Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1963-02-24
Stevenson Finds His CONCEPT
Of Reds Changed by Time

Recently emerged from the
eye OF a verbal hurricane,
Adldi E. Stevenson 0dve his
first comprehensive interUieU
since the Cuban crisis to As
soctGted Press writer Saul
PETIT in NetD York. The result
offers an insight into the
thinking OF one of Americas
most Grticuldte public figures
and into the epic pull and
push OF the cold iDdr:
@. Governor, in the two
years In which you've been
UN. ambassador, have any Of
your concepts about the Rus
SLAMS been changed2
A. Yes, I've found a number
Of occasions In which the So
Wet Union will take and sup
port a position with adamant
stubbornness for a long time,
and then when it finally con-
cludes that it's not going to
win on this, or that it's suf-
fering from an insistence on
a position that's unpopular, 1t
will reverse itself.
I don't mean to say that one
can be sure that they've aban-
doned the position for keeps.
Whether It's the selection Of
the Secretary General or the
troika or whatever, 1t may be
that they have a certain
amount of pragmatic flexibility
about their behavior. They will
abandon the situation when
they find that it's unproduc-
tive or counter-productive and
have to give 1t up.
After they walked out on the
disarmament negotiations at
Geneva, two years later we
managed to get those started
again. Whether that was be-
cause at that time 1t appeared
to serve their interests, I'm not
sure but 1t was certainly ap-
parent that all of the other
nations in the UN. badly
wanted disarmament among
the great powers.
We've hda many areas Of
agreement with the Soviet
Union-on the peaceful uses Of
outer space. on ~the peaceful
uses Of atomic energy. Per-
haps it's an accommodation,
perhaps it's expedient, but
Russia does alter its position
from time to time.
Q. Governor. I'd like an in
sight into your philosophy of
the value of negotiation in the
cold war, especially since there
seems to be an increasing pes
simism In this country about
the value of negotiation.
A. I don't think it's a mat
ter Of philosophy. I think it's
a matter of simple necessity,
that the alternative to nego-
tiation is. Of course, ulti-
matum; me have 1t our way Of
else, or they have 1t their way
or else. In a world where war
is becoming more and more
impossible, it's apparent that
the way we can resolve DIFF
ferences Is not by driving our
selves or them or each other
to the ultimate Of war but to
resolve them by negotiation.
Q. Can we be said to have
made progress In the cold war?
Is there such q thing as prog
ress in the cold war?
A. I don't think you can
keep a box score in the sense
Of scoring victories and de-
feats and adding them up. I
think what you have to take
into account Is that the cold
war Is a philosophical conflict.
We who believe in the prin-
ciple Of government by the
consent of the governed, we
who believe In the Western
ideals, are arrayed on one side.
On the other are those who
believe that the future of man
is best served by the Commu-
mist system Of society and eco
nomics. We are going to have
to wage this conflict in the
minds Of men for q long time
to come.
It's interesting to note =.
there's been no increase In
Communist authority in the
world except as a result Of the
use Of force. No state volun-
tarily goes Communist. I don't
predict for a moment that
some may not in the coure of
time. But we saw. overwhelm-
ingly, Russian Intervention in
Cuba, which Is the only case
which even Appropriated vol
untary conversion from a
Western form Of government,
even though that wasn't very
Western under Battista. Even
there, 1t took the overwhelm-
ing political, economic. and
military pressure Of the Soviet
Union before that revolution
was converted into a Commu-