UNTITLED

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP67B00446R000300130011-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 29, 2003
• Sequence Number: 11
• Content Type: NSPR

Approved For Release 2003/10x14 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300130011-3
Appendix
Asia as Puma y Target of Communists
and Necessity of United States Keeping
Its Word in Vietnam Discussed by Col-
umnist Carl McCardle in Wheeling,
W. Va., Intelligencer
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. JENNINGS RANDOLPH
OF WEST VIRGINIA
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Wednesday, August 18, 1965
Mr. RANDOIPH. Mr. President, one
of our country's dedicated and well in-
formed journalists, Carl W. McCardle of
the Wheeling Intelligencer staff, Wheel-
ing, W. Va., has made significant con-
tributions to the discussions of the Com-
munist movement in general and the
Vietnam issue in particular.
Mr. McCardle writes not only as an ex-
perienced and respected newsman but,
also, from a broad background of service
in public affairs and international rela-
tions with the U.S. Department of State.
In his Intelligencer column of August
13, 1965, Mr. McCardle recalled his ex-
perience in having covered the United
Nations for the Philadelphia, Pa., Bulle-
tin, and he quoted appropriately and ex-
tensively from a dispatch he filed with
that newspaper on November 30, 1950,
concerning the performance of the Chi-
nese Communists before the United Na-
tions at that time. He concludes that
now, as then, Asia remains the primary
target of the Communists.
In a column on August 6, Mr. McCardle
wrote convincingly on the theme of the
necessity that the United States keep its
word in Vietnam. He emphasizes several
highly pertinent facts, and especially
clarifies two points which seem not to be
fully understood.
The first is an answer to the question,
"What is the Vietcong?"
Mr. McCardle responds with the obser-
vation that "it is not a righteous band
of men who, in supposedly justifiable dis-
agreement with the Republic of South
Vietnam, is engaged in a civil war. with
It, as the Reds in their own sinister way,
have tried to picture it. The Vietcong is
composed of Communists who, after
Vietnam was divided at the 17th parallel
between the Communist north and the
free south, went up to North Vietnam for
training and then infiltrated into South
Vietnam."
The second point of Mr. McCardle's
column is that "if this is an American
war, it is mainly because the United
States is the Red's public enemy No 1,
powerful enough to prevent Communist
world domination. And we are not pre-
cisely alone, as some persons would have
us believe, In combating the Reds in
Vietnam. The Australians, New Zea-
landers, Filipinos are there and South
Korea, which has already sent 2,000
fighting men to help us in South Viet-
nam, is now sending 15,000 more.
Others are there helping, which is a fact
that isn't publicized."
The McCardle column on the neces-
sity of the United States keeping its
pledge in Vietnam concluded with the
declaration that President Johnson
knows the stakes are high, and with this
forecast:
If the Reds win in Vietnam which they
won't-then they would go on to try to get
southeast Asia, the Rice Bowl of Asia with
its riches, such as tin and rubber and other
products the Communist need. If they were
to succeed in southeast Asia, then you could
more or less say goodby to all of Asia, and
the American defense line in the Pacific
against the Communist aim of world
dominance.
Mr. President, the two McCardle col-
umns are meaningful and helpful con-
tributions to the discussions by our citi-
zens which appropriately are taking
place throughout the country on these
vital issues. In this interest and con-
cern, therefore, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed in the Appendix of
the RECORD the articles from the Wheel-
ing Intelligencer.
There being no objection, the articles
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Wheeling (W. Va.) Intelligencer,
Aug. 6, 1965]
CITES NECESSITY OF UNITED STATES KEEPING
ITS WORD IN VIET
(By Carl W. McCardle)
I am writing this column well in advance
of formal reports scheduled to be made by
Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Secretary
of Defense Robert McNamara on Vietnam.
I would hope that Secretaries Rusk and
McNamara would say that the United States
is not going to give way in Vietnam and
that we will do what is necessary to drive
the Reds back to where they belong above
the 17th parallel from which they invaded
South Vietnam. I would also personally
welcome it if the two U.S. officials make clear
that the outcome in the Vietnam struggle is
of vital interest to the future of the United
States.
Should the United States go back on its
word made as I recall around 1954 by Presi-
dent Eisenhower that the United States
would protect the territorial integrity of free
South Vietnam, then no free country any-
where would rely with confidence on U.S.
assurance against the Communist menace,
especially in Asia.
The same would have been true if Presi-
dent Eisenhower had not fulfilled similar
safeguards elsewhere which had become
American policy under Democratic Presi-
dents. It is part of the greatness of the
United States that on foreign affairs, the
members of both political parties, always
with some exception-and the right of dis-
sent has likewise been a source of the tower-
ing stature of the United States-respect-
fully supported the President.
I had to laugh when the Communist re-
gime of North Vietnam, solemnly announced
on Sunday that it is ready to respond to a
call for help from the Vietcong to fight the
Americans in South Vietnam. This is psy-
chological twaddle.
The highly trained 325th Vietnam Division
is already in South Vietnam, as well as other
contingents.
And what is the Vietcong, anyway? It is
not a righteous band of men who, in sup-
posedly justifiable disagreement with the Re-
public of South Vietnam, is engaged in a
"civil war" with it, as the Reds in their own
sinister way, have tried to picture it.
The Vietcong are Communists who, after
Vietnam was divided at the 17th parallel be-
tween the Communist North and the free
South, went up to North Vietnam for train-
ing and then infiltrated into South Vietnam.
I am personally surprised and proud that
our fighting men so far have done, along
with the South Vietnamese troops, so well
during the monsoon or rainy season in Viet-
nam. They have had their problems, but
theirs, as it has .turned out to date, haven't
been so damaging as the Communists have
experienced.
It had been predicted that the Vietcong,
well acquainted with the rainy season, would
take advantage of that period, which lasts
roughly for a little more than 4 months,
through June and on through September, to
mount a big offensive that would knock us
out. They haven't been able to do that. In-
stead they have suffered heavy losses, and
haven't, in the monsoon, gained one bit of
territory. And the U.S. air raids in North
Vietnam have done a good job. I still don't
believe that Red China, or Soviet Russia, will
actively get into the Vietnam war. They've
been saying they would for months. If this
Is an American war, it is mainly because
the United States Is the Reds' public enemy
No. 1, powerful enough to prevent Commu-
nist world domination. And we are not pre-
cisely alone in combating the Reds' in Viet-
nam. The Australians, New Zealanders,
Filipinos are there and South Korea which
has already sent 2,000 fighting men to help
us in South Vietnam, are now sending 15,000
more.
Others are there helping which isn't publi-
cized.
The United States has more than 80,000
troops in Vietnam. This will increase to
125,000 or more. President Johnson knows
that the stakes are high. If the Reds win in
Vietnam, which they won't, then they would
go on to try to get southeast Asia, the rice
bowl of Asia with its other riches, such as
tin and rubber and other products the Com-
munists need. If they were to succeed in
southeast Asia, then you could more or less
say goodby to Asia, and to the American
defense line in the Pacific against the Com-
munist aim of world dominance.
[From the Wheeling (W. Va.) Intelligencer,
Aug. 13, 1965]
ASIA REMAINS PRIMARY TARGET OF
COMMUNISTS
(By Carl W. McCardle)
"Back in Washington, after 'a trip to the
United Nations to watch the great Chinese
Communist performance everybody has been
telling us to calm down, not to get excited.
"Maybe so.
"But at the moment we happen to think
that too many people, including too many
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300130011-3
 A4618
Approved For CONGRESSIONAL I - - I7P67?$Q g 030013001 -ugust 18, 1965
officials and generals, have been too calm too
long, and it is time that we all get just a
little bit excited.
"It could be that Gen. Wu Hsiu-chuan,
the Chinese Communist mouthpiece at the
U.N., unhinged us somewhat. But we know
that anyone who listened to Wit's 2-hour
exercise in vilification with the United States
his villain, can no longer be complacent
about the mortal fix that we are in.
"As is usual with the aggressors of this
century, Wu laid out the blueprint, and also
as usual probably few people will believe that
he could mean what he clearly meant. He
said:
"'One of the master planners of Japanese
aggression, Tanaka, once said: "To conquer
the world, one must first conquer Asia; to
conquer Asia, one must first conquer China;
to conquer China, one must first conquer
Manchuria and Mongolia; to conquer Man-
churia and Mongolia one must first conquer
Korea and Formosa." '
'Th_ ats just about the way the Commu-
nists are doing it, isn't it? Wu didn't say
that, of course. He was citing the quotation
es a text for his brazen thesis that this is
the goal of the American Imperialists.
"As for us, we are ready to read it just the
way Hitler could always be read, and realize
just what the Communists are up to. From
now on we happen to think that anybody
who tries to rationalize the Chinese Com-
munists in any way except that they are
eager-beaver accomplices of Russia is very
foolish, indeed.
"As a correspondent, we heard the Nazi
supermen spouting their hateful propaganda
in the thirties, and for what seems to be
a large part of our life now we have been
on the scene to hear Molotov and Vishinsky,
GroMyko and Malik spout the same kind of
propaganda at Lake Success, Paris, London,
and Moscow. But we must admit that we
have never allowed ourselves to get so down-
right mad over any of these outrages as we
did over the show put on by Ambassador--
as he has the effrontery to call himself-Wu.
"The whole business was a disgrace to
decent people everywhere.
"Here was this special agent of the world's
tyranny, invited by the U.N. Security Coun-
cil, to come to Lake Success, and 10 peace-
loving diplomats had to sit there in polite
silence while he audaciously called the
United States every name in the book al-
most; imputed to us all the predatory
motives that the Communists have; and,
with a flourish, insulted the President of the
United States. The 11th diplomat, Rus-
sia's Malik, naturally was highly pleased,
leaning back in his chair self-satisfied and
smug.
"After the bizarre ordeal was over, we asked
a top ranking American official how he
managed to remain silent through it all, to
take it from this guest-star liar, without ris-
ing up and walking out of the meeting in
disgust, with a parting assertion that this
Peiping intruder should be thrown out of
the U.N. premises, and out of the country.
"The American said it was all he could do
to remain quiet.
"We then asked a British diplomat how
he felt about it. (The British have recog-
nized the Chinese Communist regime, and
have felt that the Chinese Communists
should be seated in the U.N. and then per-
haps they could be wooed away from
Russia.)
"'He was a bit hysterical, I must say,' said
our English friend about Wu."
This rather long quote is from my favorite
author-myself, of course.
It is excerpted from a column of mine
that was published on the opposite editorial
page of the Philadelphia Bulletin. The date
of its appearance In the Bulletin was some
time ago. It was November 80, 1950. I was
then chief of the Bulletin's Washington bur-
eau. I had gone up to New York to report
the story of the hearing by the U.N. Security
Council of a delegation of Red Chinese ob-
servers, headed by Ambassador Wu.
Soviet Russia had insisted that the Com-
munist regime on the Chinese mainland
have the observers on hand at the U.N.
Security Council when the matter of which
regime-the Communists on the mainland
or . the Nationalists on Formosa--should
represent China in the U.N. was debated.
Soviet Russia and Red China were then
close allies. Some experts say that they
are not so close now. Perhaps yes; perhaps
no. In my opinion a Communist is a Com-
munist. And I think that if there has been
a break between Russia and Red China it
was brought about by the so-called softer
line taken by Khrushchev. Mao Tse-tung,
the bossman of the Chinese Communists,
was and is an old Stalinist. In my viewpoint
a major factor in the surprise ouster of
Khrushchev was that he seemed to be pursu-
ing a course that might lead to an open
showdown with Red China, which the Com-
munist masters did not want on either side.
Red China, after Professor Wu's exhibition
of what a nonaggressive, peace-loving regime
he was speaking for, never has gained ad-
mission to the U.N.
I should perhaps point out thatthe U.N.
was then housed in temporary quarters
called Lake Success, which was somewhat
ironical for various reasons including the
fact that there was not even a lake there.
Later the U.N's imposing own headquarters
were built.
In my November 30, 1950, column I said
that some "reexamining could be done with
great usefulness in respect to our top com-
mand in Korea."
I wrote: "Word here in Washington is that
'intelligence' fell down and that led General
acArthur to be lured into the Chinese Com-
unist trap." I said that, I had seen an
ppraisal of our "Intelligence at the time" 2
ays before MacArthur jumped off on his
n the war and get the boys home by
hristmas offensive. The intelligence report
aid that the Chinese Communists "were
uilding up menacing reserves in Man-
huria." The record shows that on Novem-
r 26, 195Q, some 200,000 Chinese Commu-
ist "volunteers crossed the Yalu River into
orth Korea."
General MacArthur was relieved of his
command by President Truman on April 11,
1961, for not clearing statements by him
through the Defense Department. But on be-
half of General MacArthur it should be said
that he was aged 70 then and had before
his downfall performed brilliantly in Korea.
The point of this essay is that for a long
time the Communist have regarded Asia as
the primary battleground. And the reason
they did not succeed completely in Korea, one
of the places mentioned in Professor Wu's
blueprint, was that the United States and
other countries resisted them with force and
they were finally stopped at the 36th parallel
from which they had begun their invasion.
And as for Formosa, also mentioned by Dr.
Wu, the United States has made it very
clear it will use force to repel any attack upon
Formosa.
Social Security Observes 30th Birthday
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
of
HON. THADDEUS J. DULSKI
OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, August 18, 1965
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Speaker, this
month, 30 years ago, our Nation saw the
birth of the social security program.
Prior to its inception, this was one of
the most controversial issues of our time.
Today it is hailed as one of the most
beneficial programs our Nation has ever
inaugurated.
The significance of social security is
well depicted in articles which appeared
in two leading newspapers in Buffalo,
N.Y. Under unanimous consent, I in-
clude the following articles from the
Buffalo Courier-Express, dated August
14, entitled "Social Security Observes
30th Birthday," and from the Buffalo
Evening News, dated August 14, entitled
"Social Security Marks 30th Year of
Service":
SOCIAL SECURITY MARKS 30TH YEAR OF SERV-
The country's most sweeping attack on old-
age poverty and helpless dependency was
made 30 years ago when on August 14, 1935,
President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the
Social Security Act. The act provided only
bare minimum coverage to many elderly per-
sons during its first few years but it did
provide some measure of independence for
elderly citizens who labored all of their lives
but were unable to build up a retirement
nest egg.
While the Social Security Act passed both
Houses by overwhelming majorities it was
attacked on many sides as confiscatory and
socialistic by those who opposed it. Further,
there was a question as to the constitution-
ality of the act and this question was not
cleared up until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
on it almost 2 years later.
How great an impact it has had on the
Nation can be understood when one realizes
that 76 million workers now are covered by
the act and about 20 million presently are
receiving benefits up to $135.90 a month
with additional increases coming along until
1971 when the top payment will be $167.90 a
month.
Insurance and retirement plans have been
written around this act and its coverage has
been extended to include medical and hos-
pital care for retirees at a time when they
need such protection the most. This phase
will not become effective until next year and
still is meeting bitter opposition from some
quarters.
In view of the success of the original plan
and its amendments we cannot help but won-
der what the opposition will be, or if there
will be any, 30 years from now.
SOCIAL SECURITY MARKS 307`H YEAR OF SERV-
ICE-PROGRAM SERVES 20 MILLION BENEFICI-
ARIES WITH BROADENED COVERAGE AND BmsE-
Frrs
Social security marks its 80th birthday to-
day with many happy returns from 20 million
beneficiaries.
About 112,000 are in Erie County.
Since President Franklin D. Roosevelt
signed the original bill August 14, 1935, social
security coverage has been broadened and its
benefits increased.
The original legislation has been amended
nine times, most recently this year to in-
crease benefits 7 percent, and to provide
health insurance for the elderly, starting next
July 1.
Costs have risen as coverage was broadened.
Thus, the new amendments raise the rate de-
duction to 4.2 percent up to $8,600 annually,
starting January 1, 1966. In the original law,
it was 1 percent of the first $3,000.
Western New York social security offices re-
flect this growth.
FIRST CONTRIBUTIONS IN 1937
First social security contributions were
made January 1, 1937. The Buffalo office had
four employees covering Erie. Cattaraugus,
Niagara, Genesee, and Wyoming Counties.
Much of the early work involved issuing
social security cards. First benefits were paid
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300130011-3
 A4624
Approved For CONGRESSIONAL )REIC67BA0$~Q300130011~ugust 18, 1965
someday, perhaps by an action of the United
States, France, Britain, or even someone else,
might get "a finger on the nuclear trigger."
British Prime Minister Wilson, walking a
knife-edge margin in Parliament, is publicly
pledged to prevent that.
The Soviets are out to prevent any kind of
NATO nuclear force. They now can be
counted on to add the British reservations
to the American. draft treaty to their own
arguments against it, even though Lord
Chalfont officially welcomed the U.S. draft
as a basis for dis.0l3ssioki.
supplied directly or indirectly by the Com-
munist regime in Peiping.
But what is the news that the American
people read in the headlines this week?
Canada has announced that it has just com-
pleted a deal to sell $450 million worth of
wheat to the Soviet Government. This illus-
trates the importance placed on interna-
tional trade and the dependence of the Com-
munist bloc on trade with the free world.
It has been argued that more trade will
produce better relations with the Communist
regimes, and a new scheme now is being
pushed here. to sell vast quantities of U.S.
wheat to Communist countries, especially
~~in Eastern Europe.
Trade With West Bolsters Reds Much of the American grain which would
be shipped to the Communists in Eastern
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
Europe or elsewhere has been bought and
paid for by U.S. taxpayers through the farm-
subsidy program. The Chicago Tribune says
editoriall
:
y
HON. GLENARD P. LIPSCOMB "If the sale is approved, we will be selling
OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, August 18, 1965
Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Speaker, amidst
all the recent talk of increasing trade
with the Communist bloc and the sup-
posed benefits that would be gained
politically and economically, columnist
David Lawrence, in the Washington Eve-
ning Star of August 13, 1965, clearly
sums ? up the problems of trade with the
Communist bloc. He particularly shows
the effect such trade is having on the
United States and Vietnam.
Under leave to extend my remarks I
submit the column by Mr. Lawrence for
inclusion in the RECORD:
TRADE WITH WEST BOLSTERS REDS
(By David Lawrence)
Which is more important-to make money
for oneself in trading with an enemy or to -
help save human lives?
Everybody would say at once that it is
obviously better to avert bloodshed and end
any war that's going on. But when this is
applied in practice, it turns out that many
individuals in various countries, hitherto
allied wth us, have a greater passion for
dollars or pounds or francs or marks or pesos.
There wouldn't be a war in Vietnam today
and American boys wouldn't be fighting and
dying in a far-off land if the nations of the
world whom the United States has befriended
and to whom it continues year after year
to send billions of dollars of aid took a stand
in support of the American position in Viet-
nam.
There would be a different story to tell if
trade with Red China were cut off by the
free world, and if the Soviets saw that the
same thing would happen to them should
they keep on siding with North Vietnam by
building missile sites there and sending weap-
ons to be used to kill American soldiers and
airmen. The Russian people, if they knew
the facts, would not go along with the Red
Chinese.
Perhaps the Johnson administration has
failed to be realistic about the situation.
The President has said that he has ample
authority to send American armed forces
to southeast Asia under the resolution passed
by both Houses of Congress on August 10,
1964.
But, while this is true, Congress has not
formally declared "a state of war," which
is recognized in international law as re-
quiring all nations to refrain from sending
contraband goods to the belligerents under
penalty of seizure or confiscation of ship-
ments of such commodities.
Red China is in every sense a cobelligerent
with North Vietnam. The Vietcong couldn't
last a month if forces and weapons were not
wheat to Communists at 75 cents a bushel
less than American flour millers have to pay
for it. And If Congress authorizes the ad-
ministration's new wheat program, the Com-
munists next year will be able to buy our
wheat at $1.25 a bushel less than it is sold
for food in this country. In other words,
the administration proposes to sell our wheat
to Communists at the low world price while
at the same time it is asking Congress to
boost the price of domestic wheat for food
to double the world price-which means
American consumers would have to pay
higher prices for wheat foods-for exam-
ple, 2 cents a loaf more for bread.
"Moreover, we are beginning to hear that
inasmuch as our grain sales to Russia simply
free Russian grain for export to Red China
and Cuba, we might as well get in on this
trade directly. Not mentioned is the argu-
ment that if we did not sell grain to Russia,
it would have less grain to supply Red China
and Cuba. And if we sell to Red China, why
not ship food directly to North Vietnam,
even though it is directing a war against us
and killing Americans in South Vietnam?
"Although grain is not usually classified
as 'strategic material' in the sense of arms
and ammunition, it certainly becomes
strategic when our enemies are hungry and
can't feed themselves."
So it comes back to the same old question:
Which is more important-to make money
for oneself or to help save human lives, espe-
cially American lives? The war the United
States is fighting in Vietnam has a worthy
purpose and Winning it can do a great deal to
prevent further acts of aggression and to
preserve world peace. But if, as in the 1930s,
private greed supersedes the interests of the
people as a whole, the world may again see
a global conflict. For it was the failure of
the embargo on oil against Mussolini in 1935
and the flagrant indifference of the nations
of Europe to the plea of President Roose-
velt in 1937 for a quarantine or economic
embargo against Hitler that brought on the
very conditions which made World War II
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. PAUL B. DAGUE
OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, August 18, 1965
Mr. DAGUE. Mr. Speaker, in the
New York Times of August 10 there ap-
peared a rather interesting commentary
concerning the approach of certain
Peruvian Indians to their agricultural
problems. It reports:
PERUVIAN INDIANS BLOCK HELP FOR GORED
TORERO
LIMA, PERU (Reuters).-Indian peasants
in Canas Province expect an excellent harvest
because of the death of a bullfighter and
the serious goring of seven spectators.
Recent reports said a large crowd cheered
the death of the bullfighter, Pepe Huanca,
from a stomach wound after he was tossed
by a bull. The Indians believe that the
death of a torero means good harvests and
increased wool crop. Seven spectators who
jumped into the ring to aid the torero were
gored by the bull.
Local authorities were unable to stop the
bullfight because of the Indians' hostility, the
reports said.
If we shared the superstitions of
these Peruvian Indians, I suppose we
might conclude that this legislative ex-
hibition augured great things for Ameri-
can agriculture.
If a bloodied and beleaguered sacrifice
portends prosperity, we surely have con-
jured up about as much as we can take
at one time.
For in the course of consideration of
this conglomerate agriculture bill, we
have watched the interests of the Amer-
ican farmer in effigy, butted and rebutt-
ed, gored and trampled and ground into
submission, and every effort to try to save
him has been hostilely turned back by
unyielding numbers.
It has been quite a performance, and
there can be no doubt about it-again,
the bull has prevailed. Indeed, we see
reaffirmed the old observation that "cows
may come, and cows may go; but the bull
goes on forever."
Who Speaks for Iowa's Agricultural
Producers?
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. JOHN R. SCHMIDHAUSER
' OF IOWA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, August 18, 1965
Mr. SCHMIDHAUSER. Mr. Speaker,
I would like to call to the attention of my
colleagues in the House of Representa-
tives an excellent editorial regarding a
recommendation by the American Farm
Bureau Federation that the interest rate
on future REA loans, to rural electric
cooperatives be raised.
The editorial, which appeared in the
May 1965 issue of Current News, a
monthly publication of the Eastern Iowa
Light & Power Cooperative, follows:
LOCAL, NATIONAL POLICIES DIFFER
The American Farm Bureau Federation on
April 29 recommended to Congress that the
interest rate on future REA loans to rural
electric cooperatives be raised to "the cost of
long-term funds to the Federal Government"
or more than double the present 2-percent-
rate.
This position is similar to that taken by
the power companies, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, and other REA. critics.
Your cooperative was - quite shocked to
learn that the American Farm Bureau Fed-
eration (through its spokesman John C.
Lynn, legislative director) should make such
a proposal to. the Senate Agricultural Ap-
propriations ommittee.
0 Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300130011-3
 Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300130011-3
August -18, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - APPENDIX
were so small that the only value their pro-
test had was that of furnishing some new
fodder for the Communists around the
world. Reports that went to the Reds
a'hroad no doubt magnified the numbers of
those on hand and hauling off a few limp
demonstrators against the U.S. policy in
Vietnam probably was dubbed police brutal-
ity by Communist propagandists.
Here at home, however, it was apparent
that the Assembly of Unrepresented People
did not represent many people in this coun-
try. The people they represented were our
enemies all over the world.
GET CONGRESS HOME
The view of a segment of Washington, at
least, is that the President has been sur-
prised by the speed with which some parts
of his program have been enacted, even
though in the past they have been considered
highly controversial.
The President apparently did not know his
own strength.
Aid to local schools? medicare, even subsi-
dized rent, not only get the approval of
Congress, but there is talk in that body of
ways the original plans can be broadened
and extended.
Only a few items remain on the Presi-
dent's list of musts as he submitted them
originally to Congress. Before he lets the
Members go home, he will doubtless get
them. It is not part of the Johnson tech-
nilque .to take the pressure off when he has
everything rolling his way.
All of this means that the best interests
of the country will be served by as early a
return home by Congress as is possible. Any
Congress which voluntarily yields its right
to perform as a coequal part of the Federal
Establishment, as this one has, is a continu-
ing threat to the Nation.
Progress at Geneva
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
HON. JONATHAN B. BINGHAM
OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, August 18, 1965
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, as Sen-
ator ROBERT F. KENNEDY and others have
recently pointed out, there is no greater
threat to the future of mankind than the
impending proliferation of nuclear
weapons.
It is difficult for those of us who are
not experts to understand the signifi-
ce,nce of negotiations in this field. Ap-
parently, the proposals just made in Ge-
neva by the administration are far more
important than has been generall recog-
nized.
This morning's Washington Post con-
tained two articles on this subject which
underline the significance of the U.S.
proposal. Under leave to revise and ex-
tend my remarks, I include herewith
these perceptive and enlightening arti-
cles:
[From the Washington Post, Aug. 18, 1965]
PROGRESS AT GENEVA
(By Joseph Kraft)
Anybody can sing a dirge on the draft
treaty against the further spread of nuclear
weapons that this country presented yester-
day at Geneva. The Russians are not about
to sign. Prance and China are not even
in the conference. And the draft is only a
piece of paper anyhow.
Even so, the draft is probably the biggest
step toward peace since the test ban treaty
of 2 years ago. Indeed, its mere existence
confirms the President's growing mastery
over forces and pressures that have previous-
Iy slowed or blunted almost all conciliatory
proposals of the United States.
Up to now, discussion of nonproliferation
of nuclear weapons was everybody's favorite
excuse for braying insults. That fatal temp-
tation could be seen even in the relatively
mild sessions of the present Geneva meetings.
The Russians kicked off by saying that the
price for a treaty was that this country aban-
don Vietnam, Laos, the Congo, and West
Germany. The American delegate retorted
that the Russians were using the talks as a
cover "for the form of aggression they call
wars of national liberation." The most im-
portant neutrals at Geneva-India, Sweden,
and Egypt-thereupon declared that they
would make no commitments until the Big
Two settled down to the realities.
The treaty draft at least gets the subject
down to realities. It indicates what is re-
quired, from big countries and small, if
early and rapid proliferation of nuclear weap-
ons is to be prevented. Diplomats would
not be diplomats if they were not adept at
avoiding the subject. But from here on in,
when nonproliferation is the subject, the
world will know who is talking seriously and
who is merely sprouting propaganda.
In working out the draft, moreover, the
White House asserted primacy over two
power centers in the West that, for good rea-
Sons of their own, have usually been against
conciliatory moves. The West Germans, for
one, have feared that a nonproliferation
agreement would foreclose their chance to
participate in NATO decisions on nuclear
weapons. A section of the State Department
has always Wanted to humor Bonn on the
grounds that otherwise vicious nationalism
would reassert itself in German politics.
For years, the combination of Bonn and
Foggy Bottom has been slowly diluting pro-
posals favored by determined Presidents.
With German elections set for September 19,
and with little chance that the Russians
would sign anything, another victory for the
combination looked like a sure bet. But
two happy circumstances, and a large dose
of maneuvering skill, made it possible for the
White House to beat the odds.
The first happy circumstance was the
speech calling for a nonproliferation treaty,
by Senator RoFIERT F. KENNEDY of June 23.
The speech drew widespread and favorable
attention, including endorsement from the
nuclear deans of the Senate, CLINTON P. AN-
DERSON and JOHN O. PASTORS. The President,
in effect, was on his mettle to produce. Next
day, with an intimation that it would brook
no foot-dragging by the State Department,
the White House requested proposals for a
draft treaty from the Arms Control and Dis-
armament Agency.
As to the second happy circumstance, for
domestic political reasons the British Gov-
ernment had been longing to take a new
initiative in disarmament. In eagerness to
engage the Russians, the British, on July 26,
came up with a plan that would have cut
out the Germans entirely from a voice in
NATO nuclear affairs. Such a plan, had it
been put forward as a formal proposal at
Geneva, would probably have blown the al-
liance to bits.
With that threat in the air, the United
States was under even more pressure to come
up with a draft treaty, while the Germans,
for once, had to make concessions. After
2 weeks of behind-the-scenes talks, the Ger-
mans, and the British came round to a plan
that continues an option for German par-
ticipation in NATO nuclear decisions even if
a nonproliferation treaty is reached. That,
in effect, is the American draft treaty pro-
posal.
The end result is that a door once locked
tight is now slightly ajar. If that gain looks
A4623
minimal, the fact is that, just as in the test
ban, the Russians may, any time, walk
through the door.
[From the Washington Post, Aug. 18, 1965]
SOVIET OBJECTION OBSCURES U.S. SHIFT
ON NUCLEAR ISSUE
(By Murrey Marder)
Prompt and expected Soviet objection yes-
terday to the U.S. draft treaty to halt the
spread of nuclear weapons obscuted the fact
that it marked a public change in the Amer-
ican position.
In the proposal, the United States in fact
did agree to a new kind of limitation on
what the Soviet Union publicly objects to
most: the development of a nuclear force in-
side the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Under the new language, according to
American officials, such a force could not
evolve into an Organization with "independ-
ent power to use nuclear weapons" unless
a present nuclear nation contributed all of
its weapons to it.
HOPES PUT ON MLF
The United States, particularly at West
Germany's urging, always has been anxious
to keep open the possibility that the now
dormant and disputed multilateral nuclear
force, or anything like it, someday might
evolve into an independent Western Euro-
pean nuclear force.
That possibility Is still open under the new
language, but only if either Britain, France,
or the United States would surrender their
present national nuclear forces to the joint
force.
That comes about through some delicately
contrived phraseology, originally largely
British in origin, in the key article I of the
U.S. Draft Treaty:
"Each of the nuclear states party to this
treaty undertakes not to transfer any nu-
clear weapons into the national control of
any non-nuclear state, either directly, or in-
directly through a military alliance; and each
undertakes not to take any other action
which would cause an increase in the total
number of states and other organizations
having independent power to use nuclear
weapons."
WOULD PUT CEILING AT FIVE
The United States, the Soviet Union,-Brit-
tain, France, and Communist China now are
the world's nuclear members. The inten-
tion of the draft treaty is to make that
numberof five the ceiling on the world nu-
clear grouping of either nations or organiza-
tions.
In other words, in order for there to be a
veto-free NATO nuclear force, the United
States, Britain, or France would have to sur-
render the "independent power to use nuclear
weapons."
The United States, with its massive nuclear
power, surely will not do so. France, at least
under President de Gaulle, is adamant about
retaining its nuclear force. Therefore, it is
said, Britain, under this proposal, would
hold the key to determine if a veto-free
NATO force might ever evolve, because NATO
then would in effect replace Britain as the
world's fifth nuclear power.
Even so, Britain dissented. The reason
given in Geneva yesterday by cl}ief British
negotiator Lord Chalfont was that the draft
treaty "does not rule out the possibility that
an associatign of states could by a majority
decision use nuclear weapons"
While that possibility may be only theo-
retical, Lord Chalfont said, Britain would
prefer "this door be closed."
In other words, he said, he wanted to as-
sure that if a nuclear nation gave up its
nuclear deterrent and joined a federation of
states, that federation could not have inde-
pendent control over nuclear weapons.
FEAR OF GERMANY CITED
A major reason for that stand is continu-
ing popular concern in Britain that Germany
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300130011-3