Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Mr. BALL. I would suppose that 1 week later would have been somewhat different; 2 weeks later somewhat different. The situation is simply that public attention is, at the moment, focused on a very, very important statement by the President of the United States.

Now, this speech was submitted for clearance on the 21st. That meant that it was being cleared at the very time that President Eisenhower was making his statement about the withdrawal of the ultimatum over Berlin.

The reviewer was looking at it in the light of how this would sound in relation to what President Eisenhower himself was about to announce, because he realized that these two things were going to come together.

A week later, 2 weeks later, it could have been quite a different thing. Senator THURMOND. Do you justify that, or do you feel that today that it would be overzealousness to censor such a statement?

Mr. BALL. On this particular day, taking into account the situation around the world, I would say that there is no reason why this statement should not be included.

Senator THURMOND. You say you do justify the deletion or not?
Mr. BALL. No.

Made today, under the conditions of today, the conditions are different. I would see no objection.

Senator THURMOND. I mean at that time.

Mr. BALL. Oh, when you ask me about my opinion today I am telling you what my view would have been today.

Senator THURMOND. I understood you had revised your policy so much.

Mr. BALL. Oh, no.

Senator THURMOND. You were not as strict as you were.

Mr. BALL I do not want to give this impression.

Senator THURMOND. We got that impression several days ago when you testified.

Let me ask you this: Are your policies the same as they have been for censoring? Let us get on the record on this. Or have you revised them somewhat?

Mr. BALL. I welcome the chance to be perfectly clear on this.

It may be that some of the remarks I have been making were somewhat misleading. You asked me would we delete this today. I am saying that today we would not, but I am talking about the conditions of today.

Looking back, if this were presented at the time when President Kennedy was announcing a major step by the Soviet Union which resulted in a relaxing of pressure, then I think today we would have very much the same attitude that prevailed then.

But on the question of the general policy with regard to recommendations, let me say that, as I said in a prepared statement on Monday, that

Senator THURMOND. This is based on sensitive negotiations, was that the point?

Mr. BALL. Yes, and upon the fact that we could not have
Senator THURMOND. That is the reason for it?

Mr. BALL (continuing). The situation of a general officer of the United States making a speech which could be interpreted as directly contradicting the speech of the President of the United States.

The President of the United States was saying to the American public: "We have just reached an agreement which has resulted in the withdrawal of the Berlin ultimatum," and, to have the general say 2 days later, "Nothing has changed; the clenched fist is just as tight as ever," it would sound as though he was saying that the President of the United States does not know what he is talking about.

But if you ask me if we would recommend this for deletion today in the light of today's conditions, I would say we would not. I think it is all right.

Senator THURMOND. What are you outlining is the manner in which the Soviets are using the characteristic Communist technique of propaganda, it seems to me, in manipulating the State Department response to these artificially created propaganda gimmicks of the Soviets.

Mr. BALL. No

Senator THURMOND. There is almost always some incident of importance in the world at any time that an officer makes a speech, if you want to find some pretense for censoring, and that is what appears to have been done.

In this case you have already-you admitted that the President had already reached his agreement with Khrushchev 2 days beforehand. Mr. BALL. That is right.

Senator THURMOND. Now, you censor if it is beforehand, you say it is on the eve of a summit or on the eve of something happening. Now, this has already happened, and you still censor this and justify this?

Mr. BALL. Senator, I think you have to look at these things in the light of what is the larger purpose and interest of the United States. Whether General Trudeau made this particular speech with this particular language was only of marginal importance as far as the utility of his saying that at that time was concerned.

Senator THURMOND. Here is what he said.

Mr. BALL. But it could be harmful to the U.S. interest if it was said in such a way as it appeared to the world that a general was contradicting his commanding officer.

Senator THURMOND. Well, the statement he made was this. He said:

Nothing has happened to indicate that the goals of international communism have changed.

What is wrong with that?

Mr. BALL. He said more than that.

Senator THURMOND. Has anything happened? Was that a true statement, I first ask you that? Was that a true statement?

Mr. BALL. You have to look at the whole passage.

Senator THURMOND. Wait, now. Answer the first question and then we will pass on to that one.

Was General Trudeau's statement a true statement, even if made at an inappropriate time?

Mr. BALL. Yes, surely, I think it was-that particular statement. Senator THURMOND. It was a true statement?

Mr. BALL. I think it was a true statement.

Senator THURMOND. But you feel it was made at an inappropriate time, is that it?

Mr. BALL. That is the point-at the time when it did not serve the national interest to make it. You cannot take that sentence in isolation, "Let us take a moment to look around," "has the clenched fist been relaxed," and so on. He was, in effect, saying that we put no value in an action which the Communists had just taken and which the President of the United States had announced in a speech. Senator THURMOND. He did not say that, did he?

Mr. BALL. That is the implication of it.

Senator THURMOND. That is your implication, the State Department's implication.

Mr. BALL. That is the inference which it was felt would be read into this.

Senator THURMOND. Is anything wrong in a speaker anytime telling the American people that nothing has happened to indicate that the goals of international communism have changed? Why should a military officer or anybody be precluded from making that statement at any time?

Mr. BALL. Then you go further: "Has the clenched fist been relaxed." It had been relaxed at that time.

Senator THURMOND. I am not asking you about the rest of it. Mr. BALL. But you have to read it as a whole.

I mean he would not have put that sentence in if he could not have put the following paragraph in.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Secretary, this statement about the goals of international communism is one that has been consistently deleted time and time and time again. We only sent you a few over there. I have got many more that after lunch I can take up with you.

Mr. BALL. Senator, discussion of the goals of international communism is something in which the State Department engages constantly, and the speeches made by State Department officials reiterate this theme again and again.

We have no illusions about the goals of international communism, nor do we believe that the American people should be in any way deceived about this.

The only question that arises in connection with these speeches is, given the character of the speaker, as a major military figure in the United States, and given the time in which the speech is made-with reference to a speech by the President of the United States, for example—is whether it advances the U.S. national interest to have him say this precise thing.

This does not mean that what he says is not perfectly true.

But is it useful from the standpoint of U.S. policy to have it said at that time by him under those circumstances?

Senator THURMOND. In a number of speeches which were-wait, now, 17, would you tell us about 17?

Senator STENNIS. Excuse me, gentlemen, you are starting on another question there?

Senator THURMOND. The last one in this category.

Senator STENNIS. Very good.

Mr. BALL. Well, this again is a speech that was to be delivered outside the United States. It was to be delivered in Canada, and, therefore, would be interpreted by the press of a foreign country. There would be questions as to what was appropriate for a lieutenant general, such as General Trudeau, to say in the foreign country.

Senator THURMOND. This was at an Officers Institute in Hamilton, Ontario, was it not?

Mr. BALL. That is right.

Senator THURMOND. And he says:

I, for one, do not believe that the Soviets have relented in the slightest in their determination to dominate the world and to destroy our way of life.

Do you believe in the truth and accuracy of the statement he made? Mr. BALL. I have no question about the truth and accuracy, but look at the tone of this statement, Senator Thurmond. He says:

At the present time the Soviet Union presumably wants to relax tensions. Remember this: If Russia relaxes them, it will only be in her own interests—

and so on.

Senator THURMOND. Well, is that not true?

Mr. BALL. Yes, but it is a question of the tone of a U.S. officer trying to lecture a foreign audience and particularly a foreign group of officers saying "remember this," as though they were schoolboys.

Senator THURMOND. And he is putting them on guard. He is a military man who knows the enemy and knows them better than the group he is talking to, maybe, and he is telling them:

"You cannot trust them."

Is it not his duty to do that, to tell the people of our allied countries, maybe?

Mr. BALL. Let me say, Senator Thurmond, that it has been our experience in foreign affairs that whenever an American official or an officer tries to lecture in a foreign country and tell those people as though they were children of things, and in a tone which is the tone of a pedagog and not the tone of a visiting official of the U.S. Government, that it does not work.

It creates resentment, and it is self-defeating. This was an attempt, out of the experience which the State Department has had in dealing with foreign governments and foreign countries, to suggest that this was not a very useful thing-and, again, I use the word "useful"for General Trudeau to have said in Canada at that time. Now, this is a matter, to a large extent, of tone.

Senator THURMOND. And you justify, I presume, that deletion? Mr. BALL. I justify it considering it was given in Canada. I think if it was given in the United States, another set of considerations would have been applied.

Senator THURMOND. You do not like the words "remember this," is that it?

Mr. BALL. That is right. This is the tone of a pedagog, Senator. Senator THURMOND. If those were deleted, would you justify it? Mr. BALL. But that is a part of the whole tone. This is a lecture. Let us suppose he had said, "Look, you and I know, we know, our two countries understand these things, and this is what we understand." That is a very different thing from saying, "Remember this," as though he were coming up there to tell them that this was something that they were too stupid not to know themselves in a foreign country.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Secretary, do you honestly think that Mr. Khrushchev would pay any attention to whether he said "Remember this," or put it in some other way?

Mr. BALL. I am concerned about the fact that this speech was made in Canada and about its effect on Canadian opinion. Canadians are extremely sensitive not to appear to be

Senator THURMOND. You mean that this was censored because you were afraid he would hurt the Canadian people's feelings and not arouse Mr. Khrushchev. I understand that is the theory you have raised here.

Mr. BALL. No; I said a separate set of considerations are applied to a speech made in a foreign country, just as I was concerned about the effect in New Zealand of an earlier speech.

Senator THURMOND. So far as making the statement, then

Mr. BALL. If this had been made in the United States, I would have no objection.

Senator THURMOND. You have no objection to the statements being made?

Mr. BALL. No, certainly not, if it had been made in the United States.

Senator THURMOND. But you are afraid of the fact that if he went up to Canada and told them to "Remember this: that the aim of the Communists is to dominate the world," that he was lecturing the people, and it might cause a breach of relations; is it?

Mr. BALL. No, but it would not have been useful. That is the criterion, Senator Thurmond. It is not a question of whether it was all right. It is a question of whether it was useful from the point of view of American policy. When we deal with our Canadian friends, we do not try to lecture them.

We discuss things with them as though-which is, in fact, the caseas though they were allies of ours, working toward the same ends. Senator THURMOND. Is that not what he was trying to do? Mr. BALL. It is not the tone.

Senator THURMOND. Taking them in his confidence, saying "Remember this"?

Mr. BALL. Except the things he was telling them to remember were things that they perfectly well knew. This could have been rewritten and used.

Senator THURMOND. But the State Department did not rewrite it. They just censored the whole thing; did they not?

Mr. BALL. It was recommended that this passage be taken out. If he had wanted to rewrite it, and submit it some other way, we would have looked at it in that way. We have not tried to rewrite the speeches that have been sent over.

Senator THURMOND. Well, they did rewrite portions or censor portions, but here they deleted the whole thing.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Senator STENNIS. Thank you, Senator.

Gentlemen, we will come back at 2:45. Will that give everyone

time?

Thank you very much.

We will take a recess until 2:45.

(Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, to reconvene at 2:45 p.m. of the same day.)

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »