented losses and destruction." The
article continued :

. . . the principle of peaceful coexistence is not a
tactical maneuver on the part of the Soviet Government,
as the bourgeois politicians try to present it, but a funda-
mental program point of the socialist states' foreign po-
litical activities. . . .

Peaceful coexistence is a dialectical process in which
a most acute class struggle between socialism and capi-
talism combines organically with tie cooperation of the
states of the two opix>sing systems for the sake of pre-
serving peace.

Khrushchev himself has described coexistence
as "more than the mere absence of war, more than
a temporary and unstable truce between wars; it
is a coexistence of two opposing social systems,
based on a mutual renunciation of recourse to war
as a means of settling international disputes."

Wliile these could, of course, be mere words to
delude the "West, the vehemence of the dispute
within the Communist camp over the issue is un-
mistakable. For almost 2 years the quarrel over
this issue has been carried on with a virulence that
we can be confident has not been staged for our
benefit.

Communist Menace Remains

We in this country can well understand the
compelling consideration that underlies the Soviet
concern over the disastrous outcome of a nuclear
war. From the free world's point of view the
struggle for man's future can far better be waged
by nonmilitaiy means than by nuclear war. And
we can have some confidence that Moscow's aver-
sion to nuclear war is real.

But one decisive point must bo made. Soviet
concern over the consequences of a new war is, and
will continue to be, directly proportional to our
capability and our will to produce the conse-
quences that they fear. Any relaxation— any
demonstration of uncertainty or a lack of will on
our part — and the Soviets could come to malve a
different estimation of the likely outcome of one
or another gamble.

If we can succeed in keeping the Soviet leader-
ship convinced that war in this day and age is
simply unthinkable, will that mean that we can



look forward to an era of tranquillity ? Can we,
in other words, hope that Khrushchev's brand of
peaceful coexistence — in contrast to Stalin's —
gives reason to believe that the menace that the
Communist conspiracy has long posed for us is
in process of disappearing ?

The Soviet leaders themselves have given us the
answer : Most decidedly not. I could cite an un-
ending number of Sovdet statements that avow
in lucid and passionate terms that now, as before,
peaceful coexistence, even without war, does not
mean "peace" as we imderstand the term but re-
lentless struggle against us and our way of life.

Here is how Pravda put it a scant 2 weeks ago :

Peaceful coexistence does not exclude, but presupposes
revolutionary change in society; it does not retard, but
speeds up the world revolutionary process ; it does not
preserve the capitalist regime, but promotes the decom-
position and disintegration of capitalism.

And further :

. . . i)eaceful coexistence of states with different re-
gimes is not the abandonment of the class struggle on the
world scene, but the selection of such deployment areas
for the struggle as are best suited for the interests of all
mankind.

I would have you think on the phrase "selection
of the best deployment areas." "Wltat does this
mean ? The Soviets again have told us : It means
the continued use of all the methods of penetration
and subversion that have become so familiar to us.
It means that in every part of the world continued
relentless efforts are to be made with every means
short of actual war to tear down the bastions of a
free society.

Meeting the Communist Cliallenge

The Soviets still seek and hope to "bury" the free
world. The challenge is as stark and deadly as
ever. How shall we meet it ?

Given the secrecy of the Soviet and Red Chinese
systems, decisions reached by a handful of men,
completely controlled press, and exclusion of for-
eign observers, our judgments concerning Soviet
or Red Chinese policy must always be tentative.
Given the importance of the answer, we must con-
sider it with extreme care. Our judgment can
never depend on what they say, only on what they
do, and that over a long enough period of time to
form a clear pattern.

To the extent that the Kremlin i-eallv believes



326



Department of State Bulletin



that peaceful coexistence— the avoidance of war
and the waging of the struggle by other means —
serves its basic national interests, we share with it
a conunon interest in the avoidance of war.
Obviously this common interest is one of very
great importance, one which must be utilized and
developed by all practicable means. Let us hope
for the best.

Given the nature of Soviet and Red Chinese
objectives, policies, and tactics, however, we must
also be prepared for the worst. Until their ob-
jectives and their power structure change suffi-
ciently for the instinctive human desires of their
peoples for peace and freedom to be reflected in
their policies, we must maintain our guard.

Until then the free world, and especially the
United States, must maintain adequate force to
deter or, if necessary, to wage general war and to
assist other nations to put out the "brushfire" wars
which Moscow and Peiping are so fond of fighting
by proxy. I do not wish to dwell on the military
side, but in the past year our defense budget has
been increased by 15 percent and our production
rate of Polaris submarines and Minuteman mis-
siles increased by 50 percent. We are constantly
seeking to strengthen the free world against the
peaceful-coexistence tactic of indirect aggression
through subversion.

Until then we must wage the cold war, or
peaceful coexistence, at least as vigorously as they
do. We must get the cold war out of the trenches.
We must understand clearly what we are up
against. It is surprising how few Amei'icans
really understand Soviet or Chinese objectives,
strategy, tactics, and methods. No wonder so few
people elsewhere do.

Today policies of military containment and
negative "anticornmunism" are no longer enough.
It is not enough merely to be against something
or to react. We must act ; we must be positive and
dynamic. We must get on with the job of helping
to sliape the kind of world we would want to see
if Marxist-Leninism had never existed.

In a changing world we must know cleai'ly wliere
we want to go, the kind of world we want future
generations to live in, the direction we want his-
toi-y to take.

Our basic goal was stated simply liy tlie Presi-
dent in his state of the Union message on Jan-
uai'y 11 : ^



■ Bulletin of Jan. 29, 1962, p. 159.
February 26, 1962



... a peaceful world community of free and inde-
pendent states, free to choose their own future and their
own system so long as it does not threaten the freedom
of others. ... a free community of nations, independent
but interdependent.

Our basic purposes as a nation have not changed
since they were set down in our Constitution:
"... to form a more perfect Union, establish
Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for
the common defence, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our Posterity." What we seek is the kind of
international environment which will best assure



Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 46, Jan- Mar 1962) → online text (page 64 of 101)