with communism. You might say that this cannot be. But is it not a fact that the feudals burned at the stake people who fought against feudalism but nevertheless capitalism has triumphed. Capitalism is fighting against communism. I am convinced that communism-the social system which creates better conditions for the development of the productive forces of a country, which enables every individual to express himself, which insures complete freedom of society, of every individual in society-will win. You may disagree with me. I disagree with you. So what should we do? We must coexist. You go on living under capitalism and we shall build communism. But The new, the progressive will triumph. The old, which is outliving its time, will die. You believe that the capitalist system is more productive; that it creates better conditions for the development of society; that it will triumph. the brief history of the existence of our Soviet state does not speak in favor of capitalism. What place did Russia hold in economic development before the revolution? Russia was a backward, an illiterate country. Now we have a mighty economy. We have highly developed science and culture. ... In your country there are some who say that if the USSR has more scientists we shall perish. We accept this "fate." We shall create the conditions so as to have more scientists, so that all people will be educated because without that it is impossible to build communism. Communism is a science. 315. THE EISENHOWER-KHRUSHCHEV TALKS-FIRST (WASHINGTON) PHASE: Replies Made by the President (Eisenhower) to Questions Asked at a News Conference, September 17, 1959 (Excerpts)1 Mr. Khrushchev's attitude has been extremely friendly, but, so far, all the conversations have been confined to, let's say, agreeing on agenda items and to a restatement of general positions. So, I think that until after the conferences at Camp David have been held,2 it would be both undesirable and unwise to say much more about them. I repeat that, so far as manner and deportment is concerned, his whole attitude is one of seeking some kind of a position that could be agreed. .. There is no secret about it [the agenda for the Camp David talks] for my part, except that we did agree that there was no reason for specifying, because to specify is to limit, and there could be a number of questions that could come up in any case. 3 [With_reference to the disarmament proposals to be made by Mr. Khrushchev at the United Nations and to the possibility of discussing them at the Camp David talks] the basic principle is that we are of the conviction, first of all, that mutual disarmament, universal disarmament, is really the one great hope of the world['s] living in peace in the future years. We believe that no disarmament proposal can be considered as a practical one or as being contributory to prog 'The replies printed here are taken from pp. 663–664, 665-667, 669, and 670–671 of Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1959. The initial talks between the President and Chairman Khrushchev here referred to took place in Washington Sept. 15-16, 1959. ress toward peace unless it is self-enforcing, unless there is a regulatory kind of action that makes sure that everybody knows that the agreement is being observed. Now, within this particular limitation and the other one, that disarmament is mutual and equivalent or fair to both sides, we have no particular conditions to apply, because we have proposed several times general plans and special plans that we thought would have some effect or at least constitute a small step toward the ultimate objective. But, within the limits that I just specified, we will talk about anything. I believe that [horror of a great war] is the one thing that he [Khrushchev] does agree with us very fully. But you must remember what kind of a government we are and how responsive that government is to people, and people are the ones that are responsible for this great feeling of horror against this useless destruction. So, the mere fact that you agree with some particular obvious truth of this kind, of the futility of committing mutual suicide or something of that kind, the fact is that there is still room for a lot of misunderstanding, a lot of miscalculation, which could be very serious. But I must say that the understanding of this one great truth, you might say, in this temporal field we are talking about now, is sort of the beginning of all wisdom. No, that isn't exactly it [that a joint U.S.-Soviet attack on the problems of underdeveloped countries will be suggested to Mr. Khrushchev]. I have talked in a number of nations about the responsibility of civilization to see that these underdeveloped and newly formed nations are helped, because this is a matter of self-interest for civilization; that, unless these things are done, I believe that finally the ferment, the resentment, and finally the anger of such people can set up a very great global struggle. As of now, the United States is a party to a number of international organizations that are devoted to this purpose-the World Bank and the Development Association which is to be a part of that Bankunder the Bank-the Monetary Fund, the Ex-Imbank and a number of other things. I have suggested that each of the nations ought to take and study-specifically, I asked the head of each of the governments that I just visited recently to study-the matter of cooperation in this matter so that each could take its share of the load. Now, until there is some kind of peaceful solution of the political differences between ourselves and the Soviets, it is manifest that we couldn't ask them to be partners in any exercise of this kind. I said, I think in a speech and in my original letters, that we [the President and Chairman Khrushchev] would not negotiate on matters affecting third countries or any part of the free world-my allies, I believe I said-or any part of the free world. Now, manifestly, you cannot have a conversation between the Soviet Government and this Government that does not mention and discuss other countries. You have to. So, I think there is some misunderstanding brought about by inadvertence. No, there is no such agreement [not to discuss third countries], because we have to do it. .. If we don't discuss Berlin, for example, I would have difficulty in seeing why we got together. 316. THE NEED FOR SOVIET-UNITED STATES BILATERAL "SUMMIT" MEETINGS: Remarks Made by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. (Khrushchev) at a Luncheon in His Honor, Pittsburgh, September 24, 1959 (Excerpt) 1 1 It is no secret that a special responsibility for the maintenance of peace rests with our two countries. Just imagine what world relations would look like if the U.S.A., the largest and most powerful country of the capitalist world, and the U.S.S.R., the largest and most powerful country of the socialist world, were to establish good relations or, still better, collaboration, which we should like to grow into friendship. I agree with Mr. Eisenhower, who once wrote that "no other division among the nations could be considered a menace to world unity and peace, provided mutual confidence and trust could be developed between America and the Soviet Union." " Those words were written shortly after the Second World War, in which he had played so outstanding a part. Today, Mr. Eisenhower is President of the United States of America. Why not realize those good ideas? We, on our part, are prepared to do everything to ensure mutual trust between America and the Soviet Union, and in this way help guarantee peace on earth for all peoples. There are no serious obstacles to our two countries living in peace and friendship. There are, of course, ideological differences between our countries, but they are not an obstacle, for these differences existed during the Second World War but did not prevent our being good friends. Nor should they today prevent us from joining forces in the struggle for durable peace on earth. We are glad that here, too, in the U.S.A., people who think realistically are inclined to adopt the same idea. The more people of that kind there are, the better it will be. We must get to understand each other properly. We do not beg for peace. We only believe that peace, not war, is the natural state of mankind. In connection with my trip to the U.S.A., there appeared in some countries various conjectures about the purposes of the exchange of visits between representatives of our countries. Some even thought that Khrushchev was "going to divide up the world with Eisenhower." I must state that such gossip is groundless and nonsensical. People who think along these lines take a gangster's view of all events. They have their own way of thinking: "If you're strong, grab everything you can." We, however, are people with entirely different principles. Our strength serves only the welfare of our people and of other peoples. We use our strength to ensure peace and universal security. It serves no other purpose. The exchange of visits and our conversations on problems of the world situation and Soviet-American relations are useful not only to our countries but also to all other countries. The settlement by the Soviet Union and the United States of America of even a few disputed problems is bound to have a beneficial effect on the entire world situation and on the relations between our countries and all other countries, large and small. 1 This excerpt is taken from the text printed in Khrushchev in America (New York, 1960), pp. 164-176. 2 Quotation from Crusade in Europe (Garden City, 1948), p. 458. Doc. 316 [THE KHRUSHCHEV-DILLON DISCUSSION OF UNITED STATES-SOVIET TRADE RELATIONS: Replies Made by the Under Secretary of State (Dillon) to Questions Asked at a News Conference, September 30, 1959 (Excerpts)-Post, doc. 340] 317. THE EISENHOWER-KHRUSHCHEV TALKS-SECOND (CAMP DAVID) PHASE: Joint Communiqué Issued at the Conclusion of Talks Between the President of the United States (Eisenhower) and the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. (Khrushchev), Camp David, Maryland, September 27, 1959 1 2 1 The Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R., N. S. Khrushchev, and President Eisenhower have had a frank exchange of opinions at Camp David. In some of these conversations United States Secretary of State Herter and Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko, as well as other officials from both countries, participated. Chairman Khrushchev and the President have agreed that these discussions have been useful in clarifying each other's position on a number of subjects. The talks were not undertaken to negotiate issues. It is hoped, however, that their exchanges of views will contribute to a better understanding of the motives and position of each and thus to the achievement of a just and lasting peace. The Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. and the President of the United States agreed that the question of general disarmament is the most important one facing the world today. Both governments will make every effort to achieve a constructive solution of this problem. In the course of the conversations an exchange of views took place on the question of Germany including the question of a peace treaty with Germany, in which the positions of both sides were expounded. With respect to the specific Berlin question, an understanding was reached, subject to the approval of the other parties directly concerned, that negotiations would be reopened with a view to achieving a solution which would be in accordance with the interests of all concerned and in the interest of the maintenance of peace. In addition to these matters useful conversations were held on a number of questions affecting the relations between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States. These subjects included the question of trade between the two countries. With respect to an increase in exchanges of persons and ideas, substantial progress was made in discussions between officials and it is expected that certain agreements will be reached in the near future.3 'White House press release issued at Gettysburg, Pa., Sept. 27, 1959 (text as printed in the Department of State Bulletin, Oct. 12, 1959, pp. 499–500). The President's retreat in the Catoctin Mountains near Thurmont, Md. The Camp David talks were held Sept. 25-27. See post, doc. 336. The Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. and the President of the United States agreed that all outstanding international questions should be settled not by the application of force but by peaceful means through negotiation. Finally it was agreed that an exact date for the return visit of the President to the Soviet Union next spring would be arranged through diplomatic channels. D. Developments Following 318. THE RESULTS OF CHAIRMAN KHRUSHCHEV'S VISIT TO THE UNITED STATES: Replies Made by the President (Eisenhower) to Questions Asked at a News Conference, September 28, 1959 (Excerpts)1 First of all, I want to thank the American people. I think their restraint and their conduct [during the Khrushchev visit] on the whole was a credit to them. And if there is a better understanding on the part of Mr. Khrushchev of our people, of their aspirations, of their general attitudes about international questions, and particularly about their desire for peace, then that has been done by the American people. I invited Mr. Khrushchev, as you know, to come here so that we might have a chance to discuss some of the obvious reasons for tensions in the world, and particularly between our two countries, because of the outstanding unsettled matters. I did not ask him here for substantive negotiations, because those are impossible without the presence of our associates. But I thought that, through this visit of his and through these conversations, possibly, I think as I have said to you before, some of the ice might be melted. Now, if any of this has been done, again it's due to the American people; and I make special acknowledgements to the Mayors, Governors, the local officials who carried so much of the responsibility for making these visits possible and for directing so many of the activities necessarily involved. With respect to one other point, I think this: I think the American people have proved that they have an enlightened outlook toward these international problems; that they have got the strength in their own beliefs and convictions to listen to the other man politely, atten 'The replies printed here are taken from pp. 695-696, 697-698, 699–700. and 701 of Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Dwight D. Eisenkower, 1959. |