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

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

. (page 69 of 90)
Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 56, Jan- Mar 1967) → online text (page 69 of 90)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

amended. Exchange of notes — Signed at New Delhi
November 21, 1966. Entered into force November 21,
1966. TIAS 6146. 3 pp. 5^.


VOL. LVI, NO. 1445


MARCH 6, 1967

The Department of State Bulletin, a
weekly publication issued by the Office of
Media Services, Bureau of Public Affairs,
provides the public and interested agencies
of the Government with information on
developments in the field of foreign rela-
tions and on the work of the Department
of State and the Foreign Service. The
Bulletin includes selected press releases on
foreign policy, issued by the White House
and the Department, and statements and
addressee made by the President and by
the Secretary of State and other officers of

the Department, as well as special articles
on various phases of international affairs
and the functions of the Department. In-
formation is included concerning treaties
and international a^eements to which the
United States is or may become a party
and treaties of general international inter-

Publications of the Department, United
Nations documents, and legislative material
in the field of international relations are
listed currently.

The Bulletin is for sale by the Super-

intendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing OflSce, Washington, D.C., 20402.
Price: 62 issues, domestic $10, foreign $16;
single copy 30 cents.

Use of funds for printing of this publi-
cation approved by the Director of the
Bureau of the Budget (January 11, 1966).

NOTE: Contents of this publication are
not copyrighted and items contained herein
may be reprinted. Citation of the Depart-
ment of State Bulletin as the source will
be appreciated. The Bulletin is indexed in
the Readers' Guide to Periodical Literature.



INDEX March 6, 1967 Vol. LVI, No. 1U5



oreign Aid (President's message to Congress) 378
. New Course for Foreign Aid (Johnson) . . 381
'resident Calls for Senate Ratification of
Treaty on Outer Space (message to the
Senate) 386

)isarmament. Secretary Rusk Discusses Euro-
pean Affairs and Viet-Nam in Interview for

German Television 358

Beonomic Affairs. Secretary Rusk Discusses
European Affairs and Viet-Nam in Interview
for German Television 358

Burope. Secretary Rusk Discusses European
Affairs and Viet-Nam in Interview for Ger-
man Television 358

Foreign Aid

Foreign Aid (President's message to Congress)

A. New Course for Foreign Aid (Johnson) . .

Israel. U.S. and Israel Conclude New Cotton
Textile Agreement (text of U.S. note) . . .

Military Affairs. Viet-Nam Hostilities Resumed
Following Tet Cease-Fire (Johnson) . . .

North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Secretary
Rusk Discusses European Affairs and Viet-
Nam in Interview for German Television . .

Outer Space. President Calls for Senate Ratifi-
cation of Treaty on Outer Space (message
to the Senate)

Presidential Documents

Foreign Aid

A New Course for Foreign Aid

President Calls for Senate Ratification of
Treaty on Outer Space

Viet-Nam Hostilities Resumed Following Tet

Publications. Recent Releases 393

Science. President Calls for Senate Ratification
of Treaty on Outer Space (message to the
Senate) 386

Sierra Leone. Letters of Credence (Cole) . . . 377

Southern Rhodesia. Southern Rhodesia and the
United Nations: The U.S. Position (back-
ground paper) 366

Treaty Information

Current Actions 392









President Calls for Senate Ratification of
Treaty on Outer Space (message to the
Senate) 386

U.S. and Israel Conclude New Cotton Textile
Agreement (text of U.S. note) 389

U.S.S.R. Secretary Rusk Discusses European
Affairs and Viet-Nam in Interview for Ger-
man Television 353

United Kingdom. Southern Rhodesia and the
United Nations: The U.S. Position (back-
ground paper) 366

Unit«d Nations. Southern Rhodesia and the
United Nations: The U.S. Position (back-
ground paper) 366


Secretary Rusk Discusses European Affairs and
Viet-Nam in Interview for German Television 358

Viet-Nam Hostilities Resumed Following Tet
Cease-Fire (Johnson) 365

Name Index

Cole, Christopher 0. E 377

Johnson, President 365, 378, 381, 386

Rusk, Secretary 358

Check List of Department of State
Press Releases: February 13-19

Press releases may be obtained from the
Office of News, Department of State, Wash-
ington, D.C., 20520.

Release issued prior to February 13 which
appears in this issue of the Bulletin is No. 20
of February 3.

No. Date Subject

*34 2/13 Amendment to schedule for visit
of Emperor Haile Selassie I.

135 2/14 Freeman: Latin American nu-

clear free zone treaty.

136 2/16 Kohler: Cincinnati Council on

World Affairs.
t37 2/18 U.S.-Romanian cultural exchange

* Not printed.

t Held for a later issue of the Bulletin.

liU.S. Government Printing Office: 1967—251-933/35







Dear Student Leaders

A revealing exchange of correspondence between Secretaiy of State Dean Rusk and a rep
sentative of 100 student leaders from around the country is reproduced in this new 17-p;
Department of State publication.

The letter from the students, addressed to President Johnson on December 29, 1966, was
sponded to in a point-by-point reply by Secretary Rusk on January 4, 1967. In his reply,
Secretary outlines the basic philosophy of the United States position on Viet-Nam and "the o\
riding question for all mankind in this last third of the Twentieth Century — how to organize
duz'able peace."



To: Snpt. of Documents
Govt. PrlntinK Offloa
Wuhin«ton, D.C. 20402

Enclosed find $_



(cash, check, or money order). Please send me

. copies of Dea/r Student Leaden.



To be maUad
. later


Conpon refaad -









Street address-

City, State and ZIP codeL.







by Under Secretary Rostov) 398

by Deputy Under Secretary Kohler 4-06

by Ambassador U. Alexis Johnson A20

Article by Zbigniew Brzezinski ^H

For index see inside back cover

The Politics of Progress

by Eugene V. Rostow

Under Secretary for Political Affairs ^

I am glad to be with you today to under-
take some reflections on my first few months
in this new round of my experience as a

The first and perhaps most revealing obser-
vation I can report is that I managed to get
here today. This is my fourth or fifth speak-
ing engagement since I went to Washington
in October. It is the first which has not been
canceled at the last moment by a trip abroad
or a pilgrimage to Capitol Hill.

In the second place, I can assure you that
Washington has not changed much, in atmos-
phere or in substance, since I worked there
as a humble writer of first drafts during the
war. The rule still obtains, generally speak-
ing, that no bureaucrat signs a paper he has
written or writes one he signs. There is still
a condition of — what should I call it? —
creative tension among the various depart-
ments of the executive branch and between
the executive branch and the Congress. And
I don't have to tell you that there is also still
a comparable tension, perhaps even more
creative, between the Government as a whole
and the fourth estate, whose skeptical, sus-
picious probing we find such a bracing
feature of bureaucratic life. While my faith
in Jefferson's dictum about the importance
of a free press to democracy is sometimes
challenged, I never waver. Perhaps, however.

' Address made before the Overseas Press Club at
New York, N.Y., on Feb. 20, as-delivered text; an
advance text was issued as press release 39.

my piety is a measure of the fact that I have
been on the job for only 4 months.

Our foreign policy, too, shows strong signs
of continuity.

The goal of our foreign policy has been
constant since the first days of the Republic:
to make American democracy safe, to assure
the freedom of our people in a society of
ample horizons. The needle of our compass
always points to this lodestar.

But successive governments have to reach
for this goal in a world which never stops
changing. The task of protecting our national
interests today hardly resembles the agenda
of foreign policy at any earlier period of our
history. The system of world politics is being
transformed by deep changes in the political
and social order and by the revolutionary
impact of science on the military arts. No
previous generation faced the imperative of
bringing unthinkably dangerous weapons
under international control. None before us
confronted the challenge we call development
aid — a challenge to human solidarity and to
the possibility of world peace.

In the aftermath of two World Wars many
empires have dissolved, leaving vulnerable
states behind.

Communist parties have seized power in
another third of the world, and in some cases
they still seek to spread their gospel by the

The rise of mainland China is in itself an
event to define a century. It imposes new per-
spectives on world politics and is leading to



far-reaching shifts in the relations of states.

The advanced countries of the free world
have made great gains since the war in every
branch of life. Their economies have never
been stronger, and they have all achieved
striking social progress. Our social revolution
is the outstanding achievement of the 20th
century and has advanced human welfare far
more effectively than any rival system.

In Europe and in Japan political life has
made comparable progress. The leading na-
tions of Europe, and Japan, have completed
the process of recovering from the war and
are now moving beyond the political shocks
of the period of decolonization. With these
experiences behind them, one should antici-
pate that they will shoulder an increasing
measure of responsibility for the stability and
welfare of the world community.

This was the essential theme of President
Johnson's speech last October on our relations
with Europe.2 In that speech he announced
a series of initiatives to modernize the
Atlantic alliance, the cornerstone of our
security. That alliance, he said, is a "living
organism" which should adapt itself to the
realities of today, not yesterday. "In every
part of the world," he continued, "new forces
are at the gates: new countries, new aspira-
tions, new men. In this spirit, let us look
ahead to the tasks that confront the Atlantic

These proposals rest on a history of suc-
cess. Since 1945 we and our allies have helped
to safeguard our freedom against aggression
in a long series of crises, stretching from Iran
and Greece to Berlin, Korea, and Viet-Nam.
In that process we have forged habits of
cooperation and mutual aid, which are and
should be the firm foundation for the world's
hope of stability and progress.

In the last third of the 20th century, more
than in any other age, the key to effective
action is joint action, both in keeping the
peace and in helping to assure world economic
development. No state, however powerful,
can meet the needs of the day alone. Our duty.

' Bulletin of Oct. 24, 1966, p. 622.

and that of the other advanced countries,
arises for the simplest of reasons: Without
us, the task could not be carried out. Our
wealth and experience are indispensable to
the chance of success. As President Truman
said, "The buck stops here."

"Fission and Fusion" in World Politics

To borrow words from another discipline,
the process of world politics as seen from the
State Department looks like a race between
fission and fusion. Strong forces propel some
countries to adopt destructive and self-
defeating policies which tend to fragment the
world community and threaten the equi-
librium of peace. Other forces work in the
direction of harmony. We are drawn together
by our interests, by our common values, by
man's general preference for living within
his tribe and according to its rules. And we
are driven apart by pride and suspicions and
failure of communication as well — the great-
est influence in human affairs and the one
whose very existence we tend to deny or

It would be idle to profess a false optimism
about the outcome of the race.

The best harbinger of peace is that the
Soviet Union — we can hope — has come
gradually to accept the indispensable prin-
ciple of the Truman doctrine: that unilateral
change by force in the frontiers of the two
systems is too dangerous to be tolerated. That
principle, which we can hope other Commu-
nist countries, too, will come to accept, is the
best possible basis on which we could work
for detente, and then for coexistence, on this
small planet we all must share.

As the ordeal of Viet-Nam attests, it is not
a simple matter to maintain this basic rule of
the Truman doctrine, without which order in
the world is inconceivable. Yet we must per-
severe, for the alternative is a chaotic disin-
tegration of the political system, from which
general war could easily come.

Let me mention another aspect of world
politics which works in the direction both of
fission and of fusion: the problem of the pro-
liferation of nuclear weapons. As you know.

MARCH 13, 1967


we are seeking agreement on this subject
with the Soviet Union and with other nations,
an agreement which should help to remove an
intolerable threat from the future of man.
The issue presents genuinely difficult choices
for many of the nonnuclear states. If they
move away from the promise of the agree-
ment, the world could become appreciably
more dangerous and more dangerously
divided. If the treaty were to be negotiated
without full respect for the legitimate con-
cerns of the nonnuclear states, the damage to
the fabric of world politics could be irrepa-

But if we recognize the real political prob-
lems the issue presents — problems of achiev-
ing agreement on the basis of a recognition
of the shared interests of all nations, nuclear
and nonnuclear alike — the effort could be-
come one of the powerful factors binding the
world together in collaborative enterprises of
great promise.

The political consequences of the effort to
bring nuclear weapons under control depend
on the spirit in which it is approached. No
task is more fundamental to the prospect of
peace than the control of nuclear weapons.
That proposition, which all nations can ac-
cept, could lead us toward solutions which
should unite the free world and, we can hope,
not only the free world but the whole world
in a new set of relationships — relationships
of cooperation and dignity so close, and so
fundamental to all aspects of national life,
as to make fission virtually impossible.

This is the purpose of President Johnson
in undertaking this fateful series of negotia-
tions: "to banish all nuclear weapons — and
war itself." ^

I want to concentrate today, however, on
another aspect of our work: the politics of
progress in the developing world.

A generation ago, development assistance
was not part of the job of our State Depart-
ment or of other Foreign Offices. With the
end of empire, however, and the acceptance
everywhere of the liberating principle of



equality, the world defined a revolutionary*
new idea: that the governments of the de-
veloped countries had an obligation to help
the new countries master the secrets of mod-
ern wealth. The obligation was explained on~^
many grounds — on considerations of pru-
dence, of order, and of self-interest. In the
end, however, as Secretary Acheson once
said, we undertake this task for a much
simpler reason: Because we have to shave
every morning.

Lessons of Development Assistance

We have come a long way since President
Truman — 18 years ago — asked Americans to
help build a better way of life for those mil-
lions overseas who live in poverty, ignorance,
sickness, and despair. Our response to the
challenge was immediate, but we were sur-
prised at the meagerness of results. Few
then realized just how vast the difference
was between what we then called Point 4
and the task of European recovery, which
was largely completed within 5 years. In most
of Asia, Africa, and Latin America the job
is still not done — far from it. But through 18
years of experience and experiment, the
world has learned many lessons about the
process of development, lessons which will
stand us in good stead in the years ahead.
Indeed, I venture to guess that if we succeed
in maintaining peace in the world, the prob-
lem of food, education, and growth for two-
thirds of humanity will hold the world's cen-
ter stage for the second postwar generation
just as the cold war held center stage for
the first.

First, we have learned just how hard the
challenge is. It is one thing to be faced, as we
were under the Marshall Plan, with a prob-
lem of recovery involving 16 nations and 260
million people and quite another to confront
the task of helping over 70 countries and l^/o
billion people start on the road of economic
and social progress.

We learned, too, that it was one task to
encourage the revival and reconstruction of
developed countries which had a solid human
and technical foundation for flourishing and


dvanced industrial life — and quite another
« assist fundamental development in coun-
tries without a middle class, without entre-
jreneurs, and without the experience of mod-
ern economic life, with an illiteracy rate of
rO percent or more and a per capita income
)f $100 or less.

Second, we have learned that — despite the
iifficulty of the task — our purposes today
nust remain what they were in 1949 when
'resident Truman proposed Point 4. As
'resident Kennedy put it 6 years ago,^ we
nust pledge "to those people in the huts and
/illages of half the globe struggling to break
;he bonds of mass misery . . . our best efforts
to help them help themselves, for whatever
period is required — not because the Commu-
nists may be doing it, not because we seek
their votes, but because it is right."

Third, we have learned that for all our
seal and energy, our role in the process of
development is a secondary one. The chief
responsibility for development rests on the
developing nations themselves. Unless they
adopt realistic policies and programs capable
af encouraging growth, no amount of outside
i! assistance can impose modernity upon them.
Only their will and their acceptance of
11 reality can transform their static, rural
societies into modern ones.

Finally, we have learned that, though the
>ltask is difficult, it is far from hopeless. Com-
>|mendable records of growth have been
attained in certain less developed countries,
including Israel, Malaysia, Mexico, Taiwan,
and Venezuela. Others, such as Pakistan,
South Korea, Thailand, and Turkey, are
approaching that objective.

Our aid program has been transformed in
the light of experience. The President's
recent messages on the subject ^ squarely
face the basic problems which have emerged
in the course of these years of trial and error.
They stress the stark primacy of the problem
of hunger and the international character of
the task of development. They state over and
over again that these problems transcend
ideology: They concern the human family as
a whole.

MARCH 13, 1967

Development, he has said, is too large a
problem for governments alone. Success
requires a mobilization of all available ener-
gies, those of business, of education, of
foundations, of cooperatives, of voluntary
agencies and other private groups.

Above all, he has urged, development
requires concentration on those tasks which
are fundamental. In the coming fiscal year,
we plan to use over a billion dollars of de-
velopment assistance funds for programs in
the fields of agriculture, health, and educa-
tion, programs that underscore our decision
to help other nations build up — first and fore-
most — their human resources.

I do not suggest that because we have
refined our aid techniques, we can indulge in
self-congratulation. For all the aid efforts of
the United States, Western Europe, and
Japan over the last 20 years, the prosperous
few are still islands of affluence in a sea of
appalling poverty. The disparity between rich
and poor continues to grow. Our growth in
national income in 1 year is greater than the
whole national income of India, which must
support a population of almost 500 million

Pressures of the Population Explosion

The world food crisis presents even more
somber perspectives. "Next to the pursuit of
peace," President Johnson said in his state
of the Union message,* the "greatest chal-
lenge to the human family is the race between
food supply and population increase. That
race tonight is being lost."

Is this an overstatement? Consider these

The developing countries, despite the fact
that they have 60 to 80 percent of their work-
ing force in agriculture, are losing the ability
to feed themselves. These nations, which

■* For President Kennedy's inaugural address, see
ibid., Feb. 6, 1961, p. 175.

"■Ibid., Feb. 20, 1967, p. 295, and Mar. 6, 1967,
p. 378.

« /hid., Jan. 30, 1967, p. 158.


until World War II were exporters of grain,
this year will import over 30 million tons of
grain from the industrialized world. Indeed,
for the past 6 years, the world has consumed
more grain than it produced, filling the gap
largely with stored surpluses from North

Now these surpluses are gone, and the
United States has taken the step of putting
half our unused acreage back into production
to help meet world food needs, needs which
are increasing at the rate of 4 percent a year.
But our unused capacity is limited, and so is
that of the other great grain-producing coun-
tries. Our best estimate is that the available
land resources of the world give us about a
decade to bring the equation between food
and people into balance. After that date, there
will be no inexhaustible reservoirs of food
grains for the hungry of the world.

On the demand side, population growth in
the developing countries, as a result of
sharply reduced death rates and increased
birth rates, has been nothing short of spec-
tacular, frequently exceeding 3 percent a
year, or treble that of the industrialized
countries. At this rate, by 1980 there will be
more than another billion people in the world
to feed, most of them in the food-short coun-
tries of the world. Based on these trends, the
FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization]
estimates that cereals deficits in these coun-
tries would total around 42 million tons by
1975, a deficit greater than the current entire
U.S. wheat crop. At that rate the deficit could
exceed 80 million tons by 1985, or greater
than total U.S. capacity, even if all con-
ceivable acreage were brought back into pro-
duction and technological improvement
continued at its present rate.

Even now, estimates are that 10,000
people, mostly children, die every day from
malnutrition. If the gap continues to grow,
what will this figure be in 1975 or 1985?
Humanitarian considerations aside, how can
we hope for stability or progress in a world
where a few must practice diet control while
the many live in misery and starvation ?


The facts before us project the same dis-
turbing future in education.

If the people of the developing world are
to participate effectively in their country's
economic development and government, there ^
must be a dramatic expansion in basic gen-
eral education. At present, literacy is more
the exception than the rule — only 25 percent
in the Near East and South Asia, where more
than half the world's people live, and only 60
percent in Latin America and the Far East.

Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 56, Jan- Mar 1967) → online text (page 69 of 90)