« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
Mr. BALL. I do not know whether General White
Senator THURMOND. The Chiefs of Staff are supposed to be familiar with national policy, are they not?
Mr. Ball. That is right, but the very reason why this was sent over to the State Department for review was a feeling in the Department of Defense and on the part of the President that it was very useful to have a State Department comment.
I think I have a fairly good idea of national policy, but I welcome having my speeches reviewed. In fact, I make it a practice to have them reviewed. They are often reviewed by the President or at least by some of the members of the White House staff.
REVIEW OF BALL, RUSK, M'NAMARA, AND KENNEDY SPEECHES Senator THURMOND. Who reviews your speeches, Mr. Rusk?
Mr. Ball. Mr. Rusk very often reviews them; Mr. Bundy reviews them; and, in some instances, the President, himself.
Senator THURMOND. Who would review Mr. Rusk's speeches? I assume the President sends his down to the State Department.
Mr. BALL. He certainly does, and Mr. Rusk would certainly discuss and go over with the President a speech on major policy which he is going to make.
Senator THURMOND. Does someone in the State Department review Mr. Rusk's speeches?
Mr. Ball. Mr. Rusk would normally show his speech to me or to anyone in the Department that he felt had any particular competence in the area covered in the speech. We welcome the idea of comments and suggestions.
Senator THURMOND. In other words, Mr. Rusk would review, you and Mr. Rusk might review some speeches of those further down, and those further down would review your speeches?
Mr. BALL. In many cases I give my own speeches to people further down in the Department for their critical judgment, because I want to know what they think and how they think others will react. I think this is a normal process of development.
And I may say if the speech impinges at all on defense policy, we send it over to the Department of Defense and say, "What do you think?"
If Secretary McNamara is going to make a speech that involves foreign policy, he will send it to Secretary Rusk and say, "I would like your advice on this. Is this a good thing to do at this time?”
This is just normal consultation within the official family.
TIMING, NATIONAL PURPOSE, AND OTHER FACTORS IN STATE DELETIONS
OF REFERENCES TO COMMUNIST GOALS
Senator THURMOND. Would you tell us whether or not censoring the goal of the Communists there that was consistently done, we only sent certain speeches over to you and there are many, many others in which the same phrase was deleted about the goal of the Communists to take the world or similar phraseology, would you say that that was proper, or do you think that was overzealousness, or do you approve it, or what is your position on it?
Mr. BALL. Again, you have to look at this in the context of the time. This was 4 days after inauguration and it was a day before the release of the RB-47 flyers.
Now, for the Chief of Staff of the Air Force to make a speech which could receive considerable world attention as an attack on Soviet objectives was regarded as not being useful at that moment. At another time a different conclusion could very well have been reached.
Senator THURMOND. Do you justify the action taken?
Mr. BALL. I think it was in this case. Putting oneself back in the situation of January 1961, this was a reasonable recommendation.
Senator THURMOND. All right, sir.
Would you take up the next one and tell us whether you justify that one, No. 12?
I have got a whole long list of others we did not send over to you that we could ask about, too.
Mr. BALL. What period is that, Senator Thurmond?
Mr. BALL. We have not been able to find 12. I think it is possible it was not submitted.
Senator THURMOND. Just pass on to 109.
Senator THURMOND. Do you attempt to justify that one or do you feel that it was
Mr. BALL. Oh, I would have said in the context of the time—again, this was two weeks after the inauguration—there was a serious effort made to see if we could tone down the intensity of the discourse, and that that was what was intended here. If this speech were to be made today, I think we probably would have had a different judgment on it.
Senator THURMOND. 109?
Mr. BALL. Well, this was exactly the same situation. The timing was just the same; it was right after the inaugural address. In the State of the Union Message the President had expressed the need to explore all possible areas of cooperation with the Soviet Union. Until the administration was able to establish whether there was going to be any new attitude on the part of the Soviet Union to a new administration, which was always a possibility, it was thought useful to tone down this language a bit.
Senator THURMOND. Do you think that would be censored now?
Mr. BALL. This follows in a somewhat different category because this was not a speech made in the United States. This was a speech made in New Zealand by the commanding general of the U.S. Continental Army Command.
I may say that we would apply a somewhat different standard to a speech made outside the United States. The changes that are made here relate to talk about the antireligious cult that opposes us. It would seem of questionable wisdom, in a foreign country, to inject the religious note into this.
Senator THURMOND. This speech was made by Gen. Herbert B. Powell, was it not?
Mr. BALL. That is right, sir.
Senator THURMOND. He is the commanding general of the U.S. Continental Army Command ?
Mr. BALL. That is right.
Senator THURMOND. All six Armies in the United States are under his command, are they not?
Mr. BALL. That is right, sir.
He was speaking in New Zealand. He was not speaking to an American audience.
Senator THURMOND. And New Zealand is an ally of ours !
Mr. Ball. Certainly. It is an ally of ours. But there is certain degree of circumspection involved on the part of a major military figure in speaking outside one's territory.
Senator STENNIS. Senator, may I ask a question there? What was the occasion of this general making the statement?
Mr. Ball. It was a speech before the English-Speaking Union of Auckland, New Zealand, which was made on the 15th of May of last year.
Senator STENNIS. He was not sent there to represent the President or the State Department or anyone like that, was he?
Mr. BALL. No. I think this simply was—I have forgotten the occasion of his being there. We may have that information.
Senator STENNIS. All right. I will not press the question. I just wanted to know.
Senator THURMOND. Do you mean you think it was wrong for him to tell the people of New Zealand that the dream of the Communists is to dominate the world?
Mr. Ball. No; I would not say that it was necessarily wrong. I would say, however, that the standard which one would apply in reviewing a speech that was going to be made abroad would have to take into account other considerations than those that would
govern a speech made in the United States. It would have to take into consideration the way in which the people would react to a speech by a leading military figure. It would have to take into account the kind of press play it would be given in that country. It would have to take into account the individual groups in that country that might be given encouragement or discouragement, as the case might be.
Senator THURMOND. Do you not think it would be important for the people of New Zealand to know that the aim of the Communists is to dominate the world, and for them to know that from some high official in this country, because they depend upon us to a great extent; do they not?
Mr. BALL. Well, again, you have addressed your comment to the deletion of the one phrase "to their dream of world domination." I think that it is a matter of judgment as to whether that particular phrase should have been recommended for deletion or not. I would not feel strongly about it.
Senator THURMOND. If the matter were considered today, do you think it would be done?
Mr. BALL. I think that probably today we would pass a phrase like that without an adverse recommendation. I am sure it would not be a required deletion if it were suggested
Senator THURMOND. No. 1, speech No. 1?
Mr. Chairman, I do have the occasion for General Powell's speech. It was in connection with his trip to this area for the ceremonies commemorating the 19th anniversary of the Battle of the Coral Sea. He was representing the Government on that occasion, and in this instance he was speaking to the English-Speaking Union.
Senator STENNIS. Thank you, sir.
Senator THURMOND. I am speaking of the one, "as communism exercises strategy for world domination.” That is the one I am referring to.
That was made by Mr. Powell Pierpoint, the General Counsel, Department of the Army, to the New York chapter, Association of the U.S. Army, June 14, 1961. If that speech was being considered by the State Department under the reoriented thinking which you say has taken place with regard to censoring, do you feel that that would be censored or not?
Mr. BALL. This speech, again, has to be examined in the context of the time.
It was made on the same day that President Kennedy was reporting to the Nation on the Vienna meeting with Chairman Khrushchev. At that time the President said that Chairman Khrushchev believes in the expanding and dynamic concept of world communism, and the question was whether these two systems can ever hope to live in peace without permitting any loss of security or any denial of freedom to our friends.
Now, there was a question at that time as to whether it was useful to have Mr. Pierpoint make a reference to Communist strategy for world domination
at the same day that the President was talking about or giving this report.
I would say, again, today, I would think there was nothing objectionable to this language, and it probably would be approved.
Senator THURMOND. Ás to whether it was useful or not is not so much the question, is it?
Mr. Ball. I think it is a question, Senator Thurmond. I think possibly this is where
Senator THURMOND. If he wanted to say that and if it is true, then why should the State Department censor it?
Mr. Ball. But this is the central question, and I think this is where, if you and I have a difference of view, it may lie.
Speeches that are made_by officials of the U.S. Government ought to serve a purpose. There is no point in speaking unless it serves a purpose. That purpose ought to be the advancement of the U.S. national interest. If speeches are made which do not serve that purpose, then the official is really wasting his time.
Now, our test in these things is that, while a certain phrase may be perfectly true, is it advantageous to the American national interest to have it made at that time. This has been the criterion.
I think it is the proper one.
Senator THURMOND. Do you not think it is useful, when an officer would tell the members of the Association of the U.S. 'Army, speaking about the goal of communism to dominate the world or communism exercises strategy for world domination? Is that not useful?
Mr. BALL. On the same day that the President was reporting to the people on his Vienna conversations, I think that this is
Senator THURMOND. Mr. Secretary, there is some of this going on all the time of some kind. You would find some ground to censor every statement every
officer made if
you were going to put it on that basis.
Mr. Ball. This was a very important event, Senator Thurmond. This was an event which the whole American public was looking at.
Senator THURMOND. If the matter was being considered today, afresh today, would you or would you not censor that?
Mr. Ball. No. As I said, I would not see any reason for recommendingSenator THURMOND. All right, turn to No. 16. That date was September 30, 1959. He says this—Secretary McElroy said:
Recently the military threat is as great as ever. Nothing has happened to indicate that the goals of international communism have changed.
Mr. BALL. Then it continued with reference to "has the clenched fist been relaxed ?" and so on.
Senator THURMOND. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And, as a matter of fact, 2 days before that speech was delivered, President Eisenhower had just announced that he had been in agreement with Chairman Khrushchev for withdrawal of the Soviet ultimatum regarding Berlin. This was a reflection, again, of the time in which the speech was made.
Since President Eisenhower had just made this statement, there was concern that this might be a challenge to what President Eisenhower had just himself announced, and it could be interpreted as a military officer contradicting the President of the United States.
Senator THURMOND. Mr. Secretary, do you really think that a speech by a military officer here would challenge the President of the United States position? And here the agreement had already been reached.
Now, this is not on the eve of it or before it, but this is after it, is it not, 2 days after it ?
Mr. BALL. But the nature of the agreement which President Eisenhower had just announced was the withdrawal of the ultimatum over Berlin. The Chief of Research and Development of the Army proposed to say then, 2 days later in a public address, that "the military threat is as great as ever," "has the clenched fist been relaxed ?” When, in fact, it had been relaxed in Berlin momentarily.
Senator THURMOND. Would you tell us how many days after that, then, you think it would have been appropriate to say it, 3 days, 5 days, 30 days?