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

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

. (page 79 of 101)
Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 46, Jan- Mar 1962) → online text (page 79 of 101)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


for our assistance, it is because we know that out-
side funds alone cannot meet that threat — and
there are not enough funds to waste in such
futility.

Second, we are moving rapidly toward aid
which is related to longer range plans for eco-
nomic and social progress. I have already spoken
of the need to move on a broad front. Hit-or-miss
pi-ojects, including projects designed to meet
crises, are unlikely to make an enduring contribu-
tion. A solid structure of growth must have solid
foundations — and this means doing first things
first. This is why education and technical train-
ing have been emphasized more strongly, why
potable water seems more urgent than a sports
stadium, why housing is more attractive than
monuments.

A third feature of our present program, thanks
to Congress, is that we are able to make long-range
financial commitments — subject to annual appro-
priations — in support of long-range planning by
other governments. It is a powerful means for
encouraging long-range commitments by those
being assisted and yields larger harvests in self-
help and realistic priorities.

I do not, by any tone of voice, mean to imply
that an indifferent, halfliearted performance is the



407



rule among governments -with which we are co-
operating. Far from it. Most of them are doing
an admirable job under trying and difficult circum-
stances — far more trying and recalcitrant than we
at a distance might suppose. It takes time to train
teachers and extension workers. It takes unusual
dedication for the educated to tui-n aside from lu-
crative urban opportunities to go into the villages
and the countryside to serve as development mis-
sionaries. Old habits change slowly, and grudg-
ingly. We in North Carolina have forgotten the
violent agitation which resisted the first hookworm
campaigns in this and neighboring States. But it
is deeply encouraging to see governments and
peoples gearing themselves for the great task of
moving toward the imlimited promise of the mod-
ern age.

Finally, our aid programs are related to the
combined effort of our vigorous partners of the
industrialized West and of other nations in posi-
tion to help. The burden of development is more
than we can bear alone, and there is no reason why
we should try. Indeed, there are important po-
litical reasons why aid across national frontiers
should be as broadly based and as widely shared
as possible. We attach the greatest importance
to the movement of the OECD countries toward
appropriating approximately 1 percent of gross
national product committed to aid for underde-
veloped countries. We are deeply gratified to see
regional and other arrangements through which
underdeveloped countries are helping each other.
And we have profound respect for the mobiliza-
tion of broad support for such purposes by the
specialized agencies of the United Nations. We
are glad that Congress has given us the means,
through our present aid program, for encourag-
ing others to take an increasing share in this great
adventure.

Looking to the World of the Future

I am fully aware of the fact that we have in-
vested heavily in all types of foreign aid since
1945 and that we have done so despite the fact
that we have much unfinished business in our own
society. We have done so because these programs
are an essential part of the main business of the
Nation — our commitment to freedom and to a
decent world community of independent states,
freely cooperating with each other in matters of
common interest.



It is a matter of some importance that no one
of the countries which have become independent
since World War II has fallen behind the Iron
or Bamboo Curtain, that no nation has willingly
embraced communism as the result of a free elec-
tion. It is of some consequence that the large
majority of smaller countries members of the
United Nations stoutly resisted the effort to de-
stroy that organization through the troika pro-
posals. It is reassuring to observe that Soviet
blandishments and aid have not destroyed the stub-
born insistence upon national independence by
those who have been assiduously courted. It is
of interest to see the Communist bloc less mono-
lithic than Soviet leaders wish, with differences
appearing which are deeply rooted in such old-
fashioned notions as national feeling, national
interest, and national independence.

We can move through this period of tension and
turmoil with safety and with confidence if we keep
our eyes steadily upon the kind of world which is
coming into being, and must come into being, in
response to the aspirations of ordinary people in
all parts of the world. It is necessary to be critical
of our efforts; it is sometimes fashionable to be
cynical about them. But we are a nation of
builders and are at our best in building, even
though we know that building is more difficult
than tearing down.

The man whose birthday we celebrate tomorrow
would, I am certain, have us plan in farseeing
terms. Wliile most of his contemporaries were
guided by their local provincialism, Washington
had his mind not merely on the Thirteen Colonies
alone but on the almost trackless continent beyond
them. It was he who in 1790 caused to be designed
for the infant Republic of a few million souls a
Capital City so grand in its conception, so ample
in its scope, that for generations its unfilled spaces
provided amusement for the scoffers. Even Jef-
ferson, no mean visionary himself, would have
settled for a district a tenth the size. But not
Washington. The years rolled by, the Nation
spread to the Pacific, spanned the continent with
iron rails, commenced to climb skyward, became a
world power. And at last, a century after the
death of its first President, it had grown up to the
Capital ho had prepared for it.

With the pace of change what it is today we
cannot expect to look 100 years ahead. We shall
do very well to perceive dim shapes 20 years hence.



408



Department of Sfafe Bulletin



But I believe we must try to do that, to foresee
what the city of man may look like then, not
making too much of the difficulties that lie in the
way but conscious, as Washington would have
been, of the possibilities. In that way we shall
realize them and in the process find allies in all
comers of the earth — the men and women of many
lands who want the kind of world sketched out in
the U.N. Charter, a world of peace and human
dignity, of creative endea%'or, of expanding fron-
tiers for the Iiujnan spirit.



U.S., U.K. Pledge Redoubled Efforts
To Reach Nuclear Test Ban Agreement

Press release 112 dated February 21

The following report was submitted on Febru-
ary 21 by the United States and the United King-
dom to the Secretary-General of the United
Nations for circulation to members of the U.N.
Disarmament Commission \^U.N. doc. DC/ 196/
Add.l].

The Governments of the United Kingdom and
the United States now wish to supplement their
report of December 19, 1961,^ to the United Na-
tions Disarmament Commission on the progress of
the Geneva test ban negotiations.

During the short recess before negotiations were
resumed on January 16, 1962, the two Govern-
ments made an intensive review of the situation in
the Conference. As a result of this review, the
Governments of the United Kingdom and the
United States reached the following conclusions:

(1) that the Soviet proposal of November 28,
1961, for a declaratoiy ban on nuclear weapon
tests without international control, would not as-
sure, if accepted, that testing had in fact ceased.
The Soviet draft agi-eement was a paper pledge,
valueless in halting the nuclear anns race which
liad been revived when the Soviet Union unilater-
ally resumed atmospheric testing in August 1961.
It was also inconsistent with General Assembly
Eesolutions 1648 (XVI) and 1649 (XVI), ^ both
of which express the views of the members of the
General Assembly on the need for appropriate in-
ternational controls.

(2) that the parties to the test ban negotiations



were therefore faced with two alternatives; either:
(a) to resume negotiations on the previously
agreed basis that a test ban treaty should contain
appropriate international controls; or (b) to seek
an accommodation between the Soviet and West-
ern positions within the framework of general and
complete disarmament. Of the two alternatives,
the United States and United Kingdom Govern-
ments vastly preferred the first. Their policy has
been and is now directed toward achieving an ef-
fectively controlled test ban at the earliest possible
time.

The Soviet Union immediately rejected the pro-
posal to resume negotiations directed toward a
treaty bannmg tests under international control.
The Soviet Representative at Geneva reiterated
his insistence that the Soviet Union would not ne-
gotiate a nuclear test ban under international
controls.

Thus, there remained as the only avenue to
agreement the alternative of negotiating for a test
ban in the context of general disarmament negotia-
tions. The Soviet Union, beginning with Chair-
man Khrushchev's talks with President Kennedy
at Vienna on June 4, 1961,^ had repeatedly urged
this course of action. Indeed, in an aide memoire
handed at that time to the President of the United
States b}' the Chairman of the Coimcil of Minis-
ters, the Soviet Government declared : ^

The Soviet Government is known to have repeatedly
stressed, that, provided the Western Powers accept the
proposal on general and complete disarmament, the Soviet
Government is, for its part, prepared to accept uncon-
ditionally any proposals of the Western Powers on control.
The Soviet Government reiterates this readiness and is
prepared in this case to sign a document which would in-
clude the proposals of the Western Powers on the (luestion
of the cessation of nuclear tests.

The United Kingdom and the United States op-
posed this course of action believing that the most
expeditious and effective way to reach final agree-
ment on a test ban treaty was to keep the test ban
talks separate from other disarmament discussions.
But with flat Soviet refusal to continue negotia-
tions to achieve agreement on an internationally
controlled test ban, the words of the Soviet Gov-
ernment in its aide memoire of June 4, 1961, con-
tained the one remaining hope for progress.

Negotiations on general and complete disai-ma-



' For text, see Buixetin of Jan. 8, 1962, p. 63.
' For U.S. statements and texts of resolutions, see iVid.,
Dee. 4, 1961, p. 936.



' For background, see ibxH., June 26, 1961, p. 991.
' For text of an unofficial translation, see ibid., July 3,
1961, p. 22.



March 12, 1962



409



ment were scheduled to begin on Marcli 14, 1962, at
Geneva. In view of tliis fact, the United Kingdom
and the United States proposed to the Soviet Gov-
ernment on January 16, 1962, that, if indeed the
Soviet Union had rejected the very concept of a
separate internationally controlled test ban, the
Geneva Conference might adjourn "while the ques-
tion of an appropriately controlled test ban is con-
sidered, in relation to general disarmament and
the corresponding international controls, by the
eighteen-nation Disamiament Committee."

Tlie two GovenimentnS made clear tliat they were
reluctantly compelled to believe that the only al-
ternative left open was to consider the test ban
issue in the context of general disarmament be-
cause the Soviet Union had insisted it would dis-
cuss international controls only in this context.^
In this connection, the two Governments noted
Point 8 of the Agreed Principles for Disarmament
Negotiations," which reads as follows :

8. States participating in the negotiations should seelc
to achieve and implement the widest possible agreement at
the earliest possible date. Efforts should continue with-
out interruption until agreement upon the total programme
has been achieved, and efforts to ensure early agreement
on and implementation of measures of disarmament
should be undertaken without prejudicing progress on
agreement on the total programme and in such a way
that these measures would facilitate and form part of
that programme.

The United States and the United Kingdom de-
clared that once disarmament negotiations were
resumed they would work for the conclusion of a
nuclear test ban treaty as a matter of the highest
priority.

They also suggested, in res-ponding to questions
from the Soviet Representative, that at the ap-
propriate time their Governments expected to
propose the establishment of a subcommittee of
the 18-nation Disarmament Committee to examine
the relationship of a nuclear test ban to other
measures of disarmament. The United Kingdom
and the United States made clear they favored a
subcommittee composed of the three governments
which had been negotiating at Geneva, in view
of the long history of the test ban conference.
The two Governments also made clear that they
did not regard a test ban as a precondition to
progress in disarmament nor did they agree that



a test ban could come about only as a consequence
of the final abolition of nuclear weapons and their
manufacture at the last stage of general and com-
plete disarmament.

Tiie Soviet Union declared in response that the
only alternative open to the United States and
United Kingdom was to remain in Geneva and
negotiate upon the Soviet November 28 proposals
for a pledge to end testing without international
controls.

Clearly, the Soviet Union thereby blocked all
chances to reacli agreement on the basis of inter-
national control envisaged by the Conference of
Experts in 1958 and by subsequent teclmical
working groups, and as reaffirmed in United Na-
tions Resolutions 1648 (XVI) and 1649 (XVI).
This being the case, the United Kingdom and the
United States had no recourse but to propose a
recess of the Geneva Conference until a common
basis for negotiations could be re-established.'
The two Governments expressed their hope that
such a common basis could be quickly reinstituted
through conversations with the Soviet Union
either at the forthcoming eighteen-nation Dis-
armament Conference, through diplomatic chan-
nels, or througli informal contacts among their
delegations at Geneva. The two Governments
made clear that they would keep members of their
Delegations at Geneva availal)le for any such con-
sultations the Soviet Union might desire.

So long as the Soviet Union maintains its pres-
ent position, the ITnited States and the United
Kingdom are bound to conclude that the Soviet re-
jection of a test ban agreement, both as an inde-
pendent, internationally controlled agreement and
as an early measure in a disarmament program,
clearly indicates that the Soviet Union does not
want, now or at any time in the foreseeable future,
an effeetive test ban. Nevertheless, the two Gov-
ernments declare tlieir intent to pursue, as a matter
of high priority, their efforts to reach the widest
possible area of agreement on disarmainont meas-
ures in the eiglileen-nation Disarmament Com-
mittee, including agreement on an effectively veri-
fied test ban treaty.

The United States and the United Kingdom
earnestly hope the Soviet Union will reconsider
the position which led it to begin anew the nuclear
arms race by unilaterally resuming nuclear test-



Tor a Department statement of .Tan. 1(!, ]9()2, see
ibiil., Feb. 5, 1002, p. 20.^.
° For background and text, see ihid., Oct. i), llXil, p. .580.



' For a Department statement, see ihid., Feb. 10, ]0('>2. p.
288.



410



Department of State Bulletin



ing, and which now leads it to oppose an inter-
nationally controlled test ban agreement. To this
end, the United Kingdom and the United States
reaffirm their desire to re-establish a common
basis for negotiations either at the eighteen-nation
Disarmament Conference, through diplomatic
channels, or through members of their test ban
delegations now present at Geneva. The United
States and United Kingdom pledge to redouble
their efforts to reach an adequately controlled
agreement on the cessation of nuclear weapons
tests.*



U.S. Prepares New Proposals for Space
Research With Soviet Union

Following is an exchange of messages between
President Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev,
Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the
U.S.S.R., regardiiig the space fight on February
20 of Lt. Col. John H. Glenn, Jr.

President Kennedy to Chairman Khrushchev

White House press release dated February 21

February 21, 1962
Dear Mr. Chairman : I thank you warmly for
your message of congratulations on Colonel
Glenn's successfid space flight, and I welcome your
statement that our countries should cooperate in
the exploration of space. I have long held this
same belief and indeed put it forward strongly in
my first State of the Union message.^

We of coui-se believe also in strong support of
tlie work of the United Nations in this field and
we are cooperating directly with many other coun-
tries individually. But obviously special oppor-
timities and responsibilities fall to our two
countries.

I am instructing the appropriate officers of this
Government to prepare new and concrete pro-
posals for immediate projects of common action,
and I hope that at a very early date our representa-
tives may meet to discuss our ideas and yours in a
spirit of practical cooperation.

John F. Kj:nnedy



' For an exchange of messages with the U.S.S.R. on the
disarmament negotiations at Geneva, see ihid.. Mar. 5,
1962, p. 3.55.

' For test, see Bulletin of Feb. 13, 1961, p. 207.



Chairman Khrushchev to President Kennedy

February 21, 1962
The President
The 'White House, Washington

Dear Mb. President : On behalf of the people of the
Soviet Union and myself personally I congratulate you
and the American people on the occasion of the success-
ful launching of a spaceship with a man on board.

One more step has been taken toward ma.stering the
cosmos and this time Lieutenant Colonel John Glenn,
a citizen of the United States of America, has been added
to the family of astronauts. The sueces.sful launching of
spaceships signalizing the conquest of new heights in
science and technology in.?i)ires legitimate pride for the
limitless potentialities of the human mind to serve the
welfare of humanity. It is to be hoped that the genius
of man, penetrating the depth of the universe, will be
able to find ways to lasting peace and insure the pros-
perity of all peoples on our planet Earth which, in the
space age, though it does not seem so large, is still dear
to all of its inhabitants.

If our countries pooled their efforts — scientific, techni-
cal and material — to master the universe, this would be
very beneficial for the advance of science and would be
joyfully acclaimed by all peoples who would like to see
scientific achievements benefit man and not be used for
"cold war" purposes and the arms race.

Please convey cordial congratulations and best wishes
to Astronaut John Glenn.

N. Khrushchev



Secretary General of CENTO
Visits Washington

The Department of State announced on Feb-
ruary 23 (press release 117) that the Secretary
General of the Central Treaty Organization,
Abbas Ali Khalatbary, would visit Washington
for a short period beginning February 24. Dur-
ing his stay the Secretary General was to confer
with Secretary Rusk, Secretai^ of Defense Robert
S. McNamara, USIA Director Edward R. Mur-
row, and other key Washington officials.

Dr. Khalatbary expected to attend the opening
session of the CENTO Economic Committee,
which met at Washmgton February 26 to 28.^ The
members of the Central Treaty Organization's
Economic Committee are Iran, Pakistan, Turkey,
the United Kingdom, and the United States. The
headquarters of CENTO, including the Economic
Committee, is at Ankara, Turkey.



^ See p. 43a



/March 12, J 962



411



The Less Developed Countries and the Atlantic Partnership



hy Under Secretary Ball '



There were long centuries after the fall of Eome
when Western civilization seemed to be standing
still. Progress was an unfamiliar idea to medieval
man. He had, in fact, only a vague sense of the
passage of time. He marked the clianging of the
seasons, the cycle of life and death in his own fam-
ily or within a limited circle of friends or enemies.
That was about all.

Those days now seem quaint and remote. We
live in a world of fantastic change, accelerating
change. Not much more than a half-centuiy ago
man developed the internal combustion engine.
Then he learned to fly. Now we talk matter-of-
factly of putting men into orbit, shooting rockets
to the moon, bouncing the banalities of our tele-
phone conversations against insensate satellites.
Most of us, I am sure, have the disturbing feeling
that science comics are continually finding their
way into the front-page headlines.

Too much is happening too fast. In the area
of scientific and technological progress we have
almost lost our capacity for surprise. Change is
the reigning sovereign of the day. And while we
must often stretch our imaginative faculties to
comprehend the new wonders constantly emerg-
ing, most of us have learned to achieve this tour de
force with a considerable measure of grace.

But if we modern-day Americans can accept the
breathtaking pace of scientific advance without
turning a hair, we are far less prepared to accept —
or even to recognize — the equally rapid pace of
change in the political and economic structure of
a world in ferment.

I talked only last week with a man wlio has liad
a distinguished career, both in science and busi-



' Address made before the eighth umiual Conference on
International Affairs of the Cincinnati Council on World
Affairs at Cincinnati, Oliio, on Feb. 16 (press release 106).



ness. His conversation ranged with knowledge
and assurance over the technical aspects of inter-
planetary rocketry. He thought it likely, he said,
that there would soon be several breakthrouglis in
nuclear research. He seemed on a first-name basis
with most of the satellites that have been laimched
from Cape Canaveral, and he spoke with enthu-
siasm and facility of the vast dimensions of man's
physical environment. Here, I thouglit, was an
impressive example of a true 20th-century Ameri-
can — imaginative, confident, at home in a world
which I personally find strange and unfamiliar.

And then rather abruptly the conversation
shifted, as conversations will, to political and eco-
nomic matters. My friend showed as much as-
surance in these fields as in the field of science.
He had a patented prescription for the ills of the
day, precise, dogmatic, emphatic. "\Miat we must
do, he said, is to repeal the graduated income tax,
get rid of social security, raise tariffs, pull our
forces back from around the world, cut out foi'eign
assistance, and cultivate our own garden — or, as
he put it, get back to our business.

Quite frankly I was puzzled by this experience.
I liad not expected to find embodied in the same
personality a 20th-century man of science and an
18th-century man in politics and economics.
Listening to my friend, I had the strange feeling
that, in his scheme of things, we still lived under
the protection of the British Fleet and tliat, if we
did not interfei'e in world affairs, Napoleon's army
would cause us no trouble.

I recognize, of course, that it is difficult to chart
the course of a mainstream of history while it is
still in full flood. The ultimate meaning of to-
day's great events is for historians of the future
to define. But if we are to know where we are
going, if we are to direct our jiolicies with any



412



Department of State Bulletin



degree of confidence, we must seek, so far as we
can, to sort out the dominant forces at work in
the world, to try to determine tlieir implications —
for good or evil — and not be put off by slogans
of our own making, however comforting it might
be to give them credence.

Major Developments Affecting Foreign Policy

Tonight, therefore, I should like to suggest cer-
tain of these major developments that must be
taken into account in designing a modern-day
foreign policy. The three developments I shall
mention have acquired full visibility only in the
brief decade and a half since the war.

First, we have seen the aggressive intentions of
international conmiunisra combined with the
potential of modern technology and the manpower
of two great nations — the Soviet Union and
China — within a power system that involves al-
most one-third the population of the world. And,



Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 46, Jan- Mar 1962) → online text (page 79 of 101)