MILITARY COLD WAR EDUCATION AND SPEECH

REVIEW POLICIES

THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 1962

U.S. SENATE,

SPECIAL PREPAREDNESS SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,
Washington, D.C.

The special subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 224, Old Senate Office Building.

Present: Senators Stennis (chairman), Thurmond, and Smith. Also present: Special subcommittee staff: James T. Kendall, chief counsel.

Senator STENNIS (presiding). The subcommittee will please come to order.

Mr. Reporter, this will be a brief statement off the record. (Discussion off the record.)

Senator STENNIS. We will go back on the record.

If we may proceed now, I will call on Senator Smith, if she has some questions at this time.

Senator SMITH. I do not have any questions, Mr. Chairman, thank you.

REVIEW OF STATEMENTS SUBJECT TO DISTORTION BY COMMUNIST
PROPAGANDA MACHINE

Senator STENNIS. I have a very few questions.

Mr. Secretary, I had a chance to look over some of the points you made in your statement as well as your answers. I am going to be very brief, but I do want to discuss one point here in the beginning.

You stress the necessity for the State Department, in reviewing these speeches, to guard against the use of words or ideas that might be distorted by the Communist propaganda machine to the prejudice of our interests. Now, I know that is a problem you have before you, but does there not come a time when that principle has to yieldTESTIMONY OF GEORGE W. BALL, UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE-Resumed

Mr. BALL. That is right.

Senator STENNIS (continuing). To positively and bluntly worded statements of our cause that would have to prevail and would have to be given preference?

Now, would you discuss that briefly?

2857

Mr. BALL. Mr. Chairman, I wholly agree with you that we have to find a balance here where the interests of the United States will be best served between being perfectly forthright with the American people, which is essential-and I would be the last to want to qualify that in any way-and, at the same time, to guard against the misuse of statements to serve the purposes, not of our country, but of those countries which may potentially be aggressors against us.

This is a difficult balance to strike.

In part, it is a function of who makes the statement. For example, if the President of the United States makes a statement, one whole set of consequences flow from the fact of his personality and his position. If a high civilian official makes a statement, it does not necessarily carry the same saber-rattling implications those cannot be attributed to it in the same way by the Soviet machine-as if a highranking military officer makes a statement, because they try to perpetuate the obvious untruth: the myth that the United States is dominated by a clique of military officers who are bellicose.

Senator STENNIS. We do not want to leave the impression with the American people that we are pulling our punches. The average fellow that reads the newspapers on these matters does not want to feel that we are pulling our punches and not positively stating our cause. At the same time, I think that person, the average fellow realizes that reckless statements, just kind of beating somebody over the head in order to attract attention, or without such a purpose just to strike blows, so to speak, heedlessly, do more harm than good. I do not think the average American approves of that. He does not want reckless statements, headline statements, or anything of that nature.

But I believe he wants to be firm and positive and definite. I mean he wants our spokesmen to be.

Mr. BALL. Yes, sir.

Senator STENNIS. And I think that is why there is concern about some of these statements.

Mr. BALL. I think it is a legitimate concern, Mr. Chairman, and it is not our intention at all in carrying out this responsibility to try to blunt the truth or to be less than straightforward.

Senator STENNIS. I think you have covered that point.

SKILL AND EXPERIENCE OF REVIEW PERSONNEL

Now, that brings me to the question that keeps coming to my mind. On that very point that you have made is where you often need a man of talent and skill and experience in saying just what shall be stricken out

Mr. BALL. Right.

Senator STENNIS (continuing). Of a speech. And I have great deference for the men that have been doing this work I believe you need more men of broad experience in international affairs as well as local domestic questions.

Mr. BALL. We are working still on the perfection of the techniques and I would hope that perhaps tomorrow we can submit to the committee some suggestions for better appeals mechanisms along the line of our colloquy on Tuesday.

Senator STENNIS. I am not necessarily encouraging the employment of more people to do this work. You may have enough.

But I think it is a question of the broadness of the outlook and the special talent, and in some way some related provision in the appropriation bill got tied into the idea that the funds were going to be reduced, not for this policy review directly, but something related to it.

I know we made the point in the Appropriations Committee that what you needed was really a broader base and more talent.

GILPATRIC SPEECH ON U.S. MILITARY POWER

Now, the first question related to a speech made last fall by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr. Gilpatric, about our military destructive power, our nuclear power, and our retaliatory forces. He made that speech last October and, I am sure it attracted worldwide attention, but that was the first time that our striking power had been spelled out fully in an official way.

Frankly, I had advocated for 2 or 3 years that the American people be told more about that, as well as our possible adversaries.

I know that could have been used by the Communist propagandists, but was that not an illustration where the need for a strong, blunt statement of our own overwhelmed and overcame the cautionary policy?

Mr. BALL. I quite agree, Mr. Chairman, and, as I recall, that speech was discussed with the State Department, and we were wholly in accord with it.

Senator STENNIS. Yes.

Well, I know it released me to say some things I had been wanting to say that had been theretofore classified, and I found a very fine response on the part of the people, not only in my home State, but in other places where I went last fall.

CRITICISM OF DELETION OF REFERENCE TO COMMUNISM AS "VICIOUS"

I noticed, too, you struck out the word "vicious." This might be just an argument, but the explanation given there when you struck out the word "vicious" more than once was that it was kind of a namecalling proposition.

I do not see any objection at any time to referring to communism, as such, as being vicious. I mean there is no time that I could see where that word should be withdrawn. It might be a diplomatic point when you are referring to individuals and would not want to call them vicious, but in reference to communism as such, you do not intend to strike the word "vicious" as being too strong, do you? Mr. BALL. I would concur exactly in what you say, Mr. Chairman. Senator STENNIS. I believe that covers the points I had in mind just now.

Senator Thurmond, may I call on you, sir?

DISCUSSION ON DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMMUNISM AND MARXISM

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Secretary, there is one point I would like to clear up about your testimony.

When you were here on Monday, I asked you:

Without the goal of a Communist world, there would be no communism and no Marxism, could there?

Your reply was:

Well, I do not think that is quite true. We have Marxist countries that have had Marxist societies, or we have had Communist societies that have not depended on an international goal.

Mr. Secretary, do you mean by that that we have societies that are Marxist and follow Marxist teachings but are not Communist?

Mr. BALL. I would not make the distinction between "Communist" and "Marxist" because, well, there have historically been forms of communism which have not been Marxist. However, communism today is universally, so far as I know, based on Marxist principles.

Senator THURMOND. So you would not attempt to delineate, then, between them.

The next question I planned to ask you would not be applicable because I was going to ask you, then, what are some examples of Marxist countries differentiated from Communist countries.

COMMUNIST ASSOCIATION OF JAGAN GOVERNMENT IN BRITISH GUIANA

Would you say that British Guiana, then, is a Marxist or a Communist country?

Mr. BALL. I think it is very hard to know just what the situation is there. Our own interpretation of Mr. Jagan's government in British Guiana is that he is very closely related to the Communist movement.

Whether he, himself, is a Communist or not is something that is not clear, but it may be that some of the people in his government are, and the trend of that government is toward the Communist side. Senator THURMOND. When he and his wife visited in Cuba last year, did you see the statements that were made?

Mr. BALL. Yes, I saw the statements that were made.

Senator THURMOND. Did they indicate to you that they are Communists?

Mr. BALL. As I recall, she visited Cuba. I am not sure that he did.

Well, it has been our view that she is a Communist. As a matter of fact, she was at one time, I think, a member of the Young Communist Organization in the United States.

Senator THURMOND. Is there really any question in your mind, Mr. Secretary, whether or not he is a Communist or strongly pro-Communist?

Mr. BALL. He is pro-Communist in the sense that he sees the future of his country, I think, much more in Communist terms than in others.

The question in my mind is whether he was actually a member of the Communist Party. I must say that I spent a morning talking with him, and I have a rather confused impression as to just where he does

come out.

QUESTION OF ECONOMIC AID TO BRITISH GUIANA

Senator THURMOND. Are we planning to give him aid of any kind? Mr. BALL. The present situation is, I think, that there is an economic mission in British Guiana; it has just come back; and there has been no decision as to what will be done about aid.

Senator THURMOND. I believe the White House announced last fall, when Mr. Jagan visited there, that aid would be given that country, did it not?

Mr. BALL. What the White House announced at that time, as I recall, was that a mission would be sent and that consideration would be given to it.

The problem in British Guiana right now is one of fluidity in the situation. Mr. Jagan, on his part, is the elected head of the government. There is a strong opposition which is, in part, headed by Mr. Burnham, who represents largely the mobilization of the Negro elements in the country.

The strength that Mr. Jagan has is principally in the East Indian elements in the country.

There is also another opposition party under a man of Portuguese descent named Mr. D'Aguiar.

What will occur in British Guiana is a little hard to tell at the moment. I think that the British Government is considering the question of independence and examining the causes and consequences of the riots which occurred some months ago. It is desired to see if there are the elements of stability which would make it right to have an independent country.

But I would regard this as a fluid situation.

Senator THURMOND. When the head of a country is Communist or pro-Communist, are we not building up the economies of such a country and are we not furnishing aid to our enemies for countries that fall in that category?

Mr. BALL. I would think that the question is whether one can make a distinction between aiding the people of a country and aiding the government of a country.

The mission which has been in British Guiana has been consulting with all elements in the population. The question for decision is really whether it is possible to provide some assistance and encouragement to the people of British Guiana without strengthening the hold of the present government.

Now, I do not know whether this is possible or not, and this is something that we will consider after we have a chance to review the report from the mission which has been down there.

BASIS AND RESULTS OF U.S. AID TO YUGOSLAVIA

Senator THURMOND. Can you give us examples of where the people have been aided without making the head of the government stronger? When we gave aid to Yugoslavia, did we not make Tito stronger? Are we not building their economy stronger?

Mr. BALL. By and large, when we have given aid to Yugoslavia, what we have done is to give encouragement to the Western-oriented forces in Yugoslavia.

This has been the basis upon which aid has been given over the years. I think that it has been extremely successful and this is one of the reasons why we are frankly concerned at the possibility that this instrument may not be available to the U.S. Government.

Senator THURMOND. It has been so successful until right recently Mr. Tito has now become closer than ever to Russia, the Communist government there, has he not?