U.N. DELIBERATIONS ON ARAB -ISRAEL CONFLICT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290089-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 7, 2001
• Sequence Number: 89
• Publication Date: November 28, 1967
• Content Type: OPEN

November /$prth9ed For Re14MX9lKAP100A2002900$9-6
Protectionist sentiment in Congress is
building up to a new crisis, said William M.
Roth, the Administration's foreign trade
negotiator, in a recent Detroit address. He
said the drive for legislation to make it
harder for imports to enter the United States
threatens to turn the clock back to the
Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. This was
the most restrictive law ever adopted by
Congress.
Mr. Roth said industries that seek new
trade barriers may not be the ones to suffer
when other countries retaliate against Amer-
ican exports. Bills are now pending in Con-
gress to restrict imports of textiles, watches,
petroleum, meat, dairy products, lead and
zinc. One bill already adopted by the House
would permit the President to restrict im-
ports on any foreign product produced
abroad under labor standards below those of
the United States. Few foreign products
would be allowed in under such conditions.
Another bill in the Senate would establish
mandatory quotas if imports contribute to
the economic problems of domestic produc-
ers.
In general, lower trade barriers promote
the interests of all countries by enabling
them to exchange goods they produce most
efficiently. They help keep prices down at
home by forcing domestic firms to meet com-
petition. Trade also sends money abroad for
the purchase of American products. The
United States has an opportunity to sell more
as the world becomes prosperous and indus-
trialized.
Restrictions that benefit a small number
of industries that cannot compete hurt the
country as a whole. Higher prices and infla-
tionary pressures are only a part of the price
of protectionism carried as far as some would
like to see it go.
[From the Milwaukee (Wis.) Journal,
Oct. 12, 19673
BILLS To CURB IMPORTS THREATEN
TRADE AGREEMENTS
Waves of shortsighted selfishness are
breaking against Capitol Hill, threatening to
drown three decades of sustained United
States effort to lower senseless barriers to
world trade and prosperity.
The largest wave makers are the steel,
chemical and textile industries and some
elements of agriculture, but lead, zinc, elec-
tronics, glass and oil lobbyists are at work,
too.
The target is the so-called Kennedy round
of tariff cutting negotiations, a four year
long struggle that culminated in May With
the United States and other trading nations
agreeing to reduce tariffs by an average of
35%-the biggest trade liberalization in his-
tory. Congress in recent weeks has been
swamped with bills to frustrate tariff cuts
by placing import quotas on a wide range
of goods.
Sen. Dirksen (R-Ill.) and Sen. Hartke (D-
Ind.), both strong backers of the domestic
steel industry, are supporting a particularly
insidious measure that will attach quotas
for steel and other products to the Johnson
administration's urgent social security bill
pending in the senate. The perverse hope is
that Johnson, not daring to veto the whale
package, will swallow the quotas. This is
reckless legislating. It would force the White
House, and the nation, to accept all or noth-
ing on two vital but unrelated matters.
The Dirksen-Hartke ploy is made all the
worse by the fact that quotas are far more
pernicious than tariffs, because goods can at
least be imported over tariff walls and the
cost of protectionism slapped on the public
can be eased by tariff revenue. Under quotas
the protectionist is king and the public be
damned.
To be sure, in the short run, it may be
tempting to coddle a domestic industry. But
world trade is implacably a two way street.
History is littered with cases in which the
protectionism of one nation is swiftly
matched by the protectionism of others in
a sorrowful enactment of mutual strangula-
tion.
Trade liberalization over the last 20 years
has produced a threefold increase in world
commerce and greatly improved global
understanding. Certainly the United States
has prospered accordingly. In 1966 we bought
$26 billion in goods overseas and sold $30
billion. It would be one of the great tragedies
of our era if this edifice of mutual benefit
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, there are
grounds for genuine satisfaction in the
progress of the U.N. deliberations on the
Arab-Israel conflict. With rare unanim-
ity, the Security Council has adopted a
resolution calling for the dispatch of an
envoy to the Near East.
The administration should be com-
mended for the way in which it has re-
sisted Arab-Soviet pressures calling on
Israel to withdraw its forces from occu-
pied territory in advance of a peace set-
tlement.
But optimism on these matters is quali-
fied by the extraordinary reaction in
Cairo following the adoption of the U.N.
resolution. Once again, President Nasser
has exhibited an uncompromising bellig-
erence. His speech last Thursday was a
repudiation of peace with Israel. When
he speaks of political solutions, he is
speaking of Israel's surrender. Much
more ominous is his disclosure that Egypt
has restored its military strength and is
determined upon military action against
Israel if it fails to force Israel's retreat by
diplomatic pressures.
This speech by President Nasser has
been sharply criticized in the press. I ask
unanimous consent that two editorials,
one of which appeared in the New York
Times on November 25, 1967, and the
other in the Washington Post on the
same date, be printed in the RECORD at
the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, it seems
to me that there is a need for a swift and
effective answer to Nasser's speech. We
must now make it clear to the Egyptian
dictator that we are not prepared to let
him mobilize his forces in preparation
for a new assault against Israel. There
is one answer-and that is to make cer-
tain that Israel has the deterrent ca-
pacity to resist attack.
I would like to raise the issue here, Mr.
President: Is the administration pre-
pared to provide Israel with the weapons
it. must have to give it deterrent military
capacity to prevent another war?
I also ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the RECORD a resolution adopt-
ed in November by the Council of Jewish
Federations and Welfare Funds, meet-
ing in Cleveland. The resolution reflects
growing alarm over developments in the
Middle East and the view of many Amer-
icans that it is crucial that Israel be en-
abled to maintain her capacity to up-
hold the peace and to deter further ag-
gression.
There being no objection, the resolu-
S 17215
tion was ordered to printed in the REC-
ORD, as follows:
PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST
(Resolution on peace in the Middle East,
adopted in 'Cleveland, by the Council of
Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds)
Twenty years ago this month, the delegates
of the United States and Canada to the
United Nations strongly supported the his-
toric United Nations General Assembly reso-
lution which led to the establishment and
recognition of the State of Israel. This year,
at tragic costs in lives, Israel has again re-
pelled Arab armies poised for its annihilation.
We commend our governments' position
that the.Middle East cannot return to the
Intolerable conditions which provoked con-
flicts in the past, and that makeshift meas-
ures, which President Lyndon B. Johnson has
characterized as "prescriptions for renewed
hostilities", must be replaced by a permanent
peace.
Only the parties to the conflict can,
through direct negotiations, determine the
nature of a peace settlement and commit
themselves to its fulfillment. Thus we urge
our governments to continue to work for
policies which would bring Arabs and Is-
raelis face-to-face at the peace table.
Until peace is achieved, and to meet the
new threat brought about by the re-arming
of the Arab states, it is Crucial that Israel be
enabled to maintain its capacity. to uphold
the peace and to deter further aggression.
We, therefore, urge the United States govern-
ment to continue and to take such steps as
will help make possible this essential deter-
rent.
It is only through peace that the welfare of
all the peoples in the region can be advanced.
Peace in the Middle East will be a significant
step forward toward the realization of peace
throughout the world.
EXHIBIT I
[From the New York Times, Nov 25, 19671
NASSER VERSUS THE U.N.
Evoking a spirit of bravado that Egypt's
situation does not justify, President Nasser
has now retreated to a position of beligerent
intransigence that seriously compromises the
recently brightened prospects for peace in
the Middle East.
Nasser's speech to the opening session of
the Egyptian Parliament was a rude affront
to the fifteen members of the Security Coun-
cil who had just voted unanimously a reso-
lution pointing toward a just settlement of
the long-standing Arab-Israeli dispute. His
vow not to recognize Israel nor to allow her
ships to use the Suez Canal defies the spirit
and the letter of that resolution.
This was the Egyptian President's first
public appearance in four months. It would
serve the cause of peace if it were his last
for at least four more. In fact, it would help
if all the area's national leaders who are
prone to intemperate language refrained
from public pronouncements for a while to
give the United Nation's special envoy, Gun-
nar Jarring, a fighting chance for success on
his mission of reconciliation.
[From the Washington (D.C.) Post, Nov. 25,
1967]
SIEGE IN CAIRO
President Nasser, giving his first public
speech in four months, set back the cause
of peace so recently advanced by the SecurityH
Council's resolution on the Middle East. He
retreated from the moderation he has evi-
denced privately into a tough, irresponsible
play for the Cairo crowds. One can under-
stand, without excusing, why an insecure
politician might lapse from the cool of di-
plomacy to the heat of the mob. The danger
is that having recommitted himself publicly
to an extreme position, Mr. Nasser will
have extra trouble easing back toward the
compromises necessary in the real world.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290089-6
 S 17216 Approved 8 g~ 1L1 lJt0 R! -RE 69R000 %W-e8, 1967
A case in point was his unqualified vow verse the current population surge to con- amenities into deprived areas. Among the
never to let Israeli ships pass through the gested urban centers. most important will be roads.
Suez Canal. Previously he had said the ships A prime activist in what appears to be a Randolph sees the current U.S. Highway
could pass after a Pelestine settlement. It growing "Back-to-the Land" cadre in Con- Program, under which more than half of an
was reckless of Mr. Nasser to make such a gress is Senator Jennings Randolph, Chair- approved 41,000-mile network has been con-
vow. It can only harden Israel's hold on the man of the Public Works Committee, whose structed, as a mere beginning.
Canal. He can scarcely expect Western coun- folksy ways belle the power he wields over "Some time between now and 1975, when
tries to help him open an international water billions in Federal expenditures. the current road program is completed, I
way which he has warned in advance will be "I have a feeling the people of America expect we will authorize another 40,000 to
open only to users of his choice. need to walk on earth rather than Cement," 50,000. miles," he predicted. That could bring
President Nasser's speech was pitched to Randolph said in an Interview. the Nation's expenditures for highways to
using international diplomacy as a lever to It was shortly after he had taken the about $100 billion over a period of four
pry Israeli troops out of every inch of occu- Floor of the Senate to deplore the dollars- decades.
pied soil. This is quite different from the and-cents cost of crime in the U.S. to victims, Randolph does not seem to worry about the
Western intention to use diplomacy as a offenders and society as a whole, which he availability of education in rural areas,
channel to a general settlement. Mr. Nasser estimated at $21 billion a year. pointing out that his State has 25 colleges
does not thereby doom United Nations peace As a Senator from West Virginia, classified located within a few hours' bus ride of even
moves. It may be that this speech amounted as a rural State whose largest city is Charles- the most remote areas.
to his maximum bargaining demand, not to ton (Pop. 86,000), Randolph has a stake in JOB LURE
the fallback position which Egypt will have reversing the exodus which has been under He admits one of the most difficult parts
to move to in any settlement. Nonetheless, way for a decade. of the effort will be luring jobs to the coun-
it Is disturbing to find him so unreasonable.
It raises questions about his political sta-
bility. If he stays in that stance. Israel will
surely reciprocate his unreasonableness.
Meanwhile, he will forfeit available Western
sympathy and the pressure on Israel which
is that sympathy's political form.
Mr. Nasser showed greater realism in ad-
dressing himself to Egypt's domestic situ-
ation. He revealed that the toll of Egyp-
tian war dead was 11,500-almost as heavy
a loss in six days, as the United States has
suffered over as many years in Vietnam. In
claiming that Egypt's army is now stronger
than in June, he made clear that the gains
flow from postwar military personnel changes,
not from arms. The thrust of his speech was
that the Egyptian people are in for a long
seige. He should realize that, the more flex-
ible his diplomacy, the shorter the siege:
SENATOR RANDOLPH SUPPORTS
BALANCED ECONOMIC DEVELOP-
MENT PROPOSAL
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, much has
been said and written in recent months
about the need to reverse the population
flow from the rural to urban areas. Re-
cently, the Senate passed Senate Joint
Resolution 64, which would establish a
bipartisan commission to promote bal-
anced economic development.
One of the cosponsors of that resolu-
'tion was Senator JENNINGS RANDOLPH, Of
West Virginia. In fact, I believe Senator
RANDOLPH was the first of my colleagues
to call me and ask to be listed as a
cosponsor. He also offered to provide any
assistance necessary in steering it
through the Senate, an offer which I was
glad to accept.
The senior Senator from West Vir-
ginia has long demonstrated his concern
over this problem. A recent article by
Vera Glaser for the North American
Newspaper Alliance pointed out Senator
RANDOLPH'S leadership in this regard. As
1
the article claims, JENNINGS RANDOLPH is
try, but insists it is not impossible, par-
ticularly with the tax incentives proposed in
his bill. Two major shoe companies are build-
ing plants in rural areas of West Virginia
where Randolph believes the labor supply is
the drawing card.
Randolph also believes some are so fed up
with big-city pressures that they may even
be willing to change their means of livelihood
for a crack at a life in the open spaces.
"We can't expect miracles and we can't
expect upheavals, but I believe if we set our-
selves to this task, we can rebuild a better
America. It is going to take real thinking,"
he said.
Randolph is used to uphill fights. Be
pioneered in the rural electrification and air-
port programs. He has a fund of patience and
good humor and, perhaps most important,
the conviction that America's uncongested
areas, where life is pleasant and free of
tension, are a reservoir of strength.
THE STEWARDSHIP OF PRESIDENT
JOHNSON
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, last Sun-
day's Washington Post contains an arti-
cle by Prof. Adolfe Berle which served,
or should have served, to remind all of
us that an objective view of the steward-
ship of President Lyndon B. Johnson up
to this point in history has to conclude
with the realization that the President
grasped the problems of America at
home and abroad. and "simply did his
damnedest to see her through on all
fronts."
If our President has detractors, we
should not be surprised. In this century,
the most reviled Chief Executives have
been Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D.
Roosevelt, and Harry S. Truman. To that
list of strong Presidents we can now add
the name of Lyndon B. Johnson. In each
case, of course, the criticism which was
heaped on these men-which is still being
heaped upon the head of Lyndon John-
recalled. son by some-steams from the fact that
indeed "a prime activist" in this crusade. In West Virginia, he estimated, loan-and- they were strong Presidents, deter-
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- grant programs of the Farmers Home Admin- deal with the problems of
sent that the article entitled "Back-to- istration (FHA) have had an impact on the m mineed to time. And deal with them they
did.
Land Plan Urged by Senator RANDOLPH lives of some 75,000 people by providing wa-
To Reverse Rural Exodus" appear in the ter, housing and jobs. When John F. Kennedy was assassi-
RECORD at this point. crrY's PRESSURES nated in 1963, Lyndon B. Johnson was Hou There being no objection, the RECORD, sound. He said ea manotelephoned from De- world power, andeintolthe vortexnof
was as follows: ordered to be printed d in the RECORDD, troit to say he had lived there five years, swirling change both here in the United
as follows: earning good wages in an automobile States and in foreign affairs. In a very
BACK
AND LAND PLAN URGED BY SENATOR plant, but could no longer take the city's real sense, the task which faced Lyndon RURAL RNDOLPla To REVERSE EXODUS pressures. He told Randolph he was selling
(By Vera Glaser, North American Newspaper B. Johnson was not one that many men
his home and bringing his family to resettle could have faced up to. Damocles had
Alliance writer) in West Virginia. but one sword hanging over, his head,
The cure for riots, crime and filth in To motivate any large number of people
America's cities may lie in making rural In that fashion, however, will require the but the President of these United States
areas liveable and attractive enough to re- funneling, at heavy expense, of a long list of in these days has many. As Professor
TAX INCENTIVES
But he is not alone. Agriculture Secretary
Orville Freeman has been talking up the idea
for a long time. Recently 25 Senators of both
parties, led by Republican James B. Pearson
of Kansas and Democrat Fred R. Harris of
Oklahoma, introduced a bill to provide tax
incentives to encourage development of new
jobs in rural areas, citing it as a means of
reducing population pressures in the cities.
Interestingly, the sponors included such
urban-oriented lawmakers as Connecticut's
Abraham Ribicoff, Pennsylvania's Hugh Scott
and Illinois' Charles Percy.
At least nine similar bills have been in-
troduced In the House of Representatives.
Randolph, however, is going a step farther.
So convinced is he of the Nation's need to
utilize its open spaces, that he will soon take
his plea to President Johnson. Since LBJ
has requested his staff to produce his fresh
ideas for next year's legislative program, it
is possible he will decide to push Randolph's
"Back-to-the-Land" effort.
Population dispersal, Randolph admits, is
a long-haul effort. Currently 70 percent of the
people and 80per cent of the Nation's com-
merce and industry are packed into one per
cent of the land area, a situation which Ran-
dolph predicts could bring disaster.
GOOD LIFE
Given the necessities of the good life, he
believes rural residents will not only remain
where they are but will encourage hundreds
of thousands of others to migrate to the
country. As a starter, he believes four vital
components-water, education, roads, and
jobs-must be made available in deprived
areas.
Randolph drew a standing ovation in Den-
ver recently when he suggested using new
techniques to identify regions which, with
water resources development, could support
large population increases.
But he was more moved by the reaction
of one individual, an old lady in the hamlet
of Hepzibah, W. Va., when water was piped
into the area:
"She had tears in her eyes when she told
me she had until then never been able to
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP69B00369R000200290089-6