and I, in our opening remarks on Item III, before constituting the Experts' Committee, took the pains to point out that the strategic trade controls are a matter of security-are a consequence, not a cause, of tensions and are outside the purview of Item III. Soviet officials conduct a strong propaganda outside their own country about their desire for trade and the alleged denial to them of trade opportunity. Yet the only restrictions which exist are those on strategic goods related to war purposes touching only a very small percentage of normal international commerce. Actually, the Soviet officials speak differently at home. There they explain to their own people that the countries of the Soviet bloc must pursue an autarchic policy of self-sufficiency. Earlier this year Mr. Molotov, speaking before the Supreme Soviet, called attention to the existence of two parallel world markets, which he said were opposed to each other. We had hoped for a change in policy but thus far we have hoped in vain. The discussions of the Experts concerning measures to expand peaceful trade have produced no basis of agreement for the simple, now unmistakably evident reason that the Soviet Union remains basically opposed to developing a high level of trade between East and West. The fact is that the economic policies pursued by the Soviet Union and directed toward insuring the greatest degree of self-sufficiency leave for export no important stocks of consumer and other goods which normally enter into international trade. This consequence of Soviet economic policy, and not the small percentage of goods covered by strategic controls, has been and remains the chief limitation on any important development of trade with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union apparently at the present time does, however, have large stockpiles of discarded arms resulting from the production of new models for the Soviets' own use. It would be a matter of utmost concern to the other nations of the world if the Soviet bloc should try to meet its large import needs and serve its other aims, by exporting these surplus arms throughout the world. This is indeed something very different from the "peaceful trade between peoples" which the Heads of Governments said we should seek to develop. As a result of my review of the work of the Experts, it seems clear that the Soviet Union is not at present disposed to take those important steps which lie within its power to promote the free circulation of information and ideas and to facilitate trade in peaceful goods. The lack of progress on Item III should not, I suppose, come as a surprise. It is confirmation of the fact that the Soviet bloc system is based upon artificial conditions which cannot withstand free contact with the outer world. The Soviet rulers seem to fear lest their system would be endangered if the Soviet people had the kind of information which is available elsewhere; if they were free to join the many millions who constantly travel back and forth to get acquainted with each other; and if trade in consumer goods should bring to the 1 Mr. Dulles' statement of Oct. 31, 1955, is printed supra. For the text of the remarks of the same date by Mr. Pinay and Mr. Macmillan, see Geneva Meeting of Foreign Ministers, pp. 228–233. Russian people knowledge of the immense quantity and superb quality of goods which are produced by societies where labor is free. We do not believe that peace will have a solid foundation until there comes about free communications and peaceful trade between the Soviet bloc and the free Western peoples. We cannot expect this to happen all at once. Indeed, our Directive calls for a "progressive elimination of barriers." It does not require that barriers should be pulled down all at once. We had felt that our proposals were modest and we greatly regret that virtually none of them has been accepted. It would, of course, be possible for us to say that we here had in a general way reaffirmed the desirability of increased contacts. But merely to reaffirm is not our task. It is our task to formulate the measures which could realize the principles which our Heads of Government set forth. Therefore for us merely to reaffirm in generalities would only gloss over our lack of common accord on the important questions we have been asked to consider. Therefore, it appears far preferable to state frankly that little has been achieved here to eliminate barriers and that basic impediments to freer contacts between East and West still exist and that we are far from achieving in practice the objectives set forth in the Directive from the Heads of Government. This is a disappointing conclusion, but the future is apt to be better if we face up now to what are the indisputable facts. Nevertheless, we need not be disheartened. Since the Summit meeting last July some progress has been made. Some barriers have in fact been lowered. We believe that the process thus begun cannot easily be reversed. Perhaps it will proceed more surely through a living process than by dependence upon negotiation. The United States does not intend to slacken its efforts to make communication more free and thus to end a situation that is dangerous to peace because it sets off one great part of the world as against another. I have often expressed the friendship of the American people for the Russian people. Our countries have never been at war. Our people have never fought each other. And we do not believe that we could ever be brought to fight each other if only we know each other. The great danger comes from the carrying on year after year of a persistent campaign which distorts the mind of the Russian people. That is the danger which the Heads of our Governments directed us to avert. I believe that the talks which have occurred bere, even though they have not resulted in any substantial agreements, at least may help us in the future to find the way to make our peace more solid. 46. STATEMENT BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE, Yesterday, the French Delegation submitted a proposal which, after study, the United States was ready to accept had it been accepted by the Soviet Delegation. Apparently, however, that French proposal is now rejected by the Soviet Delegation. The Soviet Delegation has now submitted a proposed draft statement by the Four Powers,3 which I have studied during the brief recess we have had. I regret to be forced to the conclusion that this present Soviet proposal does not adequately meet the Directive under which we are acting, primarily in that it contains nothing, or practically nothing, designed to permit of an exchange of ideas and of information. 4 It will be recalled that President Eisenhower in his statement here on July 22 on this topic put first of all the importance, as he put itand I quote: "First to lower the barriers which now impede the interchange of information and ideas between peoples." The Soviet proposal does not seem to make any effort at all to meet the views of the Western powers with respect to the importance of free communication in the realm of information and ideas. In view of the rejection by the Soviet Union of the French proposal, I have compared the present Soviet proposal with that which the three Western powers introduced on October 31st through the medium of the French Delegation: 5 Item 1 of that proposal contemplated a freer exchange of information and ideas and a progressive elimination of censorship. That is rejected. Item 2 proposed to have information centers on a basis of reciprocity which the people could freely use. That is rejected. Item 3 proposed to permit the publication and facilitate the distribution of official periodicals. That is rejected. Item 4 dealt with exchange of books. It is accepted insofar as it relates to the exchange. But the vital part, which dealt with making these books available for public sale, is rejected. Item 5, with reference to the exchange of government publications and full lists, catalogues, and indices, also seems to be rejected. Item 6, dealing with exchange of films at normal commercial prices and on normal terms, seems to be rejected subject to the possibility that there might hereafter be an agreement on this topic. Item 8, dealing with the reduction of jamming of news and information broadcasts, is rejected. Item 9, with reference to exchanging uncensored broadcasts, appears also to be rejected, although it is suggested that there might hereafter be an agreement covering broadcast exchanges. The Geneva Meeting of Foreign Ministers, October 27-November 16, 1955 (Department of State publication 6156; 1955), pp. 270–272. ? Ibid., pp. 266–267. Ibid., pp. 269–270. 4 Supra, doc. 39. $ Supra, doc. 43. Item 10, dealing with the elimination of the censorship of outgoing press dispatches and access by journalists to normal sources of information, is rejected. Item 11 relates to tourism. There is a reference in the Soviet paper to tourism, but the Soviet Union rejects any suggestion that there should, to facilitate this, be reasonable rates of currency exchange. Item 16, dealing with the restriction on the travel by members of the diplomatic missions on a basis of reciprocity, also is rejected. Item 17, dealing with reciprocal exchanges of direct air transport services[,] is rejected. In other words, of our 17 concrete proposals only five seem to be partially accepted. I emphasize that all of those which relate to a freer exchange of ideas, news, uncensored information have been rejected. The Soviet Union seems to have picked out of our proposal only four or five suggestions which it deems to its interest, and to have rejected all the others, without any spirit of give and take, and with a complete omission of anything of substance in the realm of exchange of ideas. I pointed out in my remarks yesterday that we consider that peace is not solidly based unless the peoples of the different countries can have access to what other peoples believe and, I think, that to base peace upon the power of government to dictate what peoples shall think about each other is, in our opinion, a very dangerous condition. And because the Soviet paper would perpetuate what we deem to be a very great danger to peace and good understanding between peoples, and because it does not seem to us to comply with the Directive which guides us, we do not find it acceptable. 47. BACKGROUND PAPER RELEASED TO THE PRESS BY 1 1. The Foreign Ministers of the Four Powers instructed their Experts to "study measures, including those possible in organs and agencies of the United Nations, which could: (a) bring about a progressive elimination of barriers which interfere with free communications and peaceful trade between peoples, and (b) bring about such freer contacts and exchanges as are to the mutual advantage of the countries and peoples concerned." 2. The Experts formed two Working Groups, one dealing with exchanges of ideas, information and persons and the other dealing with questions of peaceful trade. Between them, the Committee of Experts and the two working Groups held 18 meetings from November 1 The Geneva Meeting of Foreign Ministers, October 27-November 16, 1955 (Department of State publication 6156; 1955), pp. 279–281. 2 to November 10. They examined the proposals tabled by the French Foreign Minister on behalf of the Three Western Powers on October 31, and the draft resolution tabled by the Soviet Foreign Minister on the same day.2 Elimination of Barriers 3. Unfortunately no significant progress was made. The Soviet delegation were unwilling to consider the progressive elimination of the barriers which interfere with free communications and peaceful trade. 4. The only barriers the Soviet delegation were prepared to discuss were the Western controls on the export of strategic goods and alleged interference with the freedom of navigation of Soviet vessels in the China Seas. The Western delegations reiterated that the controls exercised by the Western countries on exports of certain strategic goods are maintained for their own security. The fact that these controls are not negotiable was clearly and deliberately recognized in Item III of the Directive which covers only "peaceful" trade. The Western delegations showed that the situation in the China Seas was irrelevant since the specific matters complained of by the Soviet delegation either were outside the responsibility of any of the three Western Powers or, as in the case of the refusal to provide fuel to vessels carrying strategic goods to Communist China, followed from the United Nations Resolution of May 18, 1951.3 5. The barriers to the free movement of persons and to the free communication of ideas and information, which the Western delegations wished to see removed, were listed among the 17 points contained in the Western proposals of October 31. The chief barriers are: censorship, the artificial rate of exchange of the rouble, restrictions on diplomatic missions. 6. The Soviet Delegation showed no readiness to consider the Western proposals on these matters, which they declared to be of purely domestic concern to the Soviet Union, or matters which should be discussed bilaterally but not at the Four Power Conference. Sometimes they argued, in spite of evidence to the contrary, that Soviet actions were justified by Western actions; for example, that jamming was justified by the content of Western broadcasts. The Western Powers replied that systematic jamming had no relation to content and that no progress could be made towards cooperation in broadcasting until systematic jamming ceased. Positive Western Proposals 7. The Western Delegations put forward a number of positive proposals to bring about freer contacts and exchanges to the mutual 1 Supra, doc. 43. The Geneva Meeting of Foreign Ministers, pp. 239-240 415900-57-vol. 2- -25 |