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

Department of State bulletin (Volume v. 56, Jan- Mar 1967) online

. (page 19 of 90)
Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 56, Jan- Mar 1967) → online text (page 19 of 90)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


is true: The U.N. was created to cope with
just such difficulties as these.

Some jieople used to suppose that the U.N.
was intended by its founders to do away with
all these problems overnight. Any such ex-
pectation was certain to end in disillusion-
ment. Whoever truly believes in human
progress must expect to pay the price in slow
and frustrating human effort.

The troubles of our age are many and pro-



68



DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN



found. We shall conquer some of them, step
by step, in our time; others, in all likelihood,
will still be around for our children and
grandchildren to wrestle with.

But if these jiroblems are not to overwhelm
us, the nations which make up the human
family must have the means to cope with
them together, as members of one human
family.

The means exist today in the institutions
of international order, however primitive
they may be. The capstone of these institu-
tions is the United Nations. Let us use it for
all it is worth, because our willingness to do
so may well spell the difference between
catastrophe and a world in which human
freedom is possible.



Mr. Lilienthal To Head U.S. Team
Studying Vietnamese Development

The White House announced on December
16 that, in response to a request from Prime
Minister [Nguyen Cao] Ky, the United
States Government will join with the Gov-
ernment of Viet-Nam in sponsoring a joint
planning effort on the long-run development
of the Vietnamese economy.

In the opinion of the two Governments it
is time now to prepare for the problems and
jpportunities of peace.

With the concurrence of the Vietnamese
overnment, the United States Government
las asked Mr. David E. Lilienthal to lead a
longoveiTimental U.S. study and planning
;eam which will report to the two Govern-
nents. Mr. Lilienthal has agreed to put to-
gether a team drawn from his Development
md Resources Corporation and other U.S.
ources with broad experience in develop-
nental planning. It will operate under con-
;ract to the Agency for International De-
velopment. Mr. Lilienthal's experience and
ligh qualifications are widely known, and the
i'resident is grateful that he has agreed to
mdertake this task.

The United States team will work closely
vith a counterpart Vietnamese development
)lanning team led by Professor Nguyen



ANUARY 9, 1967



Dang Thuc of the University of Saigon.

The Government of Viet-Nam stressed at
the Manila Conference i its plans for the
building of an expanded postwar economy,
including plans for the conversion of mili-
tary installations when appropriate.

Eugene Black, after his recent tour of
Southeast Asia, has reported to the Presi-
dent that, even in the midst of war, the
foundations of future economic progress are
being laid in Viet-Nam. The outlook for the
Vietnamese economy once peace returns is
highly favorable, Mr. Black told the Presi-
dent.



U.S. Businessmen To Visit Korea
for Investment, Trade Studies

The White House announced on December
15 that George W. Ball, former Under Sec-
retary of State, mil head a privately orga-
nized delegation of U.S. businessmen to
Korea during the week of March 20 to stimu-
late American private investment and to pro-
mote increased U.S.-Korean trade.

The mission was originally proposed dur-
ing discussions between President Johnson
and Korean President Chung Hee Park in
Seoul early in November. The Presidents
agreed then that the Korean economy's cur-
rent progress should make possible a sub-
stantial expansion of U.S. investment in
Korea and in trade between the two nations.^

The Korean economy has grown at a rate
of 8 percent per year in the last 3 years.
During the same period, exports have tripled
and are expected to reach the equivalent of
$250 million in 1966.

Delegation members will be selected dur-
ing the next month. Each will be a leader
in his industry or in the financial community.
It is planned to include representatives of



' For texts of the documents issued at the close of
the Manila Conference, see Bulletin of Nov. 14,
1966, p. 730.

' For text of a joint statement issued at Seoul,
Korea, on Nov. 2 at the conclusion of President
Johnson's state visit, see Bulletin of Nov. 21, 1966,
p. 777.



69



large and small industry, banking, and trade
from major business centers of the United
States who will be interested in specific areas
of industry or trade in Korea.

Mr. Ball, presently associated with the in-
vestment banking firm of Lehman Brothers,
is chairman of Lehman International, Ltd.,
and counsel to the law firm of Cleary, Gott-
lieb, Steen and Hamilton.

Tristan E. Beplat, senior vice president of
Manufacturers Hanover Trust and president
of the Korean-American Commercial and In-
dustrial Association in New York, has agreed
to assist Mr. Ball.



Mexican-U.S. Trade Committee
Holds Second Meeting

Joint Communique

Press release 296 dated December 21

The Joint Mexican-United States Trade
Committee ^ held its second annual meeting
from December 15 to 17, 1966, in Mexico
City to discuss matters concerning United
States-Mexican trade. The Delegation of
Mexico was headed by Mr. Placido Garcia
Reynoso, Subsecretary of Industry and Com-
merce, and the United States Delegation by
Mr. Joseph A. Greenwald, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for International Trade
Policy.

This joint committee is a continuing forum
created by the two governments for the
regular exchange of views on issues involved
in trade between the two countries and to
consider recommendations for possible ac-
tions to facilitate trade to the advantage of
both nations. The meetings of the committee
have been characterized by frankness and
cordiality.

The committee considered general trade
trends and specific commercial problems re-
garding Mexican-U.S. trade. The U.S. Dele-



' For background, see Bulletin of Nov. 8, 1965, p.
738.



gation welcomed steps that had been taken
by the Government of Mexico in the interval
between the first and second meetings to
liberalize and improve the administration of
Mexican import controls.

The Delegation of Mexico noted with
great interest steps that had been taken by
the U.S. Government since the initial meeting
of the Committee to liberalize access to the
U.S. market for certain exports from
Mexico. These steps included elimination by
the United States of some import restrictions
in addition to certain tariff and customs
measures of benefit to Mexican trade.

The hope was expressed that further steps
might be taken by the governments of both
countries to facilitate the mutual trade,
taking into consideration the difference in the
levels of development between them and the
necessity for Mexico to take internal
measures to stimulate the development of its
economy.

The two delegations took note of recent
developments in the GATT [General Agree-
ment on Tariffs and Trade], especially the
formal entry into force of the new part IV
on trade and development, in which, among
other things, the developed countries agreed
not to require full reciprocity from less
developed countries in trade negotiations.

The two delegations also noted the
progress of the Kennedy Round of tariff
negotiations. The U.S. Delegation pointed
out that even countries not members of
GATT stand to receive benefits from these
negotiations through the application of the
most-favored-nation rule.

There was an exchange of views regarding
the Mexican Government program of indus-
trialization and related measures concerning
the domestic ownership of enterprises in
certain economic areas.

In considering concrete cases, the Mexican
delegation pointed out certain problems
which arise from U.S. customs duties and
which hinder the sale of Mexican products
in the U.S. market. The Mexican delegation
suggested the elimination or reduction of
such duties.



70



DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN



The U.S. Delegation mentioned concrete
cases in which the reduction of duties and
import restrictions would permit greater
access for U.S. products to the Mexican
market and explained how increased imports
of these products might benefit the Mexican
economy as well as that of the United
States.

A special aspect of the meeting was a
presentation of progress achieved by Ambas-
sador Harry Turkel and Mr. Agustin Lopez
Munguia, who were appointed by the Govern-
ments of the United States and Mexico
respectively to study problems and make
recommendations regarding facilitating trade
in the U.S.-Mexico border areas.

The committee also discussed a U.S. pro-
posal for a bilateral agreement to facilitate
the transit of the U.S.-Mexican border by
truck carriers as a means of improving trade
between the two countries.



President Frei of Chile
To Visit the United States

Statement by President Johnson

White House press release (Austin, Tex.) dated December 20

I have invited President Eduardo Frei of
Chile to make an official visit to Washington
on February 1 and 2. He has accepted, and
arrangements are being worked out.

I look forward to this visit with special
interest. During the past 2 years President
Frei and I have communicated by letter on
I several occasions. The visit will give us the
■ opportunity to talk further about issues af-
fecting our respective countries, the hemi-
sphere, and the world. I am particularly in-
terested in learning more from President
Frei about the achievements of his great ex-
periment of revolution in freedom. Natu-
rally, we will also review the future course
of the Alliance for Progress in relation to
preparation for the meeting of Presidents
of the American Republics.



U.S. Appoints Observers
for Antarctic Inspections

The Department of State announced on
December 23 (press release 299) the appoint-
ment of nine Antarctic observers, replacing
those who were appointed in 1963, to carry
out any inspections which the United States,
as a signatory to the Antarctic Treaty, may
decide to undertake in accord with provisions
of that treaty.

The names of persons appointed as ob-
servers are: Merton E. Davies, Ernest F.
Dukes, Richard P. Gingland, Karl W.
Kenyon, Cyril Muromcew, Carl J. Sinder-
mann, Frank G. Siscoe, Malcolm Toon, and
Arthur I. Wortzel.i

The Antarctic Treaty 2 provides that in
the Antarctic area there shall be freedom of
scientific investigation and continued inter-
national cooperation and that the area shall
be used for peaceful purposes only. It bans
nuclear explosions and the disposal of atomic
waste in Antarctica pending general inter-
national agreement on the subject (but does
not prohibit the use of nuclear reactors).
While implying neither renunciation nor
recognition of rights or asserted claims, it
prohibits for the duration of the treaty the
making of new claims, the enlarging of exist-
ing claims, and the use of activities in
Antarctica as a basis for asserting, support-
ing, or denying territorial claims. It grants
to the signatories of the treaty the right of
inspection and aerial observation in all areas
of Antarctica and obligates them to exert
approjjriate eflforts, consistent with the Char-
ter of the United Nations, to the end that no
one should engage in any activity in
Antarctica contrary to the principles or
purposes of the treaty.

The 12 signatory powers of the Antarctic
Treaty are: Argentina, Australia, Belgium,
Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway,



' For biographic details, see press release 299
dated Dec. 23.

^For text, see BULLETIN of Dec. 21, 1959, p. 914.



JANUARY 9, 1967



71



South Africa, the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, the United Kingdom, and the
United States.

Inspections have taken place in Antarctica
every year since 1963. In that year New
Zealand, Australia, and the United Kingdom
inspected United States stations. In 1964 the
United States inspected stations of Argen-
tina, Chile, France, New Zealand, the
United Kingdom, and the U.S.S.R. In 1965
and 1966 Argentina inspected the United
States Palmer station.



Advisers Named for Near Eastern
and South Asian Bureau

Press release 295 dated December 20

The Department of State announced on
December 20 the formation of a panel of
advisers for the Bureau of Near Eastern and
South Asian Affairs. ^ The advisers will make
available to the Department on a continuing
basis a variety of talent and experience.
Many of the advisers have longstanding con-
nections or interests in the Near East and
South Asia. The panel includes distinguished
leaders from the fields of education, science,
business, and labor, and from nonprofit
institutions concerned with foreign affairs.
Among its members are several former
ambassadors and others with eminent records
of past service with the U.S. Government.

Individual members of the panel will con-
sider issues of key concern to the Bureau of
Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs. It
is expected that the advisers not only will
apply their special insight to problems and
proposals placed before them by the Bureau



' For announcements of other advisory panels, see
Bulletin of Nov. 7, 1966, p. 721; Dec. 5, 1966, p.
868; Dec. 26, 1966, p. 966; and Jan. 2, 1967, p. 16.



but also will initiate new policy ideas. Con-
sultation on any given issue will be with one
or several members of the panel, depending
on the subject in question and the particular
background of the advisers. Additional ad-
visers may be added to the panel from time
to time.

The members of the panel are:

John S. Badeau, director, Middle East Institute,
Columbia University, New York, N.Y.

John C. Campbell, Council on Foreign Relations,
New York, N.Y.

John H. Davis, New York, N.Y.; former vice chair-
man, board of trustees of American University of
Beirut.

John Kenneth Galbraith, professor of economics,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

Robert F. Goheen, president, Princeton University,
Princeton, N.J.

Raymond A. Hare, president. Middle East Institute,
Washingrton, D.C.

Joseph E. Johnson, president, Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace, New York, N.Y.

Joseph D. Keenan, international secretary, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; vice
president, AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C.

David E. Lilienthal, chairman of the board. Develop-
ment and Resources Corp., New York, N.Y.

D. W. Lockard, associate director, Center for Middle
Eastern Studies, Harvard University.

Edward S. Mason, Lamont University Professor,
Harvard University.

Grinnell Morris, president. Empire Trust Co., New
York, N.Y. ; chairman, board of trustees, Robert
College, Istanbul, Turkey.

Richard E. Neustadt, professor of government and
director of the Institute of Politics, Harvard Uni-
versity.

Richard L. Park, professor of political science. Uni-
versity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.

Frederick Seitz, president. National Academy of Sci-
ences, Washington, D.C.

Francis O. Wilcox, dean. School of Advanced Inter-
national Studies, The Johns Hopkins University,
Washington, D.C.

Wayne Wilcox, associate professor of government,
Columbia University.

Charles W. Yost, Council on Foreign Relations, New
York, N.Y.



72



DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN



INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND CONFERENCES



Security Council Votes Mandatory Sanctions
Against Southern Rhodesia



Following is a statement made by U.S.
Representative Arthur J. Goldberg in the
U.N. Security Council on December 12, to-
gether with the text of a resolution adopted
by the Council on December 16.



STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR GOLDBERG

U.S./U.N. press release B021

The Council has met to consider further
the question of Southern Rhodesia, a question
which once again has been brought before us
by the country that bears the heaviest and
most direct responsibility in this matter, the
United Kingdom.

This problem, as was made clear at the
irecent Commonwealth Conference and before
then at Lagos, is not only of concern to the
United Kingdom but "of wider concern to
Africa, the Commonwealth and the world."

Now, why has this problem of Southern
Rhodesia become a matter of such worldwide
concern ?

A clue to the answer, I think, can be found
in the fact that the regime in Salisbury,
headed by Mr. [Ian] Smith, which declared
itself independent and sovereign over a year
ago, has yet to be recognized as such by a
single government.

There is a solid reason why this unilateral
action of the Smith regime has been rejected
while the independence of a score of other
states has been acclaimed and recognized by
the world community. In all cases in which
solonial peoples, during the life of the United
N^ations, have acceded to independence, this
accession has never been tainted with the



application of principles of racial superiority.
Just the opposite is the case in the regime
of Mr. Smith. Whatever that regime may as-
sert in its propaganda, its legislative enact-
ments and its whole course of conduct have
clearly been designed to thwart majority rule
and perpetuate racial superiority.

Indeed, the claim of independence by the
Smith regime is a false and spurious claim,
made by and on behalf of a small white mi-
nority for the purposes of assuming control
in a country 94 percent of whose people are
nonwhite. It is contrary to the spirit of the
United Nations Charter and to principles en-
shrined therein, including "universal respect
for, and observance of, human rights and
fundamental freedom for all without distinc-
tion as to race, sex, language, or religion."

On behalf of my Government, I reiterate
that we shall not recognize this regime. The
objective which the United States supports
is that stated last May by President John-
son: 1 "To open the full power and responsi-
bility of nationhood to all the people of Rho-
desia — not just 6 percent of them."

We well understand the apprehensions of
the other nations of Africa, particularly
Southern Rhodesia's neighbor Zambia, con-
cerning the Southern Rhodesian crisis. Zam-
bia is seeking to make its way in the world
on the only basis which can possibly promise
peace, freedom, and progress; namely, a mul-
tiracial society in which the majority rules
and the rights of minorities are protected.
We understand and share the concern of the



' Bulletin of June 13, 1966, p. 914.



JANUARY 9, 1967



73



leaders of Zambia at the prospect of a neigh-
boring regime which in its 1 year of so-called
independence has already intensified its dis-
crimination against the African majority
and introduced new decrees under the ex-
tended Emergency Powers Act which are
anathema to all who care about civil liber-
ties — laws conferring the broadest powers of
arrest, censorship, and other curtailments of
fundamental rights.

U.S. Support of U.K. Proposal

The refusal of the United Kingdom — the
constitutional authority — to recognize the il-
legal act of the Smith regime in attempting
to throw off British authority is no denial of
freedom for the people of Southern Rho-
desia. Rather, it is a decision not to permit
a small element in that country to deny free-
dom to the great majority.

This decision is not that of a power which
obstinately stands in the way of granting
genuine independence to colonial territories.
Since the founding of the United Nations, it
is pertinent to recall, Great Britain has ac-
corded independence to 28 nations — nearly a
quarter of the membership of this organiza-
tion.

This is a record of substantial achievement
in peaceful decolonization and one which does
credit both to the United Kingdom and to
the people who were formerly under its au-
thority but who are now independent. It
helps to explain why the Council has recog-
nized that the main responsibility for action
is in the hands of the United Kingdom which
has, in the words of the Commonwealth com-
munique, "constitutional authority and re-
sponsibility for guiding Rhodesia to inde-
pendence."

The United States believes that the exer-
cise of this responsibility remains a wise
policy. I do not say that if we had been the
constituted authority we would have done
everything exactly as it has been done, every
step of the way, by the British Government.
No nation could say that. But we do respect
the fact that it is the United Kingdom that
has borne and still bears this responsibility



and that this has been affirmed by the Com-
monwealth and recognized by the Council.

We, as members of the Council, have our
own responsibilities in this matter. But in
all fairness we must recognize the difficulties-
confronting the United Kingdom and respect
the strenuous efforts it has made to find an
agreed solution compatible with the principle
of majority rule and acceptability of the de-
cision to the Rhodesian people as a whole.
Certainly a negotiated settlement conform-
ing to these criteria would have been the best
solution.

Now, unhappily, the effort to achieve that
settlement has not been successful. As a re-
sult, the United Kingdom has again come
here to obtain the backing of the Council,
and thereby the cooperation of all members
of the United Nations, for the next step. It
is right and wise that this should be done.
For if the problem is to be resolved in peace
— and surely we all share a common obliga-
tion to see that it is resolved in peace — the
cooperation of all other nations will be re-
quired. Under the charter this Council is the
body through which that cooperation can
best be assured.

It is no light action which the Foreign
Secretary of the United Kingdom has asked
the Council to endorse through the draft
resolution now before us.^ We are asked to
impose under chapter VII mandatory eco-
nomic sanctions of a substantial nature
against the Smith regime. If this resolution
is adopted, as we believe it should be, it will
be the first time in the 21 years of the United
Nations that the Council has taken this type
of far-reaching action.

The United States considers these sanc-
tions have one purpose and one purpose only:
to bring about a peaceful settlement of the
Rhodesian problem. We do not look upon
them as punitive or vengeful. We support
them in the honest conviction that they are
now necessary in order to drive home to the
illegal regime that the international commu-
nity will not tolerate the existence of a dis-
criminatory system based on minority rule



' U.N. doc. S/7621.



74



DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN



in defiance of the United Nations and its
principles.

In considering this serious step, my Gov-
ernment has taken into account the problems
that it will have to face because of the loss
of a source for certain materials critical to
our industrial economy. In the discharge of
our charter responsibilities we are prepared
to assume this cost. We are well aware, more-
over, that the impact of the requested sanc-
tion will fall heavily on Zambia — whose
economy my country has taken substantial
steps to support — on other nearby countries
of Africa, and, to a very substantial degree,
on the United Kingdom itself.

Legal Basis for Proposed Action

We know also that, aside from economic
problems, questions are raised as to the legal
basis for this proposed action. In particular,
it is asserted that the question of Southern
Rhodesia is an internal matter of sole con-
cern to the administering authority. But
while we recognize that responsibility for
action lies on the United Kingdom, the rec-
ord shows that the United Nations, over the
years, has also recognized Southern Rhodesia
as falling within the provisions of chapter
XI of the charter. Under this chapter, and
specifically under article 73(b), the adminis-
tering authority accepts the responsibility
"to develop self-government, to take due ac-
count of the political aspirations of the peo-
ples, and to assist them in the progressive
development of their free political institu-
tions. . . ."

Therefore, so far as the United Nations is
concerned, the administering authority has
always had an international responsibility to
the United Nations in regard to Southern
Rhodesia. And it is precisely the exercise of
this responsibility that the Smith regime
seeks to frustrate and obstruct.

But the question may also be raised
whether the situation constitutes a threat to
the peace, which is the condition under which
sanctions can be imposed under chapter VII
of the charter.

We in the United States learned over 100



years ago that any attempt to institutionalize
and legitimize a political principle of racial
superiority in a new state was unacceptable.
The effort to do so created an inflammatory



Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 56, Jan- Mar 1967) → online text (page 19 of 90)