Изображения страниц

do not intend to win this struggle by initiating nuclear war to destroy the Communist world. We do intend, however, to build, unify and extend by peaceful means the community of free nations.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

The strategy which guides us is, then, quite simple. We are working from day to day to bind in close partnership the industrialized nations and to build with them a wider community by creating a new partnership between the more developed and less developed nations of the Free World. We intend to defend this community of free nations in ways that will minimize the possibility that a nuclear war will come about. And we intend to draw the nations now under Communist regimes towards this free community, both by preventing the expansion of communism and by seeking cooperation in specific areas of common interest which we believe will increasingly emerge as the strength, unity, and effectiveness of the free community is demonstrated.

[blocks in formation]

It is sometimes asked if our policy is a no-win policy.

Our answer is this: We do not expect this planet to be forever split between a Communist bloc and a Free World; we expect this planet to organize itself in time on the principles of voluntary cooperation among independent nation states dedicated to human freedom; we expect the principle that “Governments * * * derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" to triumph on both sides of the Iron Curtain.

We stand ready to fight to the limit to defend the vital interests of the Free World. But we are not looking for a military climax to this historic struggle.

The victory we seek will see no ticker tape parade down Broadway. It is a victory which will take many years and perhaps decades of hard work and dedication—by many peoples—to bring about.

It will not be a victory of the United States over the Soviet Union.

It will be a victory of men and nations that aim to stand up straight, over the forces that wish to entrap and to exploit their revolutionary aspirations.

It will be a victory for those who recognize the profound interdependence of the nations on this planet over those who would press to limit their national or ideological ambitions.

It will be a victory for those who recognize that the powers of the state over the individual should be limited by law and practice; and that there is no substitute in a modern society for the energy and commitment of responsible free citizens who understand what needs to be done and why it is in their interest to do it.

For Americans the reward of victory will be simply, this: It will permit our society to continue to develop along the old humane lines which go back to our birth as a nation; it will provide “the blessings of liberty" to ourselves and our posterity.

This is the goal, the policy, the faith of those who carry on from day to day in Washington. As Secretary Rusk said in speaking to the American Historical Association last year : "*** we are not merely counterpunching against crises. We are taking our part in the shaping of history.”


FOR INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AFFAIRS, AT THE FOUNDERS' AWARD DINNER OF THE NEW SCHOOL FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, NEW YORK, N.Y., MAY 28, 1962 *** * Listen especially to the gloomy prophecies of those who are anxious to win but reluctant to train for the race, who pine for 'victory' but cannot define it and would prefer not to pay for it.

“Somewhere along the line, we see new leaders of Communism facing with realism the fact that their old dream of a Communist one-world is an obsolete and therefore perilous delusion. They may then persist for a further time in trying to insulate themselves from the unifying forces of science, education, and modern industry. Eventually, I am persuaded, they must open their society to the overwhelming benefits and requirements of a hopelessly interdependent world.

“Then the Soviet Union may even decide to join the United Nations in fact, and not in name only. And at that moment I am sure the United States will eagerly vie for the honor of sponsoring the Soviet application for full membership in the world community.

“When the world of consent has thus seduced the world of coercion, we will be face to face with a new kind of victory.

"It won't be 'total'—the real world can never be described with absolute words, real goals are never fully achieved.”

“But it will be the kind of victory that has rational meaning in the nuclear age. It will not be won by killing or impoverishing others. It will be the best of all possible victories, for it can be shared with all mankind."


AFFAIRS, INDIANAPOLIS, IND., FEBRUARY 4, 1962 “We are striving to know how men can avoid fighting what might truly be the last war for the sobering reason that there would be no one left to fight another * * *

"Finally, let me mention one new direction that has been imposed upon us by the awesome new developments in weapons. In the past, disputes could be settled and adversaries controlled by military power. Nations and people learned to hate the enemy as a prelude to crushing him. In our thermonuclear age, conflict has become a thing of far greater subtlety.

"As much as shrewd battlefield strategists, we now need political expertise, diplomatic satuteness, psychological shrewdness, technical and scientific skill— and most of all a knowledge and appreciation of what we are defending * * *

"It is our task to confer in unity and strength. Only then can we be sure of victory in the end."


CISCO, CALIF., TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1961 However, when reading much of our daily press and magazines, I often wonder how much this is appreciated. I fear that much of our terminology derived from the term “cold war” leads us into oversimplified thinking. We assume that in every international development there must be a “victory" on one side and a “defeat” on the other. A negotiation tends to get reported as if it were a World Series with a winner and a loser at the close of each day. All too often we seem to lack faith in ourselves and become frustrated because things do not come out exactly the way we would like to see them. We forget that we are gardeners and are not architects. The fact that the one place in the World where co-existence was really being tried resulted in such an admission of Communist defeat as to cause them to build a wall to bring an end to such co-existence somehow gets presented as a Free World defeat. I wonder how the matter would have been presented if we were the ones who had built the wall to prevent the escape of the West Berlin population to the attractions of East Germany?

*** I do not share the pessimism of those prophets of disaster in our midst who see in most international developments a “defeat” for the Free World and a “victory” for Communism. Such persons often seem to have more faith in the Communist system than does Khrushchev himself. Those of us who have lived behind the iron curtain and who have negotiated with the Communists have long ago learned that they are not nine feet tall.



It is this spirit which causes men to brave death in order to have freedom which insures the ultimate victory of the West.

The lesson of Berlin is not lost on the rest of the world, and it should not be lost on Americans. At this point, we have not lost the battle of Berlin-we are winning it, and I suspect the Russians, their tactics exposed in the full view of the rest of the world, are seriously worried by their failure.


Our principles and our faith are the product of the experience of hundreds of millions of people who through the ages have survived on many frontiers and by trial and error progressed to ever higher horizons of freedom and justice.

Our principles are the product of a long and rich cultural heritage based on the philosophy of the Greeks, the law of the Romans, the long struggle for freedom of the peoples of the West, on the revolutionary concepts of the Enlightenment.

We will not abandon our principles. We will not surrender our freedom. We will instead renew our faith in our country, in its leadership, and in the inevitable triumph of freedom.

Mr. Ball. Earlier in the hearings several instances were cited in which the word "victory" was eliminated from speeches of military officers. Our records indicate that in only two of these cases was this elimination recommended by the Department of State.

The reasons why the Department recommended such a change in each of these two cases was summarized in the material submitted to this committee. In one of the two cases the summary was inartistically worded and gives a quite erroneous impression of the reviewer's intentions. This has resulted in a misunderstanding of the Department's attitude toward the employment of such words as “victory”.

The recommended change in language occurred in a speech prepared for delivery on March 3, 1961, by Brig. Gen. John W. White before the National Security Forum in Columbus, Ohio. So that there will be no further confusion on this question I should like to read into the record the exact language of the explanatory memorandum submitted by the State Department reviewer to the Defense Department at the time this change of language was recommended—which you, Mr. Chairman, as a lawyer, will

recognize as the “best evidence”. The change in question was the substitution of the phrase "defeat of Communist aggression” for the word "victory". The reviewer explained this, among other recommendations, as follows:

Because this speech concerns predominantly the Cold War we have made several incidental changes of wording to reflect the fact that the Cold War is instigated and promoted by aggressive international communism. We consider that it is necessary to insure this impression throughout because (1) the Administration presently does not wish to give occasion for interpretation by foreign opinion that the U.S. is stimulating the Cold War from its side and, thus aggravating rather than trying to reduce international tensions, and (2) because sentences could be quoted out of context in support of the Soviet propaganda claim that elements of the U.S. military in particular are continuing to whip up the Cold War fever.

As the committee will note from this statement the recommended change did not reflect any reluctance to speak of “victory,” but rather a desire to make clear that the Communist bloc is responsible for the cold war and that victory in the cold war can be achieved only by the defeat of Communist aggression.


Department witnesses in their February appearances before the Senate subcommittee undertook to consider various suggestions for improving the State Department's speech review activities. These suggestions fall into three categories: (1) codification of procedures; (2) assignment of a State Department officer to the Defense Department; and (3) the assignment of an officer in the State Department to give full-time supervision and coordination to the function of speech


80752-62-pt. 6-15


As the committee is aware, procedures involved in speech review activities were, in fact, "codified" in an agreement between the State and Defense Departments on December 1, 1961. As a result of the procedures established under this agreement and of further refinements instituted since the hearings of this committee, the system is now working smoothly and efficiently.

Under prevailing procedures the Department of State no longer notes editorial changes on the faces of speech drafts but returns the speeches to the Department of Defense with transmittal memoranda listing proposed changes and deletions. Those changes and deletions are of two kinds: those that are regarded merely as suggestions and may be accepted or rejected at the option of the Department of Defense and those that are designated as "required." The State Department's transmittal memoranda include statements of the policy considerations justifying each recommended change or deletion.

Reviewing officers in the State Department have been instructed to limit their recommendations to material that is contrary to established policy or that consists of factual errors and interpretations which may be injurious to U.S. foreign policy interests. Suggested changes or deletions are listed as "required” only if they contravene major considerations of policy. Such “required” changes now average less than 10 percent of the total recommendations made by the Department of State.

Since the agreement was put into effect monthly meetings have been held between those responsible for speech review in the two Departments for the purpose of discussing outstanding review problems and relevant developments in military and foreign affairs and of defining those issues that may require action at a higher level.


We have given careful study, Mr. Chairman, to your own suggestion that a State Department officer be assigned to work with the Directorate of Security Review in the Defense Department. We have concluded that, however expert such an officer might be, he would, by being geographically separated from the Department, tend to be pulled out of the mainstream of foreign policy developments. Removed from the source of policy guidance, he would soon find himself out of touch with those matters for which he should be competent.

The fact remains, however, that there is need for a constant link between the two Departments. Since the main flow of speeches is from Defense to State, the two Departments have decided, as an alternative solution, that a Defense officer should-on a trial basis-be assigned to the State Department so as to be in constant consultation with the Policy, Plans and Guidance Staff.

Under this procedure the Defense Department is referring to the Department of State all speeches that might under any circumstances be thought to contain a foreign policy implication. On the basis of a preliminary review the State Department then decides in each caseand in the future this decision will be made in consultation with the Defense Department reviewer assigned to State—whether there is, in fact, such a foreign policy element as to justify full review by the State Department.


In my testimony before this committee I indicated that we were seriously considering the establishment of a full-time position for speech review in the State Department to which a senior officer would be assigned. That position has now been established and a senior officer will assume those duties within the next few days. That officer is Mr. Francis W. Tully, Jr. His extensive experience as a newspaperman has included the coverage of Capitol Hill for New England papers and radio networks. He was press secretary to Governor Christian Herter of Massachusetts, and is, I believe, well known to many Members of Congress, including perhaps members of this subcommittee.

These three changes—the tightening up of procedures, the assignment of a Defense Department officer to the State Department, and the establishment of a full-time State Department officer to supervise the speech-review function should materially improve our competence for carrying out a responsibility requiring both care and judgment.

The review of speeches is not an endeavor that Americans find very congenial. Quite obviously it requires careful and continuous scrutiny—and I think that the hearings which this committee has conducted with great responsibility have served a highly useful purpose; for those of us charged with protecting the values on which our civilization is founded would be derelict indeed if we approached this task of review in any attitude other than that of caution and circumspection.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS ON SIZE AND COST OF PRINTED HEARINGS Senator STENNIS. Members of the subcommittee, with reference to Mr. Ball's request that the excerpts from the State Department be included in the record, we also have before us these explanations and answers filed by the State Department. They are on separate pages themselves and number something like 60 or 70 pages. Each page is not filled with print, however.

The chairman's only concern with the matter of putting in the record material that takes up a great many printed pages is the cost, which is running considerably high.

I am surprised to find out that at the end point, when the testimony comes in final printed form, it costs something like $17.50 a page.

It seems to me that we ought to be as circumspect as we possibly can be in incurring this cost.

I have in mind perhaps instead of putting all matters in the record we could put some of them in the files of the subcommittee. However, in glancing through these responses, in view of the fact that most of these speeches have already been put in the record, it seems to me that they complete the explanation and ought to go in, too. So

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »