Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

these speeches, but, rather, that this approach is totally inconsistent with what has been and is official U.S. foreign policy?

Mr. BALL. It is a phrase which has meaning only with reference to specific things. I would say that foreign policy generally is highly complex and that the kind of oversimplifications which one frequently finds in speeches can create misleading impressions or can be subject to deliberate distortion. I think that is all that is intended by that phrase.

Senator THURMOND. I would like to clarify this a little bit, now. What the State Department calls the "all-or-nothing approach," as I understand it, is that just a pet abomination of some individual in the State Department who has to censor these speeches

Mr. BALL. Could you give me a specific reference, Senator? Senator THURMOND (continuing). Or is this approach totally inconsistent with what has been and is official U.S. foreign policy? Mr. BALL. Stated in those general terms, I cannot answer it.

If

you will give me the reference to it, I will explain how it applies in a particular situation.

Senator THURMOND. It falls in periods 2, 4 and the miscellaneous category.

I believe you have got them before you, have you not?

Mr. BALL. I have got the periods, but there are many speeches. Do you know which speeches it applies to?

Senator THURMOND. If you cannot find one, you and your aids there, you have got a half a dozen, I have one aid back here, I will try to find it for you.

I refer you to a speech by General Trudeau June the 1st, 1961, speech No. 20, in group 4.

Your explanation of paragraph 2 says:

Characterizing the struggle between communism and the Western World in all-or-nothing terms seems inadvisable in a speech to be delivered just when the President was to meet Premier Khrushchev in Vienna.

Mr. BALL. Well, that is right.

The particular phrase deleted, to which that has reference, is in a sentence which begins, "We must win this struggle," and the language deleted was "or we lose the world."

Senator THURMOND. Therefore, the censor who censored the speech then did not show caprice and this was not just a pet abomination of his, but, as I understand it, this phraseology in the speech is inconsistent with what has been and is official U.S. foreign policy, is that correct?

Mr. BALL. Well, I would say that a phrase "or we lose the world" again is the kind that relates to the great struggle for the hearts and minds of men everywhere. The objection that I would find with this phrase is simply that in the minds of the uncommitted peoples, what this talks about is that we possess the world, and, therefore, we lose it, or that our objective is that of possessing the world.

This states something in a much too black-and-white way. We have no desire to possess the world. We have a desire to maintain the values which we believe in, in the world, and that is quite a different thing.

I would say, Senator Thurmond, I think this is one of those marginal cases where it would have been just as well if the State Department reviewer had not made this particular recommendation.

But this was the explanation which appeared to have been in his mind: That this particular language seemed to state it in terms which implied a possession of the world which is not the objective of our policy, and that, therefore, it was a kind of all-or-nothing situation. We either had all the world or we had none of it.

Actually what we want is the preservation of our own interests and of the values that we believe in.

Senator THURMOND. Would you turn to speech No. 63 under the miscellaneous category, paragraph 2 at the bottom of the page.

I believe the State Department remarks were, as follows:

The State Department reviewing officer thought that the reference to Carthage which ultimately was completely destroyed by Rome cast the relations between the Soviet Union and the Western World into an all-or-nothing posture inconsistent with American policy.

That seems to be the answer there, then: That the all-or-nothing posture is inconsistent with American policy.

Mr. BALL. I would say that I do not think American policy or anybody's policy is to try to convert the Soviet bloc countries into another Carthage.

We are not thinking of razing them to the ground. This seems to be a rather unfortunate reference in this situation.

Senator THURMOND. Is that another unfortunate deletion, then? Mr. BALL. No.

I say that I think that the reference to Carthage, when it is put in the context of a speech about the Soviet bloc, indicates an intention to wipe it out utterly, which meant the destruction of all the buildings, the killing of most of the people, and the enslavement of the others. Carthage is not a very good example of what our policy is, I hope.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Secretary, did you see that statement before it came over to us?

Now, these are the answers you recently sent over to us, and you now say that is an unfortunate statement.

Mr. BALL. No. I said that the reference to Carthage in the speech which was deleted would have been an unfortunate statement to have been made by General Trudeau.

Senator THURMOND. Did you see this statement before it came to us?

Mr. BALL. I saw most of them. I will tell you the exact circumstances under which these statements were prepared.

They were prepared by a staff which I had assigned to this task. I saw a preliminary draft of most of the explanations. This actual book was submitted at a time when I was in Europe and I did not see all of them, but I take the responsibility for them.

Senator THURMOND. Well, he says "an all-or-nothing posture inconsistent with American policy."

Mr. BALL. Yes, because of the fact that Carthage was completely destroyed.

Senator THURMOND. That is not a true statement, is it? Is that a true statement?

Mr. BALL. It is true when used in the context of Carthage, which was totally destroyed and wiped off the earth, I should think that is not the objective of our policy, is it?

DISCUSSION ON DELETION OF WORD "VICTORY" AS IMPLYING

ALL-OR-NOTHING APPROACH

Senator THURMOND. Would you turn to speech No. 151, which falls in No. 2 category.

Now, the State Department's comment in paragraph 1 on page 224 reads, as follows:

The word "victory" has a militaristic and aggressive ring, less suited than the substituted phrase to describe our national objectives. It also implies an allor-nothing approach leaving no room for accommodation.

So, therefore, the "all-or-nothing approach," or "all-or-nothing" phraseology in these various matters, or that policy would be inconsistent with the policy of our Government, is that correct?

Mr. BALL. Senator Thurmond, I undertook to explain this particular change of "victory" in my opening statement.

Senator THURMOND. I am not going into "victory" now. That happened to be in this particular statement. The part I am getting at now is that:

It also implies an all-or-nothing approach leaving no room for accommodation.

Mr. BALL. Frankly, I do not subscribe to that statement, and, as I explained

Senator THURMOND. So you do not subscribe to this statement, then ? Did you see this before this was sent over to us?

Mr. BALL. This particular one is one which I either did not see or it was prepared after I had left for Europe. That is why I undertook to explain this in the statement which I made at the beginning of today's hearing.

Let me say and I want to say this for the record and very categorically that I think this explanation, which was apparently an attempt to summarize what seems to me to be an entirely valid explanation made by the reviewer at the time that he made this change, is perfectly fatuous. I do not know why it was put in here, and I must say I wholly agree with you if you are disturbed about it.

PREPARATION OF STATE DEPARTMENT EXPLANATION OF SPEECH CHANGES

Senator THURMOND. As a matter of fact, Mr. Ball, you had not seen the answers to a great many of these requests that we sent over here until today, had you?

Mr. BALL. Oh, no, no, that is not true, Senator Thurmond.

Senator THURMOND. How is that?

Mr. BALL. No, that is not the case.

Senator THURMOND. You have already admitted you had not seen two or three here in the last few minutes.

Mr. BALL. I said that I had not seen this particular one because I was on my way to Europe at a time when we were getting this material up for you. I went through the material while it was being prepared. I never saw it in final form.

Senator THURMOND. The people who prepared this are the same ones who censored the speeches, are they not?

Mr. BALL. They are not, sir, no.

Senator THURMOND. They are different people?

Mr. BALL. They are different people.

Senator HHURMOND. And they were familiar with the policy, were they, or not?

Mr. BALL. What they did was

Senator THURMOND. That had been followed in the censoring? Mr. BALL. What they did was to look at the contemporary memorandums which were prepared, talk with the people who did the work at the time and prepare these answers on that basis, Senator.

Senator THURMOND. Were the people who prepared these answers here for which you take responsibility and with which you now disagree, were they familiar with the censoring policies?

Mr. BALL. Yes, surely.

BALL REJECTS ALL-OR NOTHING APPROACH EXPLANATION FOR DEPLETION OF "VICTORY"

Senator THURMOND. Well, then, they wrote this. They prepared this and they must have been the ones who had been familiar with the censoring policies when these deletions were made in the military officers' speeches, were they not?

Mr. BALL. These people were not even in the Department at the time that was done, for the most part.

Senator THURMOND. But they are following the same line that has been followed for several years, did they not?

Mr. BALL. They were not following a line. They were attempting to explain why something was done at a particular time, and what they were trying to do was to find out why it had been done.

Now, I explained in my statement that this particular explanation was an inartistic effort to summarize an explanation which I set forth in my statement, and, as it came out, I find it most inartistic. I think that the impression it creates is a very bad one, and I would reject this as representing in any sense the policy of the State Department. Senator THURMOND. I want to ask you this question.

When I said the "line," I mean the policy of the State Department, of course.

I want to ask you this question, now.

In that second sentence there, "It also implies an all-or-nothing approach leaving no room for accommodation"-I repeat that sentence: "It also implies an all-or-nothing approach leaving no room for accommodation"; does that statement represent the State Department's feeling and actions and thoughts and approval or does it not?

Mr. BALL. When that is put in as an explanation for the recommended deletion of the word "victory," it does not. I think it is a foolish statement, and it does not represent the reason why "victory" was recommended for deletion.

It is, as I say, an inartistic and inaccurate attempt to summarize something, and it does not reflect the true meaning. That is why I undertook to explain this particular statement in my opening statement.

DISCUSSION ON MEANING OF "ALL-OR-NOTHING APPROACH"

Senator THURMOND. As I understand it, then, from what you said, the "all-or-nothing approach" is inconsistent with the official foreign policy, is that correct?

Mr. BALL. "All-or-nothing approach" simply has meaning in reference to particular things, such as an "all-or-nothing approach" to a particular situation, such as in the Carthage deletion. With reference to "victory" in these other circumstances, I would say that is a very inept and not at all a sensible phrase.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Ball, this "all-or-nothing approach” is used time and again.

Mr. BALL. With respect to different things.

Senator THURMOND. And I am asking you whether or not that is consistent with or inconsistent with the Department of State policy, or is it consistent in some cases and inconsistent in others?

Mr. BALL. It depends on what it refers to. It is a phrase which has any meaning that may be attached to it, depending upon the particular application of it.

Senator THURMOND. In other cases the word "accommodation" has been used in connection with the "all-or-nothing approach".

Mr. BALL. Not so far as I know.

Senator THURMOND. Would such be consistent or inconsistent with the Department of State policy?

Mr. BALL. Again, it depends on what the particular circumstances were. If it relates to a particular negotiation or to a particular situation somewhere around the world, it might have one meaning. It might have another meaning elsewhere.

Senator THURMOND. What does it mean in Laos, "all-or-nothing approach," if it is used in connection with "accommodation"?

Mr. BALL. I do not think it means very much, Senator. I do not think it was used in connection with Laos, was it?

Senator THURMOND. I want to ask you this:

Is it U.S. policy to reject or not reject what the State Department characterizes as the "all-or-nothing approach"?

Mr. BALL. Well, asked in a vacuum, I find it impossible to answer. I mean I do not know what "all-or-nothing approach" means. What are we talking about?

Senator THURMOND. Well, it has been used over and over again in explanation of the censoring of these speeches. You ought to know about it unless somebody else prepared all your answers.

Mr. BALL. No, with reference to different points.

Senator THURMOND. You are the one that brought it up or the State Department did, and you have used it over and over. Now, in this particular speech that I referred to, speech No. 151, you say that the second sentence of the statement that I read would be inconsistent with the Department policy or would it be consistent with the Department policy?

Mr. BALL. As applied to, as an explanation for the deletion of the word "victory" in this particular context, I would say that it does not represent the Department policy. That was not the reason why "victory" was deleted in this case.

Senator THURMOND. Can you now cite us some instance where it does represent State Department policy?

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »