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

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

. (page 8 of 90)
Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 56, Jan- Mar 1967) → online text (page 8 of 90)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


285; Goldberg, 61 (quoted), 509, 841; Rusk,
281, 773
Pacification (seize-and-hold) efforts. See National

reconciliation program
Peace :

Geneva accords as a basis for: 284, 632; Gold-
berg, 63, 138, 311, 842; Johnson, 539, 630;
Rusk, 136, 281, 283, 466, 619, 778; U Thant,
139
Prospects for: Goldberg, 315, 508, 510, 513, 843;
Lodge, 800; Meeker, 62; Rusk, 128, 726, 779,
780, 876
U.S. objectives: 592; Goldberg, 310, 506, 512,
840; Holt, 962; Johnson, 230, 516, 535, 917;
Katzenbach, 756; Rusk, 130, 272, 277; Thieu,
917
Viet-Nam position, 749
Political development and progress: 592, 748;
Goldberg, 311, 513, 842; Johnson, 589, 590;
Komer, 469; Lodge, 797; Rusk, 135, 279, 619,
779; SEATO, 746; Wheeler, 191
Communists, participation in, question of: 285,
592; Goldberg, 311, 313, 841, 843; Rusk, 279,
773, 779
Constitution: 586, 592, 748; Goldberg, 505, 509,
510, 842; Johnson, 538, 588, 589, 590, 593, 594;
Lodge, 797; Rusk, 131, 780
Elections: 285; Goldberg, 505, 512; Rusk, 317,
773, 779

Communist interference : Goldberg, 843 ; John-
son, 589; Rusk, 128
Leadership: Goldberg, 513; Lodge, 798
NLF candidates, question of: Goldberg, 513;
Lodge, 797
Ports, improvements: 204, 210; Gaud, 200; Komer,
470 ; Rusk, 832 ; Westmoreland, 741 ; Wheeler,
188
Press coverage: Martin, 855; Rusk, 127, 131;
Wheeler, 186



INDEX, JANUARY TO JUNE 1967



1015



Viet-Nam — Continued
Prisoners :

Exchange, U.S. willingness: 749; Rusk, 281, 320,

465, 773
Geneva conventions (1949) re treatment of , Com-
munist noncompliance, 749, 825
Refugees from Communism: 209, 665; Komer, 470
Reunification, U.S. position: 285; Bundy, 790;
Goldberg, 62 (quoted), 311, 312, 842; John-
son, 539; Meeker, 61; Nabrit, 30; Rusk, 274,
279, 281, 317, 773
Self-determination, 657, 749

U.S. support: 285; Bundy, 323, 790; Goldberg, 62
(quoted), 138, 311, 505, 510, 512, 842; John-
son, 160, 516, 535, 588, 630, 961; Nabrit, 29;
Rusk, 135, 272, 274, 281, 318
Seven-nation meeting of ministers, Washington,

communique, 748
Soviet Union, responsibilities as cochairman of

Geneva Conference: 953; Rusk, 466, 878
Treaties, agreements, etc., 154, 260, 614
U.N. role:

Communist position: Goldberg, 839; Johnson,

629; Rusk, 42, 619, 778; U Thant, 138
U.N. inability to act: Goldberg, 98, 839; John-
son, 567; Meeker, 60
U.S. position: Goldberg, 839; Johnson, 162, 567,
629; Nabrit, 29; Rusk, 42, 618, 773; U Thant,
138
UNDP/FAD fisheries project, U.S. support, 964
U.S. air actions (see also U.S. military operations) :
Ho Chi Minh, 596
Bombing errors: Johnson, 537; Rusk, 135, 275
Military targets only: 953; Johnson, 514, 536;

Rusk,45, 130, 131,135,275
Soviet allegations of U.S. attack on Soviet ves-
sel and U.S. rejection, 953
Thailand, use of bases in: 746; Martin, 852;

Rusk, 597
U.S. position and objectives: Johnson, 514, 536;
McNamara, 465; Meeker, 61; Rusk, 127, 780;
Westmoreland, 739; Wheeler, 190
U.S. Ambassador (Bunker), confirmation: 674;

Johnson, 538, 587, 588
U.S. commitments: Bundy, 790; Goldberg, 505;
Johnson, 158, 161, 516, 534, 539, 587, 588, 873;
Martin, 194 ; W. W. Rostow, 493, 503 ; Rusk, 45,
128, 621, 744, 777, 781, 785; Wheeler, 187, 192
Importance of dependability: Bundy, 323, 792;
Humphrey, 680; Lodge, 800; Martin, 195;
Meeker, 62; W. W. Rostow, 503; Rusk, 272,
274, 725, 726, 787, 831, 877, 878
SEATO: Bundy, 790; Johnson, 160, 515; Martin,
852; Meeker, 62; Rusk, 133, 272, 275, 744, 776,
876
U.S. military forces:

Manpower levels: Johnson, 535; McNamara, 465;
Rusk, 129; Wheeler, 187



Viet-Nam — Continued

U.S. military forces — Continued

Morale and successes: Goldberg, 511; Johnson,
161, 236, 593, 594; Westmoreland, 738, 741;
Wheeler, 186, 189
Relations with Vietnamese: Lodge, 797; Martin,

855; Rusk, 282
Withdrawal, conditions necessary for: 284;
Bundy, 323; Goldberg, 313, 842; Meeker, 62;
Rusk, 282, 317
U.S. military intelligence: Johnson, 536; Mc-
Namara, 466; Rusk, 278, 280, 318; Taylor, 286;
Wheeler, 190
U.S. military operations :

FY 1968 budget (Johnson) , 230, 233

Increases: McNamara, 465; Rusk, 134, 464;

Westmoreland, 740
Logistics : Taylor, 286 ; Wheeler, 188
Responsibility for: Johnson, 538, 873; Rusk, 774
Results: 592; Johnson, 14, 515, 536, 594; Komer,
471; Martin, 194; McNamara, 465; Rusk, 276,
278, 726; Westmoreland, 740; Wheeler, 187,
190
Supplemental obligational authority request FY
1967: 236; Schultze, 237
U.S. military policy: Johnson, 161, 236; Rusk, 726;
Taylor, 287 ; Westmoreland, 739
"Hawks V. Doves": Goldberg, 840; Rusk, 363
U.S. national interests (Rusk), 133, 169, 272
U.S. objectives (see also Peace): Bundy, 790;
Goldberg, 61 (quoted), 505, 509; Johnson, 535,
593, 594, 630, 678; Rusk, 45, 278, 281, 318, 877
Congressional support (Johnson) , 160, 534
Political rather than military solution: Goldberg,
62 (quoted), 310, 507, 840; Nabrit, 30
U.S. public opinion and morale: Goldberg, 509, 840;
Guerrero, 596; Johnson, 534; Lodge, 795, 799;
Martin, 193, 855; Powell, 136, 192 (correc-
tion) ; Rusk, 130, 133, 619, 774
Demonstrations (Rusk), 725, 774

Communist influence (Rusk), 725, 775
Senator Wayne Morse, question of views (Gold-
berg) , 507
Viet-Nam Army (see also Economic and social de-
velopment: Revolutionary development):
Johnson, 589; Rusk, 282; Westmoreland, 740
Vietnamese, character and goals: Humphrey, 680;
Johnson, 161, 537, 587; Lilienthal, 467; Lodge,
796; Rusk, 135
Visit of Ambassador Goldberg (Goldberg), 505, 509
Visit of General Taylor (Taylor) , 285
Visit of Komer and Lilienthal : Johnson, 467, 537 ;

Lilienthal, 467
World opinion: Johnson, 515; Martin, 195; Rusk,
273, 276, 619, 726; U Thant, 139; Wheeler, 192
Asia: Baguio meeting, 517; Goldberg, 505, 513;

Holt, 962; Rusk, 726
East European countries: Harriman, 821;
Kohler, 413 ; Rusk, 283



1016



DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN



Viet-Nam, North:

President Johnson, question of visit (Rusk) , 283
U.S. journalists:

Opinions of (Rusk), 131
Visits to (Rusk), 127
U.S. travel restrictions, 103, 565
Visas :

U.S. passports to Middle East invalidated, an-
nouncement, 953
U.S. visitors' visas, indefinite validity, 695
Voice of America: Kohler, 411; Solomon, 519
Voluntary organizations, private, CIA relationships:

665; Johnson, 665
Volunteers to America, 244

Wadsworth, James J., 353
Waldheim, Kurt (Nabrit), 32
Walters, Barbara, 168
War:

Chemical and biological warfare, 577
Dangers of and need for prevention: Brzezinski,
415; Goldberg, 895; Rusk, 134, 170, 271, 363
War on Hunger: Humphrey, 685; Johnson, 231, 235,
295, 298, 329, 379, 381, 658, 700, 849; E. V. Ros-
tow, 403, 856 ; Rusk, 874
AID, office of, establishment (Johnson), 381
War on Poverty (see also Great Society) : Katzen-

bach, 955; Yen, 849
Warsaw Pact countries (Rusk), 283
Washington, George, 328
Watanabe, Takeshi (Bundy), 326
Watch movements, escape-clause duty rates termi-
nated, proclamation, 217
Water for Peace, international conference: 762, 765,

907; Johnson, 902; Rusk, 904; Solomon, 562
Water for Peace; A Report of Background Consider-
ations and Recommendations on the Water for
Peace Program: excerpts, 760; released, 758n
Water resources (see also Conservation, Desalination,
Flood control and Water for Peace), North
Africa (Palmer), 812
Waters, Herbert, 860
Watson, Arthur K., 696, 697
Watson, Barbara M., 765
Wehner, Herbert, 360
Wehrle, Leroy, 844
Western hemisphere, convention on nature protection

and wildlife preservation: Costa Rica, 353
Western Samoa, International Wheat Agreement,

1967 protocol, signature, 930
Westmoreland, William C: 586, 738; Bunker, 845;
Goldberg, 511; Johnson, 161, 467, 535, 538, 539,
593, 594; Rusk, 877; Taylor, 286
Wheat:

International grains agreement, U.S. interests:
432; Johnson, 297; E. V. Rostow, 403, 861;
Roth, 880
U.S. shipments to India. See India



Wheat — Continued

Wheat Agreement (1962), International, protocol
for further extension of: Argentina, Australia,
Belgium, Brazil, Canada, 930 ; Costa Rica, 642,
930; Cuba, 930; Ecuador, 182; El Salvador,
930; Finland, 86, 930; Federal Republic of
Germany, France, Greece, 930; Guatemala,
122, 930; Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, 930;
Japan, 224; Korea, Lebanon, Luxembourg,
930; Mexico, 86, 930; Netherlands, Norway,
930; Peru, 122, 930; Portugal, Sierra Leone,
South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, Soviet
Union, Sweden, Switzerland, 930; U.A.R., 393,
930; U.K., U.S., Vatican City, 930; Venezuela,
86, 930; Western Samoa, 930
Wheeler, Earle G., 53, 586, 594, 609; addresses, 186
White, Edward: Goldberg, 80; Johnson, 388
White, John (Thieu), 591

White House Conference on International Coopera-
tion (Johnson), 658
WHO. See World Health Organization
Wilson, Carroll L., 651
Wilson, Harold: 963; Humphrey, 166; quoted, 368,

373; Rusk, 466; Sisco, 67
Wilson, Woodrow (Rusk), 270
WHO. See World Meteorological Organization
Wodajo, Kifle (Goldberg), 888
Women :

Equal rights, U.N. covenants provisions, 107
Political rights of, convention (1953) :

Current actions: Afghanistan, 86; Gabon, U.K.,

834
U.S. ratification urged (Goldberg) , 524
Wong Lin Ken, 688
Woods, George: Humphrey, 685; quoted, 810; Rusk,

404
World Food Program, U.S. pledge: Johnson, 297;

E. V. Rostow, 861
World Health Organization: 761; Palmer, 650
Constitution (1946), as amended: Barbados, 833

Amendment to article 7 : Morocco, 701
Drug reaction reporting system, announcement, 919
World Meteorological Organization, U.N.: Johnson,

658; Sisco, 462
World order:

Big-power responsibilities : Goldberg, 895 ; Johnson,
546, 550, 917; Meeker, 58; E. V. Rostow, 856;
Rusk, 770
Institutions and practices contributing to: Kohler,

8, 408 ; Sisco, 64 ; Yen, 849
Interdependence of modern world: Goldberg, 838;
Johnson, 301, 385; Pollack, 912; E. V. Rostow,
399, 896; W. W. Rostow, 504; Rusk, 267, 270;
Sisco, 459
International law, importance: Goldberg, 140, 896;

McDougal (quoted), 144
Obligations of community of man : Brzezinski, 414 ;
Goldberg, 896; Hand (quoted), 545; Johnson,
296, 300, 381; E. V. Rostow, 861; W. W.
Rostow, 491



INDEX, JANUARY TO JUNE 1967



1017



World peace :

Communism, threat to: ANZUS, 749; Bundy, 791;

Kohler, 7; E. V. Rostow, 399; Rusk, 169, 743,

785
Durable peace, importance and U.S. goal: Brzezin-

ski, 415; Chung, 549; Goldberg, 289, 895;

Johnson, 231, 328, 329, 587, 678, 907; Katzen-

bach, 755; Roosevelt (quoted), 963; W. W.

Rostow, 500; Rusk, 136, 169, 267, 269, 278,

358, 363, 725, 771, 781, 784, 874, 787; Sisco,

459
Economic problems, relation to: Humphrey, 489;

E. V. Rostow, 857-858; Rusk, 829
Near East, importance to (Johnson), 870
Nuclear proliferation. See Nuclear entries
Outer space treaty, importance to (Goldberg), 78,

83, 98, 603
Prayer for Peace, Memorial Day, 1967, proclama-
tion, 873
Southern Rhodesian situation as a threat to: 369,

373, 375; Goldberg, 75, 143, 291; Palmer, 449
U.S.-Soviet interests: 697; Katzenbach, 754
Viet-Nam situation a throat to: ANZUS, 749;

Goldberg, 137; Johnson, 160; Lodge, 800;

Rusk, 42, 136, 359, 781, 787, 831 ; U Thant, 139
World Trade Week, 1967, proclamation: 756, John-
son, 886
World Weather Watch : Johnson, 658 ; Sisco, 462
Wortham, Buel (Rusk), 44, 248
Wortzel, Arthur I., 71



Yarmouth Castle disaster: Johnson, 429; Miller, 173
Yemen Arab Republic:

Ambassador to U.S., credentials, 327

U.S. travel restrictions, announcement, 952
Yen Chia-kan, 847
Yingling, Raymund T., 636, 919

Young Choo Kim, 747 "<

Yugoslavia :

Economic and political development: Brzezinski,
417; Harriman, 817, 820; Katzenbach, 5;
Kohler, 8, 408, 411; Solomon, 519

Import quota controls removed, 246

Treaties, agreements, etc., 260, 354, 613, 641, 733,
967

U.S. food aid, question of (Rusk) , 46

U.S. trade policies (Katzenbach), 3

Zambia :

Ambassador to U.S., credentials, 688

Political and economic development: Goldberg, 73;
Katzenbach, 954

Southern Rhodesian situation, effect on: 367, 372,
374 ; Goldberg, 73, 75

Universal Postal Union, constitution, with final
protocols, 701

Visit of Under Secretary Katzenbach, 756
ZANU (Zimbabwe African National Union), 371
ZAPU (Zimbabwe African Peoples Union) , 371
Zimbabwe African National Union, 371
Zimbabwe African Peoples Union, 371
Zollner, Maxime-Leopold, 850
Zorthian, Barry, 844



1018



DEPARTMENT OP STATE BULLETIN



U.S. eOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1967



THE OFFICIAL WEEKLY RECORD OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY



THE
PEPARTMENT
~ OF
STATE

BULLETIN



Vol. LVI, No. U36




January 2, 1967



THE ISSUES OF EAST-WEST TRADE
by Under Secretary Katzenbach 2

EAST-WEST RELATIONS: SHAPING A STABLE WORLD
by Deputy Under Secretary Kohler 6



OECD MINISTERIAL COUNCIL MEETS AT PARIS

Statements by Under Secretary Rostow

and Text of Communique 19



For index see inside back cover



The Issues of East-West Trade



by Under Secretary Katzenbach '■



Today, I would like to spend a few minutes
discussing with you the issues of East-West
trade, and I would like to begin by recalling
still another protest cause — ^that of the citi-
zens who have ranged themselves into "Com-
mittees to Warn of the Arrival of Communist
Merchandise on the Local Scene."

Some have gone into groceries to paste
labels on Polish hams. A man in Shreveport,
Louisiana, appeals for funds in the belief that
if we continue to import Yugoslav tobacco for
American cigarette blends, "all the Chris-
tians will be persecuted and the women
raped and the little children sent to slave
camps." A lady in New Jersey is waging a
campaign against the import of carrots from
Canada on the ground that some of the car-
rots are Communist carrots.

Let me make it plain that I have no quar-
rel with the right of such individuals to pro-
test or demonstrate lawfully. Nor is it for
me to object to their ardor on behalf of a
cause. But I would suggest that their patriot-
ism exceeds their understanding, for in such
blanket protest against communism they are
reacting to the facts of the last decade rather
than this one.

Communism surely remains a resolute op-
ponent of free societies. And surely there is
little need, at a time when we are fighting in
Viet-Nam, to repeat our nation's determina-
tion to resist Communist aggression.



But how vastly different is the face of com-
munism in the world today than it was a
decade ago. How much meaning can even the
phrase "world communism" have when Red
Guards riot at the Soviet Embassy in Peking
and the Chinese Conununists charge the
Soviet Union with conspiring with the United
States to betray North Viet-Nam ?

Communism is no longer the monolith of
Stalin's time. Increasingly, we see deep, even
bitter, divisions between Communist nations.
Increasingly, we see Eastern European coun-
tries pursuing individual national interest
and identity. Increasingly, these countries re-
flect grave understanding of the impartial
dangers of destruction.

For both sides these changes create a
channel for contact, for understanding, and
for peace. And this is a channel we have al-
ready begun to travel. Three years ago we
were able to agree on a test ban treaty. Re-
cently, we extended our cultural exchanges
agreement with the Soviet Union,^ and we
have signed an air travel agreement.^ Only
yesterday came word of the agreement
barring nuclear weapons in space.

Two months ago. President Johnson told
a New York audience ^ that:

Our task is to achieve a reconciliation with the
East — a shift from the narrow concept of coexist-
ence to the broader vision of peaceful engagement.

Under the last four Presidents, our policy toward



' Address made before the National Association of
Manufacturers' 71st annual Congress of American
Industry at New York, N.Y., on Dec. 9 (press re-
lease 289).



^ For text of a joint communique of Mar. 19, 1966,
see Bulletin of Apr. 4, 1966, p. 543.

= For text, see ibid., Nov. 21, 1966, p. 791.

* For an advance text of President Johnson's
address before the National Conference of Editorial
Writers, see ibid., Oct. 24, 1966, p. 622.



DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN



the Soviet Union has been the same. Where neces-
sary, we shall defend freedom; where possible, we
shall work with the East to build a lasting peace.

We do not intend to let our differences on Viet-
Nam or elsewhere ever prevent us from exploring
all opportunities. We want the Soviet Union and
the nations of Eastern Europe to know that we and
our allies shall go step by step with them just as
far as they are willing to advance.

In short, the winds of change in Eastern
Europe are freeing the ice floes of the cold
war. They can be warm winds. They can also
be trade winds.

Most-Favored-Nation Treatment

Trade with Eastern Europe is a subject in
which the NAM has exhibited sustained and
responsible interest, as exemplified by the ex-
tensive study by Dr. Mose Harvey which you
commissioned. As I think Dr. Harvey would
agree, this is a time when increasing trade
with Eastern Europe, under careful and selec-
tive direction, can be both good business and
good policy.

But the Government does not now have the
authority to free that trade or to apply selec-
tive direction. It is not now possible for the
United States to take full advantage of the
opportunities presented by trade.

The core of the problem is that only Yugo-
slavia and Poland now receive the same tariflf
treatment we give to the other countries of
the world. The President may not extend it
to the other countries of Eastern Europe.

This is the most-favored-nation treatment,
which for 40 years has been central to our
foreign commercial policy. (I might add,
however, that I have never understood the
reason for the phrase. All that "most fa-
vored" means is "nondiscriminatory" treat-
ment.)

We gave most-favored-nation treatment to
Eastern Europe for many years. In 1951,
however, at the height of the cold war, we
withdrew it, imposing on the products of
these countries the very high rates of the old
Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930.

This was a rational distinction to make in
1951. But is it rational today? Should not the
President have authority to negotiate with
any of these countries for the advantages we



can gain by offering them the same tariff
rates we apply to the rest of the world ?

The President's inability to negotiate in
this manner now sharply limits our capacity
to use our great economic power of trade as
an instrument of foreign policy. And more
obviously, it sharply limits trade. This is a
self-imposed restriction, and we are the only
major free-world nation to so tie our hands.

The Miller Committee Recommendations

Recognizing the potential of a freer hand,
the President sought to explore both the
policy and trade benefits. In early 1965 he
appointed a study committee of distinguished
business, labor, and academic leaders, includ-
ing members of this association, and chaired
by J. Irwin Miller, chairman of the Cummins
Engine Company.

The Miller committee conducted an ex-
haustive study, which was based on full
access to our defense and intelligence infor-
mation. In its superb report it concluded
that the United States, having built the most
powerful defense system the world has ever
seen, could and should seek practical means
of reducing areas of conflict.^

Peaceful, nonstrategic trade, the commit-
tee said, "can be an important instrument of
national policy in our country's relations
with individual Communist nations of
Europe" and we should use trade negotia-
tions with those countries more actively, ag-
gressively, and confidently "in the pursuit of
our national welfare and world peace."

And the single most important- step, the
committee concluded, is to give the President
discretionary authority to grant — or with-
draw — nondiscriminatory tariff treatment to
individual countries of Eastern Europe.

The proposed East-West Trade Relations
Act,* based on the Miller committee recom-
mendations, would do exactly that. Congress
did not act on this measure last year, but as
the President said in October, we intend to
press for it in the coming Congress.



= For text, see ibid., May 30, 1966, p. 845.
' For background and text of the proposed legisla-
tion, see ibid., p. 838.



JANUARY 2, 1967



T have so far only suggested the adminis-
tration's reasoning in supporting this meas-
ure. Let me now analyze it in somewhat
greater detail on the framework of three
basic questions.

Three Basic Questions

The first is: Why should we send goods to
Communist countries — opponents of our sys-
tem — and thus either directly or indirectly
strengthen their military capacity?

Unlike the blanket condemnation of pro-
testers who paste labels on hams in markets,
this is not only a sensible question but a basic
question. There are three answers to it.

1. At present, the export of strategic goods
— goods closely or directly related to military
use — is strictly controlled. In seeking this
act we would not abandon such independent
controls.

2. The Soviet Union's military capability
is not based on imports. On the contrary, as
the world knows, it has developed advanced
weapons and space technology from its own
resources.

3. It is not likely that trade with the
United States would release Soviet resources
for additional military spending. The Soviet
Union already gives highest priority to mili-
tary spending. Larger imports* from the
United States would almost certainly expand
the consumer sector of the Soviet economy,
not the military. As the Miller committee
noted, any change in Soviet resource availa-
bility would "affect its civilian economy, not
its military budget."

The basic point, after all, is that we are
talking about trade, not aid. The Soviet
Union and the other East European coun-
tries would have to pay for increased imports
either with gold or by increased exports —
and those would require diversion of re-
sources to produce.

The effect of all three of these points
was summarized by the Miller committee:
". . . total Western nonstrategic trade, let
alone U.S. trade, could not be expected to
alter the fundamental relationship between
East- West militaiy capabilities."

Accepting that conclusion, it is still fair



to ask the second question: Would expanded
East-West trade really amount to very much
economically; is it really good busijiess?

The total amount of trade potential in the
East European countries should not be exag-
gerated. They are not among the great trad-
ing nations, nor are they soon likely to
become so.

Nevertheless, their trade could be mean-
ingful. The rocketing success of the free
economies in the West is exerting a major
influence on the economic planners of the
East.

In the past 15 years East European trade
has increased fivefold. Last year the free
world sold more than $6 billion in goods to
Eastern Europe and bought almost the same
amount.

The United States has not shared in this
growth. West Germany, for example, exports
more than half a billion dollars' worth of
goods each year, five times our present total.
Earlier this year, the Fiat company of Italy
entered into an agreement to build an $800
million compact car plant in the Soviet
Union.

In other words, East European trade with
the West is going to expand, with us or with-
out us. If we do not participate, however, we
will lose more than business opportunities.
We will have forfeited a major opportunity
to achieve policy gains, and this raises the
third question: Would expanded East-West
trade really amount to very much diplo-
matically; is it really good policy?

This, in the administration's view, is by far
the most important aspect of East-West
trade. Where reasons of economic gain might
justify it, reasons of policy require it.

As Secretary Rusk observed last week: ''

It is too late in history to maintain intractable
hostility across the entire range of relationships.
. . . even at a time when there are difficult and
painful and even dangerous issues between us, it
is necessary in the interest of Homo sapiens for the
leaders on both sides to explore the possibilities of
pointr, of agreement. . . .

Enlarged trade can be a significant frame-



' In an address before the Executives Club of
Chicago on Nov. 30, 1966.



DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN



work for such exploration — if the countries
of Eastern Europe want trade, as surely they
do. Life magazine this week describes a trade
fair in Plovdiv, Bulgaria. The American
pavilion was small compared with the Soviet
and German displays, but it was stocked with



Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 56, Jan- Mar 1967) → online text (page 8 of 90)