« ÎnapoiContinuați »
admit of a prospect of greater liberty anywhere behind the Iron Curtain, lest restiveness increase everywhere behind that curtain. So, they slammed the door on a European conference, and started diversionary talk about our being buddies with aggressor China.
The Soviet rulers have retreated into a diplomatic defensive. The free world now has the diplomatic and moral initiative.
We shall, I hope, sustain that initiative by being ready to talk about any concrete point of difference—whether it be in Europe or in Asia, or whether it be in relation to armaments. Persistence and strength won us an honorable end to the fighting in Korea. We must never grow weary or become discouraged in the quest for other honorable settlements of concrete issues.
But some cautions should be observed. Our zeal for conference should never lead us to confer where the only probable result would be an apparent moral approval of the Kremlin's rule over the peoples of 15 once independent nations.
Also, we should never, as the price for admission to a conference, abandon basic positions and programs in Asia or Europe.
Let us always remember what President Eisenhower has so often emphasized, that what counts the most are deeds, not words.
The free peoples can promote their own security by deeds which confront the Soviet world with living examples of how a free society works creatively to advance human welfare. That is one reason why this administration attaches such high importance to the growing political, economic, and military unity of Western Europe. The now operating Coal and Steel Community and the prospective European Defense and Political Communities are not merely defensive measures. They are the most valid and effective exhibits of freedom in action. That is bound to be contagious.
In the Pacific area, there are similar opportunities to set examplesin Indochina, Formosa, Japan, and Korea. If India and Pakistan develop economic well-being under their free societies, that will do more than armies to dislodge communism in China.
In all these matters the United States has a great responsibility. We are fortunately located because both to the East and West there are brave and free people between us and the Soviet-dominated world. But it cannot be assumed that that will always be the case. That depends largely on what we do.
Freedom never thrives in a conservatory. Freedom becomes a satisfying and contagious thing only as it is put to ennobling use. Your Government is acting in that faith. At all the critical points, we seek, with other friendly nations, to put freedom into action.
We know that we shall not have an unbroken series of successes, Sometimes the obstacles are greater than foreseen. Sometimes known obstacles make success far from certain. Such possibilities should not stop us from striving, for nothing makes policy more cowardly and more feeble than the premise that no setbacks can be risked.
This is the spirit that today animates the administration's foreign
See infra, pp. 1039–1097, 1107–1198, and 1201-1232, respectively.
policy. To carry on we need public support. We do not ask for uncritical support. But we do ask for support which is understanding and which does not demand a perfection which is humanly unattainable.
17. THE STATE OF THE UNION: Message by the President to
the Congress, January 7, 1954 (Excerpts)?
American freedom is threatened so long as the world Communist conspiracy exists in its present scope, power, and hostility. More closely than ever before, American freedom is interlocked with the freedom of other people. In the unity of the free world lies our best chance to reduce the Communist threat without In the task of maintaining this unity and strengthening all its parts, the greatest responsibility falls naturally on those who, like ourselves, retain the most freedom and strength.
We shall, therefore, continue to advance the cause of freedom on foreign fronts.
In the Far East we retain our vital interest in Korea. We have negotiated with the Republic of Korea a mutual security pact, which develops our security system for the Pacific and which I shall promptly submit to the Senate for its consent to ratification. We are prepared to meet any renewal of armed aggression in Korea. We shall maintain indefinitely our bases in Okinawa. I shall ask the Congress to authorize continued material assistance to hasten the successful conclusion of the struggle in Indochina. This assistance will also bring closer the day when the Associated States may enjoy the independence already assured by France. We shall also continue military and economic aid to the Nationalist Government of China.
In south Asia, profound changes are taking place in free nations which are demonstrating their ability to progress through democratic methods. They provide an inspiring contrast to the dictatorial methods and backward course of events in Communist China. In these continuing efforts, the free peoples of south Asia can be assured of the support of the United States.
In the Middle East, where tensions and serious problems exist, we will show sympathetic and impartial friendship.
.In Western Europe our policy rests firmly on the North Atlantic Treaty. It will remain so based as far ahead as we can see. Within its organization, the building of a united European community, including France and Germany, is vital to a free and self-reliant Europe. This will be promoted by the European Defense Community which offers assurance of European security. With the coming of unity to Western Europe, the assistance this Nation can render for the security of Europe and the free world will be multiplied in effectiveness.
1 H. Doc. No. 251, 83d Cong., 2d sess.; Department of State Bulletin, Jan. 18, 1954, pp. 75-79.
2 See infra, pp. 897–912. 3 See statement of Dec. 24, 1953, by the Secretary of State, infra, p. 2430. * See Section 121 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, infra, p. 3111.
In the Western Hemisphere we shall continue to develop harmonious and mutually beneficial cooperation with our neighbors. Indeed, solid friendship with all our American neighbors is a cornerstone of our entire policy. In the world as a whole,
the United Nations, admittedly, still in a state of evolution, means much to the United States. It has given uniquely valuable services in many places where violence threatened. It is the only real world forum where we have the opportunity for international presentation and rebuttal. It is a place where the nations of the world can, if they have the will, take collective action for peace and justice. It is a place where the guilt can be squarely assigned to those who fail to take all necessary steps to keep the peace. The United Nations deserves our continued firm support.
In the practical application of our foreign policy, we enter the field of foreign assistance and trade.
Military assistance must be continued. Technical assistance must be maintained. Economic assistance can be reduced. However, our economic programs in Korea and in a few other critical places of the world are especially important, and I shall ask Congress to continue them in the next fiscal year.'
The forthcoming budget message will propose maintenance of the Presidential power of transferability of all assistance funds and will ask authority to merge these funds with the regular defense funds.2 It will also propose that the Secretary of Defense have primary responsibility for the administration of foreign military assistance in accordance with the policy guidance of the Secretary of State.
The fact that we can now reduce our foreign economic assistance in many areas is gratifying evidence that its objectives are being achieved. By continuing to surpass her prewar levels of economic activity, Western Europe gains self-reliance. Thus our relationship enters a new phase which can bring results beneficial to our taxpayers and our allies alike, if still another step is taken.
This step is the creation of a healthier and freer system of trade and payments within the free world—a system in which our allies can earn their own way and our own economy can continue to flourish. The free world can no longer afford the kinds of arbitrary restraints on trade that have continued ever since the war. On this problem I shall submit to the Congress detailed recommendations," after our Joint Commission on Foreign Economic Policy has made its report.
1 See Section 132 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, infra, pp. 3113–3114. : See Section 501 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, infra, pp. 3128-3129. : See Section 524 of this Act, infra, p. 3134. • Infra, pp. 2930–2940. s Infra, pp. 2898-2930.
As we maintain our military strength during the coming year and draw closer the bonds with our allies, we shall be in an improved position to discuss outstanding issues with the Soviet Union. Indeed we shall be glad to do so whenever there is a reasonable prospect of constructive results. In this spirit the atomic energy proposals of the United States were recently presented to the United Nations General Assembly.' A truly constructive Soviet reaction will make possible a new start toward an era of peace, and away from the fatal road toward atomic war.
Since our hope is peace, we owe ourselves and the world a candid explanation of the military measures we are taking to make that peace secure.
As we enter this new year, our military power continues to grow. This power is for our own defense and to deter aggression. We shall not be aggressors, but we and our allies have and will maintain a massive capability to strike back.
Here are some of the considerations in our defense planning:
First, while determined to use atomic power to serve the usages of peace, we take into full account our great and growing number of nuclear weapons and the most effective means of using them against an aggressor if they are needed to preserve our freedom. Our defense will be stronger if, under appropriate security safeguards, we share with our allies certain knowledge of the tactical use of our nuclear weapons. I urge the Congress to provide the needed authority.?
The international and defense policies which I have outlined will enable us to negotiate from a position of strength as we hold our resolute course toward a peaceful world.
I want to add one final word about the general purport of these many recommendations.
Our Government's powers are wisely limited by the Constitution; but quite apart from those limitations there are things which no government can do or should try to do.
A government can strive, as ours is striving, to maintain an economic system whose doors are open to enterprise and ambition-those personal qualities on which economic growth largely depends. But enterprise and ambition are qualities which no government can supply. Fortunately no American government need concern itself on this score; our people have these qualities in good measure.
A government can sincerely strive for peace, as ours is striving, and ask its people to make sacrifices for the sake of peace. But no government can place peace in the hearts of foreign rulers. It is our duty then to ourselves and to freedom itself to remain strong in all those ways-spiritual, economic, military—that will give us maximum safety against the possibility of aggressive action by others.
No government can inoculate its people against the fatal material-
ism that plagues our age. Happily, our people, though blessed with more material goods than any people in history, have always reserved their first allegiance to the kingdom of the spirit, which is the true source of that freedom we value above all material things.
But a government can try, as ours tries, to sense the deepest aspirations of the people, and to express them in political action at home and abroad. So long as action and aspiration humbly and earnestly seek favor in the sight of the Almighty, there is no end to America's forward road; there is no obstacle on it she will not surmount in her march toward a lasting peace in a free and prosperous world.
18. THE EVOLUTION OF FOREIGN POLICY: Address by the
Secretary of State, January 12, 1954 (Excerpts)
It is now nearly a year since the Eisenhower Administration took office. During that year I have often spoken of various parts of our foreign policies. Tonight I should like to present an over-all view of those policies which relate to our security.
First of all, let us recognize that many of the preceding foreign policies were good. Aid to Greece and Turkey had checked the Communist drive to the Mediterranean. The European Recovery Program had helped the peoples of Western Europe to pull out of the post-war morass.3 The Western powers were steadfast in Berlin and overcame the blockade with their airlift. As a loyal member of the United Nations, we had reacted with force to repel the Communist attack in Korea. When that effort exposed our military weakness, we rebuilt rapidly our military establishment. We also sought a quick buildup of armed strength in Western Europe.
These were the acts of a nation which saw the danger of Soviet Communism; which realized that its own safety was tied up with that of others; which was capable of responding boldly and promptly to emergencies. These are precious values to be acclaimed. Also, we can pay tribute to Congressional bi-partisanship which puts the nation above politics.
But we need to recall that what we did was in the main emergency action, imposed on us by our enemies.
Let me illustrate. 1. We did not send our army into Korea because we judged, in advance, that it was sound military strategy to commit our Army to
1 Before the Council on Foreign Relations, New York; Department of State Bulletin, Jan. 25, 1954, pp. 107–110.
2 See A Decade of American Foreign Policy, pp. 1252-1267. 3 See ibid., pp. 1268–1327.
• See Germany, 1947-1949: The Story in Documents (Department of State publication 3556; 1950), pp. 202-274.
6 See infra, pp. 2536–2541.