WHO GAINS FROM RED TRADE?

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP88-01315R000300170011-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 1, 2004
• Sequence Number: 11
• Publication Date: June 2, 1964
• Content Type: NSPR

Approved For Release 4 ATS:WR 88 0J3g5R000300170011-2
TELEGRAM AND SUN.
JUN 2 1964
Pert g's Way
W I &$,M* 0
airs
From Red
Trace?
'Lawrence Fertig
The founders of Communism-Marx, Lenin,
Stalin-always were confident that capitalists would
sacrifice their principles if profits were dangled before
them. It begins to look as if there is some truth
in this shrewd assessment.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce-which In the part
has often courageously advocated measures in the national
interest without regard for short-run profits for business- -
now proposes "liberalization" of trade with.the Communist
bloc. The Chamber says, "U.S. controls on shipments of
goods are discriminating against U.S. businessmen with no
accompanying disadvantage to the Soviets but.to the gr.,..t
advantage of our world competitors."
So it advocates more trade with the Soviets. The Clia,n-
ber is right, of course, in pointing to the soft position o E
our allies. That being the case, the more logical and prin-
cipled position of the Chamber should be to insist upon more
rigorous action by our State Department in limiting trade
by our allies. But it is hardly high principle to assert that
American businessmen should get some of the gravy.
The crux of the matter is the word "trade." Most people
think of trade as the free exchange of products between the
producers of various nations for the mutual advantage of
both. This is true of normal trade. But this definition has
very little to do with the Soviet concept of trade. To -them
trade is a powerful political, propaganda and military
weapon. It is turned on and off depending upon the needs
of the Politburo at a particular time.
When Communists talk of increasing trade with us they
really mean that we should send them products valued at
iundreds of millions-without any current payment. They
want American long-term credits. They ask us to finance
a basic improvement in their economic, political and even
ary power. Last year we shipped to the Soviets a little
over $20 million of goods-a mere drop in the bucket ?f
international trade. Compare this with the $900 million co
Western Europe, or even to the $120 million that goes t,,
little Netherlands.
The 'fact is that the Soviets can send us very littl'
return for our products. They have some rare metals
platinum, palladium, rhodium, etc. They would like to r C,
us a lot of vodka of course but we have plenty of that ct
can make more easily. Practically all goods manufact. u?.i
in the Soviet Union is shoddy and unfit for export to an
civilized market.
* * *
As itor agricultural products, fhey are in dire neee!. of
our wheat, but we need nothing they produce. When the
Soviets approached us .on the wheat deal last year this
country was assured by President Kennedy that sales
would be for doIla,rs. That was not the. case. They hayi
demanded and received wheat
on credit.
Furthermore, this wheat deal
undermined our basic position
vis-a-vis the Soviet. When we
(protested the British sale of
ruses to Cuba they said in)
11
e tect, "You sell the Commu-1
Your surplus wheat, wed
=11 ace: our surplus buses.'
fit' r-. the difference?"
c