Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

general economy of Yugoslavia and to the extent that the policies of the Yugoslavian Government are in that direction, one can make that connection, but I think it is an overstatement.

Senator THURMOND. Do you agree that Yugoslavia is granting credits of $100 million to new nations?

Mr. BALL. I do not know the exact amount, Senator. They have granted some credits. They are short- and medium-term commercial

cerdits, by and large.

Senator THURMOND. Why do we have to furnish aid to Yugoslavia if she is able to give $100 million to new nations?

Mr. BALL. They are a different kind of credit. These are shortterm commercial credits in support of her own commercial exports.

YUGOSLAVIAN SUPPORT OF U.S.S.R.

Senator THURMOND. Do you agree that the state of Tito posing as a national Communist has been more valuable to world communism than he could possibly be as a Moscow Communist?

Mr. BALL. I do not agree with that at all.

Senator THURMOND. Do you agree that Tito has consistently supported the U.S.S.R. over the United States?

Mr. BALL. No, that is not

Senator THURMOND. Particularly over Berlin and lack of criticism of Soviet testing?

Mr. BALL. Not consistently, Senator.

Actually, if you will look at the votes of Yugoslavia in the United Nations, for example, you do not find that true at all.

COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA MACHINE

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Secretary, you have referred in several places in your opening statement, and I quote:

The Communist propaganda machine that feeds on distortion of public statements by representatives of American Government.

Is it the judgment of the State Department that the Communist propaganda effort would be seriously impaired if it did not have statements of American officials on which to feed?

Mr. BALL. I would say that it is being substantially aided to the extent that it can give even the most fictitious kind of documentation to what it says, and it does this by the distortion of statements that are made.

If the statements were not made, it would not have that available for raw material.

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Secretary, is it not a fact that the Communists have been successful in attributing bad motives and belligerent attitudes to the American Government through the big lie technique without the necessity of quoting accurately or inaccurately the statements of American officials?

Mr. BALL. I would say that their propaganda technique has had

some success.

: I think that its success is increased to the extent that it has raw material which it can utilize. It is as simple as that.

YUGOSLAVIAN VOTES IN THE UNITED NATIONS

Senator THURMOND. How many times in 1960 did Yugoslavia vote with the United States and against the U.S.S.R. in the United Nations?

Mr. BALL. I would be glad to bring that information to the committee.

Senator THURMOND. They voted more with the U.S.S.R. than they did with the United States, did they not?

Mr. BALL. I could not tell you exactly, but I was commenting in answer to a question.

You asked me if they consistently supported the U.S.S.R. I said that was not so; that they did not consistently support the U.S.S.R. Senator THURMOND. They have supported it in the majority of the cases, anyway, have they not?

Mr. BALL. I would have to look at the record to tell you. Do you want this for 1960 or 1961?

Senator THURMOND. Will you furnish this for both 1960 and 1961? Mr. BALL. I will be glad to.

(The information requested is as follows:)

Voting in the General Assembly, 1961, United States, Soviet Union, and

Yugoslavia

The United States opposed U.S.S.R..

Yugoslavia voted with:

The United States__.

U.S.S.R

Neither.

The United States and U.S.S.R. voted together---

Yugoslavia voted with:

The United States and U.S.S.R.
Neither

The United States did not vote with nor oppose U.S.S.R.

Yugoslavia voted with:

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

The United States--

U.S.S.R.

Neither_-_

Total____

2

12

2

156

1 Complete record for 15th session (resumed), Mar. 7-Apr. 21; principal issues of 16th session (1st part), Sept. 19-Dec. 20, 1961.

2 The United States or U.S.S.R. abstained.

Senator THURMOND. They sided with the U.S.S.R. on Berlin, did they not?

Mr. BALL. That is my recollection, Senator.

Senator THURMOND. They did not criticize Russia resuming testing, did they?

Mr. BALL. No.

As a matter of fact, I think it is accurate to say they did not.

USE OF AMERICAN STATEMENTS IN COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Secretary, you stated this morning that the Communists could take statements even out of context and provide grist for their propaganda machine. Would you look at your own

statement there at page 6 on lines 5, 6, and 7, that begins with the words "America is dominated by a bloodthirsty," and so forth. Mr. BALL. Five, six, and seven?

Senator THURMOND. Five, six, and seven.

I will read it to you.

✦✦✦ America is dominated by a bloodthirsty and irresponsible military clique prepared to unleash atomic destruction unless kept in check by Communist might. Mr. BALL. I said that this was their accusation.

Senator THURMOND. Yes, that is right.

Now, could not that verbiage be taken out of context and used against us? Actually, they can and they do twist and distort anything and even fabricate, do they not?

Mr. BALL. I think that you will see from the examples that we will bring this committee that what they do is to quote words accurately— I mean quote whole paragraphs accurately, but put them in a distorted context, and this is the technique which they follow.

WHETHER THE COLD WAR CAN BE WON WITHOUT NUCLEAR BOMBS OR

PREVENTIVE WAR

Senator THURMOND. Do you think we can possibly win the cold war without dropping the nuclear bombs?

Mr. BALL. I do not think we can win the cold war if we do, Senator. Senator THURMOND. That is not what I asked you. Do you think we can possibly win the cold war without dropping nuclear bombs? Mr. BALL. I do. I think the main objective of our policy must be to succeed in this. I think that President Kennedy, himself, said that nobody wins, if we

Senator THURMOND. So we can win without a preventive war, can we not, and we can win without dropping nuclear bombs, if we have the will to win and the strength and the determination?

Mr. BALL. If, Senator, we have the judgment, the wisdom, the restraint, and the will to behave as a great power has to behave in this very perilous time.

WHETHER SENSITIVE NEGOTIATIONS WOULD CAUSE MODIFICATION IN STATEMENT ON COMMUNISM

Senator THURMOND. Mr. Secretary, in the Department of Army Pamphlet 30-101, it is stated:

If * people realized the vicious objectives of communism, they would no doubt oppose it and dedicate their lives to its destruction.

How would you modify a statement such as this in the time of sensitive negotiations?

Mr. BALL. This is the kind of hypothetical question which is impossible to answer. As I say, these questions could be answered in specific terms in the context of a whole series of circumstances, a whole series of conditioning factors. I cannot do it otherwise.

Senator THURMOND. I do not know that you will be coming back yourself so I will have a chance to ask you more questions, but I wanted to ask you those questions which I did before you left.

Thank you very much.

Senator STENNIS. Thank you very much, Senator Thurmond. Mr. Secretary, we thank you very much, and good luck to you.

Is Mr. Tubby here?

Will you stand and be sworn?

Do you solemnly swear that your testimony in this subcommittee hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. TUBBY. I do, sir.

TUBBY BIOGRAPHY

Senator STENNIS. All right, sir, have a seat.

Mr. Tubby, you have a prepared statement here. I think it has already been distributed to the membership. We have a biographical sketch of Mr. Tubby that I would like for the reporter to insert in the record at this time.

(The biographical sketch is as follows:)

ROGER W. TUBBY

Roger W. Tubby, born Greenwich, Conn., December 10, 1910. Graduate of Yale, 1933. Postgraduate work Yale Law and London School of Economics. With Bennington (Vt.) Banner 1938-42 as reporter, managing editor. November 1942 to, Board of Economic Warfare as information specialist; 1944-45 with Foreign Economic Administration, Director of Information; 1945, Director of Information, for the Office of International Trade, Department of Commerce; 1946-50 with Department of State as press officer and executive assistant for press relations; 1950-January 1953 in White House as assistant press secretary and, at end of President Truman's term, a press secretary; 195361, copublisher and editor, Adirondack Daily Enterprise, Saranac Lake, N.Y.; 1959 became also copublisher Lake Placid (N.Y.) News; 1956, assistant to presidential nominee, Adlai Stevenson; 1960, director press relations, Democratic National Committee; 1961, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Department of State.

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING SCHEDULE

Senator STENNIS. The clerk will pass around the statements to the press also, and, by the way, gentlemen, for anyone that is interested, this subcommittee will not meet tomorrow morning, but we shall continue the hearing tomorrow afternoon here in the caucus room beginning at 2:15.

Senator CASE. Could the chairman state at this time what the agenda will be tomorrow afternoon?

Senator STENNIS. I have a list of the witnesses here. If we do not complete the matter with Mr. Tubby, we will proceed then with the. following witnesses:

Mr. Philip H. Burris, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and Director of the Policy Plans and Guidance Staff. Generally speaking, he is at the same category here as Colonel Hinkle, who is in the Department of Defense, and who testified here.

According to present plans, why, perhaps Mr. Frank Herron will be

the next witness.

All right, members of the subcommittee, if you are ready, Mr. Tubby may proceed.

We are glad to have you here and appreciate your waiting.

TESTIMONY OF ROGER W. TUBBY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Mr. TUBBY. May I read, Mr. Chairman, my statement?

Senator STENNIS. Yes, proceed with your statement first, and then counsel will have some questions.

Mr. TUBBY. Fine.

TUBBY STATEMENT

Under Secretary Ball has outlined the reasons for the speech review procedure, and the general way in which it is carried out by the Department of State.

I should like to discuss somewhat in more detail the speech review operations in the Bureau of Public Affairs and the Department.

First, however, may I say a few words about my own background and approach to information work. I have spent approximately 12 years in Government information posts, and 12 years as a country newspaperman. I presently have an interest in a small paper, the Adirondack Daily Enterprise, at Saranac Lake, N.Y., where, before coming to Washington I was editor. I also have an interest in the Lake Placid, N.Y., News, a weekly.

In both newspapering and Government work I've been especially interested in those programs, local or national, which strengthen our society. As editor, I supported measures for better schools and roads, more industry, conservation of national resources, more recreation facilities, and greater participation in politics by people in both parties. As president of the Adirondack Park Association I worked on programs to enhance the welfare of that very sizable and beautiful portion of the State.

I have believed as an editor, and as a Government information man, that it is vitally important that our people understand as fully as possible the nature of problems which are, or should be, of concern to them.

These hearings are most useful, I think, in bringing a better understanding of the complexities of foreign policy operations, especially with respect to preparation and review of speeches and articles by high officials.

With this perhaps too personal preamble, I would like now to turn to the speech review procedures in the Bureau of Public Affairs and the Department of State.

As you have pointed out in your own remarks, Mr. Chairman, during the latter part of World War II and the period immediately following the responsibility within the Department of State for reviewing speeches was placed in the Office of the Special Assistant to the Secretary for Press Relations. Following the issuance by President Truman in December 1950, of his formal directive, the responsibility was shifted to the Executive Secretariat of the Secretary's office. In June 1955, the central responsibility for ascertaining the Department's views on the speeches of officials of other agencies was then assigned to the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, where it has continued since that time.

Within the Office of the Assistant Secretary, the specific responsibility has rested with different individuals or units. Between 1955 and 1960, the general practice was to have an officer or officers with

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »