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

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

. (page 93 of 101)
Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 46, Jan- Mar 1962) → online text (page 93 of 101)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

Matsas, Alexander A 479

Rusk, Secretary 448,455,464


BOSTON 17, ■ S


United States
Government Printing Office


Washington 25, D.C.





Together We Are Strom




A carefully documented presentation of the important role for-
eign trade plays in strengthening the economies of the United
States and otiier free-world nations. It describes both the de-
pendence of the free- world countries on U.S. exports and the im-
portance of the United States as one of their principal export

This 61-page illustrated pamphlet also discusses the need for
developing a new trade policy which will equip the United States
witli the means to seize the opportunities presented by the expand-
ing European Common Market and to meet the challenge of the
increasing Communist trade offensive. (This pamphlet is a re-
vision of the 1958 edition.)

Publication 7336

30 cents


Order Form

Supt. of Documents
Govt. Printing Office
Washington 25, D.C.

Please send me — copies of Together We Are Strong


Enclosed find:

Street Address:

(cash, check, or money
order payable to
Supt. of Docs.)

City, Zone, and State:


Vol. XLVI, No. 1187

March 26, 1962






Secretary Rusk 4o7


sages Between President Kennedy and Soviet Premier
Khrushchev 494

MENT OF STATE • Statement by Under Secretary Ball
and Remarks by Assistant Secretary Tubby 513


CENTO • Statement by Walt ff. Rostoic and Text of
Communique "

MUNISM • by Ambassador Thomas C. Mann .... 500

For index see inside hack cover


Vol. XLVI, No. 1187 • PuBUCATioN 7354
March 26, 1962

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington 25, D.O.


52 Issues, domestic $8.50, foreign $12.26

Single copy, 25 cents

Use of funds for printing of this publica-
tion approved by the Director of the Bureau
of the Budget (January 19, 1961).

Note: Contents of this publication are not
copyrighted and items contained herein may
be reprinted. Citation of the Department
OY State Bulletin as the source will be
appreciated. The Bulletin is indexed In the
Readers' Guide to Periodioil Literature.

The Department of State BULLETIN,
a weekly publication issued by the
Office of Public Services, Bureau of
Public Affairs, provides the public
and interested agencies of the
Government tcith information on
developments in the field of foreign
relations and on the tcork of the
Department of State and the Foreign
Service. The BULLETIN includes se-
lected press releases on foreign policy,
issued by the White House and the
Department, and statements and ad-
dresses made by the President and by
the Secretary of State and other
officers of the Department, as well as
special articles on various pluises of
international affiiirs and the func-
tions of the Department. Informa-
tion is included concerning treaties
and international agreements to
which the United States is or may
become a party and treaties of gen-
eral intcrruitional interest.

Publications of the Department,
United Nations documents, and legis-
lative material in the field of inter-
national relations are listed currently.

The Realities of Foreign Policy


It's a very great pleasure indeed to be here. I
don't know whether it's symbolic or not that your
program says that after you have heard from
the Secretary of State you will then bo given a
break. (Laughter.) But I am happy to be with
the Advertising Council. I have known some-
tliing of the public service of this Council both
as a private citizen and as an official, and I have
very great respect and appreciation for it.

I might apologize to my friends in the press
that I am not able to give you a piece of paper
which will bear a reasonable resemblance to what
I am going to say this afternoon, but I am speak-
ing informally, from rough notes. There are
times when I think that I ought to make my con-
tribution to protect the working press against
excessive automation. (Laughter.)

But all of us who are engaged in talking to the
public, through whatever medium, face the prob-
lem of context — how to present what we have to
say with integrity, within the time or space avail-
able. This is especially difficult in the field of
foreign affairs, where each major problem is in-
finitely complex, where what we do on one matter
affects seriously what we do on many others,
where a part cannot be handled except in relation
to the whole, and where the whole is almost im-
possible to grasp all at one time.

Wliat we try to avoid is to reduce great policy
matters to empty or misleading slogans or pat
phrases. We do so because we miist forever con-
cern ourselves with the underlying realities of
policy, in the real world in which we live and in
the light of real responsibilities, real threats, real
opportunities, and the prospects for building a real
environment in the world in which our institutions
of freedom can flourish. It is inevitable, however,
that public debate, which is crucial to the vitality

' Made before the Advertising Council, Inc., at Wash-
ington, D.C., on Mar. 6 (press release 149 dated Mar. 8).

of our democracy, produces oversimplification.
And some of this conceals rather than illuminates
the truth.

I am referring not only to the most notorious
use of inverted and distorted language of our
present time — the corruption by commumsm of
such notions as "peace," "democracy," "aggres-
sion," "liberation." ^ I have in mind also the some-
times well-meaning but confused men in our own
society who hamper the conduct of our foreign
policy by propagating myths and fallacies which
divert us from the real job at hand. I have in
mind especially the various groups of pessimistic
sloganeers who apparently believe that the Com-
munists are as invincible as they claim to be, who
concede to them victories which they have not won,
who doubt the intelligence and dedication of our
own people and appear to distrust the ability of
our principles and ideals to prevail in open com-

The Federal Trade Commission has the power
to blow the whistle on certain advertising which
it deems false and misleading. Fortunately —
and I emphasize "fortunately" — there is no au-
thority in our society which can halt the output
of false and misleading ideas and allegations about
our foreign policy, for these are matters which
require lively debate and we are committed in our
society to the ability of free speech to sort out the
true and the false.

But I should like to direct your attention to a
few false notions which continue to crop up here
and there. And first I should like to mention
just one or two which have to do with the Depart-
ment for which I am responsible.

One still sees allegations or insinuations that
the State Department is soft or naive in its atti-
tudes toward communism. The global struggle
for freedom is our main business in foreign af-

' For an address by Ambassador Thomas C. Mann on
the theories, dogmas, and semantics of communism, see
p. 500.

March 26, 1962


fairs, just as it has been our main business here
at home since the founding of our Republic. My
colleagues and I give intensive attention, day by
day, to Communist strategy and tactics. I doubt
that any other government collects and analyzes
and gives as much thought to as much informa-
tion on this central subject as do we in our own
Government. No one has to convince us that the
contest between Communist imperialism and free-
dom is for keeps, and nobody has to convince us
that when Khrushchev said he would bury us he
was proclaiming not just an alleged historical
inevitability but an objective toward which Com-
munists work relentlessly to the best of their

Any sensitive department of government in the
United States is subject to special efforts of pene-
tration on the part of those who would bring us
down. This responsibility for the loyalty and
security of the some 14,000 men and women who
serve us in the Department of State is a direct
and personal responsibility of mine, to wliich I
give personal attention. I am determined that
if there is any problem of that sort we shall dis-
cover it and remedy it. But I am also determined
that in administering this basic accommodation to
insure the loyalty and integrity of our SerAnce we
shall do so consistent with justice to the individual.

Competence of Department Personnel

Sometimes we still hear that old phrase about
"striped-pants cookie pushers in the Department
of State." I am almost embarrassed to have to
refer to that again, because we as a nation should
long since have learned what that situation is.

Of course there are formalities in diplomacy;
there have been for several hundred years. And
these formalities are deliberately designed to fa-
cilitate civil exchange among governments, to
make it easy to decide how these communications
shall go forward between governments, to answer
a great many questions which in olden times used
to cause fighting among diplomats in the streets
of London or Paris, formalities which take the
accidents of personality out of great dealings be-
tween governments on major matters of state.
Of course there are formalities, but just as parades
are not the main business of soldiers, so protocol
is not the main business of diplomacy. And I
can testify to you that the representatives of the
United States here and abroad dealing with for-
eign governments are people who make a vigorous

representation of American interests, who try to
extend those in whatever way i^ossible, who try to
find the bases of common agreement and interest
between us and other governments, who in the
face of a dispute will find a way — will seek a
way — to resolve it and, where disputes cannot be
resolved, to find a way to insulate them and to
isolate them so as to reduce the danger to us and
to the rest of the world.

I am proud of the competence of our men and
women in the Department of State. Not long
ago I was called on by a distinguished group of
privata citizens who had helped us in our several
selection and promotion boards in the Department
of State. Unanimously they told me personally
about their impressions of the high quality of
personnel in our Department. One of them, Mr.
Charles Lewis, of the American Tobacco Com-
pany, was quoted the other day as saying, having
served on one of these committees, that "as the
record unfolded I became simply flabbergasted
at the quality of the young women and young
men we were reviewing. Frankly, they were so
much better quality people, in my judgment, than
comparable people in business that it was hard
to believe."

I want to say just a word about courage and
gallantry in our Service, because in peacetime we
tend to forget it. We tend to overlook tliose 72
members of the Foreign Ser\ace whose names are
on a tablet in the Department of State and who
gave their lives in active service abroad.

We tend to forget that our men are serving in
distant, difficult, and frequently dangerous parts
of the world, that one week an ambassador will
have a grenade tossed at his car — which fortu-
nately does not go off ; that another week a man —
by the way, whose blank, before the promotion
board, opposite the category called "courage," had
inscribed on it "Nothing special to rejwrt" — that
this man, the very week that the board was looking
at that blank, with a personal act of heroism
rescued certain United Nations people in the
Congo at ( he risk of his own life.

The courage and gallantry of our men and
their wives, their families — oiu" men and women —
is something that is deeply impressive as I go
about this daily business.

Turning aside from the Department of State
for a second, there are some other slogans that
seem to be {lassed aroimd these days, as I read


Department of Stale Bulletin

some of the literature that comes to me at the
oflice and also is dropped in my mailbox at home.
We hear such phrases as a "no win" policy. We
hear demands that we withdraw from the United
Nations, demands tluit we withdraw from NATO,
demands that we stop foreign aid, demands that
we stop contacts with Yugoslavia or that we cease
any kind of communication or exchange with
members of the Communist bloc. As I look
through this material from time to time I am not
quite clear whether those who are this small mi-
nority — I think it is a small minority — expect us
to incinerate the Northern Hemisphei'e or to
abandon the game to the opposition. Because this
is what some of these things amount to.

If we ourselves fully understand the nature of
the task, I think the good sense, the dedication,
and the broad judgment of the American people
will make themselves felt.

The President pointed out just the other day
that basically what we are after is to find ways
and means to protect and defend the vital interests
of the United States and its allies, the free world,
by peace, if possible, and that all of our efforts are
bent in that direction.

It is possible, of course, to debate particular
aspects of policy. But I hope that we can find
ways to get at the reality involved. And if there
are those, for example, who want us to break con-
tacts with Yugoslavia, one can make an argument
for that. But those who want to pursue that policy
should make an argument for pursuing a policy
which would drive Yugoslavia back into the Soviet
bloc. And those who would want us to impose
sanctions upon all governments whose leaders may
say things or do things from time to time with
which we may not agree or which we don't find
comfortable — they should stand up and defend the
policy of increasing isolationism for this country
in the conduct of our world affairs. Somehow we
must find ways beneath the slogans, behind the
short phrases, to get at the reality of policy.

Importance of the U.N. System

Let's take, for a moment, this matter of with-
drawal from the United Nations. The enlarge-
ment of its membership to 104, a membership
which may very well go to 125 before the process
is completed — this enlargement of the membership
has led a good many people to feel frustrated and
disappointed in the United Nations.

Many things are said there that we don't like.
Many votes are taken which we don't find partic-
ularly congenial. But the important thing to bear
in mind is that in the United Nations system we
have a society of governments all of which are
committed to the basic prmciples of the United
Nations Charter— and I am thinking particularly
of the preamble and of articles 1 and 2 of that
charter. If any of you have read those brief
sections recently, I think you would understand
that the long-range foreign policy of the American
people is entirely congenial with those articles.

It's a matter of no small importance that you do
not hear in the debates of the United Nations
cynicism about the charter. Even those who may
be acting or speaking, in our view, most contrary
to the charter feel under pressure to go to con-
siderable lengths to reconcile what they are saying
with the commitments of that charter.

There is a very important American interest
in working with that kind of an organization,
with those commitments, with that gravitational
pull on the course of debate, with that kind of
standard established by formal declaration, with
that environment of discussion. We cannot aban-
don this field to the opposition. We cannot give up
the opportunities that are there for us in that
forum. We cannot suppose that those commit-
ments are empty as we talk to 104 members about
their own policy and their own f utui'e.

At its recent session the enlarged General As-
sembly beat down, for example, the Soviet troika
scheme and put U Thant in office, with no limita-
tions on the power of the Secretary-General.

It dealt straightforwardly with the issue of seat-
ing Red China, following the first full debate on
the merits of that question which had occurred in
the last 10 years.

It endorsed three major United States pro-
posals: the U.N. Decade of Development, a new
start on cooperation in outer space, and a new
$100 million world food program.

It reaffirmed the position of the United Nations
on Communist injustice in Korea and Hungary
and Tibet.

It endorsed a United States plea for renewal
of talks in Geneva on a nuclear test ban.

Within the so-called "Afro- Asian bloc" — which
seems to worry some people — there are vast dif-
ferences of political outlook and national interest,
religious influence, racial feeling, et cetera. But

March 26, 1962


the voting record on important issues does not
bear out the allegation that new African coun-
tries, for example, will tend to vote Communist,
as I have seen it quoted. As recently as January
30, 20 African states gave the Communists a
severe rebuff by opposing a Soviet effort to pro-
mote tension and chaos in the Congo by reopening
debate in the Security CouncU.

New nations, of course, tend to be preoccupied
with colonial issues and with emotions engendered
by their colonial past in struggles for independ-
ence. But the recent U.N. record shows that most
resolutions relevant to colonialism have been
adopted in moderate form, while parallel resolu-
tions in extreme form usually have been defeated.

A very recent and striking example is the reso-
lution on Euanda-Urundi, a Belgian trust terri-
tory adjoining the Republic of the Congo, which
is scheduled to become independent, as two na-
tions, on July 1st, subject to approval of the Gen-
eral Assembly. The original version of this
resolution would have required complete removal
of all Belgian forces before independence. Afro-
Asian nations took the lead in introducing a com-
promise resolution which would permit Belgian
forces to remain in Ruanda-Unmdi with the con-
sent of the authorities involved after independ-
ence, for they were not blind to the lessons of the
Congo's bitter experience.

We may note also how the Afro- Asian countries
joined our Latin American neighbors in rejecting
Communist bloc efforts at the United Nations to
distort the Cuban issue.

The United Nations is, among other things, a
great educational institution for its members, edu-
cational for us as well as for the new membei-s
who have joined its ranks in considerable num-
bers in the last few years.

Relations With Allies and Neutrals

There is another set of questions which has to
do with alliances and neutrals.

First, let me speak for a moment about those
questions which come up with respect to our con-
cern for, attention to, and seriousness about our

This country has several hundred thousand
troops scattered in almost every continent, with
heavy concentrations, of couree, in the NATO
area as a demonstration of the seriousness with
which we take our alliance.

Over the years we formed these alliances for one
essential purpose — to move together with other
governments and other nations on a mutual basis
to guarantee their and our safety and independ-
ence. We take those alliances seriously and are
engaged daily in discussing with our allies the
important issues which we and they have before
us and which have to do with the solidarity of our

The very fact that we do occasionally have dif-
ferences with an ally is itself a sign of the kind
of alliance we have. We did not buy satellites
through our alliances. We did not attempt to do
so. We did not pledge ourselves to become a
satellite of others because we joined an alliance.
We are associations of independent nations, each
considering its own vital interests, each finding
the broadest basis of common interest on which
we can proceed together, but all willing at all times
to discuss great issues to see where we can con-
solidate and coordinate our policy.

It may come as a surprise to some of you, in
view of some of these remarks that have been made
in criticism of alliance policy, that during this
last General Assembly, in all of the votes taken —
on something like 100 issues before the General
Assembly — the United States, along with Greece,
most frequently voted with the majority of the
NATO alliance. It should be evident that we do
not control the vote of any other member of that
alliance, but it should be equally evident that we
also take our alliances seriously. We do a great
deal about them. We have made basic commit-
ments that pledge our strength and the life of this
nation to our alliances, and we are in daily con-
sultation with all 40 of our allies to see to what
extent we can agree on these great issues arising
aromid the world.

As for the neutrals: Wliy do we suppose that
there is such a fundamental difference between
our allies and the neutrals? I have already noted
that wo were not buying satellites when we went
into alliances. We weren't trying for that. We
are interested in the independence of nations, and
over the years our alliances have been formed in
order that others can have our support in tlieir
own attempt to be free and independent under

The President and others before him have de-
clared that the basic policy of this country is to
work toward a world community of independent
nations, free to work out their own lives as they


Department of State Bulletin

see fit but cooperating across national frontiers on
matters of common interest and joining to get
mutual jobs accomplished.

From that point of view, the difference between
an ally and a neutral is not fundamental and far-
reaching. The independence of neutrals is also
important to us. The vitality of independent
neutral states is a part of that world community
which we see ahead of us as we work along on
these foreign policy questions.

So in our approach to these questions there is
no severe shock to our ultimate goals when we
pass from the problems of alliances to the prob-
lems of other states, because our basic purpose —
as can be read in the United Nations Charter — is
a community of independent nations cooperating
in common interest for the preservation of peace
and for the accomplishment of great common

We don't cater to neutrals. But we do believe
that any nation and people who want to preserve
their independence are on the same side in this
great global struggle. Certainly it is not in our
interest to push them into the arms of the Com-
munist world by any expression of hostility to-
ward them at a time when they are, themselves,
struggling for their independence.

Some independent nations are not as sharply
aware, perhaps, as they should be of the tactics
and the intentions of the Communists. But many
have been learning from experience, and several
nations which a few years ago seemed to be lean-
ing rather heavily toward the Communist bloc
have been in the process of pulling back domesti-
cally and to an extent in their foreign affairs. It
is a matter of some importance that no country
that has become independent since World War
II has moved behind the Curtain.

Competitive Quality of Free Institutions

Finally, before I come to your questions, let
me make a remark on this matter of the competi-
tive quality of free institutions. One can make
a rousing speech on this subject. I will make
some quiet remarks, because I think we are entitled
to deep confidence in the competitive capabilities
of the ideas and the institutions of the free world
and in its performance.

The most powerful revolutionary idea at work
in the world today is the notion that governments
derive their just powers from the consent of the

governed. The nationalist revolution, the revolu-
tion of freedom, is the most powerful force
throughout most of the world. And even behind
the Curtain the impact of this notion of the con-
sent of the governed is making itself felt.

Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 46, Jan- Mar 1962) → online text (page 93 of 101)