U.S. foreign policy: Demands of the next; Demands of the Next Decade

Now why this antipathy towards us. There are many prejudices and some legitimate. Reasons for them. Time allows me only mention a few. The United States developed its industry as it developed its agriculture its resources were immense and Protestant Ethic saw to it. That. Thrift and hard work. Would. Put them to effective use. Not so in the lower tier of this hemisphere. The Pilgrims came to found a new home. The Spaniard of the Portuguese to conquer. London. And to return to their homeland. Joy the fruits of our ruthless colonial policy. Now this may be Black legend if you please but it persists. What cannot be considered a legend however. Says we view it every day to day is a claim on incomes of the land of oligarchy. And near useless I mean. The nonfunctional bureaucracy chiefly noticed forest cupidity imposed on the voiceless masses of Latin America the North American a C developed a nation that so based on cultural values of an acquisitive society. Geared to rapid

changes in technology. They lacked ever the humanist cultivated the classical professions law medicine and of course literature yes literature. The North American a little bit over bearing his affluence. Never mind the humanity of want the arrogance of incompetent Latin pride. Clashed with the Super Rugby complex of an inpatient unit linguistic. I cross if I'm provincial then and mostly successful I'm inordinately generous. Civilisation I do this. The proclivity of North Americans to unilaterally intervene politically militarily and economically in the affairs of Latin America. And you have an oversimplified perhaps. But nevertheless rather accurate cost effect relationship between the north and the south of this hemisphere with its consequent eruptions of emotionalism tensions tensions carelessness and recriminations.

Thanks our last panelist. None of you are saying. Speaking about many hours in the world. Join us here to die a soft and fast Western European Firster. Thank you for saying Western Europe. It is a phrase that has not been used very much of late. Just to refresh your memories may I remind you that Western Europe is a peninsula loosely associated with a cluster of small offshore islands lying to the north west of Thailand. There are various ways of measuring the importance of Western Europe. I mean that there are no Rifkin for saying that it's the most important important part of the world which indeed I think it is. I've been help myself from having once done a little exercise on the last Olympics

Games. I really did the some of the scores of the individual countries in slightly unorthodox fashion. I added together all of the Western European non communist countries as one and I added together the east european not including Russia Communist countries as another unit. This surprising result came out that the winner was not the United States of the Soviet Union but Western Europe. The second ranking was Eastern Europe the third was the United States and the fourth was the Soviet Union. There is a measure of there a symbolic measure of how important Europe can be. The United States recognizes that importance in the early warriors from the time we got into World War 2 on down. We evolved the first long term foreign policy in the entire history of the United States a policy aimed at the day when Western European countries would be

united in a common market would be defended by a single combined military force and would be moving towards political unity in harmony with the United States. Progress towards that goal was steady and consistent. From 1945 when the war ended down until three years ago I cannot prove that because for three years we've been specializing in Southeast Asia that we have. That the progress has been halted and turned. I can say and I think it is indisputable that during the three years of our specialization on Southeast Asia there has been what you could only call negative progress towards the American grand design for Europe. If you look at Europe today it is in fact a collection of second rate powers evolving in individual orbits concerned with individual problems. Among them France is at the moment

on top and has appointed itself the guardian of the continent's gates against the British. The Germans recently interested in bringing their Germanic cousins the Anglo Saxons into the Common Market have just bent the knee once again to Charles de Gaulle who is the uncrowned de facto Emperor of continental Europe. Some laugh it is. And that brings us to posturings The fact is that he is today the most influential single figure between New York City and the Ural Mountains. I've heard it suggested that I should say that between the Pacific Coast and the euro. My proposition is simply that. Partly. Due to our neglect of the most important part of the world one of the greatest projects in American history has I can't say fairly fail because I must believe because it is so important to us that somehow it will be revived. But my proposition basically is

that at some point before it is altogether too late we must turn around and pay more attention again to Europe and attempt to revive the trend toward unity. The fact of the matter is as of the present moment that the golden days of the Cold War when Washington and its west European allies were joined in neutral needed mutual trust be long. Now to history and we must do something about reviving a similar design. Thank you. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. We have a number of excellent questions. Some of them duplicate each other. So I've sifted them out and I'm able to control the questions. Must be quite plain. I can't control my colleagues on this panel. I would ask the question to one member of the panel and I would ask that to add. My own way. And eliminating

way and I would even urge never succeed unless the other members the panel think you answer the question wrong not to the man so we get several answers to the question I would like the first question which I asked Mr. Isaacs what should be our first step toward stopping the Vietnam Holocaust and still save face. Well you can see. The easy question. I don't know about saving face. We have already lost so much face that it hardly seems that this should be an absolutely cardinal feature of whatever we do now attempt to do by way of extricating ourselves extrication is going to be an extremely difficult task it's harder today than it was four weeks ago was harder than it had been. A month or two or so or six earlier than that and nobody can blink away the enormous cost and complexity of the

problem of getting ourselves out of this mess. As Mrs. Frederick Lewis Allen said many many years ago anything is easier to get into than out and this is certainly illustrated in a in a dramatic way in Vietnam. However. It's possible to be can at any rate by a decision to extricate. And this is the critical thing we have to face. We have to have a president of the United States who will say to some advisors the policy now is to extricate and I watch scenarios which will show us the various ways in which we can begin working toward that end go. The guy was saying Coke and. I don't think it's ever possible not to bracket this question of how the devil will we get out which is what President Johnson keeps asking with anguish and with scenery to the other question what are the consequences of staying in and doing

more of the same of what we're doing now and what was what his doing more of the same means it means sending another hundred thousand another 200000 another million troops together to accomplish one ends and how. In other words these are two. Questions that have to be viewed together because if doing more of same for seeding to send more forces to try to get that will win victory that way she is going to lead us into more and more dangerous situations. It will become all the more impossible ever to extricate ourselves will have to go on from there to some other in a larger and more unimaginable country. Next question all of us to Richard Gardiner one of the indispensable conditions for securing peace in Vietnam. Well I think that realistically there are three

options open to the United States in Vietnam. Option one is to go on on the present course seeking a military victory. And I agree with Harold Isaacs that that is not a practicable course not only because victory is not going to be possible but I don't believe the American people will pay the price even if it were possible. Option number two is to bug out. Simply withdraw the forces and watch on our television screens as the Vietcong flag is hoisted over the presidential palace in Saigon and thousands of people are put to the wall and massacred. Now that option I don't think the American people will take either because I believe it will send a tremor through Asia through American society through Berlin and fundamentally erode the

whole position of freedom in the world. If America makes guarantees of the security of a people however mistakenly and then walk away from it without taking account of the consequences I think the whole world position is undermined. And what is perhaps. More serious. The will of the American people to continue to assume responsibilities. After such a humiliation will be fatally undermined. So I come now to option number three and that is a political settlement which gives unconditional victory to Neither side. Some kind of a coalition regime at least in a transitional period until that can be elections in South Vietnam under adequate international supervision by the United Nations. A coalition in which the Vietcong would have to participate or perhaps another variant would be a kind of loose federation in which the Vietcong control de facto over certain areas is recognized and the control of other groups

over other areas is recognized. Now I don't. I'm frank to admit I don't like Option number three too much because it would involve substantial risks that by political means if not by other means the thing might slide in three to five years. But I think we could take that as against the other two options. I would opt for number three. The real question is will give us option number three. My guess is he probably won't give it to us before November unless he wants to re-elect Lyndon Johnson and maybe he doesn't want to reelect Lyndon Johnson in which case he'll only offer it to us in the spring of 1969. The next questions for joy are what will happen in Europe when the younger son who didn't who did not know each other in World War 2 on control. Well I can only hope that it means it will be the beginning of a drawing of Europe back

towards unity again to me this is the most important thing in the world because it is my basic proposition that you can lose the world a lot faster and more decisively in Western Europe than you can anywhere else. The next question that puzzled me when I first looked at it as what's the Chalk's of a takeover by the communists in L.A.. Actually it's a question for Thomas Costello NL I mean is Latin America. I think the chances. Have diminished considerably. Any communist takeover. And Latin America. I think that. This is quite evident in Mister or doctor gov Arris the inability. To. Generate enthusiasm for his guerrilla operations and either Bolivia or water Moloch lumpia noticed while. He.

Found out quite soon that. The. Rule Lassus not support. The movement. As a consequence he even lost his life. I think that even Mr Castro is starting to have. His. Doubts about. Marxism and. Finding it to be quite reactionary and I think he's also finding like Marx itself. Found out in the later part of his life that. The. Control of the means of production was not half as important as sufficiency in production as a result. Mr. Castro has no success to show Latin America. And I do not think that his. Word is. Taken at full value today even by Latin American Latin American leftist. The next question if I'm dressed as a film was like What is your view of the possible intervention of China and the

Vietnam War. China. Has been strongly inhibited from intervening in the Vietnam War because the United States has demonstrated a capacity unsuspected by us and even more by the Communists to project massive power across 6000 miles to respond with the greater firepower than we used during the liberation of Western Europe in World War Two and to develop many new techniques of carrying on these operations. The Chinese communists realize that if they were to intervene with open force in Vietnam they would expose their cities their ports their factories to the same kind of conventional but very heavy bombardment that has destroyed so much in North Vietnam. This is been a strongly frustrating fact to it. It is one of the reasons why

the Chinese communists are at odds with everyone today. I have no friends. I have no very few admirers and. Are beating their own heads against the wall not knowing what way to turn. Prime Minister because thinking of the Soviet Union I pointed this out very definitely in January. Thousand nine hundred sixty seven in London and I think he has had more intimate knowledge of the leaders in Peking than we have. This is not to say that we should leave things as they are looking ahead to a settlement of some kind in Southeast Asia. And I have not a formula unlike several of my colleagues. I would say that we then must reconsider our basic policy toward communist China. It is very shortsighted to keep this very able hardworking people isolated from the rest of the world as we are trying to do through our policy in the United Nations. It should be our aim now to try to bring communist China into communication with

the rest of the world. It is very dangerous to have China ruled by men none of whom has ever been in the United States and for that matter only wanted to have ever been in the West at all. Looking ahead 10 20 years we must get China back into communication with the rest of the world and therefore we must review our own policy because we are primarily the ones who are making the effort to keep them from occupying a seat in the United Nations. Next questions for Arnold in view of racial tensions. How do we balance our support of South Africa with the importance of black Africa. I always feel that question to be frank Mr. Chairman. We don't all sing very well. As I suggested earlier we don't have a very articulate or coherent policy in

Africa generally. It is unfortunately a network of improvisation and essentially we don't have a balance of opposition. These are the South Africa is a very difficult one and the whole South African problem. Is a very difficult one. The United States minimally has done I think to correct things. We will not sell arms to Africa or South Africa. And we adhere to that very scrupulously on the other hand we do continue a very important kind of trade economic investment and so forth. And this is quite understandable in a way. The only area which has a. Direct interest really for United States in terms of trade and investment is South Africa. And perhaps more important South Africa is very crucial to the United Kingdom. The British have their largest overseas investment three billion dollars in South Africa. And it is the second largest British trading partner. Giving the significance of the British pound is illustrated by the world concerned about its

instability now. The. Pulling the pegs out from the British relationship with South Africa is a terribly difficult thing. We are literally on the horns of a dilemma and I have no easy solution. The United States can if it wants to ever do what it's done in other areas of the world in other contexts namely use selectively its economic power in terms of trade relations investment relations and so forth. We have periodic we do this for a lot of reasons with other countries this is not unprecedented and within the limits I suppose we have some discretion. But by and large this is a very difficult problem and I have no easy solution. It is merely illustrative Mr. Chairman once more since we talk in terms of birds or areas of the world we talk about foreign policy only that Africa has got lots of tropical birds of paradise and this is just one more. And all of that beautiful and captivating they're very hard to control. The next question is addressed to us all and that is who should be the next

president of the United States. And they are speaking for the group. Say disappointing that since we are at present in a state where you are a quadrennial presidential primer I'm told is the second largest industry in the state. We will all wait with interest the outcome of that before making up our own. Another question which I want to see myself apologetic way. Someone asked Is there any reason why the Middle East is not represented by panel members. Our Middle Eastern panel member had to drop out on the eve of our departure. There are several people at this point quite qualified to discuss the Middle East and I regret that. At this late hour we have an interest

in the proceedings. Question which I'll address to Mr. ISAACS. How can we make our views felt by the political power structure. Well I think in this political year it is precisely a sufficient section of American opinion begins to make itself felt on this issue as our policy in Vietnam that will determine in no small way. What the course of. The candidate selection will be I certainly think in the case of Rockefeller and Nixon that. Evidence clear evidence in the form of. Public manifestations of opinion press showing up in the polls through organization of different political groups to take part in primary campaigns have a reasonably clear cut body of opinion on this issue cannot fail to have its impact on the political situation. And it's precisely this ingredient that we're waiting to see if one goes

around among people who get an overwhelming feeling of this extreme disquiet and the desire somehow to win through to a resolution and the need to concretize. This feeling and to get it expressed politically is precisely the need that we're up against now and this was. Coming. Months of these coming months of politics and campaigning and it seems to me that here in Oregon of all places. If such opinion can be can be mobilized it can have its effect. The polls show all kinds of contradictory and unclear things usually because the questions do not not designed to bring out the opinion that needs to be brought out the attempted entry onto the ballot in California. A strange sort of blackout type of formula was defeated because most people with any common sense find it very difficult to accept that kind of formula. What we need is to mobilize the opinion that is not the hippie opinion and not the beatnik opinion of the Vietcong flag waving rather Cogburn of opinion.

Although all of that has its its meaning and its merit along with its demerits. But to begin to mobilize the serious and substantial opinion of worried people who are willing and will be willing to face the fact that we are in a grievous mistake situation which has cost us nearly 17000 American lives we want to know how many more lives just to rectify that mistake. How many more lives to bring us to some point where we can be and be in a better situation than we are right now. And why do all the alternatives. If this is how. Johnson by Nixon by Rockefeller. We will have some chance of making some kind of a thing back in the coming. From the dark gold of $35 an ounce is a bargain for foreign investors especially considering the inflated value of the dollar.

You agree with that statement. No because I think the United States is going to defend the gold parity at $35 to change it to double the price of gold. Some would advocate would reward the three great gold producing and gold holding countries of the world. The Soviet Union the Union of South Africa and France. I don't know about you but those are not mine 3 favorite countries. I don't know our time is up. Last question was on gold. I moved to my summer observation. Oh I hope you will be the Consider too cynical too Pollyannish. Someone once said that in the golden age or even in the Golden Age people turned around and turned to walk around complaining that everything is y'all.

We very much enjoyed being with you. We can say this confidently much as Potala surrounds me by your questions by talking to you this morning and by meeting up with you and we thank you very much. This has been the last in a series of seven programs about your not of State's foreign policy. Entitled to the demands of the next decade. Our

moderator for the panel discussion was Richard Herman chief of correspondents for Time-Life News Service. He led the panel in a final discussion of the United States foreign policy demands of the next decade. This program center is was based on presentations from the foreign policy associations traveling foreign policy conference. The programs are designed to stimulate the thinking of an informed American public. About some of the issues to be faced by the nation. During the coming decade. Today's program was presented in cooperation with the World Affairs Council of Oregon. The Oregon great decisions Council. The Foreign Policy Association. And. Time. Magazine. This has been a public affairs presentation of Oregon educational

broadcasting. This program was distributed by the national educational radio network.