VALOR IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP67B00446R000500110015-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 38
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 29, 2003
• Sequence Number: 15
• Publication Date: October 23, 1965
• Content Type: OPEN

lOoteb'ei 22, /119noved For Re 5-9
27253
PI:144.13IN. Yes; the House bill
.-:
foie5 Awn, tops to be disPosed
of from tv , the eeaference,
we ee,T4,14.; the S-ene,te bill which pro-
Vieled or 225,000 tons and we com-
prornised at 200,000 tons.
The Senate had Rreviously considered
goo,poo tons, the on, ginal GSA measure.
That figure was reduced during the hear-
jngs in thelflouse.after we had CISA con-
duct industry conferences, as is the cus-
tom of our committee.
So, Mr. Speaker, we feel that the corn-
promise reached with the other body was
an eXcellent one.
Mr. GAOSS. Mr. Speaker, if the
gentleman will yield further, did this
represent a cut or an increase in the
disposal?
Mx. PHILBIN. It represented an In-
crease in the disposal amount.
Mr. GROSS. In the total amount to
be disposed of?
Mr. zsgaiiN, Yes, but not in the
?total amount as originally provided.
Where was a considerable reduction, a
eduction of 100,000 tons, from the orig-
nal proposal requested by the General
Services Administragon. But there was
an increase of ?0,000 tons in the amount
0 Contained in the House bill.
? Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman.
' 'Mr. 'ARENDS. -Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. pi-upEurl. / am glad to yield to
'the able, distinguished gentleman from
1Vtr. ARENDS, Mr. Speaker, I merely
want to say to the chairman of the sub-
?"COrnmittee, the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts [Mr. Pnitang], that I believe
that in the Instance of these two bills
the gentleman from Massachusetts has
done an exceptionatly fine job. I have
liad the pleasure of working with the
'gentleman and consulting with him
about these matters. These bills should
be immediately expedited. They are
Meritorious, they are desirable and
needed.
' Again, Mr. Speaker, I compliment the
gentleman for his effective efforts in con-
nection with these matters.
? Mr. PHILBIX. Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank the gentleman, from Illinois forhis
? kind remarks and also for his very valu-
able assistance to the committee in these
and in all matters.
And I thank the able committee, my
teemed, distinguished. chairman, Mr.
Inas, and the Members of the House
for their helpful counsel, support, and
assistance.
Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr. Speaker,
Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. P11/14,131N. I ara glad to yield to
the gentleman from _Idaho.
Mr. WHITE of Idaho, Mr. Speaker,
too want to compliment the gentleman
from Massachusetts for the excellent job
Which he has done in handling the stock-
'pile'disposals, not only in this instance,
but in prior instances
ow,ezief r. Speakerlike,, I would to
,41tteiltign.al ?tile Members of
e HC4Se.., t, the Sentlenian.1111C12is
ittw e4. tbe consumers
? MuttProctUcezs, and haxing the world-
. VidP P l(OAP f zim,that we have today
and because of the lack a production in
certain areas of the United States, it is
necessary to firm up supply with these
disposals. I want the Congress at all
times to be cognizant of the fact that
the stock of zinc and other metals hangs
over the zinc market and the market of
other metals such as nickel and lead.
Mr. Speaker, as we have said here at
other times, we should supply this stock
of material to its most judicious use, and
I want to compliment the gentleman
from Massachusetts on his integrity in
this area. Because of programed dis-
posals, we have not had a break in the
market and have had a continuing
stable price for both zinc and lead.
Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the im-
portant consideration that both the zinc
producers and zinc consumers need, a
base on which they can project their
prices and operations in the future.
Further, Mr. Speaker, I want to say
the gentleman from Massachusetts has
done an excellent job in this area and I
shall be watching for further develop-
ments as stockpile disposals are carried
out in the future.
(Mr. WHITE of Idaho asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the conference report.
The conference report was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
'AUTHORIZING THE DISPOSAL? OF
NICKEL FROM THE NATIONAL
STOCKPILE
Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Speaker, I call up
the conference report on the bill (HR.
16305) to authorize the disposal, without
regard to the prescribed 6-month waiting
period, of approximately 124,200,000
pounds of nickel from the national stock-
pile, and ask unanimous consent that the
statement of the managers on the part
of the House be read in lieu of the
report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentle-
man from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
(For conference report and statement,
see proceedings of the House of Octo-
ber 21, 1965.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. PHILBIN. I yield to the distin-
, guished gentleman from Iowa and do so
very gladly.
Mr. GROSS. I thank my friend from
Massachusetts. Apparently there has
been a rather substantial cut in the
stockpile disposal of nickel of about 50
million pounds; is that correct?
Mr. PHILBIN. Yes;. that is correct.
Mr, GROSS. Does the gentleman
think with that cut there will be suf-
tclent nickel to take care of all of the
"funny money" coins that this admin-
istration is going to have in circulation
around Christmas time this year?
Mr. PHILBIN. I hope that this will
ake some little contribution to the well-
being of the financial picture of our
'ecountry and the budgetary situation.
Mr. GROSS. If the gentleman will
yield further, I just want to be sure that
the public is not shortchanged on "funny
money" when it comes time to do some
Christmas shopping.
Mr. PHILBIN. I hope the gentleman
Is right in his apprehension.
Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PHILBIN. I am delighted to yield
to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. WHITE of Idaho. Mr. Speaker,
I do not like to belabor a point that we
discussed at some length some time ago
with respect to coinage, but at that time
we were talking about the coinage, we
were told that we would need imported
silver with which to make silver coins,
even of a reduced content.
Mr. Speaker, it seems rather interest-
ing to me that we are going to have to
import nickel to make?I shall not say
"funny money"?but the cupronickel
"hamburger" coins that we are going to
have with us from now on.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
[Mr. EDMONDSON addressed the
House. His remarks will appear here-
after in the Appendix.]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the conference report.
The conference report was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND
REMARKS
Mr. PHILBIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 days in which to extend their
remarks on the conference report just
passed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman
from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
ANNOUNCEMENT
(Mr. BALDWIN asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I was
unavoidably absent during rollcall No.
318 on September 22, and during rollcall
Nos. 324 and 325 on September 24. Had
I been present, I would have voted "nay"
on rollcall No. 318, "nay" on rollcall No.
324, and "yea" on rollcall No. 325.
AMENDING WATERSHED PROTEC-
TION AND FLOOD PREVENTION
ACT, AS AMENDED
Mr. POAGE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan-
imous consent to take from the Speaker's
desk the bill (S. 2679) to amend the Wa-
tershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Act, as amended, and ask for its immedi-
ate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. ED-
MONDSON) . Is there objection to the re-
quest of the gentleman from Texas?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the Tiglat to object, were there any
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP6.71300446R000500110015-9
Approved Foaiglav6g98VAOLlitteNtpa5149(0i#6R0005001
27254 lAn?bgr 22, 1965
amendments adopted in conference on
this bill?
Mr. POAGE, This is not a conference
report.
Mr. GROSS. I beg the gentleman's
pardon.
Mr, POAGE. This is a Senate bill.
The House had reported a similar bill.
The Senate passed this bill. This is a
bill that originated in the Senate. This
bill increases the watershed authority to
build dams so that they can build dams
ranging up to 12,500 aire-feet instead
of 5,000 acre-feet. This is an old matter
about which there has been considerable
disagreement over the years. But now
there has been an agreenient between
the Army Engineers and the Department
of Agriculture and we know of nobody
who is objecting to it.
Mr. GROSS. In other words, this bill
Is confined strictly to the subject that
the gentleman has just explained?
Mr. POAGE. This bill does absolutely
nothing except to change the figure 5,00
acre-feet to 12,500 acre-feet.
(Mr. REDLIN asked and was given
Permission to extend his remarks at this
Point.)
Mr. REDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to
express my appreciation to my commit-
tee chairman, Mr. COOLEY, and to my
committee vice chairman, Mr. POAGE, for
their excellent work in bringing this leg-
islation to the floor of the House in time
for action this session.
The untiring and dedicated work of
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. POAGE],
in the field of watershed development is
recognized and saluted all over the Na-
tion and particularly in an area like my
State of North Dakota where the small
watershed program is used extensively.
S. 2679 is identical to my bill, H.R.
510, and to Mr. COOLEY'S bill, H.R. 9141,
reported out by the House Agriculture
Committee.
The Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act now limits the size of
? dams to a floodwater detention capacity
of 5,000 acre-feet, forming an impedi-
Ment to multipurpose development in
Many small watersheds?a good number
of them in North Dakota. Corrective
legislation has been strongly endorsed by
the _North Dakota Association of Soil
Conservation Districts.
This amendment, by increasing flood-
detention capacity to 12,500 acre-feet,
would allow North Dakota and many
other areas in the Nation to do a better
job of providing a water supply for towns,
Irrigation, recreation and fish and wild-
life development.
I urge my colleagues to support S.
2679.
? Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentle-
man.
(Mr. COOLEY asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
Marks.)
[Mr. COOLEY addressed the House.
His remarks will appear hereafter in the
Appendix.]
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I with-
draw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there
object on to the request of the gentle-
man f :.ora Texas [Mr. POAGE]?
'Thee was no objection.
The Clerk read the bill as follows:
S. 2679
Be ii enacted by the Senate and House of
.Represtntatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That section
2 of floe Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act (68 Stat. 666), as amended,
is arne tided by striking out "more than five
thousand acre-feet of floodwater detention
capact r and inserting in lieu thereof "more
than twelve thousand five hundred acre-feet
of Boo iwater detention capacity".
TM bill was ordered to be read a third
time, was read the third time, and passed,
and a motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
A similar House bill was laid on the
table.
LCIR,
IN THE DOMINICAN RE-
PUBLIC
(M:'. MARSH asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minty c; to revise and extend his remarks
and to include extraneous matter.)
Mr. MARSH. Mr. Speaker, before
this session of -the Congress adjourns, I
wouk like to call to the attention of the
House an incident involving the son of
Cleveland Tucker, one of the Official
Repo:ters of debates of the House. His
son, id Lt. Phillip E. Tucker, a member
of the TLS. Marine Corps, was first cap-
tain of the Corps of Cadets of Virginia
Military Institute in 1963 and 1964.
This well-known military institution is
located at Lexington, Va., in my Con-
gress onal District. Lieutenant Tucker
had in outstanding record at VMI, both
militarily and academically, and was
cited as a distinguished academic stu-
dent.
Upon graduation from VMI, Lieuten-
ant Tucker became a regular officer in
the IV.:arine Corps. Recently in the name
of tha President, the Bronze Star Medal
was awarded to 2d Lt. Phillip E. Tucker,
USW", for his heroic services as a pla-
toon leader (luring operations of the
U.S. Marines in defense of the Embassy
of the United States in Santo Domingo,
Dom nican Republic.
I felt that the Members of the House
woull like to be aware that the son of
one of the reporters of debates corn-
man( led one of the first units ashore in
the Dominican Republic and played such
a key role in defending the U.S. Embassy
there. I am sure all of us are proud and
grateful for this young man's courageous
and aeroic service to his country.
I :ask unanimous consent that Lieu-
tenalt Tucker's Bronze Star citation,
subntitted to the commanding general,
2d l'a("karine Division, Fleet Marine Force,
'by tie commanding general, Fleet Ma-
rine Farce, Atlantic, be inserted in the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD at this point,
I r$RON:E. 4TAII pITATION.,
For heroic achievement in connection with
open tons in Santo Domingo, Dominican
Republic, while serving with friendly foreign
forcel engaged in an armed conflict against
an opposing armed force in which the United
Siats was not a belligerent party. During
the period April 28 to April 30, 1965, Second
Lieutenant Tucker, platbon leader, 2d Pla-
toon, Company "L", 3d Battalion, 6th Ma-
rines, organized and defended the U.S.
Embassy from hostile forces On the eve-
ning of April 28, 1965, he made a complete
and detailed reconnaissance, and established
a defensive perimeter despite intensive hos-
tile fire. For the next 2 days he continuously
inspected each man and his position to in-
sure his well-being and alertness. When-
ever sniper fire was directed at his po-
sitions, he personally went to the area re-
ceiving fire to organize and control the re-
turn fire. This was accomplished with con-
siderable risk to his own life. When the hos-
tile fire continued from houses located out-
side the established international safety
zone, he organized and led each house clear-
ing detail. Re continued this action until
the sniper fire was eliminated. Second Lieu-
tenant Tucker's initiative and courageous
actions were in keeping with the highest
traditions of the "U.S. Naval Service,
ZAMBIA'S INDEPENDENCE DAY
(Mr. O'HARA of Illinois asked and was
given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,
this coming Sunday will be the first anni-
versary of the independence of the Re-
public of Zambia and I am reminded of
the very pleasant and profitable hours
the members of the African Subcommit-
tee of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
passed with the Honorable Kenneth
Kaunda, then the president of the United
National Independence Party of North-
ern Rhodesia, now the President of the
Republic of' Zambia, on April 18, 1961,
when he was on a visit to the United
States. The long acquaintance and
warm friendship of members of our sub-
committee, extending over the years of
historic events, with many of the great
statesmen of the developing nations, has
built a bridge of personal understanding
and enduring interest uniting the United
States of America with the new nations
of Africa. The visit of President Kaunda
over 4 years ago stands out in our mem-
ory.
Zambia, the former British protecto-
rate of Northern Rhodesia, is a high pla-
teau country with an elevation of 3,000 to
4,000 feet above sea level. It is located
Inland in south-central Africa, bordered
on the north by the Republic of the
Congo, on the east by Tanzania and Ma-
lawi, on the south by Mozambique,
Southern ? Rhodesia, and southwest
Africa, and on the west by Angola. With
a total area of 290,000 square miles,
Zambia is about twice the size of the
State of Colorado.
Zambia has many rivers; most of them
flow south into the Zambezi. The Zam-
bezi rises in the northwest corner and
flows into Southern Rhodesia, through
Mozambique and into the Indian Ocean.
The Chambezi flows south into the great
swamps of Bangweulu. These two rivers
are broken by many waterfalls. Victoria
Falls on the Zambezi is one of the most
Important waterfalls in Africa and one
of the great wonders of the world.
-The estimated population of Zambia is
3,587,000, comprised of about 3.5 million
_
Approved For Releasei 2003/10/15: C1A-RDP67B00446R000500110015-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP671300446R000500110015-9
October 22 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Contain allegations that the applicant is not
otherwise registered to vote.
(b) Any pers.= whom the examiner ends,
In accordance with instructiOnS received 'tin-
der section 9(h), to have the qualifications
prescribed by State law not inconsistent with
the Constitution and laws ,,Qf the United
States shall promptly be placed on a list of
eligible voters. A challenge to such list-
ing may be made in accordance with. setion.
9(a) and shall not be the basis for a prosecu-
tion under section 12 of this Act. The ex-
aminer shall certily and transmit such list,
anti any supplements as appropriate, at least
one a Month, to the offices of the appropri-
ate election ?Metals, with copies to the At-
torney General and, the attorney general of
? the' State, and ,any such lists and supple-
ments thereto transmitted during the month
shall be available for public inspection on
the ,last business day of the month and in
any event not later than :the forty-fifth day
prior to any election. The appropriate State
Or local election official shall place such
names on the official voting list. Any person
wriese name appears on the examiner's list
shall be entitled and allowed,to vote in the
election district of his residence unless and
Until the appropriate election officials shall
have been,notited that such person has been
renipved from anch list in accordance with
Subsection (d) : Provided, That no person
shall be entitled to vote In any election by
virtne of this Act unless his name shall have
been certified ,and transmitted on such a
list to the offices of the appropriate election
officials at least forty-five days prior to such
election., . ,
(c) The examiner shall?issue to each per-
son, whose name. appears on such a list a
Certcate evidencing his eligibility to vote.
(d) A person whose name appears on such
,a list shall be relnoved therefrom by an ex-
aminer if (1) such person has been success-
fully challenged in accordance with the pro-
cedure prescribed in section 9, or (2) he has
been. determined by an examiner to have
lost his eligibility to vote under State law
not incopsistent with the Constitution and
the laws of the United States,
SEC. 8. Whenever an estamlner is serving
Urid6r this Act in any political subdivision,
the Ulvil Service Commission may assign, at
the request of the Attorney General, one or
More persons, who may be officers of the
United States, (1) to enter and attend at
any place for holding an election in such
subdivision for the purpose of observing
whether persons who are,entitled to vote are
being permitted to vote, and (2) to enter and
attend at any place for tabulating the votes
cast at any election held in such subdivision
for the purpose of observing whether votes
cast by persons entitled to vote are being
properly tabulated. Such persons so as-
signed shall report to an examiner appointed
for such political subdivision, to the Attorney
General, and if the appointment of examiners
bas been authorized pursuant to section 3
(a), to the court.
Sc. 9. (a) Any challenge to a listing on
an eligibility list prepared by an examiner
shall be heard and determined by a hearing
officer appointed by and responsible to the
Civil, Service Commission., and under such
rules as the Commission shall by regulation
prescribe. Such challenge shall be enter-
tained Only if filed at such office within the
State as the civil Service ,Commission shall
by regulation de.signate, and within ten days
after.the listing of the challenged person is
Made available, for public inspection, and if
sUpPOrted by (1) the affidavits of at least
two persons having personal knowledge of
the facts constituting grounds for the chal-
lenge, and (2) a certification that a copy of
the challenge and affidavits have been served
by thail or in person upon the person chal-
lenged at his place of residence set out in the
aPPlleation. Such challenge shall be deter-
Mined within fifteen days after it has been
filed. A petition for review of the decision of
the hearing officer may be filed in the United
States court of appeals for the circuit in
which the person challenged resides within
fifteen days after service of such decision
by mail on the person petitioning for review
but no decision of a hearing officer shall be
reversed unless clearly erroneous. Any per-
son listed shall be entitled and allowed to
vote pending final determination by the
hearing officer and by the court.
(b) The times, places, procedures, and
form for application and listing pursuant to
this Act and removals from the eligibility
lists shall be prescribed by regulations pro-
mulgated by the Civil Service Commission
and the Commission shall, after consultation
with the Attorney General, instruct exam-
iners concerning applicable State law not
inconsistent with the Constitution and laws
of the United States with respect to (1) the
qualifications required for listing, and (2)
loss of eligibility to vote.
(c) Upon the request of the applicant or
the challenger or on its own motion the
Civil Service Commission shall have the
power to require by subpena the attendance
and testimony of witnesses and the produc-
tion of documentary evidence relating to any
matter pending before it under the authority
of this section. In case of contumacy or
refusal to obey a subpena, any district court
of the United States or the United States
court of any territory or possession, or the
District Court of the United States for the
District of Columbia, within the jurisdiction
of which said person guilty of contumacy
or refusal to obey is found or resides or is
domiciled or transacts business, or has ap-
pointed an agent for receipt of service of
process, upon application by the Attorney
General of the United States shall have
jurisdiction to issue to such person an order
requiring such person to appear before the
Commission or a hearing officer, there to pro-
duce pertinent, relevant, and nonprivileged
documentary evidence if so ordered, or there
to give testimony touching the matter under
Investigation; and any failure to obey such
order of the court may be punished by said
court as a contempt thereof.
SEC. 10. (a) The Congress finds that the
requirement of the payment of a poll tax as
a precondition to voting (1) precludes per-
sons of limited means from voting or im-
poses unreasonable financial hardship upon
such persons as a precondition to their exer-
cise of the franchise, (ii) does not bear a
reasonable relationship to any legitimate
State interest in the conduct of elections,
and (111) in some areas has the purpose or
effect of denying persons the right to vote
because of race or color. Upon the basis of
these findings, Congress declares that the
constitutional right of citizens to vote is
denied or abridged in some areas by the
requirement of the payment of a poll tax
as a precondition to voting.
(b) In the exercise of the powers of Con-
gress under section 5 of the fourteenth
amendment and section 2 of the fifteenth
amendment, the Attorney General is author-
ized and directed to Institute forthwith in
the name of the United States such actions,
Including actions against States or political
subdivisions, for declaratory judgment or in-
junctive relief against the enforcement of
any requirement of the payment of a poll
tax as a precondition to voting, or substi-
tute therefor enacted after November 1, 1964,
as will be necessary to implement the decla-
ration of subsection (a) and the purposes
of this section.
(C) The district cottrts of the United
States shall have jurisdiction of such actions
Which shall be heard and determined by a
court of three judges in accordance with the
provisions of section 2284 of title 28 of the
United States Code and any appeal shall lie
to the Supreme Court. It shall be the duty
of the judges designated to hear the case to
27463
assign the case for hearing at the earliest
practicable date, to participate in the hear-
ing and determination thereof, and to cause
the case to be in every way expedited.
(d) During the pendency of such actions,
and thereafter if the courts, notwithstanding
this action by the Congress, should declare
the requirement of the payment of a poll tax
to be constitutional, no citizen of the United
States who is a resident of a State or political
subdivision with respect to which determi-
nations have been made under subsection
4(b) and a declaratory judgment has not
been entered under subsection 4(a), during
the first year he becomes otherwise entitled
to vote by reason of registration by State or
local officials or listing by an examiner, shall
be denied the right to vote for failure to pay
a poll tax if he tenders payment of such tax
for the current year to an examiner or to the
appropriate State or local official at least
forty-five days prior to eleetion, whether or
not such tender would be timely or adequate
under State law. An examiner shall have
authority to accept such payment from any
person authorized by this Act to make an
application for listing, and shall issue a re-
ceipt for such payment. The examiner shall
transmit promptly any such poll tax pay-
ment to the office of the State or local official
authorized to receive such payment under
State law, together with the name and ad-
dress of the applicant.
SEc. 11. (a) No person acting under color
of law shall fail or refuse to permit any per-
son to vote who is entitled to vote under any
provision of this Act or is otherwise qualified
to vote, or willfully fail or refuse to tabulate,
count, and report such person's vote.
(b) No person, whether acting under color
of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threat-
en, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate,
threaten, or coerce any person for voting, or
attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten,
or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten,
or coerce any person for urging or aiding any
person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimi-
date, threaten, or coerce any person for exer-
cising any powers or duties under section
3(a), 6, 8, 9, 10, or 12(e).
(c) Whoever knowingly or willfully gives
false information as to his name, address,
or period of residence in the voting district
for the purpose of establishing his eligibility
to register or vote, or conspires with another
Individual for the purpose of ,encouraging his
false registration to vote or illegal voting, or
pays or offers to pay or accepts payment
either for registration to vote or for voting
shall be fined not more than $10,000 or Im-
prisoned not more than five years, or both:
Provided, however, That this provision shall
be applicable only to general, special., or pri-
mary elections held solely or in part for the
purpose of selecting or electing any candidate
for the office of President, Vice President,
presidential elector, Member of the United
States Senate,, Member of the United States
House of Representatives, or. Delegates or
Commissioners from the territories or posses-
sions, or Resident Commissioner of the Com-
monwealth of Puerto Rico.
(d) Whoever, in any matter within the
jurisdiction of an examiner or hearing officer
knowingly and willfully falsifies or conceals
a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious,
or fraudulent statements or representations,
or makes or uses any false writing or docu-
ment knowing the same to contain any false,
fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry,
shall be fined not more than $10,000 or im-
prisoned not more than five years, or both.
SEC. 12. (a) Whoever shall deprive or at-
tempt to deprive any person of any right
secured by section 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, or 10 or shall
violate section 11 (a) or (b), shall be fined
not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more
than five years, or both.
(b) Whoever, within a year following an
election in a political subdivision in which
an examiner has been appointed (1) destroys,
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
27464
2003110115: CIA-RDP57B0,0446R050500110015-9
CONGI SSIONAL RECORD ---- SENATE
cgs, inutilates, or otherwise alters the trici dourt for the District of Columbia Shall
of a paper ballot which has been
we_tectiop., pr, (2) alters any official
ottnijn- sticIr election tabulated
.maehinedi otherwise, shall be
pit Thaffm000, or? imprisoned
ji nears or both.
()oiler conspares'to' Violate the pro-
.,,,..0tanlisection (a). (b) of this see-
m, or'int,erferes with any right secured by
ectoj 4,5,-/, 10, or 11 (a) or (b) shall
.be fined net more than $5,000, or imprisoned
'110tUriOre than iltie years; or both.
(a)" tiberieVer any Peron has engaged or
there are, reasonable grotinds-to believe that
any:pert-On IS'atibut to engage in any act or
F practice Prohibited by section 2, 3, 4, 5, 7,
, -1(1:11, or subSection (b) of this section, the
AttOrneY General may institute for the
'United States, or in the name of the United.
Sta,tee, an action for preventiVe relief, includ-
ing an application for a'temPorstry or per-
Manent injunction, restraining order, or
, -Other order, and including an order directed
the State and State Or local election
*ftiCials to require them (1) to permit per-
solie listed under this Act to vote and (2)
,to,d0Ullt such votes.
(e) Whenever 'in ally Political' subdivision
in 'Which there are exainifiers appointed pur-
stient to this Act any'persOUS'alleged to Such
an _eXamirier forty4f:ght hours -after
tbe closing of the polls that notwithstanding
,.(1)' their listing under this Act or registra-
tion by an 'apprOpriate election official and
- '(2)- their eligibility to vote, they have not
een permitted to vote in such election, the
aininer shall forthwith notify the Attorney
raI if 'suet' allegations in' his opinion
ear to be 'Well founded.' Upon receipt of
s eh nOtifieatterf., the Attorney General may
forthwith Ale with the district *court an ap-
Plieatibif for an order prdviding f6r the mark--
casting, and counting of the ballots of
?eget persons -arid reel-airing the inclusion of
11164r vptes in the total vote- before the re-
ts of such election shall be. deemed 'ffnal
4/1'y:farce-dr-effect 'given thereto. The
istriet court Shall hear-alier determine such
7Mittere immediately sifter 'the filing of such
:aprication. The remedy 'Provided in this
iisecPon shall not preclude any remedy
available under State or Federal law.
'(f) The district court; Oi the United States
.shall have. jurisdiction Of Proceedings insti.-
Pursiiant' to this section and shall
!e8Sreise the seine without 'regard to whether
isorgoii ieSerting rights 'under the ProVI-
sfions of this Act shall have exhausted any
,actulini:strative or other remedies that may
be provided IV law.
1;fst1dg procedures shall be termi-
ect an sUbdiVision ' of ' any
te (a) With reelject tO ex's:miners ap-
nted piirSnant to clause (b) Of section
'Whenever the Attorney General notifies the
SilServIde "ClUrimiasion; Or whenever the
etriat thi.,1*t for the biStrict of Columbia
, determinei'lifari action for declaratory judg-
Mont subdivision
rcb respect to which the` Director of the
CeneuS' )1a5 determined that more than 50
'ealitiine Of the nonwhite persons of ' vat-
ing age? residing' therein are registered to vote,
;',(1) that all persons fisted by an examiner for
such subdivision have 'been placed on the
s,ropriate ibting registration roll; and (2)
that there is no longer reasonable cause to
believe' that, persons will 'lie deprived of or
denied the 'right to vote On account of race
? or_ cP1or in such stibdiVision, and (b), with
respect to exarniners' aPpOinted" pursuant to
sept)on 8(4, upon Ordef 'of the authorizing
t. pelitical Subdivision' may petition
e Attorney General 'for the terthina.tion
118ting procedures iuider Clause (a) of
s :section, and May ioetition the Attorney
qeifOral te'reqiieet the Director of the Census
tp 'Once ench' purvey' or 'census as may be 'ap-
? propriate for the making of the determina-
tiOn providedfbr in this sectibn. The Dis-
havo jurisdiction to require such survey or
census to be made by the Director of the
Cenfus and it shall require him to do so if
it deems the Attorney General's refusal to
request such survey or census to be arbitrary
or uea.qaflable.
SO. 14. (a) All cases of criminal contempt
arts lig under the provisions of this Act shall
be poverned by section 151 of the Civil Rights
Act of 1957 (42 U.S.C. 1995).
(10 No court other than the District Court
for the District Of Columbia or a court of
apPktfS in any peoceeding under section 9
sha:I have jurisdiction to issue any declare-
tor3"judgment pursuant to section 4 or sec-
tior 5 or any restraining order or temporary
or permanent injunction against the execu-
tior or enforcement of any provision of this
Act or any action of any Federal officer or
employee pursuant hereto.
0 (1) The terins "vote" or "voting" shall
include all action necessary to make a vote
effe itive in any primary, special, or general
election, including, but not limited to reg-
istrution, listing pursuant to this Act; or
other action required by law prerequisite to
vot casting a 'ballot, and having such
bar bt counted protierly and included in the
aprropriate totals of votes cast with respect
to sail-dictates for public or party office and
propositions for which votes are received
in in election.
(1) The term "political subdivision" shall
mein any county or parish, except that where
reg stration for voting is not conducted under
the supervision of a county or parish, the
ten n shall include any other subdivision of
a 3tate which conducts registration for
voting.
(d) In any action for a declaratory judg-
Inedt brought pursuant to section 4 or sec-
ticri 5 of this Act, subpenas for witnesses
wlo are required to attend the District Court
for ,the District of Columbia may be served
any judicial district of the United States:
Prc'yideif, That no writ of subpena shall
issue for witneses without the District of
Co:urnbia at a greater distance than one
huadred miles from the place of holding
court without the permission of the Dis-
trt'lt Cour-tfor the District of Columbia being
lint had upon proper application and cause
sin iwn. ,
Use. 15. Section 2004 of the Revised Stat-
utes (42 U.S.C. 1971), as amended by sec-
tioa. 131 of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (71
St4. 637), and amended by section 601 of
thit,,Viyii Rights Act of 1960 (74 Stat. 90),
an q further amended by section 101 of the
Chil Rights Act of' 1864 (78' Stat. 24f), is
"fu: bier amended as folIoWs: '
_
a) Delete the word "Federal" wherever
it appears in subsections (a) and (e);
.b) Repeal subsection (f) and designate
-thx present subsections (g) and (h) as (f)
and (g), respectively.
3-sc. 16. The Attorney General and the
Seiiretary of Defense, jointly, shall make a
fuel and complete study to determine
whether, under the laws or practices of any
St vte or States, there are preconditions to
voting, which might tend to result in dis-
crmination against citizens serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States seeking
-to vote. Such officials shall, jointly, make
.eport to the Congress not later than June
80, 1966, containing the results of such
study, together with a list of any States
in which such preconditions exist, and shall
innude in such report such recommenda-
tions for legislation as they deem advisable
to prevent discrimination in voting against
ci ,izens serving in the Armed Forces of the
U:iited States.
Snc. 17. Nothing in this Act shall be con-
strued to deny, impair, or otherwise ad-
Versely affect the right to vote of any person
reSistered to vote under the law of any State
or "-political subdivision.
Apprbved For Releas
October 22, 1965
is. There are hereby authorized to
be appropriated such sums .as are necessary
to carry out the provisions of this Act.
SEC. 19. U any provision of this Act or the
application thereof to any person or circum-
stances is held invalid, the remainder of the
Act and the application of the provision to
other persons not similarly situated or to
other circumstances shall not be affected
ther by.
proved August 6, 1965.)
COMMENTS ON THE DOMINICAN
REPUBLIC
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
have followed with interest the comments
made by my colleagues, by the press, and
by private individuals after my speech
of September 15 regarding the Domin-
ican Republic. I have also followed with
Interest events in the other body that
may have been related to my speech.
Much 'of the discussion, I have noted
to my surprise, has been about me rath-
er than about the Dominican Republic
and Latin America, Some of these per-
sonal comments have been complimen-
tary, and to those who made them I ex-
press my thanks. Others have been un-
complimentary, and to those who made
them I can only say that our country is
still strong enough to survive an occa-
sional dissenting view even though the
consensus is Virtually unanimous.
There has been a good deal of dis-
cussion as to whether it is proper for
the chairman of the Senate Foreign Re-
lations Committee to make a speech crit-
ical of an administration of his own party
which he generally supports. There is
something to be said on both sides of
this question and it is certainly one
which I considered with care before de-
ciding to make my speech on the Do-
minican Republic. I concluded, after
hearing ,the testimony of administration
Witnesses in the Committee on Foreign
Relations, that I could do more to en-
courage carefully considered policies in
the future by initiating a public discus-
sion than by acquiescing silently in a
policy I believed to be mistaken. It
seemed to me, therefore, that, despite
'ank ContrOVerAY arid annoyance to in-
cliVieltials; I was performing a service to
the administration by stating my views
publicly.
I do not like taking a public position
criticizing a Democratic administration
which in most respects I strongly sup-
port; I do not like it at all. Neither do
I like being told, as I have been told,,
that my statement was "irresponsible" or
that it has given aid and comfort to the
enemies of the United States. I am quite
prepared to examine evidence suggesting
that my statement contained errors of
fact or judgment; I am not prepared
to accept the charge that a statement
following upon many 'hours of listening
to testimony in the Foreign Relations
Committee and many more hours of ex-
amining and evaluating relevant docu-
ments was irresponsible. Nor do I take
kindly to the charge that I gave aid
and comfort to the enemies of the United
States. If that accusation is to be
pressed?and I should hope it would not
be?an interesting discussion could be
developed as to whether it is my criti-
C1A-RDP67B004461R0005001113015-
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
October 2, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 27465
CisinS of U.S. policy in the Dominican
Republic or the policy itself which has
given aid and comfort_ to our enemies.
S.enator has a, cility to support his
President arid Jii,s party, but he also has
a ditty to xpress his views on major is-
sues. Inthe case of the Dominican cri-
sis I felt that, however reluctant I might
be to criticize the administration?and
I was Very reluctant?it was nonetheless
My responsibility to do so, for two prin-
cipal reasons.
First. I believe that the chairman of
the Committee on Foreign Relations has
a special obligation to _offer the best ad-
vice he can on matters pf foreign policy;
it is an obligation, I believe, which is in-
herent in the c;hairmanphip, which takes
prededence over party loyalty, and which
has nothing to do with whether the
chairman's views are solicited or desired
by people in the executive branch.
Second. I thought it iny responsibility
to comment on U,S, policy in the Domini-
can Republic hecause_ tbe political oppo-
sition, whose function It is t9 cricitize,
was simply not doing sg, I did, not be-
cause it obviously approved of U.S. inter-
vention in the Dominican Republic and
preSumably, had it been in office, would
have done the 6BBle tiling. The result of
tills peculiar situation was, that a highly
COntroversial policy was being carried out
Withoutcontroversy?without debate,
without 'review, without that necessary
calling to account which is a vital part
Of" the democratic process. Again and
Again, in the weeks following the corn-
Mittee hearing I noted, the absence a
asmr challenge to statements appearing
in the press and elsewhere which clearly
? contradicted evidence available to the
COMMittee oh Foreign Relations,
Under these circumstances I am not
impressed with suggestions that I had no
riglit to speak as I did on Santo Domingo.
The, real question, it seems to me, is
'Whether I had the right not to speak.
Iivofar as it represents a genuine rec-
OncWation Of differences, a consensus is
a flne thing; insofar as it represents the
concealment of differences, it is a mis-
car age ?of democratic procedure. I
think We Americans tend to put too high
a value on umtnimity?on bipartisan-
ship in foreign policy, on politics stop-
ping at 4 the water's edge, on turning a
single face to the world?as if there were
something dangerous and illegitimate
about honest differences of ?opinion hon-
estly expressed by honest men. Prob-
ably because we have Pepn United about
so Many things for so long, including the
-bade values Qf our free society, we tend
to be mi,strustful of intellectual dissent,
confusing it with personal hostility and
political disloyalty.
As the distinguished commentator,
Marquis Childs, recently noted, we tend
IP,America toward a tyranny of the ma-
)0rity. More than a century ago, Alexis
de Tocqueville took note of that tend-
enCy in these words;
knov,r of no ccolutry in which there is so
little Andependence of mind and real frbe-
dop ?discussiog, ,iu, Anaerica. Profound
OW1,ggs haYP. 9991gred Sillee democracy in
4meqa, appea_red and yet it may be
ked whether recognition Of the right of
clisseqt has gained substantially In practice
as Well as in theory.
Tocqueville was a friend and admirer
of the United States but he regarded the
tyranny of the majority as the greatest
Of dangers in a democracy.
The smallest reproach?
He wrote?
irritates its sensibility and the slightest joke
that has any foundation in truth renders it
indignant; from the forms of its language up
to the solid virtues of its character, every-
thing must be made the subject of en-
comium. No writer, whatever be his emi-
nence, can escape paying this tribute of
adulation to his fellow citizens.
A recent Harris survey, showing strong
public disaproval of nonconformist opin-
ions, tends to sustain Tocqueville's view
of tyranny by the majority. In an ar-
ticle in the Washington Post dated Sep-
tember 27, 1965, Mr. Harris writes:
America has long prided itself as a nation
of rugged individualists where the pioneer
tradition allows a man to hold his own views
and go his own way. However, the latest
Harris survey reveals widespread misgivings
among many Americans over present-day
examples of social, political or intellectual
nonconformity.
The man who stands apart from the
crowd?because he does not believe in God,
because he pickets against the war in Viet-
nam, because he demonstrates for civil
rights?is regarded as harmful to the Amer-
ican way of life by two out of three of his
fellow citizens, a survey of a carefully drawn
cross-section of the adult public shows.
Far from being the danger many of us
make it out to be, responsible dissent is
one of the great strengths of democracy.
France, for example, is unquestionably in
a stronger position today in her relations
with the emerging nations of Asia and
Africa because during the years of her
colonial wars in Indochina and Algeria a
large and articulate minority refused
to acquiesce in what was being done and,
by speaking out, pointed the way to the
enlightened policies of the Fifth Repub-
lic. The British Labor Party, to take an-
other example, not only protested the
Suez invasion in 1956 but did so while
the invasion was being carried out; by so
doing, the opposition performed the Pa-
triotic service of helping Britain to re-
cover its good name in the wake of a dis-
astrous adventure, starting to repair the
damage while the damage was still being
done.
It seems to me a manifestation of the
tyrrany of the majority that there has
been so much talk about when it is
proper for a Senator to make a speech
and so little about the subject matter
involved, which was the Dominican Re-
public and Latin America. It was my
intention on September 15 to start a
discussion about these and not about my-
self. There is a very great deal to be
said about U.S. policy in Latin Amer-
ica?about political and economic reform
and the Alliance for Progress, about col-
lective security and the Organization of
American States, about social revolu-
tions and the interests of the United
States. I should like very much to hear
the views of my colleagues on these and
other matters, including the suggestion
tentatively put forth in my statement of
September 15 that an inter-American
partnership of equals in the long run
might be advanced by a loosening of
ties in the short run.
I would especially like to hear the
views of my colleagues on the proposition
put forth by President Johnson in his
address of AUgust 17 to the Latin Amer-
ican Ambassadors to the effect that the
United States hopes to see Latin Amer-
icans achieve the same kinds of reform
through the Alliance for Progress that
we seek for ourselves through the Great
Society. Starting with this premise,
there is much to be said about how the
United States can aid and support the
true friends of social reform in Latin
America?men. like President Belaunde
Terry of Peru and President Frei of
Chile, whose programs for social justice
are also, and for that reason, antidotes to
communism.
A general discussion of the Latin
American policies of the United States
would be interesting and rewarding, far
more so than personal recriminations
about tolerance of communism and in-
fatuation with revolutions. I myself am
too old to change, but there is still hope
for the United States and Latin America.
Mr. President, in the weeks since I
made my speech on the Dominican Re-
public I have received over 1,500 letters
commenting on it. Approximately 90
percent of these letters expressed con-
cern about the way in which the United
States intervened in Santo Domingo.
This public reaction suggests that a large
sector of the American public shares my
concern about the Latin American pol-
icy of the United States. Many of the
letters I received expressed concern
about the role of the Department of De-
fense and the role of the Central Intel-
ligence Agency in the conduct of Amer-
ican foreign policy. Many, I am pleased
to note, expressed the conviction that the
United States should abide by its obliga-
tions of multilateralism and noninter-
vention under the Charter of the Orga-
nization of American States, and a great
many expressed the view, in one way or
another, that the foreign policy they de-
sired for the United States was one
which was true to its own democratic
? values.
There has been a great deal of press
and periodical commentary on my speech
of September 15, much of it favorable,
much of it unfavorable. I have selected
comments, pro and con, which I judge
to be representative and which I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in
the RECORD at this point. For the bene-
fit of those who may not have seen the
entire text of my speech, and to provide
a point of reference, I ask unanimous
consent that the text of my speech be
inserted just prior to these insertions in
the RECORD.
There being no objection, the speech
and material was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
[From the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Senate,
Sept. 15, 19651
THE SITUATION IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, the forma-
tion of a provisional government in Santo
Domingo under the leadership of Dr. Hector
Garcia-Godoy is good news. It provides
reason for cautious optimism as to the future
and testifies as well to the arduous and
patient efforts of the OAS mediating team.
I wish to pay tribute especially to Ambassador
Bunker for his wisdom and patience in han-
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP671300446R000500110015-9
Apprpved For Releas 2903/10/15 : CIA=IRDP67B00449R 00500110015-9
7466 CONCII SSIONAL ItECORD= SENATE October 22, 1965
- ' - - - -" '? ' ttement in Wh ich the
tiling this difficult affair. The formation' of lee' Principal reason forthe -failure of ance for rogress? s a
a provisional government is not the end of American policy in Santo Domingo was faulty President compared the Alliance for Frog-
",,Diarninican crisis, but it does bring to an adt12e given to the President by his repre- ress with his own enlightened program for
a tragic and dangerous phase of the Crib's. sentitIves in the Dominican Republic at the a Great Society at home. On the other hand,
Ilany problems remain, partibularly the prob- time, of acute crisis. Much of this advice was one notes a general tendency on the part of
lepof establishing the authority of a demo- based on misjudgment of the facts of the our policymakers not to look beyond a Latin
government over the borninican sitnition; some of it appears to have been American politician's anticommunism. One
onatheleis, the situation now seems based on inadequate evidence or, in some also notes in certain Government agencies,
, 6Vying-Into a less dangerous and more easel, simply inaccurate information. on particularly the Department of Defense, a
opeful phase. At this time of relative calm the basis of the information and counsel he preoccupation with counterinsurgency,
la apprOpriate, 'desirable and, I think, nec- received, the President could hardly have which is to say, with the prospect of revolu-
easary to review clients in the Dominican Re- acted other than he did. tions and means of suppressing them. This
and"the 'U.S. -role hi those events. I am hopeful, and reasonably confident, preoccupation is manifested in dubious and
The purpose of such a reVievi?and its only thai the mistakes made by the United States costly research projects, such as the recently
purpOse?is to develop guidelines for wise and in tile Dominican Republic can be retrieved
. _ discredited Camelot; these studies claim to
glee-aye policies in the future be scientific but beneath their almost un-
Was in-"&uht agent the advisability
Of making a statement on the Dominican
affair Until acme of my colleagues made pub-
lic statements MI the floor.` Their views on
the Way In Which the committee proceedings
wete-emsucted and, indeed; on the Domini-
4-bris1s aa, a ,whole, are so diametrically
opposed to my Otth that I not consider it My
duty to' express" My person-al conclusions
rav from.-, the hearings held by the Com-
mittee on Pereign Relations:
?3,4e, suzgoytions that have been made that
the committee wa4- prejudiced in its approach
against the adininistratiOn'S 'policies are, in
417 opinion, Without merit; The committee
WilkImpartial and fair in giving a full and de-
tailed, hearing to the administration's point
Of View,, so much so, in faCt, that it heard
OXIIY one 'Witness from outSide the Govern-
and that it will be possible to avoid repeating
theta in the future. These purposes can
be Served, however, only if the shortcomings
of U.S. policy are thoroughly reviewed and
analted. I make my remarks today in the
hope of contributing to that process.
Tie development of the Dominican crisis,
beg fining on April 24, 1965, provides a classic
stuffy of policymaking in a fast-changing
situation in which each decision reduces the
range of options available for future deci-
siore so that errors are compounded and
finally, indeed, there are few if any options
exeolst to follow through on an ill-conceived
cott/ge of action. Beyond a certain point
the Dominican story acquired some of the in-
evitability of a Greek tragedy.
Another theme that emerges from the Do-
mir lean crisis is the occurrence of a striking
chatige in U.S. policy toward the Dominican
Rertiblic and the possibility?not a certainty,
bee tuse the signs are ambiguous, but only
the 'possibility?of a major change as well
in the general Latin American policies of the
United States. Obviously, an important
chafige- in the official outlook on Dominican
affairs occurred between September 1963,
Whon the United States was vigorously op-
to the overthrow of Juan Bosch, and
Api 11 1965, when the United States was
either unenthusiastic or actually opposed to
his return.
' What happened in that period to change
the -assessment of Bosch from favorable to
unlivorable? It is quite true that Bosch as
President did not distinguish himself as an
administrator, but that was well known in
19E3. It is also true, however, and much
more'to the point as far as the legitimate in-
ter .Tsts of the United States are concerned,
thtt Bosch had received 58 percent of the
voles in a free and honest election and that
he was presiding over a reform-minded gov-
err ment in tune with the Alliance for Prog-
ress. This is a great deal more than can be
-said for any other President of the Domini-
can Republic.
r.?he question therefore remains as to how
ant why the attitude of the U.S. Govern-
ment changed so strikingly between Septem-
U, policy
fn the bOrninfcan 'crisis Was
actet#ed initially by Overthnidity and
-6004tiently by-overreactfon. Throughout,
the whole affair, It has also been character-
ized by a la& of candor. '
These- are' general conClusions I have
ad-led ,from az painstaking review of the
allent feat:ures of the extremely complex
attgat104, these judgments are made, of
rse, with the 'berielit Of hindsight and, in
a 'nese, it Omit cenCecled there Were no
4Fy choices available to the United States in
PoIllinigut Republic. Nonetheless, it is
task_of diplomacy to make wise decisions
wlien,?they need to be Macre 'and U.S. diplo-
IU4 failed' to de so in. the 'Dominican crisis.
t aniacrt ;be said with assurance that the
rated. States Cauld have changed the cintise
,0*ehtee S acting differently. What 'can
be;said- Witt
a-is:41114e' is' that the United
states , dicr,.'net ' _take advantage of several
prortunities in which it alight have changed
.the course Of events. The reason appears to
be, 'that, very close to the 'beginning of the
'reit-elution h5.policymakers 'decided that
It s ould not be allowed to succeed. ' This
, de.cis. On seems to me to_havR, een based on
ettggertited eatiMates- -Of Cothinuniat Ian.;
,er00 in-. the rebel movement in the initial
.st4ges and On distaste for the return to pOwer ber' 1963 and pril 1965. And the question
tion on earth. We are sober and satisfied and
Inevitably arises whether this shift in the
-0.1:17*1,6?Schor of a zoverninent Controlled
,b,y, n9seh,s party,,, the prtb_LI5bliiinican itevo_, ad ninistration's attitude toward the Domin- comfortable and rich; our institutions are
stable and old and even venerable, and our
1,a,t1o,,aa.Fy req. ican. Republic is part of a broader shift in its
Revolution of 1776, for that matter, was not
-,,, ,'? - - ? 44-}-- -;A: , ? --6 $-. att nude toward other Latin American coml-
. question the ciegree of CorninUnist tri uk whether, to be specific, the U.S. Gov- much of an upheaval compared to the French
epcp,'.14?07CtItieatiMportance and I shall eminent now views. _the,. vigorous reform and Russian revolutions and to current and
entA:OR it later: 'Vlie-eseential point, 'rnmernents of LatinAmerica?auch as_chris- impending revolutions In Latin America,
11QW0Vet';'is that the thii:ect States, on the tie Democracy in. Chile, Peru, and Vene- Asia, and Africa.
bags Otarohlgit'OUSeVidenee;asstimedahnost P.1115, APR A in Peru and Accion Democratica Our heritage of stability and conservatism
-frial?,4?,tWheginning that the reVoluticin 'was 4 A, VT
-YPPeZV.elf1.-=?1,5 tigOten.ing to the inter- is a great blessing, but it also has the effect
4M-Attfltst, dOininated; oi would certalulY eslcof, the ti-iliteti $taIrPs.And if tills k. the of limiting our understanding of the charac-
st,e0,1ne,.00,` It aPparetity never occiiired'to 04,10., wnwt kind q Lemo, ',American political, ter of sobial revolution and sometimes as well
'141Irtgle thatliel-Tilliad'8fatis could also at- nalvements would now be regarded as friend- Of the injustices which spawn them. Our
- terfiPt to -influence 'the course which the Iy to the United States and beneficial to its understanding of revolutions and their
. revoltitian- : idol. We rnieread prevailing it, t.,, causes is imperfect not because of any fail-
tencietleiea:' in "fatin: America' by overlooking '-'17,1X9-uiTcl liki, ,t.6 i.:0' 4,:i,c 1.k' ,,ey5, clear that 1 'Urea or thircd or character but because of our
, or Ignoring the fact that any reform Move- aniraising a question not offering an answer. Pod fortune since the Civil War in never
niezi Is Mel to attract COMmunist support. I ikrn frankly puzzled as to the current atti_ having experienced sustained social injus-
4118':' 6.4:to ? iief'eefc''e- that if We are turle? of ,the U.S. Government toward re_ tice without hope of legal or more or less
1:143 bee any- reform Move--; foahist movements in Latin America. On Peageful remedy. We are called upon, to there-
pTs
t9, we are Mei opie hand,,Prceident ?Trohno,n
,'s deep_ per- - fore, to give our understanding and our
en ilp,o0osi kg every reform move- sogal commitment to the , philosophy and -s3ffilPfftliy and support to movements which
triallig. ourselves the prisoners of re- all is of the Alliance for Progress is clear; it -kre alien to our experience and jarring to our
? citto_Ltedat,g-10;itiati, q; tO,; P, preserve the. status 7,,o_q9AvAnqip4317 etc nipressed, for examPle, in 'Preferences and prejudices.
status uo in man countries his speech to the Latin TAinerican Atiassa- We must try to understand social revolu-
believably opaque language lies an unmis-
takable military and reactionary bias.
It is of great importance that the uncer-
tainty as to U.S. aims in Latin America be
resolved. .We cannot successfully advance
the cause of popular democracy and at the
?
same time aline ourselves with corrupt and
reactionary oligarchies; yet that is what we
seem to be trying to do. The direction of
the Alliance for Progress is toward social
revolution in Latin America; the direction
of our Dominican intervention is toward the
suppression of revolutionary movements
which are supported ?by Communists or sus-
pected of being influenced by Communists.
The prospect of an election in 9 months
which may conceivably produce a strong
democratic government is certainly reassur-
ing on this score, but the fact remains that
the reaction of the United States at the time
of acute crisis was to intervene forcibly and
illegally against a revolution which, had we
sought to influence it instead of suppress-
ing it, might have produced a strong popular
government without foreign military inter-
vention. Since just about every revolution-
ary movement is likely to attract Communist
support, at least in the beginning, the ap-
proach followed In the Dominican Republic,
If consistently pursued, must inevitably make
us the enemy of all revolutions and there-
fore the ally of all the unpopular and corrupt
oligarchies of the hemisphere.
We simply cannot have it both ways; we
must choose between the Alliance for Prog-
ress and a foredoomed effort to sustain the
status quo in Latin America. The choice
which we are to make Is the principal unan-
swered question arising out of the unhappy
events to the Dominican Republic and, in-
deed, the principal unanswered question for
the future of our relations with Latin
America.
It is not surprising that we American are
not drawn toward the uncouth revolution-
aries of the non-Communist left. We are
not, as we like to claim in Fourth of July
speeches, the most truly revolutionary nation
on earth; we are, on the contrary, much
closer to being the most unrevolutionary na-
ia nOt good ,ent4gh.
dc is' on the fourth anniversary of the Alli- tion and the injustices that give it rise be-
? ? Approved For Releas 3/10/15 ? CIA-RDP67B00446R000 0011'0045=
-*
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
October 22, .1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
cause they are the heart and core of the
experience of the great majority of people
now living in the world. In Latin America
we may prefer to associate with the well-
bred, well-dressed, businessmen who often
hold positions of-Power, but Latin American
reformers regard such men as aliens in their
own countries who neither identify with
their own people nor even sympathize with
their aspirations. Such leaders are regarded
by educated young Latin Americans as a
"consular bourgeoisie," by which they mean
business-oriented conservatives who more
nearly represent the interests of foreign busi-
nessmen than the interests of their own
people. Men like Donald Reid?who is one
of the better of this category of leaders?may
have their merits, but they are not the force
of the future in Latin America.
It is the revolutionaries of the non-Com-
munist left who have most of the popular
Support in Latin America. The Radical Party
in Chile, for example, is full of 19th century
libertarians whom many North Americans
would find highly congenial, but it was re-
cently crushed in national elections by a
group of rambunctious, leftist Christian
Democrats. It may be argued that the Chris-
tain Democrats are anti-United States, and
to a considerable extent some of them are?
more so now, it may be noted, than prior to
the intervention of the United States in the
Dominican Republic?but they are not Com-
munists and they have popular support.
They have also come to terms with the
American copper companies in Chile; that is
something which the predecessor conserva-
tive government was unable to do and some-
thing which a Communist government would
have been unwilling to do.
The movement of the future in Latin
America is social revolution. The question
is whether it is to be Communist or demo-
- antic revolution and the choice which the
Latin Anierica,ns make will depend in part
Ian hOw the 'United States uses its great in-
fluence. It should be very clear that the
Choke is not between social revolution and
conservative oligarchy but whether, by sup-
porting reform, we bolster the popular non-
Connannist left or whether, by supporting
Unpopular oligarchies, we drive the rising
generation of educated and patriotic young
, Latin Americans to an embittered and hos-
tile form of communiem like that of Fidel
Castro in Chile.
In my Senate speech of March 25, 1964, I
commented as follows on the prospect of
revolution:
-"I am not predicting violent resolutions in
Latin America or elsewhere. Still less am I
advocating them. I wish only to suggest
that violent social revolutions are a possi-
bility in countries where feudal oligarchies
resist all meaningful change by peaceful
means. We must not, in our preference for
the democratic procedures envisioned by the
Charter of Punta del Este, close our minds to
the possibility that democratic procedures
may fail in certain countries and that where
democracy does fail violent social convulsions
may occur."
I think that in the case of the Domini-
can Republic we did close our minds to
the causes and to the essential legitimacy
of revolution in a countfy in which dem-
ocratic procedures had failed. That, I
think, is the central fact concerning the
participation of the United States in the
Dominican revolution and, possibly as well,
its major lesson for the future. I turn now
to comment on some of the events which
began last April 24 in Santo Domingo.
? When the Dominican revolution began on
Saturday, April 24, the United States had
three options available. First, it could have
supported the Reid Cabral government; sec-
Ond, it could have supported the revolution-
ary forces; and third, it could do nothing.
Na. 198?pt. 2-18
The administration chose the last course.
When Donald Reid Cabral asked for U.S.
intervention on Sunday morning, April 25,
he was given no encouragement. He then
resigned, and considerable disagreement en-
sued over the nature of the government to
succeed him. The party of Juan Bosch, the
PRD, or Dominican Revolutionary Party,
asked for a "U.S. presence" at the transfer
of government power but was given no en-
couragement. Thus, there began at that
time a chaotic situation which amounted to
civil war in a country without an effective
government.
What happened in essence was that the
Dominican military refused to support Reid
and were equally opposed to Bosch or other
PRD leaders as his successor. The PRD,
which had the support of some military offi-
cers, announced that Rafael Molina Urena,
who had been president of the senate during
the Bosch regime, would govern as provi-
sional president pending Basch's return. At
this point, the military leaders delivered
an ultimatum, which the rebels ignored, and
at about 4:30 on the afternoon of April 25
the air force and navy began firing at the
National Palace. Later in the day, PRD
leaders asked the U.S. Embassy to use its
influence to persuade the air force to stop
the attacks. The Embassy made it clear, it
would not intervene on behalf of the rebels,
although on the following day, Mbnday,
April 26, the Embassy did persuade the
military to stop air attacks for a limited time.
This was the first crucial point in the
crisis. If the United States thought that
Reid was giving the Dominican Republic the
best government it had had or was likely to
get, why did the United States not react more
vigorously to support him? On the other
hand, if the Reid government was thought
to be beyond salvation, why did not the
United States offer positive encouragement
to the moderate forces involved in the coup,
if not by providing the "U.S. presence" re-
quested by the PRD, then at least by letting
it be known that the United States was not
opposed to the prospective change of regimes
or by encouraging the return of Juan Bosch
to the Dominican Republic? In fact, accord-
ing to available evidence, the U.S. Govern-
ment made no effort to contact Bosch in the
initial days of the crisis.
The United States was thus at the outset
unwilling to support Reid and unwilling to
support if not positively opposed to Bosch.
Events of the days following April 24
demonstrated that Reid had so little popu-
lar support that it can reasonably be argued
that there was nothing the United States
could have done, short of armed interven-
tion, to save his regime. The more inter-
esting question is why the United States
was so reluctant to see Bosch returned to
power. This is part of the larger question
of why 'U.S. attitudes had changed so much
since 1963 when Bosch, then in power, was
warmly and repeatedly embraced and sup-
ported as few if any Latin American presi-
dents have ever been supported by the
United States.
The next crucial point in the Dominican
story came on Tuesday, April 27, when rebel
leaders, including Molina Urena and Caam-
ano Deno, called at the U.S. Embassy seeking
mediation and negotiations. At that time
the military situation looked very bad for
the rebel, or constitutionalist, forces. Am-
bassador Bennett, who had been instructed
four times to work for a cease-fire and for
the formation of a military junta, felt he
did not have authority to mediate; media-
tion, in his view, would have been "inter-
vention." Mediation at that point might
have been accomplished quietly and without
massive military intervention. Twenty-four
hours later the Ambassador was pleading
for the Marines, and as we know some 20,000
soldiers were landed?American soldiers.
27467
On the afternoon of April 27 Gen. Wessin
y Wessin's tanks seemed about to cross the
Duarte bridge into the city of Santo Dom-
ingo and the rebel cause appeared hopeless.
When the rebels felt themselves rebuffed
at the American Embassy, some of their
leaders, including Molina Urena, sought asy-
lum in Latin American embassies in Santo
Domingo. The administration has inter-
preted this as evidence that the non-Com-
munist rebels recognized growing Commu-
nist influence in their movement and were
consequently abandoning the revolution.
Molina Urena has said simply that he sought
asylum because he thought the revolution-
ary cause hopeless.
An opportunity was lost on April 27. Am-
bassador Bennett was in a position to bring
possibly decisive mediating power to bear
for a democratic solution, but he chose not
to do so on the ground that the exercise
of his good offices at that point would have
constituted intervention, In the words of
Washington Post writer Murrey Marder?
one of the press people who, to the best of
my knowledge, has not been assailed as pre-
judiced:
"It can be argued with considerable weight
that late Tuesday, April 27, the United
States threw away a fateful opportunity to
try to prevent the sequence that produced
the American intervention. It allowed the
relatively leaderless revolt to pass into hands
which it was to allege were Communist."1
? The overriding reason for this mistake
was the conviction of U.S. officials, on the
basis of evidence which was fragmentary at
best, that the rebels were dominated by
Communists. A related and perhaps equally
important reason for the U.S. Embassy's re-
fusal to mediate on April 27 was the desire
for and, at that point, expectation of an
antirebel victory. They therefore passed up
an important opportunity to reduce or even
eliminate Communist influence by encour-
aging the moderate elements among the
rebels and mediating for a democratic
solution.
Owing to a degree of disorganization and
timidity on the part of the antirebel forces
which no one, including the U.S. Embassy
and the rebels themselVes, anticipated, the
rebels were still fighting on the morning of
Wednesday, April 28. Ambassador Bennett
thereupon urgently recommended that the
antirebels under Air Force General de los
Santos be furnished 50 walkie-talkies from
U.S. Defense Department stocks in Puerto
Rico. Repeating this recommendation later
in the day, Bennett said that the issue was
one between Castroism and its opponents.
The antirebels themselves asked for armed
U.S. intervention on their side; this request
was refused at that time.
During the day, however, the situation
deteriorated rapidly, from the point of view
of public order in general and of the anti-
rebels in particular. In midafternoon of
April 28 Col. Pedro Bartolome Benoit, head of
a junta which had been hastily assembled,
asked again, this time in writing, for U.S.
troops on the ground that this was the only
way to prevent a Communist takeover; no
mention was made of the junta's inability to
protect American lives. This request was
denied in Washington, and Benoit was there-
upon told that the United States would not
intervene unless he said he could not protect
American citizens present in the Dominican
Republic. Benoit was thus told in effect that
if he said American lives were in danger the
United States would intervene. And that is
precisely what happened.
It was at this point, on April 28, that events
acquired something of the predestiny of a
Greek tragedy. Subsequent events?the fail-
ure of the missions of John Bartlow Martin
and McGeorge Bundy, the conversion of the
1 Washington Post, June 27, 1965, p. ES.
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
27468 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
U.S. force into an inter-American force, the
enforced stalemate between the rebels un-
der Caamarfo Deno and the Imbert junta, the
OAS mediation and the tortuous negotiations
for a provisional government?have all been
widely reported and were not fully explored
in the committee hearings. In any case, the
general direction of events was largely deter-
mined by the fateful decision of April 28.
Once the marines landed on that day, and
especially after they were heavily reinforced
in the days immediately following, the die
was cast and the United States found itself
deeply involved in the Dominican civil con-
flict, with no visible way to extricate itself,
and with its hemisphere relations compli-
cated in a way that few could have foreseen
and no one could have desired.
The danger to American lives was more a
pretext than a reason for the massive 'U.S.
intervention that began on the evening of
April 28. In fact, no American lives were
lost in Santo Domingo until the marines
began exchanging fire with the rebels after
April 28; reports of widespread shooting that
endangered American lives turned out to be
exaggerated.
Nevertheless, there can be no question
that Santo Domingo was not a particularly
safe place to be in the last days of April 1965.
There was fighting in the streets, aircraft
were strafing parts of the city, and there was
indiscriMinate shooting. I think that the
United States would have been justified in
landing a small force for the express pur-
pose of removing U.S. citizens and other for-
eigners from the island. Had such a force
been landed and then promptly withdrawn
when it had completed Its mission, I do not
think that any fairminded observer at home
or abroad would have considered the United
States to have exceeded its rights and re-
sponsibilities.
The United States intervened in the Do-
minican Republic for the purpose 'of pre-
venting the victory of a revolutionary force
which was judged to be Communist domi-
nated. On the basis of Ambassador Ben-
nett's messages to Washington, there is no
doubt that the threat of communism rather
than danger to American lives was his pri-
mary reasota for recommending military in-
tervention.
The question of the degree of Communist
influence is therefore crucial, but it cannot
be answered With certainty. The weight of
the evidence is that Communists did not par-
ticipate in planning the revolution?indeed.
there is scene indication that it took them
by surprise?but that they very rapidly be-
gan to try to take advantage of it and to seize
eontrol of it. The evidence does not estab-
lish that the Communists at any time actu-
ally had control of the revolution. There is
little doubt that they had influence within
the revolutionary movement, but the degree
of that influence remains a matter of specu-
lation.
? The administration, however, assumed al-
moat from the beginning that the revolution
was Communist dominated, or would cer-
tainly become so, and that nothing short of
forcible opposition could prevent a Commu-
nist takeover. In their apprehension lest
the Dominican Republic become another
Cuba, souls of our officials seem to have for-
gotten that virtually all reform movements
attract some Communist support, that there
is an important difference between Commu-
nist Support and Communist control of a
political movement, that it is quite possible
to compete With the Communists for in-
fluence in a reform movement rather than
abandon it to them and, Most important of
all, that economic development and social
Justice are themselves the primary and most
reliable security against Communist sub-
vefsion.
rt is, perhaps, understandable that admin..
istration officials should have felt some sense
of panic; after all, the Foreign Service officer
who had the misfortune to be assigned to
the Cuban desk at the time of Castro's rise
to power has had his career ruined by con-
gressional committees. Furthermore, even
without ibis consideration, the decisions re-
garding the Dominican Republic had to be
made un ler great pressure and on the basis
of inconclusive haformation. In charity, this
can be accepted as a reason why the decisions
were mile taken; but it does not change the
conclusion that they were mistaken.
The point I am making is not?emphati-
cally act?that there was no Communist
participetion in the Dominican crisis, but
simply taat the administration acted on the
premise that the revelution was controlled
by Communists?a premise which it failed to
establish-at the time and has not established
since. The issue is not whether there was
Communist influence in the Dominican revo-
lution tut its degree, which Is something on
which reasonable men can differ. The bur-
den of proof, however, is on those who take
action, and the administration has not
proven .ts assertion of Communist control.
Intervention on the basis of Communist
particle ation as distinguished from control
of the Dominican revolution was a mistake
In my opinion which also reflects a grievous
rnisreaceng of the temper of contemporary
Latin .emerican politics. Communists are
present in all Latin American countries, and
they al e going to inject themselves into al-
most a ay Latin American revolution and try
to sets control of it. If any group or any
movement with which the Communists as-
sociate themselves is going to be automati-
cally condemned in the eyes of the United
States, then we have indeed given up all
hope of guiding or influencing even to a mar-
ginal degree the revolutionary movements
awl the demands for social change which
are sweeping Latin America. Worse, if that
is owe view, then we have made ourselves
the pr Boners of the Latin American oligarchs
who are engaged in a vain attempt to pre-
serve ;,he status quo?reactionaries who ha-
bitually use the term "Communist" very
loosele, in part out of emotional predilection
and i a part in a calculated effort to scare
the United States into supporting their sel-
fish and discredited aims.
If t be United States had really been Inter-
venin e to save American lives, as It had a
moral if not a strictly legal right to do, it
could have done so promptly and then with-
draw:i and the incident would soon have
been forgotten: But the United States did
not :ntervene primarily to save American
lives; it intervened to prevent what it con-
ceive 1 to be, a Communist takeover. That
meant, in the terms in which the United
States defined the situation, that it was
inter vening against the rebels, who, however
heav .ly they might or might not have been
infiltrated by Communists, were also the
eicivoaates of the restoration of a freely
elected constitutional government which had
been forcibly overthrown, It also meant
that the United States was intervening for
the :nilitary and the oligarchy?to the detri-
ment of the Dominican people and to the
bitter disappointment of those throughout
Lati a America who had placed their hopes
in the United States and the Alliance for
ProE ress.
0 a the basis of the record, there is ample
justification for concluding that, at least
from the time Reid resigned, U.S. policy was
directed toward construction of a military
jun ;a which hopefully would restore peace
and conduct free elections. That is to say
the:, U.S. policy was directed against the re-
turn of Bosch and against the success of the
reteil movement.
In this connection it is interesting to re-
call U.S. policy toward Bosch when he was
in jlewer in the Dominican Republic between
Felruary and September of 1963. He had
been elected, as I have already mentioned, in
the only free and honest election ever held
October 22, 1965
in the Dominican Republic, in December
1962, with 58 percent of the votes cast:
The United States placed such importance
on his success that President F:ennedy sent
the then Vice President Johnson and Sen-
ator Humphrey, among others, to attend
his inauguration in February 1963. In Sep-
tember 1963, when he was overthrown in a
military coup, the United States made
strenuous efforts?which stopped just short
of sending the marines?to keep him in
power, and thereafter the United States
waited almost 3 months before recognizing
the successor government. Recognition
came, by the -way, only after the successor
government had conducted military opera-
tions against 6 band of alleged Communist
guerrillas in the mountains, and there is a
suspicion that the extent of the guerrilla
activities was exaggerated by the successor
government in order to secure U.S. recog-
nition.
It may be granted that Bosch was no
great success es President of the Dominican
Republic but when all his faults have been
listed, the fact remains that Bosch was the
only freely elected President in Dominican
history, the only President who had ever
tried, however ineptly, to give the country a
decent government, and the only President
who was unquestionably in -tune with the
Alliance for Progress. '
Despite these considerations, the United
States was at the very least unenthusiastic
or, more probably, opposed to Boscht return
to power in April 1965. Bosch himself was
apparently not eager to return?he vacillated
ia the very early stager; and some well-in-
formed persons contend that he positively
refused to return to the Dominican Republic.
In any case, be missed a critical opportunity.
But the United States was equally adamant
against a return to power of Bosch's party,
the PRD, which is the nearest thing to a
mass-based, well-organized party that has
ever existed in the Dominican Republic.
The stated reason was that a PRD govern-
ment would be Communist dominated.
This might conceivably have happened, but
the evidence by no means supports the con-
clusion that it would have happened. We
based our policy on a possibility rather than
on anything approaching a likelihood. Ob-
viously, if we based all our policies on the
mere possibility of communism, then we
would have to set ourselves against just
about every progressive political movement
in the world, because almost all such move-
ments are subject to at least the theoretical
danger of Communist takeover. This ap-
proach is not in the national interest; foreign
policy must be based on prospects that seem
probable, hopeful and susceptible to con-
structive influence rather than on merely
possible dangers.
One is led, therefore, to the conclusion
.that U.S. policymakers were Unduly timid
and alarmist in refusing to gamble on the
forces of reform and social change. The
bitter irony of such timidity is that by cast-
ing its lot with the forces of the status quo,
in the probably vein hope that these forces
could be induced to permit at least some
reform and social change, the United States
almost certainly helped the Communists to
acquire convertswhom they otherwise could
not have won.
How vain the hopes of U.S. policymakers
were is amply demonstrated by events since
April 28. The junta led by Gen. Antonio Im-
bert, which succeeded the junta led by Col-
onel Benoit, proved quite intractable and in-
deed filled the airwaves daily with denuncia-
tions of the United States and the Organiza-
tion of American States for preventing it
from wiping out the Communist rebels.
Theee are the same military forces which on
April 28 were refusing to fight the rebels and
begging for U.S. Intervention. Our aim ap-
parently was to use Imbert as a counterpoise
Approved For Relealse 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP671300446R000500110015-9
October 22, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 27469
to Caamano Deno in the ill-founded hope
that non-Communist liberals would be
drawn away from the rebel side.
In practice, instead of Imbert becoming
our tractable instrument, we, to a certain ex-
tent, became his: he clung tenaciously to the
power we gave him and was at least as in-
transigent as the rebels in the protracted ne-
gotiations for a provisional government.
The resignation of Imbert and his junta
provides grounds for hope that a strong pop-
ular 'government may come to power in the
Dominican Republic, but that hope must be
tempered by the fact that the military con-
tinues to wield great power in Dominican
politics?power which it probably would not
now have if the United States had not in-
tervened to save it from defeat last April 28.
Even with a provisional government installed
in Santo Domingo, and with the prospect of
an election in 9 months, there remains the
basic problem of a deep and widespread de-
mand for social change. The prospect for
such social change is circumscribed by the
fact thlt the military has not surrendered
and caiThot be expected voluntarily to sur-
render its entrenched position of privilege
and outrageous corruption.
The United States has grossly underesti-
mated the symbolism of the Bosch constitu-
tion of 1963. It can be argued that this con-
tains unrealistic promises, but it has stirred
the hopes and idealism of the Dominican
people. The real objections to it, the part
of conservative Dominicans, seem to be that
it provides for separation of church and state
and that it provides that Dominican citizens
have the right to live in the Dominican Re-
public If they so desire?that is, that Domini-
can citizens who happen also to be Commu-
nists cannot be deported. In passing, one
may note a similarity to the U.S. Constitution
on both of these points.
The United States has also misread the
dedication of the Dominican military to the
status quo and to its own powers and
privileges. It may be said that the United
States has overestimated its ability to in-
fluence the military while failing to use to
the fullest the influence it does littve.
The act of United States massive military
Intervention in the Dominican Republic was
a grievous mistake, but if oue is going to
cross the bridge of intervention, with all of
the historical ghosts which it calls forth
throughout Latin America, then one might
as well cross all the way and not stop in the
middle. It is too late for the United States
to refrain from intervention; it is not too
late to try to redeem some permanent benefit
from that intervention. Specifically, I think
that the influence of the United States and
the Organization of American States should
be used to help the Dominican people free
themselves from the oppressive weight of a
corrupt and privileged military establish-
ment. It is entirely possible, if not likely,
that if the military is allowed to retain its
power it will overthrow any future govern-
ment that displeases it just as it has done in
the past. The OAS mediating team made a
contribution by bringing about the installa-
don of a provisional government; the OAS
can still make a solid contribution to Domin-
ican democracy by urging or insisting that as
part of a permanent solution the Dominican
military establishment be substantially re-
duced in size and some of the more irrespon-
sible generals be pensioned off or sent on
lengthy diplomatic holidays abroad. If the
United States and the OAS are going to im-
pose a solution in the Dominican Republic,
they might as well impose a good solution as
a bad one.
Since preparing these remarks, I note in
this morning's press that General Wessin has
been induced to leave the Dominican Repub-
lic. This, I believe, is a step in the right
direction.
The Foreign Relations Committee's study
of the Dominican crisis leads me to draw
?
certain specific conclusions regarding Amer-
ican policy in the Dominican Republic and
also suggests some broader considerations re-
garding relations between the United States
and Latin American. My specific conclusions
regarding the crisis in Santo Domingo are as
follows:
First. The United States intervened forci-
bly in the Dominican Republic in the last
week of April 1965 not primarily to save
American lives, as was then contended, but
to prevent the victory of a revolutionary
movement which was judged to be Commu-
nist-dominated. The decision to land thou-
sands of marines on April 28 was based pri-
marily on the fear of "another Cuba" in
Santo Domingo.
Second. This fear was based on fragmen-
tary and inadequate evidence. There is no
doubt that Communists participated in the
Dominican revolution on the rebel side, prob-
ably to a greater extent after than before
the landing of U.S. marines on April 28, but
just as It cannot be proved that the Com-
munists would not have taken over the revol-
ution neither can it be proved that they
would have. There is little basis in the
evidence offered the committee for the as-
sertion that the rebels were Communist-
dominated or certain to become so; on the
contrary, the evidence suggests a chaotic sit-
uation in which no single faction was dom-
inant at the outset and in which everybody,
including the United States, had opportu-
nities to influence the shape and course of
the rebellion.
Third. The United States let pass its best
opportunities to influence the course of
events. The best opportunities were on
April 25, when Juan Bosch's party, the PRD,
requested a "United States presence," and
on April 27, when the rebels, believing them-
selves defeated, requested United States
mediation for a negotiated settlement. Both
requests were rejected, in the first instance
.for reasons that are not entirely clear but
probability because of United States hostility
to the PRD, in the second instance because
the U.S. Government anticipated and desired
a victory of the antirebel forces.
Fourth. T.T.S. policy toward the Dominican
Republic shifted markedly to the right be-
tween September 1963 and April 1965. In
1963, the United States strongly supported
Bosch and the PRD as enlightened reform-
ers; in 1965 the United States opposed their
return to power on the unsubstantiated
ground that a Bosch or PRD government
would certainly, or almost certainly, become
Communist dominated. Thus the United
States turned its back on social revolution
in Santo Domingo and associated itself with
a corrupt and reactionary military oligarchy.
Fifth. U.S. policy was marred by a lack of
candor and by misinformation. The former
Is illustrated by official assertions that U.S.
military intervention was primarily for the
purpose of saving American lives; the latter
Is illustrated by exaggerated reports of mas-
sacres and atrocities by the rebels?reports
which no one has been able to verify. It
was officially asserted, for example?by the
President in a press conference on June 17
according to an official State Department
bulletin?that "some 1,500 innocent people
were murdered and shot, and their heads
cut off." There is no eviddence to support
this statement. A sober examination of such
evidence as is available indicates that the
Imbert junta was guilty of at least as many
atrocities as the rebels.
Sixth. Responsibility for the failure of
American. policy in Santo Domingo lies pri-
marily with those who advised the President.
In the critical days between April 25 and
April 28, these officials sent the President
exaggerated reports of the danger of a Com-
munist takeover in Santo Domingo and, on
the basis of these, recommended U.S. mas-
sive military intervention. It is not at all
difficult to understand why, on the basis of
such advice, the President made the deci-
sions that he made.
Seventh. Underlying the bad advice and
unwise actions of the United States was the
fear of another Cuba. The specter of a
second Communist state in the Western
Hemisphere?and its probable repercus-
sions within the United States and possible
effects on the careers of those who might be
held responsible?seems to have been the
most important single factor in destorting
the judgment of otherwise sensible and com-
petent men.
I turn now to some broader and long-term
implications of the Dominican tragedy, first
to some considerations relating to the Or-
ganization of American States and its char-
ter, then to the problem of. reaction and
revolution in Latin America, finally to a sug-
gestion for a freer and, I believe, healthier
relationship between the United Stats and
Latin America.
Article 15 of the Charter of the Organiza-
tion of American States says that:
"No state or group of states has the right to
intervene, directly or indirectly, for any rea-
son whatever, in the internal or external af-
fairs of any other state."
Article 17 states that:
"The territory of a State is inviolable; it
may not be the object, even temporarily, of
military occupation or of other measures of
force taken by another State, directly or in-
directly, on. any grounds whatever."
These clauses are not ambiguous. They
mean that, with one exception to be noted,
all forms of forcible intervention are ab-
solutely prohibited among the American
States. It may be that we should never have
accepted this commitment at Bogota in 1948;
it is obvious from all the talk one hears these
days about the obsoleteness of the principle
of nonintervention that some U.S. officials
regret our commitment to it. The fact re-
mains that we are committed to it, not par-
tially or temporarily or insofar as we find it
compatible with our vital interests but al-
most absolutely. It represents our word and
our bond and our willingness to honor the
solemn commitments embodied in a treaty
which was ratified by the Senate on August
28, 1950.
There are those who might concede the
point of law who would also argue that such
considerations have to do with our ideals
rather than our interests and are therefore of
secondary importance. I do not believe that
is true. We are currently fighting a war in
Vietnam, largely, we are told, because it
would be a disaster if the United States failed
to honor its word and its commitment; the
matter, we are told, is one of vital national
interest. I do not see why it is any less a
matter of vital interest to honor a clear and
explicit treaty obligation in the Americas
than it is to honor the much more ambiguous
and less formal promises we have made to the
South Vietnamese.
The sole exception to the proWbitions
of articles 15 and 17 is spelled out in
article 19 of ?the OAS Charter, which states
that "measures adopted for the mainte-
nance of peace and security in accordance
with existing treaties do not constitute a
violation of the principles set forth in articles
15 and 17." Article 6 of the Rio Treaty
states:
"If the inviolability or the integrity of the
territory or the sovereignty or political in-
dependence of any American State should be
affected by an aggression which is not an
armed attack or by an extracontinental or
intracontinental conflict, or by any other
fact or situation that might endanger the
peace of America, the Organ of Consultation
shall meet immediately in order to agree on
the measures which must be taken in case of
aggression to assist the victim of the aggres-
sion or, in any case, the measures which
should be taken for the common defense
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/15: CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
27470 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
and for the maintenance of the peace and
security of the continent."
The United States thus had legal recourse
when the Dominican crisis broke on April 24,
1965. We could have called an urgent ses-
sion of the Council of the OAS for the pur-
pose of invoking article 6 of the Rio Treaty.
But we did not do so. The administration
has argued that there was no time to con-
sult the OAS, although there was time to
consult?or inform--the congressional lead-
ership. The United States thus intervened
in the Dominican Republic unilaterally?
and illegally.
Advising the Latin American countries
of our action after the fact did not con-
stitute compliance with the OAS Charter
or the Ptio Treaty; nor, indeed, would advis-
ing them before the fact have constituted
compliance. One does not comply with the
law by notifying interested parties in ad-
vance of one's intent to violate it. Inter-
American law requires consultation for the
purpose of shaping a collective decision.
Only on the basis of advance consultation
and agreement could we have undertaken
a legal intervention in the Dominican
Republic.
It is possible, had we undertaken such
consultations, that our Latin American part-
ners would have delayed a decision; it is
possible that they would have refused to
authorize collective intervention. My own
feeling is that the situation in any case did
not justify military intervention except for
the limited purpose of evacuating U.S. citi-
zens and other foreigners, but even if it
seemed to us that it did, we should not have
undertaken it without the advance consent
of our Latin American allies. We should
not have done so because the word and
the honor of the United States were at stake
just as much?at least as much?in the
Dominican crisis as they are in Vietnam and
Korea and Berlin and all the places around
the globe which we have committed our-
selves to defend.
There is Another important reason for
compliance with the law. The United States
is a conservative power in the world in the
sense that most of its vital interests are
served by stability and order. Law is the
essential foundation of stability and order
both within societies and in international
relations. A great conference is taking place
here in Washington this meek on the sub-
ject, World Peace Through Law. As a con-
servative power the United States has a
vital interest in upholding and expanding
the reign of law in international relations.
Insofar as international law is observed, it
provides us with stability and order and with
a means of predicting the behavior of those
with whom we have reciprocal legal obliga-
tions. When we violate the law ourselves,
whatever short-term advantage may be
gained, we are obviously encouraging others
to violate the law; we thus encourage dis-
order and instability and thereby do in-
calculable damage to our own long-term in-
terests.
There are those who defend U.S. unilateral
intervention in the Dominican Republic on
the ground that the principle of noninter-
vention as spelled out in the OAS Charter is
obsolete. The argument is unfortunate on
two grounds. First, the contention of obso-
leteness justifies an effort to bring about
changes in the OAS Charter by due process
of law, but it does not justify violation of
the charter. Second. the view that the prin-
? ciple of nonintervention is obsolete is one
held by certain U.S. officials; most Latin
Americans would argue that, far from being
obsolete, the principle of nonintervention
Was and remains the heart and core of the
inter American system. Insofar as it is hon-
ored, it provided them with something that
many in the United States find it hard to be-
lieve they could suppose they need: protec-
tion from the United States.
afa,ny North Americans seem to ? believe
that, while the United States does indeed
participate in Latin American affairs from
time to time, sometimes by force, it is done.
with the test of intentions, usually indeed
to protect the Latin Americans from inter-
vention by somebody else, and therefore can-
not really be considered intervention. The
trouble with this point of view is that it
is not shared by our neighbors to the south.
Most of them do think they need protection
from the Upited States and the history of
the Monroe Doctrine and the "Roosevelt
-corollary" suggest that their fears are not
entirely w,thout foundation. "Good inten-
tions" are not a very sound basis for judging
the fulfillment of contractual obligations.
Just about everybody, including the Com-
munists, believes in his own "good inten-
tions." It is a highly subjective criterion of
national behavior and has no more than a
chance reationship to good results. With
whatever justice or lack of it, many Latin
Americans are afraid of the United States;
however cinch it may hurt our feelings, they
prefer to have their security based on some
more objective standard than the good in-
tentions or the United States.
The standard on which they rely most
heavily in the principle of noninterven-
tion; hay 'ever obsolete it may seem to cer-
tain U.S. officials, it remains vital and perti-
nent in Latin America. When we violate it,
we are nut overriding the mere letter of the
law; we are violating what to Latin Ameri-
cans is ita vital heart and core.
The in ;er-American system is rooted in an
implicit aontract between the Latin Ameri-
can countries and the United States. In re-
turn for our promise not to interfere in
their internal affairs they have accepted a
role as n.embers of our "sphere" and to sup-
port, or at least not to obstruct, our global
policies. In the Dominican Republic we
violated our part of the bargain; it remains
to be seen whether Latin Americans will now
feel free to violate theirs.
In the eyes of educated, energetic, and
patriotic young Latin Americans?which is
to say, the generation that will make or
break tt.e Alliance for Progress?the United
States committed a worse offense in the
Dominican Republic than just intervention;
it intervened against social revolution and in
support, at least temporarily, of a corrupt,
reactionary military oligarchy.
It is not possible at present to assess the
depth end extent of disillusion with the
United States on the part of democrats and
reformers in Latin America. I myself think
that it is deep and widespread. Nor am I
reassurc d by assertions on the part of admin-
istration officials that a number of Latin
Amend c n governments have secretly ex-
pressed sympathy for our actions in the Do-
minican Republic while explaining that of
course they could not be expected to support
us opealy. Why cannot they support us
openly, unless it is because their sympathy
does not represent the views of their own
people and they do not dare to express it
openly; In fact, real enthusiasm for our
Domin:can venture has been confined large-
ly to maitary dictators and ruling oligarchies.
The tragedy of Santo Domingo is that a
policy that purported to defeat communism
In the shortrun is more likely to have the
effect of promoting it in the longrun. In-
tervention in the Dominican Republic has
alienated?temporarily or permanently, de-
pending on our future policies?our real
friendc in Latin America. These, broadly,
are the people of the democratic left?the
Christ :an and social democrats in a number
of countries, the APRA Party in Peru, the
Accion Democratica Party in Venezuela, and
their cindred spirits throughout the hemi-
sphere. By our intervention on the side of
a corr apt military oligarchy in the Domini-
can Republic, we have embarrassed before
their awn people the democratic reformers
October 22, 1965
who have counseled trust and partnership
with the United States. We have lent cre-
dence to the idea that the United States is
the enemy of social revolution in 1#tin Amer-
ica and that the only choice Latin Ameri-
cans have is between communism and reac-
tion..
If those are the available alternatives,
if there is no democratic left as a third
option, then there is no doubt of the choice
that honest and. patriotic Latin Americans
will make: they will choose communism, not
because they want it but because U.S. policy
will have foreclosed all other avenues of so-
cial revolution and, indeed, all other possi-
bilities except the perpetuation of rule by
military juntas and economic oligarchies.
The dominant force in Latin America is
the aspiration of increasing numbers of peo-
ple to personal and national dignity. In the
minds of the rising generation there are
two principle threats to that aspiration?re-
action at home and domination from abroad.
As a result of its Dominican actions the
United States has allowed itself to become
associated with both. We have thereby of-
fended the dignity and self-respect of young
and idealistic Latin Americans who must
now wonder whether the United States will
one day intervene against, social revolutions
In their own countries, whether one day
they will find themselves facing U.S. Marines
across barricades in their own home towns.
I, myself, am sure, as I know President
Johnson and, indeed, most U.S. citizens are
sure, that our country is not now and will
not become the enemy of social revolution in
Latin America. We have made a mistake in
the Dominican Republic, as we did at the
Bay of Pigs in 1961, but a single misjudg-
ment does not constitute a doctrine for the
conduct of future policy and we remain
dedicated to the goals of the Alliance for
Progress.
We know this ourselves but it remains
to convince our true friends in Latin America
that their social revolutions, will have our
sympathy and support. It will not be easy
to do so, because our intervention in Santo
Domingo shook lf it did not shatter a con-
fidence in the United States that had been
built up over 30 years since the liquidation
of the Caribbean protectorates, and the ini-
tiation of the "good neighbor policy."
It will be difficult but it can be done.
President Johnson took a positive step on
the long road back in his statement of re-
dedication to the Alliance for Progress to
the Latin American Ambassadors on August
17. It remains for us to eliminate the am-
biguity between the antirevclutionary ap-
proach symbolized by Project Camelot and
the preoccupation with problems of counter-
insurgency on the one hand and the creative
approach of the Alliance for Progress on the
other. If we do this?and I am both sure
that we can and reasonably hopeful that we
will?then I think that the Dominican af-
fair will be relegated in history to the status
of a single unhappy episode on the long road
toward the forging of a new and creative and
dignified relationship between the United
States and Latin America,.
In conclusion, I suggest that a new and
healthier relationship between the United
States and Latin America must be a freer
relationship than that of the past.
The United States is a world power with
world responsibilities and to it the inter-
American system represents a sensible way
of maintaining law and order in the region
closest to the United States. To the extent
that it functions as we want it to function,
one of the inter-American system's important
advantages is that it stabilizes relations
within the Western Hemisphere and thus
frees the United States to act on its world-
wide responsibilities.
To Latin Americans, on the other hand,
the inter-American system is politically and
psychologically confining. It has the effect,
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
October 22, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
so to speak, of cooping them up in the
Western Hemisphere, giving them the feel-
ing that there is no way to break out of
the usually well-intentioned but often
stifling embrace of the Uzzited States. In
their hearts, I have no dobut, most Latin
Americans would like to be free of us, just
as a son or daughter coming of age wishes
to be free of an overprotective parent. A
great many of those Latin Americans for
whom Castro still has some appeal?and
there are now more, I would guess, than
before last April 28?are attracted not, I
feel, because they are infatuated with corn.,
znunism, but because Cuba, albeit at the
price of almost complete dependency on the
Soviet Union, has broken out of the orbit
of the, United States.
It is the nature of things that small na-
tions do not live comfortably in the shadow
of large and powerful nations, regardless
of whether the latter are benevolent or
overbearing. Belgium has always been un-
comfortable about Germany and France;
Ireland has never been able to work up much
'affectionfor Great Britain, And in recent
'years some of the Eastern European govern-
ments have demonstrated that, despite the
Communist ideology which they share with
the Soviet Union, they still wish to free
themselves as much as they can and as
much as they dare from the overbearing
power of Russia. It is natural and inevita-
ble that Latin American countries should
have some of the same feelings toward the
United States.
Perhaps, then, the foremost immediate re-
quirement for a new and more friendly rela-
tionship between Latin America and the
United States in the long run is not closer
ties and new institutional bonds but a loos-
ening of existing ties and institutional bonds.
It is an established psychological princi-
ple?or, for that matter, just commonsense?
that the strongest and most viable personal
bonds are those which are voluntary, a vol-
untary bond being, by definition, an arrange-
ment' which one is free to enter or not to
enter. I do not see why the same principle
should not operate in relations between na,
tions. If it does, it would follow that the first
step toward stronger- ties between Latin
America and the United States would be
the creation of a situation in which Latin
American countries would be free, and would
feel free, to maintain or sever existing ties
as they see fit and, perhaps more important,
to establish new arrangements, both among
themselves and with nations outside the
hemisphere, in which the Unitesl States
would not participate.
President Frei of Chile has taken an initia-
tive to this end. He has visited European
leaders and apparently indicated that his
Christian Democratic Government is inter-
ested in establishing new political, economic,
and cultural links with European countries.
For the reasons suggested, I think this is an
Intelligent and constructive step.
I think further that it would be a fine
thing if Latin American countries were to
undertake a program of their own for "build-
ing bridges" to the world beyond the West-
ern Hemisphere?to Europe and Asia and
Africa, and to the Communist countries if
they wish. Such relationships, to be sure,
would involve a loosening of ties to the
United States in the immediate future, but
In the Jong run, I feel sure, they would make
for both happier and stronger bonds with
the United States?happier because they
would be...free, stronger because they would
be dignifled and self-respecting as they never
had been before.
FAVORABLE COMMENTS
[From the Arkansas Gazette, Sept. 20, 1965]
THE LASTING FRIENDSHIPS ATTAINED BY EQUALS
,Senator J. W. FITLBRIGHT'S address to the
Senate last week drew first attention as an
emphatic dissent, which it certainly was, to
the administration's view of the intervention
in the Dominican Republic. But the larger
imnprtance in the address may very well have
lain in FULBRIGHT'S treatment of the broad
context of relations between the United
States and Latin America.
The Senator surveyed with thorough can-
dor the way Latin American countries look
upon the United States, and what he found
was not particularly gratifying. He com-
pared Latin America to a son or daughter
coming of age and wanting to be free of
an overprotective parent; he said the inter-
American system coops the Latin countries
, up in the Western Hemisphere and gives them
the feeling that there "is no way to break
out of the usually well-intentioned but often
stifling embrace of the United States."
What FULBRIGHT was engaged in was the
introspective practice of seeing ourselves as
others see us, and it is not always a com-
fortable exercise. The truth of what he said,
nevertheless, is really beyond question. Our
power and wealth are respected in Latin
America, but there is not much love for us,
because of the very restiveness, the very sense
of dependence, that FULBRIGHT has cited.
It is hardly coincidence that the best re-
lationship the United States has in Latin
America may very well be with Mexico, a
country that is solidly independent in de-
termining its national policies. Mexico has
made great progress in mastering the enor-
mous economic, social, and political ills
common to Latin America. Mexico, in the
memory of two wars, has more reason than
any country except Panama to feel bitter-
ness toward the Colosus del Norte, yet Mexico
and the United States have a strength of
understanding that would hardly have been
attained if Mexico did not have a feeling of
confidence, independence, and self-respect.
What FULBRIGHT suggested for the Latin
American future was in sharp departure
from the most hallowed of past U.S. doc-
trines.
Historically our Government has sought a
sort of hemispheric isolation, at least for
Latin countries if not necessarily for the
United States. President Monroe told Euro-
pean powers to stay out, period. In recent
decades the appeal has been somewhat dif-
ferent, pitched to hemispheric solidarity.
But FULBRIGHT has now argued that Latin
American nations should seek to build
bridges of their own to Europe and Africa and
Asia?even to Communist countries if they
wished. Immediately, he said, the ties with
the United States would be loosened but in
the longer run the bonds between Latin
Americans and the United States would be-
come stronger than ever.
It is an interesting, provocative suggestion
that FULBRIGHT advances. With certain res-
ervations (and surely FULBRIGHT himself has
reservations) it warrants the close attention
of the President and of the movers and shak-
ers in the State Department. We consider
the Organization of American States a nearly
indispensable agency in Latin America's de-
velopment and in inter-American affairs. We
cannot dismiss out of hand the eventualities
of United States intervention in Latin Amer-
ica in emergency circumstances. Yet the
truth remains that big brotherliness has been
as evident as goad neighborliness in hemis-
pheric affairs and in the sweep of history the
most enduring friendships are attained by
nations that regard each other as equals.
L.B.J. AND BEAUREGARD
Of all the snap responses made to Senator
FULLBR/GHT'S studiedly delayed response to
the precipitate nature of our intervention in
the Dominican Republic, the most unfortu-
nate, in, its way, may have been that of Sen-
ator LONG of Louisiana:
"Whatever anybody says about Lyndon
Johnson, he's a--mover. He moves. The South
would be an independent nation today?
I'm not saying it ought to be?but it would
27471
if Gen. P. T. Beauregard of my own Louisiana
hadn't waited for ,the smoke to settle at the
battle of Shiloh in Tennessee. I'd rather
have a man who moves than one who waits."
One guess as to who had been in command
of the Confederate shore batteries at
Charleston Harbor the_year before.
[From the New York Times, Sept. 18, 1965]
FULBRIGHT ON THE DOMINICAN CRISIS
Senator Funadamr often speaks as the
conscience of the United States in foreign
affairs. This makes him a disturbing per-
son, but he plays a valuable and salutary,
if often a thankless, role. He has now said
a number of things about U.S. intervention
in the Dominican Republic that needed say-
ing on the Senate floor.
The New York Times and a few other
'ublications had, as the story unfolded edi-
torially, made every argument that Senator
FULBRIGHT now makes; but the dominant
voices were those of President Johnson, Mc-
George Bundy, Under Secretary Mann, and
Ambassador Tapley Bennett, of Santo Do-
mingo. The latter's unfortunate role is
properly and devastatingly described by the
Arkansas Democrat.
The chairman of the Senate Foreign Rela-
tions Committee waited until a 2-month
series of hearings on the Dominican crisis
was over and until a hopeful settlement of
the conflict was beginning to shape up. For
Senator FULBRIGHT, the evidence of Commu-
nist participation was "fragmentary" and
"not persuasive"; the advice given to Pres-
ident Johnson was "faulty"; and the real
reason for the intervention was not to save
American lives but the dread of "another
Cuba." ..As he points out, the fear of com-
munism leads the United States into oppo-
sition to all revolutions and hence makes us
"the ally of all the unpopular and corrupt
oligarchies of the hemisphere."
These ideas led Senator DODD to accuse
Mr. FULBRIGHT of a "tolerance of commu-
nism." In reality, Senator FULBRIGHT is an
infinitely more effective anti-Communist
than the heavy-handed Senator DODD. There
is no doubt that the latter, and not Mr.
FULBRIGHT, speaks for the Johnson admin-
istration. This means that the same errors
can be repeated if there are other crises in
Latin America.
-"The movement of the future in Latin
America is social revolution," Mr. FULBRIGHT
said. He does not mean the Communist type.
The United States can crush any revolu-
tion by miiltary force, but only at the price
of supporting reaction, militarism, oligarchy
and the status quo.
[From the Christian Science Monitor,
Sept. 18, 1965]
THE FULBRIGHT SPEECH
It will be a great pity if Senator Pm,-
BRIGHT'S Senate speech on the handling of
the Dominican crisis leads simply to a fierce
public argument about the past. As he him-
self says, analysis of the past is useful only if
It helps to avoid mistakes in the future.
There is validity in Mr. FULBRIGHT'S
charges of initial "overtimidity" and sub-
sequent "overreaction." But he is careful
to say that his assessments are made with
the advantage of hindsight. Yet even if one
concedes that there were mistakes during
those early weeks of the upheaval, we be-
lieve that the U.S. Government has since
done a good job in trying to pick up the
pieces which it perhaps helped to shatter?
albeit involuntarily.
Only the first wobbly steps have been
made toward normalcy in Santa Domingo.
But Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker, tireless
and resourceful, would never have been able
to encourage those steps if he had not had
Washington's backing. It has been a little
bit like Macmillan furiously repairing the
damage done by Eden at Suez, protesting all
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R0005001100159
27472
the time that no damage had been done.
Bu t over the Dominican Republic, the Mac-
millan and Eden roles are Combined in one
mari?and he wears a Texas hat.
As we haVe already said, however, we think
that what is important now is to eschew the
same kind oe mistake in the future. Senator
FULBRIGHT uttered a few home truths, among
them:
"The movement of the future in Latin
America is social revolution and the choice
which the Latin Americans make will depend
in part on how the United States uses its
great influence.
"Since just about every revolutionary
movement is likely to attract Communist
support, at least in the beginning, the ap-
proach followed in the Dominican Republic,
if consistently pursued, must inevitably
make Us the enemy of all revolutions and
therefore the ally of all the unpopular and
corrupt oligarchies of the hemisphere.
"It should, be very clear that the choice is
not between social revolution and conserva-
tive oligarchy; but whether, by supporting
reform, we bolster the popular non-Com-
munist left or whether, by supporting un-
popular oligarchies, we drive the rising gen-
eration of educated and patriotic young
Latin Americans to an embittered and hos-
tile form of communism like that of Fidel
Castro."
Admittedly all this is easier to preach than
to practice. To begin with, effective commu-
nication has to be established with that ris-
ing generation?and their confidence Won.
Their language will differ from ours in many
ways. But? most of them want for them-
selves what we have won and want?and the
overwhelming majority of them would still
prefer not to turn outside the American
hemisphere or to alien tyrannies to try to
get it.
[From the Washington Post, Sept. 16, 1965]
STEMVVINDER
Those who admire the analytical powers
of Senator FULBRIGHT have come to expect
penetrating truths from the chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee that cut
through the veneers of cant and illusion. He
has done it again with his incisive speech
, about the American military intervention in
the Dominican Republic. What he says
about initial overtimidity, later overreac-
tion and lack of candor throughout is sure
to lacerate a lot of feelings. But essentially
his point is that with the information avail-
able to him President Johnson could have
taken no other course.
The pertinent question, of course, Is why
the advice to the President was so bad. Be-
yond this the Senator asks several ancillary
questions: Why, for example, did the United
States veer so far from its general support
for Juan Bosch, the elected President ousted
by a military coup in 1963, as to oppose his
return? Was this part of a more ominous
shift against reform movements in Latin
America out of fear that the Communists
would dominate them? Do we lack confi-
dence in qui" own ability to influence the
course of revolution?
For social revolution, Mr. FULBRIGHT con-
tends, is the course of the future in Latin
America, and by seeming to oppose it blindly
we only drive those who are dissatisfied with
the oligarchical status quo into the arms
of the Communists. His characterization of
this country's role is acid:
"We are not, as we like to claim in Fourth
of July speeches, the most truly revolution-
ary Nation on earth; we are, on the contrary,
mueh closer to being the most unrevolu-
tionary Nation on earth. We are sober and
satisfied and comfortable and rich."
In another reproach, Mr. FULBRIGHT con-
tends that the administration broke inter-
national law and damaged its own reputa-
tion in not seeking a collective decision by
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD -- SENATE October 22, 1965
the Organiestion of American States before
its own uniateral aretion. His point is well
taken, but Ile might well have addressed him-
self further to the fundamental need' for
improved mathinery in view of the utter in-
ability of -Om OAS to reach a decision quickly
in ernergen3y.
Happily, the situation in the Dominican
Republic new seems to be turning out better
than might have been expected from the
sorry beginning, and for this recovery the ad-
ministratioa deserves a share of credit. In
any effort :o derive lessons from the experi-
ence, howeeer, Mr. FULBRIGHT'S questions de-
serve some frank answers, not merely an-
guished scr earns from wounded policymakers.
[From the Washington Post, Sept. 17, 1965]
PANIC BUTTON
Senator DODD'S reply to Senator FUL-
BRIGHT'S a itique of the American military
interventicn in the Dominican Republic is
essentially to try to depict Mr. FULBRIGHT
as soft on communism. This tawdry if fa-
miliar tactic does Mr. DODD no credit. There
is legitimate ground for disagreement with
Mr. FuLsrtene's analysis, which had the
benefit of 4 months of hindsight, without
attempting to smear his motives.
That th3re were, and are, Communists in
the Dominican Republic no one disputes;
here Mr. Dope is tilting at. the wrong wind-
mill. Whet is disputed is whether they were
In a posit on to capture the revolution that
the United States in effect halted when rep-
resentativi s of the American Embassy in-
duced the administration eo push the panic
button. Borne influential anti-Communist
Dominicans think they were not.
Nowhere does Mr. DODD deal with several
basic que Steens raised by Mr. FULBRIGHT:
Did the United States fully use the resources
available to it witheiut sending in the Ma-
rines?and was the administration candid
with the public? Obviously the United
States must be alert to Castroite maneuvers,
including efforts to take over and direct local
grievances. But if we allow American policy
to be dondnated and even paralyzed by fear
of anothe! Cuba, we shall soon find ourselves
sending elarines around the hemisphere
losing free rids and alienating people.
Mr. Do 313 contends, and some in the ad-
ministrat Ori agree with him, that Mr. Fur,-
BRIGHT'S S beech damaged the country because
the critic= will be picked up abroad. On
the contr iry the intervention, whether or not
it was neeessary, is-what started the process.
One of tie strengths of America in the eyes
of other 2e0ples?and a point that can belie
Mr. FULD LIGHT'S complaint that the United
States appears unsympathetic to demands
for social justice abroad (by contrast with
the socia. revolution taking place at home)
is that re can debate issues publicly and
seek to learn from experience. But to argue
that all's well that ends well in the Domini-
can Rept blic is like insisting that because a
broken leg ultimately heals it somehow is
good for :rote
[From tie St. Louis (Mo.) Post-Dispatch,
Oct. 13, 19651
MANN lizEtrrs FULBRIGHT"S ATTACK ON
DOMIN :CAN ACTIONS BY THE 'UNITED
STATES
(By Richard Dudman)
WASHI:WTON, October 13.?Under Secretary
of State Thomas C. Mann struck back last
night at Senator J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT in
defense of the U.S. military intervention in
the Dominican Republic.
Withont mentioning FULBRIGHT'S name,
Mann delivered a point-by-point rebuttal_ of
FULBRIGI M'S September 15 attack on the in-
tervention and on current Latin American
policy generally.
He iskued a warning to underdeveloped
nations egainst the "grave dangers of toler-
ating tomMunist popular front activity."
Mann chose a friendly audienc-e, the an-
nual meeting of :the Inter-American Press
Association at San Diego, Calif. The asso-
ciation has been -dominated by writers and
publishers who favor a Latin American policy
based mainly on opposition to communisre.
ADVOCATE OF INTERVENTION
Mann gained a reputation for similar
views as Ambassador to Mexico and Assistant
Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs..
He was known to be a chief advocate of uni-
lateral American. intervention . in the Do-
minican, Republic in the revolution that
broke out April 24. Pummel-Ws speech last
month was thus in part an attack on Mann.
Promising to "clarify a number of mis-
conceptions," Mann went on to quote and
contradict the principal points made by Fin?
BRIGHT, chairman of the Senate Foreign Re-
lations Committee.
FULBRIGHT had charged that the United.
States had intervened illegally, "not to save
American lives as was then contended but to
prevent the victory of a revolutionary move-
ment that was judged to be Communist dom-
inated."
Mann said, "One misconception is that
danger to American lives was more a pretext
than a reason for U.S. action. This is
demonstrably incorrect."
IMMINENT PERIL
Mann asserted that the original intent in
sending United States troops to Santo Do-
mingo was to pull them out as soon as
American civilians were evacuated. He said
that it was not until the day after the April
28 landing by 500 marines that the United
States decided that "the Communist ele-
ments in the rebel camp presented a clear
and imminent peril to the freedom of the. -
Dominican nation."
FULBRIGHT had charged that those who
advised President Lyndon B. Johnson- be-
tween April 25 and April 28 had "exaggerated
reports of the danger of a Comneunist -take-
over in Santo Domingo, and on the: basis of
these recommended U.S. military interven-
tion."
Mann said, "It is charged that from the
beginning that the revolution was Commu-
nist dominated and that it should therefore
be opposed by military force."
He asserted that although the United
States had been concerned about Communist
Influences in the Dominican Republic for a
long time, it did not decide until the evening
of April 29 that there was "clear. and Immi-
nent peril" and: that additional troops
should be landed..
MISJUDGMENT CHARGED
FULBRIGHT had charged that much of the
advice given Mr. Johnson about the danger
of a Communist takeover was based on mis-
judgment of the facts, inadequate evidence
or, in some cases, false. information.
Mann said, ''The degree of Communist in-
fluence in the. rebel movement has been
especially questioned." Be said that facts
already obtained would fill a volume. and
that each passing day was bringing more
facts to light. .
"The danger will soon become apparent
even to the most skeptical," he said. "In a
very real sense the danger still exists.
"All those in our Government who had
full access to official information , were con-
vinced that the landing of additional troops
was necessary i-n view of the clear and pres-
ent danger of the forcible seizure- of power
by the Communists.
"The evidence we have indicates that at
that stage the paramilitary- forces under the
control of- known Communists exceeded in
military strength the .forces controlled by
the non-Communist elements within the
rebel movement. Equally important is the
fact that these non-Communist elements
Approved Rif. Release 2003/10/15: CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
October 22, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
were working hand in glove With the Corn-
munists."
ALLY OP OLIGARCHIES
r ULBRICHT had contended that "just about
every revolutionary movement is likely to at-
tract Communist support, at least in the be-
ginning." He had warned that "the approach
followed in the Dominican Republic, if con-
sistently pursued, must inevitably make us
the enemy of all revolution; and therefore
the ally of all the unpopular and corrupt
oligarchies of the hemisphere."
Mann said, "Next, it is said that the
United States overlooked the fact that re-
form movements are likely to attract Com-
munist support; that the United States
failed to perceive that if it is automatically
to oppose any reform movement that Com-
munists adhere to, it is likely to end up op-
posing every reform movement and, in the
process, make itself a prisoner of reaction-
aries."
He contended that this ,theory assumes
that Communists and the non-Communist
left are natural allies, essentially the same
as the Marxian theory that Communists are
In the vanguard of all truly revolutionary
movements.
NEED FOR A -DISTINCTION
"The need to distinguish between a re-
form movement allied with the Communists
and a movement dedicated to reform in
freedom should be emphasized over and over
again," he said. "Indeed, it is precisely the
failure to make this distinction, the tend-
ency of some to lump all 'reformers' together
and to evaluate them solely on the basis of
their rhetoric, that causes a great deal of
the confusion."
He went on to warn what he termed the
world's immature underdeveloped nations
against the "grave dangers of tolerating Com-
munist popular front activity."
"Popular front movements," he said, "are
almost always dangerous for those countries
that tolerate them. Their principal objec-
tive is political power. They are often
formed by those who want the Communist
vote in order to get elected."
He said that at times popular fronts are
formed "because the help of disciplined Com-
munists is needed to overthrow a govern-
ment. They are sometimes formed by poli-
ticians already in power to 'buy their peace.'"
FRONTS SERVE RED ENDS
"Moreover," he said, "popular fronts serve
Communist ends. Communists gain from
them a respectability they do not deserve.
They use this respectability to infiltrate their
partisans into the educational system, or-
ganize worker and farm groups, the mass
media and, of course, the governMent itself.
"In participating in popular fronts, politi-
cians usually have in mind a short term,
personal, political, selfish gain. On the other
hand, Communists are content to work to-
day in order to prepare for tomorrow."
"The United States," Mann said, "dbes not
have to choose between reaction and leftist
extremism." He said "that there was a large
and growing number of persons in Latin
America who were dedicated to rapid and
.far-reaching reform."
He said the Latin American military, for
example, contain in their ranks many able
and dedicated men who do not deserve to
be smeared with the brush that ought to
be reserved for the few."
Mann disputed also what he called sugges-
tions that nonintervention was now an obso-
lete doctrine.
"On the contrary," he said, "the United
States believes that unilateral intervention
by one American state in the political af-
fairs of another is illegal under the charter
of the Organization of American States and
that nonintervention is keystone of the
structure of the inter-American system."
SUPPORTED NEITHER SIDE
Thus, Mann said, the United States re-
frained from supporting either contending
faction in the first days of violence and since
has avoided "proposing political solutions
with a made in USA, label on them."
He said that there was confusion over the
response that could be made by an American
state or the OAS as a whole to a case of
intervention.
"When, in other words, a Communist state
has intervened in the internal affairs of an
American state by training, directing, fi-
nancing, and organizing indigenous Commu-
nist elements to take control of the govern-
ment of an American state by force and
violence, should other American states be
powerless to lend assistance?" he asked.
"Are Communists free to intervene while
democratic states are powerless to frustrate
that intervention?
"This is not so much a question of inter-
vention as one of whether weak and fragile
states should be helped to maintain their
independence when they are under attack by
subversive elements responding to direction
from abroad."
[From the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Oct. 14,
1965]
LAME REBUTTAL
The Johnson administration would do well
to stop trying to defend its intervention in
the Dominican Republic, and start develop-
ing a hemisphere policy based on something
more substantial than confused and frantic
anticommunism. That is the conclusion we
draw from Under Secretary of State Mann's
lame reply to the Fulbright critique of the
Dominican adventure.
Mr. Mann did not rebut, he confirmed the
main points of Senator FULBRIGHT'S analysis,
one of which was that President Johnson in
this case was the victim of bad advice, poor
judgment, and immature understanding.
The Under Secretary exhibits symptoms of
all three.
Senator FuLsyncHr concluded, from a care-
ful study of the facts, that President John-
son's advisers exaggerated the danger of a
Communist takeover of the revolt in Santo
Domingo last April. He offered evidence to
support his view. 'Tain't so, replies Mr.
Mann; but the evidence he offers is simply
that all the President's advisers were con-
vinced that a danger was clear and present.
There is no argument that the advisers
were convinced. The question is whether
they were correct, and we suspect that Juan
Bosch will have the last word on that. He
has declared that American intervention cre-
ated more Communists than ever were in-
volved in the attempt to restore his consti-
tutional government, and we expect that his-
tory will bear him out.
The basic issue, however, is not the extent
of Communist involvement, but Mr. Mann's
implicit assumption that Communist in-
volvement somehow gives the United States
an automatic license to put down a Latin
American revolt by the unilateral use of
American armed force. How can any such
doctrine possibly be squared with the prin-
ciple, which Mr. Mann himself claims to
support, that unilateral intervention is il-
legal under the OAS Chapter and that non-
intervention is the keystone of the inter-
American structure?
The administration appears to contend
that any Communist activity in Latin Amer-
ica must by definition represent intervention
by a Communist state. But no evidence has
been presented of any substantial involve-
ment in Santo Domingo of Cuba, China, Rus-
sia, or any other Communist government.
If such evidence had existed, the proper re-
sponse would have been collective action
under the OAS Charter and not unilateral
27473
action by the United States. Our Govern-
ment simply does not have the right to set
Itself up as the sole judge of what kind of
revolution or reform our Latin American
neighbors shall be permitted. Attempts to
play this role can only alienate us steadily
from the peoples of the hemisphere.
Senator FULBRIGHT was profoundly right in
saying that the policy followed in Santo Do-
mingo, consistently pursued, would make the
United States "the enemy of all revolutions
and therefore the ally of all the unpopular
and corrupt oligarchies of the hemisphere."
When will our leaders learn that, quite apart
from international law and the treaty obli-
gations that argue against such a policy, pur-
suing it in an age of social revolution means
deliberately choosing the losing side? There
are going to be social revolutions in Latin
America and eleswhere, whether we like it
or not, and the surest way to encourage
Communist capture of them is to aline Amer-
ican armed power everywhere on the side
of the status quo.
[From the Toledo (Ohio) Blade]
Sept. 24, 1965]
SENATOR FULBRIGHT'S CRIME
Senator WILLIAM FITLBRIGHT criticized the
administration on the grounds that it did
not take advantage of several opportunities
in which it might have changed the course
of events in the Dominican crisis. He al-
leged that there was overreaction on the
basis of exaggerated estimates of Communist
influence in the rebel movement, and that
our choices for action were too swiftly nar-
rowed. For speaking his piece, the Senator
has drawn upon himself a veritable torrent
of abuse from administration echoers, apolo-
gists for the State Department establish-
ment, and cold war hardliners generally.
It particularly pains them that this criti-
cism comes from the chairman of the Sen-
ate Foreign Relations Committee, a position
that carries great prestige and suggests
knowledge on the part of the person who oc-
cupies it. Those with a vested interest in
the infallibility of our early Dominican de-
cisions are now implying, by way of rebut-
tal, that the foreign relations chairman is
soft in the head if not soft on communism.
They picture him as a woolly minded charac-
ter who would timidly sit back and let the
Reds set up another Cuba.
The clamor of the attack upon him, gen-
erally irrelevant to what he had to say or his
manner and spirit in the saying, has all but
drowned out what the Senator was really
getting at.
The very nub of the FuLinucHr commen-
tary is the attitude the United States is go-
ing to take toward future troubles in Latin
America, a region that seems destined to be
In the throes of social revolution for many
years to come. And the choice for America,
to Senator FULBRIGHT, is whether this coun-
try is going to support reform that bolsters
the non-Communist left and leads in democ-
racy's direction or, by supporting unpopular
oligarchies, force Latin Americans striving to
change their way of life into the arms of the
Communists.
There were Communists involved in the
Dominican rising. There are Communists
throughout Latin America. The Commu-
nists will inject themselves into revolutions
and try to seize control of them. But it is
Senator FULBRIGHT'S assertion that If any
group or any movement with which the
Communists associate themselves is going
to be automatically condemned in the eyes
of the United States, then we have indeed
given up all hope of guiding or influencing
even to a marginal degree the revolutionary
movements and the demands for social
change which are sweeping Latin America."
We will have made ourselves the prisoners
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
27474 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE October 22, 1965
of the reactionaries who are trying vainly to
preserve the status quo and, who habitually
cry Communist, partly to scare the United
States into supporting them.
There is no assurance, we think, that sup-
porting the "non-Communist left" will keep
from power in Latin America regimes that
are far too radical for our taste or even hos-
tile to us. There is no assurance either that
dedication to the alms of the Alliance for
Progress?for which Senator FULBRIGHT, in-
cidentally, praised President Johnson?will
in fact produce the kind of political and eco-
nomic change we hope it will.
But Senator FULBRIGHT at least is right to
the extent that we should not, by seeming to
aline ourselves with reactionaries against all
revolutions, forfeit any chance of influencing
Latin American development along lines fa-
vorable to our interests.
We are a conservative, rich, and stable na-
tion. We are far renioved in time from our
own uncomplicated revolutionary struggle
and far removed in spirit from the kind of
ferment that is in progress in Latin America.
We need to ask ourselves if Senator Fur,-
BRIGHT may not have been right in suggesting
that, as such a great conservative power, it is
in our interest to uphold the law in interna-
tional relations rather than break it by
armed intervention contrary to American
treaty obligations.
Agree With WILLIAM FULBRIGHT Or not, it is
plain that his real crime has been to think,
and to ask the American people and their
Government' to think, about the fundamental
direction of our policy in Latin America. Ile
himself thinks in terms far more sophis-
ticated that the cliches favored by our cold?
and hot?warriors. And that in itself is an
offense to those who would prefer not to
think at all.
At some future time in our history, Mr.
Finisetaarr may qualify for a posthumous
profile in courage for so thinking and speak-
ing. Just now he is getting a verbal bum's
rush. But is the U.S. Senate always going
to consent rather than advise?
[From the Bennington (Vt.) Banner,
Sept. 20, 1965]
SENATOR FULBR/GHT'S UNPLEASANT TRUTHS
It will be surprising if Senator FULBRIG,HT'S
blockbusting statement of last week on U.S.
policy in the Dominican Republic doesn't
produce a profound chill in his relations
with the White House,
Senator FULBRIGHT, to be sure, was careful
to blame what he considers gross mishan-
dling of theDominican crisis on the Presi-
dent's advisers. Yet it is hardly flattering
to President Johnson to say that he was
pushed by his subordinates into an unjusti-
fied military adventure, and into misrepre-
senting the facts to the American people.
The burden of the Senate foreign policy
chairman's argument is that the marines
were sent into Santo Domingo last April not,
as the President claimed, to save American
lives but to prevent "a return to power of
Juan Bosch or of a government controlled
by Bosch's party, the Dominican Revolu-
tionary Party."
Ile contends further that estimates of
Communist influence in the revolutionary
movement were "grossly exaggerated" and
that evidence doesn't verify the administra-
tion's assertion that the revolution was in
danger of being taken over by Communist
elements when we intervened.
Senator FULBR/GHT also raised other im-
portant questions that our Latin American
policymakers would do well to ponder before
they advise the President to intervene in
another revolution. Most important, Sen-
ator reeereraHr asks whether the adminis-
tration's reaction to the Domintcan crisis
"is part of a broader shift In its attitudes
toward Latin American countries."
He maleri it clear that social revolution is
inevitable in Latin America, and that the
United Ststes can use its power to influence
the choice the Latin Americans make. This
choice, mare often than not, will be between-
corrupt military dictatorships and social
revolutionary parties.
"Since just about every revolutionary
movement is likely to attract Communist
support at least in the beginning," the Sen-
ator declared, "the approach followed in the
Dominican Republic, if consistently pursued,
must Mel itably make us the enemy of all
revolutions and therefore the ally of all the
unpopular and corrupt oligarchies of the
hemisphe:T."
The United States must decide, he sug-
gested, "whether, by supporting reform, we
bolster the popular non-Communist left, or
whether, by supporting unpopular oligar-
chies we Irive the rising generation of edu-
cated am: patriotic young Latin Americans
to an embittered and hostile form of com-
munism like that of Fidel Castro."
Predictably, the words had hardly left Sen-
ator FULI MIGHT'S mouth before he was ac-
cused of being soft on communism, but
these charges in no way detract from the im-
portance of the issues he has raised. Inter-
vention in the affairs of another nation, as
the United States often loudly proclaims, is
an extreine and not easily justified course
of actior , The lessons learned in the Do-
minican Republic should make us think
twice bef ire trying it again.
Under normal circumstances, one might
perhaps question the propriety of such a
frontal e ttack by the Democratic chairman
of the Fareign Relations Committee on the
policies of a Democratic President. But the
circumstances in this case are not normal,
first, because the Republican leadership in
Congress is too illiberal to make the point
that FIT ,BRIGHT has made, and second, be-
cause the issue raised by our Dominican ad-
venture is far too important to be stifled
by a serueless consensus.
It can be argued, perhaps, that the Sen-
ator does not make sufficient allowances for
the political dilemma which the Johnson
aciminis ;ration faced in the Dominican crisis.
Obvious:y the President and his advisers were
strongly motivated by a morbid fear of what
would happen to the Democrats' political
fortune i if they permitted the establishment
of "another Cuba." No doubt they reasoned
that even in a 1-in-20 chance of a Commu-
nist takeover was a risk to be avoided at any
cost.
But this is a pretty poor excuse for a de-
cision 1 hat alined us with the enemies of
reform, violated our solemn treaty obliga-
tions, a ad rendered our Latin American aims
deeply suspect among liberals everywhere.
FULBRIC HT is right when he says the John-
son administration should have had the
sense and the courage to take the minimal
risk er tailed in casting our lot with the
forces et social justice.
[From the Louisville (Ky.) Courier-Journal,
Sept. 17, 19651
WISE COUNSEL AND PLAIN TALK AGAIN
FROM SENATOR FULBRIGHT
It is possible that if there were no Senator
Furearnar in the .Senate he might have to
be inv mted. Time and again he expresses
the op:nions of moderation?of what he likes
to call flexibility?against all the zigs and
zags a!' a foreign policy that seems to him
to rasp end too much to mood and not enough
to reason.
Sens tor FULBRIGHT'S observations on our
intervention in the Dominican Republic
could hardly be expected to bring the open
approa al of President Johnson. But if the
Presid nit is willing to listen to counsels of
moderation, and recent events indicate this
willingness in increasing proportion, he must
acknowledge the wisdom and justice of the
Senator's criticism.
Mr. Foreittarar attributes what he calls the
failure of our Dominican intervention to
faulty advice given the President. And in
particular he warned against the tendency
in this country to over-react against any
suspicion of communism in Latin American
efforts for social change. This attitude, he
feels, makes impossible any effective coop-
eration from tIII1 country in the social rev-
olutions so necessary in nations to the south
of us.
Mr. FULBRIGHT? as he freely acknowledged.
spoke from hindsight. But it was informed
hindsight, gathered after 13 hearings of the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held
in the past two months. If it can help re-
chart our policies, not only in Latin Amer-
ica but toward the Western world, the Sen-
ator's warning will have great value. What
he is trying to tell us, after all, is that the
word Communist no longer sums up one
monolithic evil to which we must react by
instinct. The currents and divergences of
Communism are as great in their way as the
differences between democracies. All of
them are not potentially deadly to 'us and
many of the people who have been labelled
Communist in struggling Latin American re-
publics are home-grown revolutionaries
struggling to right their own home-grown in-
justices.
If we are to intervene in every such sit-
uation because people the CIA calls Com-
munists are in the forefront of rebel move-
ments, we have already lost touch with the
needs and the desperation which are push-
ing all Latin America toward change.
[From the Providence (RI.) Journal, Sept.
17, 19651
BLUNT TRUTHS Aso= OTJR DOMINICAN
BLUNDER
Senator FULIIRIGHT, the Jiminy Cricket of
American foreign policy, has spoken some
blunt truths about the American interven-
tion in the Dominican Republic and about
U.S. relations with Latin America in gen-
eral; truths that badly needed saying by
some responsible public figure.
The Senator contends the United States
committed an illegal, monumental blunder in
its Dominican intervention and that we are
following contradictory policies in Latin
America, one phase of which?that repre-
sented by the 'U.S. role in the Dominican af-
fair?alienates the United States from the
social revolution that is the "movement of
the future" in the southern hemisphere.
These are not light charges and they are
not given. lightly. Senator Ferearairr re-
sponsibly waited until he had weighed exten-
sive evidence presented in lengthy hearings
of his Foreign Relations Committee on the
Dominican intervention and until the pri-
mary crisis in the Dominican Republic was
resolved before he stated his thoughtful case
for a reappraisal of U.S. Latin American
policy.
It is painful to acknowledge that one's
country was wrong, but it would be danger-
ous for Americans to ignore the disturbing
conclusions this intelligent and conscien-
tious Senator has reached after a painstak-
ing sifting of available evidence; namely;
1. That the United States intervened in
the Dominican Republic not to save Ameri-
can lives, as was officially contended, but to
prevent the victory of a revolutionary move-
ment that vras judged to be Communist
dominated.
2. That the fear of a Communist take-over
was based on fragmentary and inadequate
evidence.
3. That the United States let pass its best
opportunities to influence events because
U.S. officials were hostile to the party of
Juan Bosch, which sought a return to con-
Approved For Release 2003/10/15: CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
Approved For Release 2063/10/15 : CIAIRDID67B00446R060500110015-9
October 22, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Stittitional government, and preferred in-.
Otead the victory of anlirebel forces.
'- 4. That even before the .revolution, the
atte4,,g-tIgek4kl'AUDleaitEl ha* on social
vOrtition in Santo pQ,nalligo and associated
ttself" with._ a corrupt and reactionary
'Olga/Thy.' _
, Z. Thaftf,S. Officials, including the Presi-
dent, issued "wildly exaggerated report" of
ebel'atiocities?reports that cannot be sup-
Ported by evidence. ,
6. That the President acted in good faith
On the basis of exaggerated reports of the
dp,nger of a Communist trake-Over from
American _officials on the scene. -
7. That the fear Of another Cuba and
Its effect on their careers distorted the judg-
rnent of otherwise sensible and competent
Oen. "
Senator Foixtuciir observed that when the
.4mericaui government chooses the, "safe"
Obtuse of supporting corrupt and reactionary
trtrong-man regimes, clinging to the status
'-citlo in Latin American countries, it con-
tradicts the spirit of our Alliance for Pro-
gress and the peaceful social revolution it
Was fashioned to support.
- "We cannot successfully advance the cause
of popular democracy and at the same time
ahne ourselves with corrupt and reaction-
ary oligarchies. * * * We simply cannot
have it both ways; we must choose * * *,"
the Senator concluclee, :
all the /Dominican Republic, if the ouster
last week of General Wessin y Wessin is any
indication, we are beginning to make the
right choice?for popular democracy. Will
We now have :the wisdom to apply the les-
sons of the Dominican Republic, as they
were so clearly detailed by the chairman of
the Senate Foreign. Relations Committee, to
the rest ot hemisphere where American policy
reinainS,spotty, at best?
From the San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 17,
. - - 1965]
....
, .._.
A LIEVASTATINO FOLIQI BLAST
After having conducted a 2-month inquest
. in.to the DougAica,n Republic affair, Senator
J. W. Fuisarow has delivered in the Senate
? a devastating arraignment of the Johnson
adininistrationes course of action.
It is a highly effective example of the duty
? of a Senator to criticise and lay bare the
follies of Government policy when he pro-
folpdly disagrees with it.
? We sent troops into Santo Domingo last
April, he said, from "overtimidity and over-
reaction." Throughout the episode, which
is :pot yet ended, the administration acted
_ With a "lack of candor."
, The intervention arose from a decision
that the revolution lam:waled by the Domini-
Carl rebel movement "should not be allowed
to succeed."? .
It rested on exaggerated estimates of Com-
Munist influence on the _rebels and it failed
to perceive that if we automatically oppose
any reform movement the Communists ad-
here to, we shall end up opposing every
reform movement, "making ourselves the
4 prisoners of reactionaries."
'klariator Fusoaxs.rar let the President down
-', easy by saying he had been given faulty
advice Which exaggerated the Communist
danger. That is true, for the President does
have to base decisions on advice, yet it re-
a fact?though FULBRIGHT politely
refr,AinEsi from ?saying so?that basing for-
eign policy too much on the_ advice of CIA
anct FM Agents, as the _President did, can
SI)s;Atal? tio tp,e.pwper ends_ of that policy.
,
413 the qbAirlictan, Of_ the Senate Foreign
R9140?14C2,141.111,ttee, Futsa.mirr has not only
'str gls a YerY.. hard WAN at, the President's
el
eXl ea /0.r .,",fprglWy and illegally" invading
S. 9 P.MAtago,_but he has also raised the
ultimate question about American policy
toward. I.,athi Aferiga, , ils.vAda,WAre:
. ,, 210.1.913--7pt, 2_19
"The direction of the Alliance for Progress
is toward social revolution in Latin Amer-
ica; the direction of our Dominican inter-
vention is toward the suppression of revolu-
tionary movements which are supported by
Communists or suspected of being influenced
by Communists * * *.
"We simply cannot have it both ways:
we must choose between the Alliance for
Progress and a foredoomed effort to sustain
the status quo in Latin America."
This needed to be said. As Senator Fur--
BRIGHT remarked atter dropping his bomb:
"I think maybe they'll stop and think a bit
before rushing into more military inter-
ventions."
[From the New York Post, Sept. 16, 1965]
ri ULBRICHT' S HISTORY LESSON
Senator FULBRIGHT'S review of U.S. policy
In the Dominican crisis deserves study by
responsible Americans. It is as certain as
anything in the area of foreign affairs Can be
certain that last April's revolution in Santo
Domingo is not the last of such upheavals
in Latin America. Unless there is careful,
courageous analysis of where our policy
failed, such as Mr. FULBRIGHT presented to
the Senate yesterday, the mistakes will be
repeated.
FULBRIGHT, perhaps too generously, ab-
Solved President Johnson. U.S. failures in
Santo Domingo were principally the result
of the faulty advice given the President by
U.S. representatives on the spot, FULBE/GHT
said. But Ambassador Tapley Bennett, Jr.,
it should be noted, is still at his post in
Santo Domingo.
The danger to American lives was "more
a pretext," FULBRIGHT concluded on the basis
of his committee's inquiry, than a reason for
our intervention, It was the threat of com-
munism rather than the danger to American
lives that produced the massive landings, he
asserted. ,
"In their panic lest the Dominican Re-
public become another Cuba," continued
FuLsarcirr in the most significant part of
his commentary, "some of our officials seem
to have forgotten that virtually all reform
movements attract some Communist support,
that there is an important difference be-
tween Communist support and Communist
control of a political movement, that it is
quite possible to compete with the Com-
munists for influence in a reform movement
rather than abandon it to them, and, most
Important of all, that economic development
and social justice are themselves the pri-
mary and most reliable security against
Communist subversion."
The FuLzracHr formula lacks the sim-
plicity and he-man quality of landing the
Marines. But it is based on a more accurate
reading of Latin American realities. It is
sound counsel for the explosive future.
[From the New York Post, Sept. 21, 19651
AFTER FTJLBRIGHT'S SPEECH: BLASTS AND
SILENCES
Chairman FITLBRIGHT of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee recently delivered a
carefully documented, thoughtful critique
of our intervention last April in Santo
Domingo.
He faced the hard questions. Did we act
wisely? If not, why not, and more impor-
tant, where do we go from here?
In undertaking this assignment, Senator
FULBRIGHT knew he was risking the displeas-
ure of the President, even though he por-
trayed Mr. Johnson as the victim of faulty
counsel. In view of the shambles in which
our intervention had left three decades of
goad neighbor policy and the ensuing rise in
anti-Americanism, FULBRIGHT rightly argued
that self-critical analysis of the experience
was as indispensable as the Bay of Pigs post
rhortem ordered by President Kennedy.
, 27475
In the aftermath of his indictment, rya--
BRIGHT'S view was promptly and predicObly
denounced by Senators DODD, LONG, siqATH-
ERS, LAUSCHE, and MUNDT. DODD eveu inti-
mated that the chairman's dissents from
administration policy reflected a lamentable
softness on communism.
If these responses could have been fore-
told, what has been disconcerting has been
the general silence of the Senate liberals.
Except for Senators JOSEPH CLARK and mav-
erick WAYNE MORSE, liberal Senators have
risen neither to defend nor develop the views
set forth by FULBRIGHT.
FULBRIGHT asked disturbing questions.
They merit public debate and scrutiny. They
should not be swept under the rug because,
for the moment, things are going a little bet-
ter in Latin America.
Foi,crticHr's central point was that obses-
sive, panicky fear of a Castroite takeover led
U.S. representatives to rebuff the democratic
non-Communist left and to ally themselves
with the military oligarchs in Santo Domin-
go. When the revolution broke out on April
24 under the leadership of the moderate
Bosch party, Ambassador William Tapley
Bennett, Jr., refused its request for an
"American presence," FULBRIGHT reports.
Again, 2 days later, when the constitutional-
ists, fearing themselves defeated by the mili-
tary, appealed to Bennett for U.S. mediation,
he turned them down on the grounds that
such mediation would constitute interven-
tion.
But a few hours later, when the tide of
battle turned against the military junta and
the latter begged for help, Bennett said, "I
can't get away with bringing Americans in
on that ground"?of preventing an alleged
Communist takeover. He hereupon cynically
advised the junta to ask American interven-
tion under the slogan of protecting American
lives. This was done and the Marines were
sent in. Soon thereafter the Red cry was
raised.
Since the Bosch forces are characteristic
of the non-Communist reform movements
hitherto backed by the United States in Latin
America, Frnzancirr asked whether the Do-
minican Republic policy (whose architect,
said Senator CLARK, was Under Secretary of
State Thomas Mann) represented a "broad-
er shift" in attitude toward Latin America.
Were we turning away from the "revolution-
aries of the non-Communist left" to the
"military dictators and ruling oligarchies"?
"I suggest," Senator CLARK observed, "that
Under Secretary of State Mann and Assist-
ant Secretary of State Jack Vaughn would
be well advised, and I hope they will be, if
they devote their best efforts from here on
in to patching up our damaged relationships
with those men in Latin America and the
countries they represent who are our real
friends: the democratic, the liberal and, if
you will, the slightly left-of-center leaders,
not the military juntas or the oligarchial
landowners, who are cheering what we did
in the Dominican Republic."
Why did most Senate liberals shrink from
the public discussion FULBRIGHT and CLARK
were striving to promote? Why did they
stand by mutely when the counterattack was
unleased by DODD and Company?
[From the Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette,
Oct. 12, 1965]
HOUSE RESOLUTION IGNORES SCHOLARLY
FULBRIGHT TALK
On September 15 the chairman of the Sen-
ate Foreign Relations Committee, J. WILLIAM
FULBRIGHT, delivered a major speech on U.S.
foreign policy. It was a long speech. It was
also a sensible speech, knowledgeable, com-
prehensive, dispassionate, pertinent to and
questioning of United States handling of the
Dominican Republic affair in particular and
of all South American countries in general.
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RIDID67B06446R000500110015-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 CIA-RDP671300446R000500110015-9
27476 CONGREgSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Five days later, the House of Representa-
tives by an overwhelming margin (312 to 52)
adopted a resolution urging precisely the
sort of irresponsible reaction toward provo-
cations in South Anierica Senator PULBR/GHT
had warned against. The United States, said
the resolution, should immediately intrude
anywhere in the hemisphere to prevent Com-
munist takeovers. The resolution, thereby,
not only defended the Johnson administra-
tion's response to last spring's revolution in
the Dominican Republic but encouraged a
similar response in the future throughout
South America, should the circumstances
warrant.
Two reasons dictate why such policy, as
endorsed and recommended by the House, is
idiocy compounded:
Most important is the soleran pledge the
United States took when its Government
with Senate approval signed the charter of
the Organization of American States. Arti-
cle 15 of the charter flatly declares; "No
state or group of states has the right to in-
tervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason
whatever, in the internal or external affairs
of any other state." Article 17 reinforces
article 15: "The territory of a state is inviol-
able; it may not be the object, even tempo-
rarily, of Military occupation or of other
Measures of force taken by another state, di-
rectly or indirectly, on any grounds what-
ever."
The language of these clauses isn't obscure.
It is language that should be evident to any-
one who possesses even a rudimentary un-
derstanding of words The language doesn't
say it is permissible 'for Organization coun-
tries to interfere in the affairs of a neighbor
in the event of a Communist revolution, It
says exactly the opposite. There is to be no
interference regardless of what type of revo-
lution occurs. "The territory of a state is
inviolable."
At Bogota, Colombia, in 1048 the United
States agreed to the terms of this language;
later, on August 28, 1950, the U.S. Senate
ratified the Charter of the Organization of
American States, and the treaty became op-
erable. '
(It should be noted the treaty does pro-
vide for specific steps to be followed to
thwart external or internal aggression aris-
ing from Communist or other sources. The
victim of aggression can receive relief, if the
Organization of American States in concert
subscribes to the measures to be applied in
the former's behalf. The controlling factor,
however, is orderly procedure and action by
all, not the absence of procedure and action
by one member or a minority of members.)
Of lesser importance why the House resolu-
tion was reckless and ridiculous is that the
United States has had an unending history of
overreaction to incidents that have erupted
in Shuth America. And, of late our paternal-
istic interference has been equated with self-
ish motivations.
Thus, prevailing opinion among the op-
pressed majority in most South American
countries is the United States has used the
threat of communism to excuse its meddling
in situations that have very little to do with
this alien ideology.
In his speech Senator PULBRIGHT made clear
that not all rebellions are Communist in-
spired or dominated. Many are merely the
logical consequence of deplorable living
standards, evil public officials, and a much-
too-stratified.society. Instead of siding with
the afflicted, the United States too frequently
has jumped too quickly to the aid of the
privileged under the guise of stamping out
communism. It is these hasty, ill-considered
moves that frighten Senator rumniranr and
cause him to wonder aloud about the sense
of American foreign policy.
The 'Milted States is fortunate to have a
limn of PUL13R/GHT'S qualifications who IS
Willing to speak out on sensitive issues and
bring to the attention of those who would
listen tie inconsistency of American foreign
policy. Regrettably, many in complete ac-
cord tilth Fininnowr have remained silent
lest t1.ey be dubbed "pinkC)s" or commie
dupes.
As far the House of Representatives and
the silly resolution bearing its name, obvi-
ously the 312 Members voting for that resolu-
tion either didn't read PULBRIGHT'S speech or
failed 1:o understand its contents. Otherwise,
how in it possible to justify the extraor-
dinary injunction of the resolution that the
United States should disregard utterly a
treaty obligation to which it affixed its
signat: ire and to which it gave its golden
vow? Assuredly those Members aren't ad-
vocating the United States do what the
Unitet States has charged the Soviet Union
with doing time and again. Or are they?
[Fmm the Greenwich (Conn.) Time,
Sept. 21, 1965]
MAKES POINT
Senator FULBRIGHT'S criticism of how our
Government handled the Dominican Repub-
lic crisis cannot be shrugged off as unwar-
rantet sniping at the administration. The
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Comm ittee is a thoughtful, responsible critic
of the conduct of foreign affairs. His re-
marks cannot fairly be dismissed with such
shallow judgments as that voiced by Senator
LONG, bf Louisiana, who referred to what he
called the "Fulbright doctrine: Don't inter-
vene; you might be criticized." That is not
what PULBRIGHT said, nor what he meant.
Whit he did say was that our intervention
was b ised on poor intelligence, which led the
PresiO ent to overreact to an exaggerated
threw; of Communist control of the rebel
movement. And what PITLBRIGHT is con-
cerned about is that this mistake, based
partly:on misunderstanding of the vital dif-
ference between Communist participation
and Communist control, not be repeated else-
when in Latin America.
"One is led to the conclusion," PULBRIGHT
said, "that U.S. policymakers were unduly
timid andalarmist in refusing to gamble on
the forces of reform and social change." And
he added: "The bitter irony of such timidity
is Unit by casting its lot with the forces of
status quo ? * * the United States almost
certa illy helped the Communists to acquire
converts whom they otherwise could not have
won."
It is an important point. A policy of
maintaining the status quo at all costs sim-
ply would not jibe with the more enlightened
philosophy that undergirds the Alliance for
Progitss. Social progress and stalemate are
incm apatible.
[From the Little Rock (Ark.) University
- Forum, Sept. 23, 1965]
FULBRIGHT TELLS IT?THE WAY IT IS
Those of us who are appalled by many
aspects' of President Johnson's foreign pol-
icy, and especially by the President's use
of aimed intervention in the Dominican Re-
publ.c and in Vietnam, found last week that
we Lave a new ally, if not on Vietnam, at
least on the Caribbean issue; none other
than one of the most powerful and respected
liberal Democrats in Washington, Senator J.
Wrr...u.km FULBRIGHT, chairman of the Senate
Fore:gn Relations Committee.
'Fla irony of the situation is that Fur.-
mtmlr's charges against the administra-
tion S handling of the affair are virtually the
same charges the student left and the radi-
cal :mess have been making all summer in
print at teach-ins, on the picket lines,
Ac cording to FULBRIGHT, the military in-
tervmtion aimed not at saving American
lives; which was the official reason given, but
aimed at preventing the victory of a revolu-
tion which was thought at the time to be
Conmunist-dominated. The Senator
poir.ted out that Communist influence on
October 22, 1965
the rebels Was vastly overestimated by the
President's advisers and by the U.S. intelli-
gence and diplomatic services in the Domin-
ican Republic, and that the use of troops
was an overhysterical reaction to the fear
of another Cuba, a direct result of the kind
of blindly fanatic anticommunism char-
acteristic until recently of only a minority
on the radical right.
"The tragedy of Santo Domingo," said FIJI.-
BRIGHT, "is that a policy that purported to
defeat communism in the short run is more
likely to have the effect of promoting it in
the long run." Later in his speech, Pill,-
BRIGHT called for a Latin American policy
which would allow the nations of that area
free and autonomous development of indi-
vidual domestic and foreign policies. The
Senator asserted that U.S. support of "cor-
rupt and reactionary military eligarchies"
frustrates "the revolutionary movements
and the demands for social change which
are sweeping Latin America," and that con-
tinuation of such a policy might gravely
endanger the U.S. position in the Western
Hemisphere.
Senator PULBRIGHT was careful to lay the
blame for the "grievous mistake" on John-
son's diplomatic and intelligence advisers,
and not on tile President himself. Whatever
the individual burden of guilt, the admin-
istration can no longer dismiss all critics
of its foreign policy as politically naive in-
tellectuals or as irresponsible, attention-
seeking radicals. The prompt White House
denial of PULBRIGHT'S conclusions was osten-
sibly supported by much of the Congress,
but such acid condemnation by such a high-
ranking official is almost ,Dertain to have
wide repercussions.
The Senator's comments are no cause for
heady optimism, but they are a hopeful
sign that change may be on the way. There
is now at least a crack in the monolithic
wall.
Thank you, Senator :PULBRIMIT, for having
the guts to "tell it the way it is."?B.P.
[From the Harvard Crimson]
PULERIGHT AT THE CROSSROADS
The hunt is on for the scalp of WILLIAM
PULBRIGHT. Senator DODD has attacked him.
Senator LONG has attacked him. Senator
LAUSCHE has attacked him. Senator Rus-
SELL has attacked him. The House has voted
a resolution which indirectly censures his
critique of military intervention in the
Dominican Republic. And, according to
Joseph Kraft's column in Monday's Globe, a
piqued administration is doing nothing to
shield the chairman of the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee from rightwing flak: "On
the contrary, the administration is itself
holding the anti-Communist issue in reserve
as a rod to dissident members of its major-
ity."
Senator PULBRIGHT is being carefully iso-
lated, and he may soon suffer a fate that not
too many years ago befell a man who re-
sembles him in many ways, Adlai Stevenson.
No man of prominence in America repre-
sents the Stevenson tradition more faith-
fully than Senator FULBRIGHT. He speaks out
infrequently, and when he does, it appears
to pain him greatly. He chooses his phrases
carefully, balancing and moderating his as-
sertions as would a conscientious logician.
A politician in name only, he seems more the
lonely statesman, agonizing over his place in
history.
Like Stevenson, PULBRIGHT clearly abhors
the role of crusader. He fears the conse-
quences of discord in a time of crisis. Now
all about :him the big guns of the Senate
are firing, determined to demonstrate just
how noisy and distasteful such discord can
be. They, realize just how dangerous?to
them?a man like FULBRIGHT might be.
In the last month, the Senator has made
a major congressional address and written a
searingly critical article In the St. Louis
Approved For Release'. 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R00050011-0015-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
October 22, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 27477
Post-Dispatch. Now ite.StantLs at the cross-
reads, lae, can continue.t0 Speak and, by his
. very eloquence and persistence, force the
adminiptxation, antLits policymakers to rec-
ognize the spirit and intelligence he repre-
sents. Or, like Steyer1SOn before him, this
man?Wholoresaw the cataclysm of the Bay
of Pigs, who foresaw the neutralism of Tito,
who now foresees more Santo Domingos?can
fall silent and allow the consensus to engulf
and encyst him.
On Fornmorrr's answer hangs far more
' than the career of one man. As Louis Hartz
? perceives, in his "Liberal Tradition in Amer-
ica," the answer will be of sweeping sig-
nificance: _ _
"Will the- insight of a Willkie or a Ste-
venson offset the end of insight a McCarthy
inspires? This is the largest challenge the
_ American liberal world has faced, and the
,,payment for meeting it effectively is more
than mere survival in an age of world tur-
Moil. It holds out the hope of an inward
,-enrichinent of culture and perspective, a
'corning of age' ? * * which in its own right
is well worth fighting for."
fProrn Christianity and Crisis, Sept. 28,
105]
SEXAroArvicarerep ACUlevEMENT
Senator FuLaarcgr's speech in the Sen-
ate on, our policy in the Dominican Republic
IS Significant both in form and content. In
., farm it is a critical challenge by the Demo-
eratic chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee to the administration's policy of
Marine landings. It must be hailed by all
thonghtful observers because it questioned
the actions Of a powerful Chief Executive
, V1rho has immense prestige, drawn partly
frOM his tremendous achievements in
dOmestic policy and partly from the strength
dr anti-Communist sentiment in the Amer--
dm public. Such an act required consider-
al:de courage. The President's power is so
great that it approaches General de Gaulle's
authority in the Fifth French Republic?not,
Of course, in terms of the Constitution but
in terms of _political realities.
The content of the speech took on special
significance because it reflected the proceed-
ings of the Foreign Relations Committee in
its weeks of testimony from various experts
0# the Dominican crisis. It was, therefore,
More than a mere personal opinion.
brief, FuLsracirr's criticism was that the
EL inistragou mistakenly relied on dubious
? atiViCe in ordering the Marines to the Domin-
ican Republic, ostensibly to protect Ameri-
can lives but actually to frustate a Commu-
nist takeover in Santo Domingo. The Ar-
kansan said;
"Responsibility for the failure of American
policy in Santo Domingo lies primarily with
those who advised the President. In the
Crftical days between April 25 and April 28
these officials sent the President exaggerated
reports of the danger of a Communist take-
?Ver. * * * Underlying the bad advice and
unwise actions of the United States was the
feax of "anotner Cuba." The specter of a
SeCond Communist state in the Western
' Hemisphere?and its probable political re-
percussions within the United States and
poSsible effects on the careers of those who
Might be held, responsible?seems to have
been the most important single factor in
distorting the judgment of otherwise sensi-
ble and competent men."
14he rigor of this criticism, particularly the
Nous speculation about the personal
iveli, of those generally unidentified ad-
viS rs of the President, was bound to create
- 'VI dlpnt reactions..
e Senator , also gave a comprehensive
?'an4ysis of the _relation of North American
?democracy to the democratic movements in
Latbl America,.. He distinguished between
the,gradualist democratic movements, which
the Alliance IAAtrogress hoped to promote
and of which the Allianza Popular Revolu-
tionaria Americana in Peru and Betancourt's
party in Venezuela are examples, and the
"uncouth" revolutionary movements.
FULBRIGHT is quite right in suggesting that
the social structure of most Latin nations in-
cludes political movements in which leftist
elements are bound to be present. It is
difficult to determine whether these revolu-
tionary elements contain the seeds of Com-
munist totalitarianism. Hence extreme cau-
tion is necessary in defining our attitude to-
ward them. He is probably right also in sug-
gesting that we are under the illusion that
our revolutionary past gives us an affinity
with these movements when, as a matter of
fact, "We are the most unrevolutionary na-
tion in the world."
In short, FULBRIGHT has the distinction of
raising all the significant issues about the
relation of an essentially bourgeois democ-
racy to the nations in which democratic in-
stitutions are at best imposed in various
ways on a feudal tradition.
The official patriots in the Democratic
Party made heavyhanded accusations against
Chairman FULBRIGHT'S loyalty to our tradi-
tion and insinuated that he was enamored of
revolutionary zeal. Efforts of the United
States anti OAS to superimpose democracy in
Santo Domingo might be striking evidence
of the pertinence of the Senator's position
because they prove that superimposed de-
mocracy cannot give a democratic solution.
There a provisional government has difficulty
in providing an atmosphere of democratic
give-and-take between the revolutionary and
the conservative factions?without which the
promised elections will give no peace. On
the other hand, the presence of three Com-
munist parties is regarded by FULBRIGHT'S
critics as a refutation of his position. But
these parties might also be seen as the in-
evitable fruit of our ill-conceived military
intervention.
[From the Nation, Oct. 4, 1965]
SENATOR FULERIGHT DISSENTS
Any American who says a critical word
about U.S. military or paramilitary opera-
tions anywhere on the globe is assured of a
generally bad press in his own land, and Sen-
ator FULBRIGHT is NO exception. It avails
him nothing that he is the Senate's leading
scholar on foreign affairs, that the Fulbright
scholarships are a landmark in creative
statesmanship, that he is chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. When,
as in his speech on U.S. intervention in the
Dominican Republic, he presumes to criti-
cize our policy in the Caribbean and in Latin
America generally, he is rebuked by most of
the commentators. In the Senate, MORSE
and CLARK spoke up in defense of their col-
league, but Senators Dona, SPQATHERS, LAU-
SCHE, LONG, and others laid down the predic-
table barrage. AS Newsweek observed, Sena-
tor FITLBRIGHT had knowingly staked out a
lonely position.
But perhaps his position is not as lonely as
it appears to be. Any number of Senators
who are known to agree with Senator Fur,-
BRIGHT maintained a discreet silence for fear
of incurring the displeasure of the White
House. At about the same time that Senator
FULBRIGHT was speaking, Dr. Wolfgang Fried-
mann, an international law expert from Co-
lumbia University, voiced much the same
criticism of the President's handling of the
Dominican crisis before the world peace
through law conference in Washington. Dr.
Friedmann took the position that the unilat-
eral use of force signals a major weakening
of the United Nations. "We are faced," he
said, "with the threat of a collapse of the
painstaking efforts of nearly half a century,
and especially the last 20 years, to build up
a system of organized international control
of the use of force." U.S. intervention in the
Dominican Republic, without a showing of
outside direction of the rebellion, "cannot be
justified by any canons of international law."
After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, which Senator
FULBR/GHT also opposed, President Kennedy
lamented: "How can I have been so stupid?"
But his successor will not abide criticism
nor acknowledge mistakes. Asked how he
felt about the decision to intervene in the
Dominican Republic, he replied: "I would
do it all over again, only we'd have done it
earlier and tougher." At the last moment,
the President put in an unexpected appear-
ance at the World Peace Through Law Con-
ference to voice a few platitudes about the
U.N. while carefully avoiding any reference
to the Dominican Republic. The distin-
guished array of 3,000 Supreme Court Jus-
tices and international law experts heard
him out, but his remarks drew only "a tepid
response."
In the wake of the Fulbright speech the
House proceeded to adopt a resolution en-
dorsing the unilateral use of force by the
United States or by any other Western Hem-
isphere country to prevent a Communist
take-over anywhere in the hemisphere. The
resolution was approved by a vote of 312
to 52. The administration had not asked
for the resolution but it did not oppose it.
Many Members, though made uneasy, said
that they couldn't appose a resolution that
seemed to be intended to serve as an ex
post facto endorsement of the President's
Dominican policy. Some of these same
Members also criticized the State Depart-
ment for "lack of backbone" in not taking
a stand against the resolution. While the
resolution is without legal effect, it will be
read as a blanket endorsement of the unilat-
eral use of force and will add to the criti-
cism of American policy in South America.
Representative Jonx BRADEMAS said that he
had gone all the way up to Secretary Dean
Rusk and had been unable to get anyone
to say whether the Department was for or
against the resolution. In brief, there is no
indication in Washington of a willingness
to learn from experience or to listen to
critics.
fFrom the Washington (p.c.) Post,
Sept. 27, 1965]
TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY IN UNITED STATES
(By Marquis Childs)
The Johnson consensus is so powerful that
large areas of policy?normally in past years
a subject for debate?are now off limits. The
zeal of a majority President, who by tem-
perament and conviction draws the line
against dissenters, underscores the fears of
a time of troubles when revolutionary re-
gimes threaten all order and stability.
Add to this an expanding Federal Govern-
ment dispensing money in old ways?the
House just passed a $1.7 billion pork barrel
rivers and harbors bill?and new ways such
as huge defense and research contracts. The
sum total in the view of pessimistic ob-
servers is a new America with little resem-
blance to the give and take democracy of
the past.
A case in point is what happened to Chair-
man J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee. Waiting until
after a provisional government had been
established in the Dominican Republic,
Farmucur in a Senate speech delivered a
carefully reasoned criticism of how the Do-
minican crisis had been handled. This was
based on an inquiry before the Foreign Re-
lations Committee with 13 sessions at which
all the principals testified.
Immediately the full force of administra-
tion spokesmen big and little was leveled
against him. The voices turned up high
did not so much seek to refute the criticism
as to discredit the critic. At the lowest level,
as represented by Senator RUSSELL LONG of
Louisiana, the majority whip, the suggestion
wag that II you didn't believe Communists
Approved For Release 2003/10/15-: CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000500110015-9
27478 CONGRESS tONAL RECORD -- SENATE
were about to take over in the Dominican
Republic then you must have more sym-
pathy for communism than you knew.
On careful rereading of the Pulbright
speech it is hard to discover why the reac-
tion was as though it had been an offense
against majesty. He was saying that aspects
of America's policy in the Dominican Re-
public compounded these faults. The ex-
ample of a Senator soundly birched for fault-
ing the administration raises a troubling
question: Is any dialog at all possible on
the great issues of foreign policy?
To put it another way: Must the power
of the Executive be so absolute in view of
the threat to America's security that critics
'should keep silent? An American war
in Vietnam is rapidly expanding with reports
of 200,000 troops to be committed by the
year's end and yet scarcely a doubt is ex-
pressed publicly over the authority of the
Commander in Chief to direct an undeclared
War. -
Granted the stakes are awesome and the
power of the Executive great in conducting
policy with proper secrecy as in the India-
Pakistan crisis. Granted, too, that nothing
succeeds like the 3ohnson successes.
, Nevertheless, the domination of the major-
ity is so all-encompassing that a funda-
mental distortion of the American system
seems for the time being at least to have
resulted. More than a century ago Alexis
de Tocqueville, one of the most searching
and at the sante time sympathetic foreign
critics, Wrote in his "Democracy in America"
of the danger of the "tyranny of the major-
ity." Of the tyranny this French aristocrat
considered the main evil of democratic in-
stitutions he *rote:
"The smallest reproach irritates its sensi-
bility and the slightest joke that has any
foundation in truth renders it indignant;
from the forms of its language up to the
solid virtues ot its character, everything must
be made the subject of encomium. No
writer, whatever be his eminence, can escape
paying this tribute of adulation to his fellow
citizens."
? De Tocqueville was writing of the majority
itself but his words today might be applied
to the master of the majority.
"I know of no country," De Tocqueville
wrote, "in which there is so little independ-
ence of mind and real freedom of discussion
Its in America': Profound changes have oc-
curred since democracy in America first ap-
peared and yet it may be asked whether
recognition of the right of dissent has gained
substantially in practice as well as in theory."
Senator Foinarand' discovered in 1957 what
it meant to go against the majority. He
Opposed the Eisenhower-Dulles doctrine em-
bodied in a resolution giving the President
power to use "the Armed Forces of the United
States as he deems necessary" in the Middle
East and to spend $200 million as he saw fit
without congressional restrictions. The Sen-
ate majority leader then was Lyndon B. John-
son. He urged PULBRIGHT to back Eisenhower
as be himself had.
' Johnson has triple-starred consensus in
the political lexiclun But, defined as "ty-
ranny Of the majority," consensus has an-
other, look. -
[Prom the Washington (lac.) Post,
, Sept. 27, 19651
THE PULBRIGHT 'SPEECH
The September 20 Evans and Novak at-
tack 1 on Senator FtrisamAT's Dominican
speech milked the preposterous assertion that
the spee'ch will be certain to lift the chances
of the- most anti-Yankee candidate in the
- ,
It 'is extreinely Unlikely that one Domini-
' alheigand knows Who Senator Frm-
iiian fers-everriertslikely that many
riicaits knOW he fini'de the speech.
?ndOubtedlY, bite dominant theme in the
lie' the prob and cons of the
U.S. inter iention. The attitudes of the Do-
minicans will be determined by their and
their fri(lids' immediate experiences with
the revolution, not with Senator FULBRIGHT'S
indictment which should influence the pol-
icymakere in the executive branch to whom it
was addressed.
One might ask the columnists why the
Dominican crisis was such a dangerous con-
frontatio 3. Was it a crisis involving a threat
to the security of the United States, or,
rather, a tragic confrontation between the
United S:.ates, international law, and the in-
evitable, and hopefully democratic, social
revolution in Latin America?
JONATHAN F. GALLOWAY.
.WASHI IBTON.
From t le Christian Science Monitor, Sept.
- 18, 19651
_ THE NEED Ton Carrics
- (By Erwin D. Canham)
You cif], take it for granted that Senator
J. WILIJ AM PULBRIGHT, of Arkansas, though
a Demoorat, a close and old friend of Presi-
dent Johnson, and longtime chairman of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, will
not be the next Secretary of State. He has
burned his bridges. His recent outspoken
criticism of administration policy in Sista
Domingo, on top of several other recent dis-
sents, lt as undoubtedly disturbed the Presi-
dent if it has not angered him.
It is by no means certain that Senator
PULBRIC irr ever wanted to be Secretary of
State. He is no administrator. He hasn't
admintrtered anything since he was presi-
dent oi the University of Arkansas in 1939-
41. H has been in Congress since 1943.
The legislative life suits him fine. And he
may wall believe he can be of more help in
criticizing American foreign policy as a sov-
ereign Senator and chairman of his powerful
eornmi ;tee, than if he were working for a
Presidcnt as Secretary of State.
WRY COMMENTS
For E. ome time, Senator PIILBRIGHT has been
rather frustrated. He does not think the
Presidant or the State Department pay much
attent .on to his 'dep. He comments on
the siruation wryly. His latest statement
puts him further out of line than ever.
But Senator PULDRIGHT may be the voice
of honest, critical perception, and of corn-
monscnse. What lie says about the mis-
evalue tion of the situation in Santo Domin-
go is confirmed by most responsible cor-
respondents who were on the spot and tried
to untangle the facts.
The Arkansas Senator may be in advance
of American public opinion on many issues.
But American policy is badly in need of criti-
cal e)amination. It has been rigid and de-
fensiv e for many months. Secretary of De-
fense McNamara may have been making for-
eign policy more than Secretary of State
Rusk, Mr. McNamara is a powerful person-
ality. He has a sharper cutting edge than
Mr. Fusk, although the Secretary of State's
quiet intellectual power and character should
not be underestimated.
ORIGINAL VIEW
Senator Fnunuessr always comes with a
fresh 'and original mind, and an experienced
Politiaal touch, to problems that are jaded
and frozen. His analysis is just what the
administration needs, whether he is always
right ch not. It should not be resented.
Set fator Fmanacurr's speech in Vienna in
May, outlining ways for easing the central
Europe situation and opening wider doors
thraigh the formerly Iron Curtain, was at-
tentively studied in Budapest and Prague.
I know, because officials in the Hungarian
and :lzech foreign offices told me so. Senator
PULI RIGHT said: "I only wish they studied
it as attentively in Washington."
Senator PULBRIGIIT'S name will be remem-
bered for the most massive international
scholarship program the world has ever seen.
e 2003/10/15 CIA-RDP
,2?40
October 22, .1965
His was almost a lone voice arguing behind
the scenes against the Bay of Pigs misad-
venture. (But he was in favor of invading
Cuba at the time of the missile crisis, writes
President Kennedy's assistant, Theodore C.
Sorensen.)
DISSENSION EXISTS
The senatorial group of Democrats which
is unhappy about foreign policy, for some-
times conflicting reasons, is impressive. The
Senate leader, Senator MANSFIELD is discreetly
but definitely in disagreement on aspects of
the Vietnam problem. Senator CHURCH has
long been off the reservation, and Senator
MORSE, as usual, is a violent dissenter.
There are several others. This is a far cry
from the little band of obdurate men who
blocked Woodrow Wilson's hopes for an or-
ganized peace, But it is a faction which
might some day coalesce, though not neces-
sarily behind Senator PULBRIGHT.
It would be interesting to know Vice Pres-
ident NUIVIPHREY'S ideas on the necessity of
a reevaluation ,nf foreign policy methods and
goals. He has long been art imaginative
critic of set policies, but now his lips are
sealed.
Long-established policies have a way of
gaining a life of their own, riding jugger-
naut-like over the humans who administer
them. Now and then somebody throws a
brick at the juggernaut and it turns out to
be of paper. It is time to challenge the
juggernaut now, to call for candid rethinking.
Senator FULBRIGHT may have made a begin-
ning, frank and provocative.
[From the Washington (D.C.) Post,
Sept. 26, 19651
ImnmaT AND OUTLOOPULBRIGHT AND MS
Crams
(By Joseph Kraft)
The doubts raised by Senator Pi:rumor-1T
with respect to this country's policy in Latin
America'have been intensified by the cries of
his critics.
Basically, the Senator was only posing a
good question. He was asking whether this
country had reverted to the policy of direct
military intervention in South America.
With the Dominican case before him, he
sensed a new disposition to identify all social
protest with Communist subversion, and a
connected tendency to shoot first and think
later. He pointed out that there were im-
portant distinctions between protests backed
by the Communists and protests under their
control. He suggested that when trouble
south of the border developed next, it might
be appropriate for this country to think
first and shoot next.
A reasonable, and I believe honest, re-
sponse to Senator FULBRIGHTB question was
available to the administration. It would
have emphasized that there was no basic
change in American policy; that there were
matters open for debate in the Dominican
record; but that the Dominican case, because
of the special impact of the Trujillo dictator-
ship, was a special one without general ap-
plication to Latin America.
The actual reaction was not unlike the
stoning reserved by the high priests of primi-
tive communities for those who question the
efficacy of Wood sacrifice.
For a starter there was Senator THOMAS
DODD, of Connecticut, with his usual tactic of
crying soft on communism. DODD charged
that Foisammr "suffers from an indiscrimi-
nating infatuation with revolutions of all
kinds, national, democratic, or Communist."
Short remarks in similar vein were made
by Senators Munn Latrscuz and RUSSELL
Lorm?a member of Senator PULBRIGHT'S
Foreign Relations Committee who had not
even bothered to attend the committee's re-
cent hearings on the Dominican Republic.
Then, in defense of the American Ambassa-
dor in the Dominican Republic, Tapley Ben-
nett, there boomed the big gun of the Sen-
ate, RICHARD RUSSELL, of Georgia.
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP671300446R000500110015-9
October 22, 1965'
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 27479
? avssix.r. haeknoWn Ambassador Bennett
"as a small boy:" 1-le haa.knwn'"his -father
and his mother." He had known "both of
his, grandfathers." Onlylast gee'. he had had
a Theal "with Ambassador Bennett's father
and mother on their Franklin Oonnty farm
in the rolling red clay hills of northeast
Georgia." With that pedigree, and that solid
rural background, how could anyone even
begin to have doubts?
A day earlier, the House had expressed its
reaction to Senator FULDRIGHT. It passed by
an overwhelming vote -a resolution that, in
effect, endorsed direct Military intervention
by the United States in Latin America to pre-
vent "subversive action or the threat of it."
Ey themselves, neither the House resolu-
tion nor the Senate statements have any
practical force. But precisely because they
ard free Of real content,-they provide a good
measure of the play of domestic and bureau-
cratic politics on foreign affairs.
At the base, plainly, there are politicos
With self-interested motives for raising anew
the issue of softness on communism. The
original author of the House resolution, ARM-
ISTEAD SELDEN, of Alabama, for instance,
conies from a district that is being changed
by reapportionment, by 'Federal registration
of Voters, and by possible action on the poll
tat. With Negro voters due to figure in the
Alabama primary next May, SELDE1,1 can no
. longer fall back on the usual theme of pro-
tecting white supremacy. Instead, he is
wrapping himself in the -mantle of anticom-
munism.
Politicians with such an obvious interest
in raising The Communist fssue are, to be
Buie, limited in number. But their strength
is as the strength of 10 because the admin-
istration is doing nothing to organize re-
sistance against them.
On the contrary, the administration has
preiMoted inside the State Department a
gr6up of regular Foreign Service officers,
heilding up in Under Secretary Thomas Mann
an Assistant Secretary for Congressional
Relations, Douglas MacArthur II, who made
the(i way in the era of unsophisticated, mon-
,- OlithiO anticomMunfsna. 'Their ideas, indeed
their careers and rernitatiOns, are tied up
with that era. Not surprisingly, they prac-
ticallY invited the Selden resolution.
Vastly, the White Rouse itself seems to be
holding antleornminiisni in reserve as a rod
to discipline its conftessional majority.
Where there ie a jingoist issue working, in
Other words, the President wants it working
on his side. He has gone soft on Goldwater-
ism. And while he maintains that stance,
it remains a question Whether this country
wel be able to move in harmony with the
Witt social changes that are sweeping Latin
Ameriaa, Africa and Asia, too.
Wroth the Louisville (Ity.) Courier-Journal,
Sept. 26, 1965]
FITLBRIGIIT'S "UNTHINKABLE THOUGHTS"
STING THE SENATE
. (By Ben Reeves)
WAsnmaxox.?JAmts 'WILLIAM FULBRIGHT,
Arkansas Democrat, has been in the U.S. Sen-
ate nearly 21 years, and the Senate still
doesn't know quite what to make of him.
By ordinary standards, he ought to be a
Member of the Senate establishment, the
tightly knit inner core that runs the show.
e ip a southerner, he is a Protestant, he
8, 9189811e3 an inapartant standing COM-
ttee, and he fs a proven votegetter with
tiie folks back home. Ffe is one of the few
Weinher's who have ,won election to as many
as four full Senate terms: But there is a
nta,veri* streak about pita, FUL:BRIGHT that
d.eiles predictaToilitY:
4e:0W91.'We_frorn his place in the Senate
the -arly afternoon Of September 15 with
-A.:09af _of` papers in his hand?in the midst
dipcussion gf tlae hfghway beautification
bill?the few 'Members,. on the floor had no
inkling that one Of the sharpest fusses of the
1965 session was about to begin. There was
no objection when the rule of germaneness
was waived to permit FULBRIGHT to speak on
a subject other than that officially before the
chamber.
THE ONLY PURPOSE
In his dry, monotonous, non-spine-tingling
manner, he addressed himself to "the situa-
tion in the Dominican Republic." The chair-
man of the Committee on Foreign Relations
felt that "at this time of relative calm it is
appropriate, desirable, and I think, necessary
to review events in the Dominican Republic
and the U.S. role in those events. The pur-
pose of such a review, and its only purpose,
is to develop guidelines for wise and effective
policies in the future."
Then, in an unemotional and unhurried
way (9,500 words in the CONGRESSIONAL REC-
ORD), FULBRIGHT contended that United
States handling of the Dominican crisis last
Apr:.1 was "characterized initially by over-
timidity and subseqeuntly by overreaction.
:,.hroughout the whole affair, it has also been
characterized by a lack of candor."
FULIIRIGHT'S villain of the afternoon was
not President Lyndon B. Johnson or Secre-
tary of State Dean Rusk, but the U.S. Ambas-
sador to the Dominican Republic, W. Tapley
Bennett.
Bennett, the Senator said, had muffed an
opportunity to "bring possibly decisive me-
diating power to bear for a democratic solu-
tion" on April 27, the most critical day in
the rebellion against the Dominican Gov-
ernment.
REASON FOR MISTAKE
"The overriding reason for this mistake
was the conviction of U.S. officials, on the
basis of evidence which was fragmentary at
best, that the rebels were dominated by
Communists. A related and perhaps equally
important reason for the U.S. Embassy's re-
fusal to mediate on April 27 was the desire
for and, at that point, expectation of an
antirebel victory. They therefore passed up
an important opportunity to reduce or even
eliminate Communist influence by encourag-
ing the moderate elements among the rebels
and mediating for a democratic solution,"
FULBRIGHT said.
He called unilateral intervention in the
Dominican Republic a grievous mistake that
has alienated our real friends in Latin
America: broadly speaking, the people of
the democratic left.
FULBRIGHT said he wanted to make it clear
he was not saying that no Communist par-
ticipated in the crisis, "but simply that the
administration acted on the premise that
the revolution was controlled by Commu-
nists, a premise which it failed to establish
and has not established since."
President Johnson's decision to intervene
with armed force was based on bad infor-
mation and worse advice, the Senator con-
tended.
NO EASY CHOICES
Almost completely overlooked by Fur,-
8Rierrr's attackers was the fifth paragraph
of his speech in which he said his judgments
were made with the benefit of hindsight,
"and in fairness it must be conceded there
were no easy choices available to the United
States in the Dominican Republic."
He tried to make it clear that he was
more concerned with long-term lesSons de-
riving from our experience in the Domini-
can crisis than with profitless digging into
past mistakes.
But in the Senate, as elsewhere, .reason-
ableness is always upstaged by dramatic
actiOn,' in this case the spectacle of the
Foreign Relaticins Committee chairman at-
tacking American policy.
P&L/MIGHT had not taken his seat before
two of his fellow Democrats were on their
feet to belabor him for attacking the Presi-
dent and the American course of action.
RUSSELL LONG, of Louisiana, the Demo-
crats' pudgy whip, came out shaking his
jaws and declaring: "I thank the merciful
Lord that our President possesses a sense of
urgency and that he possesses initiative."
GEORGE SMATHERS, Of Florida, angrily de-
manded: "What is wrong with trying to
save a country from communism? We had
already lost Cuba to Castro. It has been
admitted that there were only about 12
known Communist leaders in Cuba with
Castro when he started his revolution."
THE USUAL FUMING
There was the customary fuming in the
cloakrooms and in the corridors that accom-
panies just about every one of FULBR/GHT'S
"significant" speeches. What was he up to?
What was he trying to accomplish?
The next day, Connecticut's white-maned
Senator THOMAS DODD took to the floor to
denounce the Fulbright speech and defend
the action of the administration, and to say
bitterly that "it seems to me that he suffers
from an indiscriminating infatuation with
revolutions of all kinds, national, democratic,
or Communist."
It was a full week later that another big
Senate gun was brought to bear on FM.-
BRIGHT. Senator RICHARD B. RUSSELL, Of
Georgia, came onto the floor to say that Am-
bassador Tapley Bennett was a Georgia boy
who comes from stock that does not panic
or frighten easily. FULBRIGHT had done Ben-
nett a grave disservice, the Georgian said.
In the interval, the White House took time
to issue a statement saying that it could find
no one who thought FULBRIGHT'S views were
justified. And other Members got in their
licks, too.
But the Arkansas Senator was not entirely
alone on the Dominican matter. Senator
JOSEPH CLARK, of Pennsylvania, told the Sen-
ate he was in complete accord with FUL-
BRIGHT'S views. He called the speech over-
due, sound, and wise.
During the past week, Senator STEPHEN M.
YOUNG, of Ohio, backed FULBRIGHT, and also
criticized Bennett's handling of the crisis in ?
his ambassadorial role.
FULBRIGHT also gathered perhaps unex-
pected support from the editorials of some
of the country's leading newspapers.
UNTHINKABLE THOUGHTS
There are more than a few in the Senate
who privately agree with FULBRIGHT'S main
point in the argument. In the future, we
must try to be on the side of democratic
social revolution in Latin America and else-
where, and not let our anticommunism panic
us into supporting rightwing dictatorships.
But they doubt his wisdom in bringing the
argument into the forum of the Senate,
where its main points become oversimplified
by necessarily abbreviated news reports and
he is exposed to unnecessary attack.
This is the same WILLIAM FULBRIGHT who,
on March 25, 1964, made a Senate speech en-
titled "Old Myths and New Realities," which
has been widely hailed as an air clearer in
the- field of foreign policy. In it he chal-
lenged the country to think "unthinkable
thoughts" about such subjects as the cold
war, the two Chinas, our role in Latin Amer-
ica, and the future of Vietnam.
Neither the President nor the State De-
partment was happy to have such a speech
come from so high-ranking a figure in the
governmental mill that grinds out foreign
policy. But 18 months later, even his se-
verest critics would agree that it has helped
create an atmosphere in which negotiations
can be undertaken between our side and the
Communist world.
STUBBORNNESS ADMIRED
This is the same FULBRIGHT who, after the
Republican congressional victory of 1946,
publicly urged President Harry Truman to
appoint a leading Republican as Secretary
of State and then resign, thus turning the
Presidency over to the party that had scored
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
0
? 27480
BO handsomely in the congressional elections.
?Truman never forgave him for that, and a
good many "regular" Democrats have always
regarded him with a certain suspicion be-
cause Of it.
The idea no d,oubt stemmed from his ex-
periences as a Rhodes scholar at Oxford Uni-
? versity in 1028.
Both friends and foes have to admire hie
stubbornness in refusing to vote for the for-
eign aid bill Thursday night, hoping by his
strategic protest to force a new look at the
whole foreign aid system next year.
Futiguefir was born in Missouri 60 years
ago last April, but his family took him to
Arkansas when he was only a year old. He
Was graduated from the University of Arkan-
sas, at Fayetteville, in 1925, and studied law
at George Washington University in Wash-
ington after ,his return from England.
FoLseiGHT took his law degree in 1934, and
went to work for the Justiee Department's
Antitrust Division in the early days of the
New Deal. He taught law a.,,t George Wash-
ington in 1935, then became a law lecturer
at the University of Arkansas in 1936. He
was elected president of the university 3
years later.
Frnintiofir was elected tO the House of
Representatives in 1942, and 2 years later
successfully campaigned for the Senate seat
that had been held by Hattie W. Carraway.
He was reelected in 1950, 1956, and 1962. His
prestige is such in Arkansas that even vote-
fetching Gov. Orval Faubus, decided against
challenging him 3 years ago.
In the Senate, he is a reasonably consist-
, ern party man, but he is never found in any-
body's pocket. He is jealous of his inde-
pendence, and is not afraid to think for him-
self?even unthinkable thoughts. When he
does think such thoughts, he becomes, as he
did last week, a lonely man.
[From the Miami (Fla.) News, Sept. 28, 19651
CRITIC
(By Bill Bagga)
A bitter smile must occupy the face be-
longing to JAMES WILLIAM FULBRIGHT as he
listens to the rustic oratory of his colleagues.
For 20 years, as a resident of the Federal
Senate, he has lawyered for new thinking
to attend the related issues, of world peace
and the security of the United States.
Now, after a criticism of our policy in
Vietnam and the Dominican Republic, Sen-
ator FULBRIGHT has been backcapped by the
Indignant prose of other Senators to the
extent you might think he were guilty of
parliamentary treason.
The poet and diplomat, James Russell
Lowell, handed down a slice of good sense
When he wrote: "A wise skepticism is the
first attribute of a good critic.'
? SKEPTICISM
I
/f Senator FULBRIGHT were skeptical of our
policies in the two? countries, where we have
made large military and diplomatic invest-
ments, and if he lived with his skepticism as
a mute companion, he indeed would be a
sorry Senator.
The beginning fact here is not whether
the Senator is correct in his Views. Rather,
it is that the continuous absence of debate
on serious business of Government can
evolve into a kind of tyranny costumed as
democracy. Every right we have is strength-
ened, by our freedom to disagree and to re-
fine our national decisions by such dis-
agreement.
But what must put the rock in the Sen-
ator's shoe is that not only his good sense,
but also his good intentions, appear chal-
lenged by some as he speaks as a critic of our
Viet and Dominican policies.
,
Since the Middle 1940's, Senator FULBRIGHT
has been seeing quicker and clearer than
Most gentlemen in Congress. In 1943, he
authored a resolution for a world organize-
,
Approved For Releasei2003/10/15': dkROP67800446100000110015-9
CONGE XSSiON4 RECORD ? SENATE " - October 22, 1965
tion ,t,q keep the peace, once it had been won,
and ,he was gracious enough to phrase his
resd ntion in 55 words, Congress agreed, and
2 yews later, the United Nations was born.
REFORMER
M re than a decade before Bobby Baker's
heac bobbed to the surface, Senator Pct-
saber pleaded with his colleagues to adopt
a eOfte of ethics. He had just completed
washing some dirty linen when his own party
occupied the White House.
El aquently has he argued for less waste in
foreign aid and for more funds in education,
agai long before any serious education bill
was floated from a President to Congress and,
in general, Senator FULBRIGHT has been a
public servant willing to speak as a critic
wheit the mood of the country washed high
agarnst his views.
The Prince de Ligne complained: "The
Congress never runs. It waltzes." Today,
with a persuasive President, our Congress is
runs ing. And a critic with courage and
SensO is needed to examine the legislation-
in-a- hurry. Thank godness WILLIAM FUL-
BRIGIIT IS there.
[From the Washington (D.C.) Post, Sept. 28,
19651
- SOVIET-AMER/CA/NT RELATIONS
_ (By Walter Lippmann)
'sat week the world had a fleeting but
tantalizing glimpse of what might become
possible if the cold war subsided. The
U.S.E..R. and the United States of America,
actic g on their parallel interests in averting
a war between Pakistan and India, made it
possible for the` United Nations to order a
ceas( -fire. This show of unanimity discour-
aged the Chinese from intervening in the
quer
Paoallelism is a long way short of positive
coop (ration, and there is no assurance that a
seta Ment of the quarrel is in sight or even
that the underlying hostility will not smol-
der on for a very long time. Nevertheless,
the events of last week were a spectacular
demonstration of how all hope and prospect
of a reasonably peaceable world is tied up
with an improvement in Soviet-American
relat bits.
Is an improvement possible? What is
there between us that now sets us against
each bther? It is, quite plainly, the conflict
of ideology and interest, of emotion and of
prep dice, over the revolutionary condition
of the so-called third world?the world of
the 'underdeveloped and emerging nations of
the Southern Hemisphere?in Asia, Africa,
and America. The revolutionary con-
ditto: f is an objective historical fact of this
century, and it will continue to exist no
matter what the Russians or we say Or do ?
aboul it.
Th a Soviet-American conflict is about this
revolitionary condition. Thus, the conflict
is no longer, as it was a generation ago, about
what kind of social order is to exist in the
highly developed countries of Europe and
North America. As a matter of fact, in this
wholo area, which includes European Russia
itself, the old argument between the Marxists
and the laissez faire capitalists has been by-
passed, by events. For example, the economic
philosophy of General Eisenhower and Sena-
tor C-oldwater in America is as dead as the
economic philosophy of Marx is among the
European Socialists. In the whole devel-
oped, progressive, industrial world, the pre-
vailir g economic order is a mixture in vary-
ing degrees of planning and the incentive of
profit, of fiscal management and social regu-
lation.
It Is in regard to the turbulence of this
third ,world?which. was not foreseen a gen-
eration ago?that the Soviet Union and the
Unit(d States find themselves locked into
what has the appearance of an irreconcilable
con& ct.
In its ofticial ideology, the Soviet Union is
committed to the support of the revolution-
aries, to the incitement and supplying of
"wars. Of national liberation."
In the American ideology, we are not abso-
lutely opposed to wars of national liberation,
provided they are not inspired or supported
by Communists. We are very much disposed
to feel, however, that all revolutions will be
captured by the Communists who invariably
participate in them.
Thus, Russia and America find themselves
in a vicious circle. The Russians are dis-
posed to intervene wherever there is a re-
bellion, and the United States is inclined to
intervene to oppose as aggression the Com-
munist intervention. In the Soviet Union
there exists a prejudice in favor of rebellion
as such, of rebellion against any established
order. The Soviet Union is the product of a
fairly recent revolution. In the United
States, where the revolution occurred nearly
two centuries ago, there is now a prejudice
against revolution. The result is a vicious
circle in which dogmatic communism and
dogmatic anticommunism incite and exas-
perate each other,
The improvement of Soviet-American re-
lations, which is prerequisite to an accom-
modation between the West and China,
requires the breakup of this vicious circle.
How? Essentially, I believe, by fostering the
ascendancy of national_ interests over global
ideology, by the reassertion in both countries
of prudence and calculation against semi-
religious fa:naticism and frenzy.
We had a glimpse last week of how this
can happen. The hostilities in Kashmir be-
gan with an infiltration of guerrilla troops
(recruited as a matter of fact from the
Pakistan Army though they wore different
uniforms). ? The purpose of the guerrillas
was to arouse the population and to liberate
Moslem Kashmir from Hindu rule. Here
was a war of national liberation which the
Soviet Union, according to its theoretical
doctrine, was bound to support. However,
the fact of the matter is that it didnot suit
the Soviet Union that Pakistan, in cahoots
with Red China, should de .feat India, which
Is a tacit ally of the Soviet Union. So the
Soviet Union acted in favor of peace, which
is its real .interest, rather than on behalf
of an ideological prejudice.
At the same time, the United States, hav-
ing learned something in recent months,
resisted the temptation to take a lofty posi-
tion against aggression, and instead, reti-
cently and prudently, chose to work quietly
and behind the scenes. ?
This is the- way that Soviet-American re-
lations can be improved?by encouraging the
prudent and the practical to predominate
over the ideological and the hot. In this
country, at least, the process will require
the resumption of public debate?the kind
of debate which Senator Ft.:Timm-Tr has once
again opened up.
For the issue which he has posed in his
remarkable speech is the essential issue in
our attitude and policy toward the revolu-
tionary condition of our time. The question
he posed is how to tolerate rebellion, which
is often necessary and desirable, without
surrendering the control of the rebellion to
the Communists who will always be part of
it.
There is :no rule or thumb for answering
this question. But there has to, be some
kind of aceommodation, such as the Soviet
Union made about the Kashmir freedom
fighters and such as we made about the
Chinese threat of military aggression. The
discussion of this serious and difficult prob-
lem cannot be Monopolized by the assorted
hangers-on,- often more Johnsonian than
Johnson himself, who are presuming to lay
down the rule that only those who conform
with the current political improvisations are
altogether Tespectable and quite loyal.
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
October 22, .1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
[Prom the Washington (D.C.) Evening Star,
October 4, 1965]
CoNGRESSZ SOul. SEARCHING IN ORDER
By Eric SeverejA)
, Nothing better illUstrates the diminished
Stature of IndiVitinal Members of Congress-
111 of Its "public image," not its prac-
tical accomplishments, the Congress as an in-
atitutlori?than the aiIair, Of Senator Pm.-
BRIGHT and his negative finding on our Do-
Minlean intervention
. On the face of it one 8110111d conclude the
opposite, that his courageous dissent dem-
onstrates the indispensable importance of the
Modern Congressman's role and shows us
that the institution designed to check and
bals.nCe, ameng other functions, still checks
and balances in the Old style. But, on the
cOntrary, the Fulbright speech was a drama
simply because it was Unique in this period
of consensus and a homogenized Congress.
It was the exception that reveals and illus-
trates the rule. What was shocking was not
WS defiance Of the President and official
policy but the fact that SO many people in
Congress reacted with shock. Some of them
not only repudiated his conclusions about
the DOnainican affair (this writer also hap-
pens to disagree with them) but they seemed
to repudiate his right to announce his con-
clusions. -
This 1,s,a, sign that the soul of Congress is
irk disrepair and ought to be looked into.
htMor and the wisdom of the United
States, as well as its might, were deeply in-
'Volved in the Dominican bUsihess. The evi-
dence_ pro and COn has always been consid-
erably confused. Many very good men have
reached flatly opposing estimates as to what
W91.iid, have happened in that island had we
not intervened. _
,Q1 course, ex post facto investigation was
ibt only proper, but necessary if we are to
have any regard for keeping the historical
record. Straight and it we are to learn any
lessons for the future. The man from Ar-
liansas did what his conscience instructed
nigh to tip, and yet other Congressmen re-
actad as sQMeone had belched in a prayer
Meeting.
"Consensus" has its immense practical ad-
vantages; it does permit a great leap forward,
and; in the end, I imagine the country will
be the better for this Current period and its
product. Bt a curious kind of intimidation
also goes with this consensus and with the
presence of an elemental force such as this
? Preeklent happens to be. In Franklin noose-
-velt's first term, he too, was something of an
elemental force; he, too, was a master poli-
tician and manipulator of men's ambitions
And tears,
Hilt big men in the _Congress still be-
haved like big men and when one spoke his
passionate raind there was neither shock
nor the sileliCe of the awed. Big men ran
Qabinet departments and agencies then, too,
but they frequently fought one another and
'even their President, and publicly. There
Was not only passion and courage present
'but a kind of gaiety; and an awful lot of
business got done,
That unique climate may not return to
Washington, because America is now a great
power, with the heaviness that goes with
fateful and grinding responsiiblities and be-
cause there is nothing gay about the impli-
cations of this age, both revolutionary and
ntielear. But Washington will change, never-
thelep, anti the Congress will change with
it. It will not proceed, next session, at the
frantic pace of this session. It will be too
tired, and many second thougths about its
accomplishments, thoughts now dormant,
are bound to ries to the top of its mind.
It must find the time and the courage
for Close examination, not only of adminis-
trative legislation, but of its own mecha-
nisms. Unless more of the exterior world
blows up next winter, the Congress might
take a long, hard look at a number of tra-
ditional institutions to see if they really
serve us any longer and how they might be
changed. Suggestions from students of gov-
eminent, are piling high; the field is wide
open.
Congress might seriously consider, for ex-
ample, the proposals of Senator WARREN
MAGNUSON. He suggests that there be two
distinct sessions of Congress each year, one
from, say, the start of November to the end
of December dealing entirely with Govern-
ment finances. He suggests that the earlier
or legislative session end, perforce, around
late summer, the administration's budget
having been submitted by mid-July.
As part of the whole package, he would
change the Government's fiscal year to coin-
cide with the calendar year, which is, after
all, the basis fdr reporting the Government's
income?our taxes?and he would revive the
plan to devide the Federal budget in two,
the second half of it amounting to a "capital
budget," showing the Government's total
assets and their current value.
The Federal Government, that is, the
people, own tens of billions in land, buildings,
minerals, supplies, but the public hasn't the
faintest idea what it owns because no ac-
counting of these possessions has ever been
made to it.
An immense job lies ahead in adjusting our
institutions and our practices to this new,
overwhelming, rapidly changing America.
The elected term of Members of the House
simply must be lengthened. The whole ju-
dicial system of the country is staggering and
floundering under its burdens and something
like an additional system of courts to deal
with "administrative laws" in this age of gov-
ernmental regulations and baffled citizens
ought to be seriously considered.
If it is in the present nature' of things
that the initiative for these great institu-
tional changes must come from the executive
branch, so be it?history will probably not
object.
[Prom Newsweek, Oct. 4, 1965]
THE CONTAGION OF HOPE
(By Emmet John Hughes)
As the chorus of voices extolling or ex-
coriating U.S. foreign policy has lately
swelled, we seek for the sense in the din.
The boldest cry has been Senator J. W. Fur.,-
BRIGHT'S lament over U.S. conduct toward
the whole social revolution in Latin America:
"If we are automatically to oppose any re-
form movement that Communists adhere to,
we are likely to end by opposing every re-
form movement." In Washington, Senator
THOMAS J. DODD did more than snap back
that such logic betrayed "an indiscriminate
infatuation with revolution of all kinds": he
slashed at all signs of "conciliationism" in
U.S. policy, feverishly comparing sale of
wheat to the Soviets in the 1960's to sale of
scrap to Japan in the 1930's. In New York,
however, U.N. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg
has sounded stubbornly "conciliationist" in
hailing Soviet-American action on the Kash-
mir crisis as "a very dramatic example of
cooperation * * * without any evidence of
cold war confrontation." But back from
Washington has come the bellicose cry of
more than 300 Congressmen in support of the
prepdsterous Selden resolution?inviting any
Western Hemisphere nation to take any mil-
itary action against any Communist threat.
There is something to be learned from
this babble. For quite independently, both
Mr. FULBRIGHT and Mr. Goldberg believe they
discern three critical facts of world life to
which many others seem blind.
1. The central hope and thrust of U.S.
policy must be to encourage more confident
relations with Moscow and more responsible
behavior by Moscow. "Every important U.S.
posture in the world today," a U.S. diplomat
at the U.N. recently confessed, "has come to
27481
depend on Soviet restraint and reason." To
see the force of this truth, one need take
only a bleak moment to envision the world
of the last year inflamed by a Soviet policy
of militant retaliation?pouring massive aid
into North Vietnam, answering U.S. action in
the Caribbean with Soviet action in Berlin,
and rivaling Peiping with slogans and arms
to goad Pakistan toward war.
2. Within the highest U.S. councils, how-
ever, this political view of relations with
world communism suffers almost constant
challenge from an essentially military view.
In the lament of one high official often tak-
ing part in sessions of the National Security
Council: "Every time a major policy deci-
sion arises, the soldiers outtalk the diplomats.
Their targets are precise, their maps beauti-
ful, their confidence complete. And any
State Department rebuttal usually flounders
in mere reticences or mild reservations."
And it is a keen knowledge of this fact that
impels men like FULBRIGHT to warn against
total faith in military solutions?from the
Caribbean to southeast Asia.
3. Just as U.S. diplomacy toward sovereign
Communist governments has had to heed
differences among them, so U.S. policy?as
it contends with upheaval in Asia, Africa,
and Latin America?must learn now to dis-
tinguish among revolutionary forces even
when they may be tinged with Communist
influence. In the immediate postivar years,
the tough-minded Secretary of State Dean
Acheson knew that the United States must
recognize and defend many a regime unpalat-
ably rightist and militarist; and he warned
U.S. liberals to stop demanding litmus-
paper tests on all allies to assure their true-
blue devotion to democracy. It took many
liberals a while to accept such pragmatism.
And it is now the turn of the conservatives
to be tutored in the matching truth: if all
the world's revolutionary forces are to be
condemned unless their political purity is
perfect and proven, all these forces finally
will be pitted against America.
DEADLY PLAY
Precisely because these new truths jar old
premises, a large band of leaders in both
parties stoutly ignores them. This band
still traffics in the stalest cliches of anti-
communism. It regards Soviet-American
relations with more horror than hope. And
it thus stays a decade behind history in
apprehending the still perilous balance of
powers on which rests all chance of peace.
The Fulbrights and the Goldbergs none-
theless persist. They are wholly uninter-
ested in the empty wordplay about "soft"
and "hard" policies shouted around the Na-
tion; they are fiercely concerned about the
life-and-death play between revolutionary
and counterrevolutionary forces surging
around the world. They are unafraid of any
fitting use of American firepower; they are
afraid only of its feckless substitution for
American brainpower.
And they doubt?above all?that the
course of world politics can be turned by
the antiseptic devices of quarantine or em-
bargo or repression. For their sense of real-
ity is wholly different. Their faith Is in
what Jefferson called "the disease of liberty."
It can be spread and caught in improbable
places and under intractable tyrannies. And
it will require the most patient physicians?
quite unafraid to deal, at times, with queer
seeds and alien germs?to extend this subtle
and splendid contagion.
[From the Washington (D.C.) Post, Sept. 26,
1965]
WHY A FOREIGN RELATIONS CHAIRMAN SPEAKS
OUT
(NoTE.?Senator J. WILLIAM PULBRIGHT,
Democrat, of Arkansas, chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has
been outspoken recently, as always, on Amer-
ican foreign policy, often at variance with
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP671300446R000500110015-9
Approved For Release 2093/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000500110015-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
the expressed or implied views of the Demo-
cratic administration. The following is a
tape-recotded interview with he Senator by
Washington Post Staff Writer Chalmers M.
Roberts.)
leternars. Senator, you recently made a
speech about American intervention in the
laominician Republic which produced a lot
of criticism. Some said your timing was bad.
One -critic said the speech was "a personal
proclamation of a personal foreign policy,"
An editorial called it a "grossly irrespon-
sible attack on the administration." Aeld
? it weel reported that President Johnson's
reaction was that the speech would "em-
barrass the future course of U.S. diplomacy
in the Dominican Republic."
Those are strong words to throw at the
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee. What do you think of such
Critisim?
PULEIUGHT. / think it's quite unusual that
anyone should question the right and the
deity Of a Member of the Senate to express
his views about an incident of great im-
portance. I have always Maimed that a
Member of the Senate has the responsibility
to tell the truth as he sees it. I don't pre-
tend our judgments are infallible, but it is
one of the functions of a Member of the
Senate to raise these questions for public
diacussion, and out of this a sound foreign
policy may be developed. If I am wrong,
this still would clarify the issues Involved
in this case.
.. The purpose of this was not in any way
to affect what's happened in the Dominican
Republic. Obviously, it's much after the
event. Its real purpose was to influence the
course of events in future revolutions that
are inevitable, / think, in Latin America,
because it is in a proceed of change.
When t use the word revolution, I don't
necessarily Mean a violent one, but changes
in their social structure, and I think the
,
very basis of the Alliance 'for Progress is
aesurnption that changes in their
social and economic structure are nec-
essary?their land tenure; taxes, and so on.
I've been a little surprised that they've
questioned the prOpriety Of a Senator speak-
-Ing nut on these matters.
SOME EXTRA STATUS
uestion. Senator, I think that the criti-
clam runs-not to a Senator speaking out but
tou Speaking out? becatise you are the
chairnian Of the Senate Foreign Relations
loxmlttee. Perhaps it ivoidd be useful to
discuss that role for a minute. Some names
cdtrIC to Mind: Borah, Vandenberg, Connally,
George, Iferut Cabot Lodge, Sr., all had great
inilieence oh American foreign policy one
Wale" OT another.
ettoZi of these cases, the Senator who
' the -Chairman of the committee had
'43ttra "status. Now, as America's role
the world has increaSed, this status has
ncreaeeci. bo you draw any distinction be-
wen your right to speak as you just indi-
as a Senator, and your role as chair..
of this Particular conlinittee?
Wee. Well, It's my impression that the
eli ou Mention as nek predecessors as
Irman?take - Lodge, for example, or
orab?often spoke Out leery vigorously in
,dissent to the current policy of the time;
.a.nd Vandenberg? exercised a great deal of
inflieence, certainly much' more than I or
,any -Other person recently.
think there are several reasons for that.
se, he individually was a powerful per-
sonality. TO 'addition to that, the party
dieggion at that time was very close, and
V denherg,` by virtue- of that fact, could
is'e a de-Clef:ire influenee on the course of
ts iii"the'Sinate. 'Without his coopera-
n, the "adnainTetration would have been in
at' a:Ability; because during the period
IS Chairmanship his party had numerical
trOf Or the senate and he had a special
position Of power. He complained that he
Wanted to "be in on the takeoffs as well as
the crszhi landings," and he was consulted
to a m'ich greater extent than I've ever been
consulled in advance of actions taken.
Burl eg part of his tenure, at least, he could
decisively influence the course of the action
of the Senate versus the administration. I
cannot do that, because the President at this
time la clearly the dominant personality in
our Government, and as this session has
proved, he can get what he wants out of
Congress with or without my support.
But that isn't important in this context.
All I was trying to do in this case, as I have
in others, was to give the Senate and the
country the benefit of my best judgment on a
matte:' of policy. And I also want to say
that in this case, as in some of the other
cases :;hat have been mentioned, it was after
the fa3t. I had no notice of what was going
to happen in the Dominican Republic, The
only way I could comment on it was after
the fact.
A RARE RAPPROCHEMENT
Qtustion. That's in some contrast to your
relationship with President Kennedy before
the Bay of Pigs affair, where you were called
In and did have a chance to make known
your opinion in advance.
Aniever. That was a very unusual specific
insta:ice in which purely by chance I hap-
pened_ to be Invited to go with him on a
weekend at Easter. He didn't invite me for
that purpose; he happened to be going the
same place I was, and he said come along.
Question. You seized on the opportunity.
An nver. I seized upon the opportunity to
present him with a memorandum and my ad-
vice. He didn't solicit it and didn't expect it,
but he got it, and that's the way it developed.
He did call me in. That is almost unique;
I think it was the only instance in which,
price to the event, I was thoroughly aware of
what NILS up and had an opportunity to ex-
press my opinion.
In contrast, there was the Dominican case.
We and other Members of Congress were ad-
vised; at about the time the marines were
being landed, that they were being landed
fol' the purpose of saving American lives.
Now, no one would object to landing some
-mar hes to save American lives, assuming, of
course, that the conditions were as described.
ree been asked: Why didn't you object
then? Why, I didn't know anything about
the events that were actually taking place
other than what we were told at that meet-
ing. Now we have had this review (of the
Don finican case in the Foreign Relations
Con unittee) . I don't quite see why it is con-
sidered unusual to discuss an event of this
eigrificance with a view to Influencing the
Wan:de of our policymakers in future events
of w similar nature which are very likely to
take place.
EXTRA QUARTERBACK?
Question. Let's go back to the original
qurstion as to whether there is a special re-
spcnsibility on the chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee as distin-
guithed from other Senators. You yourself
sail on becoming chairman of the committee
thdt no football team can expect to win
with every man his own quarterback. The
Fo sign Relations Committee is available to
ad rise the President, but his is the primary
responsibility." In effect, you've been
eh Agect here with being a quarterback, or
at least a Monday morning quarterback. Is
th A a fair criticism?
answer. Well, I think It's a fair observa-
tion. I am not quite prepared to say it is
necessarily criticism, because under the cir-
cumstances here, I wasn't in on the take-
r:Ai , so to speak. I wasn't consulted as to
whether or not?certainly with the back-
gr3und material and an opportunity to con-
sider it?whether or not the intervention
should take place.
October 22, 1965
Question. Are you taking the position that
as chairman of the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee, you, or whoever else may hold that
Job, is entitled to speak his mind without
reservation after the fact in the sense that
you've described it here as long as he has
not been in on the takeoff? On the Bay of
Pigs affair, where you were in on the take-
off, you were careful or considerably less
critical afterward, I think, because of that
fact.
Answer. Well, another difference is that
in the Bay of Pigs, the matters continued
after that to be very critical, and as you
know, a further event took place.
Question. The missile crisie?
Answer. Yes. This was still an active mat-
ter that was going on. After it was done, I
don't know what further I could have said.
We were consulted about the missile crisis,
that is, the Senate leadership. But there
again, when we were consulted, we were
brought in about 5 o'clock on the day of the
warning given to Khru.shchev, and we were
told what had been decided. Nothing we
or any other Members?the senior Members
such as Senator RUSSELL and the leadership
on both sides?I don't think anything they
could have said at that moment would have
changed the course at all.
There is the well-known custom that we
are advised of what the administration is
going to cl.6. I often get a telephone call
after 5 o'clock saying that there will be an
announcement at 5:30 that such and such
is going to take place. I don't complain
about that. It isn't necessary for them to
ask my advice unless they think my advice
is worth something.
I have volunteered without being invited
on two or three cases in the last 8 months
on Vietnam. I have done A privately. I've
submitted memorandums which I have never
made public. But every now and then occa-
sion arises when it seems to me that it de-
velops public discussion and is good for the
country to try to understand the points of
view. I cannot quite see that under our
system it is: necessary that we all join in en-
dorsing administration policy in every case.
I may say I don't think I'm the only one
that has indulged in the expression of views
contrary to whatever administration is in
power. Normally, the opposition party in a
government will take a lead in this. Under
present conditions, the minority party is so
much in accord with certain policies of the
administration that it does not criticize
them.
'THE GROWING BRANCH
Question. Is part of this problem the fact
that the way foreign policy is developed in
the nuclear age, the Senate and the House
have less and less power and authority?
Could these remarks by yourself and others
be almost a declaration of independence, to
say that you still have some rights and pre-
rogatives and, by gosh, you want to be heard?
Answer. I think it's inevitable, with the
growing complexity of our international rela-
tions as influenced by nuclear power, the
rapidity of communications and so on, that
the Chief Executive will inevitably play an
ever-increasing power. I don't think that
this is a bad thing as such; I don't think that
foreign relations are as well suited for con-
gressional action as domestic matters.
Most of us do not in our everyday ex-
periences have contact with foreign countries
and none of us can claim to be real experts
In this field. But under the Constitution, we
are supposed to advise and consent, and we
may from time to time offer suggestions out
of our experience for the consideration of the
Executive. They don't necessarily?in fact
they rarely?seem to take it. But what harm
does it do as an educational matter for the
American people to discuss?
Question. When you have a strong Presi-
dent, he prefers consent to advice.
Approved For Relea : CIA-RDP67B00446R090500110015-9
- -
Approved For Release 2063/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
October 22, 196:5
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --- SENATE 27483
Answer. This relationship is nearly alto-
gether dependent upon the strength of the
President. When he is a very strong and a
very competent man, as I think we have in
the President today, this naturally is going
to overshadow the Congress.
Now, there has been complaint on the other
hand that Congress hasn't developed any
debate, not only on this matter but on other
matters, Vietnam and domestic matters; that
we are a rubberstamp Congress. Then when
I make a speech, my God, it is a terrible
thing; you spoke out in a way that was not
entirely in accord with the accepted policy,
and so you are criticized for starting a debate.
I don't think you can have it both ways.
UNREVOLUTIONARY NATION
Question. Senator, I'd like to go back to a
statement you made in the Dominican
speech, one that kicked up considerable dust.
You said, "We are not, as we like to claim in
Fourth of July speeches, the most truly rev-
olutionary nation on earth. We are, on the
contrary, much closer to being the most un-
revolutionary nation on earth."
The complaint I got on these sentences was
that you were handing the opposition,
whether they are Communists or national-
ists, or just anti-Americans abroad, a handy
weapon to beat us over the head by denying
what we have already said that we were?not
just a Senator denying it, but the chairman
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Answer. Well, it so happens I've uttered
the sentence before in a little different con-
text, because the nature of our Revolution
in 1776, it seems to me, was entirely different
from the kinds of revolutions that have been
taking place recently. It was a relatively
-minor change in the social and economic
status of the people of the United States.
The reason for the Boston Tea Party wasn't
the grinding misery of people in utter
poverty.
I think because we have been so success-
ful, we are very attached to our rather an-
cient system. I don't think our inclina-
tion is to overchange. You know what hap-
pens if someone suggests a change in our
Constitution. It is in this sense that I have
said that before and I do now.
I think the great merit of our system is
that it's adaptable. This is the great merit
of our system as opposed to a totalitarian
system, that we can make these internal
changes within the context of our Constitu-
tion, changes that completely alter our do-
mestio scene.
We're more comparable to the Scandi-
navian countries. We're doing internally
very many things they did.
SHAILING US UP
Question. Are you saying that we are a
status quo country in relation to the world
and we're not adapting ourselves or our
minds sufficiently to the kind of revolu-
tionary action that is abroad in the world?
Answer. I think that's right. And a coun-
try that's as well off as We are tends to want
to rely on established law and to follow con-
servative principles in that connection, and
? we are that way, I think.
Question. What you're really trying to
do, then, in all these speeches, is to shake
up the American mind, is that it?
Answer. Well, I guess, being an old pro-
fessor, if I perform any function at all, it
is trying to make my colleagues in the coun-
try think about these matters in the hope
that wiser people than myself can improve
our policies.
/ must say I think that in this foreign field,
because of the great success of our own
economy, it's very difficult for us to conceive
of the conditions in another country, to
conceive of the difficulties of changing the
existing social and political order there. It
? IS very difficult for Americans, I think, to
No. 198?pt. 2-20
put themselves into the position of the
ordinary citizens in those countries where
the per capita income is $200 or $300 a year.
It's difficult for us to realize the pressure
upon these people to try to improve their
lot.
I am very pleased that this country has
been able to do what it has done. All I
would like to see is that we show a little
more appreciation of their problems and
try to work with them in a more coopera-
tive spirit rather than assuming an attitude
that we know all the answers and that if
they'll do as we say, things will be fine.
One example is foreign aid. I've done
all I could in the last 2 or 3 years to shift
this operation from a bilateral program in
which we undertake to direct their activities
for improvement. I know our motives are
good, we'd like to help them. I think it
would be much more effective if we'd do it
through a cooperative venture such as the
Inter-American Bank in which they play a
part.
NOT ALWAYS ANTI
Question. To sum it up then, is what you
are really saying that you believe in free
speech for Senators, including the chair-
man of the Foreign Relations Committee,
and that you don't intend to be inhibited
beyond some reasonable degree by the fact
that you may be speaking out against ad-
ministration policy in this or any other ad-
ministration?
Answer. I don't always speak out against
it. I approve of practically everything this
administration has done. In this particular
instance, all I said is that I think the judg-
ment, not the motives, may not have been
correct, and that when similar occasions arise
in the future, I would hope we would be a
little bit more careful in the way we in-
tervene our power into the affairs of other
countries.
Question. Would you like to be in a little
more on the takeoffs as well as the crash
landings?
Answer. I don't like to be in the position
of begging to be in. If they don't think my
views are of any value, I'm certainly not
anxious to intervene. I don't think I'm in-
fallible, but that doesn't mean I don't think
I have a right to say what I think about the
effect of some occurrence. I think it is my
duty to do it.
[Prom the Arkansas Gazette, Sept. 20, 1965]
FULBRIGHT'S SPEECH DRAWS SUPPORT
To the EDITOR OF THE GAZETTE:
I agree with Senator FULBRIGHT on the
Dominican Republic statement and shall
make a few comments.
In Latin America we have a number of
military oligarchies that appear to run the
Government. They can be called hatchet-
men, as they are paid to do the dirty work
so as to maintain the status quo. For their
work, they are paid a high, price, and are
blessed. Paid to permit the exploitation of
the people and their natural resources by
dynasties of the world. Blessed because they
control free worship on the part of the peo-
ple, in the name of God to stop communism.
The power structures are the dynasties
that move into any country, and take over
that something of value, by any method to
attain that end. They install the military
and use the church. When the-people rise
up, the military and church go down, but
the real power structure slips away to await
another day.
We must help other countries to have con-
stitutional governments, that will protect
the people from exploitation by any robber
barons from any dynasties. To get rid of
slums, we must name the slum landlords.
To get rid of causes of trouble in Latin Amer-
ica, let us give family names to the dynas-
ties, and not call them corporations. Our
boys must not die for an elite, or a Mr.
Morgan, so that they may get more on top
of more.
UNCLE ARNOLD.
Rom SPRINGS.
LATIN AMERICA
To the EDITOR OF THE GAZETTE:
A great deal is being said about Senator
Fmanuanr's recent speech in the U.S. Senate
labeling U.S. intervention in the Dominican
Republic as a major blunder. Mr. FULBRIGIIT
says that our recent action there has pro-
voked the resentment of the Latin American
Republics and has in the long run helped the
Communists, There is no doubt that the
Communists will take advantage of any re-
sentment to further their own objectives.
They like to fish in troubled waters. Our
intervention may have chilled the cordial
relationships between the United States and
the Latin American countries. Surely it has
not helped the Alliance for Progress program
so eloquently proclaimed by the late Presi-
dent Kennedy and later endorsed by Presi-
dent Johnson. Money is not enough.
There must also be international goodwill
and understanding.
It would have been better if the United
States had worked on this thing in conjunc-
tion with the Organization of American
States. It seems that the OAS was ignored.
And this is not good for us. As the Senator
says we should encourage them to build their
own bridges to other nations. We will make
a mistake if we try to do It for them. They
are now grown nations with some social and
political maturity and naturally will resent
a paternalistic overjordship from the United
States. We resented it in 1776. The Ameri-
can Revolution is still one of the great revo-
lutions in world history.
Again we cannot ignore the Monroe Doc-
trine. Its enforcement should be multi-
lateral and not unilateral. All the nations of
the Western Hemisphere have a, vital part in
the enforcement of it. In fact the time is
past when we can do or attempt to do it
alone. The Senator may have sensed some-
thing that the masses of the people have not
as yet sensed.
We still have good people who see a Com-
munist under every bed and a Negro in every
parlor or living room. Often we get scared
when we should do some reflective thinking,
We will recall that Hitler also fought com-
munism with all the power at his command.
Yet he killed some 6 million people in gas
chambers and concentration camps.
H. W. Jnasita.
HOT SPRINGS.
[From the Arkansas Gazette, Sept. 20, 19651
A PHYSICIST ON DOMINICAN REPUBLIC AND
PULBRIGHT
To the EDITOR OF THE GAZETTE:
Senator FULBRIGHT IS to be complimented
on his Senate speech concerning our policy
in the Dominican Republic. Arkansas is
fortunate to have in Senator FULBRIGHT a
man who is able to think independently, to
arrive at well-considered conclusions in a
cogent manner.
As a physicist, I feel a special responsibil-
ity toward the strengthening of world under-
standing and the consequent preservation of
world peace. As the creators of the instru-
ments of war, scientists have a special re-
sponsibility to see that war does not occur.
Senator FIJLBRIGHT'S policy of "building
bridges" between the societies of the world is
the only one which can lead to a stable peace.
Our present unstable peace, if one could call
it peace, is analogous to the unstable equi-
libritun of a ball balanced on the top of a
mountain. The ball is balanced now, but
just be careful not to give it a push. A sta-
ble peace would be based on understanding
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
27484
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
and world law, rather than on the present
balance of terror.
When we build factories in Eastern Europe,
when we trade with Russia, when we rely on
the U.N. (as in the Kashmir fighting), we
are building bridges. I feel that recognition
of Red China and admission of Red China
to the U.N. are bridges long overdue. The
Government of Red China has been viable
for nearly 20 years, shows no indication of
losing its grip, and is at least as legitimate
as most of the governments of the world.
To refuse to be on speaking terms with Red
China because we do not like her seems un-
realistic, to say the least.
The world has lived on the brink of de-
struction for the peat two decades. With
each passing year, as the weapons become
more monstrous and the stockpiles grow and
.more nations acquire the capability of de-
stroying civilization, we move closer to the
edge of the precipice. No one can say how
long we will survive in our present predica-
ment. We can only say that if a solution is
not found, the end will eventually come.
The balance of terror cannot be maintained
forever. The solution lies in the building
of bridges: bridges from man to man, and
bridges from nation to nation. When our
country violates the OAS treaty and imposes
her own will (rather than that or the U.N.
or of the OAS) on the Dominican Republic,
we are tearing down the bridges which man-
kind so badly needs in this nuclear age.
ARTHUR HOBSON.
FAYETTEVILLt.
From the Baltimore Sun, Sept. 20, 19851
FULBRIGHT AND OTHERS
Sir: The quick castigation of Senator
FULBRIGHT by some of his colleagues is sad,
although certainly not unexpected in the
light of his sharply critical speech on our
Dominican actions. Senator Do's at-
tempted rebuttal deserves comment, for it so
perfectly reveals the implied, but rarely re-
vealed bias at the root of too many of our
foreign policy decisions.
There is fundamentally a fanatic demand
for orderly, agreeable and, above all, noise-
less governments, whatever the cost. The
cost becomes, in. practical terms, easy accept-
ance of very conservative regimes with often
dominant military elements, repression of
civil liberties and disregard or, at best, token
concessions toward land reforms and other
basic socioeconomic improvements.
Democracy, especially the forms it is likely
to take in emergent nations, lacking a long
tradition of self-government, is probably in-
efficient and even chaotic in comparison to
the traditional rigid oligarchy. But in this
regard, it is edifying to think of Senator
DODD'S chargin when, as a foreign observer
of some years ago, he saw that upstart
frontiersman Andrew Jackson and his crude
followers replacing the tried-and-true old
guard. Still further, we can rejoice today
that no paternalistic guardian of world peace
stepped in with a few thousand troops to
replace that weak agrarian social reformer
A. Lincoln, obviously unable to maintain
order in his own country, torn by Internal
revolution.
One characteristic of any Mature nation is
the ability freely to air differences of opin-
ion and to admit and learn from mistakes,
tm matter how embarrassing. We, as a Na-
tion, mist soon emerge from an over-long
adolescence in matters of foreign policy. We
need to hear from Senator PULBRIGHT, and
many more like him.
HALT/MORE.
M. J. HROD/E,
[Pram the Akron (Ohio) Beacon Journal,
Sept. 26, 1985]
Tern FULBIIGHT FUROR?HE CHAIRS GROUP
DEEPLY DIV/DED AND LOSING PRESTIGE
- (By Lee Winfrey)
Wasmnimono?On the wall of the office of
J. W. PmeRIGHT, the chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, hang six pic-
tures of Pm:mown with the President of the
United States.
One alb ma the Arkansas Senator sitting
on a couch in the oval office of the White
House, less crossed, glasses perched down low
on his ruse, forehead furrowed skeptically.
Before him. Sits Lyndon B. Johnson, who has
autograpi ad the picture and added this note:
"Boo,?E can see I haven't been very per-
suasive."
On the issue of 'U.S. intervention in the
borninica a Republic, JAMES WILLIAM Fin:-
BRIGHT is indeed unpersuaded. In a 9,500-
word Senate speech on September "15, he
called the interventione"a grievous mistake."
Several of his colleagues quickly agreed
that a mistake had been made, but that the
mistake was Foinamirr's. Senator THOMAS
J. DODD led the criticism, charging that Fox,
BRIGHT "ouffers from an indiscriminating in-
fatuation with revolutions of all kinds."
FULBR/CiliT has been under sharp attack
before, notably for a speech on March 25,
1964, entitled "Old Myths and New Realities."
Now he himself faces a new reality: He is
not onlo being criticized personally, as in
the past, but for his direction of the Foreign
Relations Committee as well.
In his private office, where an American flag
and an unabridged dictionary share the
place of honor directly behind his chair, the
scholarly FITLBRIGHT defends firmly his right
to critioize administration policy in Santo
Doming.
"I think he (Johnson) is a political genius
but that doesn't mean he's infallible?or that
he hasn't made a mistake in this instance
that won't be detrimental to his own long-
term foreign policy interests. I think it will
be (detrimental).
"I think there are people in the adminis-
tration who think it was a mistake," he adds,
"but they can't speak out. A Senator can.
thinl: it's not only a Senator's right, but
his duly, to speak out in a case where a seri-
ous mi ctake has been made."
FULFRIGHT traces the current furor, which
he adn fits is "a little more stridently critical"
than he anticipated, back to an old enemy
of his, the late Senator Joe McCarthy of Wis-
consin.
"Since the days of McCarthy," he says in
his colt Ozark drawl, "discussion of anything
around here that involves communism has
been /retty heated."
Ft7L3RIGHT'S credentials as an intellectual
(Rhoces Scholar at Oxford, president of the
University of Arkansas at the age of 34) are
widely honored. They do not shield him,
howeoer, from current charges that the For-
eign Relations Committee is suffering under
his le idership.
Among the 16 standing committees of the
Serial e, Foreign Relations has long ranked
first in prestige. HUBERT HUMPHREY and the
late ,:pin F. Kennedy are among its alumni.
Its cUrrent roster includes, both Majority
Leader MIKE MANSFIELD and Majority Whip
Russsit LONG, the two most powerful Demo-
crats in the Senate.
But in a viewpoint recently put into print
by Sfridicated Columnist William S. White:
"The old congressional citadel of power and
preslige in. foreign policy, the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, has fallen upon the
poorest days it has known in many decades."
!
October 22, 1965
White advanced one major reason: Fut-
BRMHT'S alleged inability to keep the com-
mittee "on the track." There are, however,
at least five things troubling the committee
at present.
Unwieldy size--from 13 members in 1947,
the committee has grown to 19 as more Sen-
ators sought the prestige that attached to a
seat there. This leaves less time for each
member to quesoion witnesses and advance
his views.
Chronic absenteeism. Dore, for example,
attended only 1 of the 13 hearings concern-
ing the Dominican Republic. Often Put-
Damen and the ranking Republican, BOURKE
B. HICKENLOOPRIt, are the only members at
a hearing.
Six members, including FULBRIGHT and
LoNo, are also on the powerful Finance
Committee. ForeiereHr practically never
goes to Finance. The other five regularly
attend Finance and seldom come to Foreign
Relations.
Ideological differences. On most issues in-
volving communism (and most foreign pol-
icy questions do), the committee is severely
split into at least three camps.
There are tile "doves," led by Poleamerr,
generally followed by Democrats JOSEPH
CLARK, WAYNE MORSE, FRANK CHURCH, CLAI-
BORNE PELL, and surprisingly to some, Re-
publican KARL MUNDT, Of South Dakota.
Lorro joined them in opposition to Fox:-
BRIGHT on. Santo Domingo.
There are the "hawks"?Donn, Democrat
FRANK LAIISCHE, of Ohio, and Republican
KARL MUNDT, of South Dakota. Lone joined
them in /opposition to FULI3RIGHT on Santo,
Domingo.
In between are the moderates, notably
MANSFIELD, JOHN SPARE:MAN, and STUART
SYMINGTON.
Frinarosor's methods as chairman, which
differ substantially from those of his
predecessors.
The great chairmen of the last 20 years?
Democrats Walter George of Georgia and
Tom Connally of Texas, Republican Arthur
Vandenberg of Michigan?sought a broad
consensus, rounding off the corners of in-
dividual views in order to arrive at general
agreement.
Fxrinamxr, since becoming chairman in
1959, has been much more inclined to ad-
vance his own views early and often. A
watered-down consensus, diluting or omit-
ting major points at issue, is not his cup of
tea.
The maverick manner of two Democrats
at opposite political poles, LAUSCHE and
MORSE.
Both MORSE and LAIISCHE are contentious
men. They will badger witnesses they do not
like and do not hesitate to consume a full
hour or two advancing their views. They
bore or irritate several of their colleagues
who walk out or prefer not to attend their
diatribes.
Summing up the current situation, Col-
umnist Marquis Childs wrote recently:
"What was once a committee assignment
pursued by Senators seeking prestige and
influence has fallen to such a low state that
recently Senator GEORGE SMATHERS, who has
a sensitive nose for where power resides,
gave up a seat on Foreign Relations."
SMATHERS' departure for a seat on the Ju-
diciary Committee was unprecedented. Dip-
lomatically, SMATHERS gives as his reason:
"The problems (in foreign relations) are
so big and all-encompassing that in the final
analysis yon can do nothing about them. I
preferred to go to Judiciary because there
the problems are specific and you can ham-
mer at them and work out some solution."
Approved For Release 2003/10/15*: CIA-RDP67B00446R000500110015-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
October 22, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Ideological differences probably played a
part, however. SMATHERS was the second
Senator on his feet (LoNG was the first) to
defend the administration following FM-.
BRIGHT'S lengthy Dominican speech.
Regarding the split in his committee, Fur,-
BRIGHT admitted in his characteristically mild
tone of voice that "The committee is deeply
divided on any matter involving our dealings
with the Communist world."
He added that he is "hopeful that the dif-
ferences will be ameliorated." But his tone
carried little conviction and other observers
see little prospect for any great improvement.
For between FULBRIGHT and the DODD-
LAUSCHE-MUNDT wing of his committee
yawns an awesome gulf. Involved are two
entirely different ways of looking at the con-
temporary world.
In the view of DODD and LAUSCHE and
MUNDT, the United States at war with com-
munism, with all kinds of communism. As
a practical matter, they see little difference
between the Russian, Chinese, Cuban, or
Yugoslavian brands.
This is a viewpoint shared by millions of
Americans, but it is not the viewpoint of
FULBRIGHT. He would like to build "bridges
of accommodation" to the Communist world,
to. "take the heat out of the cold war."
In his "myths and realities" speech, he
proposed the possibility of Russia joining
with the United States in building a new
Panama Canal. He is encouraged by the
fact that Senate opposition to selling wheat
to Russia is much less than it was 2 years
ago.
Behind this attitude lies another control-
ling idea of FULBRIGHT'S. The belief that the
United States is spending too much on muni-
tions and the space race, and not enough on
domestic improvements, notably on educa-
tion.
, Now 60, a Senator for precisely one-third
of his life, FULBRIGHT has the appearance of
a man several years younger. He exercises
regularly, shuns the cocktail circuit, and
seems to bear up well under the controversy
aroused by his lengthy, closely reasoned
speeches.
In an era of consensus politics, he remains
the unpersuaded one.
UNFAVORABLE COMMENTS
[From the Chicago Tribune, Sept. 17, 1965]
SENATOR FULBRIGHT'S WAVE OF THE FUTURE
Senator J. WILL/AM FULBRIGHT was in his
accustomed character when he moaned in a
Senate speech that American intervention in
the Dominican Republic rebellion was all
wrong. The chairman of the Foreign Rela-
Mons Committee contended that in Latin
America "the movement of the future * * *
is social revolution," and that if we "oppose.
any reform movement that Communists ad-
here to, we are likely to end up opposing
every reform movement."
Mr. FULBRIGHT went so far as to say that,
we had intervened "forcibly and illegally
against a revolution," which is equivalent to
saying that revolutions, even those which
are Communist-dominated, are legitimate,
? while to oppose them is illegal and illegi-
timate.
Senator THOMAS DODD appropriately re-
marked that FULBRIGHT "suffers from an in-
discriminating infatuation with revolutions
of all kinds, national, democratic, or Com-
munist." DODD observed that FULBRIGHT
never expressed any concern about the es-
tablishment of Castro's Communist regime
in Cuba, or about the Communist campaign
of terror and subversion throughout Latin
America. He failed to mention that FUL-
BRIGHT also opposes American intervention
against the Communists in Vietnam.
FULDRIGHT complained that the United
States decided that the Dominican rebellion
"should not be allowed to succeed." He
added that "any reform movement is likely to
attract Communist support," and, while con-
ceding that "it cannot be proven that the
Communists would not have taken over the
revolution," said it was equally impossible
to prove that they would.
In such circumstances?revolutions , in
which Communists figure?FULBRIGHT is per-
fectly willing to split the difference. For
the sake of "reform" and "social revolution,"
he will chance a Communist takeover any old
day. This is open-mindedness on the scale
of a wind tunnel.
FULBRIGHT, in fact, fears the Communists
much less than he fears an American associa-
tion with "reactionary oligarchies." His ex-
pressed sympathies are with what he calls
"the popular noncommunist left." The vil-
lains in his set piece presumably are the
Latin American military, who are conserva-
tive and anti-communist, just as the villains
on the domestic scene are American military
officers, who were the subjects of the cele-
brated "Fulbright memorandum," charging
that they were too anti-communist and thus
enemies of all social welfare and "reform."
Ever since this screed in 1961, American
officers have been effectively gagged.
It is hardly necessary to say Senator FUL-
BRIGHT is wrong. He is always wrong; there
is no news in that. The administration was
not wrong in sending troops into the Domin-
ican Republic. It was not wrong in perceiv-
ing the threat of a Communist takeover and
of another Cuba. But where it was wrong?
and this FULBRIGHT never even touched
upon?was that it failed to carry thru. It
kept its troops under wraps and refused to
dislodge and disarm the Communists, and
to end the Communist threat. It left the
rebels armed and Intact. It appeased them.
It kidnaped and hustled out of the country
the strongest anti-communist Dominican
military officer, Gen. Wessin y Wessin. Now
it is expelling all the military men who are
close to him.
In his preoccupation with the nobility of
left-wing revolutions, FULBRIGHT is blind to
the real failures of administration policy,
which are founded on irresolution, an exag-
gerated respect for "world opinion," and a
distrust of the "military mind." The re-
sults are a tendency to shrink from unam-
biguous action resolutely 'carried out and
to indulge, instead, in fatal pullbacks, from
the Bay of Pigs to Santo Domingo.
[For an eloquent statement of the magni-
tude of Anierica's default, read the tragic
letter of Gen. Wessin in the Voice of the
People today. This is the first time that this
document has been printed anywhere in
full.]
[From the Evening Star, Sept. 17, 1965]
THE TWO FULBRIGHTS
Senator FULBRIGHT'S speech denouncing
our intervention in the Dominican Republic
last April is a remarkable exercise in second-
guessing. And even some of the second
guesses are wrong.
One might almost think that this speech
was delivered by two men.
The first Senator FULBRIGHT engaged in a
grossly irresponsible attack on the adminis-
tration. True, most of this is done through
the process of insinuation and suggestion.
It "appears" that this was-the case. If some-
thing else had been done a different result
"might possibly" have emerged. That sort
of thing.
FULBRIGHT seeks to excuse the President
from any responsibility for what he regards
as an unwarranted and illegal intervention.
Mr. Johnson is made to look like a well-in-
tentioned but bumbling dupe who was de-
ceived by his subordinates. The integrity
of W Tapley Bennett our ambassador in
Santo Dominigo, is brought directly into
-question. The chairman of the Senate For-
eign Relations Committee said "there is no
doubt that the threat of communism rather
than danger of American lives was his (Ben-
27485
nett's) primary or sole reason for recommend-
ing military intervention."
This, of course, does not jibe with what
Bennett, crouching under his desk while
bullets whistled through his office, said when
he called the White House on April 28. The
burden of his message was that troops were
urgently needed to protect American lives,
not to mention the lives of thousands of other
innocent by-standers. Perhaps Senator FUL-
BRIGHT might take a different view now had
he been under the desk with the ambassador.
FULBRIGHT said "we cannot success-
fully advance the cause of popular democracy
(in Latin America) and at the same time
aline ourselves with corrupt and reactionary
oligarchies; yet that is what we seem to be
trying to do."
The first half of the sentence just quoted
is, of course, correct; the last half is not.
All over Latin America, where progressive
forces can be found, we have supported
theM: Frei in Chile, Betancourt in Venezuela,
Figueres in Costa Rica, Belaunde In Peru?
to name a few. - The tragedy in the Domini-
can Republic is that no such democratic
figures have emerged.
The second Senator FULBRIGHT concedes
this on page 15 of the lengthy speech. There,
he said he is "sure, as I know President
Johnson and, indeed, most U.S. citizens are
sure, that our country is not now and will
not become the enemy of social revolution
in Latin America."
But the damage had been done in the
preceding 14 pages. Every two-bit Commu-
nist propaganda artist will pounce upon those
sections of the speech in which the Senator
cast doubt on our motives and intentions.
The brief and belated disclaimer will re-
ceive little if any attention.
There is nothing to be gained by debat-
ing the question of whether, at the time of
our intervention, the revolution had been
taken over by the Communists or was in
serious danger of being taken over. For it
Is obvious that the Senator, while expressing
skepticism, doesn't know and doesn't pretend
..to know. A.few things, however, are worth
mentioning. He ignored the report of the
five-member OAS Committee which con-
ducted an investigation on the scene. The
burden of its report was that the Commu-
nist threat was real. He mentioned the
failure of the mission of John Bartlow Mar-
tin, who was sent to Santo Domingo by the
President. It was left to Senator DODD to
report that Martin, an admirer of Juan
Bosch and our Ambassador to the Dominican
Republic while Bosch was in office, left Wash-
ington believing that we had done the wrong
thing. It was also left to Senator DODD to
reveal that he had been told on reliable
authority that Martin changed his mind 48
hours after arriving in Santo Domingo be-
cause he realized that the Communists at
least exercised an exceedingly dangerous
degree of control.
Senator FULBRIGHT wrung his hand be-
cause we were not enthusiastic about the
possible return of Bosch to his country. But
he conceded that Bosch apparently was not
eager to return?"that he vacillated in the
very early stages and some well-informed
persons contend that he positively refused
to return."
The most that Senator FULBRIGHT will
grant is that we might have been morally
though perhaps not legally justified in land-
ing a few marines to take out American
civilians. Beyond this, he would have let
the fighting?and communism?run its
course. Nothing that he said indicates the
slightest concern over the danger that we
might have found ourselves with a second
Cuba on our hands in the Caribbean.
For our part, we think that the President
was not bamboozled by his subordinates and
that he was fully justified in doing what he
did. American lives were in danger and the
Communist threat was real. It was neces-
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
27486 CONGREiSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
sexy to intervene and it was essential to use
enough force to achieve our objectives. One
of the most important of those objectives
was to prepare the way for a return to demo-
cratic government in the Dominican Repub-
lic. It looks as though we are now in the
process of attaining this objective, and even
Senator FULBRIGHT concedes that this is so.
[St. Louis Globe-Democrat, Sept. 20, 19651
FULBRIGHT'S BLIND BIAS
Senator J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT, Democrat,
of Arkansas, has once more attempted to
divide Americans on foreign policy as he
lashed out at United States intervention in
Santo Domingo, calling it a "grievous"
mistake.
He is, as usual, dead wrong. But he also
does great harm to the Nation's cause because
of his imposing title as chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
FULBEIGHT contends that the President's
decision to send troops into Santo Domingo
was based upon exaggerated estimates of
Communist influence in the relrel movement
and frpm a panicky fear that the Dominican
Republic was about to become another Cuba.
The fuzzy-liberal Senator conspicuously
omitted reference to the May 7 Organization
of American States report which said that
the Communists were,in control of the revo-
lution and that the United States had taken
the only course it could have taken.
He also prestimes to know more than our
on-the-spot representatives?who were being
shot at and who gave an hourly account of
their estimates that the Reds were gaining
control.
His attack on U.S. Ambassador to the
Dominican Republic, W. Tapley Bennett, ap-
pears a thinly disguised attempt to "get"
Bennett who was instrumental in bringing
about strong U.S. response to the threatened
Red takeover.
Emanuel-ft does further disservice by at-
tempting to disprove the contention that
United States troops weren't sent in to pro-
tect American lives;
American lives quite obviously were in
danger. Bullets whistled throngh the Em-
bassy windows in Santo Domingo as rebels
and loyalists fought pitched battles in the
populous city.
The Arkansas Senator seems centemptuous
that our Government would be fearful of
another Cuba, claiming Washington "over-
reacted."
It is precisely the sort of gullible FULBRIGHT
frame of mind that made the Castro takeover
of Cuba possible. Our State Department saw
no Communists at all until it wes far, far too
late.
The Wetlands fn State, according to tes-
timony in the Senate, had reports of Castro's
affiliations with the Reds and of his ties with
communism, but this information mysteri-
ously never reached top levels of Government.
Senator THOMAS J. DODD, of Connecticut,
quite rightly has called this sianted
Fn-
BRIGH'i' report "tendentious;" it ignored mas-
sive evidence of Communist involvement in
the revolt,
And once again the GOP leadership prop-
erly backed the President against FULBRIGHT,
agreeing the Chief Executive had no other
course but to act as he did.
If there has been a "grievous" mistake, it
was committed by Senator FULBRIGHT, not the
President.
[From the Washington Daily News,
Sept, 16, 19651
Eurasarerre's EXPOSTULATION
Senator FULBRIGHT, for reasons probably
only he would understand, has gone out of
his way at a critical moment to undermine
his Government's effort?and the efforts of
the Organization of American States?to
produce peace and stability in the Dominican
Republic.
? In a gratuitous speech on the Senate floor,
he practically has condemned everything the
United ptates (and by implication the OAS)
.clid ani did not do in trying to stop the
figlitino and set up some type of stable ad-
ministration in the island nation.
. Whe1r President Johnson sent troops, the
Senator, alleged, rescuing Americans in the
country, was more a pretext than a reason.
The re:4 reason, he claimed, was an exag-
gerated estimate of Communist influence on
the reb 31 side of the civil war.
It is obvious the Senator was not one of
the hu.adreds of Americans in the country,
many of whom believe if it had not been
for our forces their lives would have been
lost. rid the fact is that Communist in-
fluence on the so-called "rebel" side, and
Commt nist activity in the midst of the
bloodshed, turned out to be more significant
than wc.s apparent at first.
Mr. Euranuerft manages to confuse Com-
munist terrorism and agitation in Latin
Americcaa countries with "reform move-
ments" as though they all were of a pack-
age.
He accuses the Johnson administration of
"timidt;y" at the outset of the fighting and of
"over re action" after that. By the Senator's
outline, the "timidity" covered a 3-day period
from April 25 to April 28, the day President
Johnsoiisent the troops.
The 3enator has had the advantage of
nearly f months of hindsight to prepare this
latest remonstrance. And he unloads this
master; iece of fuzziness right at the moment
the patiently created provisional government
of the Dominican Republic is painfully try-
ing tog it off the ground. ,
[Fro:n the Sun-Sentinel, Sept. 17, 19651
FULBRIGilT DISCLOSES MORE ADDLED THOUGHT
Charges by Senator WILLIAM FULBRIGHT, Of
Arkansas, that the United States has an
exaggenited fear of Communists in foreign
uprisings?and that Marines were sent into
the Dominican Republic predicated on this
fear ratier than for saving American lives?
reveals once more the addled thinking which
exists a ; high level.
To be in with, are not the two analogous?
If the a lvance of communism in any sphere
Is not le definite threat to Americans and
the lives of other freedom-seeking people,
then we have allowed our thinking to travel
a fantastic circuitous path in recent years.
Perha,ss Senator FULBRIGHT will see fit
to enlig.sten his colleagues, and the Ameri-
can people, as to which recent foreign up-
risings (Id not have their roots, and/or sup-
port, in. International communism.
And '1.e may be able to further enlighten
us as to 'the reason so many Americans have
died in lhe midst of many of these uprisings.
In tho Congo, for example, slaughter was
rampant-and there could certainly have been
no dout t as to the source of aid and com-
fort to those perpetrating the atrocities.
And does the honorable gentleman really
believe chat Communist encouragement in
Vietnam, Pakistan, Cuba, and Korea has
been paceive ansl without danger?
It is our opinion that Senator FULBRIGHT
missed a :very signfieant -effect of the Marine
landings in the Dominican Republic. This
is affirm :mi. by his assertion, as reported, that
"United States policy was marred by lack
of candc r and. by misinformation." He went
on to cal reports of massacres and atrocities
by the rebels as "wildly exaggerated." .
Apparently missed by the Senator, was
the wholehearted endorsement given the
Presiden;'s intervention action by the Amer-
ican public. There was certainly little doubt
in anyone's mind that American lives were
in danger. Had only one life been in jeop-
ardy, ths people of this land would have
rejoiced to see, at long last, a firm and
positive move by this great Nation which
has achi wed an unenviable record of ignor-
ing its ci Azens abroad.
October 22, 1965
Along with the saving of lives, and this was
omitted by the Senator in his remarks, was
a commitment to protect American property.
The staggering economic loss to Fidel Cas-
tro of U.S. investments and developments in
Cuba is not easily forgotten. Without these
facilities, it is highly probable we would
not have endured the embarrassment of a
full-fledged communist operation at our
doorstep.
The chairman of the powerful and influen-
tial Senate Foreign Relations Committee in-
fers that we used protection of lives as an
excuse for intervention. By this inference,
he does:not s.ay we should have gone in to
settle matters, but under colors of our stand
against communism. He rather takes a po-
sition in opposition to being there at all.
We hold that Senator FULBRIGHT would
be shaken to his grassroots, if he would
bother to get out and check them, by the
sheer disbelief emong the citizens at such
weakness as his public skepticism reveals in
high-office.
Once American lives were relatively secure,
the public inclination was to urge a clean
sweep of potential subversion in the Domini-
can.
It was accepted fact, based on experience,
that "Big Daddy" would foot the bills for
whoever came out on top. The hope was ob-
vious that every effort would be made to
assure a non-Communist, non-anti-Ameri-
can and sufficiently stable government.
A lot of this hope went glimmering when
McGeorge Bundy got into the act. The OAS
came into the picture and we relinquished
our chance to obtain the guarantees we
sought. Where was the voice of righteous
indignation at this time?
To appreciate U.S. interest properly in
the Dominican Republic, it might be well to
review history. In 1869, President Grant and
President Baez signed a treaty for the an-
nexation of the Republic of Santo Domingo
to the United States. Dominicans approved
this treaty, but it was not ratified by the
U.S. Senate.
In 1905, the United States assumed man-
agement of the Dominican debt and collec-
tion of customs. In 1916, unrest and insta-
bility brought on U.S. military intervention
which lasted until 1924. Since that time,
most of the Dominican economy. has been
closely tied to American. support.
We have not yet had adequate time to
assess the situation surrounding Gen. Elias
Wessin y Wessin. Whether he is as pro-
American as he is anti-Communist may be
significant.
It has appeared recently that among other
peculiar vacillations, the State :Department
accepts the premise that support of as
openly pro-American personality may offend
other nations to the point they will say
nasty things or even object.
Our bright-eyed and bungling appeasers
are engaged in some sort of underhanded
finagling to control the General's status and
activities in this country. We detect the
inkling of fear that Castro may be irritated
If he is permitted to roam free among the
avid and homesick Cuban refugees in south
Florida. We suggest that fear is well
founded, and should be- fully exploited, not
assuaged.
We see at hand a golden opportunity, FUL-
BR/GHT'S, 'Bundy's, and indistinguishable-
shadow policytnakers not withstanding, to
strike a blow for freedom rather than gird
against antifreedom.
Peace may be bought. Freedom must be
earned. We have spent enough. Let's go
to work.
BUDD W. BOYER.
[From the Elkhart (Ind.) Truth, Sept. 17,
1965]
UNTIMELY CRITICISM BY FDLBRIGHT
Poor judgment and poor timing were
shown Wednesday by Senator WILLIAM J.
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP671300446R000500110015-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP671300446R000500110015-9
October 22, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 27487
Ftn.sfucarr in his criticism of the Johnson
administration for intervening in the Do-
minican Republic last April.
FULBRIGHT put it like this:
"The issue is not whether there was Com-
munist influence in the Dominican revolu-
tion but its degree, which is something on
which reasonable men can differ.
"The burden of the proof, however, is on
those who take action, and the administra-
tion has not proven its assertion Of Commu-
nist control."
One Washington correspondent says that
no top official in our Government's executive
branch, including those responsible for intel-
ligence, has faltered in the judgment that a
Communist takeover would have resulted if
the United States had not intervened in the
Caribbean island.
Senator FULBRIGHT obviously is entitled to
disagree with that if he chooses. But he
himself admits he now is talking from the
benefit of hindsight.
When President Johnson decided to use
troops, Futsincarr was among congressional
leaders whom L.B.J. called in to explain his
actions.
Senator RUSSELL LONG, Democrat, of Loui-
siana, says that nobody, including Senator
FULBRIGHT, then raised a dissenting voice.
Senator FULBRIGHT now tries to affix the
blame to the President's advisers, not to Mr.
Johnson himself. But the distinction is
academic, for the reasons L.B.J. gave were
precisely those which FULBRIGHT attacked
most vigorously.
The bitter fact is that the White House was
getting some mighty bum advice about Cuba
when Castro was struggling to take over
there, and after the Castro takeover, too.
If the White House years ago had been en-
abled to see Castro in his true Marxist light,
the Cuban tragedy could have been pre-
vented.
President Johnson obviously wasn't about
to repeat the Cuban mistake in the Domini-
can Republic. He dared not take the chance
Of another Communist bastion so close to
our shores.
After all, it doesn't take very many Reds
to seize a country that is in utter chaos.
We doubt that FuLrauoirr's criticism will
alter many American views. Unfortunately,
he has spoken just after the recent trip to
seven Latin countries by Jack Hood Vaughn,
Assistant Secretary of State, who has been
trying to convince his hosts that President
Johnson is deeply concerned with their well-
being.
The Fulbright speech illustrates U.S. free
speech. But it is hardly calculated to allay
age-old suspicions by Latin people that the
United States interferes unduly in their
affairs.
[From the Syracuse (N.Y.) Post-Standard,
Sept. 17, 1965]
FULBRIGHT OFF BASE
In a Senate speech, Senator J. W. Fur.,
BRIGHT, chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee, blasts American policy in the
Dominican crisis, suggesting that President
Johnson acted on "faulty advice" in sending
U.S. troops to prevent Communist seizure of
the Government.
A small force would have been enough,
and should have been promptly withdrawn
later after Americans had been evacuated,
says FULBRIGHT. Massive intervention pro-
motes communism in Latin America in the
long run, he adds, and the United States is
guilty of overaction.
The Senator from Arkansas makes strange
comments at times on U.S. policy and these
views are no exception.
The Dominican action was fully justified.
Communists were about to take over and
latest developments indicated they may still
do so. But instead of blasting recent United
States and Organization of American States
maneuvers, FULBRIGHT hashes up events long
past and ignores present realities.
U.S. troops went into Santo Domingo to
prevent Communist-infiltrated rebels under
Col. Francisco Camaano Deno from seizing
power. But now, under Hector Garcia-
Godoy, Dominican provisional President set
up by the United States and Organization
of American States, anti-Communist Gen.
Wessin y Wessin has been deported to ap-
pease the rebels.
The deportation is supposed to induce the
rebels to give up their arms. But indica-
tions are that Garcia-Godoy will give the
rebels a free rein. He served, incidentally,
under Juan Bosch, who now seeks a return to
the presidency with support of a Commu-
nist-dominated front. Bosch permitted
Communists to hold high positions in his
government.
Garcia-Godoy is suggesting that the role
of the OAS peace force be "redefined," which
is a polite way of saying 'U.S. troops should
get out.
American forces not only should have been
sent in in the beginning; they should stay
there until we are sure?if ever?that the
Dominican Republic won't become another
Cuba. The job is far from done.
? [From the Garden City (N.Y.) Newsday,
Sept. 17, 1965]
How SOUND ARE SENATOR FULBRIGITT'S
CONCLUSIONS?
Senator J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT, Democrat,
of Arkansas, is chairman of the Senate For-
eign Relations Committee and a charming,
erudite, former college president with a deep
feeling for people as individuals that is not
always matched by his understanding of
international realities, This was evidenced
In March 1964, when he described Fidel
Castro as a nuisance instead of a danger.
He has compounded this misconception in
a statement attacking the policy of the
United States in the continuing Dominican
crisis.
More in sorrow than in anger, Senator
FULBRIGHT has described our actions in the
Dominican Republic as both wrong and
harmful. He argues we intervened on exag-
gerated estimates of Communist influence in
the rebel movement; that we attempted to
influence the course the revolution took; and
that we overlooked or ignored "the fact that
any reform movement is likely to attract
Communist support."
For whom does Senator Futratianr speak?
Not for his committee. That body of Sen-
ators, after protracted hearings behind
closed doors, was unable even to agree upon
a report about the merits or demerits of
U.S. intervention in the Dominican Repub-
lic. He speaks, therefore, for himself alone,
and in contradiction to President Johnson.
The President based his decision to inter-
vene upon evidence gathered by experts who
justly feared a Communist takeover.
Among them was a Stevenson liberal, John
Bartlow Martin, former Ambassador to the
Dominican Republic.
Senator FULBRIGHT has had only the most
limited personal experience with Latin
America and its problems, but he speaks as
if his experience were limitless. His philos-
ophy is that revolutions, in Latin America,
are social matters based upon a deep desire
for more liberty. In fact they are almost
invariably revolutions of the empty belly,
based upon the desire of the starving to
enjoy a better share of worldly goods. These
people become easy victims of the Com-
munists.
Judging from his statement, Senator Fut-
BRGIHT is willing to take the risk of Com-
munist leadership of revolutions over that
of the more moderate parties such as the
one led by President Frei in Chile. That is
putting one's head in the tiger's mouth.
Soft counsel by wishful thinkers led this
country to accept Fidel Castro as a great
liberal reformer who turned out, in the end,
to be a police-state butcher. Make no mis-
take. In Latin America, communism is be-
ing actively encouraged from outside?by
Cuba, by Russia, and by China.
It is unfortunate than a man of standing
and reputation should lend himself to state-
ments that simply encourage the trouble-
makers. He has done his country a dis-
service.
[From the Pine Bluff (Ark.) Commercial,
Sept. 26, 1965]
THE SENATOR AND STRATEGY
By this time, both the House of Repre-
sentatives and Arkansas' J. WILLIAM FUL-
BRIGHT have voiced their opinions on Amer-
ican foreign policy in Latin America. It can
be assumed that the House voiced its collec-
tive opinion?in a brief resolution?precisely
because Senator FULBRIGHT had voiced his
earlier?in a protracted speech. The differ-
ence between the two turns out to be fifo
so much whether the United States should
Intervene in Latin Amreican affairs but on
whose side.
The Representatives (or at least the 312
out of 364 who voted) went on record in
favor of the United States using force to
prevent Communists from seizing any na-
tion in the Western Hemisphere. Senator
FULBRIGHT argued that the United States
should support social revolution in Latin
America and risk the growth of Communist
power rather than side with doomed dicta-
tors and assure it.
It would be a costly mistake if American
foreign policy failed to differentiate between
one anti-Communist and another, between
a hated dictator like Rafael Trujillo late of
the Dominican Republic and a popular dem-
ocrat like Eduardo Frei in Chile. RUSSELL
LONG illustrated the prevalence of this com-
mon failure to make distinctions when, only
minutes after Senator FULBRIGHT had con-
cluded his lengthy analysis, Senator LONG
rose to explain why the United States did not
prevent a military junta from overthrowing
the elected government of the Dominican
Republic 2 years ago: "It was a fight be-
tween one crowd of anti-Communists and
another crowd. I do not believe that we
would have had any right to go in there."
At the time, the Kennedy administration
did not equate the two crowds the way Sen-
ator LONG does now. There was the tradi-
tional display of naval power off the Domini-
call coast, and the United States did not rec-
ognize the military government for 3 months,
though it did not intervene in force. Under
the military government, the Communists
grew so powerful that an American adminis-
tration felt it had to intervene in strength
within 2 years. The administration's own
reasons for intervention?to prevent a Com-
munist takeover?supports Senator FUL-
BRIGHT'S thesis about the folly of entrusting
anticommunism to Latin American dictators.
"The movement of the future in Latin
America is social revolution," Senator FUL-
BRIGHT told his colleagues last week. And he
said the United States must side with it, de-
spite its Communist hangers-on, in order to
win. Or as the Senator expressed it in his
speech:
"Since just about every revolutionary
movement is likely to attract Communist
support, at least in the beginning, the ap-
proach followed in the Dominican Republic,
if consistently pursued, must inevitably
make us the enemy of all revolutions and
therefore the ally of all the unpopular and
corrupt oligarchies of the hemisphere."
Our quarrel with this strategy is not that
Senator FULBRIGHT makes distinctions be-
tween political forces in Latin America but
that he doei not make enough of them. The
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
2748?
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67800446R000500110015-9
CONG111SSIONAL
United States would not be naaking prudent
distinctions if it supported just about every
aCielal revolution in Latin America. The
leaders of the United States are obliged to
recognize not only the Trujillos and Preis of
this hemisphere, but the Castro,s as well.
That such differences are not easy to spot
does not make them any the less real?or less
dangerous.
What differentiates a democratic social
revolution fropa a totalitarian one? Pri-
marily it is a respect for democratic pro-
cedures. Democracy is as much method as
ideology. The spirit of liberty, said Learned
Hand, is the spirit that is not sure it is right.
-So it allows free speech and free press and
free elections. Those are sortie of the indi-
cations Of a democratic soeial revolution.
When Fidel Castro appeared before the
Senate 'Foreign Relations Colunittee as the
leader cif a victorious soc al revolution,
someone aaked lidna when he intended to
have free elections. "There is no use in
having elections," he replied, "because I will
be elected over, and over again." That
should have alerted Americans to the dif-
ference between Senores Frei and Castro.
In short, Fidel Castre does not have the
requisite respect for democratic procedures.
Yet Senator ForanucHT doubts if that cri-
terion always applies to a social revolution.
Last March, he told the Senate:
"I " * 'suggest that violent social ,revo-
lutions are a possibility in cOuntries where
feudal oligarchies resist all meaningful
change by peaceful means. We must not,
In our preference for the democratic pro-
cedures * * clo,se our minds to the possi-
bility that democratic procedures may fail
in certain countries and that,where democ-
racy does fail violent social convulsions may
occur."
Mr. Fumnirsur was more specific in his
speech of September 15:
"I think that in the case of the Dominican
Republic we did close our minds to the
causes and to the essential legitimacy of rev-
olution in a country in which democratic
procedures had failed. That, I think, is the
central fact concerning the participation of
the United States in the Dominican revolu-
tion and, possibly as well, its major lesson
for the future."
Procedure is a definitive element of de-
mocracy. To ignore it in any appraisal of a
revolution's legitimacy would be an error for
any country interested in promoting democ-
racy. The administration, in judging the
Dominican situation, had to take into ac-
count these considerations:
)13y the time American forces landed, the
than Senator FULBRIGHT COTISK1STed the "le-
gitimate successor" had left the rebel forces
and taken asylum in the Colombian Em-
bassy.
Senator FULDRIGHT says the United States
should have worked with the last freely
elected President of the Dominican Repub-
lic, 3uan Bosch. He criticized the adminis-
tration because "the U.S. Government made
no effort to contact Bosch in the initial days
of the crisis." But the rebel forces, for all
their talk about bringing Juan Bosch back
to the Dominican Republic, in -fact named
their commanding general President. (The
provisional government installed by the
United States and the Organization of Amer-
ican States has been instructed to hold free
elections within 9 months.)
In his speech last week, Senator FULDRIGHT
treated such procedural considerations as a
sort of snobbishness that affects the gringos
when they confront uncouth revolutionaries:
"It is not surprising that we Americans
are not drawn toward the unceuth revolu-,
Ho/1E1HO or the non-Communist left. We
are not, as we like to claim in Fourth of Ally
speeches, the most truly revolutionary na-
tion on earth; we are,'on the Contrary, much
closer to being the most unrevolutionary
nation on earth."
RECORD ? SENATE
That is a curious statement coming from
a Member of -the U.S. Senate during one of
the upet revolutionary periods in American
histo/ y. One whole section of the country
Is undergoing a social revolution as its pub-
lic scaools system?one of the foundations
of it society--is desegregated. And the
Sonata has just concluded debate on one of
the nkost revolutionary decisions in Amer-
ican lOstory: The Supreme Court ruling that
from kaiaw on all representation in State leg-
islatu :pa must be based on population and
nothing else. That these are more or less
peace: ul revolutions, being carried out with
a gen Wel respect for law and order, does not
make _them any the less revolutionary or
social Those Fourth of July speeches may
not be, very far off base after all.
[From the RepOrter, Sept. 27, 1965]
CHARITY BEGINS ABROAD
(By Max Ascoli)
The cause may well be the too-broad, bi-
partisan consensus that the President has
assiduously cultivated for the enactment of
his basic domestic reforms. As if to make
him pay for it, a rash of aggravating crit-
icisms of his major undertakings in foreign
affairs has broken out from some Senators
of his Own party.
The latest instance has ben provided once
more ay Senator FULBRIGHT, a high-minded
man addicted to introspection and ,con-
sciencs-listening. He is in politics, but not
quite at ease in it. To politics he mostly
contrlautes his unhappiness?a disposition
that c in sometimes be beneficial if it is spar-
ingly 4epresented in the hierarchy of a rul-
ing party. The latest foreign-policy pro-
nounc thients by Senator FULBRIGHT do not
exempt him from the respect due him;
neither do they exonerate him from criti-
cism. Sometimes it is better when cranky
opinions are formulated by a crank rather
than I y a thoughtful man.
In his recent attack on the administra-
tion's intervention in the Dominican crisis,
he identified the cause of the mistakes and
the cr tens to be followed if their repetition.
is to he avoided. It's all exceedingly simple:
we mint not antagonize; indeed, we must
give all our support in the hemisphere to
social revolution, which seems to be the
new gave of the future. "The direction of
the A liance for Progress is toward social
revolution in Latin American."
If the Senator is correct, he has dis-
coverel the criterion that can allow our
Government to choose among the various
claimants to our support in the countries of
Latin America, where, he says, "just about
every reform movement is likely to attract
Communist support * * *." Later on, he
adds that "by supporting reform" and the
Communists along with it, "we bolster the
populcr non-Communist left * * *." This
Is a trzly bewildering notion which can only
mean i conviction that, in the game of poli-
tics abroad, the Communists who are pro-
feaster at can frequently be defeated by the
dilettantes of the non-Communist left. All
this it strictly for alien consumption: ac-
cordin; to Mr. FULBRIGHT, there is no taste
for resolution in this country; and the Sen-
ator fi.om Arkansas has given evidence of
this with his unresponsiveness to the social
reforms of the Johnson administration,
sometimes called revolutions. His charity
begins abroad.
The advocacy of social revolution is in no
way tampered by the knowledge that ever
since their premature emergence from co-
lonial' pn, the countries south of the Rio
Grand ) have suffered a surfeit of revolu-
tions-
most of them social. In our times,
if the Senator is right, our country should
have rushed to defend Goulart in Brazil, or
Juan Perdn, who, after having debauched
the wcrking classes in Argentina, is still the
beneficiary of a large poi/War following and
October 22, 1965
Communist sympathy. And even Pulgencio
Batista tried his hand at social revolution
and was not disliked by the Cuban Com-
munists.
What is wrong with Senator FULBRIGHT,
and with quite a number of American lib-
erals, is an ingrained habit of abstract theo-
rizing in terms of black and white, with
little or no care for rounded historical rea-
soning. One of the most typical evidences
of this trend was Senator FULBRIGHT'S speech
"Old Myths and New Realities." Since the
old myths are centered on the incompati-
bility between the worldwide ambitions of
communism and the supreme value of free-
dom, nothing remains hut to go through an
endless series of accommodations with Mos-
cow, Peiping, or Havana at all possible lev-
els?a singularly lunar and truly unreal pic-
ture of what is ahead of us.
Senator FULBRIGHT is not the only eminent
man who voices such peculiar views on the
Democratic side of the Senate. Another,
equally earnest and somber, is Senate Ma-
jority Leader MIKE MANSFIELD. He seems to
have found his specialty in prescribing how
bloodily divided countries can be patched
together. The method is simplicity itself:
hold a general election in which all the in-
habitants Will have their say, even those
who have been, long segregated and robotized
by unchanging totalitarian regimes. There
are no conditions other than a reciprocal
amnesty and some kind-Of U.N. supervision;
then the inhabitants will turn into citizens
by casting their ballots, thus redeeming their
right to freedom. A few years ago, still
under the Eisenhower administration, the
good Senator from Montana advanced a
similar program for the unification of Ger-
many, East and West.
Perhaps President Johnson could use an
opposition that opposes, according to the
good old Taft saying, in exchange for the
soulful sermonizing by some of his dis-
tinguished former colleagues in the U.S.
Senate. The problems he has to face abroad
are awesome, and one piece of advice can
be freely given him in the firm confidence
that it is unneeded: our country may have
different kinds of relations with the various
Communist powers, but it should never spon-
sor or promote popular front governments?
in Vietnam, Germany, or anywhere else. As
to the fostering of social revolutions in Latin
America, let's establish a division of labor
between ourselves on the one side and the
followers of Marxism on the other. Our
country is for good works with and for the
peoples of Latin America, but is unavailable
for revolutionary promiscuity.
[From the Washington (D.C.) Post, Sept. 17,
1965]
FULBRIGHT'S FOLLY?AN IRRESPONSIBLE SPEECH
(By William'S. White)
Senator J. WILLIAM FITLBRIGHT'S attack
upon the basic honesty of this Government's
intervention in the Dominican Republic
against the possibility or a Communist take-
over has created a poignant crisis for the
orderly conduct of American foreign policy.
Not in 30 years, at least, has a chairman
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
so bitterly ranged himself against an emer-
gency action of his Nation abroad and against
so vast a majority of his own colleagues in
the Senate. Wherever Senator rum/am=
retains influence abroad?and this influence
is substantial both among the hopefully neu-
tralist-minded and the automatic critics of
any use of military force for almost any rea-
son?the position of the United States has
been dreadfully injured. ,
For that world still believes-, ,not unnat-
urally,' that Senator _!'_'ULBRIGHT, as chairman
of the Foreign Relations Committee, speaks,
from within the high councils of this, Na-
tion. To much of that world his embittered
testimony against this Government's course
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/15: CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
October 22, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 27489
In Latin America ie turning state's evidence
and assisting the prosecution of his own
side.
What is even more painfully awkward,
however, is the harm that has been done,
for the first time irreparably, by Senator
FULBRIGHT to himself as officially the chief
Democratic foreign affairs spokesman in
Congress. '
Already, by personal proclamations of a
personal foreign policy which repeatedly
harassed the late President Kennedy in world
crises no less than they harass President
Johnson now, Senator FULBRIGHT had gravely
weakened the effective consensus of collective
judgment which his committee had tradi-
tionally embodied.
Now, in the deep institutional sense he
has destroyed his own voice as well. He will
retain his post; but in reality he can hardly
speak hereafter for more than Senator FUL-
BRIGHT, of Arkansas. He can hardly speak
for the Foreign Relations Committee, for the
administration, for the Democratic Party, or
for anything save a tiny minority of the
Senate in which he sits.
For it is not simply with President John-
son and Secretary of State Dean Rusk that
FULBRIGHT has broken. He has also broken
the unwritten rule of the game, a code which
demands of those holding high committee
chairraanships?and uniquely the chairman-
ship of foreign relations?a degree of self-
restraint and personal responsibility not de-
manded of the rank and file.
It is a tragic case of a good man's private
judgment carried to such extremes as to
become alien to the controlling spirit and
action of the most tolerant political forum
in the world. Senatorial privilege reaches
far. "Free speech"?any Senator's un-
doubted right to speak his full mind?has
no formal limitation. It does, however, carry
an unalterable qualification arising from the
plain facts of life. A man may say what
he wishes; but no man, not even a Senator,
can claim special exemption for himSelf from
the consequences of what he says.
Concretely, Senator FULBRIGHT'S departure
from the national and Senate consensus is
easy to explain. At bottom, he admits that
there was some Communist participation in
the Dominican Republic but he argues that
maybe it was not much and in any event
nobody can say for certain that it would
have been enough to set up another Castro
Cuba in this hemisphere.
He honestly fears we are so preoccupied
with the Communist peril that we are adopt-
ing "reactionary" attitudes against good rev-
olutions as well as bad. The sad and self-
evident truth, however, is that nobody bear-
ing the ultimate and terrible responsibility
to see to it that there shall never be another
Castro Cuba can afford the splendid luxury
of this ivory tower view. Such a luxury was,
in fact, adopted as to Cuba when Fidel Castro
was coming up. Its end was to carry the
whole globe to the edge of nuclear holocaust.
The frightful realities of the cold war do not
submit to the perfectly honorable, relaxed
detachment of collegiate debating exercise.
[From the Washington (D.C.) Post, Sept. 20,
1965]
INSIDE REPORT?THE FULBRIGHT FUROR
(By Rowland Evans and Robert Novak)
? One month ago, when the Johnson ad-
ministration was playing midwife in the
birth of a new government in Santo Domin-
go, Senator FULBRIGHT, Democrat, of Arkan-
sas, temporarily laid aside his scathing in-
dictment of U.S. intervention in the bloody
Dominican revolution.
FULBRIGHT'S reason for delay: With the new
government of U.S.-backed Hector Garcia Go-
cloy barely coming into its own, the highly
critical analysis of U.S. actions during the
late April uprising might set back the whole
affair, FULBRIGHT, chairman of the once-pres-
_
tigious Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
decided to postpone his condemnation of U.S.
policy.
But when it came last week, the Fulbright
speech was just as ill-timed as it would have
been a month earlier.
This was President Johnson's appraisal.
When he received a copy of the speech 24
hours before its delivery in the Senate, lie
scanned it briefly.
His immediate complaint: FULBRIGHT'S one-
sided view of U.S. intervention in the Domin-
ican Republic last April would receive far
more attention than it deserved (because he
is Foreign Relations Committee chairman)
and embarrass the future course of 'U.S. di-
plomacy in the Dominican Republic.
But in fact, remarked the President to a
Senator, the Fulbright critique did not rep-
resent even a simple majority of the 19-mem-
ber committee.
This raises a serious issue: In critical mat-
ters of foreign policy, how candid should a
Senator of FULBRIGHT'S prestige be in attack-
ing and undermining the Government's
policy in such a dangerous confrontation?
Until recently, a major controversy such
as the one over U.S. intervention in the Do-
minican Republic would have come before
FULBRIGHT'S committee for a long, reasoned
investigation (far more thorough than the
quickie probe by the Fulbright committee
this summer). This, in times past, would
have resulted in a committee report backed
by a strong majority. But today, FULBRIGHT'S
19-man committee is split into almost 19
parts, representing every shade of opinion.
As the committee has gradually increased
In size to accommodate ambitious Senators
(from 13 members in 1947 to 19 members to-
day), its ability to act in unison has declined
drastically.
Furthermore, FULBRIGHT is a uniquely orig-
inal thinker, the antithesis of the organiza-
tion man or Senate type. Under his chair-
manship, the committee has succumbed to
factional bickering so severe that FULBRIGHT
threatened at one point to refuse to handle
the foreign aid bill.
As a result, it is now every man for him-
self on the committee. But Chairman Fut,
BRIGHT, as the embodiment of the Senate's
unique constitutional powers in foreign af-
fairs, still has a special responsibility to con-
sider the results of what he says and its im-
pact outside the United States.
In the Dominican Republic, the impact of
FULBRIGHT'S speech (described by Senator
THOMAS E. DODD, Democrat, of Connecticut,
as "a sweeping condemnation of U.S. policy)
is predictable. With all Dominican politi-
cians pointing to the next presidential elec-
tion there, the Fulbright indictment is cer-
tain to lift the chances of the most anti-
Yankee candidate in the field.
By dramatizing so harshly his own disillu-
sion with the U.S. decision to intervene, the
Senator gives the most extreme anti-U.S. po-
litical factions in the Dominican Republic a
readymade presidential campaign text. The
condemnation of Washington that will soon
be ringing from the hustings in Santo Do-
mingo will be flavored with the Senator's
own ringing condemnation.
Nobody questions FULBRIGHT'S unlimited
right to condemn U.S. policy. What critics
in the administration?and the Senate as
well?question is his timing.
Finally, these critics challenge the Sena-
tor's disregard of the sudden chaos last April
in Santo Domingo and the impressive evi-
dence of deep Communist penetration of the
rebel command.
When DODD made his reply on Thursday,
the White House was concerned enough to
give security clearance to a censored report
on the full extent of Communist influence
in the April revolt. The report alone is a
compelling argument for the intervention.
But in the Dominican Republic, Fm..-
BRIGHT'S attack will be remembered long after
the intelligence report is forgotten.
[Froin the Washington (D.C.) Evening Star,
Sept. 20, 19651
SCHOLAR FULBRIGHT'S STRANGE LOGIC
(By DaVid Lawrence)
Senator J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT, Democrat,
of Arkansas, chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, studied as a Rhodes
scholar in England and must have familiar-
ized himself with the British parliamentary
system.
If FULBRIGHT had been a member of the
House of Commons and had made the same
kind of speech as he delivered in the Senate
the other day?saying, in effect, that the
leader of the majority party had bungled
in handling a grave international problem?
it would have been regarded either as a call
for a "vote of confidence or no confidence"
by the people, or the removal of the critic
himself from the councils of his party.
But political parties in the United States
have no such system of discipline. FULBRIGHT
will continue to hold his post as a spokesman
of the Democratic Party in the Senate on
foreign relations:
FULBRIGHT insists that he wasn't exactly
blaming President Johnson for what he re-
gards- as a blundering policy in intervening
with military force in the Dominican Re-
public. The Senator attributes this instead
to "faulty advice" given Johnson by his ad-
visers at the time of the crisis. The Senator
doesn't say to what extent Secretary of State
Dean Rusk was at fault and whether he
should be removed, but the impression con-
veyed is that the President of the United
States is either a gullible person or not as
perceptive as FULBRIGHT himself would have
been if he had happened to be President or
Secretary of State.
FULBRIGHT is considered one of the modern
"intellectuals," but his speech is a little diffi-
cult for a "nonintellectual" to understand.
He says for instance:
"The question of the degree of Commu-
nist influence (in the Dominican Republic)
is, therefore, crucial, but it cannot be an-
swered with certainty. The weight of the
evidence is that Communists did not partici-
pate in planning the revolution?indeed
there is some indication that it took them
by surprise?but that they very rapidly be-
gan to try to take advantage of it and to
seize control of it. The evidence does not
establish that the Communists at any time
actually had control of the revolution. There
is little doubt that they had influence within
the revolutionary movement but the degree
of that influence remains a matter of specu-
lation. * * *
"The point I am making is not?most em-
phatically not?that there was no Commu-
nist participation in the Dominican crisis,
but simply that the administration acted on
the premise that the revolution was con-
trolled by Communists?a premise which it
failed to establish at the time and has not
established since. * * *
"Intervention on the basis of Communist
participation as distinguished from control
of the Dominican revolution was a mistake
of panic and timidity which also reflects a _
grievous misreading of the temper of con-
temporary Latin American politics."
FULBRIGHT evidently doesn't believe in fire
hoses or fire apparatus being used when
there's a smouldering fire but only when it
has burst into flame and a property has al-
ready been virtually destroyed. He seems to
have forgotten that the American policy in
1949, which assumed that a coalition in
China with the Communists would be a rec-
ognition of a "social revolution," wound up
with the loss of the mainland to the Com-
munist Chinese. Similar vacillation and
hesitancy on the part of the United States
Approved For Release 2003/10/15: CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : ClArRDP67B00446R000500110015-9
27490 CONGRI ':SSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
lost Cuba to Fidel Castro and the Commu-
nists.
FTJLI3RIGHT concedes that a Communist-
dominated government might have emerged
in the Dominican Republic. He rationalizes,
however, that "this might conceivably have
happened, but the evidence by no means
supports the conclusion that it would have
happened." He declares that "we based our
policy on a possibility rather than on any-
thing approaching a likelihood."
So the Arkansas Senator feels that the
judgment of President Johnson, Secretary of
State Rusk and the American Ambassador
who was dodging bullets on the spot in Santo
Domingo was, so to speak, "faulty."
FULBRIGHT thinks that the United States
shouldn't have landed troops to save Ameri-
can lives or to save Latin America from more
of such revolutions but simply should have
waited on the sidelines until the Communist
mission was actually accomplished. Would
it have been another fiasco like the Bay of
Pigs? Only Funmunirr knows.
[From the Washington (D.C.) Post, Sept. 25,
1865]
THESE DAYS?FULBRIGHT'S CHANCY BET ON
HISTORY
(By John Chamberlain)
I wouldn't want to be in Senator J. W.
FunasucHr's shoes. For, in criticizing the
Johnson administration for "overreacting"
in the Dominican Republic crises last April,
the Senator has, in effect, tied his reputa-
tion to the assurance that the Dominican
people are not in imminent danger of being
taken over by Communists or Castroites.
True, history may eventually bear Senator
FULBRIGHT out. But observers who are fully
as qualified as any the Senator depends upon
just do not go along with the Fulbright
optimism.
The Senator would probably scoff at the
idea that the Dominican June 14 Movement,
which is Castro-oriented, represents any con-
tinuing menace to the chances for a "strong
democratic government" (FuLinuezin's own
words) emerging from the election 9 months
from now. Nevertheless the June 11 Move-
ment continues to recruit youths for espion-
age, sabotage, and terrorism, bringing them
into Santo Domingo for instruction and
sending them back under discipline to the
countryside to become "sleepers" in the
mountains and the farming regions.
At least 3,000 trainees have gone through
this mill, learning how to use radio equip-
ment and unconventional arms. Their wea-
pons will hardly be surrendered merely be-
cause the official agreement between the fac-
tions calls for it.
That the surrender of even the most con-
ventional arms is extremely unlikely is proved
by the behavior of the rebels in the Gen.
Elias Wessin y Wessin contretemps.
The rebels made surrender of arms con-
ditional on the banishment of Wessin y Wes-
sin from his army post and, indeed, from the
country. Forced by U.S. pressure to give
in to the rebels' tactical move, Wessin y
Wessin stepped down.
Whereupok the rebels escalated their de-
mands; without blinking an, eye, they im-
posed new conditions, making surrender of
arms conditional upon the removal not only
Of Wessin, but also of a whole group of con-
servative army officers.
Absurdly enough, there was never any
counter-demand' from the so-called "right"
for the expulsion of Col. Francisco Caamano
Demo as a "symbol" of rebel extremism.
FULBRIGHT, a one-sided critic, has generally
applied double-standard thinking to the
business of keeping any balance between
left and right extremists.
He will not be exposed by events as long
as groups like the June 14 movement "play
it legal," as they will probably do during the
9 months of hector Garcia Gorloy's Provi-
sional .Presidency. As long as the legal
amenities are observed, the Senator will be
able to maintain that the future history of
the Thimintem Republic is bound to conform
to his hopes.
But I am putting the Senator's blast
against the Johnson administration's over-
reaction in my prophecy file. Let's see how
things turn out 9 months hence.
Surely, the Senator has not been lucky in
his prajections in the past. He spoke of the
"myths" of Communist menace just before
the Maoists became really manacing in
southeast Asia.
He :ass treated Castroism in Cuba as a
nuisance. Well, Fidel, the operator of the
Cuban nuisance, continues to build high-
power( d radio stations for use in the effort
to create other nuisances in Guatemala,
Panama, and Venezuela.
This, of course, does not guarantor. that
Castro a words will be sufficiently heeded to
result in revolutionary Overfurns through-
out Liftin America. But when Puna/isms
dismia ed Cuba as a nuisance, he risked en-
couraging a complacency among Americans
that could easily let the nuisance get out of
hand. After all, Lenin was merely a nuisance
When lie was sitting around the cafe tables
In Geneva. But, with the quirks of history,
nuisanaes, like other things, can escalate
into sr clothing qualitatively different.
Fortunately for our sense of wariness,
Senators THOMAS J. DODD and FRANK J. LALT-
SCHS, ooth belonging to FULBRIGHT'S own
Democi stic Party, believe that it is better
to ovez -react to Gommunist threats than it
is to tu:den-react.
Nine months from now, when the Domini-
cans choose their President, we will see
whether DODD CT FULBRIGHT is closer to the
mark.
[Prom Time magazine, Sept. 24, 19651
DO/ IINICAN REPUBLIC?ERRATIC ATTACK
At the close of his July hearings on U.S.
intervention in the Dominican Republic,
Senatoz J. WILLIAM FULBRIOHT, chairman of
the For sign Relations Committee, announced
that no formal report would be issued. Last
week, Li a 2-hour Senate speech, Fulbright
delivered his own delayed opinion?a scalding
denunc,ation of the intervention and its por-
tent for U.S. policy in general. FULBRIGHT'S
erratic attacks on the administration are no
longer f urprising, What made this one par-
ticularif curious was the fact that, on White
House crders, he had access to every scrap of
Information in the files?but apparently
based 1 is conclusions more heavily on the
same 014 highly colored newspaper reports.
FULBP IGHT called the intervention as griev-
ous a Ir !stake as the Bay of Pigs invasion of
Commuaist Cuba. He accused the United
States cf intervening "not to save American
lives, as was contended, but to prevent the
victory of a revolutionary movement" wrong-
ly judged to be Communist-dominated. Pres-
ident J ohnson, said FULBRIGHT, reacted to
"exaggerated estimates of Communist in-
fluence In the rebel movement," then over-
reacted 'ay sending in 20,000 troops. To make
matters worse, the United States took sides
with nig. Gen. Antonio Imbert's loyalist
junta?"a corrupt and reactionary military
oligarchs." Concluded FULBRIGHT: "If we
are automatically to oppose any reform move-
ment that Communists adhere to, we are
likely to end up opposing every reform move-
ment, making ourselves the prisoners of reac-
tionarier who wish , to preserve the status
quo."
REFORMERS AND REDS
In the Senate. FULBRIGHT'S colleagues, who
had accuse to the same files as he, rose one
after another to dispute his conclusions.
Said Connecticut's Democratic Senator
THOMAS J. DODD: intervention was an "un-
avoidabl.) necessity." Funasizemr, he noted,
"suffers from an indiscriminate infatuation
October 22, 1965
with revolutions of all kincia?national, de-
mocratic, or Communist."
Few would question the argument that the
United States should support reform and
social revolution in Latin America, even if
it is sometimes hard to separate the genuine
reformers from the Communists. And there
are still, as FULBRIGHT says, Latin Americans
who cryacommunism to resist change. But
the United States has found plenty of anti-
Communists to back?anti-Communists who
are also reformers. It wholeheartedly sup-
ports Chile's President's Eduardo Frei, who
beat a Marxist to win office. It has com-
mitted $119 million to help Peru's Fernando
Bela-finale Terry wage a social revolution that
will aid millions of backla.ncis Indians.
With U.S. help, Venezuela's left-of-center
Raid Leoni has built such a prosperous econ-
omy that he is considering his own Alianza-
like program to help less-developed neigh-
bors. Mexico's strongly independent Presi-
dent Gustavo Diaz Ordaz paid high compli-
ments to U.S. Alianza efforts in his recent
state-of-the-nation speech. The United
States is pushing hard for social reform
in Guatemala, Honduras, Ecuador, Brazil,
Bolivia and Paraguay, all run by authori-
tarian regimes that are not necessarily
throwbacks to the old-line oligarchies.
AMPLE EVIDENCE
In the Dominican Republic itself, the Unit-
ed States was instrumental in bringing an
end to the Trujillo dictatorship. In the re-
cent crisis, U.S. policy may well have suf-
fered from some mistakes and misinforma-
tion. But the fact remains that the coun-
try was on the verge of a bloodbath, and
that the Communists were swiftly profiting
from the chaos. U.S. troops, whether 5,000
Or 20,000, enforced a more or less peaceful
settlement?and the United States, in the
end, was far tougher with the loyalist "reac-
tionaries" than with the Communist-infil-
trated rebels.
Last week, as Provisional President Hector
Garcia-Godoy completed his second week in
office, 9,200 U.S. and OAS troops were still
in the Dominican Republic. Garcia-00(1?y
needs them there. During the revolt,
the three shades of communism?the
Peiping-lining Dominican Popular Move-
ment, the Moscow-oriented Dominican, Com-
munist Party, the Castroite 14th of June
Movement?controlled some 2,500 armed
fighters. All three groups have been smug-
gling arms out of Santo Domingo to stash
them in other cities and in the hills.
After PULBRIGHT'S speech, President John-
son was asked how he now felt about the
intervention. His reply: "I would do it all
over again, only we'd have done it earlier
and tougher."
[From the Washington (D.C.) Daily News,
Sept. 20, 1965]
SENATOR FULBRIGHT GAVE REBELS
AMMUNITION
(By Virginia Prewett)
Senator WILLIAM J. FULBRIGIIT'S attack on
President Johnson's Dominican policy came
in a lull when things were definitely looking
better in Santo Domingo.
The moderates in the rebel camp were
about to prevail on the extremists to turn in
a substantial number of arms. This would
have been one more tiny step forward toward
stability and a chance for from elections in
the Dominican Republic.
If the extremists in the rebel camp are not
fired up by the Arkansas Senator's speech, it
will not be the latter's fault. Everything he
said was calculated to encourage the Domini-
can leftist extremists.
TOO MUCH
It seems almost as if the prospect of suc-
cessful peace in the Dominican Republic was
too much for the Senator to bear.
Apprbved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
? Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
October 22, 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 27491
Senator FULBRIGHT'S charges against Pres-
ident Johnson also came at a moment when
it seems as if the United States may be win-
ning ground in South Vietnam. Perhaps the
Senator thinks too much success for U.S. for-
eign policy is bad for us. _
The Senator's assault on Mr. Johnson de-
serves to be studied first of all for the way
it was built up.
Mr. Futrausur discounted a 'U.S. policy
that President Johnson had revived?that of
valuing endangered Americans' lives enough
to send military assistance to protect them?
simply by pretending that President Johnson
entertained no such thought when he sent
the Marines into the Dominican Republic.
DgFLATION
Those Americans who have felt a little bet-
ter because their President did send Marines
to rescue our stranded fellow countrymen in
the Embajador Hotel niay now feel deflated
again?if they believe Senator FULBRIGHT.
Senator FULBRIGHT was quoted as saying
that Latin Americans should make new ar-
rangements with other countries, including
the Communists.
The Senator owes it to the Nation to say
plainly what he means by his encouragement
to Latin Americans to cease cooperating with
the United States.
What Senator FULBRIGHT actually appears
to be espousing is tolerance of the latest
Communist strategy for Latin America. This
is the policy of the undeclared united front.
The situation that existed in Santo Do-
mingo VMS a de facto united front between
the Communists and the leaders who said
they represented constitutionalism. Senator
FULBRIGHT must know perfectly well what he
is doing when he espouses such a combina-
tion.
What Senator FULBRIGHT is preaching is
tacit U.S. agreement to allow communism's
political representatives a free hand in the
New World.
[From the WashingtonND.C.) Evening Star,
Sept. 15, 19651
FULBRIGHT SEES U.S. BLUNDER IN SANTO
DOMINGO?INFLATED ESTIMATES OF' REDS
BLAMED FOR INTERVENTION POLICY
, (By Cecil Holland)
' Senator J, WILLIAM FULBRIGHT, Democrat,
of Arkansas, charged today that U.S. inter-
vention in the Dominican Republic revolt
was "a grievous mistake" and was charac-
terized by "a lack of candor."
"The danger to American lives," he said
in a Senate speech, "was more the pretext
than a reason for the massive U.S. inter-
vention * ? *."
. The real reason, he added, writ fear of a
Communist takeover of that country and
that decision, he said, was based on misin-
formation and "on exaggerated estimates of
Communist influence in the rebel move-
ment."
QUESTION'S U.S. PREMISE
FULBRIGHT, chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, said the administra-
tion acted on the premise that the revolution
was controlled by Communists?"a premise
which it failed to establish at the time and
has not established since."
He placed the blame for the failure of
American police in the Dominican crisis on
Ambassador W. Tapley Bennett, Jr., and
other American representatives who advised
President Johnson on events there.
In three critical days between April 25 and
April 28, FULBRIGHT said, officials sent the
President exaggerated reports on the danger
of a Communist takeover in Santo Domingo
and, on the basis of these, recommended
military intervention.
"It is not at all difficult to understand
Why, on the basis of such faulty advice, the
President made the decisions that he made,"
FULBRIGI.IT said.
No. 198?pt, 2-21
Approved For Rele
CHARGES EXAGGERATION
The Senator cited what he described as
"widely exaggerated reports of massacres and
atrocities" by the rebel forces. He noted that
the President, in a June 14 press conference,
said that "some 1,500 innocent people were
murdered and shot, and their heads cut off."
"There is no evidence to support this
statement," the Senator said.
FULBRIGHT said he was discussing this
country's role in the Dominican crisis in the
hope that the mistakes that were made by
the United States can be corrected and that
it will be possible to avoid them in the
future.
"U.S. policy in the Dominican crisis," FUL-
BRIGHT said, "was characterized initially by
overtimidity and subsequently by overreac-
tion. Throughout the whole affair, it has
also been characterized by a lack of candor."
SEES NO EASY CHOICE
FULBRIGHT said he had made a painstaking
review of the situation, but conceded his
judgments were made with the benefit of
hindsight. In fairness, he added, it must be
conceded that there were no easy choices
available to the United States.
"Nonetheless," he said, "it is the task of
the diplomacy to make wise decisions when
they need to be made and U.S. diplomacy
failed to do so in the Dominican crisis."
FULBRIGHT said that the United States
might not have changed the course of events
there by acting differently. But, he added,
it could be said with assurance that the
United States did not take advantage of
several opportunities in which it might have
changed the course of events.
WARY OF BOSCH
"The reason appears to be," FULBRIGHT
said, "that, very close to the beginning of
the revolution, U.S. policymakers decided
that it should not be allowed to succeed.
"This decision seems to have been based on
exaggerated estimates of Communist influ-
ence in the rebel movement and on distaste
for the return to power of Juan Bosch or a
government controlled by Bosch's party, the
PRD (Dominican Revolutionary Party)."
FULBRIGHT said he was raising questions
and not offering an answer regarding this
country's policy toward Bosch and the re-
turn to power of his party. He added that
the question involves what will be the ad-
ministration's attitude toward reform move-
ments in other Latin American countries.
MUST AVOID CORRUPTION
"It is of great importance that the uncer-
tainty as to U.S. aims in Latin America be
resolved," FULBRIGHT said. "We cannot suc-
cessfully advance the cause of popular
democracy and at the same time align our-
selves with corrupt and reactionary oligar-
chies; yet that is what we seem to be trying
to do."
FULBRIGHT noted that every revolutionary
movement is likely to attract Communist
support, at least in the beginning, and the
approach followed in the Dominican Repub-
lic, if pursued, "must inevitably make us the
enemy of all revolutions and therefore the
ally of all the unpopular and corrupt oligar-
chies of the hemisphere."
"We simply cannot have it both ways," he
added. "We must choose between the Al-
liance for Progress and a foredoomed effort
to sustain the status quo in Latin America."
In some respects, FULBRIGHT said, the Do-
minican story "acquired some of the inevita-
bility of a Greek tragedy."
When the revolution began, the Senator
pointed out, the United States had three
options: It could have supported the Reid
Cabral government; it could have supported
the revolutionary forces, or it could do noth-
ing.
The administration, he said, chose to do
nothing.
ase 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP676004
The next crucial point came on April 27,
FULBRIGHT said, when Ambassador Bennett
rejected an appeal by rebel leaders to
mediate and seek a cease-fire, on grounds
that this would have been intervention.
"Mediation at that point might have been
taccomplished quietly and peacefully," FUL-
BRIGHT said. "Twenty-four hours later the
Ambassador was pleading for the Marines,
and ever since the United States has been
intervening up to its eyebrows."
He blamed this mistake on the feeling of
officials there on the basis of evidence which
was fragmentary at best that the rebels were
dominated by Communists. He pointed out
that the situation rapidly deteriorated and
that the head of a military junta, which had
been assembled, was told that the United
States would not intervene unless is was to
protect American lives.
PRETEXT IS CHARGED
That was eventually done on such a pre-
text, FULBRIGHT said.
"In fact, no American lives were lost in
Santo Domingo until the Marines began ex-
changing fire with the rebels after April 28;
reports of widespread shooting that endan-
gered American lives turned out to be greatly
exaggerated."
FULBRIGHT said the United States would
have been justified in landing a small force
for the express purpose of removing U.S.
citizens and other foreigners, and then with-
drawing such a force when it had completed
its mission.
"Intervention on the basis of Communist
participation as distinguished from the con-
trol of the Dominican revolution was a mis-
take of panic and timidity which also reflects
a grievous misreading of the temper of con-
temporary Latin American politics," FUL-
BRIGHT said. "Communists are present in
all Latin American countries, and they are
going to inject themselves into almost any
Latin American revolution and try to seize
control of it,"
HELPED BUILD JUNTA
The Senator said from the time the Reid
government resigned, U.S. policy was di-
rected toward the construction of a military
junta and against the return of Bosch and
the success of the rebel movement.
"One is led, therefore, to the conclusion
that U.S. policymakers were unduly timid
and alarmish in refusing to gamble on the
forces of reform and social change," FUL-
BRIGHT said.
"The bitter irony of such timidity is that
by casting its lot with the forces of the status
quo * * * the United States almost cer-
tainly helped the Communists to acquire
converts whom they otherwise could not
have won."
[From the Latin American Times, Sept. 16,
1965]
DOMINICAN ACT/ON BLASTED?FULBRIGHT SAYS
INTERVENTION COMPROMISED U.S. HONOR
(By John T. Skelly, Latin American Times
Washington bureau)
WASHINGTON, September 15.?Senator J.
WILLIAM FULBRIGHT, Democrat, of Arkansas,
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, today in effect accused President
Johnson and his advisers of compromising
the "word and honor" of the United States
before the eyes of Latin American countries
by intervening in the Dominican Republic
in April.
Senator FULBRIGHT, in an 11,000-word
speech delivered on the floor of the Senate,
charged that "the United States intervened
forcibly in the Dominican Republic in the
last week of April 1965, not to save American
lives, as was then contended, but to pre-
vent the victory of a revolutionary move-
ment which was judged to be Communist-
dominated. The decision to land marines on
6R000500110015-9
B
Approved For Release-2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R0005001100151
27492 CONGRISSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
April 28 was based primarily on the fear of
'another Cuba' in Santo Domingo."
Senator FULBRIGHT said that the United
States violated its commitment to Latin
America not to intervene in the internal af-
fairs of their countries as provided by
article 1 of the Charter of the Organization
of American States.
"The Inter-American system is rooted in
an implicit contract between the Latin
American countries and the United States.
In return for our promise not to interfere in
their internal affairs, they have tacitly agreed
to remain members of our 'ephere' and to
support, or at least not to obstruct, our
global policies.
VIOLATED BARGAIN"
"In the Dominican Republic we violated
our part of the bargain; it remains to be
seen whether Latin Americans will now feel
free to violate theirs," Senator FULBRIGHT
said.
Be did not absolve President Johnson from
being the man responsible for the order to
intervene. However, the Senator, a close
friend of the President, made it clear that
the President, in effect, was sold a bill of
goods by his immediate advisers, primarily
the U.S. Ambassador in the Dominican Re-
public, W. Tapley Bennett.
"Responsibility for the failure of American
policy in Santo Domingo lies primarily with
those who advised the President * *. It is
not at all difficult to understand why, on the
basis of such faulty advice, the President
made the decisions that he made," Senator
FULBRIGHT Said.
Stating his position after long and careful
study of what happened, he said that "my
own feeling is that the situation in any case
did not justify military intervention except
for the limited purpose of evacuating U.S.
citizens and other foreigners, but even if it
did, we should not have undertaken it with-
out the advance consent of our Latin Amer-
ican allies."
"We should not have done so because the
word and honor of the United States were at
stake just as much?at least as much?in
the Dominican crisis as they are in Vietnam
and Korea and Berlin and all the places
around the globe which we have committed
ourselves to defend," he said. '
ENCOURAGED nisoaana
Senator FULBRIGHT pointed out that by in-
tervening in the Dominican Republic "uni-
laterally?and illegally" we violated the basis
of the U.S. system which is respect for law.
"When we violate the law ourselves, what-
ever short-term advantage may be gained, we
are Obviously encouraging others to violate
the law; we thus encourage disorder and in-
stability and thereby do incalculable dam-
age to our long-term interests."
Senator FULBRIGHT expressed regret that
there are still those who believe that the
principle of nonintervention in Latin Amer-
ica is obsolete. Be said;
"Most Latin Americans would argue that,
far from being obsolete the principle of non-
intervention was and remains the heart and
core of the inter-American system. Insofar
as it Is honored, it provides them with some-
thing that many in the United States find it
hard to believe they could suppose they
need?protection from the United States."
He said that the idea held by many North
Americans that the United States can inter-
vene in Latin America with "good intentions"
when the United States thinks it convenient
comes, as a shock to Latin Americans.
"The trouble with this view is that it is
not shared with our neighbors to the
8c:fifth ? * * 'good intentions' are not a very
sound basis for judging the fulfillment of
contractual obligations," he said. "Just
about everybody, including the Communists,
believes in his own 'good Intentions.'"
DOMINICAN TRAGEDY
Senator FULBRIGHT said that "the tragedy
of Santo Domingo is that a policy that pur-
portet. to defeat communism in the short
run IE more likely to have the effect of pro-
moting it in the long run.
"Iiriervention in the Dominican Repub-
lic h: is alienated?temporarily or perma-
nentlr, depending on our future policies?
our real friends in Latin America.
"These broadly, are the people of the dem-
ocrat'. left?the Christian and Social Demo-
crats in a number of countries, the APRA
in Petu, the Accion Democratica Party in
Venez and their kindred spirits through-
out the hemisphere."
Sen #01' FULERIGHT repeated continually
throughout his speech that by "our inter-
ventic n on the side of the corrupt, military
oligar thy in the Dominican Republic, we
have embarrassed before their own people
the L emocratic reformers who have coun-
seled trust and partnership with the United
States.
"We have lent credence to the idea that
the United States is the enemy of social rev-
oiutio i in Latin America and that the only
choice Latin Americans have is between com-
munism and reaction."
MAY BE FORCED TO COMMUNISM
Referring to the choice that Latin Ameri-
cans inn make if they are denied the right
to carry out social revolutions he said:
"If those are the available alternatives, if
there is no democratic action left as a third
optior, , then there is no doubt of the choice
that honest and patriotic Latin Americans
will make?they will choose communism, not
became they want it but because U.S. policy
will have foreclosed all other avenues of
social revolution and, indeed, all other pos-
sibilites except the perpetuation of rule by
militay juntas and economic oligarchies."
Senator FULBRIGHT said that as a result of
the Dominican Republic action "The United
States has allowed itself to become associated
with 1 oth reaction at home and domination
from abroad.
"We have thereby offended the dignity and
self-respect of young idealistic Latin Ameri-
cans who must now wonder whether the
Unitec. States will one day intervene against
social revolutions in their own countries,
whethn one day they will find themselves
facing U.S. marines across barricades in their
own hometowns."
He expressed conviction, however, that
Presid mt Johnson "and indeed, most U.S.
eitizer s are sure, that our country is not nOw
and w 11 not become an enemy of social rev-
olutions in Latin America."
"MADE A MISTAKE"
"We have made a mistake in the Domi-
nican Republic as we did at the Bay of Pigs
in 1951, but a single misjudgment does not
constil ute a 'doctrine' for the conduct of fu-
ture policy and we remain dedicated to the
goals of the Alliance for Progress."
He pointed out that "we know this our-
selves' but wondered whether or not "our
friende in Latin America" will understand
that their social revolutions will have U.S.
sympathy and support.
Sens tor FULBRIGHT said that if the United
States follows the creative approach of the
Allianoe for Progress that someday "the
Dominican affair will be relegated in history
to the status of a single unhappy episode
on the long road toward the forging of a new
and ci eative and dignified relationship be-
tween the 'United States and Latin America."
SEEK OTHER RELATIONS
Sens tor FULBRIGHT ended his speech that
Look 2 hours to deliver by suggesting that it
would be beneficial for Latin Americans to
cut the umbilical cord by which they are
tied to ,the United States and seek closer re-
October 22,,1965
lations with other countries, "and with Com-
munist countries if they wish."
"The first step toward stronger ties be-
tween Latin America and the United States
would be the creation of a situation in which
Latin American countries would be free, and
would feel free, to maintain or sever exist-
ing ties as they see fit and, perhaps more
important, to establish new arrangements
both among themselves and with nations
outside the hemisphere, in which the United
States would not participate."
He praised Chilean President Eduardo Frei
for having taken the initiative by visiting
European leaders ifi July to establish new
. political, economic and cultural ties.
"I think this is an intelligent and con-
structive step," Senator FULBRIGHT con-
cluded.
[From the Baltimore Sun, Sept. 16, 19651
LATIN POLICY IS CRITICIZED BY FULBRIGHT?
DOMINICAN INTERVENTION "MISTAKE"
BLAMED ors BAD ADVICE, ENVOY
(By Joseph R. L. Sterne)
WASHINGTON, September 15.?Senator FUL-
BRIGHT, Democrat of Arkansas, said today that
the U.S. military intervention in the Do-
monican Republic last April was a "grievous
mistake" caused by officials who exaggerated
the danger of a Communist takeover.
FULBRIGHT, chairman of the Senate For-
eign Relations Committee, carefully exoner-
ated President Johnson, saying that the Pres-
ident was the victim of faulty'advice.
But he was highly critical of Ambassador
William Tapley Bennett, charging that Ben-
nett failed to seize early opportunities to
bring about a cease-fire in the hope that Do-
minican militarists would crush the left-
wing uprising.
"DEEP" DISTRUST FOUND
FULBRIGHT warned that the intervention
Bennett subsequently arranged had provoked
"deep and widespread" distrust of the United
States among young social reformers who
will control the political future of Latin
America.
While most of these reformers are non-
Communists whose goals are similar to those
of the Alliance for Progress, FULBRIGHT said
U.S. support of the status quo and "reac-
tionary oligarchies" could drive them to'com-
munism.
The Senator's hour-long speech drew
angry retorts from Senator LONG, Democrat
of Louisiana, and Senator SLATHERS, Demo-
crat of Florida, who contended that the Pres-
ident's prompt action had forestalled Com-
munist efforts to seize the Dominican Re-
public in the same manner, that Fidel Castro
seized Cuba.
WHITE HOUSE SUMMONS
FULBRIGHT'S criticisms froril hindsight were
unfair, they suggested, since he had not ob-
jected to the impending landing of marines
when he was summoned to the White House
along with other congressional leaders on the
night of April 28.
At the White House this afternoon it was
emphasized that President Johnson still has
the high regard for Ambassador Bennett
that he publicly mentioned during the
height of the Dominican crisis.
Bill D. Moyers, presidential press secretary,
said he personally had read the Fulbright
speech and then talked "to a number of Gov-
ernment officials, career and otherwise, who
simply do not believe the Senator's conclu-
sions were justified."
Moyers declined to say whether the Presi-
dent was one of the officials he had consulted
and said he did not know if Mr. Johnson
was pleased or displeased.
FULBRIGHT'S speech was based, n part, on
evidence gathered by his committee during a
sries of closed hearings with Bennett and
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
October 22, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE
other officials who .whold high positions in
U.S. policy toward Latin America.
So deeply divided was the committee at
the conclusion of this investigation that the
idea of publishing a report was abandoned.'
SUPPORT BY MORSE
FULBRIGHT'S critical view of the Dominican
operation and his fear that the United States
Is alienating the non-Communist left in
Latin America reportedly are shared by some
liberal members of the Foreign Relations
Committee.
Among those placed in this category today
by a knowledgeable source were Senators
SPARKmart, Democrat, of Alabama, MANS-
FIELD, Democrat, of Montana, CLARK, Demo-
crat, of Pennsylvania, MORSE, Democrat, of
Oregon, GORE, Democrat, of .Tennessee
CHURCH, Democrat, of Idaho, PELL, Demo-
crat, of Rhode Island, MCCARTHY, Democrat,
of Minnesota, and AIKEN, Republican, of
Vermont.
Of this group, Senator CLARK took the floor
to say that he was in complete accord with
FULBRIGHT'S "sound and wise" speech.
Aniong the Foreign Relations Committee
members who are said to be fully behind 'the
President's Dominican policy are 'Senators
LAITSCHE, Demecrat, of Ohio, DODD, Democrat,
of Connecticut, HICKENLOOPER; Republican,
of Iowa, Muwirr, Republican, of South Da-
kota, and Lowe.
DODD Said he would reply to P.'ULBRIGHT
tomorrow, thus indicating the Senate may
have a second day of the 'rind of give-and-
take debate that has been notably absent
in the set speeches on Vietnam.
Furzaimir launched his attack today by
charging that there had been a "lack of
candor' about United States actions during
the entire Dominican operation.
Officials responsible, he said, were so
panicky at the thought of "another Cuba"
that they exaggerated both the danger to
United States citizens and the extent of
Communist influence in the rebel. movement.
OAS PREFERRAL BACKED
As a result, the Senator continued, Presi-
dent Johnson was supplied with faulty and
unreliable information that left him no
choice but to order the intervention.
FULBRIGHT was less gentle, however, In
assessing the President's role after the de-
cision to intervene.
? He faulted the administration for failing
to place the matter before the Organization
of American States before the landing of the
Marines.
He noted that the "pretext" of sending
in troops to safeguard American citizens
had to be replaced by the anti-Communist
argument to justify the intervention. And
he said the number of troops sent in was
so large that the United States found it
difficult to extricate itself from a situation
where it had. intervened "up to its eye-
-brows."
FULBRIGHT said he had no doubts about
the President's personal belief in the social
reform goals of the Alliance for Progress,
noting that Mr. Johnson had recently
equated the Alliance with his own Cheat
Society program.
But the Foreign Relations Committee
chairman expressed deep concern over what
he characterized as a drift to the right
among United States officials who have a
policymaking role in Latin America.
In the Dominican Republic itself, FIJI,-
BRIGHT observed, the United States had
moved from a position of supporting the
social reformer Juan Bosch., in the 1963
elections to ,opposing a legitimate" revo-
lution to restore him to the office 2 years
later.
"UNCERTAINTY" DECRIED
What Is more important, the Senator went
on, there have been signs that the United
States may be getting into a position of
repelling instead of luring the vigorous so-
cial reform movements evident throughout
Latin America.
Citing a preoccupation with anticommu-
nism among some United States diplomats
and with "counterinsurgency" in the Pen-
tagon, FULBRIGHT said:
"It is of great importance that the un-
certainty as to United States aims in Latin
America be resolved.
"We cannot successfully advance the
cause of popular democracy and at the same
time aline ourselves with corrupt and re-
actionary oligarchies; yet that is what we
seem to be trying to do.
SOCIAL REVOLUTION FORESEEN
"The movement of the future in Latin
-America is social revolution. The question
is whether it is to be Communist or demo-
cratic revolution, and the choice which the
Latin American makes will depend in part
on how the United States uses its great
Influence.
"It should be very clear that the choice
is not between social revolution and conser-
vative oligarchy but whether, by support-
ing reform, we bolster the popular non-Com-
munist left or whether, by supporting un-
popular oligarchies, we drive the rising
generation'of educated and patriotic young
Latin Americans to an embittered and hostile
form of communism like that of Fidel Castro
in Cuba."
Since the intervention is a fact, FuLeximir
said, the presence of OAS forces should be
used to curb the power of Dominican milita-
rists.
"BRIDGES" TO WORLD ASKED
In this way, he contended, the United
States might begin the process of winning
back the support of young reformers
throughout the hemisphere.
The Senator also said the United States
should begin loosening its ties with Latin
American countries and encouraging them
to "bljild bridges" with nations in Europe,
Africa, Asia, and even in the Communist
bloc.
Once freed from a too-close relationship
with the United States, he contended, they
would become less resentful and suspicious
of this country.
The FULBRIGHT statements that caused the
greatest immediate controversy concerned
Bennett's actions during the crisis and the
degree of Communist involvement in the
uprising.
The Senator charged that the Ambassador
was against Bosch and the left-wing rebel
movement.
Hence, he said, Bennett had not seized an
opportunity to end the fighting when it
appeared the conservative elements would
win handily.
EXAGGERATION CHARGED
When rebel fighting continued FULBRIGHT
added, the Ambassador secured President
Johnson's decision to intervene by exaggerat-
ing the danger to American citizens and the
degree of Communist influence in the rebel
movement.
FULBRIGHT insisted that the Communists
had no part in the early planning Of the re-
formers' revolution and at no time controlled
it.
The irony of the situation, he said, is that
the United States foreclosed all opportu-
nity to compete with the Communists with-
in the rebel movement and, instead, engaged
in actions that produced "Communist con-
verts" in Latin America.
CUBA TAKEOVER CITED
Senators Lowe and SMATHERS took up Fur,
BRIGHT on this point by recalling the experi-
ence in Cuba where a small number of hard-
core Communists took over, a rebel move-
ment that had its origins among liberals and
social democrats.
27493
They said President Johnson was correct
,.n preventing a repetition of the Cuban take-
-over by intervening quickly and massively
in the Dominican Republic.
The wisdom of the President's policy, they
added, lies in the fact that a coalition gov-
ernment free of Communist influence now
exists in Santo Domingo.
During the fiery exchange between Lowe,
who is Democratic whip, and FULBRIGHT, the
Democratic chairman of the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee, Senator DIRKSEN, the Re-
publican leader, strode in the Chamber.'
[From the Christian Science Monitor,
Sept. 18, 19651
FULBRIGHT, DODD CLASH IN FOREIGN-POLICY
DEBATE
(By Richard L. Strout)
WASHINGTON.?The most clear-cut foreign-
policy debate of this session of Congress now
is underway.
The strongest voice on foreign affairs in
the U.S. Senate, J. W. FULBRIGHT, Democrat,
of Arkansas, has delivered what amounts to
a scathing attack on the Johnson adminis-
tration's handling of the Dominican Repub-
lic crisis.
And a formidable debater on the other side,
THOMAS J. DODD, Democrat, of Connecticut,
has delivered a sharp counterattack, in effect
implying that Mr. FULBRIGHT Is soft on com-
munism.
Both Senators are Democrats. It is notable
that the debate is being carried on by two
members of President Johnson's own party.
INTERVENTION ASSESSED
Republicans overwhelmingly support Presi-
dent Johnson in his massive intervention in
Santo Domingo. During the FULBRIGHT-DODD
clash they sat hugging themselves to see the
majority party sharply splintered.
The issue is of great and, perhaps, 'para-
mount importance in future U.S. relations
with Latin America.
Both Messrs. Fuimucarr and DODD deplore
and loathe communism, but the first con-
tend . that the circumstances of massive U.S.
Intervention in Santo Domingo actually
aided communism; the second contends that
intervention was justified because it headed
off a potential Castro-like takeover and, by
inference, is the formula that should be ap-
plied in other like circumstances.
The essence of the Fulbright criticism is
in two statements:
"The approach followed in the Dominican
Republic, if consistently pursued, must in-
evitably make us the enemy of all revolu-
tions, and, therefore, the ally of all the un-
popular and corrupt oligarchies of the
hemisphere."
And further:
"And the question inevitably ? arises
whether this shift in the administration's
attitude toward the Dominican Republic is
part of a broader shift in its attitude toward
other Latin American countries."
FULBRIGHT CRITICIZED
Mr. DODD, in reply, massed counterevidence
to argue that Communists were taking con-
trol of Santo Domingo. He said:
"I therefore consider it all the more re-
grettable that the chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee [Mr. FoLmuurrl, with
the great prestige that attaches to his posi-
tion, has seen fit, to reopen the entire is-
sue in this tendentious manner."
He added:
"I am certain that his speech will be
picked up and played heavily by every Com-
munist and crypto-Communist and fellow
traveler and anti-American leftist who
wheels a pen in the Latin American press."
STATEMENT UNEXPECTED
Chairman FULBRIGHT is somewhat of an
oddity in the United States Senate. A for-
mer Rhodes scholar and college president,
Approved For. Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
27494
he tends to be studious in his approach and
normally avoids toe-to-toe debate. He halt
not directly attacked President Johnson.'
Even in this instance he assailed Mr. John-
son's "advisers," not the Chief Executive.
It is known that he feels he may have more
influence in this approach.
On the other hand, Mr. FULBRIGHT has seen
his prized committee attacked for what has
been called failure to pxplare and debate big
foreign issues. In this instance he found
the committee apparently unable to bring
In a report on Santo Domingo after days of
evidence, which convinced him of the im-
portance of forming judgment.
So, in characteristic manner, without ad-
vance Warning to the press, with little or no
notice to the White House before a handful
of Senators and in a rather low voice Sep-
tember 15, he delivered his lengthy indict-
ment, fully aware that it would bring the
kind of attack upon his judgment and even
Americanism which is actually provoked.
"U.S. policy is the Dominican crisis," he
said, "was characterized initially by over-
timidity, and subsequently by overreaction."
POINTS OF ACCORD
In violation of treaty obligations not to
Intervene, Mr. FULBRIGHT charged, the United
States did intervene. It thereby pushed
what he considers to be the inevitable social
revolution in Latin America toward commu-
nism as against more moderate development.
"It is the revolutionaries of the non-Com-
munist left," he contended, "who have most
of the popular support in Latin America."
Messrs. Funinucnr and Donn are alike in
this: they both oppose communism; both
say that communism cannot be defeated by
siding with landowners, dictators, and ty-
rants; and they both feel that in the latter
stage of the Dominican crisis, at least, some
Intervention was justified, as a minimum to
save American lives.
ATTACK UNPARALLELED
But Senator FULBRIGHT attacks Ambassa-
dor W. Tapley Bennett, Jr., Senator DODD
praises him; Mr. FULBRIGHT minimizes Com-
munist influence in the rebel movement,
Mr. DODD charges it was Communist-domt-
nated; Mr. FULBRIGHT says the rest of Latin
America has recoiled from massive U.S. in-
tervention, Mr. DODD thinks American action
has won substantial support.
Senator DODD'S personal attack on Senator
FULBRIGHT for what was called "softness" to-
ward communism is almost unparalleled
against a chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee.
Approved For Release 2003/16/15 : CIA-RDP671306446R000500110015-9
r
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Most of the resultant furor that sprang up
yet terday was centered on Capitol Hill?and
meet of it was directed against FULBRIGHT.
AMong those defending the administration
were Senate Republican Leader EVERETT
DnocsEsT, of Illinois, House Republican
Lender GERALD FORD, of Michigan, Senator
RLSsELL B. LONG, Democrat, of Louisiana,
Se: iator GEORGE A. Smkruzas, Democrat, of
Florida, and Senator CLIFFORD P. CAsz, Re-
publican; of New Jersey.
lacking for FULBRIGHT came from Senator
JO4EPH S. CLARK, Democrat, of Pennsylvania,
wh o found FuLaitioirr's views "overdue,
sot nad, and wise," and Senator WAYN8 MORSE,
Democrat, of Oregon, who supported FUL-
BR: GHT "100 percent."
Within the administration itself, matt offi--
dais took a fiat "no comment" position.
Pr:vately, however, they made no secret of
th sir anger at FULBRIGHT and implied that
DODD'S reply had the tacit blessing of. the
ad Ministration.
The sole exception to this "no comment"
sts nee was Defense Secretary Robert S. Mc-
Namara, who described Fulbright's criticism
of V.S. Ambassador W. Tapley Bennett as
"a:i unfair attack on a very dedicated and
very able Foreign Service officer."
McNamara also said there was.. "no ques-
tion in my mind" that U.S. citizens in the
Dominican Republic had been endangered
by the revolution. But he did not answer
FELBRIGHT'S assertion that U.S. officials had
OVE restirnated the Communist threat.
Donn, a clase friend of President Johnson,
chuged FULBRIGHT with a "tolerance of com-
munism" and said he "suffers from an in-
db criminate infatuation with revolutions of
all kinds, national, democratic, or Commu-
nist."
The Connecticut Senator agreed with FUL-
BR:ZHT that the United States cannot beat
communism by siding with rightist elements
in Latin America and that the "best hope
for, the future * * * lies with the parties of
the go-called democratic left."
Adwever, he argued, the situation in the
Dcminican Republic, when judged by any
cr: teria, showed a danger of a Communist
taleover ?and required direct action.
''.7o buttress this contention, DODD cited
StIte Department estimates of Communist
strength within the rebel leadership, the
viows of John Bartlow Martin, former U.S.
Ambassador in Santo Domingo, and the re-
port of a five-member Organization of Amer-
'cm States Commission that visited Santo
Domingo shortly after the U.S. intervention.
Pie OAS Commission's report stated that
Santo Domingo was in a state of anarchy in
the days after the revolution's outbreak and
that the rebel ranks included several pro-
Cratro figures. However, the report does not
sttte outright that the rebel movement was
Communist-controlled; and there has been
considerable controversy about whether the
Commission intended to imply that it was.
[From the New York Herald Tribune,
Sept. 16, 19651
COMPARES IT TO BAY OF PIGS?FULBRIGHT
CarricIzES JOHNSON ON DOMINICAN INTER-
VENTION
(By Dom Bonafede)
WASHINGTON.?In a blistering critique on
U.S. intervention in the Dominican Republic,
Sc nator J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT yesterday
el arged the administration with committing
al. illegal, monumental blunder comparable
tc the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco- in Cuba.
During a speech delivered on the Senate
floor, the chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee maintained that the unilateral
U S. action of last April was characterized by
timidity, over reaction and a lack of candor.
He contended that the April 28 decision by
President Johnson to send in the Marines
purportedly to protect American lives was
labsed on exaggerated estimates a the role
[From the Washington (D.C.) Post,
Sept. 17, 1965]
SUPPORTERS OF U.S. DOMINICAN STANCE LOWER
BOOM ON FULBRIGHI'S CRITICISM
(By John M. doshko)
Senator J. WILLIAM PoLeincires character-
ization of the Dominican Republic interven-
tion as a "grievous mistake" came under
heavy attack yesterday by Senator THOMAS
J. DODD, Democrat, of Connecticut, who called
the U.S. action an "unavoidable necessity."
In a lengthy Senate speech, Donn charged
-that rineitisitT, chairman of the Senate For-
eign Relations Committee, had ignored a
mass of evidence supporting the correctness
of President Johnson's dispatch of troops to
Santo Domingo last April.
Donn's speech was the principal thrust in
a multipronged counterattack that proad-
ministration figures began mounting against
FULBRIGHT yesterday.
On Wednesday, FULBRIGHT, Democrat, of
Arkansas, charged that the U.S. intervention
had resulted from a panicky overestimation
of Communist strength among the Domini-
can rebels, had placed the United States on
the side of rightwing forces and had thus
damaged U.S. prestige among progressive
forces in Latin America.
October 22, 1965
played by Communists during the Domini-
can crisis,
"The danger to American lives was more
a pretext than a reason fOr the massive U.S.
intervention," Senator FuLsatioitr declared.
?_ HARDEST
The speech by the Arkansas Democrat con-
stituted the hardest-hitting attack against
the U.S. action in the Dominican Republic
by a member of the Presidents own party.
In all probability, the Senator's statements
will be used as ammunition by Republicans
In upcoming elections. On Tuesday former
Vice President Richard M. Nixon said in
Washington. that the Republicans are likely
to make foreign policy an issue in the 1966
and 1968 campaigns.
-Without saying so flatly, White House
spokesmen indicated that the President was
piqued by Senator FaltaumsT's remarks.
MOYERS -
Presidential Press Secretary Bill D. Moyers
told newsmen, "I talked to a number of offi-
cials in Government * * * who simply do not
believe the Senator's conclusions are justi-
fied." _
Asked if they included the President, Mr.
Moyers simply replied, "a number of officials."
Senator FULBRIGHT tempered his criticism
of Mr. Johnson by - centering his attack on
U.S. Ambassador W. Tapley Bennett and Un-
identified U.S. policymakers.
"On the basis of the information and coun-
sel he received, the President could hardly
have acted other than he did; it is very diffi-
cult to understand, however, why so much
unsound advicewas given him," the Senator
remarked.
He disputed claims made by the United
States that it had intervened to save Ameri-
can lives; that U.S. troops in Santo Domingo
were neutral in the struggle between rebel
forces supporting former President Juan
Bosch and so-called government loyalists,
and that moderate elements among the
rebels sought asylum in. foreign embassies
because Communists had seized control of
their ranks.
According to-Senator FULBRIGHT, "In mid-
afternoon of April 28, Col. Pedro Bartolome
Benoit, head of a junta which had been
hastily aissembled, asked again, this time in
writing, for U.S. troops on the ground that
this was the only way to prevent a Commu-
nist takeover. No mention was made of the
junta's inability to protect American lives.
"This request was denied in Washington,
and Benoit was thereupon told that the
United States would not intervene unless he
said he could not protect American citizens
present in the Dominican Republic. Bennit
was thus told in effect that if he said Ameri-
can lives were in danger the. United States
would intervene. And that is precisely what
happened."
On April 28, 4 days after the fall of -
Dominican President Donald Reid Cabral,
Mr. Johnson announced on television he was
ordering in the marines to protect Ameri-
cans. He. made no mention of pro-Commu-
nist forces being involved. The New York
Herald Tribune, however, reported that the
unilateral action was being taken because
the administration feared a Castraite take-
over.
It was not until the -following Sunday
that the President first publicly mentioned
the supposed Communist threat.
Senator FULBRIGHT stated .rebel leaders on
April 27, called at the American Embassy
"seeking mediation and 'negotiations" but
were rebuffed by Ambassador Bennett, who
interpreted mediation as a form of inter-
vention,
"Twenty-hour hours later the ambassador
was pleading for the marines, and ever since
the United States has been intervening up to
its eyebrows," the Senator said.
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIARDP67B00446R000500110015-9
October 22, 1965
CHARTER
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
The Senator said the U.S. military action
violated a provision of the Charter of the
Organization of American States (OAS)
which prohibits unilateral intervention by
members.
"The administration has argued that there
was no time to consult the OAS, although
there was time to 'consult'?or inform?the
congressional leadership. The United States
thus intervened in the Dominican Republic
unilaterally?and illegally," he declared.
By such action, he said, "we thus encour-
age disorder and instability and thereby do
incalculable damage to our own long-term
interests."
The Dominican "venture," he said, alien-
ated "real friends" of the United States in
Latin America, interrupted the social demo-
cratic revolution in the hemisphere and pro-
moted communism by revealing a policy
which inherently supports military dictators
and ruling oligarchies.
[From the Christian Science Monitor,
Sept. 17, 19651
FULBRIGHT ASSAILS JOHNSON
(By Saville R. Davis)
WAsxmorox.?The personal power of the
Presidency, and the characteristically stern
use of it by Lyndon B. Johnson on many
occasions, are under fresh discussion here as
the result of the Dominican revolution.
President Johnson has tenaciously insisted
that everything was done right, and that
nothing was done wrong by his administra-
tion, in the Dominican crisis. His claim has
now been severely challenged.
Two separate developments in the past
fortnight contradicted Mr. Johnson's posi-
tion.
One was an event. The President was
forced to overthrow the military leadership
in Santo Domingo that his administration
had favored and supported with troops and
money at the start of the incident.
FULBRIGHT CRITICISM
The other was a verbal assault launched
at the President's espousal of Dominican
military figures from the Trujillo dictator-
ship. 3. W. FULBRIGHT, Democrat, of Arkan-
sas, chairman of the Senate Foreign Rela-
tions Committee, said the United States had
thereby alined itself with a "corrupt and
reactionary oligarchy."
Unless this was recognized as a "mistake"
and not repeated, he said, the actions of the
United States would increase the power of
communism in the hemisphere instead of re-
duce it.
Unless the United States supported politi-
cal moderates, Senator FULBRIGHT continued,
the choice would be between reaction and
communism. The embittered forces of demo-
cratic reform in the Americas, in his judg-
ment, would choose communism.
MEMBERS HOLD BACK
Several members of the Foreign Relations
Committee at once disassociated themselves
from the FULBRIGHT statement. It was as-
serted that the chairman spoke for himself.
The White House was officially silent, dis-
cussing a rebuttal.
It was generally agreed in Washington,
openly as well as privately, that the Fulbright
statement could be the most serious chal-
lenge President Johnson has yet faced.
It began with the Senator's statement that
U.S. policy in this affair has been charac-
terized "throughout" by a "lack of candor."
This was taken as-a direct reference to the
refusal of the President to discuss the inci-
dent on other than his own terms, and to
what one critic called his "high-handed beat-
ing down of any criticism."
METHODS ASSAILED
There has been a rising undercurrent of
concern here at the personal domination of
discussion and maneuvering which has been
the counterpart of the President's successes
in establishing a "consensus" in domestic
affairs and foreign policy. It affect,s lesser
officials, the press, and politicians alike.
The President's supporters consider this a
drawback in an otherwise successful presi-
dency, and his opponents suggest that it is
an abuse of power and may undo him. Both
groups, however, have become more restive
as the President has ridden higher.
"The President has effectively managed to
smother a really useful national debate on
this issue," said one critic, "and the public
needs it. Few people are aware, for exam-
ple, that while vehemently rejecting any
criticism of his support for the Dominican
military junta, Mr. Johnson has worked
through the OAS [Organization of American
States] to terminate its power over the
democratic forces there."
It is noted here that Senator FULBRIGHT
has ended his conspicuous restraint in criti-
cism of the President up to now. He ex-
plained to this correspondent among others
that he did not wish to upset the applecart
in a period of national crisis and that he felt
a responsibility to support the President.
DEBATE EXPECTED
In this case he waited until the heat of
the crisis subsided. But he did not deal
gently with Mr. Johnson, apart from the
polite device of blaming the President's ad-
visers. He struck with what is being ranked
as unparalleled force, since Mr. Johnson be-
came President, at a policy sternly carried
out and defended by the President himself.
The Fulbright document in its entirety is
a root and branch condemnation of the
Johnson policy in the Dominican incident.
It will be hotly debated. Approval and dis-
approval already have begun to follow the
lines of battle that long since have been
established over the degree of the Commu-
nist danger in Santo Domingo and the best
method of. dealing with it.
But on the fact that this is a full-scale
challenge directly to President Johnson him-
self, no dissent is expected.
Mr. FULBRIGHT says he believes the United
States could have intervened briefly, to save
American lives, and then sought to help the
moderates organize themselves and to keep
power out of Communist hands?instead of
turning against the "only available forces of
democracy and social reform."
Unless corrected, the Senator said, this
policy would serve notice on all reform
movements in the hemisphere, which inev-
itably--attract the Communists, that the
United States was against them.
[From the Washington Post, Sept. 16, 1965]
DOMINICAN ROLE OF UNITED STATES IS As-
SAILED?FULBRIGHT CRITICISM REKINDLES
DISPUTE OVER INTERVENTION
(By John M. Goshko)
Senator J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT, Democrat,
of Arkansas, yesterday attacked the United
State 8 intervention in the Dominican Re-
public as a "grievous mistake" characterized
"initially by overtimidity and subsequently
by overaction."
FULBRIGHT, chairman of the Senate For-
eign Relations Committee, charged that the
U.S. action was the result of "faulty advice
given to the President by his representatives
in the Dominican Republic at the time of
acute crisis."
Speaking for more than an hour on the
Senate floor, FULI3RIGHT delivered the most
far-reaching and scathing criticism of the
Dominican intervention that has been ut-
tered by a U.S. official to date. Because of
his prestige and influence, the speech is cer-
tain to rekindle the controversy that broke
out last April when President Johnson or-
dered 24,000 U.S. troops into the midst of the
Dominican revolution.
27495
PARALLEL DRAWN
FULBRIGHT drew a parallel between the
Dominican intervention and the U.S. corn-
mitfnent to Vietnam, saying:
"We are currently fighting a war in Viet-
nam, largely, we are told, because it would be
a disaster if the United States failed to honor
is word and its commitment. I do not see
why it is any less a matter of vital interest
to honor a clear and explicit treaty obliga-
tion in the Americas."
He was referring to the Organization of
American States 'Charter, which explicitly
forbids OAS members to intervene in the in-
ternal affairs of any American republic.
Pointing to Latin American fears that the
United States is obsessed with fear of com-
munism, he cited the Defense Department's
preoccupation with counterinsurgency proj-
ects such as the controversial Project Came-
lot. These studies, FuLsincirr said, "claim
to be scientific but beneath their almost un-
believably opaque language lies as unmistak-
able military and reactionary bias."
TESTIMONY TAKEN
FULBRIGHT said he had reached his conclu-
sions about the Dominican situation after
listening to the testimony taken by the
Foreign Relations Committee in a series of
closed hearings during July.
Charging the administration with "a lack
of candor," the Senator said, "The danger to
American lives was more the pretext than
a reason for the massive U.S. intervention."
The real reason, he asserted, was the ad-
ministration's fear of a Communist take-
over?a fear based on "exaggerated estimates
of Communist influence in the rebel move-
ment."
These "exaggerated estimates," FULBRIGHT
said, were the fault of W. Tapley Bennett,
U.S. Ambassador in Santo Domingo, and
other T.J.S. officials on the scene. He charged
that during the early days of the revolution
last April, they sent Washington reports
based on misjudgment of the facts, inade-
quate evidence, and false information.
"It is not at all difficult to understand
why, on the basis of such faulty advice, the
President made the decisions that he made,"
FULBRIGHT said.
Because of this, he charged, the United
States lost the opportunity to channel the
course of the revolution toward an immedi-
ate restoration of Dominican democracy. As
a result, he said, the United States both
alienated mass opinion in Latin America
and placed itself in the position of abetting
rightwing, militaristic forces in the Domini-
can Republic.
"It cannot be said with assurance that
the United ltates could have changed the
course of events by acting differently," he
asserted. "What can be said with assur-
ance is that the United States did not take
advantage of several opportunities in which
It might have changed the course of events.
"The reason appears to be that, very close
to the beginning of the revolution, U.S. pol-
icymakers decided that it should not be
allowed to succeed. This decision seems to
me to have been based on exaggerated es-
timates of Communist influence in the rebel
movement and on distaste for the return to
power of Juan Bosch (former Dominican
president) or a government controlled by
Bosch's party, the PRD (Dominican Revolu-
tionary Party) ."
This hostility toward the rebels, he said,
seemed based partly on the official U.S. view
that Bosch had been an incompetent presi-
dent before he was deposed by a military
coup in 1963. Even more, he added, U.S.
diplomats and officials appeared to be mo-
tivated by fears that they might be held
responsible for "another Cuba" in Santo
Domingo.
In summarizing his views on what hap-
pened in Washington and Santo Domingo
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP671300446R000500110015-9
27496
CONI!;RESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
during late April and early May, the Senator
Made seven specific points.
1. The United States intervened "not to
save American lives, as was then contended,
but to prevent the victory of a revolutionary
moveinent which was fudged to be Com-
munist-dominated."
2. Although there is no doubt that Com-
munists joined the Dominican rebels, the
evidence offered the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee by the administration does not sup-
port "the assertion that the rebels were
Communist-dominated or certain to become
3. "The United Startas let pass its best
opportunities to influence the course of
events." These occurred on April 25, when
the PRD requested United States presence,
and on April 27, when the rebels, believing
themselves defeated, requested U.S. media-
tion for a negotiated settlement.
Put.setour said the first request apparently
was rejected because of Johnson administra-
tion hostility toward Bosch and the PRD and
the second because "Ambassador Bennett
and the U.S. Government anticipated and
desired a victory of the antirebel forces."
4. 'U.S. policy toward the Dominican Re-
public shifted markedly to the right -be-
tween September, 1963 the date of Bosch's
ouster) and April 1965. "Thus the- United
States turned its back On social revolution
in Santo Domingo and associated itself with
a corrupt and reactionary military oligarchy."
5. "U.S. policy was marred by a lack of
candor and by misinformation." In this re-
apect, FULBRIGHT recalled that Mr. Johnson
asserted on June 17 that "some 1,500 innocent
people were murdered and shot, and their
heads cut' off." There' is, FULBRIGHT said, no
evidence to support this statement.
6. "Responsibility for the failure of Ameri-
can policy lies primarily with those who
advised the President?who in the critical
early days sent reports exaggerating the
Communist danger and who then recom-
mended military intervention.
7. The fear of "another Cuba" in the
Caribbean and its "possible effects on the ca-
reers of those who might be held respon-
sible" seems to have been "the most im-
portant single factor in distorting the judg-
ment of otherwise sensible and competent
men."
After he finished speaking, FULBRIGHT
was challenged sharply by the assistant
Democratic leader, Senator RUSSELL B.
LONG of Louisiana, and by Senator GEORGE
A. SMATHERS, Democrat, of Florida.
LONG disputed FULBRIGHT'S contention
that the United States will jeopardize its
standing in Latin America if it opposes any
radical reform movement because it might
have Communist support. So long as there
is a hint or a possible Communist takeover,
LONG asserted, the United States must move
against it.
SMATHERS agreed saying: "What's wrong'
with trying to save a country from commu-
nism? What we ought to be doing is ap-
plauding the President as, thank God, 85
percent of the American people have done."
At the White House, Presidential Press
Secretary Bill D. Moyers said he had talked
to a number of officials "who simply do not
believe that the Senator's views are justi-
fied." FULBRIGHT, Moyers added, seemed to
be expressing his personal opinions and was
not speaking for the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee.
[From the Washington Post, Sept. 16, 19651
WEssix
Vows To FORM ORGANIZATION OF
EXILES
Missy-, FLA., September 15.?Brig. Gen.
Elias Wessin y Wessin said today he would
go to Puerto Rico soon to try and organize
' Dominican exiles thee in a fight for what
he termed the recovery of democracy in the
Dominican Republic.
Wessin, who last night turned down the
job of consul general here, did not give a
((ate for going to Puerto Rico.
In Washington, the State Department said
1he ousted general was in the United states
on "deferred inspection status," meaning the
Government will decide later whether to let
him stay.
'From the New York Times, Sept. 16, 1965]
PVLBRIGHT DECRIES U.S. LATIN POLICY?CRITI-
CIZES DOMINICAN ACTION AS "FAILURE" THAT
LED UNITED STATES TO BACK "CORRUPT"
REGIME
(By Richard Eder)
WASHINGTON, September 15.?Senator J. W.
PULBRIGHT, in a scathing criticism of the ad-
ministration, condemned today the U.S. in-
1ervention in the Dominican Republic and
liaised serious questions about Washington's
policy in Latin America,.
In a long statement, most of which he de-
livered in a speech on the Senate floor, Mr.
litrumusnx, who is chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee and a major Democratic
ipokesman on foreign policy, analyzed the
United States decision to intervene-in the
)omini can Republic.
The statement was published in the CON-
('SESSIONAL RECORD.
He termed the intervention a "failure,"
cald placed much of the responsibility for the
allure on "faulty advice" given to President
'ohnson by his advisers.
Underlying what he characterized as an
Initial "overtimidity" and a subsequent
"Overreaction" by the U.S. Ambassador, W.
'.7apley Bennett, in the critical days during
the outbreak of the fighting, Mr. FULBRIGHT
E aid he discerned a wider tendency of the
United States to suspect communism in any
offective Latin American effort for social
change.
This attitude, he said, made it impossible
I or the United States to establish an effective
policy in Latin America where, he said, "the
movement of the future * * * is social
evolution."
. Mr. FULBRIGHT'S speech caused considerable
cfl.spleasure in the administration but little
public comment by it. President Johnson is
understoocl to have read a copy of the speech
this morning, but officials in the White House
clid not disclose what he thought of it.
The President's press secretary, Bill D.
I aoyers, said this afternoon:
"I talked to a number of officials in Gov-
ernment .,whb simply do not believe that the
kenator's conclusion are justified."
Mr. FULBRIGHT'S analysis of the Dominican
( vents withheld any judgment of what the
pnsequences of U.s. actions would be for
the Republic's future, although he cited un-
I avorable repercussions among progressive
EToups throughout Latin America.
HEARINGS WERE INCONCLUSIVE
The Foreign Relations Committee held 13
hearings over the last 2 months, with the
witnesses being summoned almost exclusively
iroM high levels of the administration. The
conclusions of the committee's members,
when the hearings were over, were so dis-
parate that no report was issued.
'The United States lost a. valuable oppor-
1Unity to influence developments in the Dom-
inican Republic before they got out of hand,
Ice said. The main opportunity was when
the rebels met with Ambassador Bennett,
before the U.S. marines landed, and asked
lfirn to negotiate a settlement.
Mr. Bennett said he had no authority to
do so and that such an attempt on his part
Would be "intervention."
'Mediation at that point might have been
c.ecomplished quietly and peacefully," Mr.
PULBRIGHT said. "Twenty-four hours later
ilie Ambassader was pleading for the marines
Ind ever since the United States has been
Intervening up to its elbows."
October 22, 1965
The United States, while maintaining that
Its intervention was for the purpose of sav-
ing lives actually was bent on preventing the
victory of the rebels, the Senator said. The
result, he added, was that for the first weeks
U.S. policy was associated "with a corrupt
and reactionary military" rule.
The responsibility for exaggerating the
Communist danger and the extent of a
breakdown of law and order in Santo Do-
mingo' lay with Mr. Johnson's advisers, Mr.
FULBRIGHT asserted. "It is not at all difficult
to understand why, on the basis of such
faulty advice, the President made the deci-
sions that he made," the Senator added.
[From the New York Times, Sept. 16, 1965]
WEssnc To Go 'TO PUERTO RICO
Miami, September 15.?Brig. Gen. Elias
Wessin y Wessin said today that he would
go to Puerto Rico soon, to try and organize
Dominican exiles there.
The 41-year-old officer, who was exiled from
his country by the new Government, said
he would lead a fight for what he termed
the reestablishment of democracy in the
Dominican Republic.
[From the Arkansas Gazette, Sept. 26, 19651
LETTER WRITERS SUPPORT FULBRIGHT'S
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC STAND
(By Ned Curran)
Senator J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT'S main
problem may be overprocision.
It is certainly an important element in the
Dominican Republic storm that is swirling
about his head. And it has been and prob-
ably will continue to be an element in any
major Futstnotrr utterances.
The point is that much, if not all, the
criticism the Senator has reaped for his
speech on U.S. intervention in the Carib-
bean 'stems from the finely shaded phrasing
and logic of the speech.
This was apparent as soon as he finished
delivering., his 10,000-word speech that ran
16 legal-sized, single-space pages. Senators
RUSSELL LONG, Democrat, of Louisiana and
GEORGE SMATHERS, Democrat, of Florida, im-
mediately jumped to their feet, berating
FULBRIGHT although they had listened to
the speech only briefly and did not appear
to have read it. LONG and other subsequent
critics did not even attend the Foreign Re-
lations Committee hearings on which FUL-
BRIGHT based his conclusions.
It was less apparent in the days that fol-
lowed, when critics had to be given the
benefit of any doubt that they had digested
the speech. And yet some of the reaction
betrayed the fact that it was to newspaper
reports of the speech rather than to the
speech itself. Some of it was reprehensible,
going so far as to accuse FULBRIGHT of ir-
responsibility.
All of which the Senator actually brings
on himself to some extent. And that leads
unavoidably to the conclusion that the real
problem may be J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT.
In the first place, FULBRIGHT is probably
the very last Member of Congress who can
. be called irresponsible. He is almost totally
oblivious to time, opportunism, and headline-
baiting. Be is jealous of the minor chores
and distractions which rob him of the op-
portunity to worry literally about the state
of the world and the true perspective of the
trite "big picture."
His Dominican speech, therefore, was not
hastily or opportunistically conceived. Nor
was it really any departure from or innova-
tion,in the mainstream of rum:moires think-
ing. It was merely an extension and reitera-
tion Of the theme he has been developing
in his public remarks for the past several
years.
Characteristically; the speech was thor-
oughly thought out, carefully structured
and documented and precisely honed in or-
.
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
-
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
October 22, 1965, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --- SENATE
ganization and wording. Even a casual read-
ing, of it belies anything else.
The result was one of the truly rare ex-
amples of an exhaustive and coherent dis-
cussion of a major subject by a member of
the Government, devoid of partisanship, ir-
responsibility, politics, demagoguery, window
dressing, or ax grinding. It was, plainly,
too quietly cerebral, too careful and too long.
All FuLsnicnr was really trying to say, as
he has before in other contexts, was that
the United States was precipitated into an-
other action by its preoccupation with com-
munism. It was precipitant because it was
unnecessary, he reasoned, implying that it
is a preoccupation because it keeps the coun-
try off balance, chronically discharging its
energy and attention in rising to meet a
challenge which might not be a challenge if
We didn't keep rising to meet it.
His further implicit point was that then
we might have the added strength to deal
With more basic threats at home. He thus
came close to touching the nerve of mid-
century America which is the probable delu-
sion that national high blood pressure may
be the unfortunate necessity of economic
health.
But because he had manufactured a com-
plete tapestry it did not lend itself to the
divisible blacks and whites of politics nor
the necessary oversimplifications of news-
paper reporting. It is nearly impossible to
reduce a Fulbright speech to an aural atten-
tion span or the restraining space of a news-
paper column.
So he was condemned almost as much to
misunderstanding as he was to criticism. It
Is only unfortunate that the rebuttal hasn't
been as carefully considered, complete and
precise as the statement.
Surprisingly, despite all of this, the peo-
pie seem to agree with FULBRIGHT if the mail
his speech inspired is any measurement.
Be had received, at this writing, 647 let-
ters addressed to his Dominican remarks.
A total of 584 support his position, only 63
opposed.
And perhaps more importantly, there were
but 12 letters from Arkansas, 8 to 4 in favor
of FULBRIGHT. This might indicate that Ar-
kansans either don't care or tacitly agree
with the Senator. If the latter is true, that
is all that really matters to him in the sum-
ming up.
[From the Arkansas Gazette, Sept. 26, 1965]
THE JUNIOR SENATOR SPEAKS OUT ON INTER-
VENTION
Senator J. W. FULBRIGHT'S denunciation
of the U.S. intervention in the Dominican
Republic brought forth considerable edito-
rial comment.
Editor Paul Buchanan in the Batesville
Guard: "Senator FULBRIGHT'S speech in the
Senate last week sharply criticizing the John-
son administration about our intervention
in the Dominican Republic makes sense to
Me. It is my candid opinion that the Presi-
dent is relying too much on advice from
officials of the Pentagon concerning foreign
affairs.
"The President is an expert at handling
the Congress about domestic affairs but, when
an emergency arises outside the country, he
does not seem to have confidence in himself
and must rely on others for guidance.
"The sudden, sharp criticism of FnLinuoirr
by both Republicans and Democrats raises
the thought that they are jittery of the
President's capabilities in dealing with
'foreign affairs and resent any such criticism
as being a dangerous 'rocking of the boat.'"
The Petit Jean Country Headlight: "While
we suspect that Senator FULBRIGHT, this time,
may be more right than wrong with regard
to the extent of the Communist danger in
the Dominican Republic, we can't help but
be wary of Senator FULBRIGHT'S assessment
of the situation.
"We cannot recall a time when our junior
Senator has denounced a Communist as
forthrightly as he had L.B.J.'s attempt to
thwart a Communist takeover.
"Nevertheless, we believe that Senator FUL-
BRIGHT IS honest in his convictions. And,
once he is retired by another honest man
(who is not yet on the horizon), we hope he
will have the opportunity to return to his
former avocation?university president. He
might be welcome at Berkeley."
The Warren Eagle-Democrat: "There have
been times when the assorted pronounce-
ments of the junior Senator from Arkansas
have seemed a bit 'global' for the more con-
servative elements in this State."
"As a matter of fact, it's always been a
source of amazement to us that a man with
the background of BILL FuLsaioxr was ever
able to get elected in the first place back in
the forties in the predominantly rural,
mostly conservtive State of Arkansas.
"Perhaps Arkansas realized that, beneath
the Rhodes scholar sheen of BILL FULBRIGHT,
there was some flint-hard honesty and sin-
gleness of purpose?a determination to do
his best for his country.
"This characteristic was never more appar-
ent than the other day when BHA. FULBRIGHT
got up on the floor of the Senate and pro-
ceeded to dismember the Johnson adminis-
tration's Dominican Republic policies.
"We don't know enough about the subject
to know whether FULBRIGHT or the adminis-
tration is right?and that isn't the point of
this idscussion anyway.
"The point is this: You can't help but ad-
mre a man who will stand up and take the
leader of his party to the cleaners it he thinks
the leader needs such a little trip. And the
courage and resolution of the action take on
added weight when it's remembered that
Lyndon Johnson and FULBRIGHT are close,
personal friends.
"To BILL FULBRIGHT, both politics and
friendship apparently take a second place
when the interests of the United. States are
Involved.
"That's the reason we're proud of Mr. F.,
be he 'one-wonder' or not."
The Crossett News-Observer: "As we have
pointed out in these columns in times past,
Arkansas' junior Senator, J. WILL/AM FUL-
BRIGHT, is a man of courage and much more.
"New evidence of this singular political
trait was in ample view this week as the fur
began to fly over the Senator's latest, well
thought-out comments on the Johnson ad-
ministration's handling of the Dominican-
Republic crisis of a few weeks back.
"Although he didn't come right out and
say so, Senator FULBRIGHT accused L.B.J. of
the same kind of 'hip-shooting' which was in
such ill-repute this time last year when at
that stage of the game it centered around a
fellow named Goldwater."
The Morrilton Democrat: "The junior
Senator calculates what Latin and South
America need is a good revolution. ? The
status quo, says FULBRIGHT, should be ousted
forthwith. Maybe so.
"For our dough, FULBRIGHT is as much a
part of Arkansas and United States 'status
quo' as anything can be. He's been Senator
so long we can hardly remember who he re-
placed in that position,
"We wonder if the junior Senator can ex-
plain how he says the Latin and South
Americans need 'new blood' while he sings
a different tune here at home. Here, FUL-
BRIGHT and the rest of the `status quo' have
a well-worn phrase: 'It's experience that
counts.'"
The Nashville News: Senator FuLsamnr of
Arkansas seems too enchanted with idealism,
revolutionary change and the "intellectual"
approach to world troubles, he has become
more of a 1965 Chamberlain than a source
of a calm reason.
27497
"His recent differences with the adminis-
tration's handling of the Dominican crisis
is another in a series of points to support the
above conclusion.
"Had the FULBRIGHT opinions dominated
in recent events, we would have more Com-
mies in depth in Cuba, weakened our status
In West Germany, pulled our synthetic rub-
ber plant in Yugoslavia and continued train-
ing jet pilots for Iron Curtain coun-
tries.
"Despite all of the gains made by com-
munism, the millions killed, captured or
controlled, the Senator is determined to view
this bloody plot against mankind as nothing
but a social revolution, a mild Boston Tea
Party.
"It isn't, and the tragedy for Senator FUL-
BRIGHT is that his built-in glow of idealism
blinds him so completely to the bloody his-
tory of communism."
[Prom the Washington Post, Sept. 22, 19651
BENNETT GETS SUPPORT OF SENATOR
RUSSELL
Senator RICHARD B. RUSSELL, Democrat,
of Georgia, yesterday accused critics of the
administration's Dominican policies of at-
tempting "to make a whipping boy" of Am-
bassador W. Tapley Bennett, Jr.
In a Senate speech, RUSSELL said, "I vigor-
ously and categorically disagree" with con-
tentions by Senator 3. W. FULBRIGMT, Dem-
ocrat, of Arkansas, and others that Presi?
dent Johnson was a gullible victim of faulty
advice in sending troops to Santo Domingo.
FULBRIGHT, chairman of the Senate For-
eign Relations Committee, voiced his criti-
cism in a recent speech.
RUSSELL, chairman of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, said that since Mr.
Johnson's decision the "fighting was brought
to a halt and we do not have another
Castroite dictatorship in the Caribbean
Isles."
"It is a grievous disservice to a dedicated
public servant," RUSSELL said of criticism
of Bennett, a native Georgian. The Sen-
ator recalled that he had served with Ben-
nett's grandfather in the Georgia Legisla-
ture.
RUSSELL said criticism of Bennett was com-
ing from those he called "some of our hind-
sighters."
[From the Evening Star, Sept. 22, 1965]
RUSSELL BACKS BENNETT ADVICE
Senator RICHARD B. RUSSELL says critics of
the administration's Dominican policies are
committing a grievous disservice by attacking
Ambassador W. Tapley Bennett, Jr.
The Georgia Democrat told the Senate
Tuesday he vigorously and categorically dis-
agrees with Senator J. W. FULBRIGHT, Dem-
ocrat, of Arkansas, and others who have con-
tended that Tapley gave poor advice to Presi-
dent Johnson before Johnson sent U.S. Ma-
rines to Santo Domingo.
Since Johnson's decision, RUSSELL said,
"fighting was brought to a halt and we do
not have another Castroite dictatorship in
the Caribbean Isles.
"It is a grievous disservice to a dedicated
public servant," RUSSELL said of the criti-
cism aimed at Bennett. The Senator, chair-
man of the Senate Armed Services Commit-
tee, recalled that he served with Bennett's
grandfather in the Georgia Legilsature.
Some critics have contended that Bennett
overemphasized the extent of Communist
Influence among the revolutionaries during
the Dominican crisis.
Senator JOSEPH S. CLARK, Democrat, of
Pennsylvania, who supported FULBRIGHT'S re-
cent speech attacking Bennett, said his criti-
cism of the Ambassador was not personal but
was directed at his judgment.
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
Approved For Release 2003/10/15: CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9
27498 CONGUSSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
[From Newsweek, Sept. 27, 1965]
MYTH AND REALITY It
For 13 closed-door sessions between April
30 and July 29, the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee listened to administration testi-
mony on U.S. intervention in the Dominican
Republic. Chairman J. WILLIAM FuLBRIGHT
listened hardest of all and emerged most dis-
satisfied of an. And last week in a nearly
empty Senate Chamber the Senator from
Arkansas suddenly loosed a broadside at the
landing in Santo Domingo?and at U.S. Latin
American policy generally.
E'tywntrorr bluntly charged that the ad-
ministrations handling of the Dominican
crisis "was characterized initially by over-
timidity and subsequently by overreaction.
* * * His criticism echoed his earlier salvo
against U.S. foreign policy last year. In
that widely heralded speech, he spoke of
clinging to "old myths" in the face of new
realities." Last week, the new reality he
stressed was the aspiration for reform in
Latin America and the inevitability that
ComMunists would attach themselves to re-
form movements. The old myth: the view
that Communist support means Communist
Control.
While there were certainly some Commu-
nists on the side of the rebels in the Domini-
can uprising, said FULBRIGHT, the adminis-
tration failed to establish that Communists
controlled the revolt. And "intervention on
? the basis of Communist participation * * *
reflects a grievous misreading of the temper
Of contemporary Latin American politics."
If the 'United States autoknatically condemns
' any movement involving Communists, the
scathing counterattack came from Senator
THoyfAs Donn, a close friend of L.B.J.
FUL-
BRIGHT, charged Senator Dorm, ''suffers from
an indiscriminate infatuation with revolu-
tions of all kinds, national, democratic, or
Communist."
In the hope of forestalling another Santo
Domingo, FULBRIGHT had knowingly staked
out a lonely position. Amid the swirl of
criticism, that was just where he found hint-
self late last week.
[From the Washington Post, Oct. 4, 1965]
I.JONG BAYS FULBRIGHT TALK HURT UNI TED
STATES
Senator RussELL B. LONG, Democrat, of
Louisiana, charged yesterday that Senator
J. WMTIAM PULBRIGHT'S recent attack on
the Sante Domingo intervention could be-
come "the key factor in the Communists win-
ning an election * * * in the Dominican
Republic.
The comments by Lown, assistant Demo-
cratic leader in the Senate, marked the
latest round in the controversy sparked last
month by FuLmamarr, chairman of the Sen-
ate Foreign Relations Committee. The Ar-
kansas Democrat charged that the United
States has been unable to substantiate the
contention that the Dominican Republic
was in danger of a Communist takeover.
LONG Spoke on the television program,
"Face the Nation" (CBS-WTOP). He said
FULBRIGHT'S speech "has hurt this country
tremendously all over Latin America" and
would be cited by Dominican leftists as proof
that the U.S. action was "unjustified aggres-
sion."
LoNG said he doubted that the closed hear-
ings held by PULBRIGHT'S cornmittee were "in
sufficient depth" to justify any action.
The Purbright committee% hearings in
July included testimony from most of the
administration officials who played key roles
in the Dominican intervention.
LoNG also was asked about a resolution
patted recently by the House of Representa-
tiyes that has been widely interpreted as
Condoning unilateral Intervention in any
hemispheric country there there is a threat
of "Communist domination."
Tb this, Loam merely-said he could under-
stand why the resolution was "resented in
Lal ui Ameripa." He defended the right a
the resolution's sponsor, Representative
AR: AISTEAD I. BELDEN, Jr., Democrat, of Ala-
baina, to offer it, but added: "I am not
say lug that he was right or wrong."
JIB the result of hearings held last week,
the- Senate Foreign Relations Committee and
the State Department are trying to com-
po ie a statement of United States Latin
American policy aimed at counteracting the
adverse reaction prompted by the Belden
retolution:
Meanwhile, criticism of current 'U.S. policy
in the Dominican Republic was voiced by
Senator GEORGE MURPHY, Republican, of
California, on the television program,
"Iisues and Answers" (ABC-'WMAL).
M JRPHY charged that rightist Dominican
Gen. Elias Wessin y Wessin, whom he de-
schbed as a stanch anti-Communist, has
ba en "spirited" out of his country with
apparent 'U.S. cooperation.
[]'rom the Washington Post, Sept. 19, 1965]
D 3MINIC AN CHARGES BRING RASH OF FLAG
WAYING?FULBRIGHT'S CRITICS SIDESTEP THE
ISSUE
(By John M. Goshko)
Senator J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT'S attempt to
p 7ovoke a debate on the U.S. intervention. in
tile Dominican Republic has called forth only
a babble.
Since Wednesday, when FULBRIGHT rose on
-t,:te Senate floor to characterize the interven-
t on as a "grievous mistake," the Washington
atmosphere has been filled with a great deal
of heat?and almost no light.
Those most directly affected by the Arkan-
sas Democrat's criticism, the top foreign pol-
itymakers of the Johnson administration,
lave retreated behind a wall of angry silence.
/rad although their reticence has not been
shared by proadrninistration figures in Con-
res. most of the retorts emanating from
Capitol Hill have been distinguished primar-
ily by their irrelevance to the charges raised
liy FULBRIGHT.
The sole exception has been Senator
'C'Hofvfas J. DODD, Democrat, of Connecticut,
whose lengthy Senate rebuttal on Thursday
eame directly to grips with FULBRIGHT'S con-
4rftion. that the extent of Communist in-
:luence on the Dominican rebels had been
axaggerated.
In the end, however, Donn also went the
route of the others who rose in Congress to
3hastize FULBRIGHT. He implied that Fin
BRIGHT, if not exactly soft on communism, is
Cornplacent about its dangers.
But even if this charge was conceded to be
100 percent accurate, it still would not con-
stitute a reply to some ?of the major ques-
tions raised by FULBRIGHT. And because of
his longstanding prestige as chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, they
are questions that cannot be disposed of by
ignoring them or by impugning the qualifi-
cations of the man who asked them.
Petwircark's questions were prompted by
the testimony given his committee by ad-
ministration officials during closed hearings
in July. In essence, what he said was this:
That the intervention had resulted from
a panicky overestimation a Communist
'strength among the rebels, that the danger
to TJ.S. citizens had been used as a pretext
to cover the anti-Communist basis of the
Intervention, that it had placed the United
States on the side of reactionary elements
and that the effect had damaged U.S. pres-
tige among progressive forces in Latin
America.
Moreover, he added, U.S. actions had been
accompanied by misinformation and a "lack
of candor." In this respect, he charged
that U.S. officials had sought almost from
the outset of the revolution to create a
Dominican military junta, that the Do-
October 22, 1965
minian military was told the United States
would intervene only if they would say
American lives were endangered and that
no proof -has ever been offered to substan-
tiate President Johnson's charge that "some
1,500 innocent people were murdered and
shot, and their heeds out off."
Only seconds after FULBR/GHT finished
speaking, the tone of what was to come was
set by Louisiana Senator RUSSELL B. LONG,
the majority whip. La an arm-waving
classic of old-fashioned oratory, LONG man-
aged to invoke his "daddy," the Confederacy
and General de Gaulle ft. defense of the ad-
ministration.
On the day following FuLBRIGHT'S speech,
Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara
told a press conference he never had any
doubts that U.S. citizens in Santo Domingo
had been endangered. However, McNamara
was silent in regard to FULBRIGHT'S assertion
that the danger also was being used to cover
up a move against suspected Communists.
Since then, there have been calls to rally
round the President, flag-waving diatribes
against the Communist conspiracy and ap-
peals for FULBRIGHT to "get back on the
team." But there has been no attempt to
answer or rebut him on a point-by-point
basis.
This is true even a DODD'S speech. The
Connecticut Senator did tackle the ques-
tion of Communist influence by marshalling
virtually every available fact tending to
support the thesis that the Communist
threat was real and pressing. -
His performance on this score was inr--
pressive; and if he failed to defeat FUL
BRIGHT'S contention that the danger was
overrated, he at least established the fact
that legitimate grounds for a debate do exist.
What was missing from DODD'S speech was
any reply to FULBRIGHT'S charge that the.
administration engaged in duplicity. Yet
this is the very point that underlies most
of the criticism directed against the U.S.
action.
It is also the point on which administra-
tion officials have persistently refused to
answer questions. Now, in the face of FUL-
BRIGHT'S challenge, they appear determined
to maintain this silence while hoping that
their friends in Congress will be able to
overcome the embattled Senator.
ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE
The PRESIDING 010.rICER laid be-
fore the Senate House Concurrent Reso-
lution 527, which was read as follows:
Resolved by the House of Representatives
(the Senate concurring), That the two
Houses of Congress shall adjourn on Friday,
October 22, 1965, and that when they ad-
journ on said day, they stand adjourned sine
die.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
send an amendment to the desk and ask-
that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. In lines 2 and
3, it is proposed to strike out the words
"Friday, October 22," and insert in lieu
thereof, "Saturday, October 23," so as to
make the concurrent resolution read as
follows:
Resolved by the Hcntse of Representatives
(the Senate concurring), That the two
Houses of Congress shall adjourn on Satur-
day, C)ctober 23, 1965, and that when they ad-
journ on said day, they stand adjourned
sine die.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Montana.
The amendment was agreed to.
Approved For Release 2003/10/15: CIA-RDP67600446R000500110015-9