Page 8


Looking to the Future … DEBATE ON KENNEDY POLICY except for the fact that it was unilateral. I should have liked to have seen a little more resourcefulness used in trying to bring the other American states into the blockade. Even something which would have been a little more than a token, such as having a representative of the O.A.S. on every boat that was going to stop another ship. This would have made it seem less like the United States opposite Russia, but \(rainfiltration. And here, when the President had the ear of the entire nation, I am very disappointed that he did not take the opportunity, which he has never taken so far, truly to begin the process of education on what it means for us to have lost our nuclear monopoly. Some beginning was made in his speech to the U.N. But people are still totally ignorant of what the meaning is of our present situation . . . Well, what is the situation now? The papers tell us the air has been cleared. We have reached the turning point of the cold war, and as one article in the local paper says, “we’re breathing oxygen again.” Well, it all depends. We haven’t found out yet. If the present situation is interpreted by the administration as a justification for naked force, for a get-tough policy to keep them running from one situation to the next, then it will have been a disaster. Every situation which comes along from now on, particularly Berlin, but including such totally different situations such as the one between India and China, will have a different relationship to the nerve center of western decisions, and cannot be judged simply because here, 7.000 miles from the heartland of Russia, we have made them back down. There is also the terrible danger of war psychologyhaving built it up and now having to turn it off. . . . And there is also the question which is being talked about for the first time in the press: what. does this mean to Iihrushchev’s own security in his position’? . . . This is the first time the -U.S. and Russia have really come face to face, and it is also the first time Khrushchev and Kennedy have come face to face. In this sense, it may truly be the turning point in the cold war. It will be a disastrous turning point if it is interpreted the wrong way. If, however, from now on, this present crisis is guided toward firm and rational negotiation between equals, then it will lend a new ray of hope. . . . SCHMITT: . . . I suppose I’m an organization mansome people have felt I was a spokesman for the State Department at times. I can’t agree with Professor Radke who says, in effect, “too little and too late,” but I also have no qualms about forceful action such as President Kennedy did carry out the past week or so. Such type of action Professor Shattuck has rather seriously questioned. I kind of like the way things went. And my attitude is fashioned by my views on our relations with Latin America as well as our more vital relations with the Soviet Union, as well as on our own political conditions here at home. Let me explain. I could not see Cuba as a threat to the security of the United States, of any kind, certainly prior to the installation THE TEXAS OBSERVER’ Page 7 November 9, 1962 of the missiles. No direct threat. Propaganda threat . . . to Latin America, yes. But not a direct military threat. It’s an island. It’s isolated. You can’t easily transport men and supplies to other parts of Latin America, let alone to the United States. And strong action in such a situation, to my , way of thinking, would only have alienated much, if not all, of Latin America. As you know, at the Punta del Este conference in January of this year, three or four of the major nations, plus a couple of the smaller ones, voted against us at that conference, to throw Cuba out of the O.A.S. Now that’s a minority of countries, but it represents about two thirds of the people and two thirds of the terriory of Latin Americaa sizeable chunk. And if we have followed the press at all in much of Latin America, we have noted that there has been strong opposition from important segments of the population, as well as considerable government hesitation in many of these countries, about anything that would smack of intervention on our part, in the internal affairs of Cuba. I suppose that in all the foreign policies in the countries of Latin America, nonintervention is the keystone. And therefore, on that ground, I advocated a very cautious policy as regards Cuba. Now at the same time we had to face the situation that in our own country more and more people were clamoring, “Something must be done about that man Castro he’s tweaked Uncle Sam’s beard too many times. How can we let that little pipsqueak of a fellow get away with that kind of stuff ?” You’ve seen it in the newspapers, you’ve heard it on * the news broadcasts. The administration has felt itself under this kind of pressure for many months now. And I believe in an attempt to justify our relative inaction with respect to Cuba, President Kennedy, not too long ago, made the distinction, and I submit that it’s quite an artificial one, between “offensive” and “defensive” weapons, defining offensive weapons as missiles, and I presume other LEGALS Certificate No. 1994 Company No. 06-57320 STATE BOARD OF INSURANCE STATE OF TEXAS October 2, 1962 Pursuant to Article 21.29 of the Texas Insurance Code, I hereby certify that Mutual Insurance Company of Hartford, Hartford, Connecticut, has in all respects complied with the laws of Texas in relation to insurance. Given under my hand and seal of office at Austin, Texas, the date first above written. WM. A. HARRISON Commissioner of Insurance NOTICE OF INCORPORATION WITHOUT CHANGE OF NAME Notice is hereby given that George R. Matthews, doing business as Matthews Electronics, 415 West Terminal, San Antonio International Airport, San Antonio, Texas, qualified as a corporation on November 1, 1962, and will continue to do business under the name of Matthews Electronics, Inc., at the same address. GEORGE R. MATTHEWS CITATION BY PUBLICATION THE STATE OF TEXAS TO: Morris Henderson, if he be living, and whose address is unknown, and if he be dead, his unknown heirs and legal representatives, whose addresses are likewise unknown, and Elsie Henderson Heywood, if she be living, and whose address is unknown, and if she be dead, her unknown heirs and legal representatives, whose addresses are likewise unknown, and the unknown owners of the hereinafter described property, defendants in the hereinafter styled and numbered cause: by commanded to appear before the 53rd District Court of Travis County, Texas, to be held at the Courthouse of said County in the City of Austin, Travis County, Texas, at or before 10 o’clock A.M. of the first Monday after the expiration of 42 days from the date of issuance hereof; that is to say, at or before 10 o’clock A.M. of Monday the 17th day of December. 1962, and answer the Original Answer and Interpleader of Defendants, Nettie Mae White and Robert B. Thrasher in Cause Number 127,833, in which the City of Austin is Plaintiff, and Robert B. Thrasher, Nettie Mae White Higgins, and husband Albert Higgins, and the defendants hereinabove named. are Defendants, filed in said County on the 20th day of September, 1962, and the kinds of things that can be carried to the U.S. It’s not clearas Mr. Shattuck has brought out it’s not clear at all about the jet aircraft, and the kind of bombs they can carry. I’m not sure where we stand on this. But as far as the missiles were concerned, this distinction was made. New Cuba had some missiles. Small ones, the ground-to-air type. About a 25-mile range. We said we’d recognize these as \(\(defen1.200-mile or 2000-mile range, we consider an offensive weapon. And I don’t think there’s much question about atomic warheads, though Professor. Shattuck questions that. A missile of that range would not very likely carry much else. . . . Now I think once Kennedy made that distinction about the commitments . . . or the verbal agreement with Mr. Gromyko, such missiles could not be placed in Cuba. It seems, then, that both we and the Russians were committed to a certain course of action, and a certainalmost modus vivendi, as it were, on Cuba. But then when our intelligence demonstrated that the Russians had violated this kind of very informal, verbal kind of a thing, then there was little else that the President could do but act most forcefully in this situation. Which he did. We simply could not tolerate that situation. We could not tolerate it, having been deceived by the Russian citizens here, and we could not tolerate it from the point of view of our own people, to whom the President explained it. Forceful action had to be taken. We had no choice. And I think that we have come out very well in this indeed. We have come out far better than I had anticipated. I do not feel that the Soviet Union would launch war for Cuba. Certainly it could not take any kind of conventional action, and I didn’t think they would launch a nuclear war for this purpose. I am a little surprised by the conciliation by Mr. Khrushchev in agreeing to remove the bases. It was my own expectation that he would treat this aspect the same way he treated the quarantine. He refused to recognize it officially, but he bowed to the inevitable. I did not think that Mr. Castro would agree to the removal of the missile bases, and I thought we would be forced to take military action. This is not yet beyond the possible. But it does not appear probable at this date. Now Mr. Khrushchev says he will remove the missiles, and Mr. Castro, even, is talking in rather conciliatory terms, as though he thought we would throw in Guantanamo base as an extra bonus for him. I don’t think we’ll do that, but I think that under Russian pressure, if the Russians insist on it, then the missiles will be removed. I want to introduce one more topic: Latin America’s reaction to this affair. I was a little surprised at the Latin reaction to the quarantine, to the action we have taken thus far. I expected, of course, some countries of Latin America to hail the actionCentral American countries, particularly. Some of those that have been under direct threat from Mr. Castro for a couple of years. I thought they would give their wholehearted support and approval. I was surprised at the swiftness of the vote in the O.A.S. supporting our quarantine, and the unanimity of the act, in spite of the slight delay there from Uruguay because of the communication difficultybut unanimous, as it turned out. This seems to be a little difficult to explain. I see two possible explanations. One or both could , be true. One, we put extraordinary pressures on the governments, quietly, which we may not know at out for some time. But it’s a distinct possibility. But I did note in the first reaction of the Mexicans that they didn’t seem to be very enthusiastic, and they said they would support us if the reports of the missile bases were true. The other may be, and this may be part of their acquiescence, simply fear. I think it was a welldesigned stroke in Mr. Kennedy’s speech, to list a number of LatinAmerican areas and cities which would be in missile range of the Cuban bases. I think perhaps for the first time this brought the Latin Americans directly into the threat of a cold war action. Their attitude has long been that this is not really a major concern to them. Their major concerns are internal problemsnot the struggle between the Soviet Union and the western powers. They have in a broad way aligned themselves with the west, but they don’t do very much. . . . But I think when missile bases are constructed placing atomic weapons within range of a city like Mexico City or Lima, or Bogata, this has shaken the Latin Americans considerably, to the fact that they are involved. . . . I’ve been wondering, too, and I’m still wondering, what attitude they might take if we were forced to invade Cuba to remove those basesfor this is still within the realm of the possible. I’m not so sure that the situation is cornpletely settled, despite the talk that’s been going on. Here, I think, the Latins would be much more disturbed by the quarantine. Here would be direct aggressive action against one of the American states. They are never happy about intervention even diplomatic intervention. . . . The net result, I think, would be something like this. I think most of the governments of Latin America, if we removed Castro, would heave a great sigh of relief, they’d say, “Thank God that’s over and gone.” But at the same time, I think it might well be used for many years to attack us for interfering in the internal affairs of Latin America. I think the best that we could get, as far as our relations with Latin America are concerned . . . is accommodation, and I hope the present accommodation does work out. . . . I am not so sure but that Mr. Castro is serving us a good purpose in Cuba by being a horrible example to the other Latin American states. First, to those of the political left, those radicals who have long flirted with communism. Let them really see what is going on in Cuba. . . . A number of them are beginning to respond to this. . . . And on the other hand, to the elite of Latin Americ -a, the upper classes, who refuse to implement some of the foreign programs we are demanding under the Alliance for Progress … to pressure them to giving way, at least gradually, to beginning reforms that we eventually hope will stabilize conditions in Latin America, politically, socially, and economically. County, Texas, to be held at the courthouse of said county in the City of Austin, Travis County, Texas, at or before 10 o’clock A.M. of the first Monday after the expiration of 42 days from the date of issuance hereof; that is to say, at or before, 10 o’clock A.M. of Monday the 24th day of December, 1962, and answer the petition of plaintiff in Cause Number 128,585, in which Judy Ruth Wright is Plaintiff and Ronald Dale Wright is defendant, filed in said Court on the 5th day of November, 1962, and the nature of which said suit is as follows: Being an action and prayer for judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant for decree of divorce dissolving the bonds of matrimony heretofore and now existing between said parties: Plaintiff alleges that defendant on divers occasione while plaintiff and defendant lived together defendant was guilty of excesses, cruel treatment and outrages toward plaintiff of such a nature as to render their further living together insupportable. During said marriage one child was born, a boy, Larry Dale Wright, born the 15th day of January, 1958. Plaintiff further alleges that plaintiff and defendant did not acquire any community property during their said marriage. Plaintiff prays for judgment dissolving the bonds of matrimony