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

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

. (page 66 of 101)
Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 46, Jan- Mar 1962) → online text (page 66 of 101)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


moderate government could survive imless it pre-
vented the secession of [Moise] Tshombe's comer
of Katanga and knocked the props from under the
Communist-supported separatists led by [An-
toine] Gizenga in the north.

The government of Joseph Kasavubu and Cy-
rille Adoula is gi-adually making the grade. This
is good news. It is quite directly a residt of U.S.
policy, the policy of the moderate Congolese lead-
ers, and the policy of the United Nations.

In the Congo moderation required bold actions,
since the going was uphill all the way. It was
bound at best to look rather messy. The U.N.'s
role, while quite legal, is without precedent. The
names of the protagonists are still strange to most
Americans, the geography is fuzzy in our minds,
our own Government's policy the subject of con-
siderable crossfire at home and abroad. But if tlie
chronic Congo crisis seems a bit disorderly as you
watch it develop from week to week, ask your-
selves whether you really would have preferred
the alternative of putting our own military forces
into Central Africa.

Peacekeeping, then, turns out to be practical.
But it also turns out to be hard on the nerves. It
was more comfortable to think of "Peace" as a
cartoonist's image, a lovely, fresh young maiden
in a pure white gown, mouthing sweet nothings
while clutching her olive branch and adjusting
her halo. But when this ethereal creature had to
whip out her six-shooter and use it to defend lier
right to walk a policeman's beat on the streets of



Elisabethville, most Amei-icans did a double-take.
Perhaps we will need several months to de-
cide — as I believe events are already helping us to
decide — ^that what was wrong with this picture
was not tlie U.N.'s actions (or U.S. support of
them) but our own obsolescent image of what in-
ternational peacekeeping would mean.

Common Aims of U.S. and U.N.

Peacekeeping by the U.N. — in the Middle East
and the Congo and potentially elsewhere — quite
obviously matters to us. It engages and promotes
our national interests and therefore arouses our
national concern. Is there a danger that this
"Girl of the Golden West" might turn her six-
shooter against us ?

The answer is "No." But it is not a passive
"No" — a complacent assurance that the world's
troubles will pass us by. The answer is an activist
"No," the kind that says the U.N. will work for
our kind of world rather than against it because
we are willing to work hard to build just that kind
of organization. In pursTiing this aim we have
three major factors going for us :

Firet : The Charter of the United Nations is our
hind of charter.

The charter is, indeed, an eloquent restatement
for our time of the doctrines Jefferson and his col-
leagues wrote for their time in our Declaration of
Independence and our Constitution. It does not
say we have nothing to lose but our chains. It
says we have everything to gain from building the
institutions of freedom. That is why we can live
with the charter and why the Soviets, as they re-
peatedly show by their actions, cannot.

Second: The U.N.^s '■'■capacity to acV depends
crucially on our support.

The U.N. has developed an executive arm to op-
erate on behalf of this charter. The League of
Nations was mostly a conference center ; its Secre-
tariat was organized primarily to set up meetings
among its members. The United Nations Secre-
tariat organizes meetings too — an appalling num-
ber of them. But the U.N. Secretariat also acts
in its own right when the U.N.'s members tell it
to do so.

What often goes unnoticed is this : The Soviets
boycott nearly all the main executive operations of
the United Nations. In the world of symbolism
the U.N.'s actions are taken in the name of global



February 26, 1962



333



universality. But in the real world the U.N. in
action is the non- Soviet world in action.

The United States, Britam, other Common-
wealth countries, Nationalist China, Japan,
France, and other European countries are assessed
69.6 percent of the U.N.'s re^ilar budget. The
same countries support 73.6 percent of tlie U.N.
Emergency Force, and 97.8 percent of the Pales-
tine refugee program. The same countries, minus
France and Belgiiun, support. 80.3 percent of the
Congo operation. The Soviets quite naturally do
not want to pay for the U.N.'s peacekeeping op-
erations; it would be a strange world in which the
burglars cheerfully contributed to the upkeep of
the police force.

Without the support of the Western Powers,
and particularly of the United States, the U.N.
would quite suddenly lose its "capacity to act"
and revert to being a conference center. Its ex-
ecutive arm could not be used against us because
it would largely cease to exist. Let those who
complain about our paying a very sizable share of
the U.N.'s cost ask themselves whether they really
want it otherwise.

Third : In the General Axnemhly and the Secu-
rity Council the United States is nearly always in
the majority, usually decisively so.

"One countiy, one vote'' does jjrcsent a potential
danger that leaders from many small countries
will not measure up responsibly to the important
responsibilities they vote on but do not have the
physical and financial power to carry into action.
It is true that the African and Asian delegates
sometimes go overboard — by our standards — on a
symbolic issue involving colonialism, racial dis-
crimination, or nuclear issues. But it is also true
that the Afro-Asians are seldom a cohesive bloc.
The leaders of each nation feel strongly about
their independence, and their independent spirit
has frustrated every effort to mold the Afro-
Asians into a homogeneous unit under extremist
leadership. Wlien the Europeans and Latin
Americans and the others are mixed in, it is a rare
occasion indeed when a two-thirds majority of
General Assembly votes can be mobilized against
us.

On the record, when it comes to action by the
U.N. — as contrasted to talking at the U.N. — the
newly independent nations have turned out to be
impressively sober.



The 15th General Assembly, in 1960, was sup-
posed to be the low point — sure sign of the deterio-
ration of the Assembly into swirling majorities —
a noisy circus for shoepounding, heckling, and
chicken feathers. In the end Chairman Khrush-
chev, after 6 wasted weeks away from the Krem-
lin for a wrecking foray on the bank of the East
River, gave up and went home.

The 16th General Assembly convened against
a dark backdrop: the Bizerte crisis, the wall in
Berlin, the resumption of nuclear testing, the Bel-
grade conference, fighting in Katanga, the death
of Dag Hammarskjold, and aggressive Soviet pro-
nouncements that now was the time for radical
surgery in the U.N. — meaning the troika. Some
of our own starker pundits solemnly prepared the
last rites : The U.N. was ready once again for the
grave.

But when the Assembly adjourned for Christ-
mas (a quaint custom in which the non-Cliristian
world has acquiesced without a murmur) , the U.N.
was still there, still holding its record as the most
extravagantly lauded and most frequently buried
institution of our time, still imperfect, but some-
how a little bit stronger and a lot more durable
than most people thought.

In the midst of the crisis of succession, the
President of the United States addressed the Gen-
eral Assembly.'' He focused on the integrity of
the Secretariat. He called for a fresh start on
disarmament, for new efforts to preserve outer
space for peaceful purposes, for economic and so-
cial progress in a U.N. Decade of Development.
What happened?

• A new Secretary-General — not a three-
headed troika — was appointed, and his Office was
nuiintained unimpaired. °

• Disarmament talks got under way again,
with the important addition to the scenery of a
major emphasis on building international peace-
keeping machineiy while dismantling national
warmaking capacity. °

• The U.N. took on a whole new function, to
develop and supervise an international outer space
program.'



' Ibid., Oct. IG, 19C1, p. 019.
"Ihid., Nov. 27, 1961, p. 904.
" Thid., Doe. IS, 1901, p. 1023.
' Ibid., Jan. 29, 1962, p. ISO.



334



Department of Slate Bulletin



• Tlie U.N. Decade of Development was pro-
claimed,* and some of the first actions — a new
international food-for-peace program " and a 1963
conference on science and teclinology for the less
developed areas— were started.

• And for good measure the Assembly con-
founded the prophets of doom by decisively beat-
ing down a renewed effort by the Soviets to get
an admission ticket for their boisterous allies in
Peiping."

Maintaining U.S. Leadership in U.N.

In spite of the successes of the season just past
it is becoming harder to get our way in the U.N. —
as it is in the world as a whole. Our leadership
in the U.N., and in the world at large, requires
more fmids, more militaiy strength, and more
organized brainwork — and, above all, more astute
politics — on our part than ever before.

It's rough, but we cannot quit. We couldn't let
go if we wanted to. Besides, we are not made
that way. "God Almighty hates a quitter," said
a great Republican President half a century ago.
The verb seems out of keeping with the Almighty,
but the sentiment appeals to us as authentically
American.

Some of ovxr compatriots may seem to lack a
lively interest in, or a deep knowledge of, the
complex issues of world politics. A few of our
compatriots may even lack that trast in their
fellow Americans that holds a community to-
gether and produces these miracles of cooperation
that make us the world's premier power. But
moments of crisis are moments of clarity, and in
moments of clarity the Americans are never afraid
of each other nor yet of the unknown; they are
only afraid of inaction. The cynical voices, and
the fearful ones, share the distinction of having
been forgotten in each of the grander moments
of American history.

There is this year, some say, a "crisis of confi-
dence" in the United Nations. If so, the central
issue will, with your help, become crystal clear
and the American reaction will once again be in
character. The arguments you will be hearing
about whether we should buy some U.N. bonds
will all boil down to a simple issue, clai'ified by the
sense of crisis. The question before the house —



both Houses — is whether during the next 18
months the United States is willing to lend, at 2
percent interest, $100 million to the United Na-
tions for peacekeeping and nationbuilding.

You, the leaders of Rochester, and your fellow
Americans in a hundred other centers of opinion-
making, will largely decide whether to loan the
United Nations an amount nearly as large as the
several States collect from the sale of himtins and
fishing licenses. If the issue is whether the United
States exercises its leadership in the United Na-
tions or abandons the U.N.'s leadership to others,
can there be any real doubt of the outcome ?



Prime Minister Adouia of Congo
Visits Washington

Cyrille Adouia^ Prime Minister of the Republic
of the Congo {Leopoldville) , visited Washington
on February 6 and (?, tohere he talked with Presi-
dent Kennedy and with officials of the U.S. Gov-
ernment, the International Bank for Reconstruc-
tion and Development, and the International
Monetary Fund. Folloioing are texts of toasts
given by President Kennedy and the Prime Minis-
ter at a business luncheon at the White House on
February 5.^

White House press release dated February 5

President Kennedy

Gentlemen, I am sure you all join me in wel-
coming to this country the guest of honor and the
members of his Government. I don't think that
any head of state of a new country has faced the
difficulties and the challenges which have pressed
upon him with so much force in the last few
months.

The difficulties of our revolutionary experience,
and the experiences of every other people coming
into independence since the end of "World War
Two, pale in comparison to the problems which
the Congo has faced and which press upon the
Prime Minister and his supporters.

What makes him especially welcome is the cour-
age and the fortitude, the persistence and the
judgment with which he has met these chal-



' For background, see ihid., Dec. 4, 1961, p. 939.
» Ihid., Jan. 22, 1962, p. 150.
"■ Ibid., Jan. 15, 1962, p. 108.



' For a list of the members of the Prime Minister's
party, see Department of State press release 78 dated
Feb. 3.



February 26, 1962



335



lenges — which would have overwhelmed a lesser
people, a lesser country, a lesser man, a lesser
government.

Prime Minister, we welcome you here for many
reasons. The success of the Congo is tied up,
really, we believe, witli the success of the United
Nations. If you fail, and the Congo should fail,
it would be a serious blow for the United Nations,
upon which this country has placed so many hopes
for the last 17 years. And because of the intimate
association between the United Nations and your
Government, we are particularly glad that you are
here to address them.-

We are also glad to welcome you because of your
own qiuxlities, because you have set a course for
your nation — of being independent, of being
African, of being free, of being inialined, of gov-
erning under most adverse conditions, tlirough
parliamentai-y democracy, at a time when some
other new nations have been forced by 6\'ents to
move away from democratic processes.

We welcome you because of your own extraor-
dinary record — rising because of your own ef-
forts to a position of preeminence, wliere you have
won the support of people, both within and with-
out your country — and because of your own per-
sonal qualities.

We are vitally interested in the succeas of the
Congo because we believe the success of your coim-
try is essential to the success of a free Africa. We
believe strongly in the unity of free states, able to
choose their own destiny and able to decide their
own fate.

So, Prime Minister, we welcome you here.
Many years ago one of our distinguished Presi-
dents — you examined his portrait this morning in
President Lincoln's bedroom — Andrew Jackson,
said, "Our Federal Union, it must be preserved."

We recognize your strong conviction that the
same policy should follow for your own country,
that the Congo must be preserved. And as a faith-
ful member of the United Nations, we support,
through the United Nations, the implementation
of that policy.

So we welcome you here, and I hope that all of
you will join me in saluting the people of the
Congo, the country, and its distinguished Prime
Minister.



Prime Minister Adoula^

Mr. President, I am almost embarrassed in hav-
ing to reply to your magnificent speecli — a speech
which was so short and yet so complete, so full.
I will also speak very briefly and I will say that
it is true that the Congo has gone through a period
of grave difficulties. It is true also that there are
people in the Congo, also of good will, who have
decided to fight to surmount and overcome tliose
difficulties.

However, I must say, Mr. President, that there
is one thing which you have left out of your speech,
and this is that all tliose eiforts of the people of
the Congo, all the efforts of the Government, of
Parliament, of the population itself, would not
have availed very much if we had been left to
ourselves. Fortunately for us, we have found in
the world people of great understanding, people of
great friendship. We have found comitries which
have heljjed us and which have helped us con-
tinuously — without ulterior motivation. This help
has enabled us to try.

I must tell you perhaps something, Mr. Presi-
dent, which appears to be a secret. In your speech
you seemed to speak of a superman somewhere in
the Congo, someone who had succeeded all by him-
self in overcoming ii-resistible obstacles and in
reestablishing something that has to be reestab-
lished — peace in the Congo. This, Mr. President,
is not true. There is no such man. There is no
man who could ha\-e done that by himself. There
is only a common man who wanted to sei-ve his
comitry and who accepted the difficult task of
forming a government only because he knew that
there were people in the world who are ready and
willing to help him.

This help, Mr. President, has come primarily
from you, from your Government, from your
counti-y, through the United Nations Organiza-
tion. Tliis is a help which you have given us by
helping the United Nations from its very begin-
nings — by helping the United Nations to carry
out the directives of the Security Council and the
General Assembly's directives, which you have
lielped to forge.

You have done that in the past, Mr. President,
and I am quite certain that your administration
stands ready to continue such a policy in the pres-
ent — a policy of help to others, continuous, will-



" Prime Minister Adoula addressed the U.N. General
Assembly on Feb. 2.

336



' As interpreted from the French.

Department of State Bulletin



ing help witli no ulterior motivation. This is what
you have done for the Congo. This is the help
which is necessary.

Now there was a time when people used to say
about American policy that it was a naive policy,
that Americans are people who believe everybody,
who can get fooled easily, who sometimes behave
like a bull in a china shop. Today, Mr. President,
no one can say that about American policy. This
time you have scored a bull's eye, and this time
you have proven that your policy is positive, that
it is realistic, and I am certain that your policy is
going to reach its goal and greatly increase the
prestige of the United States in the woi'ld.

Another question which is mentioned is that of
neutralism. Now here is nonalinement. You have
to understand nonalinement to mean simply that
each country wishes to remain independent and
free — free and independent to defend its own
principles, free and independent to be able to I'ec-
oncile various interests, to reconcile and compro-
mise its own interests with those of its friends,
and not only of its friends, also all of the people
in the entire woi'ld. That is what we mean by
nonalinement. That is why I believe that this
must be the policy not only of the Congolese Gov-
ernment but also of the entire Congolese people.

I must interrupt my speech because if I did not,
if I let myself be carried away, I would repeat —
speaking about you, Mr. President — the kind
words which you have addressed to me. There is
no necessity, however, to do that, because evei-y-
one knows who you are and there is no need to
repeat sometliing which was said so well.

So all I can say at this moment, Mr. President,
is that in the name of our people first of all, in the
name of our Government, in the name of our Chief
of State, we say thank you to the United States.
We can thank you — we say thank you for a help
which has been efficacious, spontaneous, and sin-
cere. We thank your administration for it, Mr.
President, because we are quite sure, as I repeat
it, that our efforts would have been to no avail if
it had not been for the moral and material help
which we have received from you.

We hope that this help will continue. We say
it in all frankness. We say, at the same time, that
our people as a people which understands reality
will never forget to say thank you to the United
States. It will not be like some other peoples
which are willing to receive aid only to criticize



later those who are helping. Thank you,
Mr. President.

I ask you now to raise your glass and drink to
the President of the United States and to the
prosperity of the American people.



Our Responsibility as Citizens

hy Mrs. Katie Louchheim

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs ^

I am delighted to be here and grateful for this,
opportunity to meet and talk with you. You have
given me a challenging assignment. There is, to
my mind, no more important subject than our re-
sponsibility as citizens. In a free society respon-
sibility is implicit in citizenship; it is the price
we pay for freedom. "Liberty means responsi-
bility," Bernard Shaw wrote. And that responsi-
bility requires both work and thought, and the
thinking may be harder than the work.

We live in an age of almost teiTifyingly rapid
change. In the 17 years since the end of World
War II — in less than a generation — we have seen
the world's population increase by close to 50 per-
cent and our own country's population by nearly
30 percent. We have seen man build the capacity
for destroying his world with all its millions.
With no regions left to explore on this planet, our
own generation is exploring the great empty
spaces around it and expects soon to explore the
moon. Not inconceivably, our children or grand-
children may explore Venus or Mars.

This is a revolutionary age, whether we like it
or not. The map of our own planet has been
changing so fast that last month's atlas is out of
date. The colonial empires we learned about in
school have all but vanished. In their place 42
new nations have come into being. In these new
comitries, and in many older nations too, profound
social changes are also taking place — what has
been called the "revolution of rising expectations."
People long ill-fed and ill-housed are beginning to
demand a share in the better life which a new
teclmology makes possible. People silent for cen-
turies are making themselves heard.

Here in the United States we fought our Revo-



' Address made before the National Conference of the
Ladies Auxiliary of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
United States at Washington, D.C., on Feb. 8 (press
release 87 dated Feb. 7) .



February 26, 1962



337



lution and won our independence nearly two cen-
turies ago. We have had time for a gradual
political, teclmical, and social evolution. Even
so, it is not too easy for us to adjust to the greatly
accelerated pace of the past few years. Think
how difficult it must be for a feudal society like
the ancient empire of Ethiopia, or a tribal society
like little Western Samoa in the South Pacific, to
leap over several hundred years into the middle of
the 20th centuiy. But the leaders of these new
nations are detennined to make that giant leap.
As Secretary of State Dean Rusk said to the
foreign ministers of the Americas at Pimta del
Este recently : ^

No one can hope to prolong the past in a revolutionary
age. The only question is which road we mean to take
into the future.

This is not a question alone for this hemisphere. It
is a question faced everywhere in the world. On the one
hand are those who believe in change through persuasion
and consent — through means which respect the individual.
On the other are those who advocate change through the
subjugation of the individual and who see in the turbu-
lence of change the opportunity for power.

Which road the new nations, and some of the
older nations, take depends to a considerable ex-
tent on us. It depends on whether we in the
United States can demonstrate that a free society
can solve its pressing problems both democratically
and efficiently. We share with other countries all
over the world tlie problem of an exploding pop-
ulation. We share with them the problem of
changing family relationships, changing ways of
life, and changing values. We share with them
the problem of urbanization, of unplanned metro-
politan sprawl. Eio de Janeiro and Calcutta are
trying to cope with a flood of impoverished rural
newcomers, unused to city ways and untrained for
city jobs; so are New York and Chicago. If our
educational problems are less staggering than
Africa's or Asia's, still we have them : not enough
classrooms nor enough teachers for our growing
numbers of children, and, as President Kennedy
reminded us recently, far more illiterates than we
should have. These are just some of our common
problems, differing only in degree and stage of
development. Automation is not yet a tlireat to
the Ghanaian worker's job as it is already to many
American workers, but it may be, sooner t ban we
realize.



' Bulletin of Feb. 19, 1962, p. 270.
338



Understanding Domestic and Foreign Issues

Our major domestic problems and our foreign
policies and programs are in this way closely re-
lated. The Washington correspondent of the New
York Tirnes, James Reston, wrote a week or so
ago:

The cold war will probably be settled, If it ever is, not
by the society with the biggest weapons . . . but by the



Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 46, Jan- Mar 1962) → online text (page 66 of 101)