AMBASSADOR ADLAI STEVENSON'S SPEECH IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS TODAY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000200140017-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 16
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 2, 2005
• Sequence Number: 17
• Publication Date: May 21, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN

196.4
thii i?eiSt of the 'exCellerit-SPeeCh'
by Mr. waia6i-dii-6.-11-61?deg?difeetbi
with theleler_Of -edneation for Negroes,
there are Sarrie et er-Anle-af0;enientS in
It Which 'think f shouid 411Ote at this
time. These statements, all of which
bear directly on the problems of the
Negro people, are as follows:
America ijaa 'attilOtertell?iiiiideri" per-
sons from Ireland, 'Rienee,tnglarid, China?
from all over the world. 'After these per-
sons came to America, they Made a deci-
sion: that you get nothing for nothing,
but With hard work and initiative, and sac-
rifice, we can build ourselveS and the court-
try into something worthwhile.
,t1:ese groups' 'did- not Rae- to Arnekicb,
with the ofdisappearing. The Chinese
,began to say that "I am Chinese-American";
the Japanese, because they came from
Japan, "Japanese-American," the Irish,
"Irish-Arnexican." -
There is no Negro land. My ancestors
came ;Torn, Africa, and I don't want anyone
to forget it. 'that's the reason Ve call our-
selves, Afrfca,ris or 'Afro-Americans; to de-
scri,be our 'history and our heritage.
Another quotation from Mr. Warden:
Throughout the bay area (San Francisco
Ray), approximately 67 to 70 percent of the
arm:0e are,persons of African descent: If a
White Person were to make this allegation, he
would be Immediately accused of being a
bigot, and"! am immediately accused of blink
an 'Uncle Tom.
-
? Mr, Warden further stated:
The issue is that the very race (the Ne-
gro) that he belongs to is the race that we
have,heen trying to get away' from. We have
not had the respect and -pride 'in our own
raCer. yeis'y time a person -gets little
money, they *ant to run away from the race,
Move away from the race. Someone has to
come back into the race to 'build tip the
race. YoU can't do it if everYcitie Moves.'
In Birmingham, Ala., Martin Luther King,
the merchants haTe told me, "I just hate you. -
Maybe I shouldn't. -Maybe I 'Should. But -
I'M 'honest. just 'hate- you. rye tad you
. . ?
that."
, ,
Mr. Warden continued ;
' -
Reverend King says, "I don't care if You
do hate Me. I'm going to sit-in, roll-in,
crawl-in, beg-in, knee-in, steal-in until you
take my Money." NO* the merchant is
?
richer, we are poorer, he has our_ Money and
? he still hates us. _
'-Again I -qirote Mr: Wa,rden.:
If we Put up business and factories, which
feel must be done, this isn't a complete
Solution.--tut it's a partial solution. It's
,
what the hinese have done. If yciu go to
Chirsatown? you re not going to say, I'm
not going to go back there anymore. Those
people are practicing- segregation. I -don't
think tha _s right. It's all a Chinese com-
munity. No one says it's inferior. The Chi-
nese- own :one-half of Russian Rill in San
Fra4cisco. They 'could move there fornor-
row. But they prefer to take the money to
continue tO rehabilitate and build up China-
town, because they love Chinatown. They
love to be. With each other ,and they take
pride in their accomplishment and achieve-
ment. ,
? - - r -
, Mr. Pr,esident, that Young Negro was
talking a great Oil of 'cO.niniOnS,e,11Se. in
,the speech made in I cop:-
quotation froni
Civil rightS leaders smile to California and
$ay that California Is as bad as Birmingham,
Ala,, Is ail:lad:, Why should I spend
illions and nrilliene: and ,m1Ilions of dollars
to get the same 'laws in Birmingham?
Approved For RS ORMI/a :fiteffB5.112sOket3110,4400140017-5
No. 102-8
Mr. Warden is recognizing a fact which
has been recognized several times in the
course of the debate. Not only Cali-
fornia, but many of the other States
where the problem of race as it affects
the Negroes has become most serious,
have all the laws that are suggested in
the pending civil rights bill, and some
others besides.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator yield for a ques-
tion?
Mr. HOLLAND. I yield.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Is the Sen-
ator aware of the fact that there is a
much higher percentage of Negroes un-
employed in States that have FEPC laws
than there is in States that do not have
such laws?
Mr. HOLLAND. I am aware of that.
The distinguished colleague of the Sen-
ator from Louisiana [Mr. ELLENDER]
placed in the RECORD of the debate a list
compiled by the Department of Labor
which showed conclusively that the num-
ber of Negro unemployed persons in all
the States of the South was decidedly
smaller than the number in the States of
the East and other parts of the country
in which there are large concentrations
of Negroes.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. For example,
is the Senator aware of the fact that in
the great State of Michigan, which has
an FEIPC law similar to that which is
sought to be imposed on the States of the
South, according to the latest figures,
the percentage of unemployment was 6
percent among the white workers, but
more than 16 percent of the Negro work-
ers were without jobs? Illinois is an-
other great example of the self-right-
eousness that we have seen. The latest
figures relating to Illinois showed that
3.4 percent of the white workers in the
State of Illinois were without work. But
is the Senator aware of the fact that in
that State more than 13 percent of the
Negro workers were without work?
? Mr. HOLLAND. I am not aware of the
exact number because I have not seen the
official list in the past few days. But I
remember distinctly that in each State
which the Senator has mentioneell, the
number of unemployed Negroes is very
? high, and in each State the percentage
of unemployment vastly exceeds the per-
centage of unemployment in the South,
ern States among Negroes.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I wonder if
the Senator knew about that fact. The
FEPC laws seem to boomerang against
the colored man when, theoretically they
are supposed to be for his benefit. Does
the Senator know that in the so-called
FEPC States a small business man get-
? ting ready to hire someone does not place
art advertisement stating his need in the
newspaper, because if he did place such
an advertisement and a colored man
should show up in response to the adver-
tisement and the employer did not hire
the colored man, the employer might be
hauled before the FEPC Commission, so
an employer is afraid to hire colored
people for fear of being dragged before
the FEPC? If he should hire a white
man and the employee were no good, the
employer could fire him and be done with
him. If the employer should hire a Ne-
14.221
gro and he were no good, the employer
would be confronted with the prospect
of being hauled before the FEPC Com-
mission. I ask the Senator if he knows
that as a result there is a tendency to
work out in such a way that an employer
does not hire a Negro because the em-
ployer cannot get rid of him if he is not
qualified.
Mr. HOLLAND. I know from talking
to employers from two States, at least?
the States of New York and Connecti-
cut?that employers have to procure peo-
ple to fill important vacancies in impor-
tant positions on their staffs of person-
nel before they ever allow any knowledge
to come out that there is to be a vacancy,
for the very reasons which the distin-
guished Senator has suggested. I am
very sure that the practice is broader
than merely in those two States or on
the part of the relatively small number
of executives with wham I have talked.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Based upon
the figures that my colleague [Mr. EL-
LENDER] had printed in the REcon?and,
if need be, I shall supply them again?
does it not stand to reason that if peo-
ple wanted to help a colored man to get
a job they would repeal the FEPC laws,
because it is in States in which such
laws exist that Negroes are being hurt
the worst?
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, that
may be the case. Certainly they would
be hurt worst in the so-called .e.E.PC
States. I should like to think that there
may be some other causes.
It may be that the ones who have
remained at home in the South and stuck
to their jobs and their farms represent
the ones with greater initiative, greater
Industry, and greater energy, the ones
who are willing to work, and that
those who roam to other places are of
some other type; but the fact is that
the statistics conclusively show, as the
Senator has stated, that the percentage
of unemployed Negroes in the FEPC
States is vastly greater than it is in the
Southern States.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. If a colored
man is required to take an examination
to compete for a job against a well edu-
cated Jew or a well educated gentile
of the Caucasian race, who, on the aver-
age would win the competition?
Mr. HOLLAND. I should think, if
there were freedom of choice on the part
of the executive, it would be the better
trained man in that case.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Bas'ed on
educational qualifications, who would it
tend to be?the colored man or the white
man?
Mr. HOLLAND. It would tend to be
the white man under the standards of
educational qualifications prevailing at
this time.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Does that
fact not show why the Negroes are not
asking for FEPC laws in the North any
more, but are asking for quota systems?
Mr. HOLLAND. That is one explana-
tion. Whenever we have dependable
statistics on this subject, I think we
shall always find that the serious-minded
Negroes, those who want to elevate their
own race and carve out their own future,
have remained in the South, and too
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200140,017-S
2f,.2 t
many of the other kind have gone to
other parts of the country. I would like
to think that. But the fact is that in the
FE:PC States, none of which are in the
South, the level of unemployment among
Negroes is poor, and vastly exceeds the
level of unemployment among Negroes in
the South.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I am not con-
tending that the record in the South is
all it 'should be. We would like to do
better by the colored people than we are
doing. But before one points the finger
of scorn and shame, I think he should
come in with clean hands, as one is re-
quired to do in a court of equity. When
the figures for the State of Michigan,
which has an rt,?1C law, show that 16
percent of the Negroes are unemployed
and only 6 percent of the whites are un-
employed, and in Illinois, which has an
FEPC law, 11 percent of the Negroes are
unemployed, and only 3 percent of the
whites are unemployed, and when the
record is almost as bad in Pennsylvania,
does the Senator believe it comes with
good grace to be told by people who come
from those States that we must pat-
tern our conduct after them?
Mr. HOLLAND. I do not believe they
come with good grace or with reasonable
cause.
Let me reread the terse statement of
the Negro attorney speaking at the Cali-
fornia convention. He said:
Civil rights leaders come to California and
say that California is as bad as Birmingham.
Ala. Now, if it is as bad, why should I
spend millions and millions and millions of
dollars to get the same laws in Birmingham?
? That speaks very loudly for this con-
clusion. Apparently, the same conclu-
sion was reached, based on the viewpoint
of one of another race, by one who lives
In one of the FEPC States, that has been
reached by my friend the distinguished
Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I shall again
provide the figures for the RECORD before
the debate is over. The record shows
very clearly that the record of the FEPC
States in providing jobs for Negroes as
compared with whites is not nearly as
good as it is in the Southern States.
Mr. HOLLAND. I completely agree
with the Senator. I hope he will place
this compilation in the RECORD again. If
he can place it in the RECORD before the
permanent RECORD is printed, I hope he
will place it in the RECORD at this point,
so that those who read may use the statis-
tics as a reference.
Quoting again from Mr. Warden, a
young Oakland Negro lawyer:
We can reduce crime because we're going
to build up racial love and respect in a race.
We're going to give our women there respect
than they've ever had. We apologize to our
women for the way we've acted in the past.
We're tellif3g people that we're going to get
off welfare and get jobs. If the blind people
thought enough of themselves to come away
from the corners with their cups begging
and to put up factories and businesses be-
cause they knew that it would reinforce their
pride and their self-image, / think it's good
enough for us to try It for a little while.
I read one short additional quotation
from Mr. Warden:
The civil rights groups have not put up
one business or one factory in their entire
0011k
Approved EeigteieffsEi3 May 21
history. Not one. Not even as a token, or
a symbol of what could be done. We need
images to give the race confidence in itself.
As we teach racial pride in history, people
don't commit crimes against themselves or
anyone else.
The Chinese came to America poor but you
never found any crime rate. The Japanese
came to America poor but you never found
a crime rate because of the degree of love
and unity. This is what we are attempting
to do.
Mr. President, that completes the quo-
tation from Mr. Warden's able speech.
, I am now about to yield to the dis-
ed Senator from Oregon [Mr.
MOR
AMNASSADOR ADLAI STEVENSON'S
SPEECH IN THE SECURITY COUN-
CIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS
TODAY
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that I may be al-
lowed to yield, without losing my right
to the floor, to the distinguished Senator
from Oregon [Mr. Moasa].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MORSE. And with the further
understanding that when the Senator
from Florida starts his speech again, it
will not count as a second speech, and
with the further understanding that my
interruption will appear elsewhere in the
RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the speech deliv-
ered before the Security Council of the
United Nations today by Ambassador
Ada! E. Stevenson be inserted in the
RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the speech
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
STATEMENT BY THE HONORABLE RDLAI B.
STEVENSON, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO THE
Thermo Narross, Baroat Tux Szcoarry
COUNCIL OF THE UNITED NATIONS ON nsa
CAMBODIAN COMPLAINT, MAT 21, 1984
(Approximately as Delivered)
?
Mr. President, the facts about the in-
cidents at issue are relatively simple and
clear.
The Government of the Republic of Viet-
nam already has confirmed that in the heat
of battle, forces of the Republic of Vietnam
did, in fact, mistakenly cross an ill-marked
frontier between their country and Cam-
bodia in pursuit of armed terrorists on May
7 and May 8, and on earlier occasions. That
has been repeated and acknowledged here
again today by the representative of Vietnam.
The Government of Vietnam has expressed
Its regrets that these incidents occurred with
some tragic consequences. It has endeavored
to initiate bilateral discussions with the
Cambodian Government to remove the
causes of these Incidents.
But these incidents can only be assessed
Intelligently In the light of the surrounding
facts: namely, the armed conspiracy which
seeks to destroy not only the Government a
Vietnam hut the very society of Vietnam
itself.
Mr. President. it 15 the people of the Re-
public of Vietnam who are the major vic-
tims of armed aggression. It is they who
are fighting for their independence against
violence directed from outside their borders.
It is they who suffer day and night from
the terror of the so-called Vietcong. The
prime targets of the Vietcong for kidnaping,
for torture and for murder have been local
officials, schoolteachers, medical workers.
priests, agricultural specialists and any oth-
ers whose position, profession, or other
talents qualified them for service to the
people of Vietnam?plus, of course, the rela-
tives and children of citizens loyal to their
government.
The chosen military objectives of the Viet-
cong?for gunfire or arson or pillage?have
been hospitals, schoolhouses, agricultural
stations, and various improvement projects
by which the Government of Vietnam for
many years has been raising the living stand-
ards of the people. The Government and
people of Vietnam have been struggling for
survival. struggling for years for survival in
a war which has been as wicked, as wanton.
and as dirty as any waged against an inno-
cent and peaceful people in the whole cruel
history of warfare. So there is something
Ironic in the fact that the victims of this
incessant terror are the accused before this
council and are defending themselves in day-
light while terrorists perform their dark
and dirty work by night throughout their
land.
IL
Mr. President, I cannot ignore the fact
that at the meeting of this Council 2 days
ago, Ambassador Federenko, the distin-
guished representative of the Soviet Union,
digressed at great length from the subject
before the Council to accuse the U.S. Gov-
ernment of organizing direct military action
against the people of the Indo-Chinese
peninsula.
For years. too many years, we hale heard
these bold and unsupported accusations. I
had hoped that these fairy tales would be
heard no more. But since the subject has
been broached in so fanciful a way, let me
set him straight on my Government's policy
with respect to southeast Asia.
First, the United States has no?repeat
"no"?national military objective anywhere
in southeast Asia. U.S. policy for southeast
Asia is very simple. It is the restoration of
peace so that the peoples of that area can
go about their own independent business
in whatever associations they may freely
choose for themselves without interference
from the outside.
I trust my words have been clear enough
on this point.
Second, the LIB. Government is currently
involved in the affairs of the Republic of
Vietnam for one reason and one reason only:
Because the Republic of Vietnam requested
the help of the United States and of other
governments to defend itself against armed
attack tormented, equipped, and directed
from the outside.
This is not the first time that the U.S.
Government has come to the aid of peoples
prepared to fight for their freedom and in-
dependence against armed aggression spon-
sored from outside their borders. Nor will
it be the last time unless the lesson is
learned once and for all by all aggressors
that armed aggression does not pay?that it
no longer works?that it will not be toler-
ated.
The record of the past two decades makes
it clear that a nation with the will for self-
preservation can outlast and defeat overt or
clandestine aggression?even when that in-
ternal aggression is heavily supported from
the outside, and even after significant early
successes by the aggressors. I would remind
the Members that in 1947 after the aggres-
sors had gained control of most of the coun-
try, many people felt that the cause of the
Government of Greece was hopelessly boat.
But as long as the people of Greece were
prepared to fight for the life of their own
country, the United States was not pre-
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66600403R000200140017-5
1964
Approved For
se 2005/02/10- : CIA-RDF'66B00403M4200140011-5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
pared to stand by while Greece was over-
run._, _
-
:This principle does not change with the
geograPhicid setting. Aggression is aggres-
sion; organized vielence Is organized viol-
eriee.. '19n1Y the ?Seale and the scenery
'change; the Point la the same in Vietnam
today as it Wag- in Greece in 1947 and in
Korea in *50. The Indochinese Communist
Party, the parent of the present'Communist
Party in Horth Vietnern, made it abundantly
clear as early as 1'951 that the filth of the
Vietnamese Communist leadership is to take
control of all of Indechina-LThia goal has
not changed?it-is Still clearly the"objeCtive
of the Vietnamese Ceinniiiiiist leadership in
Hanoi. Take them to TJ:N'.
, Hanoi seeks to accomplish this Piirpose in
South Vietnam throtigh subversive guerrilla
warfare directed, controlled and supplied by
North Vietnam: The Communist leadership
In Hanoi has sought to pre-tent/that the in-
surgenq in South Vietnam is a civil w, but
Hanoi's hand shows' very' ClearlY: Thiblic
stateinenti by the Communist Darty in North
Vietnam and its leaders have repeatedly'dem-
onstrated tenors direction of the struggle in
South Vietnam._ For example, Le timm, first
Secretary Of the Party, stated an September
5, 1960, "At present our party is facing' [a]
momentous task: to strive to ?complete 4-4 4
revolution throughout the enniitry.Z, He also.
said this: "the north is the Coinnien revolu-
tionary base of the Whole country." Three
niOnths after the Communist Party Congress
in Ilene; in September 1960, the so-called
National pront' for the Liberation Of ,South
'Vietnam was set up pursuant to plans out-
lined publicly at that'Congfesa:
The International GontrOl'iCorninissiOn.in
Vietnarn, established" by the Geneva accords
Of 1954, stated in a apeCial report which it
issued in June 1.94 that thereis sufficient
evidence to show that North Vietriain_has
violated various, articles of the Geneva., ac7
cords by its introduction of armed Person-
nel, arm's, munitions, and other supplies.from
North Vietnam intpAouth Yietnam,,withr,the
object of Supporting, organizing: and carry-
hag out hostile activities against the Govern-
ment and armed forces of South :94-tp.441, .
?Inaltrp.ti.on of, military personne and sup-
plies from North Vietnam to South 'Vietnam
has been carried out steadily over the peat
several. years. The total number Of _military
cadres sent into _Porith Vjp:(4m,
tion, routes runa? iiq Uig_thoupands. $uch
infiltration is Well documented olLthej?aela
of runnerqus 'defectors ?and ,prisoners taken
by the armed forces of South Vietnam.
Introduction of Communist :Weap.Ons Into
South Vietnam has also grown Steadily. An
Increasing amount of weapons and ammuni-
tion captured from gie_ VI:092pH_ has been
proven to 1e Of Chinese danimunist menu-
facture or prigln. or example, In Pecerribei
1964, alarge_caehe of 'Vietcong crinipinent.
? captured in one of the 'Mekong Delta, Prov..
Incas i S."Orith yfe.*,in inelneled_repoilleas
rlfles rocket launchers, carbines, and ammu-
nition O/ Chinese .,0_*Xnuni0, inaniifacture.
:The 's0.1:4;,py while
southeast eia ovyrrin..hy armed a,ggres-
? Bora. As long as th,e peoples of that area
are deterinlned. te_preseFye their own inde-
pendence and ask for Our 44 in preserving
it, We Will extend it. This, of, course, is the
meaning of President o nsop. s refluest a
few days ago for additional funds for more
econoinic as well aniUitury assistance for
Vietnam,
And if anyone has the illusion that my
Governinentwill,*bandonthupaople of viet-.
rianx-o; that we shall, weary of the burden
of support that we are rendering these peo-
ple?it can Only be due to Ignorance of the
strength and the conviction of, the American
We a1),"knov,7 t1-0,0 s9ut4esst..444,has
the victim of almost incessant violence for
more than a decade and a half. Yet despite
this fac it has been suggested that we
should give tip helping the people of Vietnam
to defend themselves and seek only a politi-
cal solution. But a political solution is just
what we have already had, and it is in de-
fense, in support of that political solution,
that Vietnam is fighting today. The United
States has never been against political solu-
tions. Indeed, we have faithfully suPpOrted
the political solutions that were agreed upon
at Geneva in 1954 and again in 1962. The
threat to peace in the area stems from the
fact that others have not done likewise.
The Geneva accords of 1954 and 1962 were,
qUite precisely, political agreements to stop
the fighting, to restore the peace, to secure
the independence of Vietnam and Laos and
Cambodia, to guarantee the integrity of
their frontiers, and to permit these much-
abused peoples to go about their own busi-
ness in their own ways. The United States,
though not a signatory to the 1954 accords,
has sought to honor these agreements in the
hope that they would permit these people to
live in peace and independence from outside
Interference from any quarter and for all
me.
To this day there is only one major trou-
ble with the political agreements reached at
Geneva with respect to Vietnam, Cambodia,
and Laos in 1954 and again with respect to
Laos in 1962. It is this: the ink was hardly
dry on the Geneva accords in 1954 before
North Vietnam began to violate them sys-
tematically with comradely assistance from
the regime in Peking. Nearly a minion peo-
rile living in North Vietnam in 1954 exercised
the right given to them under the Geneva
agreement to move south to the Republic of
Vietnam. Even while this was going On,
Milts of the Viet Minh were hiding their
arms and settling down within the frontiers
of the Republic to form the nucleus of to-
day's Vietcong, to await the signal from out-
side their borders to rise and strike. In
the meantime, they have been trained and
siipplied in considerable measure from North
Vietnam?in violation of the Geneva agree-
rheilt, the political settlement. They have
been reinforced by guerrilla forces moved
into the Republic of Vietnam through Laos?
in violation of the Geneva agreement, the
political settlement.
"'Phis is hereason?and the only reason?
Why there is fighting in Vietnam today.
'there is 'fighting in Vietnam today only be-
cause the political settlement for Vietnam
reached at Geneva In 54 has been delib-
erately and flagrantly and systematically
violated.,
Aa I say, Mr. President, this is the reason
why my Government?and to a lesser extent
other governments?have come to the aid of
the Government of the Republic of Vietnam
as it fights for its life against armed aggres-
sion directed from outside its frontiers in
contemptuous violation of binding agree-
ments. If the Government of the Republic
of Vietnam is fighting today it is fighting to
defend the Geneva agreement which has
proven undefendable by any other means. If
arras are being used in Vietnam today it is
only because a _political solution has been
violated cynically for years.
iv
The same disregard for the political settle-
ment reached at Geneva has been demon-
strated?by the same parties?in Laos. Vio-
lation has been followed by a period of
quiet?and then another Violation. Limited
aggression has been followed by a period of
calm?and then another limited aggression.
? Throughout the period since July 1962, when
the Laotian settlement was concluded, the
Prime Minister of Laos, Prince Souvanna
Phouma, has with great patience and forti-
tude sought to maintain the neutrality and
independence of his country. He has made
every effort to bring about Pathet Lao coop-
eration in. the government of national union.
.
Now, in the past few days, we have seen
a massive, deliberate, armed attack against
the -forces of the coalition government of
Prime Minister Souvanna Phouma. The at-
tack was mounted by a member of that
coalition government, with the military as-
sistance of one of the signatories of the
Geneva accords. These violations are obvi-
ously aimed at increasing the amount of Lao
territory under Communist control.
The military offensive of recent days must
be seen as an outright attempt to destroy
by violence what the whole structure of the
Geneva accords was intended to preserve.
Hanoi has persistently refused to withdraw
the Vietnamese Communist forces from Laos
despite repeated demands by the Lao Prime
Minister. Hanoi has also consistently con-
tinued the use of Laos as a corridor for in-
filtration of men and supplies from North
Vietnam into South Vietnam.
It is quite clear that the Communists
regard the Geneva accords of 1962 as an
instrument which in no way restrains the
Communists from pursuing their objective of
taking over Laos as well as South Vietnam.
The recent attempt to overthrow the con-
stitutional government headed by Prime
Minister Souvanna Phouma was in large part
attributable to the failure of the machinery
Set up with the Geneva accords to function
in respense to urgent requests by the Gov-
ernment of Laos. This machinery has been
- persistently sabotaged by the Communist
member of the International Control Com-
mission, who has succeeded by misuse of the
so-called veto power in paralyzing the ma-
chinery designed to protect the. peace in that
area and thereby undermining support of the
Souvanna government. Today, however,
that government -w"-hieli- Wee Created, un-
der the Geneva agreements' remains in full
exercise of its authority as the legitimate
government of a neutral Laos.
The other Geneva signatories must Hie
up to their solemn commitments and sup-
port Prime Minister Souvanna Phouma in
his _efforts to_pyeserve_the independence and
neutrality which the. world thought had been
won at Geneva. These solemn obligations
must not be petrayed.
11223
Mr. President, my Government takes a
very grave view of these events. Those who
are responsible have set foot upon an ex-
ceedingly dangerous path.
As we look at world affairs in recent years,
we have reason to hope that this lesson has
at last been learned by all but those fa-
natics who cling to the doctrine that they
can-further their ambitions by armed force.
Chairman Khrushchev said it well and
clearly in his New Year's Day message to
other heads of government around the
world. In that letter he asked for "recogni-
tion of the fact that territories of states
must not, even temporarily, be the target of
any kind of invasion attack, military occupa-
tion or other coercive measures, directly or
indirectly undertaken by other states for
any political, economic, strategic, boundary,
or other considerations, whatsoever."
There is not a. member of this Council
or a member of this Organization which does
not share a common interest in a final and
total renunciation?except in self-defense?
of the use of force as a means of pursuing
national aims. The doctrine of militant
violence has been rendered null and void by
the technology of modern weapons and the
vulnerability of a world in which the peace
cannot be ruptured anywhere without en-
dangering the peace everywhere.
Finally, Mr. President, with respect to
southeast Asia in general, let me say this.
There is a very easy way to restore order in
southeast Asia. There is a very simple, safe
way to bring about the end of U.S. military
aid to the Republic of Vietnam.
Let all foreign troops withdraw from Laos.
Let all states_ in that area make and abide
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66600403R000200140017-5
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 .? CIA-RDP66B60403R000200140017-5
11224 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
My 21
by the simple decision to leave their neigh-
bors alone. Stop the secret subversion of
other people's independence. Stop the clan-
destine and illegal transit of national fron-
tiers. Stop the export of revolution and the
doctrine of violence. Stop the violations of
the political agreements reached at Geneva
for the future of southeast Asia.
The people of Laos want to be left alone.
The people of Vietnam want to be left
alone.
The people of Cambodia want to be left
alone.
When their neighbors decide to leave them
alone?as they must?there will be no fight-
ing in southeast Asia and no need for Ameri-
can advisers to leave their homes to help
these people resist aggression. Any time that
decision can be put in enforcibie terms, my
Government will be only too happy to put
down the burden that we have been sharing
with thoie determined to preserve their in-
dependence. Until such assurances are
forthcoming, we shall stand for the inde-
pendence of free peoples in southeast Asia
as we have elsewhere.
yr
Now, Mr. President. if we can return to
the more limited Issue before this Council
today: the security of the frontier between
Cambodia and the Republic of Vietnam.
)Ly Government is in complete sympathy
with the concern of the Government of Cam-
bodia for the sanctity of its borders and the
security of its people. Indeed, we have been
guided for nearly a decade in this reepect?
by the words of the final declaration of the
Geneva Conference of July 21, 1954: "In their
relations with Cambodia. Lace, and Viet-
nam. each member of the Geneva Conference
undertakes to respect the sovereignty, the
independence, the unity and the territorial
Integrity of the above-mentioned states, and
to refrain from any interference in their in-
ternal affairs."
With respect to the allegations now made
against my country, / shall do no more than
reiterate what Ambassador Yost, the U.S.
delegate, said to this Council on Tuesday
morning: the United States has expressed
regret officially for the tragic results of the
border incidents in which an American ad-
viser was present; our careful investigation's
so far have failed to produce evidence that
any Americans were present in the inad-
vertent crossing of the Cambodian frontier
on May 7 and May 8; and there is. of course,
no question whatever of either aggression
or aggressive intent against Cambodia on the
part of my country.
Let me emphasize, Mr. President, that my
Government has the greater regard for
Cambodia and its people and its Chief of
State, Prince Sihanouk, whom I have the
privilege of knowing. We believe he has
done a great deal for his people and for the
independence of his country. We have dem-
onstrated our regard for his effort on behalf
of his people in very practical ways over the
past decade. We have no doubt that he
wants to assure conditions in Which his peo-
ple can live in peace and security. My Gov-
ernment associates itself explicitly with this
aim. If the people of Cambodia wish to live
in peace and security and independence?and
free from external alinement if they so
choose?then we want for them precisely
what they want for themselves. We have no
quarrel whatsoever with the desire of Cam-
bodia to go its own way.
The difficulty, Mr. President, has been that
Cambodia has not been in a position to carry
out, with its own unaided strength, its own
desire to live in peace and tranquillity.
?there in the area have not been prepared
to leave the people of Cambodia free to
pursue their own ends independently and
peacefully. The recent difficulties along the
frontier which we have been discussing here
in the Council are only superficially and
accidentally related to the Republic of Viet-
nam. They are deeply and directly related to
the fact that the leaders and armed forces
of North Vietnam, supported by Communist
China, have abused the right of Cambodia to
live in peace by using Cambodian territory as
a passageway, a source of supply, and a sanc-
tuary from counterattack by the forces of
South Vietnam, which is trying to maintain
Its right to live in peace and go its own way,
too. Obviously Cambodia cannot be secure?
her territorial integrity cannot be assured?
her independence cannot be certain?as long
as outsiders direct massive violence within
the frontiers of her neighboring states. This
Is the real reason for troubles on the Cam-
bodian border; this la the real reason we are
here today.
Now it is suggested that the way to restore
security on the Cambodian-Vietnamese
border is to reconvene the Geneva Confer-
ence which 10 years ago reached the solesaut
agreement which I just read to you.
Mr. President, we can surely do better than
that. There is no need for another such
conference. A Geneva conference on Cam-
bodia could not be expected to produce an
agreement any more effective than the agree-
ments we already have. This Council is
seised with a specific issue. The Cambodians
have brought a specific complaint to this
table. Let us deal with it. There is no need
to look elsewhere.
We can make?here and now?a construc-
tive decision to help meet the problem that
has been laid before us by the Government
of Cambodia?to help keep order on her
frontier with Vietnam?and thus to help
eliminate at least one of the sources of
tension and violence which afflict the area
as a whole.
Let me say, Mr. President. that my Govern-
ment endorses the statement made by the
distinguished representative of Cambodia to
the Council on Tuesday when he pointed
out that states which are not members of the
United Nations are not thereby relieved of
responsibility for conducting their affairs in
line with the principles of the charter of this
Organization. We could not agree more
fully. Yet the regimes of Peking and Hanoi
which are not members of this Organization
are employing or supporting the use of force
against their neighbors. This is why the
borders of Cambodia have seen violence. And
this is why we are here today. And that is
why the United Nations has a duty to do
what it can do to maintain order along the
frontier between Cambodia and Vietnam?,
to help uphold the principles of the charter
in southeast Asia.
As for the exact action which this Council
might take. Mr. President, my Government
is prepared to consider several possibilities.
We are prepared to discuss any practical and
constructive steps to meet the problem before
us.
One cannot blame the Vietnamese for con-
cluding that the International Control Com-
mission cannot do an effective Jobe of main-
taining frontier security. The troika prin-
ciple of the International Control Commis-
sion which is to say the requirement under
article 42 of the Geneva agreement on Viet-
nam that decisions dealing with questions
concerning violations which might lead to
resumption of hostilities can be taken only
by unanimous agreement, has contributed to
the frustration of the ICC.
The fact that the situation in South Viet-
nam has reached the &Isis stage is itself
dramatic testimony of the frustration to
which the International Control Commission
has been reduced. With the exception of
the special report on June 2, 1962, to which
I referred, condemning Communist viola-
tions of the Geneva accords, the Commission
has taken no action with respect to the Com-
munist campaign of egression and guerrilla
warfare against South Vietnam.
The representative of Cambodia has tug-
voted that a commission of inquiry In-
vestigate whether the Vietcong has used
Cambodian territory. We have no funda-
mental objection, to a committee of inquiry.
But we do not believe it addresses itself to
the basic problem that exists along the Viet-
nam-Cambodia border. More is needed in
order to assure that problems do not con-
tinue to arise.
Several practical steps for restoring sta-
bility to the frontier have been suggested and
I shall make brief and preliminary general
remarks about them. I should like to re-
iterate what Ambassador Yost said, that we
have never rejected any proposal for in-
spection of Cambodian territory.
One suggestion is that the Council re-
quest the two parties directly concerned to
establish a substantial military force on a
bilateral basis to observe and patrol the fron-
tier and to report to the Secretary General.
Another suggestion is that such a bilateral
force be augmented by the addition of United
Nations observers and possibly be placed un-
der United Nations command to provide an
impartial third-party element representing
the world community. We also could see
much merit in this idea.
A third suggestion is to make it an all-
United Nations force. This might also be
effective. It would involve somewhat larger
U.N. expenditures than the other alterna-
tives. But if this method should prove
desirable to the members of the Council, the
United States will be prepared to contribute.
We would suggest. Mr. President, that
whether one of these or some other practical
solution Is agreed, It would be useful to ask
the Secretary General of the United Nations
to offer assistance to Cambodia and the Re-
public of Vietnam in clearly marking the
frontiers between the two countries. One
of the difficulties Is that there are places
where one does not know whether he stands
on one aide of the frontier or the other.
Certainly it would help reduce the possibility
of further Incidents if this uncertainty were
to be removed.
In conclusion. Mr. President, let me repeat
that I am prepared to discuss the policy and
the performance of my Government through-
out southeast Asia. But the issue before us
is the security of the Cambodia-Vietnam
border. I have expressed my Government's
views on that subject. I hope other mem-
bers of the Council also will express their
views on that subject and that the Council,
which is the primary world agency for peace
and security, can quickly take effective steps
to remedy a situation which could threaten
peace and security.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, this
speech was delivered by our Ambassador
as the first reply of the United States to
the charge leveled against us in the
United Nations' Security Council by
Cambodia. I would not want the day to
close without going on record in the Sen-
ate in disagreement with the speech.
Of course, it was a speech that was writ-
ten primarily for the Ambassador by the
State Department. Yet I am sad that
Adlai Stevenson permitted himself to be
so used, for an ambassadorship is not
worth that. I think that Adlai Stevenson
abdicated his position of world leadership
in the field of world affairs. It is a seri-
ous casualty of leadership.
When I think of those great speeches
of Adlai Stevenson of another day, when
I think of his historic defenses of the
application of the rule of law for the
settlement of disputes that threaten the
peace of the world, when I think of the
eloquence of Adlai Stevenson of a bygone
day in support of a great ideal that must
be put into practice if mankind is to save
Itself from annihilation from a nuclear
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200140017-5
1964 Approved For 11225 66B004031:1411A200140017-5-
_
sioNAL ItE ?SENA E 11225
war?and Contrast the eloquence and no-
bility of those speeches, :with:the_speech
'..tatio4:Mik.44-0,. 4)-P0i.4,? ex_eiti0Off,
that hirs, hps were used to deliver today
in .the $ectiffty CoUncil of the United
Nations?Z.:And- it__Wpossible to spied
wor40-tsi-rea4---tier#4 the depth of my
? feeling of Sathie-Ss.: Something has gene
= out ..of Our=hatignal leadership A great
light has been extinguished, and: a great
voice has been Misused We70 TA *It one
word in the StevenSon,Speech that meets
head on the great, issue that he coniht to
have been talkihg_abOut71-the issue that
is being raised by many, not only in our
country, but in the other free nations of
the world, Why, oh, why has the
States _turned Its back enthe_:05.1.9,6-$47-.
tions? Why; Oh, why has the United
States violated the Charter of the United
:Nations in South Itiethar0 _ We txayp,
mr,?pxqstdpnt. And we shallstand in the.
pages Of history convicted of violating
the UrittiOattonr.s charter,all the, ali-
biing-of Adlai Stevenson to the contrary
not w1thstapin.?
_I never :thought that I Would- live so
long , as to sper.AdIal Stevenson failr_to
Meet an *lip squarely, even though it
might Mean the ?casualty_ of an ambas-
sadorship, -Which as I said on the floor
Of te Senate the. Other 4.07,, is a Minor,
, ;sacrifice. **pared With the sacrifice of
the lives of.AnlericaD hoishiSouth Viet-
nam. They are being sacrificed ,there in
- violation of U,$. obligations under the
?-United Nations M..respect to our
And illegal military course of EkAtiPli
in South Vietnam, not only in violation
of the United Natipos,g4syter, but also
in violation of _thp,Constitution of the ,
United ?Stat.e.s. _ ?
I W11,1 repeat and repeat in the months
-- to ,ocine,th.g.?.?.themmt gtatee _eepn_et
justify ,echph*AR,AhlerAe.arL):19Y, to his
death On ?Abattle4eld_in the absence ?of
a cleelaratiOn of _war and withpukoeidng
first,to_settle ,the dispute in the United
.,The Ainerican military Operation in
'South Vietnarn?.I. ?clearly unconstitu-
tional. ,n,, cannot be, justified in the
absence of a declaration of way,.. We are
engaging_ M a subterfuge. Now_t,herp_ls,
propoSal before_thleoromittees_of
gress to obtaina ,foym of congressional
approval of the nnilateral, American
, Military action vietnam outside,
the framework ,p1 the Constitution by
aPproVing appropriations for it. What,
has, happened that we do net meet the
issti4 fothxiebtly, -0freetty?
'
One of the ,A:c1c2=e4 things Is that_the
United Stales,,,hwheen,undercutting the
United ?Ilockm.g,bArtpl:2,5outh Vict7
n?, thereby -.'wealEe4ing. the United Na-
t4ms Ohalwaho Playing Into the hands
of our communist enemies?or, as Adlai
Stevenson has ,been heard to say in years
'gone- 'by, and. I maphrase . him, but
4cP1147,4*-7-"-the.-Vnited N5t1945, ig 04.7.
sential to peacekeeping In the world.?
As we *4M- the_ United_ Nations by
flouting, circumventing, ,and violating
our obligations under it, We, of course,
? strengthen thehAndtof the_COnlinunists
In following a Similar course of .,ation.
elsewhere,. We shall. find ourselves
a rather Untenable position when we
seek to have the TJnited Nations peace-
keeping power, applied to Russia, Red purpose of the United Nations to preserve
China, Nasser, or any other power in the world where the peace is threatened
the world that seeks to resort to threats anywhere in the world by the applica-
to the peace, when it can with Justiflca- tion of the rule of law, instead of using
tion say?as I have suggested on the floorunilateral military might, which the
before?"See who is talking?the United United States is doing in South Vietnam,
States. What about South Vietnam?" What a great historic opportunity the
I was disappointed with the Stevenson South Vietnam crisis has offered the
speech today beCause he did not discuss United States, and how sad and unfor-
any of the articles of the United Nations tunate it Is that the United States has
Charter to which guy signature is at- run away from its obligation to
tached. Of? course, it is obvious why strengthen the rule of law, purpose, and
he did not 'discuss them. He could net objective of the United Nations, by tak-
discuss them and sustain his rationaliz- ing unto itself the prerogative of acting
ing pdsition before the Security Colin- unilaterally, outside the United Nations.
cil today. But, the record should be when it is not even a signatory to the
made on the same day. In this discus- _Geneva accords.
sion of Mr. Stevenson before the Secu- Mr, COOPER. Mr, President, will the
rfty Council today about the alleged vio: Senator yield?
halms of the Geneva accords of as , as Mr, MORSE. After I yield to the
I have said before, and repeat, the word Senator from Kentucky I shall proceed
"alleged" can be stricken if there is anY to show why we are not a signatory to
question about the fact that the Geneva the Geneva accords. However, if I yield
accords have been violated and are being to the Senator from Kentucky, it must
violated. But it is disappointing that be with the understanding that all the
in his speech Mr. Stevenson did not take rights of the Senator from Florida [Mr.
note of the fact that the United States HOLLAND] heretofore guaranteed to him
did not sign the Geneva accords of 1954._ by my unanimous-consent request that
He raises a great hue and cry about he yield to me under the full protection
their being violated. Certainly Mr. of the points that I raised be continued.
`Stevenson knows, or should know, that The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
the 'United States, not signing the Ge- objection, it is so ordered.
neva accords, has no right to take the Mr. COOPER. 'should like to ask
-position that it can_ enforce them WI!- the Senator a question, so that it may
laterally on the basis of the U.S. findinzs, appear in the RECORD as a matter of in-
Mr. President, if the Geneva accord., formation. Is it the Senator's view that
are being violated, the first duty of the at the time the Geneva Conference was
United States, or any other country that held, and the accords were made, a pro-
wants to keep faith with its obligations cedure was included in the agreement
under the United Nations Charter, is to for reference to the United Nations of
prove it. We do not prove it with a any breach of the agreement?
speech. We prove it with evidence he- Mr. MORSE. Of course not. That
fore a body that has jurisdiction to take would not be required.
evidence.
Mr. COOPER. The Senator is argu-
Poi Mr. Stevenson to stand before ing the principle. I understand that. I
the Security Council?and thereby be- am trying to ascertain his recollection.
fore the world?and seek to rationalize I know that he is familiar with this sub-
the American unilateral military action ject, because he has spoken on it several
In South Vietnam on the basis of the times. Is it the Senator's recollection
assertion by the United States that the that any specific procedure was included
Geneva accords are being violated by in the accords requiring a reference of
North Vietnam and others is, in my judg-
rnent, inexcusable. any breach of the accords to the United
Nations?
Mr. Stevenson is a good enough law- Mr. MORSE. It does not need to be.
yer to know that he ought to go to court _ Mr. COOPER. I know that, but I
to make his charges and submit his wish to have that clearly spelled out.
evidence. Mr. Stevensonm has not _been Mr. MORSE. I am perfectly willing
willing to go to court as the representa- to spell it out, but it is quite irrelevant
thre of the United States; or, apparently, to the point I am making; namely, that
so far as we know, he has not been will- there has been a violation of the Geneva
Ing to recommend to the _United States accords. It is a violation of the Geneva
that the United States go to couyt. We accords which threatens the peace of the
have no, right to judge for ourselves world. We are not a party to them. It
whether the Geneva Accords are being is not our business to go around the
violated, and then assume unte_mirselves world enforcing everyone else's treaties
the right to enforce the accords_against and agreements. What is happening in
the nations that we have deeisled have South Vietnam is a threat to the peace
violated, them,
of the world. That puts it under the
One of the saddest things about the Jurisdiction of the United Nations. It
situation Is that we could prove our is the clear duty of the United States to
charge. The saddest thing about it is file a complaint before the United Na-
that In my judgment the United States tions in respect to the violation of the
has a case it can prove against North Geneva accords, and not to take uni-
Vietnam, against China and, I believe, lateral military action, which action has
against Lacs, that the Geneva Accords intensified the threat to the peace of the
are being violated and have been vio- world, flowing from the violation of the
kited. We ought to have done that. We accords.
ought to have kept faith not only with Mr. COOPER. I feel it should be
our commitments under the United Na- spelled out as a matter of record that
tions Charter, but also with the primary the powers involved did not refer the
IR0eaie 2005/02/10: CIA-Rop66B00403i*92_901-40017-5
11226
ollm?
403R00020014001765 May 21
Approved ptc
latti,gaMiadat5R-21:Sliett
matter to the United Nations in 1954
or at any other time during the 10 years
In which the troubles have continued.
During all the troubles in Laos and Viet-
nam all of the powers have refrained,
for some reason, from referring any
breathes to the United Nations. I be-
lieve that is historically true.
Mr. MORSE. I do not Quarrel with
that fact. I only say to my friend from
Kentucky that it is completely irrelevant
to what the duty of the United States
as a signatory to the United Nations
Charter has been all this time.
Mr. COOPER. I do not believe it IS
Irrelevant in this case. I have been pay-
ing a great deal of attention to what the
Senator from Oregon has said about the
situation. It is a situation of great dif-
ficulty and great concern. However, I
must say that I believe he has gone
somewhat far, in light of the history of
the Vietnam situation. At the inception
of the accord there was no agreement
to refer the matter to the -United Na-
tions, and there has been no reference
of breaches since that time by any of
the powers, it is not fair to say that the
United States has broken the Charter
of the United Nations. I cannot accept
that.
Mr. MORSE. I do not care whether
the Senator from Kentucky can accept
It. It happens to be the undeniable fact.
. Mr. COOPER. I cannot accept in my
mind, that we have broken the Charter
of the United Nations.
Mr. MORSE. I can read the United
Nations Charter, and the Senator from
Kentucky can read it. Under that char-
ter no nation has the right to carry on a
course of action which threatens the
peace of the world anywhere. The
United States has been a party to doing
that. What the Senator is saying is
that we are not the only ones who have
been doing it. I have been pointing that
out for a long time. I have been point-
ing out, as the Senator knows, that as a
...nonsignatory to the Geneva accords, it
was the clear duty of the United States
to complain of their violation to the
United Nations, and not proceed to send
American boys to die in South Vietnam.
Let us not forget that the Geneva ac-
cords did set up a council, consisting of
' an Indian, a Pole, and a Canadian. Let
us also not forget?and Mr. Stevenson
failed to point this out in his speech
today?that that council found that the
accords had been violated not only by
North Vietnam, but also by South Viet-
nam, citing as their evidence as to the
violation by South Vietnam the U.S.
military action in South Vietnam.
Mr. COOPER. When was that?
Mr. MORSE. In 1957. We have been
guilty, and the lapse of time involving
the guilt does not justify it, because
there is no statute of limitations which
provides an excuse.
Mr. COOPER. The Senator is arguing
what he believes the United States should
have done, and what it should do today.
What I have pointed out is that for all
of the powers involved to leave the prob-
lem on a regional basis, to see if it could
be settled.
Mr. MORSE. That does not exclude it
from the United Nations.
Mr. COOPER. But that course has
been followed by all the nations in an
effort to reach a settlement as they have
a right to do under the charter. The
basic reason for the problem of South
Vietnam is the aggression from North
Vietnam, not the United States.
North Vietnam is where the aggres-
sion started; this aggression has con-
tinued. The United States moved in
troops for military training. Unfor-
tunately, the number has increased now
to 16.000 or 17,000. I do not know what
the end will be. But I would not place
the blame on the United States for what
has occurred in Vietnam. I do not be-
lieve that is a fair representation of the
facts.
Mr. MORSE. But they are the facts.
Mr. COOPER. With my great respect
for my friend from Oregon, I have to
say that we have now reached a point
where we must decide what is best to do.
I have my views, but I will wait until
the Senator has completed his com-
ments.
Mr. MORSE. I have no intention of
letting the Senator from Kentucky leave
the RECORD aa it is at this point, because
he is Just as wrong as he can be as to the
responsibility of the United States-0.5
billion worth of responsibility, besides
16,000 American boys, with more than
200 casualties thus far. That cannot he
erased from the picture, so far as re-
sponsibility is concerned. The United
States has been operating a war in South
Vietnam, and we have not taken the
problem to the United Nations.
I go back to my major premise: The
United States has no right to conduct a
war in Vietnam. It had a duty under
the treaty to take the issue to the Unit-
ed Nations for action. We did not do
so. We ignored the United Nations. The
fact that North Vietnam committed ag-
gression and some other countries did
likewise does not excuk the United
States. The Senator from Kentucky
knows as well as I do that a wrong
committed by us cannot be adjusted be-
cause someone else committed a wrong.
Mr. COOPER. I did not say that.
Mr. MORSE. The United States has
followed a wrongful course of action. I
interpret the remarks of the Senator
from Kentucky as an effort, to cover it
up or erase it. But it is indelible. It
cannot be covered up, and it cannot be
erased. It is there for history to read.
Mr. COOPER. The Senator from
Kentucky is not covering anything up.
He is saying that the United States is
not the aggressor, and has not breached
the charter.
Mr. MORSE. Yes, the Senator is.
Mr. COOPER. No, lam not.
Mr. MORSE. I know the Senator says
he is not, but I can interpret his lan-
guage. It is coverup language.
Mr. COOPER. That can be judged by
those who will read this exchange. , I
remember well in 1954 when the situ-
ation arose. I was a Member of the Sen-
ate in 1953 and 1954. I felt strongly
about the situation then. I said on the
floor of the Senate in 1954, although it
has perhaps been long forgotten, that
the United States should not try to take
the place of Prance in Vietnam; that we
should not send troops there.
Mr. MORSE. That is correct. So
did I.
Mr. COOPER. But the United States
entered into a regional agreement, which
can be entered into under article 52 of
the United Nations Charter.
Mr. MORSE. Not with immunity?
Mr. COOPER. Let me finish. The
Senator will not let me finish my argu-
ment.
Mr. MORSE. I will not let the Sena-
tor make implications.
Mr. COOPER. The way the United
States entered into that regional ar-
rangement in 1954 was a proper way to
enter into it under the United Nations
Charter. It was a case of bad judgment.
I thought so at the time, and I said so.
But it was proper to do it under the
charter. It was not a violation of the
charter, because under article .52 it could
be done, and it was done under a re-
gional arrangement. It was a case of bad
judgment, but it was not a breach of the
charter.
Since that time things have gone
badly. But even if men have been lost
and we have spent money, that would not
mean there had been a breach of the
charter, if in fact we have done right.
I stood on the same ground 10 years ago
that the Senator from Oregon is stand-
ing on today.
What I rose to say, and what I still
hold?I do not wish to retain the floor
longer?is that I think the Senator from
Oregon has gone too far in saying that
the United States has breached the
charter with respect to what has hap-
pened. I say that with all respect for
the Senator from Oregon.
I would not leave my statement stand
at that. I would not take my seat with-
out saying what I think. I think we
ought to ask the conference to recon-
stitute itself and see if it has any help-
ful recommendations to make. The con-
ference still has Jurisdiction, under the
Charter. If the conference makes any
recommendations which might form the
bests of an agreement then I think a
solution might be attained. If the con-
ference has no recommendations to
make, and no solutions to offer, then I
would follow the suggestion of the Sen-
ator from Oregon and say that the prob-
lem should be taken to the United Na-
tions.
If not we must stand by our commit-
ments. I do not leave my position sterile
as the Senator from Oregon contends.
I could not stand here and listen to a
charge that the United States is the coun-
try which has breached the Charter,
when I know that the Viet Minh of North
Vietnam have aggressed and continued
the war.
It can be argued that we are furnish-
ing our assistance, our men, and our
troops to resist aggression, as we have a
right to do under the regional arrange-
ment. But I must say that we have come
to the time when we must find a solu-
tion. The Senator from Oregon proposes
taking the issue immediately to the
United Nations. I say that it should first
be taken to the conference.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66600403R000200140017-5
'Approved For R PW
lse 2005102110 : CIA-P66B00403141,116200140017-5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 11227
Mr. MORSE. Has the Senator from directing, so far as the United Nations' nonsignatory of the Geneva accords, the
Kentucky ,finished?' Is concerned, the foreign policy of this United States had no right, in my judg-
Mr,? CO PER. Yes. country. Vietnam is one aspect of his ment, to attempt to enforce them uni-
4ORSL 1,tow, I shall reply to therepresentation. / should think we would laterally. Instead, the United States
Senator fi?om Kentuck7. fl?s Wrong on have to know that and not charge him had an even greater obligation, as a
fact after fact. 'The 'United States never with a great moral lapse. nonsignatory of the Geneva accords, to
signed the Geneva Accords. Mr. MORSE. / still hold him respon- file before the United Nations a_ petition
Mr. COOEl1t. Of course, we did not, of complaint, asking the United Nations
and I Oil not say so. I know the facts. to take jurisdiction.
r. MORSE. Our signature is not on So let us face the ugly reality of this
the Geneva adcords. We have been act- situation. The United States is a
ing outside the Geneva accords. We are mighty nation, the mightiest nation in
not even a party to the Geneva accords. the world. The United States is recog-
nized generally as the most powerful
nation in the world. The other power-
ful nation, comparatively speaking, is
Russia. When the mightiest nation in
the world follows the course of action
our country followed, the Senator from
Kentucky should not be surprised to find
other nations not challenging it. Of
course Russia had no desire to challenge
the United States action, because, in my
judgment, Russia realized that the
United States was weakening the United
Nations; and, in my judgment, Russia
has no interest in the United Nations,
except as a platform for a debating so-
ciety. So we should realize that Russia
has no interest in the enforcement
powers of the United Nations; but the
United States should have, for I believe
that is where the hope of mankind for
peace hinges.
But instead of following such a course
of action, the United States proceeded to
spend $5.5 billion in South Vietnam and
to sacrifice the lives of more than 200
Americans, and the United States com-
Nations. As far as a regional treaty to American troOps into Indochina, to carry milted what I believe could properly be
Which we are party is concerned,_ the on the war. It was the great Churchill? described as mayhem against the
OnlY one at all relevant is SEATO, and as reported in his memoirs by Anthony Charter of the United Nations. That is
no action has been taken under that. Eden?who said that proposal of Dulles the situation which confronts us in the
SEATO has not been involved in South would deceive the U.S. Congress, because United Nations today. But what a glori-
Vietnam. it was being-carried on in great secrecy. ous record we could have made, instead
The Senator from Kentucky will not That was when Nixon tried to send up of the record Adlai Stevenson made
find the in disagreement with the pro- his lead balloon in New York, at the today in New York City.
posal to ask for a new conference. That secret meetings with the publishers? Mr. President, I believe it is necessary
is the proposal, Of `France. But about which word-got out?in which he tonight to place in the RECORD a few pro-
Stevenson today, in behalf of the U.S. proposed that American soldiers be sent visions of the United Nations Charter
Government, rejected it. into Indochina, when Dulles was trying that Adlai Stevenson did not even whis-
gr. COOPER. I have not read his to negotiate the same kind of deal with per about in his speech today.
speech. the British Prime Minister; but Dulles There is no aggression or breach of the
Mr. MORSE. I have. I know what failed, peace or threat to the peace that id" not
I am talking about in regard to what the Dulles was very much opposed to the one which the United Nations Charter re-
_ ?
position of the United States is: We French withdrawal from Indochina. quires to be brought before the United
rejected the proposal by France to ask The Geneva accords of 1954 accom- Nations. That is a fact. Wherever there
for a new conference. Moped that there plished the splitting of Indochina four is an aggression or a breach of the peace
would be one, I hoped that this time ways?into Laos, Cambodia, North Viet- or a threat to the peace, the United Na-
we would be a party to it, that this time nam, and South Vietnam. Laos and tions Charter creates an obligation to
we WoUlet help to negotiate an agree- Cambodia and North Vietnam were in- bring that fact situation before the
rnent, and that this time we would sign volved in the Geneve. accords; but, under United Nations.
it. , the pressure exerted by John Foster Dul- Article 33 requires "the parties to any
Mr.,CQOPER. assumeThai as Am- les, South Vietnam refused to sign them, dispute?and I ask the Senator from
bassaaor of the tnited States to the as did the United States. Kentucky to note this language?"the
United Nations, Mr. Stevenson supports As I said in my long speech in regard continuance of which is likely to endan-
the policy of this country. If the Sena-
tor from Oregon objects to what Mr.
Stevenson said today, What he really is
attacking is the policy of the President
? of the United States,
Mr. MORSE, ?II I have ngt Made that
clear in the past 6 weeks, I have not made
anything clear. I surely am in disagree-
ment with the policy oftheljniced States.
Mr. COOPER. ?I -do not attack We
President when he is right. Vietnam is
not the Osporisibility of -Mi. --tevenson
, as oUr repreiefitatiVe to Na-
tions. He Is charged with guiding and
sible for what he has supported; that is
all. I should much prefer to see him
resign as Ambassador to the United Na-
tions rather than to have him support a
policy that clearly violates our obliga-
tions under the United Nations Charter.
We persuaded South Vietnam not to sign Let me? enlarge on the point brought
-the Geneva accords. forth with respect to the Geneva accords,
Mr. COOPER. We are not a party to in view of the rel.-narks of the Senator
the? accords, but we have been acting from Kentucky. Some weeks ago, on the
under them, as we are permitted to act, - floor of the Senate, I traced the history
by sending in troops as adVisers to as- of the Geneva accords and stated that
sist.
, Mr. MORSE. And we have been vio-
lating the Geneva accords.
,jr. COOPER. We are allowed to send
Military advisers.
Mr. MORSE. ,No; we are not allowed
to Violate the accords. We have no
rights under the Geneva acciirds, because
the accords themselves forbid the send-
ing in of additional military aid above
- 1954 level's. That is what the Commis-
sion foUnd in 1051. We did not even sign
the accords, and we have been violating
_ them ever since. We have started to
send in our boys and have spent' a total
of $5,500 million in aid to South Viet-
,
That was the point at which we ought
to have called either for a new confer-
ence or for taking the issue to the United
Dulles, who was then Secretary of State,
took the position that the United States
would not sign the accords. He had our
observer, Bedell Smith, sit at Geneva and
say, after the accords had been signed,
that the United States would not sign
the accords, but would recognize them as
binding international agreements.
But the record is clear?and I docu-
mented it in my speech?that Dulles was
very much upset because France was gO-
ing to leave Indochina; and Dulles did
everything he could to get France to con-
tinue the war in Indochina. He went to
France; he went to London, and tried
to get the British to enter into a tripartite
arrangement with France and the
United States7-a tripartite arrangement
between France the United States and
Great Britain?to send British and
to this situation, that was the beginning ger the maintenance of international
of American foreign policy in South peace and security," to try to settle it by
Vietnam. From the very beginning, the peaceful means.
United States circumvented not only the I wonder whether the Senator from
United Nations, but also the Geneva ac- Kentucky or any other Senator wishes to
Cords, themselves, by our relationship argue that the situation in South Viet-
with and our conduct in connection with nam does not involve a threat to the
and our support of South Vietnam. Peace, or wishes to argue that it is not a
Mr. President, other countries have "dispute, the continuance of which is
violated the Geneva accords. But we likely to endanger the maintenance of
met those violations with violations of international peace and security."
our own. Not only that, but the United The sad fact ii, I say to the Senator
States has made war in South Vietnam, from -Kentucky, that if our country con-
instead of making peace--although as a tinues its course of action in South Viet-
- -
#1114s
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP661360103R000200140017-5
11228 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE May 21
nam, the United States will nin the grave
risk of escalating that war, and also of
escalating it into North Vietnam and
elsewhere. Once our forces cross the
border into North Vietnam, our Nation
becomes an aggressor nation, and in that
event the United States will have lost, in
my judgment, any justification for a
claim of self-defense, in international
law, and will have opened the danger of
a third world war, because it is out of
just such incidents that great wars are
born.
So, Mr. President, we are dealing with
a dispute?and I do not intend to let
Members of Congress or of the execu-
tive branch of the Government forget
It?and a danger that has all the Po-
tentialities of causing the death of tens
of thousands of American boys in the
years to come, because I am satisfied
that if we escalate this war, we shall get
into an Asian war. If it remains only an
Asian war, it will be a bogged down war
that will cost us the lives of tens of
thousands of American boys.
Mr. President, the American people
need to know that and need to face up
to it when they come to give to Members
of Congress advice as to whether they
should vote to give to the President of
the United States indirect approval, by
means of increased appropriations, to
carry on what amounts to an executive
military action in South Vietnam. That
shows how serious I believe this matter
Is.
I repeat that the Charter of the United
Nations requires that parties to a dis-
pute avail themselves first of all possible
peaceful means for settling it. That is
required by article 33. I am sure Adlel
Stevenson knows it by heart; but he
could not very well cite it today and still
make his speech, because his speech can-
not be reconciled with article 33 of the
Charter of the United Nations.
Moreover, article 37 of the charter re-
quires that parties unable to settle a
dispute by peaceful means of their own
choosing, shall refer it to the Security
Council. The word is "shall." It is not
a discretionary matter.
The course of action of the United
States in South Vietnam cannot be re-
conciled with article 37 of the United
Nations Charter. My dear friend from
Kentucky does not like to hear one sug-
gest that perhaps our Government is
wrong in the course of action that it is
taking. But our Government has been
dead wrong in the course of action it has
taken in South Vietnam in respect to its
obligations under article 37 of the
United Nations Charter.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Presieient, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MORSE. In a moment. I pointed
this out in some detail a couple of weeks
ago in my so-called foreign policy
speech, so far as international law is
concerned. I am pointing it out tonight
I shall continue to point it out, because
all the verbiage that can be poured out
cannot change the language of article
37. Article 37 placed upon the United
States the clear obligation to take the
case to the United Nations and not take
it to war. But instead of taking it to the
United Nations, the United States took
the case to war. That is why Adlai
Stevenson had to deliver his very un-
sound and disappointing speech alibi-
ing for our Government before the
Security Council today.
/ yield to the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President. will the
Senator yield to me, under the previous
understanding that the Senator from
Florida will not lose his right to the
floor?
Mr. MORSE. I yield.
The PRESIDING ?Milt:kat. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COOPER. I do not want verbiage,
either that of the Senator from Oregon
or my own, to color what I have said
and what I intend to say again. I said
that we may have differences over the
policy of the United States. I had some
differences over the policies of the
United States in 1954 in Vietnam and
have had some since that time. The
Senator from Oregon can make his state-
ment, and stand on it, that the United
States had a duty to take the case to the
United Nations. But I say, and I stand
on the statement?and it is at this point
that I disagree with the Senator from
Oregon?that the United States has not
committed aggression in Vietnam. I say
that North Vietnam and not. the United
States, has committed the aggression. I
wish to make clear that I do not believe
the United States has violated the Char-
ter of the United Nations by any act of
aggression. That is what I said and
that is what I mean. If the Senator
from Oregon takes a contrary view, /
disagree with him. I shall not say that
my country committed an act of aggres-
sion in Vietnam, when it has been help-
ing to defend and protect Vietnam peo-
ple against aggression.
Mr. MORSE. I repeat my former
statement. The United States violated
the Geneva accords when it went into
South Vietnam with men, billions of
dollars, and military aid. It was at that
point that the United States violated the
United Nations Charter. It was at that
point that it violated articles 33 and 37.
The Senator from Kentucky [Mr.
COOPER] can call it what he wishes. The
Senator from Oregon has called it a vio-
lation of articles 33 and 37 of the United
Nations Charter. He has called it a vio-
lation of the Geneva accords.
It is very interesting that the so-called
neutral council that was set up under
the Geneva accords in 1957 found South
Vietnam, along with North Vietnam,
violating the Geneva accords because
South Vietnam took military assistance,
military aid and military help from the
United States. One of the purposes of
the Geneva accords was to stop addi-
tional outside military aid in all the four
partitions that had been set up in Indo-
china?Cambodia, Laos, North Vietnam,
and South Vietnam.
I wish to say most respectfully, and
out of the deep affection that / have for
the Senator from Kentucky, that I so in-
terpret his remarks, although he does
not seem to think that the impression is
there. He seems to think that our
wrong is lessened because, in his opin-
ion, North Vietnam has committed a
wrong.
That does not change the position of
the United States one iota. On this is-
sue it does not make any difference what
wrongful acts North Vietnam may have
committed. We cannot justify wrongful
acts in our part in violation of these
articles of the charter. Furthermore,
we cannot be judge, jury, and prosecu-
tor at the same time. We had the clear
duty to take the ease before the United
Nations and present our proof, and we
could have done it. We still can do it.
But we could have done it. North Viet-
nam was violating the Geneva accords
and thereby threatening the peace of
that part of the world and endangering
the peace everywhere, because in this
modern day of nuclear power, a threat
to peace anywhere in the world is a
threat to the peace everywhere in the
world.
Article 37 pinned the United States
down to the mat. It did the sante with
every other country that was violating
the charter, too.
Mr. President, I am talking about the
obligations of the United States. I am
expresSing deep regret at the course of
action which my country has followed
In respect to southeast Asia. Article 37
makes it perfectly clear in the language
"they shall refer it to the Security Coun-
cil" that the United States never did,
and had no intention of doing so. We
acted unilaterally. We threw our weight
around. Contrary to our principles, we
created the impression that we still be-
lieve that might makes right, Of
course, it does not. It will not in south-
east Asia, either. All the exercise of
United States might in South Vietnam
Is likely to produce is an escalated war
and the death of tens of thousands of
American boys.
I continually refer to the death of
American boys, but they will not be the
only human beings who will be killed.
Many South Vietnamese are being killed.
The Secretary of Defense speaks of
high casualties among the South Viet-
namese as though they were something
to be proud of. They are all children
of God, too, Mr. President. That is a
part of the awfulness of what is hap-
pening. We are out of character as a
nation in South Vietnam. We are un-
true to our ideals. We are in shocking
violation of our professings about wish-
ing to set up a system of international
justice through law, to the procedures
of which will be submitted disputes which
threaten the peace of the world. I ask,
"When will the United States return to
that sound ideal?" It is a sound ideal;
It is also a sound practicality.
I listened on the floor of the Senate
today to the statement of a colleague
in which he said that the case did not
go to the United Nations because it
would not be practical. I asked him for
his definition of what is practical. That
is what I meant when I said a few mo-
ments ago that I am not persuaded by
semantics and verbiage. It sounds plau-
sible to say that something is not prac-
tical. When one who uses the term is
pinned down and asked what is practi-
cal about it, the one making the original
statement is overcome with a loss of
words. What is ever practical about
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66600403R000200140017-5
CL
',War') What is irripilictleol about faking
?diSPUte to thriVnited- Mations in keep-
ting- With ritil obligations under article
-33 anacIe3'W
We:4*W: Karo. Stevenson has
-been helird-Tri-sa 'riVer--- the years, in
4-7iritifienCter-iii0Vhat -a-gfeatideal that
wriniCritit-Walk._Ont on practicing
even *ererinibassador. I would
OriiherimbaSsadorship first.
e -oinry4--...4,.,00'se.rottii Vietnam of
greSsiOn "SOUth Vietnam or -Laos
130* Obh_ge4 To ask the United
Xatione id 'deal wiTh It. T hate been
;Pleading for Many week a to 'put North
?Vietnam and Laos and Red China on
the spot by taking our probf to the
'United Nations.
?hafe been pleading- to ut Russia
-i-antl; Red China on the pot, toe; grid par-
ticularly
RUSSia, procedural' y, because
she her of the UnitedNations
ias' a r4mPin
eer Of the Security Council.
461: fio--litaink3PUt on the spot
) e-rfcri-Whether or nOt lie Wthild
odi request7._91- United Rations
t ant-1i Vietnam. a he did, it
;::Vaediild help- prove to the-Wbrld who it is
thaT-Is'Seeking:,13eacefuli procedures for
---seVt1Qnent_ Of the dispute, rather than
ing durSelVeS in the posture we are
.in worldwide tenight; in Which ram sure
uperi-nilltions of 'people in the
6rld care nrivitli _making war In
South 'tietnern And -we are Then if
Khuhchev1iad vetoed the procedure in
'the 'Security Council, the Policy of my
06yerilinent should have been to Call for
an extraordinary session of the 'United
General Asseiribly and lay the
of the mem-
' bers,thereOf._ -
X served as a-delegate-in the General
''..Asseribly. My service in the United
.EitionS: left me with a hiirning convic-
tion that the UnitedNatiOns can be
rrigxle .to work? But It Cannot be Made
to worl?; if gfeat ;Powers' Stich as the
United States_ COnstaiitififfilk out on
-their Ofillptions to the United Rations
ab oona their own grnlief0 Of influence
re inv9lved.
:.would not hesitate a moment,,
I.W4ijacl not be the slightest bit afraid, to
' -take any issue involving' the preservation
;Of the peace of the world by the use of
the., procedures rif thetrilifed-Nations to
genor_al, 'iiseinb-4r of the United
fOi-JtS-"deteriniriatirin- and re-
ponse. din Sitlifierthit the response
by an overwhelming majority
vote, sustain United Nations tnterveri-
, _ _ _ eleiateaf ter delegate 'froin'the-sinaIl
tationkbflheliVoilk inein4lifg the new
:411 -ri-f-Afrfea Whom .I
ent inarilliciirS'in-WWeeis of service
*if -VOW city as a:delegate th the
nited:Natibirks;,,,lold me over and over
._4,gain..-tbat 'the Uniteif Nations Offers
surViVal. They
? ? . W,Ofe7 tai104 about their --drilY-hope for
ryjv in 1666 644:aiii-o.:-pei -danger
0 Of
U?S10 roSehin ent
-heipl nations Of`016 world know
at their nope or :-Prriteeffen against
in'. does P9C-fat in the thilto
tato rt rests in die-trnitea Nations.
maggiga iipmas,613444 0200140017-5 11229
The United States has not the re-
sources or the manpower to begin to po-
lice the world, without becoming bank-
rupt and insolvent. This country can-
not be the policeman, the enforcement
officer, for the peace of the world. There
are many reasons why this country
should get out of South Vietnam, but
that is an important one.
It does not do us much good, so far
as our future stability is concerned, to
wave the American flag as Stevenson
waved it today in the Security Council;
to seem to beat our breast in some kind
of overdeveloped national ego; to give
the impression that we are going to pro-
tect freedom. Mr. Stevenson forgot to
tell the American people that there is no
freedom in South Vietnam. He forgot to
tell the American people that we are
dealing with a military tyranny. He for-
got to tell the American people that we
are dealing with an American puppet
government. He forgot to tell the Amer-
ican people that we have supported three
tyrannical puppet dictators; namely,
Diem, Minh, and now Khanh.
Freedom in South Vietnam'? Find it.
It is a police state.
I want South Vietnam to become free.
But the best hope for freedom in -South
Vietnam is the exercise of the United
Nations jurisdiction and not US. ju-
risdiction. U.S. jurisdiction would in-
volve the South Vietnamese people in war
for a long time to come, in slaughter and
bloodshed. What is needed is a peace-
keeping corps in South Vietnam by the
United Nations. The language of the
'nited Nations Charter provides for It.
? But there was not one word from ev-
enson today in his speech before the
? Security Council of the United Nations
about the application of the principle of
the United Nations for keeping the peace
that we are supporting in the Congo, that
we are supporting in the Middle 'Fist,
that we are supporting in Cyprus, and
that we ought to extend to South Viet-
nam.
If it is our wish to produce freedom
for the South Vietnamese people, --Ike
ought to be supporting United Natibrii
? jurisdiction that would lead to the estab-
lishment for the next few years-10, 15,
or 20-of a U.S. trusteeship in South
Vietnam, that would develop freedom
for the South Vietnamese people lust as
rapidly as they are trained 4.0 essurne the
responsibilities of freedom.
The sad thing about the colonial policy
of France-and it was true of the co-
lonial Policy of the Belgian GOvernment
in the Congo-is that the colonists were
not trained for self-government.
That is why in all the briefings We
get-and lean say this withonf-Violating
security-from the Secretark- Of State
and others, one of our problemsin South
Vietnam is to develop political know-
how on the part of the South Vietnamese
_ to operate the Government. They do
not have the political know-how -"he-
cause the French did not train them to
,develop political and administrative
know-how.
? I had not intended to speak as long
as I have, but the enOtOf from Inn-
ttleky has raised some points-that must
be answered in detail. I am led to say,
for the benefit of the Senator from Ken-
tucky, that the State Department does
not like to have anyone mention the
phrase "civil war." The officials in the
Department like us to sweep that one
under the rug. They like to give the im-
-pression that this is a war between South
Vietnam and North Vietnam. As the
RECORD will show, the Senator from Ken-
tucky made some mention about the
North Vietnamese who came down into
South Vietnam. They certainly did.
But the impression is left that they came
down to fight.
? The fact is that when the Geneva ac-
cords divided Indochina up into its four
compartments-Cambodia, North Viet-
nam, Laos, and South Vietnam. The
richest part of what would be Vietnam
if North and South Vietnam were one
country, the most fertile part, the most
productive part, was South Vietnam.
Large numbers of farmers and peasants
left North Vietnam and came down to
South Vietnam to the rice paddies, to
scratch out a living in the rich delta
area.
That is why I say we need to analyze
the semantics used by our State Depart-
ment briefers. The overwhelming ma-
jority of North Vietnamese who came
down did not come down to make war.
They came down to make a living. So
the apologists for the U.S. cross action
create the impression in the public mind
that North Vietnam sent down thousands
upon thousands of cadres, as they are
called.
- The fact is that no evidence has been
-submitted yet that very many military
North Vietnamese came down. Yet, if
we read the Stevenson speech today, it is
-very cleverly worded in its semantics to
give the impression that there is a terrific
invasion of South Vietnam. He does not
- say, "military invasion," but he is a
master in the use of words. And that
-is the impression that one gets.
I have cross examined witnesses for
--some time on South Vietnam from the
-Pentagon Building and from the State
Department. When I put the question
to them: "What military personnel have
you found in South Vietnam from North
Vietnam, Red China, Cambodia, or else-
where?" the answer always is, "Prac-
tically none." Yet, the State Depart-
ment does not like to hear me say that
it is a civil war.
So when I press the witnesses further
with the question, "Am I to understand
that the Vietcong are South Vietnamese
slmost entirely" the answer is "Yes."
Let us put this representation to rest
once and for all. We do not help the
American case unless we talk in terms of
facts. And the fact is that so far as the
Vietcong are concerned, the testimony
to date has been that it is almost en-
tirely South Vietnamese. There is some
testimony that a few soldiers from
Worth Vietnam have been found, and
possibly a few from Laos. But there
" have not been found in South Vietnam
any substantial contingent of foreign
soldiers.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200140017-5
odik,
11230 Approved Fd5ftlittrsigiN5A92iik9lty_D_PAERRO493R000200140017.15
itMy 21
The same is true of their weapons.
The Vietcong have long armed them-
selves from captured government stocks,
not by foreign imports from Communist
countries. The so-called supply lines
that so many politicians want to bomb
are little more than a myth. Leadership
for the rebels undoubtedly comes from
North Vietnam; but most of their weap-
ons come from the United States.
The foreign soldiers in South Vietnam
are U.S. soldiers, not North Vietnamese
or Laotian soldiers. What a spot to be
in. What a paradox. The United States
Is talking about invasions from North
Vietnam and Laos, and yet, when we
put our Government witness under ex-
amination, they have to admit that they
have not been able to discover very many
of them. Yet, the Communists charge
us with violating the Geneva accords by
having 16,000 foreign soldiers in South
Vietnam.
Mr. President, it is true?and I would
write it for all I was worth if I were rep-
resenting my government in a case be-
- fore the United Nations?that the Gov-
ernment of North Vietnam has engaged
In a military training program for South
Vietnamese. In my judgment, we can-
not reconcile that with the Geneva ac-
cords. And I would prove it. The wit-
nesses before the Foreign Relations
Committee have proved it to my com-
plete satisfaction.
But, that does not justify our send-
ing more American soldiers over there.
It only makes its more compelling that
we prove our case in keeping with our
obligations under the United Nations
Charter. There again, it is a case of
the kettle calling the pot black. For
we are training the South Vietnamese,
too. The Government witnesses Say.
"Well, we have found some Russian
weapons; we have found some Red Chin-
ese weapons; we have found some North
Vietnamese weapons; and we have found
some Laotian weapons. That shows who
Is behind this movement today." I
think it does, too. But it only calls
upon us to prove it. And we can prove
It before the United Nations. But there
again, we are confronted with another
kettle and pot argument, for we are sup-
plying the South ,Vietnamese with all
their weapons. And again, in my judg-
ment, as the neutral council found in
1957, we have thereby for some years
violated the Geneva accords.
Why not reverse the field? Are we not
big enough to admit a mistake in policy?
Must the great United States of Amer-
ica continue to misrepresent our position
as, in my judgment, is the case in the
speech made today before the Security
Council. There are many misrepresen-
tations to be found. There are many
misrepresentations of the U.S. position
in South Vietnam to be found.
No, Mr. President; peace is more lin-
portant than U.S. face. Peace is more
important than a temporary loss of U.S.
prestige, if we lose any prestige by seek-
ing to right a mistaken course of action.
I believe the opposite would be true.
However, the State Department, and ap-
parently McNamara, in conducting Mc-
Namara's war in South Vietnam, place
great emphasis on the matter of face.
I place none on it. I always thought
that face-saving was an Oriential cus-
tom, not an Anglo-Saxon custom, or an
American custom.
These last comments lead me to point
out, even though the State Department
rankles when we say it, that we are in-
volving ourselves in a civil war. "Oh."
they say, "this is no civil war. We are
protecting the South Vietnamese from
aggression from the north."
The situation in Vietnam is that in
family after family?and families are
very important to the Orientals?there
Is a father on one side and some of his
sons on the other side; a brother on one
side and brothers on the other side; an
uncle on one side, and nephews on the
other. It is a pretty sad internal state
of affairs, which, according to my defi-
nition of words, spells civil war.
Let no one think that he has an "out"
by saying that because it is a civil war,
we have no obligation to take it to the
United Nations. I will cover that point
momentarily. At this moment in my
speech I wish to say again," irrespective
of denials from the State Department,
according to the evidence the State De-
partment has offered itself, and accord-
ing to the testimony of witnesses before
the Foreign Relations Committee of
which I have the honor to be a member,
that it spells out a civil war.
In South Vietnam there is a contest
between one side, which we characterize
as Communist and which I believe are
Communists, although we make the mis-
take of thinking that Communists have
only one set of political philosophical
beliefs and the other side. We know
In the United States that when we speak
of a political partisanship ideology,
there are degrees of philosophies within
a party. We do not have one Democra-
tic Party; we have several Democratic
Parties under the Democratic labeL We
do not have one Republican Party; we
have several Republican Parties under
the Republican label. Sometimes they
are personified by being spoken of as
the Goldwater Republican Party or the
Rockefeller Republican Party or the
Lodge Republican Party. Likewise, in
the Democratic Party. We can refer
to the leaders of our party and divide
up the party in the same way.
The point I am making is that I be-
lieve the Vietcongs are Communists,
totalitarians. I believe that the Viet-
conga are under the ideological domina-
tion of Red China, To some extent they
are also under the ideological domina-
tion of Red Russia, but they lean heavily
toward Red China. I abhor it. How-
ever, we shall not beat communism with
military might. To the contrary, mili-
tary might will only end mankind.
The other side of the civil war is not
composed of a group of democrats. For
the most part, they do not understand
the differences of political ideology, and
could not care less. There is a situation
which involves an internal strife in a
country which we, more than any other
force, have brought into being, and which
we, more than any other power, have
maintained since it was created as our
puppet. It all spells out to me, so far
as the conflict is concerned, a civil war.
Mr. President, does that justify our
intervening without going first to the
Unted Nations? It does not. We can-
not come to the defense of South Viet-
nam without also bringing the issue to
the United Nations so far as our obliga-
tions under the charter are concerned.
Article 51 of the United Nations
Charter reads as follows:
Nothing In the present charter shall im-
pair the Inherent right of individual or col-
lective self-defense if an armed attack oc-
curs against a member of the United Na-
tions, until the Security Council has taken
the measures necessary to maintain inter-
national peace and security. Measures taken
by members in the exercise of this right
of self-defense shall be Immediately reported
to the Security Council and shall not in any
way affect the authority and responsibility
of the Security Council under the present
charter to take at any time such action as
It deems necessary in order to maintain or
restore international peace and security.
I believe that is pretty clear. One of
the remarkable things about the Char-
ter of the United Nations is that in our
time a group of statesmen such as our
representatives at San Francisco, where
the United Nations was born, was able,
in an international convention, with all
the differences that exist in worldwide
views, as expressed in that San Francisco
conference, to write an organic act as
clear, as simple in its phraseology, and
as easy to understand and interpret, as
the United Nations Charter.
I hold to the point of view that, of
course, the greatest organic act of pro-
viding for self-government ever penned
by man was penned by our constitutional
fathers when they wrote the Constitu-
tion of the United States. However, it
Is remarkable that the United Nations
Charter should be written with language
of accept shoe to the delegates from so
many nations, as clear and simple in its
meaning as the charter.
Article 51 is no exception. Let me
read it again:
Nothing in the present charter shall Im-
pair the inherent right of individual or col-
lective self-defense if an armed attack occurs
against a member of the United Nations,
until the Security Council has taken the
measures necessary to maintain interna-
tional peace and security. Measures taken
by members in the exercise of this right of
self-defense shall be immediately reported
to the Security Council and shall not in any
way affect the authority and responsibility
of the Security Council under the present
charter to take at any time such action as
It deems necessary in order to maintain or
restore international peace and security.
That is very clear on the duties of the
members of the United Nations. But,
say some of the apologists for U.S. action
In South Vietnam, South Vietnam is not
a member of the United Nations. Those
apologists become ensnared by their own
rationalizing, for when they say that,
they do not take into account other parts
of the United Nations, to which I shall
refer momentarily.
First, let me say that I consider that
to be an argument that cannot be
squared with ethics, because the United
States is a member of the United Na-
tions. We cannot square with ethics an
attempted justification of unilateral
U.S. military action in South Vietnam
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66600403R000200140017-5
Approved For RtitismagMiCAIMS6B0ft3 200140017-5
11231
on the ground that South Vietnam is not the major party to the dispute on one
a Me-0114er of the United-Nathiria, even if side, and we ought to go to the United
there Wers_noC_Other,prOyiSionS in, the Nations and prove, by the evidence that
TJnited Natjen,s Marter that refer to we can submit, who the parties are on
"parties to a dispute" Whether they the other Side. SO I end that section of
?are theMbers? or not, leek we hear the my speech?and the other section will
argilitent made bir aliblera for America's be much briefer?by saying that Under
-military -iietiOn- through 1VicNamara's the United Nations Charter itself we are
war InOcinti-i?Vietnp,*;(1* aoiatti "Viet clearly_ indicted arid stand self-convicted
N - b
But e'en eh00-06--e_cra40101-14t United Nations Charter. But there was
article 5:1 does 44,4i4ly-beo6:itheThouth not one ward about that from Adlai Stev-
11232
ApprovedE8
FZeit*IaRIOR/03{Veift16-52N1311310e3 R000 2001 4001 775
mew 21
bassador to the United Nations is as full
of holes as a swiss cheese.
In his speech Ambassador Stevenson
also said:
The total number of military cadres sent
into South Vietnam via infiltration routes
runs into the thousands. Such infiltration
is well documented on the basis of numer-
ous defectors and prisoners taken by the
Armed Forces of South Vietnam.
We ought to have the evidence of that.
But that evidence has never been put be-
fore the Foreign Relations Committee.
So the State Department and the Penta-
gon should get together with Ambassador
Stevenson and should tell the same story
In all places.
When the record is examined, I think
it will be found that possibly the cadres
Stevenson was talking about were South
Vietnamese who had been trained in
North Vietnam?a point I have already
covered. Of course, I suppose it could
be said that when we train military per-
sonnel, we are sending cadres some-
where, too.
All I wish to say is I shall be interested
to see whether the State Department will
now back up that broad generalization
by Ambassador Stevenson. If they have
found such facts, then I wish to say they
have been derelict in not making those
facts available to the Foreign Relations
Committee; and they have been doubly
derelict, Mr. President, because the rec-
ord will show that when I have pressed
them for information as to the number
of foreign cadres in South Vietnam, I
have always received the answer that
they are minimal, and that the Vietcong
consists, for the most part, of South Viet-
namese.
In his speech, Ambassador Stevenson
also said:
And if anyone has the illusion that my
Government will abandon the people of Viet-
nam--or that we shall weary of the burden
of support that we are rendering these peo-
ple?it can only be due to ignorance of the
strength and the conviction of the American
people.
Mr. President, Mr. Stevenson had bet-
ter get out in the country and talk to the
American people. They do not want to
abandon the people of South Vietnam;
neither do I want to abandon the people
of South Vietnam. I want to help the
people of South Vietnam; and I am
willing to have our country pour great
amounts of support into South Vietnam,
to help that country over the years de-
velop the seedbeds of economic freedom
out .of which can grow the plants of
political freedom.
But if Mr. Stevenson is laboring under
the illusion that the American people
stand ready and willing to sacrifice the
lives of thousands of American boys in a
bogged-down war in South Vietnam, he
could not be more mistaken. As he and
the rest of this administration will dis-
cover, the reaction of the American peo-
ple in due course of time will be the
same as the reaction of tail e French peo-
ple after they had lost 240,000 of the
flower of their manhood in the Indo-
china war. Then the French people said
to their government, "We have had
enough"; and they turned out their gov-
ernment.
Mr. President, I want to help the peo-
ple of South Vietnam. But again I sub-
mit that it is not necessary to slaughter
American boys, in order to do so.
What we need to do is use the great
world influence of our Government in a
peaceful pursuit of peace in South Viet-
nam, through application and imple-
mentation and effectuation of the pro-
cedures of international law encom-
passed within the charter powers of
the United Nations.
That should be our course of action.
Mr. Stevenson was on rather thin ice
when he said:
The United States has never been against
political solutions. Indeed, we have faith-
fully supported the political solutions that
were agreed upon at Geneva In 1954 and
again in 1962. The threat to peace in the
area stems from the fact that others have
not done likewise.
Ambassador Stevenson would have
been a little more accurate, even in that
sentence, If instead of saying "we have
faithfully supported the political solu-
tions that were agreed upon at Geneva
in 1954." he had acknowledged that we
have violated them rather freely in our
unilateral effort to enforce them.'
Mr. Stevenson went on:
The Geneva &words of 1954 and 1962 were,
quite precisely, political agreements to stop
the fighting, to restore the peace, to secure
the independence of Vietnam and Laos and
Cambodia, to guarantee the integrity of their
frontiers, and to permit these much abused
peoples to go about their own business, in
their own ways. The United States, though
not a signatory to the 1954 accords, has
sought to honor these agreements in the
hope that they would permit these people to
live in peace and independence from outside
interference from any quarter and for all
time.
That is not true. We violated the
agreements when we proceed to take
our unilateral military action in South
Vietnam?a course of conduct that the
accords were designed to seek to avoid,
It is at' that point that I respectfully
suggest again that we should have taken
the issue to the United Nations.
On page 8 of the copy of the speech
that I have Ambassador Stevenson talks
about our desire to have all foreign
troops withdrawn from Laos. I agree.
He said:
Let, ail states in that area make and abide
by the simple decision to leave their neigh-
bors alone. Stop the secret subversion of
other people's independence. Stop the
clandestine and Illegal transit of national
frontiers. Stop the export of revolution and
the doctrine of violence. Stop the violations
of the political agreements reached at
Geneva for the future of southeast Asia.
The sad part about that kind of argu-
ment is that the other side of the coin
conatitutes similar charges against the
United States as to what we ought to
stop doing by way of a course of conduct
that really has escalated the strife in
South Vietnam.
Mr. President, we would not be in that
position if we were presenting the case
to the United Nations and asking for
United Nations jurisdiction to be taken.
I should like to see all those proposals
that the Ambassador made in Laos car-
ried out. Does he think that, by way of
U.S. unilateral military action, we will get
them carried out? Does he think the day
will ever come when foreign troops from
America will drive other foreign troops
from Laos and Vietnam and keep them
out?
Anything but. What an irony that this
same Ambassador so eloquently defended
a U.N. action in the Congo on the ground
that once one great power moved into
the Congo, other great powers would
move in, too:
Toward the end of the speech, Mr. Ste-
venson made what I believe is the major
"blooper" of the speech, although it is
hard to evaluate the chain of mistakes
made throughout the speech.
I do not understand how an American
Ambassador to the United Nations could
In all seriousness take the position that
he has taken on the most recent French
proposal, for France, as an extension of
its proposal weeks ago to reach some ac-
cord for the neutralization of southeast
Asia, has now come forward with a pro-
posal for reconvening a Geneva confer-
ence. We rejected it today in the United
Nations Security Council. The language
I am about to read I believe will show the
correct interpretation. I thought that
we were always willing to confer. I al-
ways though that we recognized that by
conferring and conferring, by negotiat-
ing, by resorting to diplomatic discus-
sions, by seeking to hammer out differ-
ences of opinion on an anvil of conscion-
able compromise, we could best promote
Peace. I do not know all the details of
what De Gaulle has in mind. As Sena-
tors know, I have been highly critical of
some of De Gaulle's proposals, but I have
never taken the position that they should
not be considered.
We are living in such a critical era of
history that we never can justify reject-
ing the conference table. That is an-
other reason why I am so disappointed in
Ambassador Stevenson's speech today.
He said?
Now it is suggested that the way to restore
security in the Cambodian-Vietnamese bor-
der is to reconvene the Geneva Conference
which 10 years ago reached the solemn agree-
ment which I just read to you.
My understanding of the proposal is
that it is not limited to the Cambodia-
Vietnamese border. It is limited to the
whole area of Indochina?Laos, North
Vietnam, South Vietnam, and Cambodia.
That is my understanding of what De
Gaulle is proposing. I think we ought to
embrace it and not repulse it. But our
Ambassador continued?
Mr. President, we can surely do better than
that. There is no need for another such
conference.
What does he mean by the statement
that there is no need for another such
conference? The issue is crying out for
the conference table. The situation in
Asia demands, in my judgment, that we
go to the conference table, and the
sooner the better.
But returning to the Ambassador's
speech?
A Geneva conference on Cambodia could
not be expected to produce an agreement
more effective than the agreements we al-
ready have.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66600403R000200140017-5
Approved For Rif Wee .2005/0211Q ;_CIA-kbP66B0046R)N4200140017-5
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
11233
How d6 tii toi= pre- exactly the a-dversarf is in what many already Lary cadres does come from the north, as
.' ',11.idt/n0.riferli?w eii ffle that call the "Second Indochina War." Some see well as some fully constituted regular units
64,he- inake- the National Liberation Front of South Viet- composed of southern Vietnamese and moun-
t/it? knowi- unilt - nam (NLF) as a genuinely local insurrection tairt tribal soldiers. The presence in the
try? AI r Skiiiiii lhat W'e try created out of despair in the face of the late south of the 120th, 126th, and 803d Viet-
' t s "
Ile
? Diern regime's absurd policies. Others (and cong regiments has been well known Fr,,. the
said: this is the official ,view) consider the NLF past 2 years and, Ewcording to the New York
Thit Counis seized with a. Specific issue, solely an extension, or use in Soutli Viet- Times of April 13, 1964, the 105th Regiment
The OarnhOcharis bits' broilere a specific cord- nam, of the North Vietnamese regime or even had recently been identified in central Viet-
Plaint afii-thiS' table. tet us deal with it. - of Peiping. Each side adduces its own evi- nam. If that is true, then the Vietcong has
Therele'neneed_tOlook ejeewhere, dance to prove its case: on one hand it is reconstituted in central Vietnam all the reg-
: ' Contended that even the NLF regulars are ular regiments which I knew there during
:An1130,P.54aQr. St--PY_P-01:1_14, :09 409d -a indeed 8outherners (which is true) and on the French-Indochinese war. The 803d and
lawyer to Make that gat-eine/1C lie the other one points to the captured Com- the 108th were particularly dreaded for their
- knows that the;-:eivoi.04i, :charge of mullist bloc weapons to substantiate out- junglegoing capability; in June 1954, they
? South Vietnam and "Milted States ag- side Communist support (also true). Ob- mercilessly destroyed a French regimental
gression against its border is but one ' viously, the actual facts lie somewhere in combat team equipped with tanks and artil-
part of a complex in a crisis that is between. lery whose core units had successfully
In my view, and on the basis of my own fought the Chinese and North Koreans while
threatening the peace of 'Asia, and -en- experience in underground warfare in Nazi- with the U.N. forces in Korea. Those regi-
dangering the peace of th?kL occupied France and later in Indochina, it ments left South Vietnam in 1954 for the
-
.,'I continue to r--,'S i IDe,ech,.
is possible to lead an insurrection politically north. Their presence now inside South
Let Me say, Mr; 'resi'dent, that my 'Gov- and militarily even under guerrilla condi- Vietnam certainly constitutes what the In-
eivliffierit endorses the statement Made by the tions. That such a fairly centralized direc- ternational Control Commission for the
distinguished representative of Cambodia to thin exists in the South, and has existed at maintenance of the 1954 cease-fire provi-
the Council on Tuesday when he pointed out least since 1957 if not earlier, can be fully sions has called (with the vote of its Indian
that states which are not members of the substantiated. When the killing of village and Canadian members overruling the ob-
'United, liat!_ona p,ye not thereby relieved of officials began on a large scale in 1957 (an jections of its Polish member) "evidence
responsibility for conduSting-thelr affairs In officially admitted total of 472 were killed * * * that armed and unarmed personnel,
line with the principles of the Charter of that year), significant clusterings of the kill- arms, munitions and other supplies have
this organization.: We could not agree more ings occurred in three Vietnamese provinces been sent from the zone in the north to the
fully.south of the Mekong River. That oh- zone in the south with the object of sup-
X want to ask my Ambassador: "Why
. ,
--' -? viously did not happen simply because the porting, organizing, and carrying out hostile , village officials were more oppressive there activities. * * *"
Why h we not
not act accordingly? have _ than anywhere else, but simply because the NO LEGAL REDRESS
lIcted accordingly in connection with the guerrilla command had decided to clear those
whole conflict from the beginning, 'by areas for the purpose of making them the
, .
It is true, as my compatriot Philippe De-
bringing it before the ?" permanent resistance bases they have since villers said in his article written in 1961
It 41W:dyes nations Odell ?are_ IP-embers of become. And the deliberate shift last year (i.e., long before the NLF developed to its
the united )Nations and notions whidi of Vietcong operations from the Vietnamese present importance), that many simple f arm-
era and even urban politicians and intellectu-
' axe not but it involves a totality of na,-
, highlands to the Mekong Delta was another
. - magnificently executed military tactic, with
. als chose to fight with the Vietcong rather
ions whose course or conduct 1$
is regular units slipping through the network
threatening the peace of Asia, and Jo of United States advised South Vietnamese
tentially the peace of;the:,,Weorld`; and._ units with almost impunity.
their conduct falls witnin tne jurisdic- Unbelievably, that deliberate Vietcong
tion ot the charter. move the Mekong Delta was officially
I wish my Arnbassador "had' talked ek part
about
away by the United States as t
about tb,,a,t, of "our strategy * * * to sweep them stead-
No, M. resident; the rejection by ny southward and finally corner them"; i.e.,
sweep the Vietcong out of n area
w here re-
Afalai _Stevenson today in behalf of the cruits and food were hard to get and into an
United $tate?5_ 0 ,
:
go back to the con- area where food and recruits are plentiful
Terence table _constitutes-a,grossf
` and un_ and where all Vietnam's most sen itiY
fortunate mistake onr the ,part of
of my targets lay, including Saigon, with its inedusf
Governnient. .
" tries airports and government installations it free.
'
T close now by asking unanimoug con- True, there has been a great deal of exag- This history does not mean, however, that
sent that an axticje _appearing in the Mayg erated propaganda"ch in Washington and
Communist-con-
elsewhere about the Viet Minh was eresatt-icon-
is$ue, ot Wfkr-Pektze` Report, by Mr. 'Thi-
nard F,11, setting forth some of. South Vietnam of some Soviet- to the insurgents in tth-eoprrecshence in zone
ellyf Communist-dominated state innrhes
"Chinese and Russian" help trolled nor that it did not end by
major policy Problema that confront the apons and automaticirniefisees- error? fear, is being made in evaluating
IVfieetnam under its control. The same
United States in Senth_ VietnaM, be As Arthuralltitallic W9
Arthur Domrnen correctly assumes, the the NLF. The fact that its program does
printed at this point in the REcORD. bulk of this ordance conies from Loas.s, And not at present contain Communist objectives
I think It partioUlarly apPropriate that the fact, for example, that some excellent offers little guarantee as to it future inten-
Madsden. submachineguns?produced in tions. I defy anyone to find a single Com-
this article should appear in the CON-
EREssfoNAL RROR-ii," along-With SteVen- Denmark, a Vietcong
does
not
esebfeen found hiunhist inflection in Ho Chi Minh's 1946 Viet
among the Vi constitution. It was a document de-
On's uniertunate and unsound -speech that Denmark backs the Communistsacto trove
signed maximum support among the
before the Security Council today. Vietnam; it simply means that arms in broad population, and it did that most ef-
ere, being no objection, the article chants have no national loyalties Soviet- - fectiv ely. And the reason offered quite
was orde?red to be,printecl in the -RECORD, made guns (captured by the Israelis. in Egypt openlyby North Vietnam in 1960 for the
as follows: , and resold by them on the world's arms mar- abrogation of the 1946 document and its re-
n a mile of the placement by a tough Communist-line con-
THE ADVERSARY- IN VIETNARI,7,--SIGNS 07 A stitution was that the old constitution "no
ket) can be bought within '
Ni, Pentagon on the Alexandria, Va., docks
MILITARY STALEMATE ARE ArasApi AP longer was in accordance with Socialist real-
rig Vicrismivr, Tins EXPERT Au Es, - and quite legally, too. The unfortunate fact
GuEs, ANY THE ities." That is in all likelihood what would
ONLY WAY OUT ISA CONP TION
RONTA , AT T.--?.., is that nine-tenths -
e tenths of all modern weapons
Com-Espies TADL
, , , , x , in Vietcong hands are standard American
weapons captured from the South Viet- happen to the present NLF program the da
that front comes to power in Saigon. y
: (ty t ernar a b. tat) : ' - ' namese military and paramilitary forces.
(I)Tork.--LEernardPall, a 'F're'nchman, is Officially, the loss of over 12,000 such weap-
the author of six:- books An English and ons in 1963 is acknowledged. What the
French, Including "street-without Joy: In- South Vietnamese may have lost but not re-
surgency in Indochina," and the recently _ported to their own higher commanders or
dTh
publishe"e Two Vitnam' s " 1:1e is pro-
'
? the U.S, military advisory command may
fessor Of international relationi.a,t,Tioward run much higher. It is obviously f,,,.r bet-
than face the certitude of an indefinite stay
in one of Diem's infamous concentration
camps. That will always be the case when
men with real grievances are put into a posi-
tion where no legal redress is offered them.
The same situation occurred in 1946 when
the French, still hellbent upon rebuilding
their colonial empire, offered no honorable
oppositionway out to the nationalist Vietnamese oppo-
sition. The most active opposition members
joined the Viet Minh in its armed struggle
against the French?not for the purpose of
making Vietnam Communists, but to make
This does not mean, however, that I agree
with those who believe that the only way
out of the present Vietnamese dilemma is
a 20-year counterguerrilla operation. Here
again, the historical precedents show various
possibilities:
1. Communist guerrillas do not always
University, Washington, b.C., has studied ter and easier for the Vietcong to capture win and the Soviet bloc does not always sup
-
Vietnamese affairejor_the pait 1T_Yeara.) matching ammunition for their American port them to the bitter end. The Commu-
As the analysis published in the April weapons from "our" Vietnamese than to get nista abandoned their guerrillas in Greece,
LSelle of War-Peace Report clearly showed, Soviet or Chinese ammunition from Hanoi. Azerbaijan, Malaya, and the Philippines?
there is ,some room for -cl$bate as to who But aid in the form of political and ml- and in South Korea, where there was for a
:rOved'For Releape 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66130040R0002091400174
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66401103R000200140017-5
11234 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE May 21
long time a serious guerrilla problem. Mil-
oven. Dines' conversations with Stalin has
a rnagniflcient passage on Stalin's cold-
blooded decision to let the Greek Communist
ELAS partisans die for nothing becouse he
did not want to get war-exhausted Russia
entangled in a conflict with the United
States.
2. On the other hand, to negotiate with
a Communist opponent when one's original
war aims are no longer attainable does not
automatically mean that one has to lose his
shirt; or that native forces being supported
will therefore be totally demoralized. In
Korea some of the toughest fighting went on
while American and Communist negotiators
sat at Pan Mun Jom for 2 years. The ROK
forces were not demoralized by the negotia-
tions. My own experience has been that one
fights harder if a reasonable end is in sight
and one knows his side needs a victory to
strengthen its negotiating position.
To be sure, the Laotian "sellout" of 1982
is usually dragged in at this point of the ar-
gument to prove how badly the West usually
fares in such a situation. It was the late
Gen. Walter Bedell Smith, a soldier-diplomat
of the first rank, who said during the 1954
Geneva conference that it was "difficult to
regain at the conference table what has al-
ready been lost on the battlefield." In Laos,
thanks to a set of incredible illusions (now
amply matched in Vietnam), it was believed
that the Laotian rightwing forces could be
made to fight The hard fact is that had the
military war in Laos continued for 1 more
month, all of Laos would have been Commu-
nist. But as a result of the negotiations a
wobbly neutralist government has, for the
past 2 years, kept the Communist Pathet
Lao ashy from the sensitive Mekong Valley
which borders on Thailand. Considering the
panic that gripped Bangkok in 1962 when it
was erroneously announced that Communist
forces had broken through to the Mekong
near Ban Houei Sal, that surely is an achieve-
ment. A Communist advance there could
never have been halted without at least
very sizable American ground forces being
committed at fantastic cost.
3. The North Vietnamese stand to lose at
least as much (if not more) than the South
Vietnamese if the present second Indochina
war escalates. North Vietnam has not had
a shot fired at it in anger in 10 years. One
stands an awful lot of dictatorship (look at
Pranco's Spain) just for the sake of not be-
ing at war. A single American saturation
raid on North Vietnam may do away with
10 years of back-breaking "Socialist construc-
tion" as well as with that feeling of peace..
It would not (contrary to what some grea(oversimpliflers believe) bring an end to the
insurgency in South Vietnam; on the con-
trary, with the gloves being off, North Viet-
nam would then throw her fearsome (and
now unemployed) regular divisions into the
fight--and who can say what Red China
might throw in. That would "Koreanize"?
or shall we say: "IfacArthurize"??the South
Vietnamese conflict with all the unforesee-
able international consequences (in 1950, the
nuclear age was in its infancy and the UN.
still white-dominated) that might follow.
SOLE Loorcar. inar
It is my feeling that some sort of a mutual-
ly acceptable accommodation will eventually
ensue from a more realistic appreciation
of what the three above-cited factors really
mean. It is understandable that Washing-
ton does not wish to negotiate with the
NIX or Hanoi (one might well wonder
whether this might not be more embarrass-
ing in a tete-a-tete than at a multipower
conference which is now being heatedly re-
jected) with as badly a deteriorated military
situation as exists now?and just before a
presidential election. And it is likewise ob-
vious that General Khanh's regime in Sai-
gon, whose rise to power was favored precisely
because he violently rejects any thought of
negotiation, would view such contacts as a
"sellout." There is, after all, in neighboring
Laos the example of the rightist General
Phoumi, who was first encouraged to over-
throw neutralist Prince Souvarma Phoumia,
only to be pressured 1 year later into accept-
ing (and, in fact, supporting) the same Sou-
venue Phouma as premier of a "troika"
regime. Khanh would understandably resent
being placed in the same kind of predica-
ment.
But signs of a military stalemate?harder
to perceive in Vietnam where there is no
battleline to draw on maps, as there was in
Korea?are nevertheless apparent. And the
sole logical exit from such a situation Is
sooner or later a confrontation at the con-
ference table.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, 1 next
ask unanimous consent to have printed
at this point in the RECORD as a part of
my speech on the Vietnam issue an arti-
cle entitled "Vietnam: Alternative to
Disaster." written by Donald Grant and
Published in the May 25, 1964, issue of
the Nation. Mr. Grant is U.N. corre-
spondent for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
VIETNAM: ALTERNATIVE TO DISASTER
(By Donald Grant)
(Nor,?Donald Grant is U.N. correspondent
and foreign news analyst for the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch.)
It is not really very difficult to demon-
strate that the U.S. Involvement in the civil
war in South Vietnam is a wasteful and
futile exercise. Two correspondents in &i-
gun have just received a Pulitzer Prize for
overcoming that difficulty: the story of ever-
mounting casualties and expenditures and of
diminishing returns for American policy ob-
jectives is on public record. Senator WAYNE
Mori= of Oregon, has assembled the facts
and the evidence in a notable speech to his
colleagues that is recommended reading.
Senator Moan concluded that the mess in
South Vietnam should be turned over to the
United Nations, at the same time acknowl-
edging, In part, the difficulties involved.
The United Nations Is not a world govern-
ment; it lacks both the power and the poll-1-
cal mechanism to force a peaceful solution
to a direct confrontation between major
powers. In the case of South Vietnam, how-
ever, the United Nations has real possibilities
for usefulness that have not been explored.
It is a pity that this unthinkable thought has
never been pursued seriously in the State
Department since the United States plunged
recklessly into Vietnam in 1956.
There are a number of possible explana-
tions for this paralysis of imagination in
Washington. How can the United Nations
act effectively in a situation that involves,
among other nations, the People's Republic
of China, North Vietnam and South Vietnam,
none of which Is a member of the United
Nations? Moreover, as Senator Moir= so
ably demonstrated, the American position in
South Vietnam is legally and morally com-
promised. Would not exposure of this
abominable reality before our enemies and
quasi-friends In the U.N. further damsge
American prestige?
So we go on, spending $1.5 million a day,
sending in upward of 15,000 American troops.
some of whom return with full honor!' but
quite dead. Prom time to time, figures are
published to show that members of the
Communist Vietcong have been killed or
captured by the hundreds. And other figures
show that the theoretical strength of the
Vietcong Is just about what it has been right
along.
Periodically, we take a nervous glance at
the areas surrounding Vietnam. There was
an American project a while back to upset
the neutrality in Laos, in favor of the right
wing; by now we would settle for neutrality
In the Souvanna Phouma center, but find it
not easy to restore broken eggs to their
shells. Cambodia's Prince Norodom
Sihanouk seems much too happy when visit-
ing Peiping. The State Department people
comfort one another by saying the Cam-
bodian Premier is something of a playboy
and does not really mean it. Even Thai-
land?the headquarters for John Poster
Dulles' SEATO was established in Bangkok?
is taking a second look at its all-out com-
mitment to the United States. Historically.
the Thai have been good judges of political
reality; they maintained their independence
through the era of colonialism by playing
off the greater powers one against the other.
Instead of these rapid and anxious glances,
the time has come for Americans to take a
long and resolute look at their position in
the whole of southeast Asia. Using a mini-
mum of commonsense we could, I think,
learn a good deal. Par example:
The most useful area to deal with is not
a swampy piece of real estate called the
Mekong Delta, but the entire area covered
by the successor states to the old French
Indo-China?Cambodia, Laos, North Viet-
nam, and South Vietnam.
The problem is not chiefly military, but
As such, it involves a number of nations,
large and small?but no viable solution can
be reached without consulting the People's
Republic of China. _
For reasons exhaustively detailed by Sen-
ator MORS?reasons legal, moral, political,
and practical?it is highly desirable to
achieve a solution through the United Na-
tions.
It is not very helpful to try to "interna-
tionalize the problem of Vietnam" through
SZATO, by inducing a few troops from the
Philippines to join the battle. NATO could
not solve the Cyprus problem, and SEATO
is a midget compared to NATO, the wounded
giant.
What is required is peace, and the isola-
tion of southeast Asia from the struggles be-
tween the great powers. That will not solve
all the problems in the area: new nations
everywhere are going for some time to have
what U.N. Secretary General U Thant has
called "teething troubles." But with some
foresight these troubles can be prevented
from escalating into dangerous confronta-
tion between the large nations. That is
what President Charles de Gaulle of Prance
meant when he spoke of neutralising south-
east Asia. It is what Senator MORSE had
in mind when he urged that the problem of
South Vietnam be turned over to the United
Nations.
Time is scarce. As Senator MORSE noted,
even now there Is talk of U.S.-led attacks on
North Vietnam. He also suggested that Peip-
ing could not be counted on to accept this
offensive passively.
"This escalation on both sides," he told
the Senate, "can only lead to a disaster for
the United States. It can only lead from
being bogged down in South Vietnam to be-
ing bogged down in North Vietnam and then
to being bogged down in China. ? * ? All
the briefings on that subject matter that I
have received thus far En my many years in
the Senate show that is not the place to pick
as a battleground with communism,"
If that is where the present course is lead-
ing, it may not be so unthinkable, after all,
to consider the obvious alternative to dis-
aster. The U.N. must play a role in that
alternative, but not an initiating role. The
first step?and as soon as possible?is to
convene another meeting of the nations in-
volved in the South Vietnam affair, a meet-
ing similar to the one in Geneva in 1954,
which ended the Indo-Chinese war with
Prance. This time the purpose would be to
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66600403R000200140017-5
,
hammer out an acceptable plan for neu-
tralizing the entire area--Laos, Cambodia,
- Vial-fain. And
this time there alionidNe" riblidneignatorTea
to the aerderrient; aa- Were- the ---tillUd'BtateS
an.11:_ift eliobeni -goVerifinent in South Viet-
nam iii 1054
L'he Genev meeting Included dainhOdia;
Vfetriani - Vietnam, Leos,
ce the Soviet Union tritaln, the Peo-
-ple'd FtePilblfe- a China, and the Milted
-StateeZ:ri_00_,--ikridi-reabeir 'Why other inter-
riatinnsabOrfiW,n(he--_-inVited. The
Vietcong, which' app:eara operate with a
congiderahle degfee brailte-riolnY, probably
Should be represented.- -
Negotiations deafened- to neutralize the
suceessor: stnteSIn the oldPrelich Indo-
China should been Outside the 'United Na-
tions because key nations,- including
niUniti-tchina, are not members. But the
-project would not end at such a Meeting.
.4:: pie:1i; "On& ? aereed- Win:Id be pre-
Seated 'the Thiffed n-tiOne gee-nifty- Coun-
cil, and the Connell would be -aSked-. t6 set
Up a peacekeeping fordo to guaranteethat
itralization became and remained a fact.
94 -the -United gations forces en--
- tired $oit.:V1040411 United- States forces
iso be ?
Stationed in 'north .v164-iani,j4os
Cam-
bodia, As an 146-10.65V to peade', the
bor-
der dispute' betWeen Thailand and Cambodia
Weilid have to be settled. The -moat-
taak,hOwever, would be to achieve
an ..64ifito,ble 'ending to the Civil 'war in
'South Vietnni-n4T. , ? --
'-3 ',innging_iroyji_enee-Certiiiiiiiiinnt foreign
44--,the people' in 8-thaii-Vietriam. Vlore im-
p-Ortant; it la a Perfia-Pa harbfireality-Of World
reiatforis that the representatives of small
,nations or fractions of nationa In southeast
Asia, wonid find it extremely difficult to rejeet
tie concerted will of the UniteciStates,
t4111, Prance, the Soviet
Union ana the Peo-
ple'a itepublic of China,
ut what, by neutralization?
,State,.D.--epartiribrif official reed-fitly-told' Me
that any nentralization-Plan or southeast
ASia_w_aa unrealistic because "no Communist34aiio:h ever givesup eta-Mini-rain, arict-t-Orth'
Vietnam Wouid.- riot." The Issue, however,
- is not whether the bus lines in Ifaii-Of are
- state wiled ,cr the property o free, pri-
? vate enterprise: 'V'Uscilfairla is Corninu-
a---heutrXliat one, The 'es-
s0;cel dt ie-
-th.9,t_tlio state in ?question must hot be used
? ss isatvn by any Of the' grea,t powers.
Tie made find? ont; itTs ?
,possible to know, Whether--
adpt ?hentrallZation_plan. - Hitt '16---net -
? letaily_Unfeaionable to nieuine-that l(ao
-
,Vaa-,tung, re-Mai/al- of-
fordea rthe _ -Of -lila
?thern borclerj. li'dyniAta_ges for- the
Huited States are,obvic-4 , North 'Yiefriam.
would , less_ subject' 'CO -preisure :horn Pei-
ping: the' 'Artnerie thiperidittire of Men
and, money would cease, and the danger of
? Our ,ioyulvement_in_ra major conflict under
-the les-st,.is,yvrp_ie terms Would he avoided.
'?!*4-o-p:744741--.- :61.a6
-P-'4"-k-i;
_
fervently advocated by De. Gaulle, one can
401:nrie -rienCh cooperation. British s,P= -
eration Is almost as aiitqmatia:;_knbii4altion
al the old Indo-Chiu a area..wouliLeaee rep: ,
tions for- them iz Malaysia and Hong Kong.
Sevictirjegiler NikitaKhrushphey 4w:staked
his career. on,..peaceful coexistence arid the
siIPP-ort of' neutraliani., This aipiiapss. not ,
assure_ Soviet .Cooperation, , but Moscow now
rtIns'jhe danger of oxereitended commit-
/A-Oita-hi an area wbere_thepowey of decision
tends to rest with ?Peiping, This is not in
the Boyiet hiterest.P_PaPe ,ePtIls1 -hardly be
nnweinnine in loans_ ang, gairibedia; both
StriVe fol 99,1-4F4W9.99.W.s2i'tqh_ 9.9JY Partial
iniecens11 Eypiithing we know about ho Chi
Minh, the North_ Vietnaruese _leader, lends
dfaMIRAElligek813--TWA 200140017-5 11235
one to believe he Would be delighted to AWARD OF LEGION OF MERIT TO
escape from the role of the little fish ever _MAJ. GEN. WILLIAM W. LAPSLEY
about to be swallowed by the very large,
Chinese fish. - Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, on May
? This plan for peace and neutralism in-0 it was my _pleasure to participate in
Loas, Cambodia, North Vietnam and Smith , tile dedication of Cougar Dam at the site
Vietnam has been under Private dikusainii __of the dam on the South Fork McKenzie
within tile- 'United Nations. 'As UM dli-P146-
mats turn it over in -their minds some' hi- River' Oreg'
--
teresting facets appear. Loas and Cambodia In attendance at the dedication cere-
are already members Of the United Nations, monies were two outstanding officers of
It would be highly desirable, in connection the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, both
with the neutralization _plan, for North-Viet-- Of whom are to be commended for their
nem and-Smith Vietnam ale? to be a-dmitted. -fine work in connection with Cougar
They could come in as separate states, but Dam and other, river and harbor proj-
without prejudice to future integration, as ects in Oregon. I refer to Maj. Gen.
'provided in the Geneva agreement of 1654.
There are precedents for this in the merger William W. Lapsley, North Pacific divi-
of Bgypt and Syria, and their later real' in' p- mon engineer, and Col. Sterling K. Eisi-
tion of separate nationhood, and in the minger, district engineer, both of Port-
min-exit merger of Tanganyika and Zaniibar. land, Oreg.
UN membership rules and practices readily During my visit to Oregon to partici-
encompass such developments, pate in the dedication ceremonies, it was
Furthermore, the admission of North Viet- my pleasure to read an article that an-
- rutin and South Vietnam would itself be an peared in the May 7 issue of the Portland
Interesting precedent. How about North Oregonian, indicating that Maj. Gen.
Korea and South Korea? How about East
Germany and West Germany? How about? this
had been honored On May 6 of
for that matter?mainland China and Tai- ails year by the Legion Of Merit Award.
wan? This, to be sure, will also occur to the This news was most gratifying because,
astute gentlemen in Peiping, but as U Thant in my opinion, General Lapsley is a great
noted recently, a few unthinkable thoughts credit to our Armed Forces and a dedi-
may also be good for people other than cated public servant.
Americans?among them the Chinese. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
By participating in a conference of na-
tions directly interested in the southeast sent that the text of the May 6 an-
Asia problem, and by seeing the decisions nouncement of the Chief of Engineers
of that conference underwritten by the supplying the facts concerning the pre-
United Nations, Communist China would sentation of the award to General Laps-
have a chance to test the winds blowing ley, the text of the citation, and the
from the East River. The United States Oregonian news item, be set forth at this
and the Soviet Union bould test Chinese point in my remarks:
intentions at close quarters, and a step
would have been taken toward including There being no objection, the material
the dragon within the world system. was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
Policing neutralism in Laos, Cambodia, as follows:
North Vietnam, and South Vietnam would be Ms. GEN. WILLIAM W. LAPSLEY AWARDED
a tough assignment, and there is reason to LEGION OF MERIT
believe that U Thant would welcome it. Maj. Gen, William W. Lapsley, North Pa-
Peace is Thant's business. He also believes dile division engineer of the Army Copps of
the United Nations grows in strength by Engineers, today was awarded the Legion of
using its muscles. With advance agreement Merit,
among the great powers, he could anticipate The presentation was made at the Penta-
vigorous and unanimous action by the Secu- gon at a luncheon in connection with the
rity Council, which would help make his task annual spring Division Engineers Confer-
more feasible. ence of the Army Corps of Engineers, being
'There still remains, of course, the business held this week in Washington.
of the dominoes?the theory that unless the The award was presented by the Honorable
Vietcong is utterly effaced in South Vietnam, Stephen Ailes, Secretary of the Army, and
all of southeast Asia will fall to communism, Lt. Gen. W. K. Wilson, Jr., Chief of Engineers,
piece after piece. The domino metaphor was in the presence of other division engineers of
always dubious; It loses all relevance if neu- the Corps of Engineers and a number of civil-
tralism in Laos, Cambodia, North Vietnam ion and military Department of the Army
and South Vietnam is guaranteed by a leaders from the Pentagon. The latter in-
United Nations peace force on the spot. eluded: Harry C. McPherson, Jr., Deputy Un-
Southeast Asia is a complex of islands and der Secretary of the Army (IA); Gen. Hugh
peninsulas inhabited by a variety of human P. Harris, Acting Vice Chief of Staff; Lt. Gen.
-beings of several cultures, subcultures, re- James L. Richardson, Jr., Deputy Chief of
ligions and political and socioeconomic sys- Staff for Personnel; Lt. Gen. Ben Harrell, As-
terns. None is really suitable as a counter in sistant Chief of Staff for Force Development;
a parlor game, whether played in Moscow, Maj. Gen. Edgar C. Doleman, Assistant Chief
Peiping, or Washington. of Staff for Intelligence; and Maj. Gen. Law-
- - --- _ - -- ? - ----, . ---,---,=-- renbe J. Lincoln, Deputy Chief of Staff for
. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I close Logistics designate.
my speech by way of comment upon the The citation follows:
Stevenson speech before the United Na- "mai. Gen. William W. Lapsley distin-
tions today by saying I am sorry that it guished himself by exceptionally meritorious
service while serving in a position of respon-
sibility as division engineer, U.S. Army En-
gineer Division, North Pacific, Portland,
Oreg., from October 1962 to January 1964,
General Lapsley represented the United
States in a highly effective manner during the
negotiations of the United States-Canadian
Treaty relating to international cooperation
in water resource developments of the Co-
lumbia River Basin. Through his diplomacy,
professional knowledge, and skill in defining
and suggesting arrangements, he insured the
development of compatible terms. His pro-
feSsiOnaLcornpetence and devotion to duty,
,. _
was neeessaty to have, to make the
speech, but I could not let tins day go by
and permit anyone to think that any si-
lence on my part might mean agreement
with Stevenson's speech. The speech
was a great mistake: and I still pray that
our Government will reassess its South
Vietnam policy and return to keeping
its obligations under the United Nations,
instead of continuing to act outside the
framework of its United Nations obliga-
tions.
00164
11236Approveitakoftimitigmaibiw3ggsiaspo403R000200140017
7 mcw---- 21
combined with his harmonious working rela-
tionship with officials of both nations and
senior officers of the military service, con-
tributed to the consummation of the pro-
tocol which was signed by the Secretaries of
State in the presence of the President of the
United States and the Prime Minister of
Canada. General Lapsley's successful efforts
earned for him the high regard of all asso-
ciated with him and greatly enhanced the
prestige of the U.S. Army. His distinguishd
performance of duty throughout this period
represents outstanding achievement in the
most cherished traditions of the U.S. Army
and reflects the utmost credit upon himself
and the military service."
(From the Portland (Oreg.) Oregonian,
May 7, 19641
CORPS FETEE ARMY EXPERT
Maj. Gen. William W. Lapsley of Portland,
North Pacific division Army engineer. Wed-
nesday received the Legion of Merit at a
luncheon in the Pentagon, Washington, D.C..
for his successful efforts and leadership in
connection with the negotiations of the
United States-Canadian Treaty on water
resource development of the Columbia River
Basin.
The presentation was a feature of the
annual spring conference of division engi-
neers and was made by Stephen Alles, Sec-
retary of the Army, in the presence of Lt.
Gen. W. K. Wilson, Jr., Chief of Engineers.
Among the high-ranking officials present
were Harry C. McPherson, Jr., Deputy Sec-
retary of the Army; Gen. Hugh P. Harris, Act-
ing Vice Chief of Staff; Lt. Gen. James L.
Richardson, Jr., Deputy Chief of Staff for
Personnel; Lt. Gen. Ben Harrell, Assistant
Chief of Staff for Force Development; Maj.
Gen. Edgar C. Dolman, Assistant Chief of
Staff for Intelligence; and Maj. Gen. Law-
rence J. Lincoln, Deputy Chief of Staff for
Logistics, designate.
The citation said General Lapsley distin-
guished himself while serving as division en-
gineer at Portland from October 1962 to
January 1964, "when he represented the Uni-
ted States in a highly effective manner dur-
ing the negotiations of the United States-
Canadian Treaty relating to international
cooperation in water resources development
of the Columbia River Basin.
"Through his diplomacy, professional
knowledge and skill, and defining and sug-
gesting arrangements, be insured the de-
velopment of compatible terms." the citation
stated.
General Lapsley came to Portland in De-
cember 1961, from Korea where he was
commanding general of the 7th Logistical
Command.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, General
Lapsley's distinguished career consti-
tutes a fine background for the award
? of the Legion of Merit. He graduated
from the U.S. Military Academy in 1935
and was commissioned In the Corps of
Engineers. Prior to World War II, he
graduated from the Engineer School at
Fort Belvoir, Va., and the University of
California at Berkeley, where he received
a master's degree in civil engineering.
General Lapsley was appointed district
engineer at Norfolk, Va., in 1942, and in
1943 he served as the engineer supply
officer, Mediterranean Base Section,
Oran, North Africa. He commanded the
41st Engineer Regiment in its operations
In Corsica and in the invasion of south-
ern France.
After World War II, General Lapsley
was assigned to the European theater
I. & E. staff. He graduated from. the
Armed Forces Staff College in 1947. In
1956, he became commander of the En-
gineer Maintenance Center in Columbus,
Ohio, and was assigned as division engi-
neer, Ohio River Division. in 1958. In
1961, he assumed his duties as division
engineer in Portland.
Mr. President, I am sure that the peo-
ple of the State of Oregon are proud, as
I am, of the well-deserved award which
was conferred upon General Lapsley on
May 6.
ARTICLE BY ROBERT H. SNOW
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President. Dr. Rob-
ert H. Snow, who is program adminis-
trator of the Adult Education Division
of Syracuse University last October pub-
lished an article in volume 49, No. 3, of
Liberal Education magazine, in which he
straightforwardly challenged his col-
leagues to pay more attention to the
average undergraduate student.
I am particularly pleased to have had
the opportunity to review his article since
his comments echo my own teaching ex-
perience. The challenge of the C student
is one which should bring forth the best
of our teaching talent in higher educa-
tion since these are the young men and
women who make up the backbone of
our institutions of higher education while
they are in college and who comprise the
major leadership of our communities
when they enter business and profes-
sional worlds.
What Dr. Snow is saying will not be
popular with a good many educators, but
I think his salty comments will be cause
for self-searching on the part of con-
scientious and dedicated teachers.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the article to which I have al-
luded be printed at this point in my re-
marks.
These being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
THE UNWANTED MAJORITY
(By Robert H. Snow)
(NoTs.?The current demand for increased
attention to the superior student challenged
as an evasion of the academic obligation to
help every student gain access to intellectual
life on his own terms.)
During the 1960's we have been urged
to dedicate ourselves anew to the nurture of
the superior student and the cultivation of
intellect The bounds are baying in pur-
suit of excellence. Those splendid catch-
words: "advanced placement." "acceleration.'
"rigorous scholastic standards," "honors sec-
tion" and their numerous counterparts have
come bubbling forth in glorious profusion.
The litany is a familiar one. Having
opened the floodgates to an unbookish multi-
tude, we have admitted to our secondary
schools and our colleges a vast horde of un-
desirables, with no love for learning, with
little aptitude for serious study. As a re-
sult, academic programs have become de-
vitalized, trivial, without substance. Nothing
remains to challenge the gifted student, to
spur him onward to high achievement. His
precious talents are neglected as we cater
to the frivolities of the mediocre and the
inept Our educational salvation demands
that this woeful state of affairs shall con-
tinue no longer. We must reaffirm the pri-
macy of intellect, and once again render
to the superior student the attention be
deserves.
Within academic circles, there are many
who support this crusade with enthusiasm.
The prospect of dealing with a selected
clientele has numerous attractions. If one
could be relieved of the burdens and frus-
trations involved in attempting to teach
those who seem impervious to ideas, life
would be considerably more pleasant. Plau-
sible arguments uphold the view that colleges
and universities should give major emphasis
to serving those of exceptional ability. Re-
sources are limited and should not be squan-
dered upon those who are unresponsive, un-
able to benefit from intensive intellectual
stimulation. Higher education is a privilege,
not a right. Society gains most when those
with superior talents achieve their full po-
tential. These individuals will eventually
occupy positions of leadership, and their
contributions will filter down to benefit the
total population. Our future progress and
our national security as well are dependent
upon the cultivation of the beat minds. It
seems obvious that if energies are diverted
in service to the second rate the highly tal-
ented will be victiroived. Did not Jefferson
himself recommend that we sift out the
rubbish?
Thus, once again, we are offered in appeal-
ing garb the concept of the education of an
elite. Let the colleges and universities focus
their efforts upon those of greater promise.
Let the mediocre be dispatched to humbler
surroundings more in keeping with their
limited capabilities. It Is a proposal to warm
the hearts of academicians?and funda-
mentally vicious.
It is a vicious doctrine because it offers a
spurious cloak of legitimacy for irresponsible
conduct on the part of those who have ac-
cepted positions in colleges and universities.
It is a tacit invitation for faculty members
and officials to view the majority of their -
students with contempt, to deny them the
opportunities to which they are justly en-
titled. It supplies a convenient pretext for
continued failure to devise educational pro-
grams appropriate for those enrolled. It
serves to reinforce and perpetuate the worst
features of our educational system.
The notion that educators, during recent
decades, have been giving an inordinate share
of attention to average students is largely
myth. The minority with high academic
aptitude have always occupied a favored po-
sition, and the reasons for this are fairly
simple.
Perceptive students are much more pleas-
ant to deal with. They grasp ideas quickly,
without need for labored explanations.
They are polite, attentive, properly defer-
ential. In general, they are capable of shift-
ing for themselves. Talented people do not
require teaching, in the usual sense of the
term. Talent cultivates itself. The able
students need leisure, access to study ma-
terials, opportunity to seek counsel as they
desire it. Beyond this, they are relatively
self-sufficient. They make substantial prog-
ress in a abort time, and their achievements
reflect credit on the college.
Furthermore, in dealing with highly capa-
ble students, the professor finds it easier to
maintain a favorable self-image. It is com-
forting to feel that one's work proceeds on
an elevated plane and is concerned with
matters of profound significance. Associa-
tion with superior students helps preserve
this gratifying sense of academic dignity.
When, on the other hand, one is compelled
to deal with students who are obviously
limited in their ability to handle abstract
Ideas, this concept is weakened. The profes-
sor is constantly reminded of the more pedes-
trian aspects of his calling.
Mediocre students are full of disappoint-
ments. Teaching them is a struggle. They
are often inattentive and fail to appreciate
what is done for them. One can deliver a
perfectly straightforward lecture to them
and it seems to make no impression whatso-
ever. When told to go to the library and
read, they just seem to stare at the pages
and understand nothing. They are easily
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66600403R000200140017-5