Page 8


Ranking U.S. Officials Give Policy Briefing reforms, a spokesman said each beyond comprehension. The power internationally guaranteed city, with our troops there.” The Observer representative, inquiring again, but stating he was not quite sure what words to use, asked the spokesman what the policy of the government is toward taking steps that might result in “the reduction of mutual hostility.” ” ‘Reduction of tension’ is the Russian word for this,” came the reply. “We feel with justification that it is the Soviets that grind out this propaganda. . . . You are not going to get any serious change of tension until you get a basic change in Soviet ideology.” He said Russians will not agree to inspection of existing armaments. “On the other hand,” he said, in a somewhat conflicting temper, “there is a recognition that the existence of nuclear weapons is a real block to the use of force. I’m not sure any nation has caught up . . . As the questioner said, what is the point of a war if the result is the extinction of your people? I believe this question will grow in the minds of nations more and more. It means greater caution in the use of overt national force, because this could so quickly lead to t,” that is, nuclear war. However, he said, while the conditions enjoining this caution exist in Western Europe, they do not exist so acutely in Southeast Asia. Whether this referred obliquely to a possibility of U.S. intervention in South Viet Nam was not discussed. The State Department did not provide the Dallas seminar with an expert on Asia. Under terms imposed on newspapermen present, spokesmen cannot be quoted by name, except for the speech made by Under Secretary of State Chester Bowles at a public luncheon. A press officer suggested reporters might say that “it was learned” at the seminar that thus and so is the case. He said given officials should not be identified with their remarks. Nevertheless, citizens may deduce from the list of those participating the official nature of the statements made. Attending by proxy a play on world politics, if they cannot be permitted to know who stands behind each player’s mask, they can know the names of the players and draw their own inferences. Participants were Bowles; 1957 U.S. ambassador to Russia; John 0. Bell, acting deputy director of the foreign aid program; J. Wayne Fredericks, deputy assistant secretary for African Affairs; Robert F. Woodward, assistant secretary of state for Inter-American affairs; and Roger Tubby, assistant secretary of state for public affairs. U.S. Policy The underlying assumption of U.S. foreign policy can be described as the belief that Russia and the U.S. are locked in a struggle, and possibly a death struggle, in the world. As one spokesman put it, communists are “dedicated, devoted, ruthless men . . . seeking control of the world by the Communist Party” and are “no doubt prepared . . . to employ any means . . . if necessary to subvert and to and the truth shall make you free.” As for the dorm visits, he said, non-violence means just that; “no fair trick or treating when you get there.” When they agreed on their courses of action, Wade said, “Well, I think we’re gettin’ the feeling, brethren.” He said they’d go read-in: “We’re reading the rulesYou know, the big rules.” Leroy Sanders, a Negro leader of S.D.A., said, “It is most disturbing to us to attend government class and understand that we have all the rights of free men and yet walk out upon the street and be a second-class citizen.” This touched the students to prolonged applause. At Whitis and Kinsolving, they sang quietly”We Shall Overcome,” “Texas Fight,” the Star Spangled Banner; at ‘Kinsolving they were led in a pep yell, “F-R-E-E-D-O-M, What Does That Spell?” All officials agreed it was a peaceful demonstration. Campus cops, the fire marshal, and even the vice squad were on the scene. Some of the police took pictures of demonstrators. Wednesday the “read-in” came off in front of the Tower, with about 200 students quietly reading the inscription aloud together, while many others watched. Sam Houston Clinton, counsel for the Texas AFL-CIO, is the lawyer for the suit. He says he will file it within two weeks, against the University of Texas, on behalf of dormitory integration, with plaintiffs being two Negro students, a boy and a girl, and very possibly a white student, too. Smiley awaits the outcome of the mail ballot on the Goldstein resolution before deciding what to do about it. He does not concede there are grounds for saying the administration sides with the students and faculty; he just administers, he says. But he concedes he agrees with Ransom on the issue, and asked if he agrees with attack other governments.” They are not invincible, nor “ten feet tall,” but they are “a dangerous and mature enemy.” A country is no good to Russia unless she can “own it.” All the U.S. desires is that ‘a nation control her own destiny, Therefore, in the long run, national self-determination, the goal of the rising nations, also corresponds to the interests of the ‘U.S. The three thrusts of U.S. foreign policy, flowing from these views of the situation, are: First, military armaments to prevent the Russians from taking over the world by threat and force. Second, “forestall the overthrow of existing regimes by guerilla action” by communists. Thirdand this is the new emphasis under Kennedy “reform of existing institutions” in other countries as a condition of our loans and aid to them to counter the feeling abroad that by giving aid to existing governments, the United States aligns itself with exploitation and corruption and opposes social reforms in “the revolution of rising expectations.” “If we wish to be believed to be for progres,s, we must in fact be so,” as one spokesman put it. Therefore, the “Allance for Progress” aid program for LatinAmerican nations except Cuba is based on a requirement that to receive aid, existing nations must plan and guarantee social reforms in areas like housing, health, and education. Asked about an inference drawn from his remarks that the U.S. might not discontinue aid to a Latin-American country which does not in fact effect the expected the regents, replies, “In this as in all areas the regents set the policy.” Ransom stresses respect for conflicting opinions and the good of the University. “There are no finalities at any one point about permanent policies,” he said. “I think that these problems can all be solved if we can proceed with both a respect of the public trusteeship of the regents, on the one hand, and the completely honest and sincere expression of opinion of the members of the University community on the other.” As for whether he agrees with the regents, he replies: “As executive officer of the board I am trying to carry out the policies of the regents.” The faculty “always has a right to express its opinion on any subject that relates to the affairs of the University”; the outcome of the vote did not astonish him, he _said. The student demonstrations have been in general “emphatic, and certainly not rowdy.” Hardie, chairman of the board, would say nothing. Wales Madden, Amarillo lawyer and a regent, said the board would have to consider the wishes of the faculty and students and congratulated the students on their large turnout, though noting it wasn’t an absolute majority for integration. He said lawyers have told the board that in the cases so far equality of education does not extend to dorms “bemuse of the right of personal selection and the personal sanctity of the home.” Dr. H. F. Connally, Waco, also a regent, noted the regents had not asked for the student vote and were not bound by it. Some University sources hope the lawsuit gets filed and settled fast in favor of the students. Thus have the ironic tensions of higher education in a traditionally segregated environment in curious ways turned an institution against itself. R.D. situation will have to be dealt with as it arises. Castro Questions “Our opposition to ‘Castro too often is interpreted as apposition to reform” by other Latin-American peoples, it was explained. A spokesman said that it is clear to anyone “who collects his emotions” that not only would U.S. armed intervention in Cuba violate treaties to which we are committed, “but we would probably -lose world-wide more by such action at the present time.” Castro is having economic trouble, has not received much actual help from Russia, and has lost as much as 150,000 of the very people most essential to the Cuban economy, the spokesman said. There was no explanationdefensive or apologeticof the illfated, Central Intelligence Agency-mounted invasion attempt earlier this year. When an S.M.U. student asked how, dedicated to democracy, the U.S. can “overcome the paradox” of commitments to Portugal, Spain, and the Dominican Republic, he was told the U.S. does not control the kinds of governments in the world. “We have to find ways and means of exerting our influences that are practical,” he was told. Time and again the spokesmen implored the collected citizenry to try to understand that with only six percent of the world’s population, the U.S. must tolerate other kinds of societies. When the question of whether the U.S. aid program helps socialist countries came up, the questioner was advised that U.S. agents do indeed advocate free enterprise, but it has to be realized that while the U.S. had 150 years to develop its economy, the young rising countries are poorer and are desperate for immediate relief of disease and poverty. Several of the speakers asked that Americans understand that leaders of other nations are politicians answerable to their public support and that while we may not like many of the things anti-American, pro-Russianthey say and do, we must either deal with them as long as there is a chance of keeping them out of the Russian-Chinese Camp or else drive them into making more and more commitments hostile to American interests. With respect to Russia, the speakers presented a picture of a nation on the make for world conquest. It was conceded that Khrushchev has abandoned “terror as an instrument of government” with which Stalin cowed the communist world. But that instrument could be used again at any time, the seminar was reminded. Bowles’ public remarks were tuned, subtly, to a different key, if they did follow the same melodies. Bowles seemed genuinely sympathetic with the rising peoples of other nations ‘. He seemed deeply concerned by the horrors of nuclear weapons. With oratorical vigor he laid into Americans who worry more about fellow Americans than about the Russians and Chinese. He was introduced by federal district judge Sarah Hughes on behalf of the sponsoring Dallas Association for the United Nations. He spoke of the most sobering events, pressures, and appeals in the history of man. At least four revolutions are now going on, revolutions of material expectations, revolutions against colonial domination by other nations, the communist revolutions, and the revolution of military technology, he said. “The new weaponry is almost of the bombs . . . is only faintly understood by most of the people of the world,”. he said. “We know that war is suicide. Nobody is going to win a war today. But if you make it clear that you’re afraid of it, I only say that Paris will follow Berlin and London will follow Paris and New York will follow London,” Bowles said. He said the individual who says he cannot do anything lacks understanding of “all the things we can do” and just “doesn’t understand war,” especially “infinitely more destructive” nuclear war. “Should we pull back from the consequences of war?” Bowles asked. “Of course not. Berlin would go. Then Paris, London, New York, and next Dallas . . . First we must make sure we have the means to defend ourselves, and let’s make sure that we have the WILL to use the means to defend ourselves. This is dangerous business. This is delicate business.” Bowles also said that “to think of using this power lightly or provocatively-4n my opinion this is misguided and verges on the irresponsible.” Americans suspecting fellow Americans as pinks or communists “turns American against American in a very nasty and unpleasant way,” Bowles said. “A lot of people seem to think that communism comes from socialism, socialism comes from liberalism, and liberalism somehow emerged from the Declaration of Independence. “I suggest that we leave the problem of communism in America to J. Edgar Hoover, who I think is eminently qualified to take care of it,” Bowles said to thunderous applause. Bowles also criticized isolationists who say, “Stop the world. I want to get off.” The world is going on, with or without us, he said. Raising tariffs to protect U.S. industry and jobs would ruin our sale of $20 billion worth of goods abroad and endanger our foreign sources of raw materials, he said. Retiring from the UN would withdraw our voice from the world debates, he argued. Bowles’s Answer “These questions are not easy. They are enormously complicated. They’re enormously difficult,” he said. “The Russians can’t run the world. The world’s too diversified for ’em to run it. The only thing is, I don’t think they’ve realized it. But we can’t run it either. I don’t think thoughtful Americans want to run it. The thing we want is freedom of choice.” Imagine telling a Peruvian peasant the object of U.S. policy is “to protect the American way of life,” Bowles said. As for “capturing the minds of men,” Bowles reminded the crowd that Thomas Jefferson said “oar role was to free men’s minds.” Rather, he said, let us tell the Peruvian peasant, ” ‘We share with you deep universal values that have been since the beginning of time a part of every religion on arththe Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule in one form or another in every religionbecause there are certain values that belong to you and to me and to all peoples. We don’t always practice them in our countrywe have more than our share of racial discrimination, more than our share of slums, our share of injustices but you have these in your country, too. Let us struggle to achieve the better society.’ ” Bowles concluded he had confidence this kind of message can be the American message in the world. “The people of Texas,” he said, “have never been known to lack courage or conscience.” \(Continued from offenses would result in suspen