Prospects of Mankind with Eleanor Roosevelt; 104; Europe Faces East and West

Ha. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha.

European Common Market of six. Belgium France Italy Luxembourg the Netherlands and West Germany Britain. On the other hand has kept the loop from the continent's movements to unify Europe. She has formed a rival free trade area with six other nations nicknamed the outer seven. They include Austria Denmark Norway Sweden and Switzerland. This month the United States will take part in a meeting in power which will try to bring these two groups closer together. Politically Britain has or more concessions on West Berlin either Adenauer or de Gaulle. How serious is the threat of NATO's disintegration. Can the major conflict and the alliance be reconciled before the peace summit meeting today.

Mrs. Roosevelt and her guests confront the problems inherent in what may be seen by future generations as a turning point in history. Todays guests are Paul Rosenstein broken economics at the Center for International Studies MIT. When Canon editor of The Christian Science Monitor and president of the United States Chamber of Commerce and Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Now here is Mrs. Roosevelt. Ha. Ha ha ha

ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ha ha

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Ha ha ha ha. Ha ha ha

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ha ha ha

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

ha ha ha ha ha ha. What can be done safely in the reduction drama. Frankly I don't think we know I don't think anybody knows not just what would be a policy we could pursue step by step with security. Say I think that to an extremely important point because even considering negotiations going on in Geneva. There's no doubt the sea and mostly lucked into a cessation of task awful groups in the Pentagon are reluctant to have a cessation test. It is very difficult to get the technical

information to know what for example the new information which the A C presented to Geneva in regard to underground task is this information really correct. Would there be other ways of detecting whether those test taken place. I think if we spent and had able and dedicated men was resources making these kind of capital investment had a vested interest in dissolved in the same way the AC and the Pentagon have a vested interest in Amin testing and it seems to me we might need to make more progress that mean that we actually going on our show it to a scientific poll way of saying which might be the basis of what we want to discuss might be the best investment we could make a good many people were kept in the dark as to how we made Office best to discover the things. But now this is something we could say openly

because I think most people would agree that this was worth. Putting in a good deal of money wouldn't you. Professor I think that that can be a joint undertaking by not only. But also Soviet Russia and every defense committed these giant funds of scientists to make could have bought the United Nations on the best way so I think on controlling moments and new weapons. That's why it is proceeding should disarmament that type of 20 percent of expenditure and still go on. For instance about that dummy bombs by the first step. Anyone can agree not to have explosions in the and. The problem suspended. It is a controlled and depiction of underground explosions at the bottom that I'd like to ask you what is possible to come to an agreement that no more information shall be given to any more so that we will be able and that they will agree not to for

it so that we will know that. There is no chance of other people coming in and then adding to the danger. It sounds silly to go to that did not agree and neither China whether we should have as much strength of dealing with the know of to go. Yes sir. So far seems to have no if China remains to be seen but while it is designed. The difficult part of this is over those who are and that is yet to be very strong and thick great defender. What do you think it would make a difference with those nations if they really felt that a serious disarmament. I have paid for it. Michele Bachmann say that everybody agrees on moving towards total to solve problems would like to but they wanted then the party is a great nation.

Now that is more a. That's pride of nationality. This is a consideration of the safety of the world as a whole that you can and would perhaps be presented as a contribution to the human race should be presented and then are being made to present it this way. But the forces of national pride for the time being very much stronger can one draw a line of distinction between peacetime use of atomic energy. On the one hand and walk like you see it on the other I'm not sure that the line is peculiarly clear and that if you were going to absolutely prevent a nation from any warlike use of atomic energy you'd have to keep them out of the beast feudal so you can't possibly do. Ha ha

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Ha ha ha ha. Ha. I don't believe General the president to goal will resonate. I don't think NATO is

actually going to be wrecked I think that there will be some sort of demon pack out. No I don't think so. I think we tend to exaggerate the significance of the default position. Some easement at the recent Paris meetings I think and I think it's going to go along so that NATO will not be destroyed that will become stronger and on a broader sense I think we have to realize that we're dealing with President de Gaulle dealing with France we're dealing with extremely sensitive temperament. I don't think we've ever treated the goal quite as wisely as we might have done. And if we try a little harder now to understand what these purposes are I think we do better that than an agreement could be reached in due course with the after the summit lads have met in Paris paid him the compliment of coming to Paris and meeting there. I wouldn't be surprised if things work out a little better all the way optimistic. I share this optimism and the sense that the Gore is psychologically understand it is a psychological problem. It's unfortunate you have to pay

a high price for the solution of the psychological problem. But I worry much more about the things has already concessions he was already updating the postponement of the summit meeting and then the organization put intransigence that I have over difficult this of declaration of armed forces. I feel that the postponement of the summit meeting may make Mr. Cruise ships position may be much more rigid than he might have been in December but he would have to listen. I do not assume that Russia as thick as our image of it depicted. They have that that are two out of a different opinion than what it was just very vague. It's only on balance. And he's subject to all kinds of strain and stress. And meanwhile you may be much less elastic having had the sort of rebuff which fortunately is not presented as if in the meantime this is about

generally goal is coming to Washington and Senator Kennedy can talk with him there and and discuss Algeria and other problems but the United States in general the GOL spent 27 minutes discussing these problems and the fact that there's a language difference. It did not seem to me that many people. Don't think that or do you think that the program which is trying to carry out in Algeria comes somewhere near close to one of the two alternatives that you suggested doesn't you're famous. I think it's just about with you one of your two propositions I must say I think both in Algeria and also in his decision a year ago to give the numbers of the French community in North Africa an opportunity to vote out any talk say they were both extraordinary steps. And I think the office still stays open to a good deal of French Africa. I think the problem of course that the nationalist movement feels it in Algeria is that De Gaulle may not be there forever

and there is a series of years which go by before this self-determination takes place and is still somewhat vague. It must be a peaceful four years and then certain steps are taken to gaol may be gone and only he has to go and to put it forward. But taken as an act of statesmanship at a time when very few acts of statesmanship of being done in the world I must say it puts the Gaulle on the front right. Well I think perhaps even the visit of the president was psychologically a good thing because it was just you know it probably affected the car considerably. This is Roseboro comment on the 27 minutes angle. Senator Kennedy says with great wit that this was not very significant. I'm a little pleased. I like to see negotiations take place at the working level rather than the head of state level. And if one could assume and I'm not at all sure that one could assume that careful discussion

with the members of the cadency had been taking place with the number of American state and British Foreign Office. I would rather see the hard work done there than in a discussion between the heads of state. We've had a lot of experience with discussions because they some of them good and some of them I know not so good. Am I at my fair in making the point that the normal processes of diplomacy have a lot to contribute to summitry I would say we are very fair in that I would say it was almost essential to have the normal profit. But possibly we might have thought some of them had been going through. But all of these questions are great. The military do have some economic questions and now great changes have been coming about in Europe in the economic situation. And I wonder what significance you feel that is going to happen in the next few years.

The one that you can't like to speak on that I speak on one phase and the past professor and the other at the Phase I wanted to mention was the external effect which I hope it would have. I think that the United States is going to have to play a more substantive role in assisting the newly emerging countries and I think it's most important Western Europe play a greater role. The French have done something in Africa in their own territories. The Germans have done very little whatever they've done they've done at a high rate of interest payable in hard currency. British have done quite a good deal. But nevertheless I don't think that you can say that the Europeans as a whole have played a role comparable to the role that the United States played in helping them from 1945 to 1950 51. And therefore this emphasis which is coming about through the common market and through other economic developments all of which are symptomatic of a great rise in economic strength in Europe. I'm very hopeful that it will also come this coordinated effort by us all on these economic problems

south of the equator. I would say that's the dominant foreign policy issue of the 60s and I have been therefore I was rather sorry though in some ways pleased at the make up of the mission which the world bank is now sending to the India and Pakistan to examine the problems of those countries. This is the result of a resolution which Senator COOPER who was the former ambassador of India and I had in the Senate passed unanimously and Congressman Bowles former ambassador to India had in the house. Unfortunately it did not include men like Mr. minae who had been the leader in associating the common market countries with this effort including Mr. apt. Mr. Frank was very upstanding from Britain to Mr. Dodge and the United States after Mr. Dodge of bankers. Mr. Frank the bank is also an international statesman. I had hoped that this would be the opening gun in a great crusade by the free and prosperous countries. I think that if we can bring us

together to that effort all this tremendous economic rise is most worthwhile. If it's just a vote to an effort the Common Market out of seven to increasing their own resources and quite obviously would be self-defeating they object. How do you agree that Europe is now very strong at the rates of growth which was the highest in the world and perhaps the highest in the world economic history. The rate of 60 percent of economic growth for a decade and it said that they can now play it out in a common task is something that could come on positive not the negative program which unites people if the contribution of Europe to the development of underdeveloped countries is to be in addition to a larger program and not just to substitute something which the United States of America has so far carried alone then it can organize productive forces faith and vigor. And I am convinced that the future that the future historians will judge our generation they read that and how they succeed in solving the

problem of the underdeveloped countries. The resolution about the mission to India was that typically moving the sentence. There were three people are they want to be prepared who are men of international recognized prestige and men of goodwill is not representatives of governments that do or to discuss with India how they have solved the problem now that they're about to read the first five year plan and precisely because they only have more responsive that the representatives of governments do not exist. Pressure do not negotiate. You do that then and then you would get that which Smitty's up in their feet. And then the chances what extent are they good. Now the mission as usual is now mounted since it was set top step in the right direction. On the contrary they're getting very much it's a great pity that men who would

lose authority would not be questioned in India and elsewhere I'm not on this mission. Nonetheless even the top step shouldn't be that helps if their faction is not allowed law the better be the enemy of the good is a beginning and I am quite convinced from public opinion in Europe that Europe is aware of the new task and the new duty and that Europe will play a part in the larger program of it under the vote of confidence that. A. Slight minority view on this. On the personnel of this group I. It so happens that I am personally acquainted with each of the three men who were appointed on this. And also with Masoom on. And and with the Jack McCoy. And I would agree that Jack McCloy and Mornay would have been substantially more authoritative. But I don't think we ought to write down to

the three men who were appointed. Mr. Dodge did a very good job in June when he went there on a mission about four or five years ago. ABS is a remarkable individual Prep's you know. Mr Rodin. I called on him in Frankfurt a few months ago and a remarkable human being whether he is the man to do this job with the rates of interest the German bankers charge. So it's a. But at any rate I'm very experienced in it and the Mago person I think Sir Oliver Franks is a very very outstanding individual. So let's hope for the best that perhaps the something is surprisingly better than might be feared can be drawn from this initiative which Senator Kennedy had such a large share. And so I would just hope that these men are up to do a better job than they could could look after they have done their job. There will still be the carrying out of recommendation and be accepted at the European countries now.

This has a meaning to us because of what we would hope I think would be that we would increase programs to under developed countries in order to in the future increased markets for various countries. Now what this means a big program not a program that substitutes for what you've done but a better understanding. And I think it means a better understanding among the people. Now will this raise the taxes of the American people. Oh well I would think that requires a greater effort of course I think that sometimes we exaggerate the amount of effort we put into the foreign aid program a good deal of the foreign aid program that majority of the money spent is surplus military equipment which is of no use to write a credit against it which the Pentagon then gets new money which it buys new equipment so that when you say that you're going to spend a billion $800 billion except for the new

equipment going to NATO. Most of that is surplus trucks tanks which are being would otherwise waste it and therefore does not represent a sacrifice a good deal of price. That's right. It's a very high price possibly And that may be a need for substituting more economic aid and less military aid and then it will mean that that type of invest is no doubt. And then the second one is that a good deal of the remainder that we distribute in the form of surplus food which is a really represents a subsidy to Americans as well as a important asset. In other words I don't think that the sacrifice has been overwhelming. I think we can do more. I think we must obviously do more. If we're not prepared to do more than we might just as well say that we're not prepared to maintain the leadership of the free world. This is not intended to be but we're not talking about a substitute as professor said that we carried the load long enough. Now others do we actually carry a great olo for a long period but it can't possibly be successful unless we're joined by others. Also can

I agree with what Mr. Cantor said about missed after being on the mission because the Germans have the resources I would have been wish it could have been expanded to include them. Yes I do too. I would say this might be interesting. I was sitting in his office in Frankfurt a few months ago and with with a gleam in his eye he said Germany for the first time in 35 years is now an exporter of capital and all the old German pride. Right. Yes but he's been since before the first. That's right. I guess so but since before the first world war they have not exported capital significantly. And maybe being a national pride maybe national pride and the high rate of interest will help the world. It can't help the world. No I agree. I think that pride might be channeled into helping instead of doing harm which might be a good thing to do. And I should say that the genic to help the world would be extremely important to carry some of the best. But I would

also like to suggest to you gentlemen that perhaps many of our domestic situations are closely tied to what we do. What I have seen in the paper the other day that we were seeing the continuing and greatly increase in a program to put more land out of production. Now I am wondering whether we are falling short in our thinking into the queue. And I'd like your opinions senator. I wonder if when so many of the world's people are angry we are justified in not finding answers to the problems of distribution and of providing what could be you not only at home but abroad and perhaps instead of putting them out of production putting it in to production for real

use. Now I'd like to know what your opinion is on that list. Well I think that has part of the economic position in Europe is also connected with it. There are 17 million Americans who have a substandard diet and there are good many millions of Americans who are chronically unemployed aged and all the rest who really never benefited effectively from our own surpluses. And I think that you can obviously do a great deal more abroad. I thought one of the beneficial effects of the recent discussion on birth control laws that both groups the pro and the con out of that should commit themselves to a greater program abroad. Those who will for the United States doing something about birth control should be willing to help these countries because these countries have said before and you and others that they would choose to meet the problem those who are opposed to the United States using funds for birth control. Therefore it seems to me take on a moral responsibility to assist these countries to make a better life for the

additional people so that I would think this is a great I would say our moral principles and our national security meet a most fortuitous basis. Certainly one of the ways is to provide a surplus which is a great asset that has been given to us much more heavily abroad particularly in India and Pakistan. How do you see it in Canada. I think it ties in with what we were saying about the Common Market of Toulmin a little while ago. But I'm afraid again on a rather utopian basis if the European Western Europe goes more and more heavily into industrialisation and less and less to the bay and to the maintenance of the peasant agrarian economy if the peasants are becoming fewer and fewer in Western Europe we could supply North America and Australia could supply their cereal needs and so on. This should be an accurate division of labor. And

yet I don't see it happening. So what I'm saying is that the problem of agricultural surpluses in North America could be solved if we were growing the things we can grow most efficiently and Europe for example was absorbing them instead of trying to raise wheat and other cereal grains and things and and livestock on an inefficient inefficient basis. If we could make a deal with the Western European Common Market area and there's still a larger group by which we would provide them with a good deal of agricultural materials which we can produce so much cheaper than they can and then take the cake in turn perhaps some of their in industrial production compensation that would be one way of solving the problem of distribution. But unless we can do things like that. Mrs. Roosevelt It seems to me that we're playing with fire if we stimulate the continuing piling up of surpluses which up to now we have found out how to dispose of very well said and we must do some work on the problem it's not a

problem that is solved without serious thought. And I'm wondering this has been a problem a long time. I'm wondering the time has come to give a little serious thought now crapshoot concepts to Canada is growing because they have a climate which makes that they haven't the differential in climate that we have. But it seems to me this is a problem we could give some thought to how about you. Professor to introduce some quantitative thinking how much is the income of under developed countries how much and what type of aid they need and what part of that needs can be met by agricultural surpluses. I mean there are fourteen hundred million people in the under developed countries of the free world. They have an income together of roughly speaking a hundred seventy billion dollars. They need foreign aid. And the nature of 7 billion of which sources to be credits in one form and three can be private investments.

And two of those perhaps up to 1 billion up to one quarter can be useful be supplied in the form of surplus foods not envisage that this underdeveloped countries will always depend on food supplies from the United States if not for no other reason because the United States would not be prepared to buy an equivalent amount even in 10 years time in 20 years time of industrial and other products produced by the underdeveloped countries. So the limited in the amounts which can usefully serve as a foreign aid in the form of surpluses is quantitatively determined. It is unfortunate in the way fortunate notation for the United States because if I assume if I may pursue this quantitative speculation that the United States to supply half or two billion not two and a half

billion dollars annually to the underdeveloped countries then five six seven hundred million dollars which means one quarter or more than a quarter here can be supplied in surplus foods whose resource cost here is very much smaller than the other one and a billion dollars which would be in real dollars. Then this is a great advantage. And I speak of that amount because I feel that if we speak of a common undertaking then let's simply assume that there is a target of 4 billion dollars which have to be supplied in the credits. Let's take all the countries and compare had let's say over and compare for forty two thousand five hundred dollars and then the income of an American family would be $10000 us apply the American income tax and its progression to determined appropriate or approximate

quarters of contributions of the rich countries. Now I have made this exercise a few years ago I don't think that it's going to change very much. And the quote of the United States in such a world AIDS program with amounted to about sixty eight point fifty nine percent of the total. I think it's a rather bad way of measuring the contribution and how much one could expect of the utopia in Australia and New Zealand and Canada contribution to this program. What would you say to your figures were now in the United States is now contributing. I do not count military aid so I would say that the United States now public credits in a very very high for a very inadequate amount of credit goes to under developed countries when we have reached the dangerous stage of serious of meaning not Tunnock's statements of how important an issue is without doing much about it. So one has

to distinguish between words and deeds. Now in the case of the United States United States have contributed and have contributed about a billion and a half as an economic aid in speaking to underdeveloped countries. The total contribution of Europe if we count the contributions to France to her of us is different than it is you gave it to be about 500 million dollars. But it's only slightly different more our obligation leverage. So it's in the future there is no doubt that Europe has to increase her contribution very much more in the United States to increase. And then you may not speak of this reductions which were so unfortunate but for reasons of what I might call the most the greatest danger and this is a sacred cow for small and balanced budget. And now right now can I wonder if you could think

I've found. Illustration however pay the businessman an average businessman in this country. Well of course the average man in this country faces the development of a European Common Market and he isn't quite sure whether his exports are going to be able to get over the tariff walls which will be created around these markets and so the average businessman I would say the average one a great many American businessmen have been investing in factories abroad to produce their at at a lower rate of cost and to supply the. And generally speaking the overseas market this is not. This is what has been happening. And some people have thought that too much American capital has gone abroad and this is going to take jobs away from American workers. The American businessman is thinking very very seriously of the difference between cost of production in the United States and costs of production in many other parts of the world

and wondering what he's going to do about it and the leadership of American labor who's been thinking very seriously about this very same thing. And I think we're going to have a good deal of pressure for an increase of tariff protection both from business and from labor in the next year. I'd be very much interested in what the senator thinks about this problem as a legislative matter. What are we going to do what are we going to do about the question of pressure for greater protection in the next year or two. Yes well there will be protection and particularly raw materials. I would say minerals as well as traditional areas of protection. But I would I would be opposed to increasing protection I'm sure the administration will put everyone in the administration is elected in the next year. I think that the more serious area and for the United States I think we'll be able to hold our markets pretty well in effect it's going to have in Latin America. Does this mean that instead of buying the raw materials

from Latin America for example that coffee from Brazil or their sugar from parts of Latin America they are buy their coffee from South America from South from Africa and sugar from other parts of the world. This really this could be a crash. I think to South America with Mendus repercussions on us. That's even I would say that's really the great concern for new developments in Europe probably that any effect might have on business. It doesn't seem to me that the proposed tariff levels change very much in them what they are as far as American goods. I think that's true. And if the Western European developments create greater prosperity and a more thriving expansive economy presumably they'll be better customers. This is this is interesting because we are advocating for Europe but we are a little afraid of us which is very interesting I think. Have I. I think the basic thing is do we really believe that what we can accomplish is to create more markets for ourselves.

I happen to believe that. But I wonder if that in Congress for instance I'm getting that feeling that the people will understand that. Well I think there's always a struggle because the great majority of people are somewhat interested in the level of tariffs perhaps they don't know about them but there are the interest groups who come to see us and then it turns out that maybe in many cases only one or two percent of their market may be that the 1 or 2 percent of imports of breaking the price of the other 98 percent so it's import. But I would say that a great powerful economy like the United States if you expect Europe to move in the direction of lowering its duties has to do it has to do it and take the lead in it. I think that's inevitable which we must reach to. But I must say I think the most I'd like to hear what the professor thinks about this problem with Latin America doesn't think because I would

say our relation to Latin America are going to be a great foreign policy issue. United States you think this change in the European Organization economy is going to be extremely serious. They are the only part of the world which may be seriously affected. Is it America therefore it's greatly exaggerated and that this here have started to exaggerate exaggerated. May I say that one was extraordinary the second thoughts. Spent 10 years of great effort and Wadih of how to reconstruct a powerful and strong Europe. I spent 10 years of of how to redistribute gold and lo and behold. Two out of twenty two billion dollars. Half of that. Yes yes yes yes. And the attempts to do something about that is half the country that is at least the kind of hysterical outcry. But what it means is what the danger is. Let us consider if you will. I mean the establishment of the Common Market. The

seven doesn't raise any. That it's against outsiders one of the few exceptions in the common market which precisely made it Latin America is one model which is very heavily protected. We're going to be raising the protection that that is also against the outside not a few days later lower. But sugar is one of the exceptions. For instance a country like Cuba Dominican Republic and they have an earthquake in consequence because they depend on that production on production of fuel to such an extent. But otherwise if does all that come with a cut on the market lower something that is to customers. And it's actually a bit of theology because youre not prepared to recognize it if some small countries unite and form one kind. This is owed to the good. And

it's to be praised if they can succeed and do with 50 percent having a union is a hundred percent to 20 percent or 50 percent. That is what this is the supreme good because suddenly a sin against the Holy Ghost. It's called discrimination. So this is somewhat theological. But I agree that Latin America in some commodities. Would it be hot hit. And that is fine. All right you are. Hi hi hi

hi hi. Hi

hi hi hi. I

hope also and if he is sufficiently interested in the continuation of the fall and whatever he gets out of it then I suspect we will continue in Berlin on a sort of modus vivendi basis without any very clear agreement. But a situation with which you can live I would just sort of sum it all up. I think we I don't think we're going to have a really clear cut firm acceptable agreements about most of these danger spots but just situations with which we can live that regroup Bligh's of the division of Germany. Surely that's going to continue as far down the road as we can see it. And if to give one another I'm sorry talk so much why would because I'm very eager to do something about this. What about China. Is it China which is what you so impressing Khrushchev with the need of better relations with the West. And if so what about our relations with China.

What do you need to distinguish between the form and the content of the building problem. And this I meant to say something about the summit because because I think that if Russia had not from the that request is unacceptable for which is very similar to the China situation that if the Chinese did not present it in that form but went through proper negotiations then in a reasonable negotiation septum concessions on the Kashmir front could have been granted and in the same way a vision of the Berlin situation if it had not been under the under impossible impossible conditions. So we know we have to protect my position. Yet at the same time I think longer the edge of the continent and the continent means that we cannot go on ending it. We are not the only ones besides the Germans who are to die for the night to Germany. I feel that sometimes just to speak out the truth that with the

exception of many Germans is by no means all. Nobody else in the world wants to unite Germany and that condition the equilibrium used in Dubai. You think the summit will not bring us a solution. I think that this summit if it sets itself up to Berlin but to a wider question within the wider framework of a general relaxation which is find the modus vivendi which you really need to have a vision of. Now I have to tell you that I have to try and sum up and I would say today that we had given a great deal about. I don't think we have too many of the solutions we have we have. I hope given a good deal have been made in a military way I think we have acknowledged that we want if possible to keep any problem. And we do believe that there can be a

reduction in a military way on a slow basis not coming too rapidly to any kind of reduction our total disarmament. I think that seems to be agreed that that will not happen very quickly in an economic way. We've raised a great many questions. We know I think after this discussion that the United States has some real problem. It has rebuilt the power of Europe and helped to rebuild it the people themselves of course have had to do the job. But we have help and we now find that we want assistance which will be good for us all and we hope very much that Europe will provide that assistance in order to make us better able to increase

our markets throughout the world and in a political way. I think we feel that possibly at the summit we will come to some steps forward but not anything definite and that often is import. And now I must close this program and thank all of you for participating today. You are kind to come. So were you do that. I know you're busy and I'm very happy that you could come and I want to ask you to be with us again at our next program which will be on Latin America which we show the connection and our guests will be Governor Rockefeller. Yes. And Mr. Benjamin.

Ottawa. Senator Kennedy is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. canim is editor of The Christian Science Monitor and president of the United States Giacomo's economic and international studies MIT. Photos courtesy of the British Information Services and the French American social services. This program was recorded on Saturday January 2nd. Special guests on the next block. So

when you get married what are you going in Chile. The topic for discussion will be the Latin America. National Educational Television