- 7 -

"This is the 20th Anniversary of NATO, and therefore the year when any member may give one year's notice of intention to withdraw from the Treaty. We do not anticipate that any will exercise this option, but it is bound to be a time of renewed debate and reconsideration in the parliaments of the member nations; and similarly a time of increased propaganda from the enemies of NATO on both sides of the Iron Curtain urging its dismantlement.

"The Atlantic Council, with the co-operation of the Advertising Council, is undertaking this year a wide-spread educational campaign to bring home to the people of the United States the facts on NATO, and the further clear-cut message that we must not only strengthen the world's most important security system but must also exercise leadership in building further upon what we have already done in the political and economic spheres. Our aim of course is a peaceful world.

"All material produced for this campaign will be offered to our associated groups in Western Europe, so that this program has more than national significance.

"While undertaking this special activity, we shall not neglect our other regular programs...

"Since this is a special 20th Anniversary year, we are appealing to our Sponsors for an increased contribution to enable us to do what cannot in good conscience be left undone."

Mr. EMENY wondered if that 2-page letter indicated what was involved in this country. Mr. SCHMIDT believed so.

Dr. FLYNT said, with respect to Institute contributions, that the Atlantic Colleges had been successful in getting a million pounds from people with major capital funds.

Amb. BURGESS said that Amb. Dowling would be replaced July 1 by Amb. John W. Tuthill, a very able person who would be excellent in the Institute. He had a wide acquaintance throughout Europe. This would give a new face and a new look to the Institute.

Mr. LOVESTONE asked about the Ford grant to the Institute.

Mr. SCHMIDT said it had agreed to give a new 5-year grant totaling $800,000 with the stipulation that the Europeans raise 33½% by the end of the 5th year.

33% by the end of the 25th year.

totaling 800,000 with the attribution that the European race
Mr. SCHMIDT said it had agreed to give a new 2-year grant

Mr. LOVERSTONE asked about the Ford grant to the Institute.

Institute.

The out Europe. This would give a new race and a new look to the excellent in the Institute. He had a wide acceptance throughout the world. Mr. Amp. John W. Tuthill, a very able person who would be truly I by Amp. Mr. Bowling would be replaced.

that the Atlantic Colleges had been successful in getting a
Dr. FRANK said, with respect to Institute contributions.

involved in this country. Mr. SCHMIDT believed so.
Mr. EMERY wondered if that 2-page letter indicated what was
encapsle to do what cannot in good conscience be left undone.
abutting to our shows for an increased contribution to

"Since this is a special 20th Anniversary Year, we are

needing our other regular programmes...

"While undertaking this special activity, we wish not

have more than national significance.

To our associated groups in Western Europe, so that this program
"All material produced for this campaign will be offered

economic advantages. Our aim of course is a beautiful world.

Further on what we have already done in the political and
security system but what also exercise leadership in building
that we must not only strengthen the world's most important
states the states on NATO, and the further clear-cut measure
educational campaign to bring home to the people of the United
Advertising Council, is undertaking this year a wide-above
"The Atlantic Council, with the co-operation of the
dismantlement.

enemies of NATO on both sides of the Iron Curtain adding its
nationals; and similarly a time of increased tensions from the
debate and reconsideration in the parliaments of the member
exercise this option but it is found to be a time of renewed
withdraw from the Treaty. We do not anticipate that any will
year when any member may give one year's notice of intention to
"This is the 20th Anniversary of NATO, and therefore the

- 8 -

Mr. FRANKLIN said Mr. Schmidt had done an extraordinary job
in the very difficult business of fund raising. The corporate
group was not easy but it was the easiest. Letters were not too
effective unless followed up with a personal phone call or con-
tact. A different approach would be for one person in an
industry to approach others in the same industry.

Mr. SCHMIDT thought that a good idea. He would try it.

Mr. NORTON had found a problem with corporations - the
interest of each corporation had to be tied in with what we were
trying to do.

Amb. BURGESS said this had been a very good dialogue.

Investment Conference May 1-4.

Amb. ACHILLES said this was Mr. McElroy's conference in more
ways than one. He had suggested last year that there could be no
more effective cement for the Atlantic Community than to give
European corporations a greater vested interest in the American
economy. The title had been broadened to Direct Investment in
the Atlantic Area. In the second place, due to Ambassador M
Merchant's illness, Mr. McElroy had agreed to take over the
chairmanship of the conference. Again we had a blue ribbon list
of participants. To mention a few: Arnold Hart, President of
the Bank of Canada; Earle McLaughlin, President of the Royal Bank
of Canada; Dr. Wilfrid Guth, Managing Director, Deutsche Bank
A.G.; Dr. Gerd Tacke, Chairman of the Managing Board, Siemens,
A.G.; Dr. Carlo Bombiere, Managing Director, Banca Commerciale
Italiana; Prof. Alberto Ferrari, Managing Director, Banca
Nazionale del Lavoro; L.E.J. Brouwer, President of Shell. The
Americans would include the heads of General Electric, General
Motors, Goodyear, Procter & Gamble, Monsanto, Chase Manhattan,
Morgan Guaranty and others.

The Secretaries of State and Treasury and Chairman of the
SEC had been invited to attend. The meetings would be held in the
conference room of the State Department. Secretary Rogers was
giving a reception on Saturday afternoon. Dr. Burns, McCracken
and Kissinger had also been invited, and were hoping to attend.
One session of the conference had been set aside for the partici-
pants to meet with these new government leaders. The only event
on May 1 was a dinner hosted by the Council. The first session
would be held at 10 a.m. on May 2, on the multinational

- 9 -

corporation in perspective. That afternoon the conference would discuss the Canadian and European experiences with U.S. direct investment. That night Messrs. Douglas Dillon and Neil McElroy would host a dinner for the members of the conference.

Saturday morning would be devoted to the problems and prospects of foreign direct investment in the U.S. Secretary of Commerce Stans would speak at luncheon, to be hosted by Dr. Peccei. The Saturday afternoon session would be a free off-the-record exchange of views between the participants and the representatives of the new Administration. Recommendations would be discussed at the final session Sunday morning, followed by a luncheon hosted by the Council.

Mr. McELROY said one of the requirements was that the quality of participation be high and this was now assured. Now much substance had to be provided to be masticated.

Mr. JOSEPH agreed it was an excellent list. Most of these people were coming to get a feel of the new Administration. Everyone with whom he had spoken in Europe was a bit skeptical about the conference. They thought it was a dramatic response to the charge that Americans were taking over European business. They were only interested in tax structure and tax problems. This was the kind of thing they wanted to know before they invested in this country. He was afraid ACUS would give them the same vague statements they had received for the last 20 years. What were the points in our law on which the Treasury could make rulings? Besides taxes there were questions of financing. We not only had federal laws, but also state laws. Every industry seemed to be affected by different laws. The chemical and pharmaceutical industries had special laws. The FTC had special rules.

Amb. BURGESS asked for Secretary Fowler's comments.

Secretary FOWLER wished to underline some of the suggestions made. In 1963 a task force had been established to consider ways and means of facilitating foreign investment in the U.S. in reference to balance of payments deficits. It was decided that the emphasis should be on foreign portfolio investments rather than direct investment because of the likelihood of quicker results. The foreign investment tax act had put to one side the questions that the Council's program was now addressed to.

He had spent several recent weeks in Western Europe - Germany, Switzerland, Italy - had visited with both private and public leaders of financial institutions and at every point he

public leaders of financial institutions and at every point he
many, Switzerland, Italy - had written with both private and

He had absent several recent weeks in Western Europe - Cer-

dations that the Council's program was now addressed to.
results. The foreign investment tax act had put to one side the
than direct investment because of the likelihood of quicker
the emirate should be on foreign portfolio investments rather
reference to balance of payments deficit. It was decided that
make and means of facilitating foreign investment in the U.S. in
make. In 1963 a task force had been established to consider

Secretary FOWLER wished to underline some of the addenditions

Vmp. BURGE82 asked for Secretary Fowler's comments.

rules.

pharmaceutical industries had special laws. The FTC had special
seemed to be affected by different laws. The chemical and
not only had federal laws, but also state laws. Every industry
rulings? Besides take there were questions of financing. We
What were the points in our law on which the Treasury could make
same vague statements they had received for the last 50 years.
veated in this country. He was straid ACUS would give them the
Time was the kind of thing they wanted to know before they in-
They were only interested in tax structure and tax problems;
to the charge that Americas were taking over European business.
about the conference. They thought it was a dramatic rehash
Everyone with whom he had spoken in Europe was a bit skeptical
people were coming to get a feel of the new Administration.

Mr. JOSEPH agreed it was an excellent flat. Most of these

much appreciation had to be provided to be satisfied.

Mr. McERROY said one of the requirements was that the
desity of participation be high and this was now assured. Now

by a luncheon hosted by the Council.
would be discussed at the final session Sunday morning, followed
representatives of the new Administration. Recommendations
record exchange of views between the participants and the
meeting. The Saturday afternoon session would be a free off-the-
Commerce Stone would speak at luncheon, to be hosted by Dr.
prospect of foreign direct investment in the U.S. Secretary of
Saturday morning would be devoted to the problems and

would host a dinner for the members of the conference.
investment. That night Measa, Donglai Dilion and Neil McElroy
discuss the Canadian and European experience with U.S. direct
corporation in perspective. That afternoon the conference would

- 8 -

- 10 -

had purposely raised the question of the desirability now of
filling out the earlier program by defining ways and means by
which governments on either side of the Atlantic and private
institutions could program what would be a two-way flow in terms
of direct investment. He had found an unusually warm response
to this topic. Therefore he wanted to congratulate those who
inspired the Council to undertake this particular program. The
German Finance Minister in early March had been enthusiastic and
desirous of promoting German direct investment in the U.S. and
trying to remove obstacles on both sides of the water. There
was a degree of resentment to American companies who had built
up operations in Western Europe. The best answer to this
problem was to be able to point out successful direct investment
activity from the Western European countries in the U.S. and
promote more of it.

Insofar as government participation was concerned, he thought
it obvious that our visitors would be interested in meeting and
talking with members of the new Administration. It might be
useful to invite some spokesmen from the governments of Western
European countries to participate.

Amb. BURGESS said this was helpful. One reason for holding
this financial conference was that in the field of international
finance we had gotten further in achieving an Atlantic Community
than in any other field.

Mr. EMENY suggested that key members of Congress should be
invited to attend, perhaps the chairmen of the relevant
committees.

Mr. JOSEPH said what these European people expect were not
political speeches but advice by two kinds of experts, business-
men and legal experts.

Mr. EMENY said he merely meant to emphasize that the men in
Congress needed some education also.

Amb. ACHILLES said we would be keeping key people in
Congress informed of what was going on.

Amb. BURGESS then asked Mr. Wallace to report.

Mr. WALLACE said the dinner in St. Louis had been very
successful. Mr. Brosio spoke to about 850 people. Mr. McDonnell
had agreed to give us $25,000 extra this year, in addition to
his usual contribution of $5,000. He said we had been approach-
ing various other corporations for special additional contri-
butions this year.

["putting the issue later.", "The nations of other corporations had special additional contri-\nparties to give us $20,000 extra this year, in addition to\nthe annual contribution of $2,000. He said we had been approach-\ning for a $20,000 extra this year, in addition to\nthe annual contribution of $2,000. He said we had been approach-\nning for a $20,000 extra this year, in addition to\nthe annual contribution of $2,000. He said we had been approach-\nning for

- 11 -

## Meetings.

Mr. WALLACE reported on various meetings which had been held this year, including the University of Missouri, in which the Universities of Illinois and Western Kentucky participated, and which produced first-class papers on NATO. A Conference was held at the University of Louisville on March 27, with the topic of "Kentuckians Look at the North Atlantic Community." Some twenty-five local organizations cooperated in this and it was an impressive program. He and Amb. Burgess had attended. He had been impressed with a survey made prior to the conference, which was composed of ten questions, all relating to the United States and the North Atlantic Community. The first four were purely factual and were answered correctly by 90 percent. The one relating to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization - what it is and which countries were members - was correctly and con-cisely answered by 93 percent of the respondents, both as to goals and member countries.

"The United States and Europe" was the theme of a Conference sponsored by the Institute of World Affairs, University of Wisconsin at the Wingspread Conference Center, Racine, Wisconsin, which utilized TV and radio media. The annual meeting of the National Association of Secondary School Principals was held in San Francisco in March and the subject had been "NATO and the Atlantic Community." Amb. Burgess had participated in this one. Gene Rostow made the principal speech.

Dr. TOMPKINS added that the full account would be published in May and a number of copies would be furnished to the Council.

Mr. WALLACE continued that Georgetown University had just completed another one of their purely student operations with students from Europe.

Memphis State University would hold a conference on Atlantic studies next week with participants from the surrounding Mid-South area. Mr. Phillips would attend.

Ruth Lawson was planning one for next fall in the Connecticut Valley area.

Our new Special Committee of Young Leaders is working with their respective associations actively getting material in their programs.

The programs of the respective associations actively getting material in their respective areas of Young Leaders is working with our new Special Committee.

Congressional Valley area.

Dudh Lawson was planning one for next fall in the

and the West South area. Mr. Phillips would attend.
Atlantic studies next week with participants from the surrounding
Memphis state University would hold a conference on

students from Europe.

completed another one of their purely student operations with
Mr. WALLACE continued that Georgetown University had just

in May and a number of copies would be furnished to the Council.
Dr. TOMPKINS added that the full account would be published

the one. Gene Boston made the principal speech.
and the Atlantic Community." Mr. Amp. Burdett had participated in
held in San Francisco in March and the subject had been "NATO
of the National Association of Secondary School Principals was
Wisconsin which utilized TV and radio media. The annual meeting
of Wisconsin at the Windy Press Conference Center, Racine,
Conference sponsored by the Institute of World Affairs, Univer-
"The United States and Europe" was the theme of a

dosia and member countries.

Clearly answered by 33 percent of the respondents, both as to
it is and which countries were members - was correctly and con-
one relating to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization - what
purely factual and were answered correctly by 90 percent. The
status and the North Atlantic Community. The first four were
which was composed of ten questions, all relating to the United
He had been impressed with a survey made prior to the conference,
was an impressive program. He and Amp. Burdett had attended.
Some twenty-five local organizations cooperated in this and it
topic of "Kertchikisna look at the North Atlantic Community."
was held at the University of Louisville on March 21, with the
and which produced first-class papers on NATO. A Conference,
the Universities of Illinois and Western Kentucky participated,
held this year, including the University of Missouri, in which
Mr. WALLACE reported on various meetings which had been

Meeting.

- 11 -

- 13 -

particularly important among younger people. The difficult problem was to reach the student who didn't want to listen and learn. He had gotten a 25 percent increase in his budget for this year, which he knew he couldn't maintain in the future, but he hoped to keep as much as possible. He was particularly interested that J. Walter Thompson was providing its material in other countries. Use would depend upon the energies of the ATA in each country.

Amb. BURGESS asked if he were getting as many visits to Headquarters in Brussels and Costeau as in Paris.

Mr. PRICE said during the year of the move visitors were, of course, fewer but last year it went up to 10,000. That figure would certainly be repeated this year. Now they were trying very hard to concentrate on quality, not quantity.

Mr. WALLACE commented that the Board owed Mr. Price a vote of thanks for NATO's financial contribution to the ACUS.

Mr. PRICE thanked the Board.

## Committee on Atlantic Studies.

Mr. PHILLIPS said the Committee had been active, but at the moment he was unable to report favorably on cooperation between the two sections. There was a difference of opinion about the meeting scheduled for June. The Europeans wanted to concentrate on a program of research. The North American Committee felt that research would not draw money and wanted to concentrate on things which they could do better than others, such as an annual report or regional seminars. Dr. Kissinger had resigned from the Committee.

Amb. BURGESS thought it important to continue this work with college professors.

Dr. TOMPKINS commented on the work of the Atlantic Teachers Centre in London and added that Edinburgh would be the location of the biennial conference next year.

Amb. BURGESS added that this group worked at the secondary school level and had good people from each NATO country. They publish "The World and the School" which had a fair circulation and, more important, stimulated the study of the Atlantic Community and NATO in secondary schools.

and, more important, stimulated the study of the Atlantic
Bulbiran "The World and the School" which had a fair circulation
school level and had good people from each NATO country. They
Amp. BURGESS added that this group worked at the secondary
of the biennial conference next year.

Centre in London and added that Edinburgh would be the location
Dr. TOMPKINS commented on the work of the Atlantic Teachers
college professors.

Amp. BURGESS thought it important to continue this work with

from the Committee.
annual report or regional seminars. Dr. Kraaijder had resigned
on things which they could do better than others, and so am
felt that research would not draw money and wanted to concentrate
on a program of research. The North American Committee
meeting scheduled for June. The Europeans wanted to concern-
the two sections. There was a difference of opinion about the
moment he was unable to report favorably on cooperation between
Mr. PHILLIPS said the Committee had been active, but at the
Committee on Atlantic Studies.

Mr. PRICE thanked the Board.

would certainly be repeated this year. Now they were trying very
of contracts, fewer but last year it went up to 10,000. That figure
Mr. PRICE said during the year of the move visitors were.

Headquarters in Brussels and Coatesville in USA.

Amp. BURGESS asked if he were getting as many visits to

ATA in each country.

in other countries. Use would depend upon the energies of the
interested that J. Walter Thompson was providing its material
He hoped to keep so much as possible. He was particularly
this year, which he knew he couldn't maintain in the future, but
learn. He had gotten a 32 percent increase in his budget for
problem was to reach the student who didn't want to listen and
particularly important among lower people. The difficult

- 13 -

- 14 -

Amb. BURGESS added that one of the F.P.A. "Great Decisions" series this year would be on NATO.

Mr. LOVESTONE said the high school debate topic this year was "What Should Be the United States Military Commitment to Foreign Countries?" which of course included NATO.

The meeting recessed for lunch at which Sec. Gen. Brosio spoke. Messrs. Foster and Harlan Cleveland, who also spoke, were welcomed to the Board.

## Report of Book Study Group.

Amb. ACHILLES reported that Mr. Huntley's first draft of the book had been received at the beginning of December. They had drawn very heavily from it for the memorandum for the President-elect. Since then Mr. Huntley had been working on the second draft. Last week the second draft of the first two chapters had been received, which had been shortened. The second draft had been promised by May 1. Mr. Huntley had talked with Norton & Company about publishing it but they could not make any commitment until they had seen the whole second draft. However, they did think the first two chapters were much better. We would hope that it could be brought out in both hard cover and paperback.

Amb. BURGESS added that the book would cover not only NATO but the other elements of the Atlantic Community. It would be a basic book and would be useful to get out in this 20th anniversary year.

## Report of Atlantic Institute.

Mr. SCHMIDT reported the election of John W. Tuthill as the new Director General and that the next meeting of the Board of Governors and the Policy Committee would be June 13-14. In the meantime Amb. Tuthill was overlapping with Amb. Dowling, collaborating on the takeover. The current program would be carried on. He hoped it would be an orderly transition and there would be more financial back-up in Europe as a result of Mr. Loudon's chairmanship.*

*The Ford Foundation has approved a grant of $801,000 with yearly amounts as follows: 1969, $190,000; 1970, $175,000; 1971, $160,000; 1972, $145,000; 1973, $131,000.

210,000; 1335, $142,000; 1913, $131,000.

*The Board Foundation has approved a grant of $801.00 with

Mr. London, a chairmanship.*

Mr. London, a chairmanship.*

there would be more financial back-up in Europe as a result of
carried on. He proposed it would be an orderly transition and
collaborating on the takeover. The current program would be
momentine Amp. Thurlill was overlapping with Amp. Dowling.
Governors and the Policy Committee would be June 13-14. In the
new Director General and that the next meeting of the Board of
Mr. SCHMIDT reported the election of John W. Thurlill as the

Report of Atlantic Institute.

anniversary year.

a basic book and would be useful to get out in this 20th
but the other elements of the Atlantic Community. It would be
Amp. BURGESS added that the book would cover not only NATO
and paperback.

We would hope that it could be brought out in both hard cover
ever, they did think the first two chapters were much better.
such commitment until they had seen the whole second draft. How-
with Norton & Company about buplaining it but they could not make
second draft had been promised by May 1. Mr. Huntley had talked
chapters had been received, which had been shortened. The
second draft. Last week the second draft of the first two
President-elect. Since then Mr. Huntley had been working on the
had drawn very heavily from it for the memorandum for the
the book had been received at the beginning of December. They
Amp. ACHILLE reported that Mr. Huntley's first draft of

Report of Book Study Group.

were welcomed to the Board.

aboke. Wears. Foster and Harlan Clevesand, who also aboke.

The meeting recessed for lunch at which Sec. Gen. Brodie

was "What should be the United States Military Commitment to

Mr. LOVELSTONE said the High School debate topic this year

Amp. BURGESS added that one of the E.R.V. "Great Decisions"

- 15 -

Atlantic Treaty Association.

Mr. WALLACE asked each Director to mark down the dates of
the General Assembly if they had not already done so - Oct. 20-24
here in Washington. The Atlantic Council was the host. It was
expected that the Advertising Council program would peak again at
that time. Mr. Spaak would chair the meeting. It would open
with a ceremonial session at which it was hoped the President
would deliver the opening address. On the second morning there
would be a panel discussion between the living signers of the
North Atlantic Treaty. Mr. Spaak had sent formal invitations
to them. He had also written an invitation to the President,
asking us to deliver it, which we had expected to do on April 8.
A translation had been sent to the State Department. On the
third day Sec. Gen. Brosio, General Goodpaster and the Saclant
Commander would speak. Eugene Rostow had been asked to be
rapporteur of the Political and Economic Committee; the other
committee would be on Military affairs and it was expected that
a European would be the rapporteur. Thursday was a day off so
the rapporteurs could work, and Saclant would arrange for the
remainder of the delegations to go to Norfolk to see the Navy.
Friday would be for decisions and recommendations.

Mr. Emeny asked the policy in regard to the number of U.S.
participants.

Mr. WALLACE said a flexible policy was always followed;
however, we wouldn't want to overwhelm the meeting. Each country
was allowed so many delegates, and so many were appointed as
observers. The shocking thing was not about how many American
delegates there would be but that Malta had asked about hotel
rooms for 50 and France for 40. He added that the Special Com-
mittee would also participate.

Amb. BURGESS asked that a date for the next meeting be set.
Tuesday, June 10, in New York was decided upon, with the
following one on September 23 in Washington. The minutes of the
last meeting were adopted.

Mr. WALLACE said the Advertising Council material would be
sent to each director and he hoped each one would take it
seriously and do what he could to get anyone he knew to help.

seriously and do what we could to get anyone we knew to help, sent to each director and he roped each one would take it.

Mr. WILLIAM said the Advertising Council material would be

last meeting were adopted.

Following one on September 23 in Washington. The minutes of the Tuesday, June 10, in New York was decided upon, with the

Vamp. BURGESS said that a date for the next meeting be set.

meeting would also participate.

rooms for 20 and France for 40. He added that the special Com-
delegates there would be but that Maitz had asked about hotel
operators. The shocking thing was not about how many American
were allowed so many delegates; and so many were appointed an
however, we wouldn't want to overwhelm the meeting. Each country
Mr. WILLIAM said a flexible policy was always followed;

participants.

Mr. Emmy asked the policy in regard to the number of U.S.

remember of the delegations to go to Norfolk to see the Navy,
the rapporteurs could work, and Seclant would arrange for the
a European would be the rapporteur. Thursday was a day off so
committee would be on Military affairs and it was expected that
reporteur of the Political and Economic Committee; the other
Commander would also be Sebene Kostow had been asked to be
third day Sec. Gen. Groeio, General Coopbater and the Seclant
A translation had been sent to the State Department. On the
saking us to deliver it, which we had expected to do on April 8,
to them. He had also written an invitation to the President,
North Atlantic Treaty. Mr. Seak had sent formal invitations
would be a panel discussion between the living figures of the
would deliver the opening address. On the second morning there
with a ceremonial session at which it was hoped the President
that time. Mr. Seak would chair the meeting. It would open
expected that the Advertising Council program would be open again at
here in Washington. The Atlantic Council was the float. It was
the General Assembly if they had not already done so - Oct. 20-24

Mr. WILLIAM asked each Director to mark down the date of

Atlantic Treaty Association

- 12 -

Mr. SCHMIDT asked the general feeling about the rise of protectionism as of the moment. Was it proceeding or receding, or what was happening? All the reports say the right things. He thought underlying it all there was a strong push for protectionism that would have to be watched.

Amb. BURGESS thought the official position was fine but
that the in-fighting might be difficult on particular bills.

The meeting was adjourned at 3 p.m.

that the in-lighting might be difficult on particular piliers.

Amp. BURGESS thought the official position was fine but

protectionism that would have to be watched.
He thought underlying it all there was a strong push for
or what was happening? All the reports say the right things.
protectionism as of the moment. Was it proceeding or receding,
Mr. SCHMIDT asked the general feeling about the rise of.

- 10 -

Atlantic Institute

Comparative Statement of Revenue and Expense

For The Three Months Ended March 31, 1969

(U.S. Operations Only)

| | 1969 | 1968 |
|:---|---:|---:|
| **Revenue:** | | |
| Avalon Foundation | $ 10,000.00 | $ 10,000.00 |
| Old Dominion Foundation | 20,000.00 | 20,000.00 |
| Scaife Family of Pittsburgh | -0- | 25,000.00 |
| Mary Lord Foundation | -0- | 5,000.00 |
| **Total Revenue** | **$ 30,000.00** | **$ 60,000.00** |
| | | |
| **Expense:** | | |
| Salaries | $ 3,099.99 | $ 3,999.99 |
| Books | 36.18 | 90.98 |
| Charges and Fees | 40.00 | 155.00 |
| Meetings and Consultations | 2,513.10 | 431.30 |
| Office Supplies | 6.14 | 16.00 |
| Policy Committee | 1,397.70 | 2,062.32 |
| A.I. Publications | 335.00 | 24.50 |
| Social Charges | 338.80 | 469.32 |
| Telephone and Telegraph | 588.55 | 298.18 |
| **Total Direct Expense** | **8,355.46** | **7,547.59** |
| | | |
| Cash Transferred to Paris | -0- | 70,000.00 |
| **Total Expense** | **8,355.46** | **77,547.59** |
| | | |
| **Excess of Revenue Over Expense** | **$ 21,644.54** | |
| **Excess of Expense Over Revenue** | | **$ 17,547.59** |

THE ATLANTIC INSTITUTE

24, Quai du 4 Septembre, Boulogne-sur-Seine, France

L'INSTITUT ATLANTIQUE

U. S. $

PROGRAM COSTS
1 January - 31 March 1969

Paris - Washington

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>1969</th><th>1968**</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>STUDIES</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Problems of Modern Society I: the role of transnational corporations in social innovation</td><td>2 755</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>A European Defense Grouping within NATO; with ISS</td><td>5 071</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The Future of the Mediterranean; political, economic and strategic considerations</td><td>5 416</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The Atlantic Community and the Third World; neo-nationalism, neo-isolationism, trade and economic development</td><td>7 918</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Long Term Atlantic Relations: Press Seminars with IPI</td><td>5 940</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Britain and Europe II and III; conclusion and publication of reports on pound sterling and agriculture</td><td>997</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sub-Total</td><td>28 097</td><td>53 593</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>OTHER PROGRAMS</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Young Leaders</td><td>12 789</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Atlantic Papers</td><td>4 387</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cooperation with Committee on Atlantic Studies; the student revolt and university programs for Atlantic area studies</td><td>4 265</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cooperation with North Atlantic Assembly</td><td>293</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Committee on Atlantic Economic Cooperation</td><td>1 520</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Library Activities</td><td>9 203</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Program Consultation and Exploratory Research</td><td>1 930</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sub-Total</td><td>34 387</td><td>28 610</td></tr><tr><td><strong>TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS :</strong></td><td><strong>62 484</strong></td><td><strong>82 203</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

* Paris three months - Washington two months

** Detailed figures are not given for last year due to numerous changes in programs.

 April 1969

THE ATLANTIC INSTITUTE

L'INSTITUT ATLANTIQUE

U. S. $

PROGRAM AND INDIRECT COSTS

1 January - 31 March 1969

Paris - Washington

STUDIES

1 9 6 9*

1 9 6 8**

1 400

2 777

2 895

4 133

3 193

Sub-Total 631
15 034

33 423

OTHER PROGRAMS

Young Leaders

6 501

Atlantic Papers

2 376

2 307

185

899

Library Activities

5 268

1 139

Sub-Total 18 675

17 907

INDIRECT COSTS

Publications

1 443

Financial and Legal Management

4 000

House Operations

12 303

Office Operations

7 931

Governing Bodies

3 098

Sub-Total 20 775

30 873

TOTAL PROGRAM AND INDIRECT COSTS:

62 484

82 203

* Paris three months - Washington two months.

**Detailed figures are not given for last year due to numerous changes in programs.

9 April 1969

The annual spring ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council was held at Washington April 10-11. A special ceremonial session was held on April 10 in the Departmental Auditorium, the site of the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on April 4, 1949. The principal address, delivered by President Nixon, was preceded by remarks made by Secretary Rogers; Foreign Minister Willy Brandt of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Honorary President of the Council; and Secretary General Manlio Brosio.

Following are texts of the opening remarks, President Nixon's address, and a final communique issued on April 11 at the close of the ministerial meeting.

# The North Atlantic Council Celebrates the 20th Anniversary of the Signing of the North Atlantic Treaty

## OPENING REMARKS

### Secretary Rogers

Press release 76 dated April 10

Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, distinguished colleagues, honored guests, ladies and gentlemen: It gives me great pleasure to welcome you here today.

It is especially appropriate, I think, that we are gathered in this historic auditorium. Twenty years ago almost to the day, the representatives of 12 nations convened in this room to sign the North Atlantic Treaty. With the subsequent adherence of three additional signatories, this treaty became the cornerstone of the 15-nation alliance which continues to bind us together.

We are most fortunate in having in our midst five of the original signers of the treaty: the distinguished Prime Minister of Iceland, Mr. Benediktsson; Mr. Paul-Henri Spaak; Mr. Dirk U. Stikker; Mr. Halvard Lange; and Mr. Dean Acheson. Gentlemen, we are deeply honored that you have joined us to commemorate that act of statesmanship in which you played so important a part.

Also present in this room, ladies and gentlemen, are the men who are carrying on the complex day-to-day task of running the consultative and defense machinery of the alliance organization: our esteemed Secretary General, Mr. Manlio Brosio; the permanent representative

of each allied government; the chairman and members of the military committee; and the Supreme Allied Commanders. Their untiring labors and high professional competence constitute the heartbeat of the alliance.

Let me also extend a warm welcome to our other special guests, many of whom have journeyed from abroad. I am very pleased to see the representatives of the national councils of the Atlantic Treaty Association. Their activities in the private sector on behalf of the alliance are a vital factor in broadening Atlantic understanding.

We all are here today to mark the passing of a milestone in NATO's road, a road which all of us have traveled together. In meetings of the North Atlantic Council today and tomorrow, my colleagues and I will be addressing together the deep and difficult issues of our day.

For our common task in NATO remains, so long as Europe is divided, so long as the use of force threatens, and so long as aggression must be deterred. At the same time, the alliance task is also to pursue the search for ways to reduce the tensions that divide East and West. And with this twofold objective, the alliance will move into its third decade.

I am confident that the spirit of close cooperation—which is the hallmark of our common endeavor in NATO—will pervade our deliberations at this meeting and guide our work in the days and years ahead.

Ladies and gentlemen, may I now introduce

1

the Honorary President of the North Atlantic Council, His Excellency the Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany.

## Foreign Minister Brandt

Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen: Twenty years ago the North Atlantic Treaty was signed in this auditorium.

Today the alliance can take inventory of what it has achieved:

1. It has prevented armed conflicts between its members;

2. It has proved that, being a defensive alliance, it has threatened no country and no nation;

3. It has, above all, achieved its main goal: Peace has been preserved in our part of the world.

Mr. President, it is a pleasure and an honor to me to welcome you and several of those statesmen who created this defense alliance and steered it through its first years of existence. We owe them thanks for an achievement of historic importance.

But one seat, alas, remains empty—it is that of General Eisenhower. He set our alliance the great task of demonstrating that an alliance for peace means so much more to mankind than an alliance in war.

It is the German Foreign Minister's turn as President to address this meeting. This fortunate circumstance permits me to recall that the North Atlantic Treaty was the framework within which my own country was able to return into the community of free nations. Our membership in this alliance is the mainstay of our foreign policy. It will remain so until one day the division of Europe will have been overcome by means of a peace order.

As a German and not least as a Berliner, I am aware that only by joint efforts will our nations be able to safeguard their freedom and their way of life.

The strength of our alliance rests upon the fact that the United States and Canada have joined forces across the Atlantic with the Western European nations. Its vigor springs from the partnership between states of unequal size but equal intrinsic value.

The fact remains that we Europeans and our American friends continue to depend on each other. The 20th anniversary of NATO would

lose its meaning were it not to confirm and manifest anew this relationship.

The alliance had to limit itself. It has thus occasionally disappointed hopes. But it has prevented wars. In future, too, the alliance will threaten no one. It will continue to protect its members against any threat. It is on this proven basis that we can tackle the task of reducing the danger itself.

You, Mr. President, said before the NATO Council that we must replace the unity of common fear with the community of shared purpose.¹

Security is what the nations in West and East want. Today it is still a question of having security against each other. To find security with each other would be in keeping with the true aim of the Atlantic alliance.

It is only together that we shall attain this aim. Today even the most powerful is too weak if he stands alone. Only when we join forces will we win the battle for removing tension and durably securing peace.

Until then, as NATO's motto puts it, vigilance is the price of freedom.

## Secretary General Brosio

Mr. President, Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen: In inviting the North Atlantic Council to celebrate the 20th anniversary of this alliance in its birthplace, the United States Government has given proof not only of its continuing attachment to our common ideal but also of its sense of history.

For—let us take justifiable pride in it—this is an occasion unique in our times. Never since the dawn of our era has such a peacetime coalition looked back on 20 years’ united effort in defense of a collective principle. Never has the spirit of willing cooperation among highly developed nations been so effectively manifested. Never has so imminent a threat of world conflict been so successfully averted. It is, by any standards, a remarkable story.

In celebrating this unique achievement, we are very conscious of the role played in it by our hosts. Today, when the Western community stands as an established part of the world order, some of us are apt to overlook the revolution it represented in American thinking at its inception. Throughout their country's history,

¹For President Nixon's remarks to the Council on Feb. 24, see BULLETIN of Mar. 24, 1969, p. 250.

2

successive U.S. governments had remained
faithful to George Washington's injunction to
contract no tie with the Old World. In 1949
this policy of a century and a half was suddenly,
radically, modified. Let us honor the American
nation and its leaders for having, 20 years ago,
so decisively broken with their past in order to
assure the free world of a future.

In saying this I do not forget that on the
other side of the Atlantic the men of that time
were also equal to events. The wisdom spring-
ing from vision in North America, the wisdom
prompted by past suffering in Europe, together
forged this fraternity of peace.

Many men had a hand in the making of that
partnership. Many more have been concerned
with putting it to work. But, speaking as Sec-
retary General, I hope you will allow me to
mention the three men in particular to whom
my thoughts turn on this occasion, conscious of
the debt we all—and not least, I myself—owe
them.

Lord Ismay, NATO's first Secretary General,
is, alas, no longer with us but with history. A
man of great administrative talent, he first
taught the infant to walk, and set its steps in
the right direction. M. Paul-Henri Spaak
brought political acumen and imagination of
the highest order to the task of giving new
scope and depth to its development. Dr. Stikker,
who combined in unique form the great gifts of
his predecessors, guided the growing prodigy
with wisdom and firmness through a difficult
adolescence.

Today, on their ward's coming of age, we can
assess with pride their joint achievement.

Ladies and gentlemen, the past year has been
a sobering one in the affairs of our alliance.
The hopes of *détente* which illuminated our
ministerial meeting last spring were soon over-
cast by the events in Czechoslovakia. As ra-
tional men, we are bound to hope that these
clouds will eventually break. We meet this year
as new perspectives open before us. The third
decade of the alliance may afford us great op-
portunities—and also present great risks.

These uncertainties require more than ever
that Europe and North America should stand
together. Last week, the world assembled in this
Capital to mourn one of the greatest servants
the alliance ever had. No single man embodied
better than Dwight Eisenhower the spirit of
free and fraternal cooperation which animates
our community. There could, I feel, be no fitter

monument to his memory than the maintenance
of that spirit unimpaired. Our message of
peace will be the more heeded if, in the future
as in the past, we are seen to be inspired by the
same common faith.

ADDRESS BY PRESIDENT NIXON

White House press release dated April 10

Mr. Secretary, Mr. President, Mr. Secretary
General, Your Excellencies, and our distin-
guished guests: As we gather here today, we
celebrate a momentous anniversary.

We celebrate one of the great successes of the
postwar world.

Twenty years ago, as has already been men-
tioned, a few dedicated men gathered in Wash-
ington to cement an Atlantic partnership be-
tween the older nations of Europe and their
offspring in the New World—and in this very
room the North Atlantic Treaty was signed.
Some of the men who were here then are here
today—and I would like to suggest that those
who were here then and who are here today
stand for a moment. (Applause.)

Gentlemen, with our hindsight, we now have
saluted your foresight at that time. In referring
to that event, I thought I should share with you
the conversation that I had with some of the
founders in the room prior to coming to this
meeting.

Secretary Acheson recalled that before the
signing of the treaty the Marine Band played,
“We’ve Got Plenty of Nothing,” and “It Ain’t
Necessarily So.”

Certainly what has happened in those 20 years
proved that as far as the music was concerned,
it was not prophetic.

As we sit here today we also look back on
those 20 years, what has happened; and we
think, as the previous speakers have indicated,
of all of those who have contributed to the alli-
ance, and particularly to the one who com-
manded the armies that liberated Europe, the
first Supreme Commander of the NATO forces,
the American President who did so much to
bring NATO to its strength and to give life to
its principles—to Dwight David Eisenhower.

His life demonstrated that there is a moral
force in the world which can move men and
nations. There is a spiritual force, lodged in the
very roots of man's being.

As for NATO, it is precisely because it has

3

always been more than a military alliance that
its strength has been greater than the strength
of arms. This alliance represents a moral force
which, if we marshal it, will ennoble our efforts.

Dwight Eisenhower was a great humanist.
He was also a great realist. If he were with us
today, he would have recognized that together,
as men of the Old World and of the New World,
we must find ways of living in the real world.

As we know too well, that real world today
includes men driven by suspicion, men who
would take advantage of their neighbors, men
who confuse the pursuit of happiness with the
pursuit of power.

It also is peopled with men of good will, with
men of peace, and with men of hope and with
men of vision.

No nation, and no community of nations, is
made up entirely of one group of men or an-
other. No part of the world has a monopoly
on wisdom or virtue.

Those who think simply in terms of "good"
nations and "bad" nations—of a world of
stanch allies and sworn enemies—live in a
world of their own. Imprisoned by stereotypes,
they do not live in the real world.

On the other hand, those who believe that all
it takes to submerge national self-interest is a
little better communication, those who think
that all that stands in the way of international
brotherhood is stubborn leadership—they, too,
live in a world of their own. Misled by wishful
thinking, they do not live in the real world.

Two decades ago, the men who founded
NATO faced the truth of their times; as a re-
sult, the Western World prospers today in free-
dom. We must follow their example by once
again facing the truth—not of earlier times but
of our own times.

Living in the real world of today means rec-
ognizing the sometimes differing interests of
the Western nations, while never losing sight
of our great common purposes.

Living in the real world of today means
understanding old concepts of East versus
West, understanding and unfreezing those con-
cepts, but never losing sight of great ideologi-
cal differences that still remain.

We can afford neither to blind our eyes with
hatred nor to distort our vision with rose-
colored glasses. The real world is too much with
us to permit either stereotyped reacting or wish-
ful thinking to lay waste our powers.

Let us then count ourselves today among the
hopeful realists.

In this same spirit of hopeful realism, let us
look at NATO today.

We find it strong but we find it challenged.
We find disputes about its structure, political
divisions among its members, and reluctance to
meet prescribed force quotas. Many people on
both sides of the Atlantic find NATO anach-
ronistic, something quaint and familiar and
even a bit old-fashioned.

As the alliance begins its third decade, there-
fore, there are certain fundamentals to be
reaffirmed:

First, NATO is needed; and the American
commitment to NATO will remain in force and
it will remain strong. We in America continue
to consider Europe's security to be our own.

Second, having succeeded in its original pur-
pose, the alliance must adapt to the conditions
of success. With less of the original cement of
fear, we must forge new bonds to maintain
our unity.

Third, when NATO was founded, the mere
fact of cooperation among the Western nations
was of tremendous significance, both symboli-
cally and substantively. Now the symbol is not
enough; we need substance. The alliance today
will be judged by the content of its cooperation,
not merely by its form.

Fourth, the allies have learned to harmonize
their military forces; now, in the light of the
vast military, economic, and political changes of
two decades, we must devise better means of
harmonizing our policies.

Fifth, by its nature, ours is more than a mili-
tary alliance; and the time has come to turn a
part of our attention to those nonmilitary areas
in which we all could benefit from increased
collaboration.

Now, what does all this mean for the future
of the Western alliance?

To deal with the real world, we cannot re-
spond to changing conditions merely by chang-
ing our words. We have to adapt our actions.

It is not enough to talk of flexible response,
if at the same time we reduce our flexibility by
cutting back on conventional forces.

It is not enough to talk of relaxing tension,
unless we keep in mind the fact that 20 years
of tension were not caused by superficial mis-
understandings. A change of mood is useful
only if it reflects some change of mind about
political purpose.

It is not enough to talk of European security
in the abstract. We must know the elements of

4

insecurity and how to remove them. Conferences are useful if they deal with concrete issues, which means they must, of course, be carefully prepared.

It is not enough to talk of détente, unless at the same time we anticipate the need for giving it the genuine political content that would prevent détente from becoming delusion.

To take one example, a number of America's Western partners have actively supported the idea of strategic arms control talks with the Soviet Union. I support that idea. When such talks are held, we shall work diligently for their success.

But within our alliance we must recognize that this would imply a military relationship far different from the one that existed when NATO was founded. Let's put it in plain words. The West does not today have the massive nuclear predominance that it once had, and any sort of broad-based arms agreement with the Soviets would codify the present balance.

How would progress toward arms control affect the nature of consultation within our alliance?

Up to now, our discussions have mainly had to do with tactics—ways and means of carrying out the provisions of a treaty drawn a generation ago. We have discussed clauses in proposed treaties; in the negotiations to come, we must go beyond these to the processes which these future treaties will set in motion. We must shake off our preoccupation with formal structure to bring into focus a common world view.

Of course there is a diversity of policies and interests among the Western nations; and of course those differences must be respected. But in shaping the strategies of peace, these differences need not block the way—not if we break through to a new and deeper form of political consultation.

To be specific, the forthcoming arms talks will be a test of the ability of the Western nations to shape a common strategy.

The United States fully intends to undertake deep and genuine consultation with its allies, both before and during any negotiations directly affecting their interests. That is a pledge I shall honor—and I expect to consult at length on the implications of anything that might affect the pattern of East-West relations.

In passing that test together, this alliance will give new meaning to the principle of mutual consultation.

To seize the moment that this opportunity

presents, we would do well to create new machinery for Western political consultation, as well as to make greater use of the machinery that we have.

First, I suggest that deputy foreign ministers meet periodically for a high-level review of major, long-range problems before the alliance.

Second, I suggest creation of a special political planning group, not to duplicate the work now being done by the Council or by the senior political advisers but to address itself specifically and continually to the longer range problems we face.

This would by no means preclude efforts to develop a fuller European cooperation. On the contrary, we in the United States would welcome that cooperation. What ties us to Europe is not weakness or division among our partners but community of interest with them.

Third, I strongly urge that we create a committee on the challenges of modern society, responsible to the deputy ministers, to explore ways in which the experience and resources of the Western nations could most effectively be marshaled toward improving the quality of life of our peoples.

That new goal is provided for in article II of our treaty, but it has never been the center of our concerns. Let me put my proposal in concrete terms and in personal terms. On my recent trip to Europe I met with world leaders and private citizens alike. I was struck by the fact that our discussions were not limited to military or political matters. More often than not our talks turned to those matters deeply relevant to our societies: the legitimate unrest of young people, the frustration of the gap between generations, the need for a new sense of idealism and purpose in coping with an automating world.

These were not subjects apart from the concerns of NATO; indeed, they went to the very heart of the real world we live in. We are not allies because we are bound by treaty; we bind ourselves by treaty because we are allied in meeting common purposes and common concerns.

For 20 years our nations have provided for the military defense of Western Europe. For 20 years we have held political consultations.

Now the alliance of the West needs a third dimension.

It needs not only a strong military dimension to provide for the common defense and not only a more profound political dimension to shape

5

a strategy of peace, but it also needs a social dimension to deal with our concern for the quality of life in this last third of the 20th century.

This concern is manifested in many ways—culturally and technologically, through the humanities and the sciences.

The Western nations share common ideals and a common heritage. We are all advanced societies, sharing the benefits and the gathering torments of a rapidly advancing industrial technology. The industrial nations share no challenge more urgent than that of bringing 20th century man and his environment to terms with one another—of making the world fit for man and helping man to learn how to remain in harmony with the rapidly changing world.

We in the United States have much to learn from the experiences of our Atlantic allies in their handling of internal matters: for example, the care of infant children in West Germany, the "new towns" policy of Great Britain, the development of depressed areas programs in Italy, the great skill of the Dutch in dealing with high-density areas, the effectiveness of urban planning by local governments in Norway, the experience of the French in metropolitan planning.

Having forged a working partnership, we all have a unique opportunity to pool our skills, our intellects, and our inventiveness in finding new ways to use technology to enhance our environments, and not to destroy them.

The work of this committee would not be competitive with any now being carried on by other international agencies. Neither would it be our purpose to limit this cooperation and the benefits that flow from it to our own countries. Quite the opposite—our purpose would be to share both ideas and benefits, recognizing that these problems have no national or regional boundaries. This could become the most positive dimension of the alliance, opening creative new channels to all the rest of the world.

When I visited the North Atlantic Council in Brussels I posed the question: "In today's world what kind of an alliance shall we strive to build?"

Today I have sketched out some of the approaches that I believe the alliance should take.

I believe we must build an alliance strong enough to deter those who might threaten war, close enough to provide for continuous and far-reaching consultation, trusting enough to accept

the diversity of views, realistic enough to deal with the world as it is, and flexible enough to explore new channels of constructive co-operation.

Ten years ago, addressing the North Atlantic Council in this same room, President Eisenhower spoke of the need for unity. Listen to his words. There is not much strength in the finger of one hand, he said, but when five fingers are balled into a fist, you have a considerable instrument of defense.

We need such an instrument of defense, and the United States will bear its fair share in keeping NATO strong.

All of us are also ready, as conditions change, to turn that fist into a hand of friendship.

NATO means more than arms, troop levels, consultative bodies, and treaty commitments. All of these are necessary. But what makes them relevant to the future is what the alliance stands for. To discover what this Western alliance means today, we have to reach back not across two decades but through the centuries to the very roots of the Western experience.

When we do, we find that we touch a set of elemental ideals, eloquent in their simplicity, majestic in their humanity; ideals of decency and justice and liberty and respect for the rights of our fellow men. Simple, yes; and to us they seem obvious. But our forebears struggled for centuries to win them, and in our own lifetimes we have had to fight to defend them.

These ideals are what NATO was created to protect. It is to these ideals, on this proud anniversary, that we are privileged to consecrate the alliance anew. These ideals—and the firmness of our dedication to them—give NATO's concept its nobility, and NATO's backbone its steel.

## TEXT OF FINAL COMMUNIQUE

Press release 81 dated April 11

1. The North Atlantic Council met in Ministerial Session in Washington on 10th and 11th April, 1969. The Council commemorated the twentieth anniversary of the Treaty creating the Alliance and was addressed by the President of the United States. Ministers expressed their deep satisfaction at the decisive contribution the Alliance had made to the maintenance of peace in Europe and to the security of all its members.

2. The Alliance was established to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of its people.

6

ples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual
liberty and the rule of law, and in response to a
common fear that without an effective security system,
another war might erupt in a divided Europe. The
Alliance continues as the expression of common pur-
poses and aspirations.

3. In 1967 the Report on the Future Tasks of the Alliance emphasised the dual task of the latter: the defence of the West and the search for a stable peace with the East. In June 1968 Allied Ministers declared their readiness to seek, with the other States concerned, specific practical measures for disarmament and arms control, including possible measures for mutual and balanced force reductions.² Notwithstanding the serious setback to hopes for improvement in East-West relations as a result of Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia, Ministers in November 1968 stated that secure, peaceful and mutually beneficial relations between East and West remained the political goal of the Allies.³ They reaffirmed at this Session that the intention of their Governments was to continue the search for real progress towards this objective by contacts and to explore all appropriate openings for negotiations.

4. Bearing especially in mind the situation in Eastern Europe, member governments recall that any lasting improvement in international relations presupposes full respect for the principles of the independence and territorial integrity of States, non-interference in their domestic affairs, the right of each people to shape its own future, and the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force.

5. Ministers recalled that one of the essential aims of the Alliance is the establishment of a just and lasting peace in Europe, based on stability, security and mutual confidence. The Allies propose, while remaining in close consultation, to explore with the Soviet Union and the other countries of Eastern Europe which concrete issues best lend themselves to fruitful negotiation and an early resolution. Consequently, they instructed the Council to draft a list of these issues and to study how a useful process of negotiation could best be initiated, in due course, and to draw up a report for the next meeting of Ministers. It is clear that any negotiations must be well prepared in advance, and that all governments whose participation would be necessary to achieve a political settlement in Europe should take part.

6. The Allies will also pursue their efforts and studies in the field of disarmament and practical arms control, including balanced force reductions and the initiatives already undertaken for the renunciation of the use of force.

7. The political solidarity of the Alliance constitutes an essential element while approaching a period of expanding East-West contacts and possible negotiations. This solidarity can best be maintained by strict adherence to the principle of full consultation in the

Council both before and during any negotiations that might affect the interests of the Alliance or any of its members. On this understanding, the Allied Governments welcome the intention of the United States to engage the USSR in discussion of limitations on offensive and defensive strategic arms.

8. The Allies participating in the NATO integrated defence programme agreed that it was extremely important that during an era of negotiation the defence posture of the Alliance should not be relaxed and that premature expectations of solutions to outstanding questions should not be generated. The maintenance of effective defence is a stabilising factor and a necessary condition for effective detente policies.

9. Accordingly these members of the Alliance re-affirmed their continuing determination to make appropriate contributions to joint efforts for defence and deterrence at all levels both nuclear and conventional. They accepted the continuing need for the current NATO strategy based on a forward defence and appropriate response to any aggression, and for a credible conventional and nuclear deterrent including adequate overall and local force levels. The necessary military posture of the Alliance consists of the strategic nuclear deterrent forces, the presence of sufficient substantial and effective North American and European conventional forces as well as supporting tactical nuclear forces in the European area and adequate ready reinforcements.

10. Defence Ministers will meet on 28th May, 1969 and will examine the more specific elements in the defence posture necessary to fulfil the above requirements. They will also examine the possibility of improving the efficiency of the defence effort by intensifying mutual and co-operative approaches to, for example, the problems of arms production and arms standardisation either among all Allied nations or between some of them.

11. Reviewing the situation in Berlin, the Ministers noted that obstacles have recently been placed on freedom of access to Berlin. Such obstructions cannot be accepted. The Ministers supported the determination of the Three Powers to maintain free access to the city, and recalled the declaration of the North Atlantic Council of 16th December, 1958,⁴ and the responsibilities which each member State assumed with regard to the security and welfare of Berlin.

12. The Ministers consider that the achievement of a peaceful European settlement presupposes, among other things, progress towards eliminating existing sources of tension in the centre of Europe. They consider that concrete measures aimed at improving the situation in Berlin, safeguarding free access to the city, and removing restrictions which affect traffic and communications between the two parts of Germany would be a substantial contribution toward this objective. They expressed their support for continued efforts by the Three Powers to explore, in the framework of their special responsibilities for Berlin and Germany as a whole, possibilities for ordered and negotiated progress in these important questions.

13. A peaceful solution must be found for the Ger-

² For text of a final communique and attachment issued at Reykjavik on June 25, 1968, see BULLETIN of July 15, 1968, p. 75.

³ For text of a final communique issued at Brussels on Nov. 16, 1968, see BULLETIN of Dec. 9, 1968, p. 595.

⁴ For text, see BULLETIN of Jan. 5, 1959, p. 4.

7

man question based on the free decision of the German people and on the interests of European security.

14. The members of the Alliance are conscious that they share common environmental problems which, unless squarely faced, could imperil the welfare and progress of their societies. The Ministers recognise that important work on these problems is already being carried out within other international organizations. The Ministers instructed the Council in Permanent Session to examine how to improve, in every practical way, the exchange of views and experience among the Allied countries, whether by action in the appropriate international organizations or otherwise, in the task of creating a better environment for their societies.

15. While concerned with these problems, Ministers are also mindful that the Allied countries are entering an era in which scientific, technical and economic resources should contribute to the peaceful progress and development of all nations.

16. Apart from regular meetings at Ministerial level, Ministers agreed that the Council in Permanent Session should consider the proposal that high officials of their Foreign Ministries meet periodically for a review of major, long-range problems before the Alliance.

17. The next Ministerial Session of the North Atlantic Council will be held in Brussels in December 1969.

8

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969 O-349-688

KISSINGER, HENRY A. /A*

[lc]

THE ATLANTIC COUNCIL
OF THE UNITED STATES

1616 H STREET, N.W. • WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006

TELEPHONE 347-9353

CABLE: ATCOUN

HONORARY CHAIRMEN

HERBERT HOOVER
(1962-1964)

HARRY S. TRUMAN

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER
(1962-1969)

LYNDON B. JOHNSON

CHAIRMAN
W. RANDOLPH BURGESS

VICE CHAIRMEN
LIVINGSTON T. MERCHANT
LAURIS NORSTAD
DEAN ACHESON
THEODORE C. ACHILLES
HENRY H. FOWLER
NEIL MCELROY
EUGENE V. ROSTOW
ALEXANDER B. TROWBRIDGE

TREASURER & CHAIRMAN,
FINANCE COMMITTEE
PERCIVAL F. BRUNDAGE

SECRETARY
TOM KILLEFER

DIRECTOR GENERAL
RICHARD J. WALLACE

DIRECTORS

DONALD G. AGGER
FRANK ALTSCHUL
JANANN G. BAKER
EDWARD W. BARRETT
FRANCIS M. BATOR
JUSTIN BLACKWELDER
W. MICHAEL BLUMENTHAL
GENE BRADLEY
WILLIAM P. BUNDY
WILLIAM A. M. BURDEN
HODDING CARTER, III
HARLAN CLEVELAND
EMILIO G. COLLADO
ROBERT L. DENNISON
DOUGLAS DILLON
LEWIS W. DOUGLAS
WALTER DOWLING
WILLIAM H. DRAPER, JR.
CHARLES E. DUCOMMUN
BROOKS EMENY
CHARLES W. ENGELHARD
THOMAS K. FINLETTER
RALPH C. M. FLYNT
WILLIAM C. FOSTER
GEORGE S. FRANKLIN, JR.
CARL J. GILBERT
ALFRED M. GRUENTHER
LIVINGSTON HARTLEY
GABRIEL HAUGE
WM. ROGERS HEROD
CHRISTIAN A. HERTER, JR.
JOHN D. HICKERSON
CLAIRE GIANNINI HOFFMAN
J. ALLAN HOVEY, JR.
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY
HENRY M. JACKSON
JACOB K. JAVITS
FRANZ M. JOSEPH
HENRY A. KISSINGER
RUTH C. LAWSON
JOHN M. LEDDY
LYMAN L. LEMNITZER
MARY P. LORD
JAY LOVESTONE
DAVID W. MACEACHRON
JOHN J. MCCLOY
J. S. MCDONNELL
WM. MCCCHESNEY MARTIN
LAWRENCE C. MCQUADE
GEORGE MEANY
SAMUEL W. MEEK
HUGH MOORE
WALDEN MOORE
MALCOLM MUIR
ROBERT D. MURPHY
FREDERICK E. NOLTING, JR.
GARRISON NORTON
PATRICK L. O'MALLEY
LITHGOW OSBORNE
HENRY D. OWEN
DANIEL PARKER
H. H. PORTER
OGDEN R. REID
EMMETT J. RICE
SIDNEY E. ROLFE
ROBERT V. ROOSA
ELMO ROPER
H. CHAPMAN ROSE
CORTLANDT V. R. SCHUYLER
GERARD C. SMITH
KENNETH M. SPANG
TIMOTHY W. STANLEY
RALPH I. STRAUS
ELLSWORTH TOMPKINS
JOHN W. TUTHILL
PATRICIA M. WILLIAMS

June 28, 1971

Memorandum to Members of the Board of Directors.

From: Richard Wallace

Enclosed are minutes of our Board meeting of
June 10, 1971.

The next meeting of the Board will be on
Wednesday, September 8, at the Mayflower Hotel,
Washington.

RECEIVED
JUL 3 1971
CENTRAL FILES

Associated with THE ATLANTIC INSTITUTE and THE ATLANTIC TREATY ASSOCIATION

1-71

CHAIRMAN
W. RANDOLPH BURGESS

VICE CHAIRMEN
LIVINGSTON T. MERCHANT
LAURIS NORSTAD
DEAN ACHESON
THEODORE C. ACHILLES
HENRY H. FOWLER
NEIL McELROY
EUGENE V. ROSTOW
ALEXANDER B. TROWBRIDGE

SECRETARY
TOM KILLEFER

DIRECTORS

DONALD G. AGGER
FRANK ALTSCHUL
JANANN G. BAKER
EDWARD W. BARRETT
FRANCIS M. BATOR
JUSTIN BLACKWELDER
W. MICHAEL BLUMENTHAL
GENE BRADLEY
WILLIAM P. BUNDY
WILLIAM A. M. BURDEN
HODDING CARTER, III
HARLAN CLEVELAND
EMILIO G. COLLADO
ROBERT L. DENNISON
DOUGLAS DILLON
LEWIS W. DOUGLAS
WALTER DOWLING
WILLIAM H. DRAPER, JR.
CHARLES E. DUCOMMUN
BROOKS EMENY
CHARLES W. ENGELHARD
THOMAS K. FINLETTER
RALPH C. M. FLYNT
WILLIAM C. FOSTER
GEORGE S. FRANKLIN, JR.
CARL J. GILBERT
ALFRED M. GRUENTHER
LIVINGSTON HARTLEY
GABRIEL HAUGE
WM. ROGERS HEROD
CHRISTIAN A. HERTER, JR.
JOHN D. HICKERSON
CLAIRE GIANNINI HOFFMAN
J. ALLAN HOVEY, JR.
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY
HENRY M. JACKSON
JACOB K. JAVITS
FRANZ M. JOSEPH
HENRY A. KISSINGER
RUTH C. LAWSON
JOHN M. LEDDY
LYMAN L. LENNITZER
MARY P. LORD
JAY LOVESTONE
DAVID W. MACEACHRON
JOHN J. McCLOY
J. S. MCDONNELL
WM. MCCHESNEY MARTIN
LAWRENCE C. MCQUADE
GEORGE MEANY
SAMUEL W. MEEK
HUGH MOORE
WALDEN MOORE
MALCOLM MUIR
ROBERT D. MURPHY
FREDERICK E. NOLTING, JR.
GARRISON NORTON
PATRICK L. O'MALLEY
LITHGOW OSBORNE
HENRY D. OWEN
DANIEL PARKER
H. H. PORTER
OGDEN R. REID
EMMETT J. RICE
SIDNEY E. ROLFE
ROBERT V. ROOSA
ELMO ROPER
H. CHAPMAN ROSE
CORTLANDT V. R. SCHUYLER
GERARD C. SMITH
KENNETH M. SPANG
TIMOTHY W. STANLEY
RALPH I. STRAUS
ELLSWORTH TOMPKINS
JOHN W. TUTHILL
PATRICIA M. WILLIAMS

TELEPHONE 347-9353

CABLE: ATCOUN

HONORARY CHAIRMEN

HERBERT HOOVER
(1962-1964)

HARRY S. TRUMAN

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER

(1962-1969)

LYNDON B. JOHNSON

Meeting of the Board of Directors
Thursday, June 10, 1971
New York City

DIRECTORS present included: W. Randolph Burgess, Chairman; Theodore C. Achilles, Henry H. Fowler, Neil McElroy, Alexander B. Trowbridge, Percival F. Brundage, Richard J. Wallace, Frank Altschul, Emilio G. Collado, Robert L. Dennison, Walter Dowling, Brooks Emeny, Thomas K. Finletter, George S. Franklin, Jr., Livingston Hartley, Wm. Rogers Herod, J. Allan Hovey, Jr., Mary P. Lord, Jay Lovestone, David W. MacEachron, Samuel W. Meek, Hugh Moore, Walden Moore, Malcolm Muir, Frederick E. Nolting, Jr., Lithgow Osborne, Sidney E. Rolfe, Cortlandt V. R. Schuyler, Kenneth M. Spang, Timothy W. Stanley, Ralph I. Straus and Ellsworth Tompkins. Staff members present included: Martha Finley and Patrick Murphy.

THE MEETING was called to order at 10:30 a.m. by the Chairman.

The DRAFT AGENDA was adopted and minutes of the meeting of April 14, 1971, WERE APPROVED.

The CHAIRMAN asked for adoption of two resolutions (attached) regarding the late John C. Hughes and Elmo Roper; this was done by a rising vote.

Amb. BURGESS continued that we were now in a new "ball game" due to events occurring since our last meeting - the Senate debate and vote on the Mansfield Amendment, the monetary situation, Soviet statements concerning SALT and troop strength, and some developments with respect to Berlin, as well as pending admission of Britain and others to the Common Market. Eyes have been drawn from the East back to the Atlantic Community and he thought it opened the way for us to go ahead with our program.

1-71

- 2 -

Meaning of the Senate Debate on the Mansfield Resolution and possible follow-up.

Amb. ACHILLES agreed we certainly were in a new ball game in several fields. The April Board meeting had approved the expansion of the study on U.S.-European relations with three sub-topics: Politeco-Military with Whitt as rapporteur; Monetary-Financial with Rolfe as rapporteur; and Trade and Agriculture with Malmgren as rapporteur. Due to the recent monetary crisis the monetary section should be promptly activated. Due to the flurry on the Mansfield Amendment, it was hoped also to activate the Politeco-Military group, and the Trade and Agriculture group should also be formed promptly. Since we were also planning a major agricultural study, this group would really concentrate on trade problems.

In December 1968 the Council had sent the then President-Elect a memorandum with many recommendations. A number have been carried out. Some have not been carried out which might well be emphasized anew to the Administration. He thought the Political Committee could give some thought to those, such as the long-range goals, the question of the relationship between European and Atlantic unity and the so-called hegemony problem. Another might be giving our Ambassador to NATO closer contact with decision-making of our Government.

Amb. BURGESS asked Secretary Fowler for his comments.

Sec. FOWLER said in his opinion that anything we did in the monetary area would have to be in fairly close cooperation and harmony with those that were in responsible charge, in particular with Treasury and Federal Reserve Board people, because it was a particularly sensitive subject at this time. He would hope that anything the Committee undertook, certainly before it received any public notice, would be checked out with appropriate people in the Treasury Department. He didn't think that need inhibit the Committee and he thought the dialogue with those people could be quite useful. He thought there was one major thrust to this whole area of problems which the Council's earlier statement gave voice to, and that is simply that a solution toward multilateral balance of payments must include as active participants not just the Ministers of Finance and the central bankers, who were quite aware of the problem, but must also include those in responsible charge in foreign relations, defense, tourism, etc., that there must be more communication on this level, at the Chief of State level, Ministers of Defense, Finance and Trade levels, as well as Treasuries and central bankers. He thought if our special committee did no more than highlight intergovernmental responsibility, it would be very helpful to people in Washington.

- 3 -

Amb. BURGESS said Sec. Fowler had emphasized two very key points, and particularly the need for keeping in touch with the appropriate people in Washington. The most difficult point is finding out what we as an organization of citizens can do that will be effective.

Mr. SPANG asked about exploring a method to exercise some control over the flows of income and outgo.

Mr. McCLOY felt strongly that we should be thinking in terms of a major political movement. Any reading you took in Europe today would show a growing skepticism in the world whether the U.S. would play its essential role in the post-war world. We were moving close to a situation where there was an increased tendency toward acceptance of the Soviet nuclear increase. The answer is not in increasing the hardware. Political initiative was needed. He was pessimistic about a European Security Conference; how about an Atlantic Security Conference? The State Department said that would be provocative. He wasn't definite as to the form it should take. Atlantic approach maybe is not the answer. There was not the steady exchange of contacts that was necessary to meet this new major development that was occurring. Europeans read about the malaise we are in here, and we should be thinking in terms of a political act at this time. He was doubtful whether we could do it, in view of the political campaign. We were in a rather perilous period in terms of American influence.

One word about the Mansfield Amendment, he thought it was quite a victory and the fact that Congress didn't support any compromise was significant. The Europeans were not doing what they should be doing. We should concentrate our attention on the security situation. There is an area here to be dealt with, and that is the re-emphasis on security on the part of the U.S.

Amb. BURGESS said one rather encouraging feature was the position taken by our Government in Munich in one speech by Connally which was good. Also, we have heard good reports from our people who attended the OECD meeting, and also the NATO meeting in Portugal, both of which went as well as could be hoped for. The response, in support of NATO stimulated by the discussion of the Mansfield Amendment, was : a good response. The 14 countries are looking for a new European approach to NATO support.

In terms of ideas the Council has cash in the bank to draw on in such studies as the Stanley book, the environment study and the Burgess-Huntley book, with the agriculture study in prospect, as well as the work of the Atlantic Institute. We have materials for

- 4 -

a larger public effort. The problem is to get it over, perhaps by reactivating the Advertising Council campaign for a broader framework for public appeal.

Mr. EMENY wondered if the emphasis on Atlantic security would not be more appealing to Canada, which seemed to be turning to isolationism.

Mr. HEROD found the striking thing abroad was the apparent disillusionment with our Administration. They see the malaise here and wonder why we don't get our own affairs in better position in order to cary more weight abroad. We must get agreement at home before we can expect the Europeans to believe in us.

Mr. MOORE was recently in Europe and had found that our President didn't have a very strong image. Another impression was that Atlantic-minded people seemed to take the U.S. too much for granted. Every European agreed that Europe ought to assume a greater share of the cost-sharing. In the North Atlantic Assembly a resolution had been introduced that each member of NATO should spend not less than 5 per cent of its GNP on defense, which they thought was a just proposition, but you couldn't move them into doing it. He also referred to the New York Times article regarding the switching of the proportion of British opinion favoring entry into the Common Market, which was 40% in 1960, 60% in 1965 but from then on had dropped down to around 20%.

Mr. LOVESTONE didn't want to minimize the importance of the results of the Senate debate. In his opinion there was no reason to be thankful for Brezhnev making the speech he did at that time. It helped sell the idea of the so-called mutual balanced force reduction. The Russians don't need a Warsaw Pact. They control in an entirely different way. He would suggest that we, from time to time, should examine carefully what can be done here to re-educate the American people. If we could get the American people aroused, we would be all right. The big difficulty is the aftermath of the Vietnam situation. He would like to suggest that we consider some broad activity with other organizations that are similar in purpose and see if we can get some broader action.

Mrs. LORD asked if Amb. Schmidt had sent anyone an analysis of the comments Trudeau made in Rome against the U.S.

Mr. HARTLEY wanted to mention a thought about burden sharing which had come up in discussion with Walden Moore. If it were possible to establish the principle that the U.S. should not suffer a balance of payments deficit from maintaining troops in Europe, the decision on how other countries would offset it might be left to our

- 5 -

European Allies. This procedure would be analogous to that of the Marshall Plan when division of our aid to Europe was left to the OEEC countries to decide. It might be a means of avoiding friction between our Government and those of our NATO Allies.

Amb. BURGESS said Amb. Achilles had suggested that the responsibility for our studies be divided between three working committees with a rapporteur for each. Out of that would develop certain overall approaches. Were there any further comments? There being none, he continued that the other question was what do you do with the results. Of course we have the Quarterly and the monthly newsletter with high quality circulation. We had used the MAY issue of the newsletter for printing the Statement on the monetary situation and the JUNE one for printing what we had to say about the Mansfield Amendment and the Gallup Poll but that circulation was not large enough to have large impact. We did receive fairly extensive press coverage on the monetary statement.

Mr. BRUNDAGE asked about timing, having in mind something for the ATA Assembly.

Mr. MEEK said as far as the Advertising Council and J. Walter Thompson were concerned, they would have to go before the Advertising Council to try to get them to agree to take up the effort again this year and would have to convince them of the importance because of the new factors involved, otherwise they would think they had done their job. He didn't think it was possible to do anything within 90 days as it would take that long to get the machinery going. There was nothing to do at the moment except start it. One of the big problems is that people think it isn't necessary to do anything, as they think the Russians want peace. We have to convince them that the military is a positive force for peace.

Mr. WALLACE thought perhaps if Amb. Achilles' program was followed it might be possible to get the rapporteurs to put some thinking on paper, which might be helpful in London, but it would be difficult to find and get together the right committee people in the middle of summer.

Amb. ACHILLES would hope to have very soon a meeting of a Steering Committee in order to refine the terms of reference, the procedure and emphasis of the various groups.

Mr. MOORE asked if it would be possible to have draft resolutions from each committee fully approved at the next meeting of the Board in order to take them to London as opinions of the Atlantic Council.

- 6 -

Mr. COLLADO said the hardest job he ever did in the CED was the study on the Common Market and East-West Trade. They were giving some thought to another study of some of the same ground. The monetary and fiscal study had been done two years ago.

Dr. TOMPKINS thought it would be well to have the substantive work, a digest and a point of view that people could use in dealing with people of consequence in other states. He found his mail flooded with anti-anti-anti, and in his judgment some sort of fact sheet and recommendations for action would be most helpful.

Amb. BURGESS thought one possible way would be for the three committees to focus first on the points that might be taken up at the ATA General Assembly.

Dr. ROLFE had two comments. He had just returned from a meeting of Canadian manufacturers and he was very impressed with the degree with which they were upset about the dollar. He thought that many of us tended to underemphasize the extent to which this is a major problem to other people. Second, the division of labor is always desirable with respect to the military, political, and economic, but he thought someone would have to synthesize the three elements and he was prepared to submit an article, which could be the basis for a statement, at least it would be a point of departure.

Amb. BURGESS said that would be most welcome.

Dr. STANLEY was not quite clear about the connection between being a rapporteur at the ATA General Assembly and the other effort. He would welcome clarification. He had one thought - in trying to limit himself to defense, economic, financial and trade problems did enter in. Perhaps the only solution lies at one place where all these documents would come together. Politically one thing that kept running through his mind was a small conference of Heads of State - a showdown in precise areas such as offset costs, import policies, agricultural policies, etc. It was up to Mr. Nixon to set the stage for international policies in the next decade. He thought it would be important to discuss this larger approach with friends in the Administration on a confidential basis.

Mr. STRAUS had attended the recent BIAC meeting, directed by Van Lennep and Lane Timmons. They had been working extremely hard in order to focus attention on the present OECD meeting, and for the first time our Secretary of State was Chairman. Van Lennep was very different from his predecessor. Mr. Straus had hopes that this body might do something effective of a transatlantic nature - to bring the non-communist world together.

- 7 -

Amb. BURGESS agreed that this use of OECD was a very good avenue, was exactly what they had in mind ten years ago when the treaty was drafted. It includes the major developed countries and is yet small enough to have some clout.

Mr. WALLACE said they are actually working out the terms of reference for the proposed Special Working Party on trade.

Amb. BURGESS asked if he correctly interpreted the sentiment of the meeting that we go ahead with the three committees. If there were no disagreement we would go ahead, try to stimulate the rapporteurs to draft some tentative terms of reference and send them to the Board members by mail for comment and suggestions, trying to aim for something which would be useful to the General Assembly.

## Progress regarding proposed Agriculture Study.

Amb. ACHILLES said a certain amount of progress had been made. Dr. Harrar of the Rockefeller Foundation and his staff had been quite helpful suggesting people and offering comments on the project. Only recently he had broached the subject of money and told Dr. Harrar we would like $50,000 from them and that we hoped to get $50,000 from Ford. Dr. Harrar hadn't said yes or no, so Mr. Achilles was keeping his fingers crossed. Mr. Harned had talked with people at Ford and found them interested, so he thought we had good prospects for financing. When Secretary Hardin was at the Council on Foreign Affairs recently, he, Dr. Harrar and Mr. Achilles had discussed it. Mr. Hardin thought the Council could perform a useful purpose, and had said Don Paarlberg would be a good point of contact in the Department. Amb. Achilles did talk with Dr. Paarlberg, who was quite interested and thought we might obtain some useful results, although it might take some time. The new 10-man high-level OECD group is to discuss agricultural policies as well as nontariff barriers, which is another reason for our going ahead on this study. Our major thrust is to try to needle the government in the way they want to be needled, to help them in public opinion on courses which they want to follow.

Mr. WALLACE called attention to the paper on U.S. Agricultural Exports to the European Communities in each one's folder. It showed, contrary to the general supposition, that U.S. Agriculture Exports to the Community have a steady trend upward.

Dr. STANLEY asked if any consideration was being given to the timing of the agriculture study and the others, in connection with the Williams report, which would be out this month or next.

- 8 -

Amb. BURGESS noted that the agriculture study would take at least a year.

Amb. ACHILLES agreed and added that the other studies would also take a year. But certainly the Williams Committee Report would have an impact.

## Special Projects.

### Burgess-Huntley Book.

Mr. MEEK reported that the book was now being printed in paperback, would be ready some time in August or the first of September and would sell for $3.95. They would need a good deal of help to get it moving. One thing needed was reviews which helped the most. If anyone had contacts with publishers and would get them to do reviews it would be most helpful. George McGhee is writing a review for the house organ of the English Speaking Union, which has a circulation of 30,000. Things like that would help the most since it was not exactly a popular book. The paperbook actual cost would be $2.00 each and they could be furnished to groups at that rate, that is, in quantity. Also a German edition was being published by a German publisher. It recently received a good review in the Christian Science Monitor where Brosio quoted it as a good authority for many statements. The print order was 5,000. Sales of the hardcover were now 3,000. They were very eager to get support and recommendations in the education field. General Gruenther and General Lemnitzer were writing reviews for the military, which also would be a great help. Needed to get something in Foreign Affairs and Academy of Political Science.

Mr. WALLACE said it had been listed in Foreign Affairs.

### Malgren book on Nontariff Barriers.

Mr. WALLACE reported that the paperback, short version had been well received. The hardcover was still in the process of being written but had a publisher, Dunellen, and should be out by Fall.

### The environmental control book.

Mr. WALLACE said this was a collection of papers from the environmental conference held last January and now had two possible publishers. Praeger wanted it and had agreed to publish it, and

- 9 -

had good distribution facilities. It was certainly not a mass
circulation book, but a detailed study of environment problems. The
thing that came out very loud and clear was that this environmental
improvement could not be done on a national basis, but had to be
international, otherwise you would succeed in erecting a series of
nontariff barriers, have a competitive effect on industries, and
pollution couldn't be controlled within natural borders. This book
would be published five months after printing arrangements were
completed.

Stanley-Whitt book.

Mr. WALLACE continued that this book had been out for some time
and had been quite widely used in colleges, universities and other-
wise. This book, too, was now going into a paperback, which would
also be out by Fall. The publisher was doing the paperback entirely
on his own and had not yet set the price. This book would have new
birth as we move toward a European Security Conference and discussions
on mutual balanced force reductions, so it would have a long life.

Dr. TOMPKINS mentioned that the National League of Women Voters had a newsletter, they were tremendously interested in nontariff trade barriers and suggested that they be sent a copy of the Malmgren book

Fund Raising and Treasurer's Report.

Mr. BRUNDAGE reminded everyone that his report was in the
folders provided and was satisfactory, largely due to the fact that
solicitation letters went out early this year, so while we were in
a reasonably good financial position at the moment it didn't mean
that we don't have to keep working at it, particularly to try to
enlarge our base of contributors. There were very good international
companies who are not contributors, so he thought in early Fall we
would write a second letter and he would like to send a list of those
companies, we think might be interested in the studies we are pro-
ducing to each member of the Board for assistance. A report from
the Institute was provided.

Amb. BURGESS said the second page of the Institute report
indicates their source of contributions. The important thing that
had happened was that they now had some corporations as subscribing
members and the Institute conducted some meetings for them and sent
them their publications.

- 10 -

Amb. BURGESS was sorry Mr. Tuthill could not be present today. They had worked out a program jointly to see some of the Foundation people. They had been in Pittsburgh last October at the Mellon and Scaife Foundations and of course both of them had been generous contributors. This relationship has been established by Amb. Schmidt. But such relations always have to be renewed.

The office continued to operate on a very economical basis with a very minimum staff, and the work of Mr. Brundage and the others on the Financial Committee was very much appreciated.

### ATA and London Assembly.

Mr. WALLACE reminded everyone that the General Assembly would be held in London September 20-24. A very good delegation had already signed up to go, about 26. But anyone else who could attend would certainly be most welcome. Just let the office know as soon as possible as Mr. Frank Roberts needed the names in order to prepare for the many government receptions. The overall subject: Atlantic Solidarity, the key to peace in an era of negotiations. Dr. Carstens would be the overall rapporteur, with Dr. Stanley as rapporteur for the Politico-Military Committee, and Prince Colonna as rapporteur for the Politico-Economic Committee, all very able persons.

The Atlantic Center for Teachers which operated out of London was doing very well now. They had developed a series of publications called "Crisis Papers" to bring teachers up to the minute. They had done such a good job that Ford Foundation was impressed enough to make a substantial grant to promote circulation in the U.S., targeted at secondary schools.

Dr. TOMPKINS had received more recent issues discussing Rolls Royce and Lockheed. He has also received World Survey which John Epstein writes. The last two issues were on Alaska, and World Population and Food. These were published in French about twice a year and in Italian perhaps once a year.

Amb. BURGESS added that the Crisis Papers were prepared by Julian Critchley, who was an able, young Member of Parliament, and that led to the observation that throughout the NATO countries a very commendable job was being done by younger people.

### American Council of Young Political Leaders.

Amb. BURGESS continued that a report of the ACYPL was in the folders and that at lunch Peter Semler from the State Department would tell us more about the exchange with a group of Russians, which the ACYPL worked out.

- 11 -

Dr. TOMPKINS said the Atlantic Information Centre for Teachers would be meeting on October 4 and 5 in Brussels, and invited anyone who could stay on after the Assembly to look in on it.

The NATO film being produced by Frank Barnett was mentioned favorably.

Mr. WALLACE added that Admiral Dennison, Mr. and Mrs. Meek, Mrs. Lord and Mr. Achilles would be attending the Council meeting and Seminar in Oslo.

The meeting recessed for lunch at 12:15, after which Mr. Semler gave a most interesting account of the Russian tour of the U.S.

The meeting resumed at 2:10 and Mr. Hovey was asked to tell the Directors something about Radio Free Europe.

Mr. HOVEY said he might sum up the present situation of Radio Free Europe by saying that RFE had never had more concrete evidence of its constructive impact in East Europe than it had today and that RFE had never been in more trouble than it was today. The Soviet-led diplomatic and press campaign to get RFE off the air had come to a new peak of intensity three weeks ago with Poland's delivery of official protests to the West German and United States Governments. In the United States, recent developments in the Congress had raised questions, not yet resolved, as to the future financial structure of the organization and had made clear that certain misapprehensions about the role and character of RFE persisted in some Congressional quarters and in some segments of the American press.

On the other hand, RFE today had a regular listening audience of some 31 million in East Europe, or more than half the adult population. Its broadcasts of straight news and Western commentary on the internal as well as the international concerns of its five audience countries had made RFE--by the admission of Communist leaders themselves--a major political influence. The Government of West Germany was standing firm on the principle of freedom of information against the pressure of the Soviet and East European regimes. The West European and American press, and especially the West German press, was taking a fresh, hard look at Radio Free Europe and its sister organization, Radio Liberty, and in the vast majority of cases thus far, had paid high tribute to their responsibility and professionalism. The U.S. Government had recently submitted a bill to the Congress to provide open governmental financial support to the two organizations,

- 12 -

and Assistant Secretary Martin Hillenbrand had made an excellent
statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee regarding
their relationship to the national interest.

In the light of all this, Mr. HOVEY concluded, it was obviously
going to be a new ball game for RFE, and the organization would con-
tinue to need all the understanding and support it could muster from
Americans generally and from organizations like the Atlantic Council
in particular. RFE was trying to serve not just an American interest
but an Atlantic interest; indeed its political vulnerabilities in the
United States had much in common with those of NATO and the U.S.
troop commitment to Europe. RFE welcomed the additional opportunities
it would now have to present its case to the American people, and it
was Mr. Hovey's opinion that RFE might also appropriately undertake
to stay in closer touch with such organizations as the Atlantic
Council.

Amb. BURGESS reported that this work had been carried on for a
number of years as a method of establishing contacts with college and
university teachers in North America and in Europe. Joseph Phillips
was the executive secretary of this group and has had to resign
because of health reasons; Patrick Murphy is now carrying on in Joe's
place. One of our great problems has been to lay out a program that
would be worthy of these efforts. Prof. Murphy is present today and
he would ask him to bring us up-to-date.

Prof. MURPHY reported that as of May 1st he had taken over from
Mr. Phillips. Presently the Committee was looking for about seven
new members. Their last meeting had been held on February 13 in
Washington. A Wingspread meeting which had been scheduled for last
fall had been called off because of problems of the European Com-
mittee. Prof. Pick had now reorganized the European Committee and
they looked forward to a joint meeting sometime in the next seven
months. They hoped Wingspread would be opened to them again. Some
new projects of the Committee included a survey on attitudes of
students concerning European affairs; Amb. Burgess had suggested
that we up-date a survey that had been done in 1963 for the Council,
first with Americans, then Canadian and then European. The results
of this survey with his classes at George Washington University were
shown in the folders. It was hoped that other members of the Com-
mittee would use the survey in their classes, which would include
other types of classes and other kinds of colleges.

- 13 -

AFCA-Etudiants had volunteered to finance in part and promote a month's stay in France for selected U.S. students, in which they would learn how to set up this type of organization, hopefully return home and do so. Also, in their work, it was a new ball game. There might be more enthusiasm by the students to learn about the monetary crisis, the Mansfield Amendment, European Security Conference, etc. Another possibility being thrown about was to run a more general survey of youth on what they thought of their governments in general, the generation gap, counter-culture, etc.

Mrs. LORD asked how were we going to educate these young people today when there were no sympathetic instructors in the colleges. Most had a feeling of isolationism against involvement abroad. She was quoting senior professors at Yale and Harvard who couldn't get young professors to even mention NATO. Until you get the young instructor to change his point of view about involvement with other countries, to give them facts, it was hard to get students involved in European affairs.

## Atlantic Institute.

Amb. ACHILLES reported that the main project of the Institute had been the study on agriculture which had been released in February under the title, "A Future for European Agriculture." This had been well received and in our Department of Agriculture it was considered a very good diagnosis, but the prescription not so good.

Another main study was on Latin America, a triangular study dealing with Latin American-EEC relations, U.S. relations, and integration efforts in Latin America. Lincoln Gordon was the U.S. member of the Steering Committee.

Studies on the Mediterranean problem and Soviet strength were being continued, as was the Young Leaders program. Still another project was the conference of directors of institutes for international and economic affairs, and a meeting had just been held at Ditchley Park on their current and future research. Last Fall the Institute had talked about doing a study on the future of European-American relations but nothing concrete had been done so far. Ambassador Tuthill has written an article, "Strategy Drift in the Atlantic" which would appear in the Summer issue of the Atlantic Community Quarterly.

There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.

DRAFT RESOLUTION

Elmo Roper acquired national fame for creating the scientific opinion poll, but his life outside of his profession was devoted to building and strengthening the Atlantic Community.

He was a member of the Board of the Atlantic Council from the time of its founding, in 1961, until his death. He served as chairman of the Editorial Advisory Board of the Atlantic Community Quarterly, from its first issue in March, 1963. He had previously been chairman of the Atlantic Union Committee.

Mr. Roper was a delegate to the Atlantic Congress, which met in London in 1959, and to the Atlantic Convention, which met in Paris in 1961. In all these activities he was one of the moving spirits.

The Council wishes to record its appreciation of Elmo Roper's contribution to its work, the warmth of his friendship, and their grief at his loss.

June 10, 1971

DRAFT RESOLUTION

For two years from March 1953 to March 1955 John C. Hughes served with distinction as U.S. Permanent Representative on the Council of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It was a period of high hopes and vigorous efforts for the establishment of the European Defense Community. Failing that, John Hughes shared in the successful redesigning of NATO to include Germany. On his return to the United States he joined vigorously in the building up of the Atlantic Council into an effective citizen organization for the education of public opinion in the understanding of NATO and the still larger concept of an Atlantic Community. In addition he was for many years Chairman of Radio Free Europe. In all these enterprises he and his wife were a most effective team.

The Council wishes to record its appreciation of John Hughes' contribution to its work, the warmth of his friendship, and their grief at his loss.

June 10, 1971

THE ATLANTIC INSTITUTE

Comparative Statement of Income and Expenditures

For the Months Ended May 31, 1971 and 1970
(U.S. Operations)

| | **1971** | **1970** |
|:---|---:|---:|
| **Contributions:** | | |
| Scaife Family of Pittsburgh | $ 25,000.00 | $ 25,000.00 |
| McConnell Foundation | | 2,000.00 |
| John J. McCloy | | 1,000.00 |
| **Total Contributions** | **$ 25,000.00** | **$ 25,000.00** |
| Other Income (Books and Interest) | 381.07 | 1,584.00 |
| **TOTAL INCOME** | **$ 25,381.07** | **$ 29,584.00** |
| | | |
| **EXPENDITURES** | | |
| Salaries | $ 7,250.00 | $ 7,000.00 |
| Books and Publications | 33.75 | 136.67 |
| Charges and Fees | 150.00 | 625.00 |
| Meetings | 1,653.05 | 1,429.10 |
| Office Supplies | 98.00 | 138.00 |
| Institute Publications | 1,763.66 | 149.89 |
| Policy Committee | 742.54 | -0- |
| Social Charges | 1,325.70 | 2,390.37 |
| Telephone and Telegraph | 362.16 | 61.11 |
| **Total Direct Expenditures** | **$ 13,378.86** | **$ 11,930.14** |
| Cash Transferred to Paris | 65,000.00 | 55,050.00 |
| **TOTAL EXPENDITURES AND CASH TRANSFERS** | **$ 78,378.86** | **$ 66,980.14** |
| **EXCESS OF EXPENDITURES OVER INCOME** | **$ 52,997.79** | **$ 37,396.14** |

FUTURE

After the terrors of war,
the uncertainties of peace

By David G. Gelman
Newsday Chief Correspondent

AP Photo

For a great many Vietnamese, the war will never be over. Two boys who lost legs in war-related incidents hobble along a Saigon street with the aid of crutches.

Saigon—No invading army could have wrought quite the uneasiness that the cease-fire has inspired in Saigon. The dangers of war were as specific as a bullet or a bomb, but the suspension of fighting holds amorphous terrors. “It is too soon—we are not prepared.” One hears that everywhere among the educated classes of Vietnamese and it tends to overwhelm the tentative joy of the cab driver or the street vendor.

"What is really striking," says an American contractor who has lived in Vietnam since 1957, "is the sense of defeatism you get from them. For a people who have survived 25 years of nearly uninterrupted war, they have no confidence at all in their ability to survive peace."

The fear of a Communist takeover runs deep-
est among the million Catholics who fled Hanoi
after the Geneva accords in 1954. But it is visible
also among the An Quang Buddhists, the Cao
Daists, the Hoa Hao, and some of the political
splinter groups who profess themselves to be
neutral.

In retrospect, many of them see the seven-
month Easter offensive of the National Libera-
tion Front as a war for political advantage rather
than military conquest, especially in its latter
stages when it seemed to be the NLF strategy to
occupy hamlets for a few days, just long enough
to proselytize a little and bring on the destruc-
tive power of American and South Vietnamese
guns and bombs. The offensive was pronounced
a failure because in the end the NLF held no
major cities or population centers. But they con-
trolled large areas between the cities, held some
capitals in virtual siege by cutting main high-
ways, and moved freely at night even among
villages considered secure from NLF influence.

"They have been fighting a war of revolution, not a military war," says Phan Ba Cam, a veteran leader of the Hoa Hao religious sect, "and Thieu has answered only with the military. Ninety per cent of the government in the cities, at the province level, in the villages, is military. Because the government has banned most of the political parties, they have had no opportunity to build up young leadership. All the young serve in the army, in any case, or in prison, or they have left the country. And the reason the Communists accept the cease-fire now is because they have infiltrated enough among the masses to take over."

That is no more than the conventional wisdom
in Saigon but it is shared right across the spec-
trum of religious and political leaders. Many
hold the view that the Thieu government must
be instantly replaced by a strong, popular regime
that could pull together the loyalties of two mil-
lion Hoa Hao followers, two million Cao Dai, a
million ARVN (South Vietnamese) soldiers, and
a million Catholic refugees from the North.

Such a government, says Tran Van Tuyen, op-
position leader in the chamber of deputies, could
share some of its power with the NLF and still
safely retain control, as the Hanoi government
did in 1946 when it offered the Nationalist Party
70 seats in the house and four cabinet positions.

But national unity seems a very distant hope
at the moment. For weeks there has been talk of
terrorism, political assassinations and social
chaos in the wake of the cease-fire, as if the war
itself was the last moral restraint. Officially there
are some 2,000,000 rifles and sidearms in the
hands of regular and local troops, the national
police, province and village chiefs, and almost
certainly there are a half million more weapons
that no one has counted. The ARVN soldier can
be an angry and dangerous man. He may have
served under the fire of combat for nine or 10
years without ever advancing a rank in pay or
privilege. He may be risking his life every day
for 9,000 pasters (about $20) a month, under a
battalion commander who steals from his troops,
in a division that steals from the battalion, in a

regiment that steals from the division. ("When
you get out there in the field," says a U.S. mili-
tary adviser, "the money starts at the company
command level.")

Meanwhile the farm he hoped to return to may
have been taken away in the corruption-ridden
land reform program that appropriates untilled
land and distributes it to families who are there
to work it. If he is stationed near a city and has
the capital to bribe his superiors, he may be
working part time as a cab driver or even as an
interpreter for the foreign press corps. But as the
Americans complete their withdrawal and the
ARVN army reduces its strength, he will have
neither farm nor factory to go to, nor perhaps
even a cab to drive. Last May, at the height of
the Easter offensive, there was a foretaste of
what half-starved, angry soldiers can do. As the
NLF advanced on Kontum and Pleiku in the
central highlands, ARVN troops ran riot, shoot-
ing civilians, looting shops and literally smashing
what they could not carry. Some ARVN helicop-
ter pilots charged fleeing civilians a price to fly
them out of Kontum, while others gathered up
the Hondas they forced the civilians to abandon
and put them aboard their own aircraft to sell
in Saigon. "It was a complete breakdown of or-
der," says a witness.

On the civilian side, the potential for chaos is
equally dire. The social welfare statistics alone
are staggering, though they scarcely tell the
story. There are still about 700,000 refugees, most
of them living in bleak, sandy compounds, in
abandoned barracks and tents, where their chil-
dren are often ridden by epidemics, and their
austere food rations may be regularly pilfered by
camp commanders or local officials. There are
nearly 100,000 military widows receiving pen-
sions and about the same number of war-related
civilian widows who receive compensation only if
their claims are honored. There are an estimated
250,000 war-related amputees. There are more
than 130,000 war orphans, perhaps 15,000 GI-
fathered children. (These are official estimates;
unofficial figures run much higher in most cate-
gories.) The number of South Vietnamese civilian
casualties has been estimated at 1,250,000, in-
cluding 300,000 to 400,000 dead.

About 80 per cent of South Vietnam's annual
budget goes to the military, and 10 per cent
to war veterans and war widows. The remaining
10 per cent must serve for all the remaining
needs of the society—housing, public health, edu-
cation, social welfare. (The government provides
300 pasters a month—less than $1—for or-
phans.) All of it, in any case, has been heavily
dependent for more than seven years now on
U.S. aid and U.S. employment. The employment
has all but vanished now. The R.M.K. construc-
tion company, one of the major defense depart-
ment contractors during the American military
buildup, is believed to have employed as many
as 150,000 Vietnamese on its air base, port and
highway projects, meaning that about 600,000
persons in all were directly dependent on
R.M.K. wages. The company closed out its oper-
ations here last June, leaving behind huge ghost
towns like Cam Ranh Bay, and cities, like Chou
Lai, of drifters, beggars and prostitutes.

There have been optimistic reports about the
prosperity of farmers, especially in the Mekong
Delta. Much of that is certainly due to the U.S.
introduction of "miracle" rice, which produces
three crops a year instead of one. But some of it
is the result of inflated prices. In four and a half
years, rice prices have gone from 15 pasters to
around 90 pasters a kilo, a boon to the farmer
but an added hardship for city dwellers. U.S.
AID (Agency for International Development)
officials also acknowledge that because there is
no institutionalized credit system in rural areas,
many farmers are paying more than 50 per cent
interest on loans from Chinese money lenders.

Meanwhile, AID funds are rapidly dwindling.
Total support for the project program—high-
ways, schools, teachers, hospitals, doctors—was
down from $318,000,000 in 1967 to $45,000,000
in 1972, and the largest share of the total was
funneled into "public safety," meaning salaries,
equipment and training for the 120,000 national
police. (The agency provides less than $1,000,000
a year for child welfare.) "Most of our effort
now," says AID chief John R. Moessler, "is con-
centrated on balance of payments. Vie nam's
foreign-exchange income in recent years has been

*—Continued on back page*

Wednesday, January 24, 1973

# Editorial

## Vietnam: A Long Time Ago

Now that our military involvement in Vietnam seems to be ending at last, does anybody wonder why and how and when it all began?

I was thinking about this last weekend while thumbing through a diary that I kept nearly 20 years ago, in 1953, during a trip to Saigon and Hanoi.

One of the things I'd recorded was the arrival of the one hundredth American shipload of military equipment to the French army. That's right—one hundredth; way back then—before Nixon, before Johnson, before Kennedy and before even Eisenhower was President—we were already spending about a million dollars a day to supply the French with what they needed to wage their colonial war in Indochina. (It was Harry Truman who sent the first U.S. military mission over there in 1950.)

Anyway, the captain of this particular ship had bought a Vietnamese flag in Manila to fly as he steamed up the river to Saigon for the welcoming ceremonies. But the flag he got was Ho Chi Minh's communist banner—and the French shore batteries nearly shot him out of the water.

"What the hell," he was quoted later as saying, "how did I know what the right flag looks like? I can't even pronounce the name of the place."

Vietnam. Some of us got to speculating later about how many Americans could identify—let alone pronounce—the word if they

saw it. We decided roughly one in 10,000 would be a reasonable estimate. Maybe even fewer.

Well, that's certainly one thing that's changed in the intervening years. No one can deny that our knowledge of Southeast Asian geography has improved dramatically since 1953.

Reading over my diary, I noted other significant changes wrought by the passage of time.

For one, the French had more motivation for fighting in Vietnam than we ever did. There was pride; After being humiliated in World War II, they wanted to hang on to their colonies if only to prove France was still a world power. And there was honest greed involved, too: I don't mean just the big rubber plantations but less visible assets; for example, the Vietnamese piaster was artificially pegged to the French franc so that people dealing with the Banque de l'Indochine could get 17 piasters for a franc and then change them back at 8 to 1. Obviously, plenty of influential Frenchmen had a vested interest, profiteering aside, in keeping the war going indefinitely.

Also, there weren't all that many Frenchmen doing the actual fighting. Out of 280,000 "French Union" forces in Indochina in 1953, less than a quarter were French; the rest were largely Senegalese, Moroccans, Foreign Legionnaires (German for the most part) and some newly formed Vietnamese units.

Another big difference in those days was that no one ever spoke of North or South Vietnam or of one invading the other; they didn't exist. Vietnam—once divided into Tonkin, Annam and Cochin-China—was all one country that, along with Laos and Cambodia, made up what the French called Indochina. It isn't much clearer now, but it's different.

So was the war. Driving out of Hanoi one morning in a French army jeep, I noticed that the peasants in their conical straw hats working the rice paddies barely paid attention to the occasional clat-ter of a machine gun or the crackle of rifle fire. Here and there, gray ghostly cathedrals towered in the mist over clustered villages of thatched huts. It would be years yet before these peasants and these villages would experience the thundering fury of B-52 raids. This was still a relatively quiet war of small arms and tolerable firepower. The landscape was not yet cratered, the trees not yet defoliated, the cathedrals still intact. The big bombs, and napalm, too, were yet to come.

Hanoi, for a city besieged by the Viet Minh (that's what Ho's forces were called), was surprisingly lively and relaxed. There was a "front" of sorts two miles out of town but the Viet Minh would drift in and out in civilian clothes to shop or see a doctor or even attend university classes. Of course the city had never quite recovered its former luster since its "liberation" in 1945 by the Chinese National-ists, who liberated just about everything they could carry away, including several thousand young girls. But the Ritz Dance Hall was a merry gathering place at night for the French officers, and the only hostess off limits to all was General de Linares' special girl friend. It was not really a Westmoreland kind of war.

Out in the field, the French military did sound much like our brass many years later. "Vietnamization" and "pacification" were already part of their vocabulary. In the Red River delta, they claimed control of 1,000 villages, with 2,000 under Viet Minh control and 3,000 more "ours by day and theirs by night." And they spoke optimistically of driving the Viet Minh into the hills, where food was scarce, even while admitting the enemy could be "as elusive as quicksilver." A year later, overwhelmed at Dien Bien Phu, the French would call it quits, but in 1953 they were still talking like our statesmen and generals of the '60s.

Saigon, 600 miles to the south over Communist-controlled territory, was a lush, lazy city in those days. The Hondas had not arrived and the glights were quiet. Rubber-tired trishaws and tinkling bicycles glided in the moonlight through the shadows of giant flame trees. By day, along the Rue Catinat, French soldiers lounged on

Newsday

Photo by David Douglas Duncan

French Military Cemetery, Hanoi, 1953: 'Young Americans and Vietnamese by the hundreds of thousands were yet to die ...'

cafe terraces ogling the passing parade of Vietnamese girls—haughty, delicate and sedate. Saigon hadn't yet turned into the rau-cous, smoggy, rundown honky-tonk that I visited 14 years later.

But if the Vietnam of my 1953 diary now seems remote in some ways, it's depressingly familiar in others. I remember the listless war-weary peasants of Dong Quan clutching limp flags while French and Vietnamese officials harangued them about the advantages of "resettlement"; the French troops being airlifted to Laos to check a sudden enemy thrust into the Plain of Jars; the American ambassa-dor to Saigon, Donald Heath, predicting confidently that "a military solution is possible"; the 45-man U.S. military mission trying vainly to keep track of what happened to the hardware we were unloading at Haiphong; the Vietnamese intellectuals complaining of corruption in the Tam government and the success of the Viet Minh in convinc-ing the people it was the one true nationalist movement.

And up in his mountain retreat at Dalat, the plump young em-peror, Bao Dai, hunted and sulked in secluded splendor; soon he would be back in France with his wife and children.

Nearly 20 years. We had dipped our toe in the Vietnam swamp but had yet to wade in all the way; that process would start in 1954, after the French made *their* face-saving deal with Ho and got out after a mere eight years of fighting. Dollars by the scores of billions were yet to be spent; young Americans and Vietnamese of all ages by the hundreds of thousands were yet to die or to be cruelly maimed; a land the size of Oklahoma was yet to be devastated; legions of actors in the continuing drama like Premier Diem and Madame Nhu and General Harkins and Ambassador Nolting and Lieutenant Calley were yet to strut and fret their hour upon the stage and then be heard no more.

In 1953, we were not yet prisoners of our grand illusion; we had not yet deluded ourselves into thinking that with a little effort (or a little *more* effort) U.S. military might could give the Vietnamese a (non-Communist) government of their own choosing and stop the Russians and Chinese from overrunning Southeast Asia.

Now we know better. Now we know that all most Viet-namese ever wanted was to be left in peace and be rid of foreigners; and that the Russians and Chinese are too occupied with their own problems and each other to contemplate rash military adventures.

As for ideology, I remember walking along the riverfront in Saigon one evening in 1953 with Adlai Stevenson—with whom I was traveling. It was soon after we arrived and we had finished a sump-tuous French meal (with 22 kinds of hors d'oeuvres) at the Hotel Majestic; so we decided to stroll it off before going to bed. But everywhere we turned there were people in rags lying on the ground—whole families huddled together under cardboard shelters on the muddy bank, the children thin and naked, their mothers clutching at us begging for food. Here, a few blocks from the roof garden at the Majestic, were the wretched of the earth.

Finally, as we turned back toward the hotel, Stevenson mur-mured, "How can we even talk about these people fighting to defend freedom and democracy? What do words like that mean to them?"

It was a good question 20 years ago, and it still is.

William Attwood
President and Publisher

Wednesday, January 24, 1973

15 S