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

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

. (page 90 of 101)
Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 46, Jan- Mar 1962) → online text (page 90 of 101)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


and armaments which are being reduced or destroyed
under the agreement but also over that portion which
will remain in the possession of states for the time being.
It appears that the U.S. and its allies would like to have
the Soviet Union place under control all of its armed
forces and open up its entire defense system even before
disarmament has really begun.

I must say frankly that with such an approach to the
question of control you will attain nothing because to this
we will not agree.

The Soviet Union is interested in the establishment of
the strictest international control over the fulfillment of a
disarmament agreement. If, for instance, we reach
agreement on general and complete disarmament in
stages, then, in our opinion, the implementation of all
disarmament measures provided for each stage must be
thoroughly verified. We want no less than anybody else
to have assurance that the armaments and armed forces
to be liquidated at a given stage are actually being liqui-
dated or are being treated in such a manner as had been
agreed in advance and recorded in the Treaty. This
precisely is real, effective control over disarmament. On
the other hand, you propose not control over disarmament
but something entirely different.

Let us imagine that we are negotiating reduction of the
armed forces of our countries by several divisions. We
are prepared to agree to this.

But you demand that control be established not only
over the disbanding of those divisions but over all of tli(>
armed forces and armaments that are at the disposal of
states. This is really like the saying: "A ruble for a lamb
with ten rubles for change".

In the age of rocket and nuclear weapons — and we
have entered that age — masses of troops have far less
significance than they had in the first and second world
wars. Today, war would immediately assume an all-
embracing, universal character and its outcome would
depend not on the actions of troops placed at the line
dividing the belligerent iiarties but rather on the appli-
cation of rocket and nuclear weapons, with which the

468



deciding strike can be made even before mass armies have
been mobilized and introduced into combat.

Thus, under modern conditions reduction of the armed
forces of states by several divisions would in no way
change the situation. Control over the military poten-
tial of states which you wish to obtain in exchange for
an essentially insignificant reduction in armed forces, is
another matter. The establi.shment of such control would
yield a major strategic advantage to the state planning
aggression.

The control propo.sed by the Western Powers, i.e., con-
trol actually before disarmament, we regard with full
justification as espionage. Such control would permit an
aggressive state to place its intelligence agents on the
territories of peace-loving states and to collect infor-
mation about their defense systems : and then to decide
the question whether to agree to further disarmament or
turn the course of events toward war.

We do not wish this. The Soviet Union strives for an
honest agreement which would provide guarantee that
neither during the process of disarmament nor after its
completion a threat to the security of any state will arise.
This is why we say — let us work out a treaty on general
and complete disarmament under the strictest inter-
national control and let us implement the provisions of
that treaty in stages so that control be commensurate
with the disarmament steps undertaken. Having com-
pleted one stage of disarmament under control let us move
to the implementation of the next stage, also under con-
trol. This is a sound, realistic approach to the question
of control, and so far no one has been able to propose
a better one.

In the initial stages of disarmament there will of course
remain some armed forces and armaments which will
temporarily be outside the sphere of international control.
But will this change anything as compared with what we
have today? After all, even now we do not know exactly
the amounts of armaments at the disposal of the other
side. Under staged disarmament we will reduce the
armed forces and armaments by agreed increments and
therefore the correlation of forces and the balance which
has by now been established will not be disturbed. As
to the amount of armed forces and armaments on which
we will have no exact data after the completion of each
stage, it will constantly decrease until it comes down to
zero.

Where, then, does this Involve a threat to strategic
security of states? There is no suc-h threat and it cannot
exist with this approach.

This can in no way be said about inoposals of the
Western Powers. In insisting that control march before
disarmament the Western Powers only strengthen the
suspicions that they are pursuing any possible objective
other than disarmament. Tlie impression is created that
some kind of a disarmament game is being played. The
peoples of the entire world demand disarmament, they
want to throw off their shoulders the burden of military
expenditures, to clear the horizon of the thinider clouds
of war, while the Western Powers do not feel like dis-
arming. This is why all sort-s of plans appear, deliber-
ately calculated to be rej(H>ted by the other side- All
tills resembles trickery which is resorted to in order to
bury a live cause.

Department of State Bulletin



Now how else can one assess such recipes for disarma-
ment as provide for the reduction in troops by one per-
cent and for the extension of control over all of the oUier
ninety-nine percent of armed forces? How else can one
understand the refusal of the Western Powers to reduce
the scope of their military preparations, at least to some
extent, for example, to liquidate the military bases in
foreign territories and to withdraw their troops from
Europe to the conlines of their states. The Soviet Union
is prepared even now to bring home its troops which are
outside the country if the Western Powers do the same.

Where is there to be found here real partnership, under-
standing of the aspirations of the peoples, and the desire
to remove the danger of a rocket and nuclear war, which
would bring unbelievable disaster and suffering to all of
mankind ? There is not even a trace of that.

With this attitude on the part of the Governments of
the Western Powers toward the cause of disarmament,
where behind ostensible bustle around the questions of
control there is being pushed somewhere into the back-
yard the main thing — disarmament of the military estab-
lishment of states, one has really to fear lest the new
Committee be facing the sorry lot of its predecessors.
If there is no desire to agree on a realistic basis, then
obviously disarmament negotiations will amount to
nothing, whether the work of the Committee started with
the participation of the Heads of Government or at the
Foreign Minister level, or any other level.

I am not used to playing the hypocrite and hiding the
truth in my pocket and therefore shall say without beat-
ing around the bush : Your reply message, Mr. President,
as well as the message from Prime Minister Macmillan
have generated in me the feeling that those journalists
who see some special purposes in your proposal to begin
the work of the 18-Nation Committee at the Foreign
Minister level are perhaps right. They connect this pro-
posal directly with the statement of the Governments of
the United States and Great P.ritain about their intention
to resume nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere.

What is the reasoning of the journalists? They under-
stand that the Soviet Union will not leave that aggressive
action unanswered. The unrestrained desire on the part
of the United States and Great Britain to increase their
nuclear arsenal and to increase the destructive power of
their nuclear weapons will unavoidably lead to the Soviet
Union's being drawn into competition in the sphere of ac-
cumulation and perfection of nuclear weapons. It is un-
derstandable that the Soviet Union, which incidentally
has conducted far fewer experimental nuclear explosions,
will not wish to lag behind and will do everything to
maintain its nuclear weapons at the proper level. As a
result, swings will be set in motion to heights never seen
before, raising the nuclear armaments race to ever-higher
levels. Naturally, the peoples will place the responsibility
for this on the Governments of the United States and
Great Britain.

It is in connection with this that it is being said that
in advancing the idea of conducting disarmament negotia-
tions at the Ministerial level, the Governments of the
United States and Great Britain sought somehow to
paralyze the negative attitude of public opinion toward
the planned resumption of nuclear tests and to sweeten the
bitter pill by making a gesture in the direction of dis-

March 19, 7962



armament. This opinion became even stronger when the
United States and Great Britain replied in the negative
to the concrete, businesslike proposal of the Soviet Union
to begin the work of the disarmament committee at the
highest level with participation by the Heads of Govern-
ment, a proposal that gives greater assurance of success
in negotiations. As much as I would like to avoid un-
pleasant words — but the conclusion imposes itself that
apparently there is some truth in such commentaries by
journalists.

Where then is the matter going? We live in a time
when science and technology are developing swiftly and
new scientific and technological achievements are born
literally not every day but every hour. Rocket and nu-
clear armaments are ever increasing and now both we
and you already have thousands of units of such weapons.
They are manned by many thousands of personnel and that
number is ever increasing as the number of rockets in-
creases. But the more people are assigned to the manning
of lethal rockets and nuclear weapons, the greater the
probability that the unexpected may occur. After all,
there have already been cases in the United States where
bombers on alert missions with a payload of nuclear bombs
had accidents and fell to the ground causing considerable
unpleasant consequences.

And is it really out of the question that something simi-
lar can happen not only with bombers but also with
rockets equipped with thermonuclear warheads? In addi-
tion to all sorts of other reasons, this or that human
being manning a rocket-launching site may suffer a men-
tal breakdown and then an irreparable event would occur :
A nuclear explosion would occur on the territory of an-
other state. It would then be diflicult to prove that this
was the consequence of an accident and nothing more.
Moreover, would there be time for any explanations or
for the hearing of such explanations? The accidental
launching of a rocket with a thermonuclear warhead
could serve as a signal for a world-wide military
catastrophe.

Hunters have a good unwritten rule : Even if you know
that your gun is not loaded, never aim it in the direction
of a human being, even for fun. It is not for nothing that
they say that once in ten years even an unloaded gun
goes off.

Comparatively recently there was a report in the press
that the life of the great American writer Hemingway
had been ended by an accidental shot while a shotgun
was being cleaned. As great as this loss may be, still
in this instance only one human being lost his life as a
result of careless handling of a weapon. On the other
hand an accident in handling rocket and nuclear weapons
would bring about the death of millions upon millions of
people, while many would be condemned to slow death
as a result of radioactive contamination.

All this brings to mind once again that the leading
oflBcials of states, who bear the responsibility for the
destinies of peoples, must realize the actual state of
affairs which has already been brought about by the rocket
and nuclear armaments race and to which this race is
leading. General and complete disarmament, that is,
complete destruction of all armaments, particularly nu-
clear, has become in our time a vitally necessary task,
which stands above everything else. In the interests of

469



the speediest solution of this task the Soviet Govern-
ment has been and still is for having the 18-Nation Dis-
armament Committee begin its work at the highest level.

The search for agreement on disarmament problems
requires that unnecessary punctiliousness be cast aside
and that the interests of the cause, the interests of
strengthening peace, be placed above everything else.
This is why I should like to hope that you, Mr. President,
have not yet said your last word concerning your partici-
pation Ln the negotiations in the 18-Nation Disarmament
Committee.

The Soviet Government sincerely seeks to reach agree-
ment on disarmament and has proposed with the best of
intentions that the work of the 18-Nation Committee be
begun at the highest level.

The Soviet Government believes that the proposals for
general and complete disarmament under strict interna-
tional control advanced by it provide a basis for reaching
agreement without prejudice to any individual party and
without advantage to any other party. Of course we are
prepared to consider other propo.sals as well if they reall.v
will ensure the solution of the problem of general and
complete disarmament.

If the Governments of the Western Powers desire
agreement on disarmament problems — and the Soviet
Union and the other socialist countries do wish to reach
it — then one could definitely hope that negotiations with
the participation of the Heads of Government will yield
tangible results, and agreement will become possible.
This would be a great honor to those who would have
laid, at the beginning of the negotiations, the foundation
for a future agreement and found ways of overcoming
the existing difficulties. And what a great reward it
would be for the Heads of Government, Heads of State,
then to sign a treaty on general and complete disarma-
ment and to become participants in an historic event
which would remain in the memories of all mankind for
ages to come.

Respectfully,

N. Khrushchev

Mos(X)W
February 21, 1962



Prime Minister of Norway
To Visit United States

White House press release dated February 21

The President announced on February 21 that
Einar Gerhardsen, Prime Minister of Norway, has
accepted an invitation to visit the United States.
He will be in the United States for a 5-day Presi-
dential guest visit beginning May 8, with 2 days
at Washington. The American Ambassador to
Norway, Clifton R. Wharton, extended the invi-
tation to the Prime Minister on February 16.



Workers of Brazil Contribute
to West's Ideals and Hopes

Statement by President Kennedy ^

Mr. Minister, on this occasion of your visit to
the United States I want to extend through you
my greetings and best wishes to the leaders and
members of the democratic trade-union movement
of Brazil.

For many years the workers of Brazil have
played an important and prominent role in the in-
ternational labor organizations of the free world.
I want to congratulate them and to express my
confidence that they will continue to contribute
their strength and their knowledge to the free
labor movement. The contribution of free labor
to the achievement of our mutually held ideals and
hopes is becoming daily more significant.

Under the Alliance for Progress the democratic
labor movements of all our countries have an im-
portant part to play. By the combined effort of
all sectors of our free society we shall reach the
goal of a better life in freedom and dignity.



$150 Million in Loans Made
Available to Argentina

White House press release (Palm Beach, Fla.) dated February 25

The Wliite House announced on February 25
that the United States is making $150 million
available in loans to Argentina for its economic
development imder the Alliance for Progress.

The money will be used for specific development
projects and balance-of-payinents assistance.

In making the announcement the President re-
affirmed the intention of the United States to work
with Argentina in carrying forward a plan of
development designed to bring a rapid increase in
the economic and social welfare of the Argentine
people.

"The development of Argentina's economy
within a framework of representative democracy
is one of the principal goals of the Alliance for
Progress," stated the President.



^ Made on Feb. 19 following a meeting at Washington
between President Kennedy and Andr4 Franco Montoro,
Minister of Labor of Brazil (White House press release).



470



Department of State Bulletin



American Agriculture in Foreign Trade



by Edwin M. Martin

Assistant Secretary for fLconomic Affairs '



It is a matter of great pleasure for me to return
to tlie Midwest and be with you here today. I
regret that my schedule does not permit me tc-
stay for the full 2-day program which the Na-
tional Fann Institute Committee has planned
for you. The choice of speakers and subjects
indicates that you will have a stimulating and
helpful review of the stake and prospects of
American agriculture in foreign trade.

To contribute to this total picture the commit-
tee has suggested that I should discuss what the
European Common Market means for American
farm exports and the closely related subject of
the President's new trade program.^ I assume
that I owe the privilege of being selected to dis-
cuss these matters with you to the fact that my
office is one of the nerve centere — and the term
is on some days peculiarly apt — one of the nerve
centers, or command posts, which share responsi-
bility for what is being done with regard to both
of these issues.

I should like at the outset to emphasize that the
Trade Expansion Act is the culmination of a
series of major initiatives which the United States
has taken since the war with a special bearing
on our economic relations with Europe, the other
major free-world economic power center. You
will recall them :

1. The Marshall plan to restore the war-dam-
aged economies to health.

2. The creation of a large Common Market in
Western Europe with political as well as economic
objectives.



3. The reorganization on an Atlantic basis of
the OEEC [Organization for European Economic
Cooperation] by bringing the United States and
Canada in as full members and reorientating its
work to reflect our common global responsibilities.

The Marshall plan was a huge success: The
dollar gap with which we were struggling has
disappeared, and European rates of growth ai'e
outstripping our own.

The Common Market is a fact; it is achieving
its goal of free movement of goods, people, and
capital more rapidly than originally planned, and
it is making significant progress toward greater
political cohesion in Western Europe.

The OEEC has been replaced by the OECD
[Organization for Economic Cooperation and De-
velopment] , which, though less than 6 months old,
is already contributing important leadership to
the economic strengthening of the free world.

Last summer the United Kingdom decided it
wished to join the Six rather than continuing to
lead a competing organization.^ This is a further
step which we have welcomed and supported,
though it is too early to tell whether the U.K.
negotiations will succeed.

Now the President has proposed that, in the
interest of even closer free-world cooperation and
to enable the United States economy to share more
fully in the free-world prosperity which previous
United States policies have done so much to make
possible, the United States should take a new in-
itiative designed to lower significantly the tariff
barriers which still divide us.



' Address made before the National Farm Institute at
Des Moines, Iowa, on Feb. 16 (press release 102 dated
Feb. 15).

' For text of the President's trade message to Congress,
see Bulletin of Feb. 12, 19C2, p. 2,S1 ; for a brief summary
of the bill (H.R. 9900), see ihid., Feb. 26, 1962, p. 343.



' The six members of the Common Market are Belgium,
France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Nether-
lands ; seven nations — Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portu-
gal, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom — are
members of the European Free Trade Association
(EFTA).



March 19, 7962



471



Here are five major initiatives in the United

States' interest in this one area since the war.
None were responses to Soviet moves. Tliree have
succeeded, and the two latest have good prospects
of success. They liave all aroused sharp reactions
from the Kremlin, whose occupants have found
no way of blocking or even slowing down our
progress. By our joint efforts we are emphatically
ramming home to them the futility of counting on
the collapse of capitalism in an outburst of eco-
nomic warfare among the Western Powers. I do
not suggest we don't still have many problems but
only point out the continuity and success of U.S.
foreign policy actions in this area, a record of
which I think we can all be proud.

U.S. Economic Assets

As I have just noted, this latest proposal is de-
signed both to achieve important foreign policy
objectives and to strengthen the United States
economy. To deal with the latter point first, I
think we can all agree that we need a more rapid
rate of economic growth; we need more jobs at
good wages for American workers and higher in-
comes for American farmers. We need to bring
our balance of payments into reasonable equilib-
rium, not only in our ovm interest but because of
the importance of a sound dollar to world trade
generally — it is after all one of the two basic re-
serve currencies. We think the President's new
trade program can contribute importantly to all
these goals by expanding exports more rapidly
than imports.

The approach of the new program is directly in
the American tradition of a flexible, aggressive,
expansive, competitive economy, accustomed to
change. This spirit has made us much the richest
and strongest nation in the world today. This is
an asset on which to build, a force to use.

Until recently our explosive energies have been
largely occupied in developing the huge resources
of this continent and in meeting the needs of a
rapidly growing and increasingly well-off popula-
tion. In the world of the sixties we must take
advantage of the social and technological changes
which have taken place to expand our economic
horizons to the whole free world. Only on such a
broadened scale can United States ingenuity and
skill and productive genius find a purchasing pub-
lic large and varied enough to challenge it, to make
it grow, and to keep it profitable. Only by ex-



ploiting this wider export market will the United
States people be able to afford to import products
from all over the globe to satisfy tlieir more so-
phisticated tastes, their greater willingness and
ability to do their shopping in the markets of the
whole free world, their still-growing wealth to
spend on products above the necessity level.

Our best chance of success in pressing large vol-
umes of United States exports into this global
market lies in concentrating on those products in
which we have an economic advantage. It seems
to me to be fairly obvious to any American that
we are at our best in the case of mass-produced
products which require relatively large capital
investment, coupled with a high proportion of
skilled workers and backed by large research pro-
grams, keeping productivity and the product al-
ways a little out in front of the competition. This
is the battleground on which we can win, and
here we should choose to make our stand.

It should be noted that the sectors of industry
which meet these criteria tend to be "growth" in-
dustries, to use a stockjobber's phrase. They are
also the industries with the highest wage rates.
Thus emphasis on expanding their opportunities
not only offers most promise of expanding United
States export sales, but in doing so we will im-
prove our rate of economic gi'owth and raise the
standard of living of our labor force.

Government Support for Expanding Exports

Insofar as Government action can affect the
world of business, it should therefore lend its sup-
port primarily to improving the ability of United
States producers to take advantage in foreign mar-
kets of these special United States assets. What
are we doing?

To encourage increased investment in modern
equipment the Treasury Department is reviewing
all of its guidelines which determine depreciation



Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 46, Jan- Mar 1962) → online text (page 90 of 101)