網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

lations aspect of it, State or MAAG, or Mr. Bundy's I do not know who does it, I am trying to find out-they make them pay full price for what this man paid for his planes. He says he did not want them given to them; he wanted to pay for them. He paid less for them than 1 percent of the original cost.

Mr. KENNAN. That is our fault, not his.

Senator SYMINGTON. Yes.

Following the chairman's question, you say you would rather see them get them from us than get them from anywhere else. I noticed everywhere throughout the Middle East the Soviets have covered all our friends like an umbrella with better airplanes.

We give them the F-86's. They protest, and we say it is a fine plane. The same day that I am in a country where we say it is a fine plane, and any fool knows it is not, the defense of why we did it was because it was an obsolete airplane-the Prime Minister, showed me the Times clipping.

So everybody is cheating everybody; nobody is being sincere about it. The only thing is, as an ambassador said to me this afternoon, "What's the use of our being friends with you when the people who are not your friends, what I would call pro-Soviet neutralists, get a better deal than we do?"

TRADE, NOT MILITARY EQUIPMENT, IS IMPORTANT

Mr. KENNAN. Well, I cannot give you any answer to that question. I do not see why they should myself, and I would not defend that. As a matter of fact, personally, as Ambassador out there, it is not important to me that we sell them this equipment.

If it is going to create the confusion and doubts in the minds of our own people as to the soundness of what we are doing, I would much rather skip it and tell the Yugoslavs, "You go and get it from somebody else, if you want to get it."

I do feel strongly, Senator, if I may add this, though, that outside of the field of military equipment, we ought to give them the facilities, perfectly normal facilities, for foreign trade with this country. That is, if they come into our market, have money to buy normal American goods in the normal way, we ought to let them buy them, and if they want to sell here, we ought to let them sell. This has nothing to do with aid or anything else.

Senator HUMPHREY. Don't we do that?

Mr. KENNAN. We generally have done it, but it is my understanding that there was some confusion about this after the Belgrade Conference. There is always a question of licensing for certain types of trade, and this has been sticky and difficult.

PACT WITH GREECE AND TURKEY

Senator AIKEN. Is the mutual defense pact that Yugoslavia has with Greece and Turkey still in existence?

Mr. KENNAN. It is on the books nominally, but the Yugoslavs say it is a dead letter, and nobody really cares about it very much except, perhaps, the Greeks. I think the Turks and the Yugoslavs would like to see it lapse.

• William P. Bundy, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.

Senator AIKEN. You would call it a temporary expedient at the time it was entered into?

Mr. KENNAN. Yes; and it does not mean much, if anything today. Nobody wants to take the responsibility for denouncing it, but it just does not mean anything.

This is a thing that often happens to international pacts. They just outlive their usefulness, and they become dead letters. Senator AIKEN. Like some of ours may be.

Mr. KENNAN. Yes.

ARMS GEARED TO AMERICAN AMMUNITION

Senator AIKEN. We were told 3 or 4 years ago that most of the Yugoslav arms were geared to American ammunition. Is that still true, that they use American ammunition, and that Russian ammunition would not fit these arms?

Mr. KENNAN. I would not want to risk a statement as to how much of it is. I would risk a statement that most of it is. That is why I said it is better for us to sell it to them than other people, simply because they have to come to us for spare parts then, and in some instances for ammunition and that sort of thing.

RUSSIANS ARE OLD-FASHIONED IMPERIALISTS

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuing the question the Senator from Indiana asked you I do not know anybody who is better qualified to expatiate on this aspect of it-it has bothered me a good deal, because this comes up all the time as to the nature of our attitude toward the Communist countries.

You have said that you see no reason why we should not trade with Yugoslavia, in fact, even if it were more Communist that it is. You distinguish between them and the Russians.

Is this because you do not subscribe to the idea that this is a great moral crusade? This is the old-fashioned imperialism disguised, perhaps, to some extent by the ideology that the Russians promote. As far as you are concerned, Yugoslavia should be permitted to have its kind of government so long as it is not endeavoring to attack or undermine us or any of our friends. Is that correct? Mr. KENNAN. This is correct, Senator Fulbright.

The CHAIRMAN. You regard this as not a great moral crusade but as just another form of imperialism, and what we really object to about Russia is not so much her communism as her avowed intention to destroy us, that is?

Mr. KENNAN. Absolutely true.

The CHAIRMAN. This is an important distinction, it seems to me.

NO RIGHT TO INTERFERE

Mr. KENNAN. I do not think we have any right to try to tell the Russians or anyone else in the world what form of economy or social system they ought to have because we would not want anybody else telling us that here, and we have to see that that goes both ways. But we would have, we do have, a legitimate complaint when people try to interfere with our life here.

The CHAIRMAN. Or our friends, as a concommitant of that.

Mr. KENNAN. Yes; and I do draw a strong distinction between the Yugoslavs and the Russians. I think I have some grounds for drawing it because I have served in both places now.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

TWO IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES

Mr. KENNAN. I had many years of service in Moscow, and in two important respects, one of which is not our business, and the other of which is, I see great differences between them.

In the first place, the Yugoslavs are not-I am convinced of this-under Russian domination.

Senator WILEY. You say they are?

The CHAIRMAN. They are not.

Mr. KENNAN. No; they follow an independent policy. Very often that policy is a lot closer to the policy of the Soviet Union than I would like to see it.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. KENNAN. But it is closer by their own choice and not because they have accepted any bond of discipline or principle to the people in Moscow.

The second difference is that their economy is being permitted to evolve in the direction of a liberalization, in a direction of competition and openness in its relations with the economies of the Western nations, which does distinguish it very sharply from the economy of the Soviet Union or that of other countries under Soviet control. This is something we want to encourage.

IS ALBANIA COMPARABLE?

The CHAIRMAN. That brings up the question of the case of Albania that is coming up immediately. The morning papers say they are now making feelers for trade with the West. Would you say Albania is approaching the same status as Yugoslavia?

Mr. KENNAN. In the sense that Albania is defying the Kremlin for the moment, yes. But in the other sense of having any liberalization internally, not at all.

The Albanians, if you will forgive my words-and I hope this does not look too bad on the record-are the stinkingest Stalinists in all of Eastern Europe. They are the most vicious, unreliable and nasty people that I know of in all of Eastern Europe, and that is saying a good deal when you think of some of the other characters. Senator CAPEHART. More so than the Russian Government?

Mr. KENNAN. Yes, sir. I think the Albanians are worse from our standpoint. Their views toward us, their attitude toward us is worse than that of the Soviet Union. It is comparable only to that of the Chinese Government.

Senator AIKEN. Isn't it a fact that the Albanians can go only so long without defying anybody? This time they picked a big fellow to defy.

Mr. KENNAN. Yes.

REACTION OF OTHER COUNTRIES

Senator SYMINGTON. What I do not quite understand is how are you going to grade these various communisms. We will call Grade A China; Albania, too. Grade B is Russia, and Grade C is Yugoslavia, and Grade D, no doubt, and so forth. All right. That is fine.

But regardless of whether the Yugoslavs would like to see us under communism or not, we know that the Russians would.

Now, we have over in this part of the world various friends, people who are, I think it is fair to say, desirous of sticking with us. Perhaps that it because they know where their bread is buttered, to some extent, but they are our friends: Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Israel, these countries.

Then we have the less friendly countries who are treated very kindly and sweetly by the Russians, especially when it comes to getting modern military weapons, like Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our friends say, "Here are the Yugoslavs, here are all these people who are either pro-Soviet neutrals or Soviet or Communist anyway," and in the countries that I mentioned we have a great deal of instability. We are liable to lose some of these countries some morning just like that, just like overnight we thought we were in very good shape in Iraq, and we ended up in quite a mess.

WIN ARGUMENTS AND LOSE FRIENDS

What I do not see is how you can expect to get into this sort of a syllogistic development of the nature of the Communist category and, at the same time, hold your friends over there. Take Iran; for many reasons, including some very important military ones that should not be on the record, it is vital for us to have those people as our friends. We are losing all over, due to the psychological reaction to the way that we treat neutralist countries.

This I know, this is not hearsay, because it comes up again and again. For example, Ayub,5 said, "You let Nehru con you into saying that he is a peaceful man, but you give him all the grain he wants and all the pills and all the books and all the food, and then he takes his army and puts it next to me, and he spends $400 million a year on this army, 85 percent of it against me, your friend, and 15 percent against the Chinese Communists."

If we are going to win this argument by grading communism, as I say-George, you and I have discussed this for 16 years-I do not see where we are going to end up, because we are going to win all the arguments and lose friends in this part of the world as buffer states against the Soviet. That is what I wish you would comment

on.

QUITE A DIFFERENT PROBLEM

Mr. KENNAN. I will not insist on trying to grade them beyond the Yugoslavs.

All I can tell you is that the Yugoslavs represent quite a different problem from the standpoint of American foreign policy than do the people to the east.

5 Ayub Kahn, President of Pakistan.

We have had a great deal of open exchange with them and discussion with them. Hundreds of Yugoslavs have been in this country. I think if you could come over there and travel in that country, talk to these people, you would realize how much closer they are, really, to us, to the West, than might appear on the surface.

A prominent Yugoslav who is in a high responsible position told me last week, "You know, it is my impression that Yugoslav relations with the Soviet Union are actually much worse than appear on the surface, and our relations with the United States much better than appear on the surface.

TITO'S STATEMENTS; DJILAS

Senator SYMINGTON. Why does Tito back Khrushchev against President Kennedy?

Mr. KENNAN. He does it because he is, himself personally, an old Marxist who grew up in the Communist movement, who is sensitive to the charge that he has become a tool of the imperialists.

He is going to remain this way until the end of his days. He is going to go on making these statements. They are going to upset us; they are going to be a burden on our relations.

I have told the Yugoslavs this, and I think most of them realize it very well.

Senator CAPEHART. How old is he?

Senator AIKEN. Seventy.

Mr. KENNAN. Sixty-nine or seventy years old.

The CHAIRMAN. What has happened to Djilas? 6

Mr. KENNAN. Djilas is at large; lives in Belgrade privately at home; is quite bitter. He walks around the streets. He receives foreign visitors, but the fellows in the party won't have much to do with him.

POLICY FORMULATION

Senator AIKEN. Who determines Yugoslav policy? For instance, who determined that Yugoslav would defy Russia in the matter of the UN Expeditionary Force, the police force in the Holy Land, last year? Yugoslavia introduced a resolution to continue that force, which was strongly opposed by Russia. Who determined that policy?

Mr. KENNAN. Well, they have a government like other governments. Tito has the strongest voice, but he is older, and he spends a good deal of time resting up on the island where he has his summer home. He does not always make these decisions personally.

I would suppose that if it was a question of disagreeing publicly with the Russians on important issues, this would not be done without Tito's approval.

This is not the only issue on which they differ from the Russians. They have not supported the Russians on the troika in the Secre

6 Milovan Djilas, former vice President of Yugoslavia, was arrested in April 1961, convicted and sentenced to 5 years in prison for revealing state secrets in his book Conversations With Stalin.

« 上一頁繼續 »