in the creation of a dependable system of European security and in the solution of the problem of a German peace settlement that would make it possible to eliminate the abnormal situation in the center of Europe, fraught with danger to peace as a consequence of the increasing activity of the revanchist and militarist forces in West Germany. Both sides proceed from recognition of the actual existence of two sovereign German states with different social and political systems. They emphasized the need for normalization of the situation in West Berlin.

Both sides support the inviolability of the existing frontiers in Europe and the nonarming of both German states with nuclear weapons. They are resolutely opposed to giving the F.R.G. access to nuclear weapons through the NATO multilateral nuclear force or in any other form and consider that the implementation of these plans would seriously jeopardize the security of the European peoples and peace throughout the world. In connection with this dangerous course, the sides emphasized the need for taking steps to promote the further relaxation of tension in Europe and the consolidation of European security. In this regard they support the proposals for creating denuclearized zones in Central Europe and the Balkans, the idea of convening a conference of European states on the question of security in Europe, the renunciation by the states of nuclear weapons, and other constructive proposals and initiatives. The idea of peace, equitable international cooperation and the peaceful solution of controversial problems is finding ever-increasing support among the European peoples, including the democratic forces in the Federal Republic of Germany.

The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia favor the complete liquidation of colonialism and neocolonialism in any form and express their sincere support for the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America who are struggling to win and consolidate their freedom and independence. They state the necessity for the immediate implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples adopted in 1960 by the U.N. General

38 See ante, doc. IV-54.

Assembly." Both sides unanimously agree that these peoples who are waging a struggle for their national liberation and independence must have the right to decide their own destiny independently. They condemn all forms of racial discrimination and express their profound solidarity with the peoples of the South African Republic in their struggle against the shameful system of apartheid.

The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia oppose the interference of the imperialist states in the internal affairs of the Congo (Leopoldville) and other recently liberated countries, as well as in the affairs of the countries of the Near and Middle East.

Both sides noted the importance of securing conditions for equal economic cooperation and of removing all forms of discrimination in international economic relations with the aim of gradually reducing and eliminating differences in the level of economic development, which would contribute to better international understanding, social progress and the consolidation of peace throughout the world.

The sides gave a positive evaluation to the results of the work of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and express their readiness to fight in full measure for the implementation and further elaboration of an appropriate international policy in this field.

The Soviet Union and the S.F.R.Y. believe that the efforts of the UN. member-countries should be directed at enhancing the role and effectiveness of the United Nations in the cause of supporting peace and security throughout the world on the basis of respect for the principles of the U.N. Charter. Both sides favor the speediest normalization of the work of the United Nations. The sides are convinced that it is essential to achieve more rapid implementation of the decisions on expanding the membership of the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council so that the newly independent states of Asia and Africa may be more widely represented in these U.N. bodies."0

39 Text in American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1960, pp. 110-111. 40 See ante, docs. II-8 et seq.

Both sides expressed their confidence that the friendly visit of J. Broz Tito, President of the S.F.R.Y. and General Secretary of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, to the Soviet Union, as well as the frank and broad exchange of views, will contribute to the further all-round expansion and strengthening of relations and cooperation between the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and will make a genuine contribution to the cause of strengthening socialism and preserving peace throughout the world.

J. Broz Tito, President of the S.F.R.Y. and General Secretary of the L.C.Y., invited First Secretary of the C.P.S.U. Central Committee L. I. Brezhnev, Chairman of the Presidium of the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet A. I. Mikoyan and Chairman of the U.S.S.R. Council of Ministers A. N. Kosygin to make an official visit to Yugoslavia. The invitation was accepted with pleasure.

L. BREZHNEV,

First Secretary,

C.P.S.U. Central Committee

Α. ΜΙΚΟΥΑΝ,

Chairman of Presidium,

U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet

JOSEP BROZ TITO,

President of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; General Secretary, League of Communists of Yugoslavia

JUNE 30, 1965

Korea and North Viet-Nam, trade is-with minor humanitarian exceptions—prohibited.

On the other hand, your Government regards commerce in peaceful goods with the countries of Eastern Europe, including the Soviet Union, as completely compatible with our national interest. No American business enterprise should be penalized for purchasing or selling such goods. In fact, any individuals or groups that seek to intimidate, boycott, blacklist, use or threaten economic reprisals against such American enterprises for carrying on lawful trade with Eastern European countries act harmfully and irresponsibly. To yield to such groups is to encourage capricious interference with the vital processes of our Constitutional Government-interference that could at the end of the road make it impossible for our country to conduct a coherent foreign policy.

Americans know that there are recognized and responsible ways by which they may object to any governmental policy with which they disagree. Every citizen has the Constitutional right to speak freely, to petition his government for redress of grievances and to exercise the franchise. But it is the Federal Government that must direct the relations of the United States with other nations. Our Constitution entrusts the President and the Congress with the conduct of United States foreign affairs.

These principles directly apply to the campaign of economic intimidation now being mounted against your industry. The importation of Yugoslav tobacco, which constitutes less than one percent of all tobacco used in American cigarettes, is entirely consistent with our national security. The right of American business enterprises to purchase this tobacco on the basis of their freelyexercised judgment as to the economic desirability of such a coursewithout fear of reprisals-should be fully preserved if the objectives of our foreign policy are not to be undermined by the whim or prejudice of any organized pressure group.

We are advised that the cigarette industry, after consultation with the United States Government, has condemned these threats of intimidation and has announced its inten

42 At his daily news conference on Oct. 11, 1965, Robert McCloskey, Director of the Office of News, Department of State, responded to questioning on the issuance of the above letter, in the course of which reference was made to the cancellation by the Firestone Rubber Co. in July 1965 of its agreement with the Rumanian Government to build a synthetic rubber plant in that country. The cancellation had been made following a campaign of adverse publicity conducted by organized pressure groups in the United States (see The New York Times, Jan. 5, July 26, and July 27, 1965). Mr. McCloskey stated, on Oct. 11, that "in the matter of the Firestone case .. the [U.S. Government was willing to give Firestone full support.... It was further prepared to write a similar letter, or a similar public statement, whenever the company wanted it. However, the Firestone Company chose to terminate its negotiations, which were underway at that time." (Department of State files; see also The New York Times, Oct. 12, 1965.)

.

Part VI

Document VI-1

Reply Made by the Secretary of State (Rusk) to a Question Asked on an NBC Television Program, January 3, 19651

The Attitude of the New Soviet Leaders Toward the United States

They [-the new Soviet leaders, Messrs. Brezhnev and Kosygin-] have indicated in a variety of ways that they maintain the general posture of peaceful coexistence, that they would like to find additional points at which some agreement might be possible, that they would be prepared to search for points of further agreement. We have been, on the other hand, disturbed by the strong attitudes that they have taken with respect to South VietNam and to the Congo. If these are examples of wars of liberation which are in accordance with their doctrine they seem still committed to support, then we have some very tough times ahead. We have some serious issues with them that we will have to work at. But in general I would think that there is, there continues to be, a certain caution in their approach, that their attitude is marked by a certain respect for the United States, just as our attitude is marked by a certain respect for the vital interests of the Soviet Union in terms of their own situation, But again, I don't see dramatic movement in either direction, either negatively or positively, at the moment.

1 Department of State Bulletin, Jan. 18, 1965, p. 68.

'See American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1964, pp. 644–645.

Document VI-2

Remarks by the President (Johnson) on Receipt of a Report on United States-Soviet Trade Relations From a Group of American Businessmen, January 7, 1965 (Excerpt)3

The Possibility of Increasing
United States Trade
With the Soviet Union

I think all of you know your Government is committed to explore ways to increase peaceful trade with the Soviet Union and with the countries of Eastern Europe.' Now the leaders of both business and labor have had some exchanges and have some good solid recommendations, some of which you made this morning and we will want to pursue further. I am confident that the results of these meetings will-and these trips, these exchanges, will be to improve both our understanding and theirs of what must be done if we are to take advantage of the possibility of trade between us.

As I observed a night or so ago when I addressed the Congress, if we are to live together in peace, we must know each other better. A long axiom in my political thinking has been that a man's judgment is no better than his information on

3 Department of State Bulletin, Jan. 25, 1965, pp. 102-103. President Johnson's remarks at the White House followed a statement (text ibid., pp. 101-102) by William Blackie, President of the Caterpillar Tractor Co., acting as spokesman for the group of businessmen reporting on their participation in the Business International Executive Roundtable, held at Moscow, Dec. 15-20, 1964.

See ante, doc. V-2. Ante, doc. I-1.