/ 0 3 ?

KANSAS STATE UNIVER SITY LIBRAKIf,'

NOM INATION OF JAMES RUSSELL WIGGINS

kt vk

y GOVERNM ENT

Storage

W 63 H E A R IN G

BEF ORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

NI NE TI ET H CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON THE

NOMINATION OF JAMES RUSSELL WIGGINS TO BE THE 

REPR ESENTA TIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

TO THE UNITED NATIONS WIT H THE RANK AND STATUS 

OF AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTE NTIARY, AND THE REPR ESENTA TIVE OF THE UNITED 

STATES OF AMERICA IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL OF THE 

UNITED NATIONS

s

SEPTEMBER 30, 1968

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Foreign Relations

20-207

U.S . GO VE RN ME NT PR IN TIN G O FFIC E 

WA SH INGT ON : 196S
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIO NS

J. W. F U LB R IG H T, Arkansas, Chai rman

•

A .

JOHN SP A R K M A N , Alabama 

M IK E M A N SFIE LD , Montana 

W A YN E M ORS E, Oregon 

A L B E R T GO RE , Tennessee 

F R A N K J. LA USC H E, Ohio 

F R A N K CH URC H, Idaho 

STU A R T SY M IN G TON , Missouri 

TH OM AS J. DODD, Connecticut 

JO SE PH S. CLA R K , Penn sylvania 

CLAIB O RN E P E L L, Rhode Island 

EU G EN E J. McCa r t h y , Minnesota

BO U R K E B. H IC K E N LO O PE R , Iowa 

G EO RG E D. A IK E N , Vermont 

F R A N K CA RLS ON, Kansas 

K A R L E. M U N D T, South Da kota 

C LIF FO R D P. CA SE , New Jersey 

JOHN SH ERM AN CO OPE R, Ken tuc ky 

JOHN J. W IL LI AM S, Delaware

Cae l M arcy, Chief of Staff

A rthu r M . K uh l, Ch ief Clerk

GJ)
C O N T E N T S

Statements of— Page

Dobriansky, Dr. Lev E., chairman, National Captive Nations Committee_________________________________________________ 35

Wiggins, James Russell, nominee to be U.S. Representative to the

United Nations with the rank of Ambassador, and U.S. Representative in the Security Council____________________________ 2

Insertions for the record:

Biographic sketch of Mr. Wiggins____________________________ 1

Letter to the editor from the Washington Post, July 15, 1968______ 41

Appendix: Material submitted by Dr. Dobriansky___________________ 47

(in)

NOMINATION OF JAMES RUSSELL WIGGINS

MONDAY, SEPTEM BER 30, 1968

U n it ed Sta tes S e n a t e,

C om m it te e on F o r eig n R ela tio n s,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice at 9:15 a.m., in room 4221,

New Senate Office Building, Senator John Sparkman presiding.

Present: Senators Sparkman, Fulbright, Symington, Dodd, Mundt,

and Case.

Senator Sparkman. Let the committee come to order, please.

The purpose of the meeting this morning is to hear Mr. James

Russell Wiggins of the District of Columbia, to be the R epresentative 

of the United States of America to the United Nations with the rank 

and status of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, and the 

Representative of the United States of America in the Security Council 

of the United Nations.

Mr. Wiggins, we have your biographic sketch. I believe most of us 

know you, and have known a great deal about you during the years 

you have been here.

(The biographic data referred to follows:)

J ames R u ssell W ig g in s

Position for which considered: The Represe ntative of the Un ited States of America 

to the United Nations with the rank and status of Ambassador Extraordin ary 

and Plenipotentiary, and the Representative of the United States of America 

in the Security Council of the United Nations, and a Represe ntative of the 

United States of America to the Twenty-third Session of the General Assembly 

of the United Natio ns.

Present Position: Editor and Executive Vice President, Washington Pos t Times 

Herald.

Office Address: 1515 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Born\ Luverne, Minnesota, December 4, 1903.

Legal Residence: District of Columbia.

Marital Status: Married February 8, 1923.

Family:

Wife: Mabel E. Preston 

Children:

William James

Geraldine (Mrs. Rohland Thomssen, Jr.)

Patricia (Mrs. Thomas Nolan Schroth)

John Russell

Home Address: 2218 Wyoming Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.

Education: Educa ted in Luverne public schools; LL.D., Colby College, 1954; 

Doctor Laws (honorary), University of Maine, 1967.

Experience:

Non-Go vernm ent:

1922-25—Reporter, Rock County Star, Luverne, Minnesota

1925-30—Editor and publisher, Luverne Star

1930-33—Editorial writer, Dispatch-Pioneer Press, St. Paul

1933-38—Washington correspondent

1938-45—Managing edito r

Mi litary :

1943-44—Served as air combat intelligence officer, Mediterranean 

the ate r

1944 —Commissioned rank of captain, Air Corps; then major 

(11
2

Non-Government:

1945- 46—Editor

1946- 47—Assistant to the publisher, New York Times

1947- 53—Managing editor, Washington Post 

1953-55—Vice President, managing edito r

1955-60—Vice President, executive editor, Washington Pos t Times 

Herald

1960 to present—E ditor and Executive Vice President, Washington 

Post Times Herald

Memberships: Member, American Society Newspaper Editors (past president),

Sigma Delta Chi, Mason

Clubs: National Press, Cosmos, Gridiron (Washington)

Author: Freedom or Secrecy, 1956

Senator Sparkman. Do you have anything to add to it?

STATEMENT OF JAMES RUSSELL WIGGINS, NOMINEE

Mr. Wiggins. Senator, I think you are probably fully informed on 

my biography.

I will say tha t the President called me last week, advised me he 

wished to submit my nomination. I am sensible of the high honor 

involved, in view of the distinction of the great Americans who have 

served in this post—Warren Austin, Cabot Lodge, Adlai Stevenson, 

Arthur Goldberg, and George Ball. And I am further sensible of the 

importance of the post in view of the present troubled state of the 

world. And I hope tha t I may live up to the expectations of the 

President if I am permitted to serve.

SU PPO R T FO R U N IT E D N A TIO N S E X PR E SSE D

Senator Sparkman. You do believe in the United Nations? Do you 

support the United Nations?

Mr. Wiggins. I have followed with enormous interest and concern 

as a citizen and a newspaperman the history of the United Nations 

from its commencement at San Francisco, when all our hopes and 

expectations probably exceeded the bound of any reasonable anticipation. And although its history has been fraught with difficulty, 

enormous problems have confronted it, I still believe tha t it is the 

great hope of our own country and of the world for introducing order 

and tranquility into nations, and rescue mankind from some of its 

historic enemies.

Senator Sparkman. You recognize what we might term its weaknesses, its failures in some respects. But you believe tha t it is worth 

preserving nevertheless.

Mr. Wiggins. Tha t would be my view, Senator.

Senator Sparkman. That would be your view.

ST ATE D E PA R T M E N T B R IE F IN G

Let me ask you just one more question, and then I will turn you 

over to my colleagues.

You have been briefed, I presume, in the short time tha t you have 

had notice of your appointment?

Mr. Wiggins. I have had some conferences, but I cannot say that 

I have been adequately briefed as yet. I arrived here only Thursday 

night. I had the session with the President and with Mr. Rostow and
3

Secretary Rusk, and with Secretary Sisco. But I have not gone 

through the total briefing in the various affairs tha t come within 

the comprehension of the United Nations delegation.

C O N FL IC T OF IN T E R E S T Q U E STIO N

Senator Sparkman. Now, the question I was going to ask you is 

this. I assume you have discussed with the counsel of the State 

Department or with some of the officials your financial interests and 

so forth. Have you been advised as to that?

Mr. Wiggins. Senator, I submitted to the State Department a 

property statement, and I was advised by Mr. Meeker, the Dep artment legal officer, t hat it was satisfactory, and there was no conflict 

of interest.

Senator Sparkman. And you feel confident that you have no 

holdings or interests tha t would create for you any problems.

Mr. Wiggins. I do not, sir.

Senator Sparkman. Thank you very much.

Senator Fulbright is the Chairman, but he insisted I proceed this 

morning, since he is here only temporarily. Senator Fulbright.

The Chairman. I have been away on other business, and I thought 

the continuity of the hearings might be better left in the hands of 

Senator Sparkman.

Mr. Wiggins, it is very nice to have you here this morning.

R EA SO N FO R N O M IN E E ’S IN T E R E S T IN A PPO IN T M E N T

While I have known you as a great newspaperman, I have not 

known or thought of your interest in the diplomatic service. Have 

you ever served in the diplomatic service before?

Mr. Wiggins. I have not, sir. I have only had one presidential 

commission in my life, sir, and tha t was a commission to serve in the 

Army of the United States.

The Chairman. Do you have any idea of taking up diplomacy as 

a permanent career? Do you look upon this as the beginning of a 

career in diplomacy?

Mr. Wiggins. I think it is rather late in my life to contemplate a 

long career in diplomacy, Senator.

The Chairman. Why are you interested in this appointment?

Mr. Wiggins. Senator, what I am about to say may sound to a 

cynical and a somewhat skeptical world differently than I intend it 

to sound, but I am interested in it for only one reason—I am in love.

The Chairman. What?

Mr. Wiggins. I am in love. I am in love with the United States. 

I am in love with its history, which I have read daily for 50 years, 

and studied its pages as some men study a breviary or a bible or the 

Koran or the Torah. I am in love with its institutions upon which I 

believe the freedom and liberty of mankind in this world may chiefly 

depend. I am in love with the people of this country whose good 

intentions I believe in with all my heart, and whose spirit I think 

rises on every occasion tha t is summoned to serve the good interests 

of the world. I am in love with this land, with every corner of it tha t 

I have visited, and every section of it has filled me with inspiration
4

and wonder and amazement at the progress tha t our people have 

made on this continent.

I believe in the future of my country. I think I can serve this 

country in this capacity and lend to it something of the common 

touch. I believe that the President’s confidence in me is not entirely 

misguided. And I hope to be able to vindicate and confirm possession 

of that love by my conduct in the office in which he has asked me to 

serve.

U .N . IS A W ORLD IN S T IT U T IO N

The Chairman. Well, Mr. Wiggins, I appreciate tha t sentiment. I 

think it is a very commendable one. But the United Nations is not 

just a United States institution. It is a world institution, in which 

there are many members. How many are there now?

Mr. Wiggins. 125 members, Senator. And I understand tha t the 

United States is but one among the great nations assembled here. But I 

believe that because of its position of power and influence in the world, 

its conduct at the United Nations is a ma tter of enormous importance, 

and I am sure tha t I speak here upon matters in which you and your 

colleagues have evidenced greater knowledge and concern over many 

years.

The Chairman. You are in love with the United States, but are 

you in love with the United Nations?

Mr. Wiggins. I stated earlier, Senator, tha t I believed the United 

Nations at the very outset, at its initiation, was attended by probably 

higher hopes and expectations than were realizable in a less than ideal 

world. In spite of its difficulties and harassments and tragedies, and 

complications, it remains the best forum on earth for the resolution of 

the tragic questions th at constantly threaten the survival, not only of 

this Nation, but of all the nations, and perhaps even the survival of 

mankind. I think there is no alternative to it for the resolution of the 

sharp political struggles tha t constantly recur in the Assembly, and 

there is no agency in the world that is as well equipped to carry on in 

every corner of the world the struggles against the even older enemies 

of mankind, ignorance, illiteracy, disease, and discrimination.

E F F E C T IV E N E S S OF T H E U N IT E D N A TIO N S

The C hairman. Do you think the United Nations has really been 

effective?

Mr. Wiggins. I think it has been effective, more effective than 

any international organization tha t has preceded it, and tha t its very 

difficulties are a tribute to its effectiveness. I believe th at history does 

not disclose the alternatives, so we will never know how much more 

difficulty we might have had had it not existed, to make an effort to 

cope with these problems throughout the long years of its struggle.

The C hairman. Do you think the United States has used the 

United Nations as effectively and assiduously as it should have?

Mr. Wiggins. I think it has tried very hard to make use of the 

United Nations as an instrum ent for national policy as well as international policy. But I recognize the thrust of your question—th at the 

United Nations as an institution, and its effectiveness is related only 

to the skill with which the separate nations use it, and to the spirit
with which they undertake to employ it. And I hope tha t so far as I 

may contribute in the future, that we may use it more skillfully and 

more persistently.

R E SIG N A T IO N OF AM BA SS ADOR BA LL

The Chairman. It is rather unusual tha t your predecessor resigned, 

I believe, about a week after he was confirmed to this position, did 

he not?

Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir.

The C hairman. How do you explain that? Is that evidence of much 

interest in this country in the U.N.?

Mr. Wiggins. Senator, I believe tha t is a question you should 

direct to Ambassador Ball. And I believe if you ask him, he will give 

you a proper answer.

The Chairman. You don’t intend to resign immediately after you 

have been confirmed, do you?

Mr. Wiggins. Senator, I do not intend to resign immediately 

after I am confirmed.

SE C U R IT Y CO U N CIL A CTIO N ON V IE T N A M

The Chairman. Do you think the United Nations could be used 

to bring about any peace in Vietnam?

Mr. Wiggins. I think the experience of our Government with the 

United Nations has been disappointing. As you know very well, the 

Government has made several attem pts to get the Security Council 

to take cognizance of the problems in Vietnam, and has never been 

able to do so.

The Chairman. Has it ever brought the matter to a vote in the 

Security Council?

Mr. Wiggins. I believe it has never been possible to bring an issue 

in connection with Vietnam to a vote in the Security Council.

The Chairman. Have -we ever requested a vote in the Security 

Council?

Mr. Wiggins. Senator, you will forgive me. My memory does not 

serve me precisely as to however we presented it. But I believe there 

are five occasions when we attempted to get it on the agenda, and no 

action was taken in the Security Council.

V IE W S ON V IE TN A M W AR

The Chairman. What is your feeling about the war in Vietnam?

Mr. Wiggins. I hope tha t the conference at Paris will succeed in 

arriving at a political solution. I cannot say tha t my expectations in 

this respect are exactly euphoric, because I acknowledge the complications and difficulties of the situation. And I should hope, Senator, 

tha t I might say nothing here that would in any way complicate the 

task of those who are trying to move this conflict from the battlefield 

to the conference table.

The Chairman. Do you have any ideas as to what this country 

might do to make tha t conference more fruitful?

Air. Wiggins. I must confess that I do not have a solution for the 

present situation in Vietnam.
6

The Chairman. What do you think is the objective of the United 

States in Vietnam? What are we fighting for in Vietnam?

Mr. Wiggins. As I have understood it, sir, it is to preserve the 

right of the people of South Vietnam to make their own choice as to 

the nature and the characteristics of the government under which 

they wish to live.

The Chairman. And do you believe tha t tha t objective warrants 

the efforts which we are putting into tha t battle?

Mr. Wiggins. This is a judgment tha t I suspect, Senator, will have 

to await the verdict of history. I do not believe you can decide at this 

moment whether the vast expenditure of blood and treasure which 

we have poured into this country has attained the objectives for which 

we entered. B ut I would suppose tha t the defense of a free people, of 

a small people against an external aggressor over a long period of 

history might prove a justifiable expenditure of our effort, particularly 

if it encouraged other small countries around the world to retain their 

independence in the face of aggression.

The Chairman. I have some difficulty in explaining to my constituents—as it happens I have been explaining to my constituents— 

the policies which I have advocated. And it would be very helpful 

to me if you could enlighten me about this matter.

I don’t quite see that the right to have a free election—I suppose 

you mean in our fashion—is the kind of activity which would warrant 

the expenditure here. I notice in the morning paper tha t the military 

dictatorship in Greece seems to warrant our approval. There were 

very complimentary statements in the press about this election 

Greece recently had with regard to a constitution. Everybody knows 

tha t isn’t any more of a democracy than is the government in South 

Vietnam.

Mr. Wiggins. Senator, I am touched by your invitation to enlighten 

you. B ut in view of the number and numerous efforts I have made in 

the past to do so, and the small success tha t has attended them, I 

do not wish to trespass upon the time of the committee on this 

occasion.

SU PPO R T OF P R E S E N T V IE TN A M PO LI CY

The C hairman. Well, it is very interesting to me, Mr. Wiggins. 

You are one of the most outspoken supporters of our present policy 

in Vietnam and elsewhere. I thought this would be a good opportunity 

for you again to justify the policies th at we have been following. You 

don’t often have an opportunity before television cameras and a 

committee to put your views on the record. And, s.nce the President 

has seen fit to send you to the U.N., don’t you think it is part of the 

function of the Senate to examine these matters? You are certainly 

very well versed on them. You have been writing about them for many 

years.

Mr. Wiggins. Thank you, Senator.

The Chairman. Wouldn’t you like to share with us your reflections 

and wisdom on this subject? 5

Mr. Wiggins. Thank you, Senator. At a moment when I am able 

to speak with more authority and with an official position, I hope that 

I will have a frequent opportunity to do so. However, I regard nothing 

of more importance than tha t the work of the mission in New York
should be ke pt closely in touch with the views and senti me nts of this 

body, of the Sen ate, and you in particular .

And I hav e, as you state, discussed this m at te r with you on oth er 

occasions.

E D IT O R IA L SU PPO R T OF A D M IN IS TR A TIO N PO LI CY

Th e Chair man. Not only with me, bu t you have been the greates t 

influence th at I kno w of in support ing the prese nt policy in public. 

You r new spa per is probably the mo st influentia l paper, certainly in 

this city, if n ot in the whole country , because of its base he re in W ash ­

ing ton. It is well kno wn th at you are on very good terms with the 

Presiden t and the admi nis tra tio n.

I thou gh t this would be a good op po rtu nity for you to review the 

sit ua tio n and tell us why we should con tinue our flgh t in Vietnam 

un til we establish, as you say, a self-governing dem ocracy in Sou th 

Vie tnam.

Wouldn ’t you like to give us your reflections upon this s ubject?

Mr. Wigg ins . Senator, as you know, I am no t in a position to give 

you the views of the Go vernme nt------ .

Th e Chairman. No. We are a sking abou t yo ur own.

Mr. Wigg ins. Since I have not been confirmed. As you say, m y own 

views are quite well known. B ut 1 would be h ap py to answer any direc t 

que stions you wish to make as to those views. T hat is why I am here.

Th e C hairm an. It is a fac t th at for the last three years you have 

supp orted the ad minist ratio n’s policy in V ietn am. Is th at no t correct?

Mr. Wigg ins. I think th at would be a correct sta temen t.

W HAT DO W E W IN IN V IE T N A M ?

Th e Chair man. And we hav e from tim e to time in this com mittee 

had hea rings with members of the admi nis tra tio n, pa rticular ly the 

Secre tar y of State . If my memory serves me correctly, the Senator 

from Mis souri asked the Secre tary, “M r. Secre tary, tell me, if we 

win in Vie tna m, wha t do we win ?” And I have no t ye t heard a good 

answer to th at . I t ho ug ht may be you could tell us. If we win in Vietnam , 

wha t do we win? If we continue this wa r f or 5 or 10 y ears, and finally 

we tak e possession of S outh Vie tnam, wha t do we win th at is of value 

to this cou ntry?

Mr. Wigg ins. I suppose, Senator, th at one might ask the same 

question ab ou t any internationa l or dip lom atic or military effort.

Th e C hairman. I am no t asking ab ou t any other issue. I am a sking 

ab ou t Vietnam. Mr. Ru sk has a great facility for evading questions. 

Ca n you say wh at do we win in Vietnam? You are fam iliar with 

Vie tnam. You have wr itten ab ou t it at great length. Tell us w’hat 

you think is the justification for this war. W ha t do we win in Vietnam? 

This is the question I believe the Senator from Missouri asked. And 

I hav e no t ye t heard an answ er th at I thou gh t was very satisfactory.

Mr. Wiggins. Sena tor, I think I would be more dispo sed to discuss 

wha t we might lose if the Un ited State s took the position here and 

elsewhere in the wrorld th at ind ica ted th at it had no interest or concern or no disp osition to defe nd the int ere sts of small nations—either 

in Eu rop e or in Asia—con fronted by the aggre ssion of the ir more
8

powerful neighbors with the support of even more powerful allies. 

I am sure tha t this cost might not be visible to us at once, it might 

not even be apparent to us in a decade, it might not even be totally 

clear in a generation. B ut ultimately I fear tha t if the world’s greatest 

power, free power, exhibited total indifference toward and unwillingness to make an effort to defend this small country, other small 

countries, there would be consequences too painful to contemplate in 

terms, not only of the nature of the world’s society in which we would 

be compelled to live, but in terms of the comfort and the convenience 

and the safety and security of the United States.

The Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Senator from Missouri has to 

leave. 1 will yield to him, so that he may put his questions.

Senator Sparkman. Surely. Senator Symington.

U .S . D E L E G A T IO N AT T H E U .N .

Senator Symington. Mr. Wiggins, it is a privilege to see you. As 

perhaps you know, I am one of your delegates to the United Nations. 

Senator Cooper is the other congressional delegate. I hope we have a 

chance to talk about these things a t your convenience. What worries 

me are statements made recently by U Thant, the general situation. 

I have worked to understand what Mr. Ball thinks, including his 

book, “The Discipline of Power.” If you have written any, I wish 

you would give me a crack at them, because I would like to know 

your thinking. I hope, inasmuch as you will be, as the Chairman 

points out, representing a world organization, you will be willing to 

listen to representatives of the United States as much as other countries.

My friendship with you over the years, even though we may not 

agree on some things, has been one of the rewarding aspects of iife in 

Washington and I look forward to the privilege of working with you 

for a bette r world.

Mr. Wiggins. Senator, I thank you very much. I must say tha t it 

makes me extremely happy to think that if confirmed for this position, 

I will be serving with you and the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, and I look forward to that.

R E S P E C T FO R C H A IR M A N ’S PO SIT IO N ON V IE TN A M

Senator Symington. I would add one point. Over the years I have 

had great respect for some of the thinking of the Chairman of this 

committee. He has been sincere in his position. I would hope tha t you 

would give consideration to that. We have respect for his opinions on 

this committee, just as we have respect for yours.

Thank you.

Senator Sparkman. Senator Case.

Senator Case. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I too want to welcome 

you to this committee and express my gratification for the choice tha t 

the President has made. I have mixed feelings, as does everyone, I 

think, about this, because journalism cannot afford to lose you. And I 

hope it won’t be permanent.
9

PR OPE R U.S . RO LE IN THE WO RLD

I wa nt to carry on a lit tle bit fu rth er the question th at Senator 

Fu lbrig ht was directing to you—the broad que stio n of wha t our 

co un try ’s proper role is in the world. Some of y ou r answ ers did soun d 

a little bi t as tho ugh it were our job to be a world policeman. You 

suggested, I think , th at we shou ld defe nd small nations in their independence. Do we defe nd the m all? And if not, wh at is the test th at 

you would apply to parti cu lar cases?

Mr. Wigg ins. Senator, this is, as y ou say, the pract ica l questio n.

Senator C ase. I wish you w ould exp and a lit tle b it on it. As it was 

left, it sounded like a De an Ru sk answ er, which is no t acceptable.

Mr. Wigg ins. It is one thing to have a disposition to defe nd, and 

an interest in, a concern about, bu t in each pa rti cu lar case th at is 

involve d, choice of act ion w ould have to be from the whole arse nal of 

measures th at are open to a great power.

I think th at imp licit in our in ter na tio na l po siti on since World W ar II 

has been the majo r premise th at as our policy succ eede d, our in terven tions and in volve me nt would alt er and diminish. And I w ould hope 

th at this is a tre nd th at will con tinu e. 1 think it is a tre nd th at is in 

harm ony with the s pirit of the people of the Un ite d State s, and—who 

do no t desire thes e excursions and inter venti ons at a level th at is 

pai nfu l to us and to our co nditions . But I think at the same tim e th at 

we are not, even w ith all our pow er, totally free in the world. We lab or 

under the agony ot a great power. And our failure to emp loy it or to 

ind icate a w illingness to emp loy it m ay hav e an influence upon events 

as im po rta nt as the exercise of t hat po wer. And in no case or situ ation 

do I believe th at it is a simple m at te r of makin g a bro ad and generalized conclusion th at dire cts us at once int o the fullest inter vention 

as one might, to use yo ur figure of speech, relate to a policeman. 

Ce rta inly this is no t eit he r our purp ose or our wish. And in fact, such 

int erv entions as those upon which we have been embar ked cer tainly 

hav e no t sprun g from any inh ere nt desire or imp ulse in this co untry 

to impose its will or to ass ert its power, or to dicta te its position upo n 

othe r countries. But in our situ ati on in the world, unless we choose to 

re trea t to a Fortress America philoso phy, which I do no t believe is 

advocated by a ny m em ber of t his committee, and c ert ain ly not by th e 

Chairma n, who o ver a long period of his life has been a le ade r in shaping 

Am eric a’s inter natio na l position—I do no t believe we are going to do 

that.

So th at I feel th at we are going to agree, com mitted in the oth er 

dire ctio n from tim e to time, And certainl y our wish and our imp ulse 

is to make agencies like the Un ited Na tio ns more effective, more influential, more persuasive and more powerful, so th at the arts of 

pers uasion can be used ins tea d of the imple me nts of force.

Senator C ase. Mr. Wiggins, in sub stance , the n, you do no t think 

we should interv ene with all our force at every occasion when a small 

na tio n’s sove reig nty is thr eaten ed?

Mr. Wigg ins. Ce rta inly not.

Senator Case. You cannot answ er a que stio n as to wh eth er we 

should get into this or no t on the gro und s th at a small na tio n’s
10

sovereignty is threatened, and say tha t is a complete answer. There 

must be then in each case individual justification?

Mr. Wigg ins. Surely.

JU ST IF IC ATIO N FO R U .S . IN TERVEN TIO N IN VIE TNAM

Senator Cas e. Now we come to the question of the individual 

justification for Vietnam.

Mr. Wigg ins. Y ou must be governed both by the predicament in 

that individual country, by the general state of the world, by you r 

own resources— a whole host of considerations.

Senator C as e. This is so sensible, and so right. And it is the 

point where we ought to have started a long time ago, instead of 

ending our discussion about why we got into Vietn am. Mr. Cha irman, do you agree this is so? The question is not answered— I do 

not have to ask you— you have said this so man y times— perhaps 

you have taught us all. It is not answered only by the proposition 

that a small country’s sove reignty is threatened, or independence is 

threatened. So we have to answer each question on its own. Now, 

would you jus t develop from there why in this instance our intervention in Vietnam is justified.

Mr. Wigg ins. Senator, are you talking about our intervention 

at the beginning?

Senator Cas e. Y ou can talk abou t it anyway you want. I think 

it would be helpful, because we are not engaged in an investigation of 

you. Yo u are confirmed already, as far as that goes. Bu t we are engaged in trying to establish, not only the rightness or wrongness of 

our position here, and guidance in regard to the immediate question 

of our conduct in Vietnam, but also broad ly, the cou ntry’s position 

in foreign policy in the world today, for now and for the future.

So I think it is useful if yo u would go into it from both standpoints. 

One, in the first place, and now.

Mr. W igg ins. Senator, with all deference to you, sir, I doubt that 

this is either the time or the place, or tha t I am the man to conduct a 

post mortem on the entire operation in Vietnam. Fra nkly, I am not 

altogether sure that I am sufficiently well equipped to discharge all 

the solemn responsibilities and duties tha t the office for which I have 

been nominated is going to require of me. Bu t I am quite sure that 

in an impromptu and offhanded way, I am not equipped to conduct 

a survey of our entire involvem ent in Southeast Asia, to point to the 

errors of past policy that have arisen in connection with it, or to cite 

the instances of successful prosecution of our interests. It is a very 

difficult and involved and complicated matter which after infinite 

stud y of a great many years I certainly do not feel competent to 

pronounce judgm ent at each stage of our involvement. And I think 

that in retrospect one can often see situations tha t you wish in the 

light of histor y might have arisen in a different way, but we cannot 

go back and reshape all the events in the history of the past. Governments are confronted with the necessity of dealing with them in the 

present and as they arise in all their dreadful imperfections and obscurities. And I think that I would require— I do not know whether 

others would require, but I feel sure that I would require a commission 

from you with a long opportu nity to examine and study every aspect 

of this situation if you expect me to produce a mature review of all 

the aspects of our involvem ent there.
11

IN QUI RY INTO VIET NA M IN TE RVEN TI ON UR GE D

Senator Case. Mr. Wiggins, certainly I am n ot going to press you 

to do anything you think would in any way impair your usefulness 

at the United Nations. I have too much personal regard for you as 

well as respect for you in your profession to do that. But I do think 

tha t it is not inappropriate, in considering the beginning of your 

service, to use this as an instance—and we ought to use every useful 

instance—for a discussion of the greatest problem this country faces, 

and particularly the present manifestation of those problems in Vietnam. Certainly you are not coming on this cold. You have written 

about it, you have studied it for decades. And you are current with 

it, because you are currently editor of a great newspaper, and writing 

about it every day.

We are not trying to get a comprehensive text by Beard or anything 

else about the founding of the Constitution. You and I won’t be 

around when that is written. We have to operate, though, right now. 

And we are trying constantly both for ourselves and for the people of 

the country, in this committee. I think it is a most useful function to 

draw out from the best minds we can have before us the current 

justification for American policy, and not justification in the sense of 

attacking and defending it, but of inquiring into it. And this is what I 

just hoped that you would find possible at this time, along the lines of 

what I think was the Chairman’s intention, to do more than you 

have done. But if you feel that you cannot, certainly I will not press 

you further.

Would you respond? I take it you have responded already.

Mr. Wiggins. Thank you, Senator. I understand your interest and 

point of view. And I sympathize with your desire to find out further 

in this area. We are all anxious to know more about this. B ut I think 

tha t my general views I have stated.

Senator Case. Your general views are not unknown to us, certainly. 

I am not sure they are known to the general public in this country, 

as well as I think they deserve to be, frankly. But I wanted you to 

say explicitly what you have already said implicitly—that we do not 

intervene simply because a small nation’s sovereignty has been 

attacked and we are a great power, unless in all the circumstances 

it seems the wisest thing to do, unless the tensions tha t keep the 

world in balance are endangered by our not doing it—something of 

this sort tha t has some sense and application beyond the mere 

mouthing of the thing tha t the sovereignty of a nation is something 

tha t we have to attend to, whether we can or not effectively, no 

matter what the consequences of our military involvement might be 

and all the rest. This is the kind of thing I mean. And yet when we 

inquire into Vietnam in these terms, all we get is if you do not defend 

a small country, then the world is going to pot.

Mr. Wiggins. Senator, I certainly do take the view tha t it is 

necessary to examine each international situation as it arises in the 

light, not only of all of our own complicated and manifold interests, 

but in the light of the interests of the whole world. We certaiidy 

could not put ourselves in a position, in my view—and I speak now 

only as a citizen—where we are automatically thrown full scale into a 

military imbroglio at the very instant of trespass of one nation upon 

another. I assume that this country, because of its enormous power,
12

not only physically, but its power in the United Nations—will certainly not act impulsively or in an impatient or ill-tempered, inconsiderate way in any world situation—that it woidd do what you suggested it always ought to do—examine fully into every aspect of the 

situation, and commit with only the greatest care, both our moral 

power and our physical power.

Senator Case. Thank you, Mr. Wiggins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Sparkman. Senator Fulbright.

V IE T N A M V IE W S SO UGHT

The Chairman. Mr. Wiggins, the Senator from New Jersey has 

put the question. Of course if you do not care to discuss it, why, 

tha t is that, I guess. But it would seem to me it would be most interesting to everybody to know what your views about Vietnam are, 

because it is the critical and most important subject tha t is disrupting 

our own affairs, both abroad and at home. The cost of this war has 

been quite substantial, has it not?

Mr. Wiggins. It has, indeed, Senator. It has been a very costly 

war. And I am happy as I know you are happy at the fact that we have 

negotiations in Paris in which we hope tha t the decisions may be 

resolved, and tha t we may find a way in which the war can be 

brought—hostilities can be brought to an end.

The Chairman. There is nothing under existing conditions to give 

any substantial hope tha t those negotiations are going to be fruitful, 

is there? Don’t you think some reexamination perhaps of our attitude 

towards those negotiations is warranted?

Mr. Wiggins. I am quite sure, Senator, tha t nothing I can say 

here or we can discuss here will open up an avenue to largely improve 

the prospects for a successful termination of those negotiations. I 

think at the moment th at this is our best hope and our most favorable 

chance, and I hope myself, and I know you do, too, tha t we will be 

able to seize this opportunity, and that within a matter of time we 

will come to some kind of resolution. That certainly has been an 

anguishing ordeal.

STA TUS OF V IE TM A N U N D E R G EN EV A AC CO RD S

The Chairman. I wonder if we might make some headway in 

understanding this issue if we would go back just a bit for review. 

After all, this is simply a discussion. We are not making policy decisions which are made only by the President.

You said a moment ago tha t this was a war of defending a small 

country from external aggression. You are familiar with the Geneva 

accords, I am sure, are you not?

Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. Was it not implicit in those accords, participated 

in by the parties who were principally interested in Vietnam, who 

had more interest in Vietnam than we had then or now—we have 

now—that Vietnam was one country. Isn’t tha t implicit in the 

Geneva accords?

Mr. Wiggins. Senator, it is. And it was also envisaged in the settlement of the Korean war. I t was similarly not envisaged tha t East and 

West Germany would be separated. It was similarly not contemplated 

in the endeavor tha t North and South Ireland would be separated.
13

These things have a wav of tak ing on a dynam ics of their own which 

sometim es do no t fulfill the exp ectations of those who perfect the 

paper arr angeme nts of the neg otia tors .

Th e C hair man. I do no t wish to delay the com mittee , bu t would 

it no t be feasible to ju st tal k ab ou t V ietnam ra th er th an all the oth er 

conflicts of the pa st centuries? Is no t th at a big enough problem ? 

Vietn am is an involved sub ject. Was no t V ietnam conside red a single 

co un try at the tim e of the Geneva accords, and for 2,0 00 years prio r?

Mr. Wigg ins. There have been interv als, Senator, in the histor y 

of Vie tnam, whe n it has previously been div ided—some times into 

two entitie s, som etim es into thre e. Th e inter ve ntion of the Fre nch 

colonial regim e altere d the previous inter na tio na l bou nda ries . I think 

on one occasion the re was a division at prec isely the sam e paralle l 

which now divides the no rth and sou th.

I believe th at in an y case, we de alt w ith —a t the com mencement of 

hos tilities—w ith the result th at the co un try was divided , and th at 

the gover nm ent below th at parallel was recognized now by man y 

world powers as a separate cou ntry. And it was tre ate d as a separate 

co un try in many of the embassies of the world.

Th e Chairman. I s it no t a fac t th at the Genev a accords explicitly 

said th at the division was no t to be reg ard ed as a political division 

of the country ? Is no t th at a fact?

Mr. W igg ins. Yes, sir.

Th e Chairman. And th at was agreed to by eight of the nine 

cou ntries particip ati ng?

Mr. Wigg ins. Yes, sir. But no t the Un ite d St ates or South 

Vie tnam.

Th e Chairman. But the United States did agree verba lly th at 

they would no t use force to upset th at agreem ent ; did they not?

Mr. W igg ins. Yes; they did.

IS V IE TN A M SIT U A T IO N A C IV IL W AR?

Th e Chairma n. I ju st wondere d. You assume, which is a m at te r of 

controvers y, on which there is a difference of opinion, th at the re are 

two sovereign nati ons fighting, whereas a ccordin g to th e G eneva accords, 

there would be the assum ption th at this is one country , and the 

only thi ng to be reso lved by the conte mp lated election was who was 

to run th at country . Th ere was to be an electio n in 195 6, wasn’t there?

So I do no t see how you are just ified in saying this is an external 

aggression by an oth er country . It was really a civil war, wa sn’t it?

Mr. W igg ins. I think it was a little of each. I do no t agree w ith you 

th at the bo un da ry was imma ter ial or irrele vant. It seems to me th at 

the boun dary was ackn owledge d as a separation of the two powers 

until such tim e as unific atio n proce eded according to certain conte mpla ted route s; th at unifica tion did no t tak e place—as I trie d to say, 

it h as no t take n place in some o ther areas of the world where ultim ate 

un ity of two pa rts of a c ou ntr y or an area were involv ed.

Th e effo rt to force th at unifica tion by military power is in my 

opinion wha t has bee n involv ed in Vietnam , a nd I think t hat th e policies 

of thi s co un try a t the very outse t were in opp osition to the imposition 

upon the S outh of a u nity wh ich many of the p eople in So uth Vie tna m 

did no t wish or desire. And I agree 'with you perfectly th at a po int of 

de pa rtu re for disagreem ents ab ou t policy in Vietn am is at the place 

20-20 7— 68------3
14

upon, which you have skillfully put your admo nitory finger, and that 

is whether or not this is a pure ly internal domestic civil discord of 

the kind perhaps that exists in Nigeria, or whether it does invo lve 

an aspect of one power crossing a border which, however it emerges, 

was a border separating two separate sovereignties at the time of 

the negotiations, to wha tever exte nt the negotiations contem plated 

its even tual remo val under prescribed conditions. When those prescribed conditions were not fulfilled, and the neighbor to the north 

endeavored to alter the situa tion by armed force, a new situation 

came into being. And while we ma y invoke the previous arrangements 

and acknow ledge tha t we had stated tha t this country will not alter 

this arrangement, even though it did not subscribe to it, our action 

was responsive and not initiato ry. We did not undertake to alter 

that boundary, or to overw helm North Vietnam.

To this day, so far as I know, the Government of the United 

States has indicated no disposition to trespass upon the sove reignty 

of Nor th Vietnam, or in any wa y alter its internal arrangements, or 

to remove the government tha t is presently in charge of that region, 

or to pursue any other act of h ostility intended to triumph over or to 

conquer North Vietnam. Th e position this country has assumed as I 

understand it in history has been rather a defensive position, in which 

our obje ct has been to preserve the territorial integrity of the region 

to the south of the parallel, while the people in tha t region, struggling 

out of the chaos and disorganization of a postwa r period, assemble the 

apparatus and the institutions of government that have a reasonable 

chance of reflecting the will and the hopes and the aspirations of these 

people, so that they ma y come w itho ut military interv entio n of foreign 

powers to a solution of their own problems and tha t the y may select 

in the future an affiliation either within the confines laid out by the 

Gen eva accords, or so far as any wishes of this country are concerned, 

any other international arrangement tha t accords with their own 

wishes and aspirations and convenience. I think our position has 

emerged out of a situ ation which was not foreseen before we w ent into 

Vietn am.

E FF E C T OF HO C H I M IN H ’s B E IN G A CO M M U NIS T

The C hairman. D o you think we would have intervened if Ho Chi 

Minh had not been a Comm unist? Would we have intervened jus t on 

the principle of self-determination?

Mr. Wigg ins. History does not disclose its alternatives, Senator. 

I do not know whether we would hav e or would not have intervened. 

I think tha t is a conjecture-----

The C hairma n. Would you hav e been in favo r of interv ening if 

he had not been a Communist?

Mr. Wiggins. I am trying to recap ture what I thin k was the 

situation at tha t time.

I think I would have been in fav or of trying to preserve the integrity 

and the rights of the people of the south — wheth er the invader from 

the north would have been an aggressor of either righ t or left persuasion. I believe tha t this disposition has not arisen in the past out 

of an ant ipathy or anim osity to anyone, but out of an opposition in 

general to the employm ent of force to alter a political situa tion with out 

the consent of the people involved.
15

IS V IE TN A M IN IN T E R E S T S OF U N IT E D ST ATES?

The Chairman. You started out with a very eloquent statement of 

how devoted you are to this country. But do you not think it is a fact 

tha t this country has suffered very great losses in lives and resources 

and influence throughout the world? In other words, has this war been 

in the interests of the United States? W hat I am trying to come back 

to is the first question, what do we win in a sense if we win this war, 

balanced against what are we losing, and what have we lost in the 

pursuance of it. If your primary interest is in the United States 

rather than in a philosophical proposition as to our du ty to protect all 

people who wish to have self-government, I do n ot see how you arrive 

at the conclusion tha t this is in the interests of the United States. I 

must say I think all of us on this committee are just as devoted to the 

United States as you are. The difference here is what is in the interests 

of the United States. This is why it is important to see your attitude, 

because you are going to the U.N. And it does seem to me tha t the 

main thrust of this hearing would be what your judgment is as to the 

interests of the United States, which all of us are interested in. It is 

difficult for me to see how all the people of the United States, 200 

million of them, with a great deal to lose, can continue this kind of 

war—either there or elsewhere.

You say you would intervene even though the issue was not communism. We have often been told by leaders of this Government tha t 

the main reason is to stop communism. If it is not to stop communism, 

but simply to preserve independence of a group of 17 million people, it 

puts i t in a different light. I believe 1 can remember, that the Secretary 

of State said, yes, he thought if it had not been communism, we would 

not have intervened. This is the first time 1 remember th at he differed 

with the administration’s view on a matte r of this kind.

Mr. Wiggins. Senator, if you will excuse me, I said tha t so far as 

I was personally concerned I was opposed to aggression by powers of 

either the left or the right. I did not atte mpt a t that moment to speak 

for the Secretary of State or for the Government.

The Chairman. The Secretary said tha t before our committee. I 

believe he said it in a previous hearing.

R O LE OF U N IT E D ST ATES TO W AR D SM AL L N A TIO N S

But what I am trying to get at is, as a representative to the United 

Nations your attitude is very important. If it is that we are going to 

take the position of protecting all small sovereign countries, of which 

there are now 125—not all of those are small, but certainly most are— 

we have quite a role to play. It is going to be a hard role to play.

Mr. Wiggins. Senator, I wish to understand your view. I feel 

that we do not differ as much as your statement might suggest. I am 

confident t hat you, too, have an interest in seeing tha t the rights of 

small countries are protected. I assume th at tha t does not mean tha t 

that interest is one th at you would prosecute instantaneously by military means. But it is a concern—and I believe it brings us into many 

organizations, the wish to see if we can, tha t we remove from the 

arsenal of instruments used to prosecute nations’ policies the utilization of force. But there are infinitely numerous other devices through
which this country expresses its interest and concern for the freedom 

and liberty of small peoples. And I assume that you and I are in 

agreement tha t we would wish to have the state of the world such 

that the independence and sovereignty of small countries was safe. I 

assume th at in any particular situation you would wish to examine, as 

I would wish to examine, the precise kind of instrument most suitable 

to prosecute that purpose. Certainly it would involve a whole variety 

of diplomatic devices available to us. And I assume myself tha t it 

would be greatly to our interest if we could enhance the power and 

the position and the ability and the capacity of the United Nations 

to deal with these situations as they arise, in a collective way, and over 

a period of decades or generations to enhance and support and constru ct the prestige and power of tha t institution tha t it would find 

it possible on nearly all if not every occasion, by the mere exercise of 

its prerogatives and power, to subdue and suppress every overt 

intrusion upon the rights of another nation before it had even broken 

out into overt and hostile acts.

It seems to me that tha t is the task upon which we are embarked. 

It has not been possible to bring the United Nations forward to this 

ideal situation in a postwar period in which we have essentially been 

trying to tidy up the remnants of that cataclysmic struggle. So that 

we have not yet reached a position in which this country or any other 

of the great powers is prepared totally to dispense with the exercise 

of military power and commit itself not to employ it anywhere at 

any time and any place for any purpose. B ut it certaiidy is our object: 

it certainly is the spirit of the U.N. Charter, that ultimately all resorts 

to force and all wasteful expenditures of human resource in the prosecution of international contests by military means may ultimately 

be dispensed with, and the problems of the world gathered within tha t 

great forum where they may be resolved without resort to arms.

The Chairman. Of course on your description of the U.N. role, I 

agree with you. But in this case we have not submitted the Vietnam 

matter to the U.N.—tha t is, to the point of forcing a vote. As a 

matter of fact, even in the initial stages, we did not submit it to the U.N. 

We have undertaken to handle it ourselves. I agree with what you 

said about the U.N.’s role, and I regret tha t we did not find a way to 

have the United Nations deal with this m atter. Tha t is past history, 

and we have not done it.

It is our own intervention. And when we intervene unilaterally, it 

certainly doesn’t promote the United Nations.

Maybe we ought to talk about the United Nations a little.

NO PR E V IO U S E X P E R IE N C E W IT H IN T E R N A T IO N A L O RG A N IZ A TIO N S

Have you ever had anything to do with international organizations? Have you ever worked with the United Nations at all?

Mr. Wiggins. No, sir; I have not had any official connection with 

the United Nations.

The Chairman. Have you ever had anything to do with the World 

Health Organization, the International Labor Organization, any of 

those specialized agencies?

Mr. Wiggins. Nothing except as a journalist, Senator. As a m atte r 

of policy, I have not ever accepted any appointments on any governmental or quasi-governmental institution or agency, because I regarded it as my duty to maintain my impartiality and objectivity.
17

The Chairman. Do you think the United Nations really can play 

an important part in the U.S. foreign policy?

Let me give you an illustration, maybe, to point it up.

G E N E R A L ASS EM BLY D E B A TE ON V IE TN A M

Do you think tha t the General Assembly debate on the proposed 

resolution on Vietnam would be a good thing?

Mr. Wiggins. As I have had the situation described to me, there 

seems to be little likelihood that this will take place. I believe the Secretary General himself in a recent statement, indicated he thought 

little likelihood such a resolution would come before the Assembly, be 

on the agenda.

The Chairman. I understood the only reason it would not is because 

of our opposition.

Do you feel we should not favor a General Assembly debate on 

Vietnam?

Mr. Wiggins. I believe tha t is not quite correct, Senator—I am 

sorry. I don’t think it is just because of our view. I believe there is some 

indication th at an overwhelming number of the members of the General 

Assembly are doubtful tha t a fruitful purpose would be served by a 

General Assembly debate on Vietnam at this time. I have no absolute 

information on the subject. But tha t is the information that I have.

The Chairman. Regardless of what the other people think—I 

don’t know what they think either—would you favor a debate? Do 

you think it would be healthy for us, and perhaps give some new way 

of approaching it tha t would make the talks in Paris useful?

Mr. Wiggins. Senator, I am not in the position of a personal view 

on this at this juncture. 1 have not familiarized myself with the views 

of the Government of the United States for which I am going to have 

to speak.

If you will forgive me, I do not believe I can express a valid opinion 

on that at this point.

SE C U R IT Y CO U N CIL R E CO M M EN D A TIO N ON V IE TN A M

The Chairman. Do you think tha t Vietnam ought to be turned 

over to the Security Council, and tha t the United States should 

promise to accept the recommendations of the Security Council?

This has been discussed. This is not a new issue. Members of this 

committee have talked about it. I just wondered about your views 

on it.

Mr. Wiggins. I believe there have been five different occasions on 

which an effort to get the Security Council to seize itself of this issue 

have been made unsuccessfully.

The C hairman. I don’t know tha t we have ever made any commitment tha t we would accept a recommendation of the Security Council, 

have we? I do not think we have.

Mr. Wiggins. No, not that. 1 think not.

The C hairman. Do you think you would favor that? I wondered 

how you felt about that? Obviously, we are not getting anywhere.

Is there any new idea that you have with regard to the United 

Nations trying to get this move for a peace off dead center? We have 

to do something. The Security Council is there. Do you have any ideas 

on how it might be used?
18

One proposal is not new. I am not bringing it up now. I think 

specifically Senator Morse and others have said tha t we ought to get 

the Security Council members to do everything they can, even to the 

point of promising not to use a veto in order to have a full, free discussion about the resolution of this conflict.

Mr. Wiggins. Senator, as I said earlier, I simply do not have any 

solution for Vietnam—for a way in which the United Nations might 

be employed to terminate it, or for any alteration in the situation in 

Paris, or for a different deployment of our troops. I have no present 

solution of my own for the crisis in Vietnam.

ST R E N G T H E N IN G T H E U .N . CH A RTER

The Chairman. Do you have any ideas about how to strengthen 

the charter of the U.N., or do you believe it should be?

Mr. Wiggins. I think there are enormous challenging and interesting problems involved with the structure of the U.N. I suspect they 

are not reducible to an in stant and ideal solution—that time and the 

occasion when it may be accomplished may have to wait a resolution 

of many of the great problems of the world with the instant machinery, whatever imperfections it may have. I believe this matter 

is under continuous study at the U.N., and no doubt, as with all 

human institutions, the time will come and the occasion will arise 

when it can be further improved.

U .N . specialized agencies

The Chairman. Are you familiar with some of the specialized 

agencies of the U.N., and how do you feel about them?

Mr. Wiggins. I think, Senator, tha t in a way, in their more quiet 

and undramatic and unexciting way, the work that these specialized 

agencies are doing to further the economic predicament of many 

nations, particularly the underdeveloped countries, the enormous 

efforts tha t are being made to improve the lot of deprived citizens 

throughout the world, the attack tha t the U.N. has mounted through 

its manifold independent agencies on the problems of disease, hunger 

and discrimination, in the long view of history may turn out to be of 

more importance than the exciting and dramatic debates tha t have 

taken place on the floor of the Assembly and in the Security Council

When these agencies commenced their work, they faced a great 

disparity of income and general level of culture and prosperity between 

the developed and the underdeveloped countries. They attacked world 

problems at a time when more than half the peoples of the world were 

illiterate, and probably 60 percent of them functionally illiterate, and 

only half the children of school age in the world attending school, when 

the production of food in many quarters of the world was not keeping 

pace with the increase in population.

We will perhaps never know to what degree they have arrested the 

slide of many sections of the world into outright famine and despair, 

and probably not for a generation or more fully appreciate the progress 

tha t these independent agencies, some of whom existed prior to the 

creation of the United Nations, have been constantly laboring in a 

quiet and unobtrusive way on the stubborn and intractable problems 

tha t have confronted mankind since he first emerged into the light of 

history.
19

ECO NOMIC AID CH AN NE LE D TH RO UG H U.N . AG EN CI ES

The Chairman. Do you think tha t economic aid should be channeled through the United Nations agencies, rather than given bilaterally by specific countries?

Mr. Wiggins. Senator, I am familiar with your own interest in the 

multilateral administration of economic aid. 1 think tha t if and when 

the day arrives when the larger part of American funds are distributed 

abroad through agencies of the United Nations, a great deal of the 

credit for tha t innovation and alteration of national policy will be 

owing to your farsighted belief—and this is the logical direction in 

which tliis country ought to move.

1 am aware of the advocacy of multilateral aid as distinguished 

from unilateral aid in terms of its impact upon the client relationships tha t have plagued even the most generous disposition of funds 

in many countries. I feel tha t the progress t hat the United Nations 

has made in the agencies tha t have been handling aid in a multilateral way indicates tha t we ought to give this method our closest 

study, and tha t we ought to seriously analyze the manner in which 

it can be further employed to correct the unbalances tha t are a menace, 

probably, to the tranquility of the world.

The Chairman. Do I take it tha t you would favor channeling economic aid through United Nations agencies?

Mr. Wiggins. I favor what has been done in the handling of economic aid multilaterally through the United Nations agencies, yes, sir.

The Chairman. Since our own bilateral aid has been cut very severely by the Congress, would you favor, say, in the next Congress 

trying to increase the efforts of the UN in this area, in view of the 

cuttin g of our own programs?

Mr. Wiggins. I trust tha t our own aid will not—to the U.N. 

agencies will not be diminished, for I think tha t endeavor ought to be 

increased. Yes, I believe it ought to be increased.

The Chairman. I will reserve the rest of my questions.

Senator Sparkman. Senator Mundt?

Senator Mundt. I arrived here a little late. If I ask questions which 

you have already answered, please tell me, and I will find them in the 

record.

U.N . PE ACEKEEPI NG MA CH INER Y NE ED ED

This is a very important assignment which you are undertaking, and 

in my opinion one of the greater forums in which the United States 

must put its best foot forward, and do its optimum job of trying to 

win cooperation for the point of view we believe to be sound.

We do not have any peacekeeping machinery at the U.N. It is 

primarily a debating society now. And we should win some debates 

up there.

I have felt for a long time it would be most helpful if the U-N. did 

have some kind of peacekeeping machinery. At different times I have 

associated myself with legislative measures, dating back as far as 

when Ely Culbertson left the realm of bridge long enough to get into 

the realm of foreign policy. He and I worked on a proposal of his, 

which I thought had some merit, to comprise a United Nations international peacekeeping machinery in which the armed forces would 

be recruited primarily from the smaller countries, so there would not be 

the difficulty with the big power, where exercise of its authority in the
20

Security Council could certa inl y see th at its int ere sts were safegua rde d. But it seems so fre quently, when distur ban ces break out in 

different area s of the world, th at Uncle Sam has to go it alone—even 

tho ugh it is a Un ited Na tions mission, as we foun d ou t in Korea.

Would you think it at all within the realm of possibility th at pe rhaps 

the U.N. could becom e m ore th an a debatin g society by the e stablishmen t of some kin d of inter na tio na l peac e-keepin g machinery, to 

which each coun try would contrib ute its sha re in terms of finances, 

and , so th at we could avoid ske ptic ism and suspicion, the troops of 

which would be rec ruited from other than the four ma jor powers?

Mr. Wiggin s. Sen ator, I am awa re of yo ur long inter est in the 

Un ite d Na tio ns, and inter na tio na l affairs, and in the peace-keeping 

fun ctio ns of the Un ite d Na tio ns especially, and I hope th at if I am 

confirmed for this position, I may look forward to the op po rtu nity 

for fre qu en t con sultation with you ab ou t the int ere sting suggestio n 

which you have ju st made here thi s morning .

I would like to pause for a mo me nt to say th at I trus t you did not 

mean to use the term “a debatin g soc iety” in dero gation.

Senator Mund t. No. I am an old college debate coach, and I 

believe definitely in the efficacy of debate.

Mr. Wigg ins. Th an k you. I ju st wa nte d to have the reco rd clear 

th at the existence of th e Asse mbly and the Sec urity Council as a place 

of debate and as a mea ns of mob ilizing the opinion of ma nkind , is a 

contr ibu tio n of enormou s significance and imp ortanc e.

Senator M und t. I acc ept th at , and I believe th at . But it seems to 

me th at th at is a pr et ty weak reed to lean upo n to meet the kind of 

contingencies th at seem to be occurring everywhere .

Mr. Wigg ins. I shall be h ap py to explore this w ith you, and I hope 

to hav e an early op po rtu nity to do so.

Senator Sparkman. Will the Senator yield at this point?

Senator M und t. Surely.

Senator Sparkman. With reference to the peace-keepin g force, I 

call your attention to the fac t th at the Senat e is on reco rd by a 

unanimous vote in favor of i t. Bo th Houses of Congress are on record 

by c oncurrent resolutio n.

Senator Mund t. Th ey have been in different ways, and by different 

kinds of resolu tions, for a long period of time. I know of y our int ere st 

in th at . It is difficult for me to see why an int ern ational assembly of 

nations of good will tow ard each oth er, and tow ard the goal of 

perm anent peace, shou ld no t ma ke at lea st some faltering steps in 

th at direction.

And even tho ugh the re is a great and com par ativel y growing misunderstandin g, a cleavage betw een the so-called Co mm unist world 

and the r es t of the world, which we opt imistically call the free world, 

it seems to me, th at there are a grea t ma ny problems into which such 

a force could move.

SE C U R IT Y OF AN IN T E R N A T IO N A L PO LIC E FO RC E

It would appear som ewhat at least, for exam ple, as tho ugh both 

the pa rt of the world con trolled by the Soviets and the Comm unist 

bloc and t he p ar t of the world w ith which we assoc iate ou rselves, h ave 

some kin d of common desire no t to have a war bre ak ou t in the 

Mideast. At lea st the re has been sel f-rest raint disp layed on both 

sides, it would app ear . And it would seem to me we should have had
21

some kind of international peacekeeping machinery. As a matter of 

fact, for a while the U.N. did patrol between Israel and Jordan, and the 

Arab countries. I passed through this military patrol several times. 

The blue and white flag of the military forces gives you a feeling of 

security and stability. And it did work for a while, even though it was 

just an ad hoc operation to meet a particular problem. Had we had 

this kind of thing, indeed, it seems to me, the whole world could 

sleep a little better nights, along with Jack Valenti these days, if 

the force were standing between people who misunderstand each 

other, and do not like each other.

Mr. Wiggins. Senator, I agree with you, the possibility of perfecting 

and improving the peacekeeping machinery of the United Nations 

is a project tha t must engage the attention of every sober and 

thoughtful citizen.

Senator Mundt. I only just express the hope tha t as our U.N. 

Ambassador and with the other responsibilities associated with that, 

tha t you would dedicate your career to trying to accomplish something. 

I think maybe you could make a constructive contribution —by 

keeping better contact, for example, with this committee, and our 

sister committee in the House, where the Congress has repeatedly 

expressed itself, as Senator Sparkman has said, in this direction— 

pushing and pressing and propagandizing and persuading as best you 

can your associates at the U.N. tha t this idea of hastily trying to 

apply a patch to a turbulent problem place in the world is not really 

a very safe way in which to protect the world against war—and it all 

too frequently gets to be an all-out American job.

Certainly it would be more effective in the first place and less 

subject to criticism if it were a multilateral job. It would be there 

available for those kinds of patrol jobs.

N O T IC E OF A PPO IN T M E N T

Is this your first assignment in the field of national responsibility?

Mr. Wiggins. It is, sir.

Senator Mundt. Rather than sitting behind the mahogany desk, 

telling us what we should be doing, you will be in a position for the 

first time to do it yourself?

Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir.

Senator Mundt. How long have you had to prepare for this assignment? When did you first hear you were going to be the new U.N. 

Ambassador?

Mr. Wiggins. The President called me on Wednesday evening 

at 5 o’clock and said the situation had arisen in which he thought 

tha t I could be of service to my country, and I asked him to have 

the evening to make some personal arrangements; I called him at 

8 o’clock Thursday morning, and I was here at 7 o’clock Thursday 

night.

Senator Mundt. I commend you on making a quick decision. 

You made a quick decision to get in, even faster than Mr. Ball made 

a decision to get out. I hope when you made the decision, it was 

to stay in as long as the tides of political warfare permit, because 

it is an important job. I do not think you should play hanky-panky 

in domestic politics with a job as important as this one. I hate to see it

20 -2 07 — 68-
22

booted around, and moved in and out from the field of partisan 

politics to diplomacy, and back again, at a time when the world 

really needs dedicated and competent and nonpartisan, as far as our 

country is concerned, leadership at the U.N. I know tha t you will 

provide th at kind.

When did you get your notification of your meeting this morning?

Mr. Wiggins. Saturday, I believe.

Senator Mundt. What do they do with someone like you, who comes 

in with a rich background of experience as an observer, convincer, and 

adviser to Senators and Congressmen, and suddenly say, “Look, old 

chap, you are it. You are going to have to sit up there in the spotlight, 

and be televised around the globe while debating some of the most 

ardent advocates of philosophies with which we disagree.”

And you say, “Let me think it over all night.” And you say “Yes.”

What do they do then? Do they have some kind of tough briefing 

course, or some kind of training course? Do they give you a kind of 

counselor for a while until you get your feet on the ground?

I would just like to know how we get prepared for that, how ready 

you are to meet whatever emergencies may arise.

Mr. Wiggins. Senator, as I understand it, as soon as this committee 

has acted, I will commence an arduous period of briefing. Of course 

one cannot assume that even the most arduous period of briefing would 

equip you for so complicated and difficult a task.

The Ambassador to the United Nations has the backing and support of the Secretary of State, the Assistant Secretary of State in 

charge of these relations, and the constant help and guidance of an 

enormously effective professional staff of the U.S. mission in New 

York, a staff of some 130 people, headed by some of our ablest and 

most experienced diplomats.

This organization is not, as you well know, an area in which any 

individual is a free agent or a free spirit. I t speaks for the Government 

and with the continuous consultation and advice of professionals 

who have devoted their lives to this field.

I hope I will undertake this briefing with thoroughness and 

attention. I will maintain, as I assure you tha t I will, the closest 

connection with and consultation with those who have so long had in 

hand our interests in the United Nations.

Senator Mundt. Who stands guard at the American portals while 

you are being briefed? I think I read in the newspaper tha t Secretary 

Rusk is going to pinch-hit in this emergency until you are ready to 

go; is tha t right?

Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir; Secretary Rusk is in New York today and 

within a day or two presumably will make a speech a t the General 

Assembly—a speech which the Ambassador would make.

Senator Mundt. I am glad to have your expression tha t you have 

given us today. I wish you well. I look forward as one who has received 

great columns of advice tha t you have rendered for a long time to 

be in position now where on occasion I can advise you.

Senator Sparkman. Mr. Wiggins, may I just interpolate at this 

point—in naming those t hat will be working with you to advise and 

help, I hope you will remember the very able colleagues tha t you 

have as delegates to the United Nations, two of whom are from this 

committee.
23

Senator Dodd?

Senator Dodd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I apologize for being late, Mr. Wiggins. I was detained.

I, like Senator Mundt, do not intend to cover any material you 

have already been queried about. If I do so, just tell me.

RE A SO N FO R U .S . IN T E R V E N T IO N

I was greatly interested in your response to Senator Fulbright’s 

question with respect to Ho Chi Minh. I believe he asked would you 

have been in favor of our intervention, if Ho Chi Minh were not a 

Communist, and I understood you to say you thought you would be. 

Is tha t correct?

Mr. Wiggins. Would have been.

Senator Dodd. Would have been.

Well, would be, if another situation arose, I take it.

How do you reason this out? Is it correct for me to understand 

tha t you feel th at we should, with others, resist aggression whenever 

and wherever we can? Th at was your response, I believe.

Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir.

Senator Dodd. I think tha t is a good answer.

You are aware, I am sure, from your long experience as a newspaperman, tha t there have been interventions where it certainly was 

not clear that the Communists were at work.

U .N . A CTIO N W IT H R E S P E C T TO RH O D ESIA

For example, how do you feel about the U.N. action with respect to 

Rhodesia? Would tha t be something tha t you would say you thought 

the U.N. ought to do, if a situation like it arose again?

Mr. Wiggins. 1 believe the United Nations in May last adopted 

more complete and stringent sanctions against Rhodesia, and I think 

tha t that action had the support of this Government, and represents 

its present policy.

Senator Dodd. The U.N. should take action in cases like that?

Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir.

Senator Dodd. Well, I do not hold any brief for Rhodesia. But I 

think you would agree there certainly was not any allegation of 

Communist activity in Rhodesia.

Mr. Wiggins. I believe the interest of the United Nations in 

Rhodesia sprang out of the anxiety tha t the course of tha t Government was such tha t the affronts that it gave to other nations in the 

vicinity made the policies, course of action upon which th at Government had set forth, a threat to the peace of the world. And I believe it 

was tha t impulse tha t led to the imposition of sanctions by the 

United Nations, and not any position with reference to any ideology of 

certain world powers.

Senator Dodd. Do T understand you to say tha t you think the 

internal difficulties of Rhodesia were a threat to the peace of the 

world?

Mr. Wiggins. I think that the impulse of the United Nations arose 

out of the anxiety tha t the course upon which Rhodesia had embarked 

was of an inflammatory nature in the immediate vicinity, and as such 

constituted a threat to the peace of tha t part of the world.
24

Senator Dodd. That was because the vast majority of the people 

were subject to the will of a small minority.

Mr. Wiggins. I think you state it well.

Senator Dodd. Tha t certainly is happening in other places in the 

world.

Do you think the United Nations should intervene in all those 

situations? How do you make a decision?

Mr. Wiggins. I revert to the answer which I gave to Senator Case 

earlier and to Senator Fulbright, tha t in each situation a great nation 

is compelled to examine all of the situation in toto—the threat tha t 

is involved, the seriousness of the threat, the forces tha t are at its 

disposition to counter and minimize the threat, and the general wisdom 

springs from a consideration of perhaps hundreds of factors.

SH OULD U N IT E D N A T IO N S AC T IN B IA FR A ?

Senator Dodd. I do not find any fault in your answer. I am merely 

trying to find out what you think about these things.

How do you feel about Biafra right now?

Mr. Wiggins. The Biafra situation, Senator, is one that is anguishing—

Senator Dodd. Let me be more specific. Do you think the U.N. 

should do anything there?

Mr. Wiggins. The Organization of African Unity has let it be 

known explicitly to the United Nations tha t under the regional 

approach of the United Nations Charter, it regards this matter as an 

area within the competence of the OAU, and the United Nations 

under the circumstances pretty effectively is stopped from indeed 

intervening internally in the Nigerian situation, except through its 

humanitarian agencies, and they are doing what they can to minimize 

a frightful loss of life under heroic endeavors of UNICEF and other 

agencies, World H ealth Organization, International Red Cross.

Senator Dodd. Are you aware, or do you understand that the Soviet 

Union is supplying arms to Nigeria in the Biafra situation?

Mr. Wiggins. I have no information on th at subject, Senator.

Senator Dodd. You have never heard of that before?

Mr. Wiggins. I have no information on that.

Senator D odd. I did not ask if you had any information. Have you 

heard it?

Mr. Wiggins. I am not informed about it at all.

Senator Dodd. Let’s assume tha t you were informed, and you find 

it to be a fact. What would your a ttitude then be toward U.N. intervention, even in the face of the Organization of African Unity having 

said “No” ?

Mr. Wiggins. I think, sir, tha t would have to be examined with the 

greatest care, and I cannot give a hypothetical answer.

Senator Dodd. I think that is a problem for a lot of people. It seems 

to me we don’t have any very set policy about these things. I know we 

can’t do everything everywhere, and 1 don’t recommend tha t we do. 

But it seems to me there ought to be some policy with respect to these 

situations.
25

R ES P O N S IB IL IT Y FO R E D IT O R IA L PO LI CY

I know you have been a newspaperman. I have read about it here 

in your biographic sketch. I know you are the editor of the Washington 

Post. There have been a lot of editorials in the Post about foreign 

affairs. I have not read them all. I have read some.

Do you personally approve of all of them or not? I don’t know how 

this thing works.

Mr. Wiggins. Senator, the editor of a newspaper is responsible for 

the editorials on its editorial page.

Senator Dodd. I know th at as a general principle.

Mr. Wiggins. I am responsible for the editorials tha t are published 

in the Washington Post.

Senator Dodd. Nothing goes on that page tha t you don’t approve 

of?

Mr. Wiggins. Well, the page is an institutional approach.

Senator Dodd. I know that.

Mr. Wiggins. And it is the product of a group of scholars—in a 

climate more like tha t of an academic institution than a business 

institution or a government. And the principles tha t are expressed 

are not always precisely in the language of an individual, and the 

point of view may not be precisely tha t of any individual on an 

editorial board or staff, b ut the principles of the Washington Post are 

those behind which I stand.

Senator Dodd. In general there is agreement.

Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir.

Senator Dodd. I ask it because as you have said—you have had 

no experience in this area in which you are now entering. And I suppose some people would like to look at the editorials as one way to 

know what your attitude is or might be.

Mr. Wiggins. That is a very logical inquiry, Senator.

Senator Dodd. That is why I asked the question. I want to be sure 

I am right generally—not in every specific detail—but generally the 

editorials published would be those you approve of.

Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir.

PU B L IC IZ IN G U .N . M IS SIO N R E P O R T F IN D IN G S

Senator Dodd. You remember when the Buddhist activity in 

South Vietnam was quite an issue around the world.

Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir.

Senator Dodd. Do you know tha t the U.N. sent a mission, or 

authorized a mission to investigate this situation and make a report on 

it?

Mr. Wiggins. I know nothing of the details of the mission.

Senator Dodd. Did you ever hear of that?

Mr. Wiggins. I heard of it, but I know nothing about the details. 

You would have to refresh my memory, Senator.

Senator Dodd. Well, I think my recollection is tha t—there was 

such a mission, or commission—however one describes it. And it did 

make an investigation. And it made some findings. So far as I know, 

they were never made public.
26

I talked to the chairman of tha t mission, and I don’t know why the 

findings were not made public. B ut since you are going to be at the 

U.N., what would your general attitude be toward a similar situation: 

If the U.N. sent a mission to investigate an important situation, would 

you be of the opinion th at tha t report ought to be made public, generally speaking?

I know there could be specific reasons in specific cases for not doing 

so. But I am talking generally. I know you cannot talk about all the 

specific cases. I think your approach, by the way, about this is right— 

you said they are not all alike. I am well aware of that. But I was 

trying to make clear what is in my mind.

You are going to be representing us at tha t organization. We can’t 

do anything about the Buddhist situation now. But, if what I am told 

is true, and I am satisfied that it is, great lies were told to the world 

and to the American people about tha t Buddhist activity. And yet 

this was never made public so far as I know.

That would not be anything you would condone, would it? Don’t 

you think in the absence of some very compelling specific reason, 

U.N. committee reports or findings should be made public?

Mr. Wiggins. Senator, I think one of the most useful functions 

the United Nations performs is to shed light upon situations where 

its missions are officially committed, and where reports are made. I 

have no knowledge of the incident of which you speak.

A PPL IC A T IO N OF B E T T E R P R IN C IP L E S

Senator Dodd. I understand that. I am not challenging that.

I like your answers to the questions I have asked you. I am not 

trying to find any fault. I am trying to find out how you generally 

feel. The U.N. is a great problem. My own judgment is it does have 

to have better standards, better principles, better policies, which can 

generally be applied. T hat is the reason why I brought up Rhodesia. 

I don’t like the policy of the Government of Rhodesia. I don’t want 

to be understood as defending it because I asked a question about it. 

Quite the contrary. But there is a basic question involved. We don’t 

like the Government of Rhodesia, so we do something. We do like 

the Government of “X ” country, so we do nothing.

Is tha t the way to handle and prosecute the affairs of a great 

organization like the United Nations? Couldn’t there be some more 

basic principle or policy involved?

Mr. Wiggins. Senator, 1 explained to you my own impression of 

the impulses behind that United Nations intervention.

U .N . P E A C E K E E P IN G FO RCE

Senator Dodd. Senator Mundt, as I understood his question, suggested that perhaps we could recruit armed forces for a United 

Nations peacekeeping force. And if I heard you right, you agreed 

with that.

Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir.

Senator Dodd. Would you give control over such an organization 

entirely to the UN? Would there be any considerations in your mind 

about the size of it, where the troops were recruited from in the world, 

where they would be deployed, who would be in command, who would 

decide when to use them, and when not to use them?
21

Mr. Wiggins. Senator, my answer to Senator Mundt is this problem is one th at has engaged the attention of the Senate, and engaged 

the attention of every serious student of the United Nations— the 

method and the means by which the efficiency and effectiveness of a 

permanent peacekeeping device could be developed at the United 

Nations. I believe tha t problem is one of infinite complexity, and 

one which every student of the United Nations recognizes as of the 

greatest importance, the most seriousness.

Senator Dodd. I certainly would say th at is right. But I think what 

bothers a lot of people is when, how, where do you go about this. I 

believe in the principle. But right now if Mr. U Than t had the power 

to make tha t decision, I don’t think it would be very good for us or 

for a lot of other people, either.

I don’t think i t is fair to ask you to make an answer. I know you 

have not had much time to prepare for this hearing. And I don’t say 

tha t I have any answer. But it is this type of thing that you are going 

to be concerned with.

Senator Mundt. Will the Senator yield?

Senator Dodd. Yes.

D E C IS IO N TO CO M MIT A P E A C E K E E P IN G FO R C E

Senator Mundt. I want to make this clear. I support the concept of 

a peacekeeping mechanism. But I would not remotely consider making 

Mr. U Than t or any other Secretary General the commander in chief 

whereby his own decision could send them. I stated in my colloquy 

with Mr. Wiggins tha t I envisioned a recruitment primarily from 

countries smaller than the big four, or if you please, I would not object 

to having them recruited exclusively from among the nations which are 

not on the Security Council. B ut I would have a committee, certainly, 

on which we would have representation along with the other major 

powers of the world, th at would have to unanimously agree where they 

sent them and when they sent them. I t would not be left to any one man.

Senator Dodd. I am not finding any fault with it. I am trying to 

get at something. I think tha t you are right about it. I just don’t 

know how it would work out at this time. 1 think the day may come 

when it will work out all right.

I take it Mr. Wiggins is of the same opinion. He wants to see it 

happen. I thought I heard him say it may take some time to bring 

about; I think so, too.

U .N . FO R C ES IN T H E M ID D LE EAST

I guess the best we can hope to do is the best we can do right now. 

But it is something to worry about. I want to conclude, if 1 may, 

quickly, Mr. Chairman—I don’t want to monopolize the time—-I was 

interested in Senator Mundt’s question about the U.N. and the 

Mideast, and particularly on Israel. The U.N. pulled out of its 

positions on the Israeli frontiers. Do you think tha t precipitated the 

war there? Do you think if it had remained, there would n ot have 

been an outbreak of war?

Mr. Wiggins. A very difficult and troublesome question to answer— 

given the disposition of forces, and the long and historic inability of the 

Israeli and the Arab neighbors to reach a permanent settlement.
28

Senator Dodd. Well, I understand your answer. But it is a fact 

tha t as long as the U.N. was there, the war did not break out.

Mr. Wiggins. We owe to tha t force a decade of relative tranquility in the Middle East. And, it is one of the major contributions of 

the United Nations.

Senator Dodd. I thought it had something to do with preserving 

a kind of peace there. And I thought it was a great tragedy tha t it 

pulled out. This allowed Nasser and those supporting him to provoke 

a war with tha t little country.

Now, it seems to me here is a place tha t the U.N. should remain 

and work every day to prevent the outbreak of war. Don’t you think 

so?

Mr. Wiggins. I agree, sir. The conditions under which the U.N. 

forces were stationed at Sharm El Sheik were somewhat complicated, 

and involved an intricate—presented the Secretary General with a 

very difficult choice of action.

Senator Dodd. Maybe I should just say something. I don’t want 

to plague you with questions. I know you are under a handicap here. 

I don’t think it is easy for a man to come from the life you have very 

successfully led, and appear here on Monday morning, and have us 

throw questions at him from all corners of the world. I am not trying 

to do that.

But I am anxious tha t the record be as clear as we can make it, 

in your interests and ours and tha t of the United States.

Senator Fulbright asked you this question. He said the United 

States has suffered great losses in Vietnam, lives, blood, money, just 

about everything one could think of, including prestige, and as I 

understood the Senator, he asked, what do we win, and what do we 

lose? I didn’t hear you make any specific response. B ut for the record, 

I suggest that we lose a good measure of freedom for the people. And 

if we win, I think we will cut another notch to establish that aggression 

just isn’t going to pay off in this world no matter from what quarter 

it comes, and I think you said from eivher the left or the right. I could 

not agree more. That is what it seems to me we have to win or lose. I 

don’t like it any better than anyone else. I understand Senator Fulbrigh t’s attitude. I am not critical of him. But I thought the record 

ought to be clear.

I think you have been a good witness here under all the circumstances. I thank you for giving me a chance to clear up some things 

in my own mind.

Mr. Wiggins. Thank you, Senator.

R E S P O N S IB IL IT IE S OF AN ED IT O R

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one followup question? 

I was interested in your delineation of the functions of an editor, 

because you were very frank, and quite embracing in what you said. 

As I understood it, an editor is responsible for everything tha t appears on the editorial page. While you might not couch it in exactly 

the same language, the thrust and the significance of all editorials 

come under the purview of the editor in chief. Does that responsibility 

also embrace the editorials?

Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir.
29

Senator D odd. Excuse me for interrupting. That was the intent of 

my question. I wasn’t talking about anything else. I certainly wasn’t 

talking about cartoons.

Senator Mundt. Well, let me ask, does it embrace the cartoons?

Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir.

Senator Dodd. I didn’t mean the political cartoons. I meant the 

funny papers.

Senator Mundt. I meant the political cartoons.

I suppose we ought to have it in the record. I feel confident tha t 

when you accept this position, you divorce yourself entirely from any 

editorial responsibilities, do you?

Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir, at once.

Senator Mundt. Are you a substantial stockholder in the Post?

Mr. Wiggins. I have divested myself of my stock interest in the 

Washington Post.

Senator Mundt. So tha t you are a completely free agent in tha t 

regard.

Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir.

C O N FL IC T B E T W E E N U .N . PO SIT IO N AND PA ST E D IT O R IA L PO LI CY

Senator Mundt. Would you feel bound in any way if, as well 

may develop, there comes a time when the policy of the United 

States on a certain issue before the U.N. is diametrically opposed 

to the Wiggins espoused policies appearing in editorial pages while 

you were in charge? Would tha t in any way be embarrassing, or 

would you feel perfectly free to argue as ardently for a position which 

you have previously opposed as though you had originated tha t 

position itself?

Mr. WIggins. Senator, it would be a situation tha t would give 

me infinite pain, and considerable embarrassment, but I trust I 

could survive it.

Senator Mundt. My experience has been that while I find the 

editorials in the Washington Post on domestic problems generally 

wrong, I have found them generally right on foreign policy. So I 

don’t believe you are going to run into tha t situation too frequently. 

But I thought we ought to have tha t on the record. Somebody is 

going to cite an editorial someday and say, “ This is what Mr. Wiggins 

believed, and can you be sure he is going to do what Mr. Rusk or the 

President wants him to do, or is he going to be stuck with what Mr. 

Wiggins thought was correct 6 or 9 months ago.” So even though the 

pain is excruciating, you are going to do your level best?

Mr. Wiggins. Senator, I am glad you placed it on the record. 

It should be made clear I have no further responsibilities for the 

editorial or news policies of the Washington Post. And it would be 

improper for me to retain any authority or influence.

Senator Mundt. I thought tha t should be in the record. I think 

maybe we failed to ask George Ball some questions we should have 

asked him, in view of what has transpired. But as we live, we learn. 

And I wanted this record complete. I accept your assurance fully.

Senator Dodd. Will the Senator yield? Did I understand the 

Senator to say—it woujd pertain to what I was trying to find out— 

tha t he agrees with all the editorials on foreign policy?
30

Senator M und t. No. I said I was gen erally dis enc han ted with the 

Wa shington Po st editoria ls on dom estic policy, bn t I fel t th at on 

foreign policy, they usu ally followed the lines which ha ve been 

followed by o ur Gover nment , and which in the m ain I have sup ported. 

R E A D IN G OF T H E E D IT O R IA LS

Se nator D odd. I suppose th at would be tru e of our dom estic 

affairs, too. I think the only way I can m ake up my m ind in this case 

is to read the edito rials . I obviously canno t read all of them. But I c an 

read some of the m— a good cross sec tion of them. Mr. Wiggins has 

said very fra nkly he is n ot fam ilia r with this p roblem, the problem of 

inter natio nal affairs. He ha sn ’t served in any official cap acity. How 

does one know, then, wh at he thinks, how he will reac t, how he would 

han dle his job u p ther e, exc ept b y rea din g the edito rials which he tells 

us generally have met with his app roval.

So I think it is i ncum bent on us to look at them. If he were a businessma n or lawyer, a Go vernm ent official, we would look at the pa st 

record. Tha t is the only way I know. And I inten d to do th at . I hope 

we hav e time to do it.

Senator Mund t. I think wha t the Senator has said is correct. I 

was try ing to find out from Mr. Wigg ins wh eth er he interprets his 

position, as I have always interpreted the p osition of o ur Am bassador 

to the U.N. to be th at is he is no t the re to give himself a global 

audienc e for positions which he ind ividually believes to be corr ect, 

bu t th at his job is to rep res ent the policies of the Un ite d States as 

they are ham me red ou t in the constituti onal processes. And since he 

mig ht, uidike the average A mbassado r, be on record in pr int on some 

point of view which he would, because of the tra nsition of time, or 

error in jud gm ent, or difference of opinion, call it wha t you will, be 

required, if he int erprets his office as I interp ret his office, and I thi nk 

as he interp rets his office—wheth er he would feel any inh ibitions 

whatsoev er in being gung ho in fav or of an A merican policy which in 

some previous editorial he may have condem ned ou t of han d.

I think his answer was th at it would be painful, bu t he inter prets 

th at to be the req uir em ent of the job, and he would give it the same 

kin d of tale nt and dedic ated effort as tho ugh he ha d origin ated the 

idea himself.

Now, have I sum marized, Mr. Wiggins, the sit ua tio n correctly?

Mr. Wigg ins. Yes, sir.

Senator D odd. I would like to ma ke anoth er com ment. I agree 

wi th bo th the form of the que stio n, and Mr. Wig gins’ answer as I 

understood it. I wonder if it could n ot be also agreed th at pa st record, 

reflecting the attit ud e of an ind ividual, is i mpo rta nt, it certainl y goes 

to wh eth er or no t he would enthu sia stically un de rta ke some thin gs 

and no t othe rs. And I don’t think it suffices to say, any more th an i t 

would of any oth er American, th at he would become an autom ato n, 

aft er years as a jou rna list expressing his opinion.

Senator M und t. I think yo ur reas oning is good, and it is cer tain ly 

prop er. When 1 said gung ho, I meant enthusiastic ally . I meant all 

out. I meant com pletely in su pp ort of the position.

Senator Sparkman. An yth ing fur the r?

The Chairm an. Mr. Chairma n.

Senator Sparkman. Senator F ulb rig ht.
31

RE LA TE D ENTER PR IS ES OF TH E WAS HI NG TO N PO ST

The Chairman. Following that, I think the record should show— 

I don’t think it was developed—tha t you were managing editor of 

the Post a number of years? When did you become managing editor 

of the Post?

Mr. Wiggins. 21 years ago.

The Chairman. And you are presently, up until at least last week, 

editor and executive vice president of the W ashington Post-Times 

Herald, is th at correct?

Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. Do you have any responsibilities with relation to 

Newsweek?

Mr. Wiggins. No, sir.

The C hairman. You never have been on their board?

Mr. Wiggins. Except as the Washington Post Co. owns Newsweek.

The C hairman. The Washington Post Co.

Mr. Wiggins. And I was a member of the board of Washington 

Post Co., and as such shared responsibility for the conduct of all the 

affairs of the enterprise.

The Chairman. So in effect, Newsweek is a subsidiary of the 

Washington Post Co., is tha t correct?

Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. Is WTOP also a part?

Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir.

The C hairman. Is the Jacksonville TV station also a part?

Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir.

The C hairman. Are there any other TV stations?

Mr. Wiggins. No, sir.

The Chairman. Is that the extent of the publishing empire?

Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir.

Senator Dodd. Or radio.

Mr. Wiggins. And an interest in the Paris Herald Tribune.

The C hairman. You have a p art interest in the Paris Herald?

Mr. Wiggins. The Washington Post Co. has.

IN DEP EN DEN CE OF THE PR ES S

The C hairman. This prompts a question tha t I thought ought to 

be on the record.

You started out with your idea about the United States. Do you 

believe in the principle of the separation of powers which is provided 

in our Constitution?

Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. Do you believe in the first amendment with regard 

to the freedom of the press?

Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. Are you the first officer of the Washington Post 

tha t has been appointed to a diplomatic post?

Mr. Wiggins. No. John Hayes was a director of WTOP and the 

Jacksonville station.

The C hairman. What was he appointed to and when?

Mr. Wiggins. Ambassador to Switzerland.

The Chairman. Is he presently Ambassador to Switzerland?
32

Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir.

Tlie Chairman. Do you know whether anyone from the New York 

Times has been appointed to represent the United States at the 

United Nations in recent years?

Mr. Wiggins. I do not know.

The C hairman. You do not?

Mr. Wiggins. I do not know.

The Chairman. Don’t you recall tha t Mr. Bancroft who was, I 

think, executive vice president of the New York Times, was appointed 

as a delegate to the United Nations in 1966? Do you know Mr. 

Bancroft?

Mr. Wiggins. I know Mr. Bancroft was a delegate.

The C hairman. I was wondering whether you thought this was a 

very healthy development for the press, which insists on the freedom 

to criticize, to be recruited for executive positions by the President. 

Do you think tha t is inconsistent with the division of power, and the 

freedom of the press?

Mr. Wiggins. Senator, I would not like to think that the newspaper 

profession—engagement in the newspaper profession proscribed any 

other public activity. The country would have suffered a great loss if, 

because your family was engaged in the newspaper business you had 

been deprived of public service.

The C hairman. I do not happen to be associated with a newspaper 

at the present time, and never have had an active position in any 

newspaper. The press insists upon its independence. I wonder if the 

Government should not insist upon its independence.

Mr. Wiggins. Senator, I think tha t is an interesting question.

The Chairman. I think it is, too. I had not thought of it until 

Senator Mundt began to bring this up.

R E C R U IT M E N T OF N E W S O F F IC IA L S BY G O V E R N M EN T

There is supposed to be an independence of views. Do you think 

newspapers will continue to be objective and critical if their leading 

officials are recruited by the executive branch of the Government?

We criticize other countries. We have just been very critical, I 

believe your paper has, of the imposition of censorship by governments on newspapers. I think your paper has; has it not?

Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir.

The C hairman. Is it not rather odd t hat the leading officials in our 

newspapers are recruited for executive positions?

Do you think the Washington Post is going to be very critical of 

you if you should make a mistake? I do not think you will. Do you 

think the Washington Post will be entirely objective in their observations about the United Nations?

Mr. Wiggins. Senator, it would really shake my confidence in the 

young men who are now operating the Washington Post if they were 

inhibited to the least degree in any criticism of me upon any occasion 

whatsoever tha t they felt tha t I had made an error or committed a 

wrong in public office.

I am quite confident t hat you need have no anxiety tha t the sharp 

edge of the editorial page of the Washington Post will be tempered to 

this particular lamb.
33

The Chairman. I admire your confidence in human nature. I think 

that is the hope of the world—if all of us are completely independent 

in our views—and especially of our past associations. I have not quite 

found that to be true in the Senate. But we do not possess that high 

caliber of independence and objectivity.

Does the Washington Post have on its staff now any former importan t official employee of the President of the United States?

Mr. Wiggins. I think not.

The Chairman. Is Mr. Siegel an officer of the Washington Post?

Mr. Wiggins. Siegel was an employee of the Senate.

The Chairman. He was not associated with the President?

Mr. Wiggins. An association which I did not find fatal to his 

abilities.

The Chairman. He is a very brilliant man. I am just inquiring 

about him. He was one of the ablest men we have seen over here. I 

thought he was associated with the President. I wasn’t clear about that

SE PA R A TIO N OF PO W E R S P R IN C IP L E

But it is an interesting aspect of our great democracy, the press 

with its independence of power. We have a case pending before the 

Senate now, do we not, in which the question is whether or not the 

Senate is free to pass judgment upon a certain appointment, free of 

any coercion. The question has been raised whether or not the Senate 

is preserving its prerogative in the face of the executive imposition.

Is tha t not a question tha t is an issue before the Senate now? 

Is it not?

Mr. Wiggins. If you say so, Senator.

The Chairman. Oh, no.

Mr. Wiggins. I was not aware tha t was the principal issue.

Senator Mundt. I do not think he is alluding to your case.

The C hairman. Oh, no; I am not referring to his case. I just 

assumed, as editor of the Post, you were aware of what was going on 

in the Senate.

Mr. WTggins. Thank you, Senator.

The Chairman. I assumed you were. But it is an interesting case— 

I think it is unprecedented in our history—in which we are confronted 

with a decision such as is before the Senate today—a contingency 

resignation, contingent upon the Senate doing the will of the President. 

If we do not do it, then the resignation does not take place.

I think my colleague on the right has brought this question up— 

that is, his party has, I do not know whether he personally has or not. 

But I have not had the advantage of reading the Post in a few weeks. 

I have had to rely upon our provincial papers in Arkansas. I may be 

out of touch with what is going on.

But I thought there was a case pending before the Senate and tha t 

there is such an issue involved, as to whether or not the Senate can 

preserve its independence. I am interested in newspapers being independent of the government. I always thought this was a very important part of a democracy.

I would hate to see the executive able to recruit all of our best 

journalists. We need good journalists who take an independent 

view, and they should not always look forward, if they behave 

properly, to fine appointments to this or tha t position. I would not 

think this is quite consistent with our historical division of powers.
34

But tha t is a side issue.

Senator Mundt. In tha t area, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask 

one other question, if I may.

We have some experience lately with hooks popping up all over. 

I think maybe we should ask whether or not by any chance you 

have any book in the mill which is likely to be published during 

your tenure of office tha t would create embarrassment.

Mr. Wiggins. Senator, I have no book in the works.

Senator Mundt. Thank you.

The Chairman. Well, if the book is favorable, USIA I am sure 

will p rint it for you. They have printed many of them.

PL A N N E D R E T IR E M E N T FROM W A SH IN G TO N PO ST

Senator Dodd. Mr. Chairman—you have retired, have you not, 

Mr. Wiggins? Are you not retired from the position with the Post?

Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. Well, but only as of Thursday. You were not a 

retired member of the profession. You were a very active member of 

the profession up until last Thursday; were you not?

Mr. Wiggins. I had indicated my intention to retire on January 1, 

and had already made arrangements to retire.

The Chairman. From the Post?

Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. T never heard of that.

Mr. "Wiggins. I had already retired. It was due to be effective on 

January 1.

The Chairman. Tha t is news. Had it been in the Post?

Mr. Wiggins. Yes, sir.

Senator D odd. I read it.

The Chairman. Well, I missed it.

Senator Mundt. I saw that.

Senator Sparkman. So did I.

Senator Dodd. 1 think it is a good beginning tha t we get bright 

people. I would not find any fault with that. I understand the area of 

concern Senator Fulbright has. But I think balancing things out, it is 

about as good a place as we coidd go—tha t is, to experienced journalists.

I believe the man has had background, and an opportunity to 

observe a lot of things, and he ought to be well qualified. It would 

not bother me tha t you had been the editor of the Post—although 

I may be too broadminded.

Senator Sparkman. Anything further?

Senator Mundt. You do not view it from Republican eyes, which 

some of us must do.

Senator D odd. I do it with the eyes of an honest man.

Senator Sparkman. Thank you very much, Mr. Wiggins.

Mr. Dobriansky has asked permission to testify. Is Mr. Dobriansky here?

Mr. D obriansky. Right here, sir.

Senator Sparkman. Come around, please.
35

STATEMENT OF DR. LEV E. DOBRIANSKY, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL 

CAPTIVE NATIONS COMMITTEE

Dr. Dobriansky. Mr. Chairman, I am terribly sorry I do not have 

a prepared statement, but I did not hear about this hearing until 

Saturday afternoon. Consequently, I will have to deal from notes.

My name is Lev Dobriansky. I am a professor at Georgetown 

University, and also chairman of the Captive Nations Comm ittee 

and the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America.

O PPO SIT IO N TO N O M IN A TIO N

I am here to testify in firm opposition to what I consider an illconsidered nomination of Mr. Wiggins as U.S. Ambassador to the 

U.N.

Now, in setting forth the factual evidence justifying this opposition, 

and insofar as time will permit, my oral statement is actually based 

on certain assumptions which I believe draw a maximum agreement, 

and which may well serve as basic criteria of acceptance and approval 

for nominations to this highly important post in this top world forum. 

And these assumptions are:

One, the presence of a well-rounded person who has demonstrated 

in his most recent years a balance and fairness of outlook, an objectivity toward new and fresh ideas which may not conform with what 

exists—and a proven compassion for the needs and aspirations of 

all peoples, particularly those in the front yard of what I consider our 

chief enemy.

Two, in the present context, a sine qua non of the qualifications of 

any ambassador to the U.N., I believe, is a basic and satisfactory 

knowledge of the U.S.S.R., its origins, development, chief developments at this time, and conflicts.

Whether we wish to admit it or not, the chief, sole, and serious 

enemy to the security of the United States is the totalitarian Russian 

base in tha t ersatz union.

The old Army admonition—“Know your enemy”—I think applies 

here with even multiple intensity and consequences.

Three, now, especially in the wake of the Russian rape of Czechoslovakia, a prospective U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. should have 

demonstrated sober judgment in his assessment of overall developments in Eastern Europe—and as he has proven to be tragically wrong 

and even absurd, he should not have been considered for the nomination in the first place.

And my fourth assumption is, a nominee for this vital position, in 

addition to displaying fairness, honesty, and objectivity, even on what 

may be considered the most controversial issues, should possess a 

measure of courage, an inner confidence of his own views and convictions, and an ability to defend his views in the open, face to face 

with his opponent, even as he may have to transmit t hat and translate 

that in the leadership of America at the U.N.

At any time, no less the present time, we can ill afford a weakling 

representing the United States in the U.N., regardless of the motivation behind this twilight representation by a lameduck administration. 

There is too much at stake even for one day, let alone four months.
36

With these fundamental assumptions, these basic criteria for 

approval of a nomination—and I should be most happy to be told 

where I am wrong—then the present nomination under consideration 

is the very negation of these criteria.

The approval of this nomination would represent a further deterioration in our responsible foreign relations. Indeed—and I use these terms 

advisedly—it would even tend to make a joke of the institution, 

namely the U.S. Ambassadorship in the U.N.

It would seem tha t we were almost scraping the bottom of the 

barrel.

In light of these criteria, and for the honor of our responsible relations with other states and nations, particularly the Russian controllers 

of the U.S.S.R. delegation, I strongly recommend that this nomination 

be rejected.

Happily, in this case my relation with the nominee has at no point, 

in nearly 10 years of what you might call ideational conflict with the 

Washington Post, been personal. My evidence, I want to make this 

clear, is exclusively based on the written word and techniques of his 

authorship, and under his direction.

PO ST E D IT O R IA L PO LI CY SC OR ED

Far more than I can read here—tha t is unless, Mr. Chairman, you 

allow me to do it—the documented evidence is considerable. And I 

urge that it be carefully studied by this committee before a decision 

is reached.

We have another nomination which is now before the Senate that 

required a bit of investigation, and I think in this case this should 

also be carefully looked over and, as was suggested, by a reading of 

editorials.

As you gentlemen well know, it is no easy task to withstand the 

editorial harpoons of a powerful newspaper, which, as I shall show, 

has been abused and misused in the worst tradition of yellow journalism as a means to suppress and distort other points of view on basic 

foreign policy issues.

Fortunately, many Members of Congress, on both sides, value the 

fundamental assets of integrity and objectivity, the moral propensity 

to set forth and see all sides of an issue, and have documented both 

the Washington Post editorials, written and overlorded by the 

nominee, in the Congressional Record itself, and also the replies to 

these editorials.

So I think in one given area, and pertinent to my second assumption 

here on a matter of satisfactory knowledge, that this will serve as a 

source of study by this committee before it reaches a decision.

Senator Dodd. Could I interrupt?

Senator Sparkman. Yes, Senator Dodd.

Senator Dodd. I just wanted to get some idea of how long this 

material is.

Dr. Dobriansky. I will refer to them in a moment, Senator.

Thus, my evidence giving and providing, unlike the nominee’s 

newspaper organ, both sides of the issue for our citizens to assess fairly 

and intelligently, is adequately recorded in these congressional reprints, bearing on the most fundamental of all issues, our relations 

with the imperial, colonialist Moscow Government and its far-flung 

empire.
37

By red indicators I have extracted the necessary evidence, and request tha t it be incorporated as part of the hearing.

Now, let’s examine in the short time tha t I have, the highlights of 

nominee’s factual record—mind you, just a few substantiating items 

from the sources provided here, including one chapter from my own 

book on “The Vulnerable Russians”—as a matter of fact, two chapters 

are devoted to the issue tha t took place a few years ago.

Bearing on the first assumption, concerning intellectual integrity, 

objectivity, compassion for all peoples and the like, the nominee, in a 

very crucial case, manifested all the marks of malicious bias, narrowmindedness, and cultural insularity.

E D IT O R IA L O B JE C TIV IT Y Q U E ST IO N E D

The extensive case here is the erection of the Shevchenko statue in 

our Nation’s capital. The crucial point is not the ramifications of this 

event, which he did not understand, nor did his paper, and which extended deep into the Kremlin and all parts of the Russian empire, 

including even North Vietnam, but the manner in which the nominee, 

wielding the power of a newspaper, handled it.

I am prepared to answer any questions pertaining to the ramifications of his event, including Moscow’s response to erect a similar 

statu e in the Red imperial capital, Khrushchev’s hasty departure 

from Scandinavia to unveil their statue before we did ours, former 

President Eisenhower’s speech at the monument, and many other 

internationally related aspects.

At this point, let’s just concentrate on how—not the substantive 

content—but on how this journalist of supposed integrity and honesty 

and objectivity managed the situation.

The nominee waged actually a campaign of inconsistency and 

uncertainty as to his knowledge of the issue. And it was a campaign 

of smear and hatred, injecting, as you will see from the editorials, 

such things as antisemitism, the hyphenated American slur, and 

employing every filthy trick in the journalistic trade to prevent what 

the Congress and the Eisenhower administration had willed by process 

of legislation and execution.

Now, the Washington Post prides itself on a liberal attitude—seeing 

all sides of the issue, so that citizens can evaluate it.

Well, let’s see in the case of the editor-in-chief, who now for some 

mysterious reason is proposed to be our Ambassador to the UN. 

Just compare in this first one—and these 1 offer as the editorials— 

the first editorial and then Stephen Rosenfeld’s write-up about 

Shevchenko, myself and others, with what succeeded in a whole 

series of editorials over a couple of months. As a matter of fact, 

editorialized reporting—this went on literally for about six months— 

at the end of 1963 and the beginning of 1964.

And you will be impressed by it, as I stated—the cultural insularity of and also the distortion of facts by the editor.

Then read his editorial of October 18, 1963, “The Shevchenko 

Affair,” and you will see why this nominee is throughly out of his 

department in this assignment, a plucked fish on dry sand indulging in factual inaccuracies, conceptual nonsense, and, as I said, a 

play on disunity and hatred.

20 -2 07 — 6S- 6
38

Actually, there are passages here where he attem pted to incite 

Jews in the community and beyond Washington on this antisemitism 

matter, attempted to incite Poles, with presumably Shevchenko 

being anti-Polish, and used these techniques in the course of these 

months.

Another, the editoral on “A Monument to Ignorance,” November 1, 

1963. I bring to your attention, too. Really, this is an editorial monument of ignorance—plays on the theme again of antisemitism to 

arouse the Jewish opposition and, if you will, even what we are 

familiar with, a McCarthyist technique of association, which another 

of our newspapers here, the Evening Star, actually editorialized, 

“Association Again”, in opposition to the Washington Post under 

the nominee’s direction.

E X A M PL E S OF E D IT O R IA LS

Now, the importance of all of this, is that hundreds of letters were 

sent to the Washington Post, and in the editorial, you will find 

admitted as such by the editor. Yet I would say only about half of one 

percent of those letters managed to find their way into the editorial 

page of the Washington Post.

A good number of them are in this record, in the Congressional 

Record.

Another editorial shows tha t we even have absurdities, as you will 

see. I think the matter of his logic, the matter of his concepts should 

be taken into account when in one editorial he even feared tha t 

Khrushchev would come here and lay a wreath at this particular 

statue—if only he knew what the writing on the statue is. But in 

all of these cases, this event was completely misjudged. But the main 

thing was the manner in which i t was handled, and I do not hesitate 

to state—in a filthy, dirty, journalistic manner. And I strongly 

recommend th at the members of this committee read these editorials. 

They are here, I have cited them, and also I would like, in addition, 

to submit for this record, this article in the Indianapolis Star, “Ike 

calls for freedom of all c'aptive nations.”

Senator Sparkman. Without objection it will be inserted in the 

record.

Senator Dodd. Did the chairman rule on the request t hat the other 

editorials be printed in the record?

Senator Sparkman. I did not understand him to ask that. Did 

you ask that other editorals be printed?

Dr. Dobriansky. The editorials, and the replies as you will find 

in this Congressional Record reprint, yes.

Senator Sparkman. Without objection, they will be printed in the 

record. If the material is going to be too lengthy, we ought to receive 

them for our files instead of printing them in the record. Do you want 

both of them printed in the record?

Senator Dodd. I asked how long they were.

Dr. Dobriansky. They are not too long, if you take the five editorials and the replies. I am not asking that all of these brochures go 

into the record of this hearing. Just what I have indicated—the 

editorials written by the nominee and the specific replies.

Senator Sparkman. We would be very glad to have all of them in 

our committee files, and will print in the record individual editorials 

tha t you point out, as you did this last one.
39

(Some of the material referred to appears in the appendix. The 

remainder is in the committee files.)

Dr. Dobriansky. Yes, indeed.

The conclusion of this is tha t there is a very great question as to 

his integrity, his openmindedness, and his objectivity.

E D IT O R IA L S P E R T A IN IN G TO C A PT IV E N A T IO N S W E E K

The second—referring to my second criterion or assumption— 

namely, an adequate knowledge of the U.S.S.R. This goes all the 

way back to July 1959, with the passage of the Captive Nations Week 

Resolution. Now, unfortunately, I do not have and was not able to 

obtain all the editorials pertaining to the resolution and the week in 

subsequent years. But actually, let me cite some here—and I hope for 

the record tha t they will be obtained by the staff to give you a good 

idea as to the foreign policy orientation of this person, more so in 

terms of his concepts and his knowledge.

In this case, the July 1959 editorial, “Irritating the Bear,” was an 

editorial denouncing the passage of the resolution by Congress. I, in 

that month, wrote a reply to it, and my reply was published on July 

29, 1959, which incidentally caused much surprise to Senator Douglas 

tha t the Post at tha t time even accommodated the reply. Of course, 

that experience was not repeated in subsequent years when actually 

replies were sent in, which were either cut, or misplaced and the like. 

As a matter of fact, this past July we sent out a press release concerning the 1968 Captive Nations Week, and much to my amazement on 

Monday morning one of my colleagues at the university asked me 

if I had overextended myself in writing a letter to the Washington 

Post. "Plie fact is I did not write any letter to the Washington Post. 

They simply extracted two sentences from the press release, threw it 

into the letter to the editor’s section of the Washington Post, with 

my name over it under the caption of “Captive Nations Week.” But 

there are the manipulations by which the Post has handled this matter.

Senator Dodd. Just a minute. I want to be sure I understand this.

You say you put out a press release?

Dr. Dobriansky. A press release.

Senator Dodd. And excerpts from it were printed in the letters to 

the editor?

Dr. Dobriansky. Yes, sir.

Senator Dodd. Over your signature?

Dr. Dobriansky. Right. I never wrote any letter to the editor, 

having had long experience with the editor at the Washington Post.

Senator Dodd. I just wanted to get this factually straightened out. 

Was the press release put out in your name?

Dr. Dobriansky. Yes.

Senator Dodd. Did you ever complain to the Post about printing 

a letter which you never wrote?

Dr. Dobriansky. Well, Senator, actually I have had long experience with the Post on the matter of complaints and the like. Tha t 

would have been simply at this state a waste of time.

Senator Dodd. You did not write?

Dr. Dobriansky. No. But the fact is I did not write a letter to 

the editor pertaining to the Week, and the two sentences, as I say, 

just two sentences, presumably constituted this ostensible letter.

Senator Dodd. I think it is important.
40

Did it actually appear as a letter to the editor?

Dr. Dobriansky. Yes. You can check on it.

Senator Dodd. I am not questioning your integrity about it. But 

it would interest me that this paper would take something and make 

out of it a letter to the editor which was never written.

Dr. Dobriansky. That is correct.

Senator Dodd. This has to do with foreign policy?

Dr. Dobriansky. This had to do with Captive Nations Week.

Senator Dodd. Tha t is certainly foreign policy.

Dr. Dobriansky. Yes.

Tha t is one illustration among many tha t I can give.

Senator Dodd. You say this is just one?

Dr. Dobriansky. Oh, yes. I mean there have been many. As a 

matter of fact, if I had time to research this, there were many instances 

of actually inserting the editorial of the Washington Post, and then my 

reply to it in the Congressional Record. We have had to parenthesize 

the sections of my reply tha t had been deleted. In the past two years 

actually they have not even bothered to incorporate any letters in the 

Post.

PO LIC Y OF PR IN T IN G L E T T E R S TO T H E E D IT O R

Senator Dodd. I can understand they cannot print all letters. And 

they have to tailor them to the requirements of the page. Any of us 

who have written letters to a newspaper have encountered these 

difficulties.

I am concerned, and I think others will be, if it has been the policy 

of this paper on matters of foreign policy to print letters to the editor— 

I do not care whether they came from you or anybody else—which 

never were written.

Dr. Dobriansky. Tha t is correct.

Senator Dodd. Do you know of any other instances, while Mr. 

Wiggins was the editor?

Dr. Dobriansky. No. This is the sole one, this past July. And 

actually, the motivation there appeared to be an attempt to denigrate, 

you see, or degrade the Week itself.

Senator D odd. Tha t is not my point. Whatever the motivation was, 

I think it is outrageous for a newspaper to do any such thing. I am 

concerned here about foreign policy.

Dr. D obriansky. Wait a minute. I think this is a very grave matter. 

If it was done once, only once, tha t can be explained away—perhaps 

somebody did something he did not know about. But if it represents 

a studied policy or attitude—I am talking now about the area of 

foreign policy—then I think we ought to know about it.

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman—if he has this letter or this editorial page, I suggest that it be made a part of the record. I think the 

doctor suggested tha t our staff tr y to find it. But our staff advises me 

they are tremendously busy. They will make the effort. But if he has 

access to it himself, it would be much bette r if he would submit it.

Senator Dodd. 1 quite agree. I think tha t is a good suggestion. 

Without objection it is so ordered.

Dr. D obriansky. I looked for it. But as I stated, I did not have time.

Senator Mundt. We will keep the record open.
41

Dr. D obriansky. Now, on this matter concerning the Week, I would 

like here to submit for the record this article “From Moscow’s Izvestia 

to Washington’s Post.” I am not inputing any—as it has been in the 

past—any Communist motivations on the part of the Post and the like. 

I am, however, stating that there is a common denominator in thought. 

And Izvestia, in fact, has complimented the Post concerning its 

position with regard to the Captive Nations Week and the resolution.

Senator Dodd. I think that ought to be included in the record.

Dr. Dobriansky. Yes. And I think you will find it very worthwhile 

in terms of the contents of the Post editorial, especially the manner 

in which it inveighed against Congressmen, actually calling them 

captive, and the like. 1 mean the invective, the techniques, again, 

here, are something to be wondered about.

Senator Dodd. Without objection, Senator Mundt, tha t ought to 

be printed. It seems to me to be relevant to this printing of what was 

a letter, on this same subject.

(The letter to the editor referred to follows: The article referred to 

is in the committee files.)

[From the Washington Post July 15, 196S]

C a pt iv e N a tio n s W e e k

July 14-20 marks the ten th observance of Captive Nations Week. In addition to 

observances in this country, citizens in 15 other countries such as Free China, 

Korea, India, West Germany and Argentina, will be joining in.

L ev E. D o b r ia n sk y .

W a sh in g t o n .

nominee’s knowledge of u.s.s.r. doubted

Dr. Dobriansky. Concerning this—I am not going into an analysis 

of this, other than what I am producing for the record here—but the 

fact is th at the nominee, in my judgment, has absolutely no comprehension of the U.S.S.R. And when it is stated that he is a student of 

Soviet-American relations, I must say that to me tha t is for publicity 

purposes, and of hollow import.

The reason I state this, for example, pertains in this case to another 

editorial. I want to submit this likewise, bearing on the Washington 

Post, an editorial tha t was written in 1964. The editorial states 

clearly—this is short enough, but it will make my point, which is just 

one example among many—with reference to the resolution: “It also 

includes Cossakia and Idel-Ural which never have existed as nations 

except for intervals of German invasion. They are about as much 

captives of the Soviet Union as Anacostia and Cleveland Park are 

captives of the District of Columbia. As far as tha t goes, White 

Ruthenia and Ukraine are political concoctions tha t describe aspirations more than a national entity.”

Now, similar rubbish can be found actually in the documented 

material I am offering here. This reflects the conceptual and also the 

presumed knowledge background of the individual.

As a matter of fact, if 1 had the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, not 

that I wish to infuse any humor here—to be given the opportunity 

to ask the nominee certain questions, many would consider them 

fundamental questions pertaining to the Soviet Union.
42

nominee’s assessment of D E V EL O PM E N TS IN E A ST E R N E U R O PE

The third, and that is the factor of judgment regarding our assumptions.

Now, if you have followed the editorials of the Washington Post, 

and the people th at they manage to get—Mr. Bryczinski and others 

to write for it—I think you will agree t ha t the tendency, the whole 

tone and theme has been detente—for the past 2, 3, 4 years. This 

advocacy of detentism is their privilege and prerogative—just as it 

is with regard to the Shevchenko episode, and with regard to his 

understanding of the U.S.S.R. I am not questioning these things other 

than to show the pertinency of my assumptions. But in this case, 

with detentism, I think tha t the recent case of the rape of Czechoslovakia by the Russians has pretty much exploded that theme. Even 

a person with whom I have had conflicts, let us say, in the scholarly 

area, Mr. George Kennan, happily has recognized tha t there is not an 

iota of evidence supporting this.

V IE W S O F G E O R G E K E N N A N

Senator Dodd. Are you familiar with Mr. Kennan’s earlier statements about this same problem?

Dr. D obriansky. Oh, yes. But I am referring to his latest interview, 

given at Princeton. As a matter of fact, as you know, Mr. Chairman, 

each time I have appeared before this committee, I have not only 

criticized, but I have offered constructive alternatives. And despite 

my, well, I would say, rather turbulent relations with Mr. Kennan 

in a number of spheres, I would say an alternative recommendation 

for this time should be Mr. Kennan as the ambassador to the U.N. 

for the United States.

But the point tha t I am making is-----

Senator Dodd. Let me ask you a question about that.

Are you serious when you make tha t suggestion?

Dr. Dobriansky. Well, apparently by the present nomination 

there does not seem to be any alternative thought of by the administration. As I stated, it would almost seem we are scraping the bottom 

of the barrel.

Senator Dodd. I thought you were critical of this nomination 

because of the policy of the editorials with respect to foreign affairs. 

I take it you would be just as critical of Mr. Kennan.

Dr. Dobriansky. That is correct. But not for this interim period.

Senator Dodd. Why do you recommend him?

Dr. Dobriansky. Well, yes, on the basis of his disclosed ideas of 

the past week or so and the fact tha t he has greater knowledge and 

ability than the present nominee. I am not overly enthusiastic about 

the nomination. I can think of many other people in the country. 

But it would hold in terms of his background and the selection being 

made, if you will, by the present administration.

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I missed something in there. Was 

George Kennan before us as a nominee for some ambassadorship?

Dr. Dobriansky. No.

Senator Mundt. You are recommending him?

Dr. Dobriansky. I am just recommending him as an alternative 

to the present nomination. I perhaps should have put “even George 

Kennan” in light of his recent thinking on our policy.
43

Sena tor Mund t. At lea st it can be said for George Ke nnan the re 

was a time in his career when he seemed to very clea rly sense the 

realities of the Co mm unist threat, and the time he was sta tio ne d in 

Moscow w ith Averell H arr im an, I was briefed by him to a conside rable 

exten t in Moscow. He gave our com mittee, the House F oreign Affairs 

Comm itte e, a very cle ar-cut and historically accurate analysis of the 

Co mm unist menace. Some place along the line and in between he seems 

to have vacillated a great deal. But I also read his statem en t ab ou t 

Czechoslov akia , with bo th surp rise and gra tification. It seemed to me 

he was rev erting back to the day s of his service in Moscow.

Senator D odd. Let me say it is my u nd ersta nd ing as well. I was no t 

bein g critica l of him. My reco llection is th at Mr. Ke nn an has take n 

a v ery different position at d ifferent times. That is all.

COU RAGE AND L E A D E R SH IP OF N O M IN E E Q U E STIO N ED

D r. D obriansk y. My fourth point, and th at was with reg ard to 

the assum ption on courage and lead ership. In connection with the 

prese nt nominee and the Wash ing ton Post, and for the benefit, if y ou 

will, of our citizenry, I challenged the Po st ab ou t a ye ar ago when 

it came ou t with wh at I considered a tho rou ghly absurd editorial, 

one of which has been incl uded for the record— concern ing these areas 

in the Soviet Union— nam ely Idel-Ural, Tu rk ist an , White Ru then ia, 

and Cossakia. Le t me stat e the challenge th at was made. Th e letter 

was never pri nte d in this case, bu t this was one of many sup pressed 

lette rs—of Ju ly 17, 1967:

I challenge you to arran ge a discussion meeting in the Pos t auditorium which 

would bring you face to face with living victims of Soviet Russian imperial colonialism from th e Idel-Ural, Turkestan, White R uthenia and Cossakia. Let us see how 

courageous you are in meeting these people who you think are ghosts withou t 

a natio nal background of independent struggle before the audience of the Post 

personnel, who in this setting would have the opp ortu nity to gauge the level of 

their editor’s understa nding of this vital problem.

Now , thes e peoples th at we referred to am ou nt ro ugh ly to ab ou t 70 

million in th e So viet Union. And surely a U.S. A mb assado r to t he U.N., 

especially when we keep in mind in the present conte xt the prime 

enemy, nam ely the Russi an bas e in the Sov iet Union, would have a 

fam iliari ty with them, a nd not prese nt such ga rbage in the ed itor ials of 

the Wa shington Pos t.

So in conclusion, gen tlem en, as I see it, on the basis of th ese crite ria, 

the nom inee fails to measure up to any of these qualifications. Th e 

nom ina tion, in my ju dg me nt, is an app alling one, and I thi nk th at the 

com mittee , before it decides, should look carefully at these editorials, 

to gau ge the m in terms of t he assum ptions th at I hav e made. Because 

it brings up the so-called in teg rity of th e individ ual, his kn owledge, his 

capacit y really to lead with courage, and this m at te r of objec tiv ity , 

which I have no t found in the course of thes e y ears.

And also, if I m ay—I notice the Ch air man is n ot he re— to have two 

chapter s of this book, "T he Vulnerable Ru ssian s” also ma de pa rt of 

the reco rd, in view of the fact th at they pe rta in to the issue. One 

whole ch ap ter deals with this entire She vchenko eve nt.

Senator D odd. Unless Senator M un dt has any objection , they will 

be inclu ded.

(The m ate ria l referred to app ear s in the comm itte e files.)

Dr. Dobriansk y. T hat concludes my tes tim ony, sir.
44

PO ST E D IT O R IA L PO LIC Y TO W AR D U .S .S .R .

Senator Dodd. Have you made any study of the Post editorials 

on foreign policy over any protracted period to time?

Dr. Dobriansky. No; I have read them very carefully—in view 

of the fact tha t 1 have to be apprised as to the position taken, and 

especially to what extent they have editorialized the position of 

our Government, and the arguments set forth.

Senator Dodd. I just thought there might be something handy, 

if you had done that.

Dr. Dobriansky. Well, I may say this: No, I do not have it 

unfortunately. However, in the replies here to many of these editorials, 

many—and I understand quite well—an average American would 

say “Well, what is this fuss over a statue?” The point is tha t it did 

involve, and we knew it would involve, Moscow, Khrushchev, 

Washington. If anyone bothered to look into all the reports on it 

from Izvestia, in Pravda, and so on—in any sensible way—he would 

find that this was of great import and reflects—it cannot be in any way 

disassociated with this basic problem—namely, the need in our 

Government to concentrate and study the non-Russian nations 

within the U.S.S.R. I might say this—that the position taken by the 

Post editorials all these years has been one of just brushing these 

truth s under the rug in order to achieve detente with Moscow.

PO ST ED IT O R IA L PO LIC Y ON V IE TN A M

Senator Mundt. Have you followed the editorial policies of the 

Post in connection with the current war in Vietnam? I t has been my 

impression—you correct me if I am wrong—that the Post editorials 

have supported President Johnson and Secretary Rusk in what I 

think is a very proper determination to refuse to pull out of Vietnam 

and accept defeat. Am I wrong in my feeling tha t they have supported the administration in expressing support for a position which 

would not take our country out of there in disgrace and defeat and 

turn Vietnam over to the Communists?

Dr. Dobriansky. I would think you are quite correct, sir. They 

have taken tha t position.

Senator M undt. Tha t is my impression. As I said earlier, while I 

have disagreed very generally with the Washington Post editorial 

policies on domestic affairs, I have found greater areas of agreement 

in terms of foreign policy. I related tha t to the Vietnamese situation. 

I must confess to the fact tha t I do not read the Washington Post 

editorials every day, because as a Republican, I find it a most unhappy 

way to sta rt the day—to read such persistent and pugnacious condemnation of virtually everything for which Republicans stand. So I 

might have missed something, and I did not want to put myself in the 

position of saying I generally supported the foreign policy position of 

the Washington Post. I have not read it meticulously. But it was my 

impression on the Vietnamese situation they had happily been on the 

right side of the issue, and it was to tha t tha t I related my earlier 

statement, as I stated to my distinguished friend, Senator Dodd.

Senator Dodd. That would put Mr. Wiggins in the same category 

as Mr. Kennan. Mr. Kennan now has changed his mind. Apparently 

Mr. Wiggins has not about Vietnam.
45

Senator Mund t. It could be.

Senator D odd. If you are going to recommend Ke nnan, why do n’t 

you recommend Wiggins.

Senator Mundt. I hav e a feeling Mr. Ke nnan cha nge d his mind 

from the deten tism he had been app lauding, back to his original con ­

cep ts of the C om mu nis t aggressive moves, larg ely because of the rap e 

of Czechoslovakia, which came as a s urprise to Mr. Ke nnan, although 

it came as a fulfillment of prophecy so far as the Senator from South 

Dak ot a is concerned. I was no t surprised; he was. A nd if his re formation 

rem ains consistent and perm anent I shall be very happy, beca use 

George Ke nnan is an art icu lat e spokesman for any cause th at he 

espouses.

Senator D odd. I think the same can be said for Mr. Wiggins. I tak e 

it he is a v ery effective spokesman for the causes in which he believes.

Senator M undt. As a practic ing Meth odist, I believe in the 

doctrine of conversion. And I would hope th at as it happened to Mr. 

Ke nnan, it m ay h ave happened to Mr. Wiggins.

Senator D odd. That is ju st the point. I do no t tak e any position 

on i t. It in terest ed me th at D r. Do brian sky thought Kennan would be 

a b et te r choice. He has changed his m ind. I tak e it th at if the P os t h as 

changed some of i ts policy Mr. Wiggins mus t have changed his mind.

Senator M undt. I must s ay t hat I would be happier if an advocate 

for the ambas sad or position had the fore sight and the backg rou nd 

and the consistency to be a target all the time. But those people are 

difficult to come by.

Senator D odd. Well, Docto r, we will rea d yo ur testim ony, and 

review it.

Dr . D obriansky. Th an k you.

Senator D odd. We th an k you for taking t he time to come here.

Dr . D obriansk y. Th an k yo u, sir.

Senator D odd. No other witnesses.

Th e meetin g is adjourned .

(Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m. the com mittee was adj ourne d, to 

reco nve ne subje ct to the call of the Chair.)

AP PE ND IX

M a t e r ia l S u b m it ted by D r. D o b r ia n sk y

(From pam phlet entitled, “Shevchenko—A Monument to the Liberation,

Freedom, and Independence of All Captive Nations” Rem arks by Various

Members of Congress in the House of Representatives Nov. 13, 14, 20, 21,

Dec. 4, 6, 1963; and Jan. 9 and 13, 1964)

A RECORD OF CONSISTEN CY

Mr. Speaker, I intro duce the first editorial on “Poetic Injustice,” which misses 

the whole point of the Shevchenko statue project by injecting Shakespeare. In 

the light of a later erroneous reference to anti-Semitism, it is interesting th at 

the edito rial overlooked Shakespeare’s well-known character:

[From the Washington Post, Sept. 23, 1963]

“ P o etic I n ju s t ic e

“ We yield to no one in our esteem for the Ukraine and th at cou ntry’s poet 

and hero, Taras Shevchenko. Yet, like most Americans, we have never read a 

line of Mr. Shevchenko’s verse, in Ukrainian or otherwise, and like most Americans 

were unaware of his existence until ground was broken last Saturday for a plaza 

and 14-foot statue consecrated to a distant national idol who died in 1861. A 

choice site—the triangu lar plot bounded by 22d, 23d, and P Streets—will henceforth bear witness to Mr. Shevchenko’s memory and to the potency of Ukrainian 

political pressure.

“ Yet, with out belittling Mr. Shevchenko, some murmur of wonder is in order 

from those of us who harbor an incorrigible prejudice in favor of poets closer to 

our own trad ition. Next year will be the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s 

birth. Th at the city has found precious space for the Ukrain e’s national poet 

and not yet found room for some comparable token to Shakespeare’s genius is 

really remarkable.”

Mr. Speaker, for a more balanced view I submit the article by the Post’s staff 

repo rter, Stephen S. Rosenfeld on “A Ukrain ian Poet Gets Statue Billing,” 

September 29. The contradictions now appear even between the Post’s own 

writers:

“A Ukrainian Poet Gets Statue Billing

“ (By Stephen S. Rosenfeld)

“Next Memorial Day, if 40,000 people assemble for a ceremony on a small 

triangular park at P, 22d, and 23d Streets NW., in Washington, no one who 

knows Lev E. Dobriansky will be surprised.

“An ordinary man—-one who did not speak in the name of a small bu t solid 

ethnic minority—would never have believed that the U.S. Congress could be 

induced to authorize erection of a sta tue of Taras Hryhorovych Shevchenko, a 

Ukrainian and a poet a t tha t.

“An ordinary man—one w ithout a keen app etit e for cold war—would not have 

imagined th at a regional figure of the last century could be converted into the 

cutting edge of a propa ganda campaign against the Soviet Union today.

“Lev E. Dobriansky of course is no ordinary man. He is a 44-year-old Georgetown economics professor, born in New York of Ukrainian parents, who has 

energetically pursued twin careers as a dispassionate scholar and a passionate 

anti-Communist devoted to the Ukraine.

“He is also the 14-year president of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of 

America (which includes perhaps 100,000 of the estim ated 2 million Americans 

of Ukrainian descent), an adviser on natio nalities to the Republican Party, 

and an expert in ethnic leverage on American politics.

“Add to this a persuasive intelligence and a winning manner and you have the 

principal reason why, next May, a 14-foot, quarter-million-dollar bronze sta tue 

of Taras Shevchenko will be unveiled at a choice Washington location.
48

“Shevchenko was identified as the Ukraine’s ‘poet laureate and national 

hero’ in a glowing tribute prin ted as a House document in 1960.

“T his description does him no injustice. He is not jus t the most—perhaps the 

only—distinguished poet in more tha n a millenium of Ukrainian history; he is a 

most distinguished Ukrainian.

“F or his poetry, Ukrainians both under and beyond Soviet rule adore him. 

Two non-Ukrainian Washingtonians familiar with his work speak of him ask 

‘Pushkin and more,’ ‘ah, a Shakespeare.’ Few others know him and there is only 

one incomplete American edition of his poems, published privately in 1945.

“Born a serf in 1814, Shevchenko had his freedom purchased by his artist 

patrons in St. Petersburg at age 24. Nine years later, for his part in a society of 

radicals and Ukrainian patriots in Kiev, he was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment and exile. He died, under police supervision, 4 years afte r th at in 1861.

“He belonged to the fermenting, freedom-minded Russian intelligentsia of 

the mid-19th century and he was an ard ent Ukrainian patriot. These elements, 

expressed both in his life and his poetry, caught fire and made him a regional 

celebrity in literate circles of his time.

“The Ukraine was then controlled by Czarist Russia; it has known only 

fleeting intervals of independence from either Russia or Poland in its long history. 

Shevchenko sang of the exploits of Ukrainians and Cossacks against both of these 

nations. He also spoke for the oppressed serfs.

“His poetry reflected, too, popular feelings about Jews, who had been persecuted 

in the Ukraine for several centuries—partia lly because of their enforced economic 

role as middlemen and their questioned loyalty to the Ukraine.

“In his poems, he sometimes referred to Jews in the vernacular (‘pig,’ ‘miser’) 

and his epic ‘Haydamak i’ glorified the Ukrainian band which murdered thousands 

of Jews—and Poles.

“In person, Shevchenko once signed a petition against anti-Semitism, a brave 

act for the time. This episode, related in the House document abo ut the poet in 

order to blu nt possible criticism, helped reassure those Congressmen who had 

qualms on this score.

“Shevchenko’s various themes and his enduring sta tur e in the Ukraine have 

since led to a vigorous contest for his spiritual kinship between Ukrainians abroad 

and Soviets at home.

“T he Soviets encouraged and then crushed a Ukrainian independence movement after the Russian Revolution of 1917. The Ukraine is now a constituent 

republic of the Soviet Union.

“Moscow treats Shevchenko as a lat ent Bolshevik who strained for brotherhood 

with the Russian people while opposing the oppressions of Czarism.

“ Ukrainians in the Dobriansky camp see Shevchenko as a fighter for human 

freedom and Ukrainian nationhood, with a built-in anti-Soviet passion.

“A nticipating Moscow’s celebration of the centenary of the poe t’s death in 

1961, he determined to head it off. In 1959 various Congressmen began to learn 

of their con stitutents’ interest in a s tatue for Shevchenko.

“D obriansky was alrea dy well known on Capitol Hill for pushing thro ugh the 

Captive Nations resolution of 1959—he considers the Ukraine ‘the largest nonRussian nation behind the Iron Cu rtain.’ He now became a v irtu al fixture.

“There developed not only an awe for Dobriansky’s devotion but a sympathy 

for the anti-Communist aims of the statue project. Even the skeptics thought 

it harmless and no one wished to be against it. As Dobriansky said in an interview’, 

the goal was not jus t to venerate the poet but to ‘educate’ Americans about 

communism and to use Shevchenko as a ‘psvchopolitical cold-war weapon.’

“ Senator Jacob K. Ja vits and his fellow New York Republican, Senator K enneth 

B. Keating, found themselves sponsors of a 1959 Senate resolution for the statue. 

A more florid House resolution, written by Dobriansky, was offered by then 

Represe ntative Alvin Bentley, Republican, of Michigan, in 1960.

‘ The Senate’s resolution was tabled after the Interior Departme nt protested 

th at there were too many sta tue claimants and too few policy guidelines for selection.

“B ut Dobriansky, who gives much credit to Representative Paul C. Jones, 

Democrat, of Missouri, saw the House resolution past Interior’s shoals.

“In J une 1960, a resolution proudly su bmitted by Representative John Lesinski, 

Democrat, of Michigan, authorized the House’s printing of the 45-pag e ‘biographical documentary of the life and character of Taras Shevchenko.’ Dobriansky 

wrote the foreword.

“His monumental efforts were crowned with success on September 13, 1960, 

when President Eisenhower signed the House (resolution into law. It authorized 

erection of a Shevchenko sta tue ‘on public grounds in the District of Columbia 

* * * without expense to the United States.’
49

“Details remained: collection of about $250,000 for the statue: approval of Leo 

Mol’s design by the Fine Arts Commission, and selection of the site by the 

Natio nal Capital Planning Commission. The N CPC balked a bit and again Dobriansky had to p atie ntly minister to doubts.

“Last Ju ly, Associated Public Relations Counselors of 1028 Connec ticut Avenue 

NW., began to pu t out publicity for the ground breaking.

“The publicity made much of a poem in which Shevchenko had asked for a 

Ukrainian George Washington ‘to prom ulgate his new and righteous law.’ 

This particu lar passage was embellished by at least four of the speakers at the 

ground breaking last Saturday.

“The Congressmen honored at th at occasion included all those so far named, 

plus Senators Hugh Scott, Republican, of Pennsylvania and Thomas J. Dodd, 

Democrat of Connecticut, and Representatives Michael A. Feighan, Democrat, 

of Ohio, Ray J. Madden, Democrat, of Indian a, and Thadd eus J. Dulski, Democrat 

of New York.

“At Dob riansky’s request, Dulski has sub mitted a House resolution to honor 

Shevchenko with a champion of liberty stamp next year when the sta tue is 

unveiled.

‘Dobriansky reports th at the 200 people at the ground breaking made up the 

largest such crowd in the 40-odd years of Washington history recorded by the 

Board of Trade.

“And th at is why those who know Lev Dobriansky do not doubt th at the 

multitu de he envisages for the unveiling will be there.”

Following this, we now read the first controversial editorial titled “The Shevchenko Affair,” October 18. By the Post’s own admission, a heavy volume of 

mail criticizing this editorial for its tone and errors has been received. Up to this 

time few have been published and at that I und erstand with careful deletions. 

Along w ith the editorial I submit in full text the letter written by Dr. Lev E. 

Dobriansky of Georgetown University, from which references to House Document 

No. 445 and Dr. Frederick Brown Harris’ article on Shevchenko were deleted, 

and also an unpublished letter b y former Congressman Charles J. Kersten:

[From the Washington (D.C.) Post, Oct. 18, 1963]

“ T h e Sh ev c h e n k o Af fa ir

“The Shevchenko sta tue should never have been approved by Congress. There 

is no legitimate reason why a 19th century Ukrainian poet, a cipher to the vast 

majority of Americans and an object of intense manipulation by the few who 

know him, should be honored w ith a statu e at an enviable location in th e Na tion’s 

Capital. Ground has been broken for the sta tue bu t it is still not too late to call 

the whole affair off.

“There are two reasons why the project has gone this far and neither is good. 

The first is the efforts of a tiny group of Americans of Ukrainian birth or background who managed to convert an errant priv ate passion into a public cause. 

The second is the misguided and careless reception given the statue proposal by 

Congress, which allowed itself to be swept along in order to please some insistent 

constituents.

“The Ukrainian-American sponsors conceive of the statue as a blun t weapon in 

a fierce cold-war propagan da campaign against the Soviet Union. They are using 

it to advance their own peculiar notion of how to fight communism and their own 

implausible goal of Ukrainian nationhood.

“Many people feel th at Shevchenko was a fine poet, bu t his artis try is of no 

moment to the statue sponsors. If it were, the sta tue would still be objectionable, 

simply because as a poet Shevchenko has no universal significance for Americans. 

He is the pet of a small minority, whatever his poetic merit.

“I t has not been possible to assess the rivalries an d suspicions which have foamed 

up around the edges of this project. It is perhaps enough to say that both in the 

writings of the poet and in the efforts to exploit him there are elements which are 

offensive in various ways to Americans of Russian, German, Polish, Catholic, 

Jewish, Orthodox, and even Ukrainian background. A statue of Shevchenko 

would a monument to disunity and recrimination among Americans.

“The Congressmen who were persuaded to support the Shevchenko statue— 

Senators Jav its and Keating, Representatives Lesinski, Paul Jones and others— 

should at once a ct to reverse their earlier erro r.”
50

“ L et t e r to t h e E dit o r of t h e W a sh in g to n P ost , Oc to ber 19, 19 63

“I tru st you will afford me the same opportu nity of replying to your October 

18 edition on “The Shevchenko Affair” as you did in July 1959, concerning an 

editorial on the Captive Nations Week resolution. Your opposition the n was 

based on a medley of factual inaccuracies; bearing the same tra it, your present 

opposition to the Shevchenko statue sounds almost desperately vindictive and, to 

say the least, unbecoming to an organ of your reputation.

“Two questions immediately arise after reading this misleading piece. One, 

why this editorial at this timer Second, how expert have your writers become on 

this project in the span of 3 weeks? The factual answers to these questions are 

sufficient to indicate the degree of editorial irresponsibility reflected in this selfindicting performance.

“I t is very easy to pontificate and hide behind juggled words after a given 

event. But where were your sheltered writers these p art 3 years while th e subject 

was widely repo rted an d discussed in this country and in Soviet Union; The New 

York Herald Tribune, the Evening Star, the Chicago Tribune and many other 

papers satisfactorily covered th e subjec t in 1960; and, as in the case of the C aptive 

Nations Week resolution, for a period of 7 months the organs of Moscow and 

puppet Kiev registered a malicious opposition similar to yours now. In fact, it 

appears th at your own writers don’t bother to read the Post itself. Reports on 

the project and the open congressional hearing were published on April 2 and 

September 14, 1960; March 7, 1961, October 18 and 26, 1962. Where were your 

interest and comments then? If the element of dictated pressure has characterized 

anything, it certainly has this contradictory editorial.

“As to the second question, it is actually amusing to compare this editorial 

with the one on ‘Poetic Inju stice’ th at appeared in your September 23 issue. In 

the la tter, the 3-week experts star t out in this vein:

“ ‘We yield to no one in our esteem for the Ukraine and th at cou ntry’s poet 

and hero, Taras Shevchenko.’ They even adm it th at ‘we have never read a line 

of Mr. Shevchenko’s verse * * *.’ Three weeks late r the reader is fed the supposedly studied and quite absurd conclusion th at a “statue of Shevchenko would 

be a monument to disunity and recrimination among Americans.’ Earlier, 

Shevchenko was a ‘country’s poet and hero’, now, he is ‘the pet of a small 

minority.’ With such capricious thinking, one can well imagine the abusive 

inte rpretation s they’ve formed by references to his poetry out of historical context. 

Shevchenko scholars in the United States and Canada have devoted lifetimes to 

the historic works of this immortal freedom fighter; your writers, with brazen 

self-contradiction, have rendered their expert judgment—all distilled in 3 weeks.

“If there is any thing offensive in various ways to the intelligence of our American 

people and to their unity against the Soviet Russian threat, it is this brand of 

irresponsible editorializing. Your fictitious points on some errant private passion 

of certain Americans, the misguided and careless reception by Congress, and 

other specimens of groundless rhetoric not only violate available facts but have 

been openly exploded while your editorial writers slept these past 3 years. Solid 

reasons for the sta tue are clearly set forth and explained in House Docum ent 

No. 445, which was circulated thro ugh out the country and inspired worthy contributions for the statue from Americans of all backgrounds. What did you do 

with your copy 2 years ago?

“On how to fight communism, the record of your notions is scarcely an enviable 

one. Taking jus t the two issues mentioned here, it is most revealing how, in fact, 

your protests have coincided with Moscow’s. The reasons, of course, are different. 

Moscow is fearful of any outside support given to the powerful force of nationalism 

among its captive non-R ussian natio ns in the U.S.S. R.; you’ve been too blind 

to und erstand this.

“T han k God we have countless Americans who do. As just one among num erous 

examples, you might profit from reading Dr. Frederick Brown Harris ’ recen t 

column in the October 13 Sunday Star, wherein he states: “For the years to 

come this statue will be an altar of intercession for the emancipation of all 

captive nations. This statue will publish the fact th at America is well aware th at 

the U.S.S. R. is not a nation, but a colonial empire claiming sovereignty over 

non-R ussians numbering more millions than there are Russians.” The statue is 

obviously not for those who would appease Moscow by burying or distorting 

tru ths which are essential to our own national interest. In its wisdom Congress 

has recognized this; let us hope th at in time and beyond consistent error you 

will, too.

“ L ev E . D o b r ia n sk y .”
51

[From the Washington (D.C.) Post, Nov. 1,1963.]

“ Monument to Ignorance

“ Objections of this newspaper to the proposed memorial to the Ukrainian 

poet, Shevchenko, have inspired a great many letters. The writers of these letters 

seem to have overlooked the real occasion for our opposition to the statue of 

Taras Shevchenko.

“ It is not just that Shevchenko said many anti Semitic things that are an affront 

to the Jewish community of this country— in this he was a product of his time 

and shared the antipathies of his class and his region. Moreover, he did oppose 

Jewish persecution on one occasion. It is not just that the poet is the idol of 

Communist Party members who have caused the Soviet Union to flower with 

libraries, collective farms, plants, villages, and memorials to his name. It is not 

just that his very name is, by reason of his flaming nationalism, an affront to 

members of the Polish minority, which also is a very large one in this country.”

“ These reasons, to be sure, make one wonder why gullible Senators and Representatives should have approved such a memorial, when all of the offended minorities are among their constituents. The larger reason, however, is simply that 

Shevchenko is neither a universal poet nor a national poet of this country entitled 

to recognition in the United States. It is inconceivable that a statue would be 

dedicated to him in Tel- Aviv or in Warsaw, for example. The only tenuous connection he has with American nationalism consists of a single overworked quotation 

voicing the wish that the Ukraine had a George Washington.

“As a practical matter, during this period of thaw, a memorial to a favorite 

poet of the Communist world may be in the spirit of the times. If Khrushchev 

should visit us again, he could lay a w'reath on this memorial. But the climate 

may change and it seems premature to consider a permanent memorial to detente.

“ Let us make it clear that we are not asking that any of the memorials to 

Shevchenko in the Soviet Union be torn down, or that his memory in any way be 

defiled. It just seems to us very doubtful wisdom to place in the midst of a city 

that knew him not, a memorial to a poet who knew nothing of this land and who 

spoke neither to its past nor its present generations. The Congress ought to reverse 

a decision that can be explained only on the grounds of ignorance.”

“ November 4, 1963.

“To the Editor of the Washington Post:

“ Regarding the forthcoming erection of the Shevchenko statue, it is obvious 

from the evidence at hand that a distinction must be drawn between the neurotic 

output of the editor— meaning Mr. Wiggins— and that produced by other writers 

of the Washington Post. The contrast is one of night and day, between fumbling 

falsities and approximate accuracy, between a base motivation and an attempt at 

honest objectivity.

“ Your November 1 editorial is genuinely a ‘Monument to Ignorance.’ In fact, 

all three editorials on the subject so far constitute a literary monument to ignorance. From an educational viewpoint, this series of monumental ignorance well 

justifies additional constructive projects in honor of Shevchenko on the 150th 

anniversary of his birth next year. The editorials will serve as prime evidence for 

the need of such educational endeavors.

“ Despite your calculated deletions of my October 19 letter, there was no oversight of the real occasion for your opposition to the statue. In your demonstrated 

ignorance you well described the occasion by the one consistent strand that 

infuses some intelligibility to the three editorials; namely, imagined ‘Ukrainian 

political pressure’ and your ludicrous attempt to counter it by inciting a hoped-for 

Jewish and Polish antagonism against the statue project. Russian despots have 

long used this technique, but one would never have dreamed that an editor of a 

reputable American newspaper would sink to this level.

As a 4-week expert on Shevchenko you’re really going from bad to worse. Like 

Shakespeare, Dickens, and numerous other expressionists, Shevchenko put into 

verse and prose what he sensed among the people at the time. Only a small 

measure of historical perspective, not to say honest intellectuality, is needed to 

understand this. Your brazen attempt now to associate the poet with whatever 

prejudices prevailed then among segments of the Ukrainian nation is not only 

morally despicable but also plainly insulting to the intelligence and stature of 

Americans of Polish and Jewish backgrounds. For vour education you had better 

bone up on free world developments in close Polish-Ukrainian and JewishUkrainian relations against despotic Russian domination and suppression. We
52

Americans strongly supp ort these relations and, contrary to your fables, 

Shevchenko by his own convictions did, too.

“In your ed itorial of ignorance the height of garbled nonsense is reached when 

in the same paragraph, Shevchenko is painted as ‘the idol of Comm unist Party 

members’ and also a flaming nationalist whose patriotic trai t is supposed to be 

offenseive to a ‘Polish minority’ here. Again, for the beginning of your education 

on this, you migh t star t with the report in the Washington Post issue of March 7, 

1961, captioned ‘Reds Decry Ukrainian’s S tatue Here.’

“Mv previous letter pointed out the puerile contradictions between your first 

two editorials. Now your ‘Monument to Ignoranc e’ contradicts ‘The Shevchenko 

Affair.’ In the latter, you stressed the ‘peculiar notion’ of conceiving ‘the statue 

as a blunt weapon in a fierce cold war propaganda campaign against the Soviet 

Union.’ Now the reader is told the memorial conduces to a deten te with Moscow, 

and Khrushchev ‘could lay a wre ath’ on it. Surely a greater respect could be 

shown toward your editorial readers. The joke circulating about town today is 

‘What’s the Post’s lat est view on Shevchenko?’

“For one who only 4 weeks ago ‘never read a line of Mr. Shevchenko’s verse’ 

and, in this time, doubtless hasn’t perused the dozen and more volumes of his 

works, you display an intellectual arrogance beyond cultured expression in your 

crude brushoff of Shevchenko as a universal poet or as n ot being uniquely related 

to our great American tradition. Once again, for the commencement of your 

education you might look into Clarance Manning’s introduc tory work ‘Taras 

Shevchenko’ and, after considerably more reading, perhaps in time you will 

come to understand Shevchenko’s sta ture not only as a universal poet bu t also 

as a powerful East European spirit of freedom who was inspired in many ways 

by our own tradition . If you knew something abo ut the harsh suppressions in 

the Russian Empire in mid-19th century, you wouldn’t denigrate the poet’s 

call for a Washington.

“Clearly, among its many other purposes, the Shevchenko sta tue in the capital of both our Nation and the free world will serve as a beacon of enlightment 

for the igno rant and uncultured among us. In the current struggle we could ill 

afford their presence, particularly where a public medium is abused to vent the 

ignorance of a supposed opinionmaker.

“Our requ est for the names of the ‘scholars’ who regard the poet as ‘minor’ 

and the ‘grumbling’ local planning officials, allegedly quoted in the Pos t’s belated 

October 25 article, has not yet been satisfied. Again, let’s not hide behind irresponsible words and opinions. Indeed, out of respect for our many informed legislators and officials supporting this project, are you liberal enough to open up your 

medium for an artic le by one of the Shevchenko scholars in our country?

“Lev E. Dobriansky.”

[From the Washington (D.C.) Post, Mar. 7, 1961]

“ Reds Decry Ukrainian’s Statue Here

“The Soviet press has jumped with both feet into the campaign to lim it the 

monumental statua ry of Washington.

“Translations of Moscow and Kiev publications received here show that they 

have devoted major articles to oppose plans of the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America to erect a monument to Taras Shevchenko, Ukrainian poet 

and national hero.

“A principal target is Lev E. Dobriansky, professor of Soviet economy at 

Georgetown University, who was described in one article as being one of the 

‘political intriguers and criminal renegades’ backing the statue.

“D obriansky was one of the main backers of legislation last year authorizing 

the monument. He predicted at the time that the Russians would try to ‘claim 

this historic figure as one of theirs’ and said th at the poet actually belongs to 

the Western trad itio n of freedom.

“The Moscow publication, Soviet Culture, contended th at Shevchenko would 

not be popular in the United State s, because in one of his writings he ‘favorably mentioned George Washington, who is not now at all popular in the wellknown [House] Committee on Un-American Activities.’ ”

Mr. Speaker, after reading of this controversy it is necessary for us to view 

this vitally important project with candor, balance, and perspective. Two among 

many presentations excellently provide the necessary view. I refer to Rober t 

J. Lewis’ article on “The Status of a Sta tue ” which appears in the November 

10 issue of the Sunday Star and the address on “Human Destiny” delivered 

by the Honorable Michale a. Feighan on the day of th e Schevchenko groundbreaking ceremonies, September 21. I include both the article and address at 

this p oint:
53

[From the Washington (D.C.) Star, Nov. 10, 1963]

“T he Status of a Statue

“(By Robert J. Lewis)

“On Marc h 25, 1961, President Kennedy sent a telegraphic message to the 

Shevchenko Scientific Society in New York, as follows:

“ ‘I am pleased to add my voice to those honoring the grea t Ukrainian poet, 

Taras Shevchenko.

“ ‘We honor him for his rich contribution to the culture not only of the Ukraine, 

which he loved so well a nd described so eloquently, bu t of the world.

“ ‘His work is a noble pa rt of our historical heritage.’

“The objec t of this presidential praise was a Ukrainian nationalist hero who 

was born a serf on Feb rua ry 25, 1814, and who died 47 years later, on February 

26, 1861, as a much-respected poet and symbol of Ukrainian patriotism and aspirations for freedom from Russian domination.

“The Shevchenko symbolism has continued to inspire the Ukrainian people 

down to the prese nt day.

“His name also has become a weapon in the cold war on both sides of the 

Iron Curtain. Both the Soviet Union and nationalist Ukrainians claim him as 

their own because his life and work were so valuable in the ir symbolism and so 

exemplary in their dedication to freedom.

“I t is for a sta tue of this man tha t Congress authorized the use of public grounds 

in Washington, in a resolution passed by both Houses and approved Septem ber 

13, 1960, by Presiden t Eisenhower.

“The obvious and proper objective of honoring this man as a symbol of the 

hope for freedom was to demonstrate, once again, to the world and to the U kra inian people, th at the cause of libe rty is one which this country can always be depended on to champion.

“In the congressional resolution approved 3 years ago, the Secretary of the 

Interior was authorized and directed to select an app ropriate site upon which 

to erect the Shevchenko statue.

“Acting in accordance with these directions, Secretary Udall had his representatives go before the National Capital Plan ning Commission on October 25, 

1962, with site recom mendations.

“At th at session, the Planning Commission voted to defer action, but^ on 

December 6, it approved a small triangu lar site at 22d, 23d and P Streets NW, 

as the spot for the s tatu e.

“On April 4 this year, the Planning Commission approved the site plan and 

design for th e small landscaped park and Shevchenko statue. The Fine Arts 

Commission likewise approved the program.

“On September 22, 1963, the 14,000-square-foot plot was dedicated to the 

memory of Taras Shevchenko—102 years after his death. More than 2,000 

persons attend ed the ceremonies.

“Last week—to complete the record—a motion was made in the National 

Capital Planning Commission th at approval of the site be rescinded so th at a 

statue cann ot be erected to Taras Shevchenko.

“W hatever the merits of the reasons for this actio n—which failed bu t which 

may bob up again—the effect would be negation of the will of Congress by an 

agency which does n ot have the right to do so.

“Withdrawing a site at this late date also could constitute an affront to many 

Ukrainian-American s and othe rs who have raised nearly $250,000 to pay for th is 

memorial.

“F rus trating thi s effort also could well have cold-war consequences, since 

killing the memorial doubtless would be seized on by Soviet propagandists as 

evidence the U.S. Congress was not sincere in its desire to honor a freedomloving Ukrainia n.

“A sense of perspective and understanding would seem to dictate the proper 

course. If such a course is followed, Washington will be graced by a memorial to 

a significant figure in the contin uing b attle for liberty. It will also have cause to 

rejoice th at human brotherhood and understa nding once again have affirmed 

the cause of freedom.”

SH EV C H EN K O AGA IN

Mr. Speaker, the various editorials of the Washington Post on this subject 

appeared in the November 14 Congressional Record, along with apt replies, 

some of which were no t published by the paper. As an ard ent believer in open and 

responsible discussion, I should like to add to th at list ano ther editorial in the
54

November 12 issue of the Washington Post, title d “Shevchenko Again,” along 

with a reply to th at editorial written by Dr. Lev E. Dobriansky, of Georgetown 

University:

“ S h ev c h en k o A gai n

“ Walter C. Louchheim, Jr., has very rightly asked his colleagues on th e National 

Capital Planning Commission to review th at body’s approval of a site for the 

Shevchenko memorial. The Commission clearly was n ot well informed abo ut the 

memorial and it ought to reexamine its decision.

“ Congress, the Planning Commission, and the Inte rior Departme nt have been 

misled by one of the most artful and arrogant lobbies ever o perated by a minority 

group. This lobby has maneuvered the Government into the ridiculous position 

of approving a memorial to a 19th-century Ukrainian poet, known to few Americans, one who has little or no connection with this c oun try’s past, with a repu tation for intense Ukrainian nationalism curiously mixed with various other ethnic 

passions. The real irony of th e matter, of course, is that Shevchenko is a hero in 

the Soviet Union where his name is memorialized in literally hundreds of place 

names. His monum ents there are annually the object of Comm unist adulation . 

The advocates of an American memorial to him labor under the strange notion 

that by puttin g up a sta tue to him in Washington they will somehow kidnap a 

Communist hero and make him into their own hero.

“This dispute over the soul of a Ukrainian poet is a quarrel within the ranks of 

Ukrainian nationalists in which Americans in general and Washingtonians in 

particular have no proper interest. Even Americans of Ukrainian descent do not 

share universally in the enthusiasms of the clique which has agitate d for the 

Shevchenko memorial.

“All the public agencies th at had anyth ing to do with this proposal ough t to 

reexamine their decisions. The Ukrainian group th at has raised money for the 

memorial might more appropriately honor some Ukrainian-American whose 

genius reflects the success of the ir countrymen in embracing the cause of this 

country and in leaving the quarrels of the ir ancestral homeland where they 

originated.”

“ N o v em b er 16, 1963.

“ L e t t e r to t h e E d it o r of t h e W a sh in g t o n P ost

“ Your November 12 editorial on “Shevchenko Again” reads like a neurotic 

summary of your three previous editorials. It appears th at you have exhausted 

your supply of fantastic opinions, though your motivation of ignorant intolerance 

still runs high.

“Mr. Louchheim expressed his fantastic opinions long before you did. A year 

ago he exceeded the technical jurisdiction of the National Capital Planning 

Commission to register his unfounded notions about Shevchenko. He, too, labored 

under the illusion th at Moscow would relish a Shevchenko sta tue here, but, like 

you, he was way out of his depth in the face of concrete evidence and fact. I 

strongly advise you to read a piece of honest journalism , Robert J. Lewis’ November 10 article on ‘The Status of a Sta tue ’ in the Sunday S tar, in which he rightly 

states th at ‘Washington would be graced by a memorial to a significant figure in 

the continuing battle for liber ty.’

“Again, it ’s a pity that your 6-week expertness on this vita l subject hasn’t 

even begun to scratch the surface of available facts. Mr. Wiggins, truly one shudders to t hin k of the assumed factua l bases of you r other editorials th at are supposed 

to guide your readers on a variety of important issues. I assure you th at responsible officials in all three of the mentioned governmental bodies were properly 

informed about Shevchenko and have a far greater understanding of this project 

tha n you can hardly acquire in ano ther 6 weeks. They at least bothered to read 

House Document No. 445. Really, for a man who by his own admission ‘never 

read a line of Mr. Shevchenko’s verse’ (September 23 editorial ‘Poetic Injustice ’) you’re alone at the summit of editorial irresponsibility in accusing our 

legislators of being ‘gullible’ and others of ‘being misled.’

“Again, it is also a pity that in the darkness of b oth your arro gan t ignorance 

and intolerance you cannot possibly see eye-to-eye with our President on the 

universal significance of this poet and courageous freedom fighter. It is pitiful, 

too, th at your abusive anti-Semitic charges—much like those fabricated in 

Moscow—have blinded you to the fact th at Albert Einstein, one among the 

many other outstand ing Jewish scholars, w’as a member to the day of his death 

in the Shevchenko Scientific Society which perpetua tes both the name and works 

of the universal poet. Indeed, the brazenness of your charges is an affront to all 

intelligent Jews, both here and abroad.
55

“ Again, you’ re in the realm of self-satisfying fantasy when you write about 

some ‘lobb y’, ‘a minority group,’ Shevchenko as ‘a Communist hero,’ some 

‘quarrel within the ranks of Ukrainian nationalists,’ and some ‘Ukrainian 

group’ raising the money for the memorial. I t is both interesting and amusing to 

witness the lengths you have gone to in your groping for argumentative points to 

justify your basic intolerant motivations. Strangely enough, some of these imagined points have been used consistently by Moscow and its puppets in their 

opposition to the statue here. Have you been reading the right sources? Again, 

where have you been these past 3 years when all of this was openly discussed?

“ For the public record, prove that this lobby exists. Are you suggesting tha t 

citizens have no right to exercise their power of ideas because some intolerant and 

unknowledgeable editor might not find these ideas in accord with his burning 

bias? As to ‘a minority group,’ in the name of simple logic, pray, do tell us what 

private American organization is a majority group? The editor of the Washington 

Post, perhaps? Where basic and tolerant American ideas are expressed, their 

exponents are of the majority. Simply in point of readable fact, the substance of 

your editorial fiction have found ready expression in the Soviet Union these past 

3 years.

“ Once again, the patent nonsense of Shevchenko being ‘a Communist hero’ 

can be easily dispensed with. Aside from the published distortions of Shevchenko 

by Moscow and its puppets, you might advance your cold war education by beginning to ponder over the many good things the Soviet Russian totalitarians have 

abused and exploited to further their own ends: such as democratic forms, past 

treaties, the U.N., etc. Or haven’t you heard about political Russian cunning and 

treachery? How nonsensical this characterization is, one needn’t go beyond your 

own editorials. This one contradicts your first two and is even contradictory in 

itself. In the same paragraph Shevchenko is painted as ‘a Communist hero’ and 

one ‘with a reputation for intense Ukrainian nationalism.’ And so a circle is 

squared. Haven’t you heard about the crime of bourgeoise nationalsim in the 

U.S.S .R.? Again, your intellectual gap will take some time to overcome, not just 

6 weeks.

“ Your comments about some quarrel among Ukrainian nationalists and some 

money-raising Ukrainian group are really reflective of self-inflicted hallucinations. 

We Americans, who for your information were also born here, would appreciate 

knowing about this alleged quarrel and the specific identity of these ‘nationalists.’ 

Again, you’ve fabricated your statements, support them with concrete fact. The 

people supporting this statue in the cause of our own national interests are as 

American— if not more so, judging by your intolerant and mendacious editorials— 

as you are. This smear technique is a Russian specialty, not American; and you 

can’t get away with it.

“ As to what we should do with our money, your advice is scarcely needed; 

nor do we heed the insularities of a few ‘Americans of Ukrainian descent.’ Many 

objectives of educational and scholarly import will be served by our accumulating 

funds— in itself a solid measure of the generally enthusiastic response to the 

statue project. The statue will, of course, be your monument of sorely needed 

enlightenment. In the meantime, as a self-acclaimed American, have you the 

integrity of substantiating factually the opinions expressed in your contradictory 

editorials and the honesty of revealing publicly the names of the ‘scholars’ who 

regard Shevchenko as ‘a minor poet’ and ‘the local planning officials’ who are 

grumbling about the statue? My sense of fairness and justice compels me to 

underscore again the request made in my previous letters, along with the challenge of permitting an American Shevchenko scholar to write an article in your 

paper and also your publishing the scores of letters I am informed you have been 

receiving in protest to your editorials. Or, again, is your protracted silence in 

these respects ‘American?’

“ L ev E. D o b r ia n s k y.”

[From the Washington (D.C.) Post, Dec. 29, 1963]

“ C om m uni st s L ove S h evch en k o

“ Warm support for a Shevchenko statue in Washington has come from the 

quarter which the American sponsors of the statue intended as its political target.

“ This man-bites-dog turn, giving Communist and Soviet backing to what was 

conceived as an anti-Communist and anti-Soviet project, was accomplished by 

the chief of the Soviet Ukrain e’s mission to the United Nations.

“ This official, L. Y. Kizy a, said that he favors a statue here of the 19th century 

Ukrainian poet. It is to be erected on the triangle of land at P Street, between 

22d and 23d Streets NW.
56

“But, said Kizya, he protests the efforts of the American sponsors of the statue 

to use it “to fan up animosity toward the Soviet Ukraine, and all the more to 

aggravate the cold w ar.”

“Kizya fueled a growing controversy, Congress approved the statue, private 

funds are to pay for it and dedication is scheduled next spring.

“B ut because of the poet’s questionable significance and the sta tue sponsors’ 

tactic s in gaining congressional sanction, the National Capital Planning Commission is abo ut to review its earlier approval of the project.

“Kizya’s comments were made in a statem ent sent to the Washington Post 

4 weeks afte r this newspaper solicited his views.

“lie showed a reverence for Shevchenko equal to th at displayed by the poet’s 

American admirers. Terming him a ‘great son of the Ukraine, an uncompromising 

fighter against slavery and injustice, against social and national oppression,’ 

Kizya said Shevchenko ‘deserves to have his statu e decorating one of the squares 

of the U.S. Capital.’

“B ut where Ukrainian-American sponsors see Shevchenko as the focus of an 

anti-Russian and anti-Communist campaign for Ukrainian nationhood, Kizya 

portrayed him as a man with deep ties to the Russians and revolutionaries of his 

day and as a man now widely respected by all Soviet nationalities, not just by 

Soviet Ukrainia ns.

“These con trasts are typical of the tug of war for Shevchenko’s m antle between 

the Soviets and some Americans of Ukrainian descent.

“Kizya said t ha t the 150th anniversary of Shevchenko’s birth next year will be 

marked in the Soviet Union by ‘nationwide festivities,’ including erection of a 

monument in Moscow. The Washington st atu e of Shevchenko is due to be erected 

at the same time and for the same purpose.

“ ‘Nowadays in the age of radio, movies, and television (Shevchenko) can play 

an important role in the enrichment of the culture of the American people,’ said 

Kizya. He noted th at Mark Twain is revered in the Soviet Union.

“Kizya is the top official of the Soviet Ukraine in the United States, which 

considers the Ukraine as being 1 of 15 constituen t republics of the Soviet Union, 

not a sovereign state. The Ukraine and ano ther Soviet Republic, Byelorussia, 

have U.N . General Assembly seats thro ugh a proviso th at Stalin demanded and 

received at Yalta in 1945.”

[From the Washington (D.C.) Post, Dec. 5, 1963]

“ N ew J er sey T ow n K il l s P ro po sal fo r Sh ev c h e n k o St r e e t

“W ashington no longer has company in its misery over Taras Shevchenko.

“In New Jers ey’s Hamilton Township, civic uproar greeted a proposal several 

weeks ago to change the name of one of the small Tren ton suburb’s streets to 

Shevchenko Boulevard, in honor of th e 19th-century Ukrainian poet. This week, 

the suggestion was killed.

“I n Washington, controversy has developed over a plan to erect a statue of 

the poet on a small park a t 22d and P Streets NW.

“The New Jersey proposal was offered by a township committeeman on behalf 

of some Ukrainian-Americans who see the poet’s nationalistic verses as being 

anti-Soviet.

“B ut reaction came immediately from residents along Deutz Avenue, the street 

to be rechristened. Angrily, the y paraded in protest, scuffled with police and 

bombarded the township officials with petitions.

“Wednesday night the committee backed off quickly from the explosive issue. 

‘It is clearly evident the committee has made a mistake,’ declared Mayor George 

R. Holland, whereupon the five voted unanimously to drop the subject.

“In Washington, no easy way out is in sight. The statue was authorized by 

Congress, has cleared all necessary reviewing agencies and is scheduled to be 

pu t in place next May.

“The problem here is t ha t the Kremlin also views the poet as a hero and has 

given his name to at least 1,620 public facilities in the Soviet Union. The Russians 

inte rpret his revolutionary writings as anticzarist.
The editorial “Is This the Voice of ‘The Washington Post?’ ” which appeared 

in the authoritative periodical the Ukrainian Bulletin.

[From the Washington Post, Jan . 7, 1964]

“ R ed E mb as sy J o in s R ow on S h ev c h en k o

“The Soviet Embassy entered the Shevchenko controversy yesterda y by releasing a letter endorsing the proposed statue of the Ukrainian poet in \\ ashington.

“In the five-page letter, signed by 36 Soviet Ukrainians and forwarded to the 

Embassy by an official Soviet press agency, the signers offered to tak e pa rt in 

the statue unveiling scheduled for next spring. The site is the trian gle formed 

by P, 22d a nd 23d Streets NW.

“The signers, described by the Embassy as ‘prominen t Ukrainian public 

figures,’ also volunteered to ‘send to the American continent some sacred soil 

from the Chernechya hill where Taras (Shevchenko) sleeps the eternal sleep.’

“They applauded the poet, as do Americans of U krainian descent, but adde d: 

‘We are resolutely against the malicious att em pts of the enemies of the Soviet 

Union to use the poet’s works against our country, against the cause of all humanity—the struggle for peace.’

“This was a reference t o the anti-Soviet aims of some American sponsors of the 

Shevchenko statue. Because of these sponsors’ tactics in gaining congressional 

approval for the statue, and because of the poe t’s questionable sta tur e and 

significance, the project has become a ma tter of dispute.

“The National Capital Planning Commission has been asked to review its 

approval of the statue at its February meeting.”

“ S h ev c h e n k o Sc ie n t if ic S o c ie t y , I n c.,

“New York, N.Y ., January 3, 1964-

“ To the E d it o r, W a sh in gton P ost ,

“Washington, D.C.

“ D ea r Si r : The following is writte n as a suppleme nt to my first letter to you 

of November 25, 1963. I t is writte n in th e spirit and hope of bringing informed and 

intelligent understanding to the debate regarding the proposed Washington 

monument to Taras Shevchenko. It is written, too, with the knowledge that 

editorial write rs are sometimes prone to oversimplify problems th at are extremely complex both in historical context and contemporary meaning. The 

great failure of such editorial writers is th at they neglect to take the time to 

make the type of informed and intelligent analysis required of such multifactor 

problems and events.

“In the interests of bringing complete trut h to the formation of intelligent 

public opinion on this and other vita l questions. I feel su re th at the W ashington 

Post is among those important American newspapers who are responsibly dedicate d to the people’s right to know. It is in this sense th at I feel assured th at 

you will in fairness print this lett er. My comments here and in my first letter 

are specifically directed against basic s tate ments of misinformation and distortion 

contained in your editorials of October 18 and 25 and November 1 and 12 as 

well as your most recent news story of November 29, 1963.

“I have waited patiently—but disappointedly—for the publication of my 

first letter, the complete text of which has already been published in the Congressional Record. This second letter, however, like its predecessor, is based on 

the weeks of careful research needed to compile an intelligent reply borne of 

facts rather than emotion.”

(For remainder of letter, see committee files.)
58

(From Pam phlet Entitled, “Captive Nations Week, From Hungary, to Poland,

Ukraine, Turkestan , Mainland China, North Vietnam to Cuba and 20 Other

Captive Nations” —Speeches of Hon. Daniel J. Flood of Pennsylvania and

Hon. Edward J. Derwinski of Illinois et al. in the House of Representatives 

and in the Senate of the United States)

[From the Washington (D.C.) Post, July 8, 1966]

“ U p Wit h I del-U ral

“Knowing well t ha t the best way to fight communism is to blow hard on it, 

the Congress in 1959 ‘authorize d and requ ested’ the President to designate the 

third week in July as Captive Nations Week. Ever solicitous of the Exec utive’s 

geographical shortcomings, the Congress identified the natio ns thereby to be 

blessed. Its list included not only such ancient and recognized lands as White 

Ruthen ia and Turkestan bu t historic Cossackia and storied Idel-Ural too.

“The President has unaccou ntably delayed in issuing the prescribed annu al 

‘Captive Nations Proclam ation .’ In recent years he has even failed to name the 

nations for whose benefit he was issuing the proclam ation. We tr ust, nonetheless, 

th at Congress’ fervor for the freedom and independence of Cossackia and Idel-Ural 

will receive its due.”

“A Reply by Dr. Lev E. Dobriansky of Georgetown University and

Chairman of the National Captive Nations Committee to the Washington Post’s J uly 8 Editorial ‘Up With Idel-U ral’

“The editorial is not without some measure of intellectual humor, mixed with 

obvious ingredients of sarcasm. When a number of people asked for my reaction 

to it, I simply replied that ‘The editors of this organ should continue writing about 

Idel-Ural, Cossackia and other integral parts of the Soviet Union. In time they 

will educate themselves and many of their readers. And this will be all to the good? 

In this respect, the apparen tly irritated editor has done us all a great favor.

“As usual, the editorial is studded with factual inaccuracies and poor judgment. 

But this, too, is part of the process of educa tion; in, time the condition will be 

overcome.

“Now for the points. Plainly, the best way to fight ‘communism’—in reality 

Soviet Russian imperio-coloniaiism and the Red Chinese one, too—is to blow hard 

on it, with firmness, a certitude of one’s own position, and with a determined 

vision of its defea t and demise.

“Second, th e President did not ‘unaccountab ly’ delay issuing his Captive Nations 

Week proclamation. In fact, he timed it very well on July 8, th e historic date of the 

announcement of our Declaration of Independence and his announcement of th e 

establish ment of the American Revolution Bicentennial Commission.

“Third, to sta te th at in recent years the President has even failed ‘to name th e 

natio ns for whose benefit he was issuing the proclama tion’ is grossly untrue and 

typical of the pap er’s editorial comments. One need only to read all the Presidential proclamations from Eisenhower’s in 1959 to Johns on’s in 1965 to establish 

the un tru th of such assertions. The references to the captive nations have always 

been general and all-inclusive.

“Finally, the editor needn’t worry th at Congress will misplace his tru st in its 

fervor for the independence and freedom of all peoples, including those of 

Cossackia and Idel-Ural. The President’s proclamation was comprehensive to 

include all; Congress’ determinations to have all nations enjoy the blessings of 

freedom has never been less. I t’s comforting to note the editor’s expression of trust 

and concern. Yes, indeed, Up W ith Idel-Ural!”