Senator SYMINGTON. It looks like we are going into more splitting instead of less splitting. Do you know of any other country we plan splitting?

Mr. PORTER. Not that I know of, sir.

OUR INVOLVEMENT IN SPLIT COUNTRIES IS SPLITTING THE UNITED STATES

Senator SYMINGTON. I wonder how long they can continue because what we are splitting as a result of such policies, is the United States. It seems to me that at some point we ought to give consideration to the importance of holding our own country together.

This has little to do with Korea. I have as much respect for them as for any other country. But it is all mighty expensive, and becoming damaging to unity at home.

Please go ahead, Mr. Counsel. I shall look forward to seeing the Ambassador before he returns.

Mr. PORTER. At your disposal, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you.

Mr. PAUL. The Ambassador was reading his statement at (the bottom of page 1705), on the political and economic situation, if there are no other questions at this time.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I thought you would make some response. Can you make some response.

What does the administration think about this policy of supporting these factions in this and that country? After all if it hadn't been for us, do you think any of these splits would have occurred?

Senator SYMINGTON. Both the North and South are anxious for us not to stop because of what they get out of it. You wouldn't argue with the fact that probably the man in Vietnam most opposed to us bringing this war to an end is President Thieu. They couldn't live without our support even for a short time. It could be that, under the influence of the major Communist nations, the North Vietnamese feel the same way; but certainly they couldn't feel it any more than the South Vietnamese. Would you agree?

Mr. PORTER. I think it is a point of view, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. What do you think of it as a point of view? Senator FULBRIGHT. What is your point of view? Do you think this is a good policy; do you think our policy has been a great success?

U.S. POLICY IN VIETNAM

Mr. PORTER. In Vietnam?

Senator FULBRIGHT. Anywhere. Let's take Vietnam.

Mr. PORTER. If you wish to take me outside the country where I am serving at the moment

Senator SYMINGTON. You are a public servant, and know more about Vietnam than anyone I know.

it.

Mr. PORTER. I can only give you a view of the Vietnam view as I see

Senator FULBRIGHT. You are a professional.

Senator GORE. That is all we are asking.

Mr. PORTER. I have always approved what we started to do there although I am not sure that at the time we knew how to do it. As for the split there, I think that third parties have had as much or more

to do with that than we have. When we were in our own Civil War, the split was healed because we were dealing with each other, and not with three or four parties on the side.

Senator SYMINGTON. What do you mean third parties?

Mr. PORTER. I mean the Soviet Union or Red China, on the other side.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Just let him develop this.

Mr. PORTER. I am not sure there is a great deal more to say so far as my general view is concerned.

Senator FULBRIGHT. There is a lot to say. Do you approve of the Vietnam war?

Mr. PORTER. I think we did the right thing to go in there and prevent a takeover against the will of those people under our SEATO obligations, but I don't believe that we foresaw all the problems that subsequently developed.

Senator FULBRIGHT. But we went in before SEATO. I mean we began messing this up before SEATO under Truman and Acheson. You know the history of this as well as I.

Mr. PORTER. I know the history.

Senator FULBRIGHT. And the SEATO was created by the Department specifically because, I believe, Mr. Dulles didn't like the Geneva accords. He immediately rushed off from the Geneva accords to create SEATO, didn't he? Isn't that a historical fact?

Mr. PORTER. It is a view of history, sir.

Senator FULBRIGHT. No, I mean you know when it happened, the chronological development, don't you?

Mr. PORTER. Yes, I am aware of the chronology. But I am not

sure

Senator FULBRIGHT. And you are aware he refused to participate in final accords at Geneva? Did Bedell Smith make a verbal, vocal statement? Smith said he wouldn't use it and then in a month or 3 or 4 months he created SEATO that fall, didn't he? Is that not a fact? Mr. PORTER. Well, I am not sure that Mr. Dulles, if he were here, would agree with your interpretation of the chronology.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I don't think anybody can disagree with it. Mr. PORTER. I don't wish to argue about a thing like that.

U.S. INVOLVEMENT AROUND THE WORLD

Senator SYMINGTON. We don't know why we continue to get into these various situations. This is the Foreign Relations Committee of the U.S. Senate, operating under the advice and consent clause of the Constitution. We split Germany, and stayed; and China, and Vietnam, and Korea. We split Laos and we are putting up the men and putting up the money. Our allies don't do so, nor do our possible enemies. We do it all over the world and it is breaking our back. You are an expert on the Middle East, but also on the Far East and you have been around and we would like to find out just what it is we are trying to do.

Do you think President Eisenhower was wrong when he refused recommendations to go into Indochina after Dienbienphu in 1954? Mr. PORTER. Sir, I really believe this being out of the present area of my competence that these questions should be referred to others who are dealing with the matter.

Senator SYMINGTON. I accept that, but you were the Deputy Ambassador to Ambassador Lodge.

Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir.

Senator SYMINGTON. And I thought you knew about Vietnam—— Senator FULBRIGHT. You have that reputation.

Senator SYMINGTON. If you are in a position where you are compartmentalized by instructions from higher authority before you came before this committee not to talk about a subject you know at least as much about as any other American; namely, Vietnam, I accept that. Otherwise inasmuch as you are under oath and presumably want to be of service to the Congress which is part of the Government, you might be willing to give us your personal comments.

Mr. PORTER. Well, I shouldn't give you personal comments. I should give you official comments, really, Senator, on matters within my competence at the present time. I would be delighted to discuss with you outside of committee meeting my views, personal opinions, but in committee, it is very difficult.

Senator SYMINGTON. The situation is worse today than when you and I talked in the latter part of 1966, over 3 years ago.

Senator FULBRIGHT. A lot worse here.

Senator CASE. Where, Stu?

Senator SYMINGTON. We talked at length in Saigon.
Senator CASE. The situation is worse where?

Senator SYMINGTON. All over.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Especially here.

Senator SYMINGTON. It is getting worse all the time. We continue to spend and spend; and I can't see results coming from it. Ambassador Porter was in Korea, the one country that has done some real pitching for us. He was also in Vietnam and I am sure still has an interest in Vietnam, and I was hoping he would talk more about what is obviously our great problem. His previous predictions to me later proved out and his thinking proved out so I was hoping-but I can understand

Senator CASE. I appreciate that, Stu, I just didn't know what precisely you were talking about.

Senator SYMINGTON. I think right now, Cliff, that the Laotian situation has a rather comparable

Senator CASE. I was going to ask are we going to draw a line.

Senator SYMINGTON. Mr. Secretary, you are also an authority on Laos. Ambassador Brown was our Ambassador to Laos. Mr. Secretary, it is getting pretty serious, isn't it. Are you apprehensive about answering that?

Mr. BROWN. No, sir, I can say yes to that.

Senator SYMINGTON. Would you continue Mr. Ambassador?
Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir.

KOREAN DEVELOPMENT ENABLED BY PRESENCE OF U.S. FORCES

Behind the shield which the treaty and the presence of American forces in Korea have provided, a remarkable development has taken place. A nation, ravaged by war, denuded of resources, handicapped by a million casualties and almost a million refugees and historically inward looking, has been transformed into a country with one of the fastest growth rates in the world imbued with the sense of confidence

in the future and looking outward to improved relationships with its neighbors and the rest of the world.

Most of the credit for this achievement obviously goes to the Koreans themselves who have tackled their problems with energy and intelligence. But it could not have taken place without a sense of confidence that they were reasonably secure from another attack from the North and without help in the form of both military and economic assistance. Both of these were provided to enable the Koreans to build up their own forces to take over increasingly the burden of their defense. Grant military assistance has totaled approximately $2.9 billion from 1953 through 1969. Last year it was about $140 million.

Economic assistance was necessary, at first simply to insure the survival of the people of Korea. In fact the bulk of our economic assistance to Korea was for this purpose, about $2.7 billion out of some $4 billion from 1953 through 1969. Bridges, roads, schools, homes, had to be rebuilt. Food had to be provided to keep people alive and to get them into a position where they could begin to work on the development of their country.

A reasonable degree of reconstruction having been achieved, the Koreans went to work on the development of their country with very rewarding results. Although there has been a steadily declining level of economic assistance from the United States, there has been a steady growth of the GNP, averaging 13 percent a year for the last 3 years. There has been a phenomenal increase in exports from approximately $35 million of which two-thirds were raw materials in 1961 to over $700 million of which over two-thirds were manufactured goods in 1969. The Korean export target for 1970 is $1 billion.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question there? Senator SYMINGTON. Please.

EXTENT TO WHICH UNITED STATES IS RESPONSIBLE FOR KOREAN

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Senator FULBRIGHT. This is such a fine statement. Is any of that due to these agreements that we purchase their materials for use in Vietnam and that we give them a preference?

Mr. PORTER. A small portion of it.

Senator FULBRIGHT. A small portion.

Mr. PORTER. Well, I am discussing exports.

Senator FULBRIGHT. That is right.

Mr. PORTER. Regularly. These are figures for normal exports and not including

Senator FULBRIGHT. That is what I mean, is this normal competitive exports?

Mr. PORTER. This is normal competitive exports.

Senator FULBRIGHT. And is not to the United States and not financed by the United States.

Mr. PORTER. Some of it goes to the United States, yes, sir.
Senator FULBRIGHT. Or to Vietnam.

Mr. PORTER. It doesn't all go to Vietnam.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I didn't say "all." I am just trying to get a picture. This is such a glowing account and I wondered what would happen to it if we were not subsidizing it if we are. We discussed yesterday the agreement. We had a big debate on the floor of the Senate. The Sen

ator from Indiana complained bitterly that we were giving away billions which his steel mills were entitled to on roofing which he said was inferior and we were buying it from South Korea simply to give them a subsidy when his constituents should be selling it at a better price to South Vietnam. You remember the debate, he was offering an amendment to this aid bill last year.

I was only seeking a very simple answer to a very simple question. Is this really genuine competitive business or is it just a reflection to a great extent of business which we provide.

Mr. PORTER. It is genuine competitive business in very large part. Senator FULBRIGHT. Can you say to what countries these exports go? Mr. PORTER. We can provide a list; yes, sir.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Don't you have it?

Mr. PORTER. The United States and Japan and to some Southeast Asian countries, and the South American market seems to be opening up for them.

I would have to provide a list for you.
(The information referred to follows.)

Senator FULBRIGHT. It is absolutely a glowing paradise. We have almost paved it with gold, it ought to be. When I think of the conditions here at home, in my own State, this irritates me very much to think of what we continue to do for these people because this country and this Senate is supposed to be interested in the citizens of the United States. And we weren't set up to bring the good life to Korea. That wasn't our main purpose anyway. It was purely an incidental purpose. It never seems to occur to the State Department that we have another function, which is the people of the United States and we are in terrible condition.

I am ashamed that when I came here this morning I get stopped down there there is a whole battalion of police down there.