Evening star., 1950-10-04
Voice OF America
Ny Only Reflects
Acheson's S Policies
odnboo put on Attempts
To Persuade Russiuns
To Drop Communism
By David Laurence


The ''Voice Of America" is as
strong or as weak as the policies
of the Secretary of State, Dean
Acaaeson. At the moment the
American people believe that the
Voice Of America" tries to per-
suade the people of the Soviet
Union to abandon communism
But evidently that sort of broad
casting is taboo.
THE Ukrainian Bulletin, official
publication of the Ukrainians in
this country, just issued, prints ar
interesting exchange of letters re-
Gently with Foy D. Kohler, head OF
the State Departments broadcast
ing division. 1t appears that the
Ukrainians here have been dis
satisfied because the Voice OF
America" isn't more pointed in its
broadcasts to the people of the
Ukraine, who total As, ,0oo, 900 and
who are regarded by many observ-
ers as constituting the Achilles
heel of the Soviet Union.
The letter of criticism came
from Professor L. E. Dobriansky OF
Georgetown University, who Is
president of the Ukrainian Con-
gress Committee of America.
a. Kohler's Answer.
sThe answer by Mr.. Kohler OF
the State Department follows:
IT appreciate your calling my
attention to the misinterpretations
which had been attached to the
phrases in my letter of April 1e
to Vladimir Sushko to the effect
that our Ukrainian broadcasts
have been criticized, sometimes
severely, because they do not
project a liberated Ukraine. We
still are unable to do that for that
would be contrary to United States
foreign policy
."AS you know from converse
tions we have had, it is the func-
tfon Of. the Voice of America to
express and to implement Ameri-
can foreign policy. It was GER
tatnly, therefore, not my intention
In the letter to Mr.. Shushko to
make any statement which would
In any sense constitute a pro-
nouncement on American foreign
policy. Similarly it is not my in
tent in this letter to do so, since
pronouncements on this subject
must rather come from the Presi-
dent or the Secretary of State, OF
authorized responsible political
officers of the Department of State
In Washington. This should have
been clear to the readers Of my
letter to Mr.. Shushko and I find ii
difncuft to appreciate how the
interpretations you mention could
have arisen. However, I am glad
to re-emphasize and expand my
remarks as follows. I meant simply
to make clear that that policy does
not authorize the Voice of America
at the present time to engage in
any programming directly de-
signed to change the government
tai or social structure of the Soviet
Union, = to quote the Secretary of
State, in his address to the Uni
versity Of California on March 16
last. >..-s ,--
."As the Secretary then pointed
out. this does not in any way les
sen our sympathy with the peo-
pies who are obliged to live under
the Soviet system. Neither, I
would add. does it prevent the
Voice of America from giving ex-
preston to that sympathy; nor
does 1t affect our serious intention
to bring to those peoples the true
story OF what is going on in the
world and how the American Gov
ernment and people view it.
would certainly hope that such in
formation, interpreted in the
light of their own historical tradi-
tions, would comfort and encour-
age the Ukrainian people in their
endeavors to find the means of
expressing their free will and OF
achieving the aspirations they
may have to become again the
masters of their own destiny.
II trust that the foregoing will
clarity for you the intention of
my letter and the objectives OF
the Ukrainian-language program
OF the Voice of America"
illustrates Curbs.
The foregoing illustrates the
limitations placed on the "Voice
Of America" Apparently the
breadcasts must not do anything
to induce the people Of the Soviet
Union to change their govern
mental or social structure. Yet
nine out Of ten members of Con-
gress have believed all along that
this is what they were appropriat-
ing money for Also, most people
outside of Congress have assumed
that the main objective of the
broadcasts was to create inside the
Soviet Union a feeling of anti
pathy toward international Com
munism, which, of course, nova
days is indistinguishable from
internal Communism.
just why must the State Depart
ment be so polite in it's broad
casts? Why can't it tell the peo-
pies who make up the Soviet Union
that their governmental structure
is. menace to world peace today
and that, unless it is changed, the
world will drift some day into
large-scale war? Why can't the
Department of States broadcasts
point out that the leaders of the
Soviet Union have already demon
strated in North Korea that they
believe in aggression by military
force?
II the State Department has
some diplomatic inhibitions about
blunt speech and a direct appea
to the Soviet peoples, then some
other agency should undertake
such broadcasts. There is nr