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

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

. (page 65 of 101)
Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 46, Jan- Mar 1962) → online text (page 65 of 101)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

the achievement of these purposes by us and by all
others who share them, an environment in which
peojjle with values and purposes such as ours can

U.S. Leadership in a World of Change

We must be prepared to lead. Someone has said
that the United States has been dragged kicking
and screaming into a position of world leadership.
Wiether we like it or not, we are there. Our ma-
terial strength is unquestionable, and we must
never cease to keep it growing. We should not
imderestimate our moral streng-th. In our nearly
two centuries of nationhood we have developed
political doctrine and national, human, and spirit-
ual values of enormous moral force. Let us seek
constantly to develop that force and to use it more

But we cannot be rigid. Nor would we wish to
impose our system upon anyone. This is a chang-
ing world and one in which population growth,
communications, science, and technology are con-
stantly accelerating the rate of change. We can-
not sit still on the stati(,o\ our resources and resourcefulness in an open
trade partnership strong enough to outstrip any challenge,
and strong enough to undertake all the many enterprises
around the world which the maintenance and progress of
freedom require. If we can take this step, Marxist pre-
dictions of "capitalist" empires warring over markets and
stifling competition would be shattered for all time —
Communist hojses for a trade war between these two
great economic giants would be frustrated — and Commu-
nist efforts to split the West would be doomed to failure.

Building a Community of Free Nations

At the heart of the kind of world we seek to
build, in our own interest and that of all free
men — not merely as the answer to the Communist
challenge— lies the Atlantic community. The na-
tions of Western Europe, Canada, and ourselves
are bound by deep ties of common heritage, tra-
dition, values, and mterest. All of us are seeking
new forms of unity, new methods of dealing to-
gether with problems which none of us can solve

Yet this community of free nations we seek must
go far beyond tlio Atlantic. Wo and other Atlan-
tic nations have close ties with the nations of

• For text, see iMd., Feb. 12, 1962, p. 231.

Department of Slate Bulletin

Latin America, Japan, Australia, New Zealand,
and other countries. What we are seeking is an
expanding community, originally of nations which
can deploy substantial resources beyond their bor-
ders, expanding in depth of unity and in breadth
of association. It must help to expedite the devel-
opment of less developed nations, to serve as an
irresistible magnetic force which pulls them to-
ward it in their own true interests. As tliis com-
mmiity develops it will have many variations of
association in different fields. It must be flexible,
free to evolve as experience in this unchartered
field shows best. A community secure against
Sino-Soviet control must be able to assure prog-
ress by its members sufficient to convince them and
others that their aspirations can be fulfilled better
within its framework than without.

It must and will develop the strength which
comes from miity with freedom, the strength of
diversity, of free men working together in their
common interest.

In the process we must maintain communica-
tions with the Soviets, always ready to negotiate
but not counting too much on negotiations except
wliere the strength of the Western position makes
it in the Russian national interest to conclude a
mutually satisfactory agreement. They respect
strength, and as the free world develops it ma-
terially and morally through growing unity, they
will respect it more.

We must build new faith and vigor into the cult
of freedom. We must prove that the wave of the
future is freedom and not tyraimy. We must
demolish the myth the Commvmists have sought
to develop, not without some success, that every-
thing on their side of the Curtain is untouchable
and that all controversies between us, win, lose, or
draw, must be settled within the free world.

As we make our goal clear and as we progress
toward it, its appeal will certainly not be limited
to the free world. On the contrary, it cannot help
but touch responsive chords in the peoples who
have lost their freedom, includmg those of the
Soviet Union and Red China. Hopes for freedom,
dignity, and opportunity are basic, human, instinc-
tive, and universal. In the long run achievement
of our basic goal through peaceful competition
should help fulfill the aspirations of the people of
the Communist world, defeating the ambitions of
their leaders.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is my view of the
relation between peaceful coexistence and U.S.

national security. Our basic goal is the American
answer, the positive, constructive, and dynamic
answer, to the Communist challenge. As the
President has said : ■* "We will not reach that goal
today, or tomorrow. We may not reacli it in our
own lifetime. But the quest is the greatest ad-
venture of our century."

U.S., U.K. Propose Foreign Ministers
Meeting; Explain Test Preparations

Joint Statement

WhUe House press release dated February 8

It is the joint view of the United States and
the United Kingdom Governments that the exist-
ing state of nuclear development, in which the
recent massive Soviet tests are an important fac-
tor, would justify the West in making such further
series of nuclear tests as may be necessary for
purely military reasons.

The United States and United Kingdom Gov-
ernments have therefore decided that preparations
should be made in various places, and as part of
these the United Kingdom Government are mak-
ing available to the United States Government the
facilities at Christmas Island.

The two Governments are, however, deeply con-
cerned for the future of mankind if a halt camiot
be called to the nuclear arms race. The two Gov-
ernments are, therefore, determined to make a new
effort to move away from this sterile contest.
They believe that a supreme effort should be made
at the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee
which will begin meetings on March 14 at Geneva,^
and that the Heads of Government of the United
States, United Kingdom, and Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics should assiune a direct and
personal interest in these negotiations. The Pres-
ident and the Prime Minister have, therefore,
addressed a joint commvmication to Chairman
Khrushchev proposing that this meeting be ini-
tiated at the foreign-minister level and that their
foreijm ministers should meet before the confer-
ence starts and also be prepared to return as per-
sonal participants in the negotiations at appropri-
ate stages as progress is made.

* Ihid., Jan. 29, 1962, p. 159.

' Bulletin of Feb. 5, 1062, p. 205, footnote 2.

februatY 26, ?962


Crisis and Clarity

hy Harlan Cleveland

Assistant Secretary for Inteimjational Organization Affairs'^

In between your liincli and your back-to-work
movement you liave asked me to say how the
United Nations fits into United States foreign
policy. It is a timely question. For the Nation
is beginning to debate whether to loan the United
Nations a sum that a major soap company might
spend on TV advertising in a year — and tlius no
mean investment.

Somebody suggested last week that the U.N.
required "surgeiy rather than poultice." Wliat
is proposed in the U.N. bond issue ^ is, of course,
not a poultice but a transfusion. As for surgery,
we might better say of the United Nations Organi-
zation, wliich works for us today in several of
the world's crisis spots, what General Marshall
once said in another context : "You don't operate
on a man while he's carrj'ing a piano upstairs."

The Aims of U.S. Foreign Policy

To answer your question requires, first, a glance
at our aims, then a quick look at the kinds of
trouble these aims get us into, and then a thought-
ful look at the place of the U.N. in this scheme
of things.

Our aims can be readily, almost too automati-
cally, put into verbal capsules :

We are helping to bind the "North" into a
workable and prosperous community of free
industrial nations.

Wo are helping to develop the world's "South"

' Address made before the Rochester City Club at
Rochester, N.Y., on Jan. 31 (press release 64 dated
Jan. 30).

' For text of President Kennedy's message to Con-
gress on the U.N. bond i.ssne and staleinonts by Secretary
Ru.sk and Ambassador Adlai E. Stevenson, see p. 311.

so it can be partners with the older industrial

We are helping to build enduring bridges be-
tween North and South through aid, trade, and
a shared sense of responsibility for rapid but
peaceful change.

We are by these means helping to make the
free world hum with the cheerful and contagious
noises of success — and subvert oppression else-
where by demonstrating that free choice works
better and feels better than coercion.

Crises and Opportunities

The crises and opportunities we face from day
to day in the Department of State fall generally
into four kinds. Each is important; but some
are more important to us, and some are more
important to others.

First are the immediate confrontations of the
great powers: directly, Berlin, Korea, nuclear
testing; and, indirectly, Viet-Nam.

Second there are latent confrontations of the
great powers: situations which could lead to a
toe-to-toe power rivalry if \\& don't do something
to prevent it. Laos, Congo, and the Caribbean
are the obvious current examples.

Third there are '■'■other people^s disjnttes." Per-
haps West New Guinea is in our minds this after-
noon; but it could as well be Kashmir or the
Arab-Israel war. We are in the middle on most
of these kinds of disputes and manj' more be-
sides — because the middle is where power is
plugged into world politics and we cannot escape
the con.scquences of our own power. Our interest
in all such disputes has this in common : They all
hold latent dangers of spreading into larger con-
flicts. We could not escape the later, larger con-


Department of Slate Bulletin

flicts, so we have to try (o limit or help settle the
earlier, smaller ones.

In a fourth category wo can line up the whole
constructive task of building the kind of world
coimnunity ive want to live in. We help in many
ways to build free institutions inside other peo-
ple's societies, and we help to fashion an intricate
web of relations between and among these so-
cieties — trade pacts, public and private exchange
of persons, technical and scientific conferences,
political dialog, and, where necessary, military

Where the U.N. Fits in

Where does tlie United Nations fit in? From
our point of view (and what other point of view
is there for us?) the United Nations fits in as an
important instrument of our foreign policy.
What makes it complicated, of course, is that it
serves also as an instnunent of the foreign policies
of 103 other nations.

As Adlai Stevenson said the other day, the U.N.
was built for trouble and thrives on it. This year
the U.N. is doing such important and troublesome
things that Americans have taken to argumg about
it among themselves. Wliy does it suddenly seem
so important? Simply because the United Na-
tions has something significant to do with each of
our four categories of foreign policy trouble.

Even in the immediate and direct confronta-
tions of great powers, the U.N. has a useful, if
limited, role. It serves as a court of world judg-
ment, not to be ignored merely because it is unen-
forcible in power terms. In this forum of world
opinion we find it useful to state our case for the
education of "nth countries"' whose strength is the
intangible power of a talkative kibitzer. The U.N.
has also served as a diplomatic arena in which to
explore solutions to great-power differences; the
Jessup-Malik agreement to end the Berlin block-
ade was worked out in the U.N.'s corridors, and so
was the recent agreement to get disarmament
talks going again.

Wlien it comes to the latent confrontations, the
U.N. can become (as it is in the Congo) an op-
erational "third party," to provide policing force
and nationbuilding help where it would be too
dangerous to world peace for the great powers to
provide the needed police or aid in competition
with each other.

Wiat I have called "other people's disputes''

find the United Nations working in its peacemak-
ing role — factfinding, conciliating, and mediating,
and thus avoiding the need for the United States
to take a direct hand as "third party." The Sec-
retary-General of the United Nations is tiding this
week to conciliate the Indonesians and the Dutch
on West New Guinea.

Getting national leaders to play it cool — to talk
out their differences and not to "rmnble" — is a
prime function of the world organization. For
in a world of nuclear weapons the unleashing of
force, at any level, is a dangerous matter. In the
heavy water of international politics every leader
must act to avoid a chain reaction.

On every continent men and governments have
inherited old quarrels, some embedded in the acci-
dents of a colonial past, others deriving simply
from the history of nations and i"egions. In a
number of cases it is unsafe to let the status quo
persist. Explosive sentiments and political pres-
sures build up on each side. The temptation
grows to have it out, come what may. The
world in which we live thus places upon us
all — individual citizens as well as those who bear
political responsibility — the challenge of stretch-
ing the human capacity for conciliation and com-
promise and of removing systematically from the
world scene these old festering quarrels, quarrels
which not only threaten us all with war but divert
the energy and attention of men from the construc-
tive tasks which lie to hand.

We need on the world scene an interval of con-
ciliation, a time when men, conscious that others
are doing the same, seek to free themselves fi'om
painful memories and antagonisms and release
their strength for the acts of creation which their
situation demands. In such an interval a much
greater effort should be made to alter, by negotia-
tion and peaceful change, situations whose con-
tinuation is unsafe for us all.

That is why, as Adlai Stevenson made clear in
the General Assembly debate on Angola last week,
we hope all members of the U.N. will turn to this
problem with renewed interest and attention, con-
scious that the very fate of their institution hinges
on heightened restraint in the use of force and a
heightened effort to solve international problems
by negotiation.

Finally, in the broad task of community-build-
ing the United Nations is heavily engaged in tech-
nical, economic, scientific, financial, educational,

February 26, 1962


and social welfare programs, on which close to
90 percent of all United Nations (and specialized
agency) personnel are in fact engaged. Here
again the U.N. provides a useful if limited sub-
stitute for competitive aid from East and West,
which can tear a young country apart (as the So-
viets and other outside forces have tried to do in
the Congo) rather than help build it as a viable

Other Concerts of Nations

Because we happen to be talking about the
United Nations, let us not fall into the doctrinal
error which is too common among the U.N.'s
friends as well as its foes. People keep talking
about the U.N. as if it were the only international
peacemaking and community-building enterprise
in which we are or should be involved. There are,
of course, others, and tliey are crucially important

The Atlantic community was born first as a con-
cept. But the Marshall plan, the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization, the Organization for Eco-
nomic Cooperation and Development, have put in-
stitutional flesh on its bones. And the prospective
partnership between the Europe^an Common Mar-
ket and the great common market of North Amer-
ica is, for many of us, the most exciting single job
of institution-building now in progress.

The Organization of American States is also
engaged in building with new enthusiasm a very
special community, based on the long tradition of
hemispheric solidarity, newly reinforced by the
Alliance for Progress and the menace of a frankly
Communist beachhead in the Caribbean.

Our problem is not to choose one or another of
these interlocking concerts of nations — the re-
gional, the Atlantic, and the almost-global.
Rather our task is to woi'k through each grouping
for such purposes, and at such times, as seem ap-
propriate from the standpoint of our own national

Public Consent the Source of U.S. Policy

About the U.N., which is our focus today, we
must ask ourselves : Is peace so certain ; are we so
secure; are our alliances so strong; can we escape
so many disputes; do we have so many dependable
bucket brigades; are we and our hundred-odd
neighbors such paragons of righteousness; is our
skin so thin, our conscience so dulled, and our as-

pirations for our world so modest that we can
afford to dispense with the peacekeeping and na-
tionbuilding capacities of the United Nations?

Evidently not. But in any event the U.N., like
the mountain, is "there." The U.S. cannot ignore
it. The real question about the U.N. is this : "Will
its unique capacities be used, or will they be
wasted ?

Wliether we waste or use this imperfect world
instrument will be determined not so much by how
valuable an instnmient it is or why there are
grumblings about it but by wliat kind of people
we are.

The ultimate source of U.S. policy lies in the
consent of the people. Without this consent, the
United States cannot join in a trading partner-
ship with the 200 million customers of Western
Europe or build the Atlantic alliance into a com-
munity, or bridge the great north-south division
of the world, or meet the Sino-Soviet bloc on our
own terms. Wliere does consent come from?
From leadership certainly, but ultimately from
the kind of people we ai-e.

In his state of the Union message,' President
Kennedy said of the United Nations :

... it should have in the future, as it has had in the
past since its inception, no stronger or more faithful
member than the United States of America.

I believe there is strong public consent for this

U.N. Actions a Major Issue of American Politics

People are stirred by the "U.N. issue" this year.
For the first time in its short history the present
and future actions of the United Nations have
become a major issue of American politics.

The Korean war was controversial enough. But
that war, in which we fought under a U.N. flag as
U.N. executive agent for aims prescribed in U.N.
resolutions, was nevertheless viewed by most
Americans as essentially an American show. But
now, after several generations of sentimental talk
about organizing world peace and enforcing the
rule of law, two really significant peacekeeping
forces of a truly international character have been
placed and maintained in the field : 5,000 men,
drawn from 7 countries, to keep watch over the
Gaza Strip and the Israeli-Egyptian border; and
16,000 men in the Congo, drawn from 21 countries

" Bulletin of Jan. 29, 1962, p. 159.


Department of State Bulletin

and backed by a United States Air Force airlift.

The U.N. is thus a proper subject for political
controversy because it is doing nioi-o things, on a
larger scale, more vital to our national interest,
than ever before — and because the going is getting
rough. We have discovered that international
peacekeeping is practical and realistic — on a small
scale, to be sure, but big enough to restrain a small
international war, as in the Middle East, and pre-
vent a large civil wai", as in the Congo.

Wliat happened in the Congo was that we Amer-
icans helped put the U.N. in so as to avoid our
having to enter Central Africa with our own power
to counter an active Soviet thrust there. The
essential aim of our policy, invented by a Repub-
lican administration but supported and carried
on by a Democratic administration — was to
enable a moderate central government to be estab-
lished to govern the whole of the Congo. No

Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 46, Jan- Mar 1962) → online text (page 65 of 101)