the future is going to be with Russia or with a movement out of the area north of the Himalayas.

Mr. GALBRAITH. I don't know that I could answer it, Senator. I myself hold to the view that over the span of the next 50 years, more of the world's troubles are going to center, are going to originate, in China than in Moscow.

This happens to be my estimate of the prospect. There is a more revolutionary, less rational regime, more determined to evangelize in the rest of the world. Therefore, in the way the hope of the Indians that the Soviets will be a restraining influence is paralleled by my belief that, on the whole, the Soviets will be less drastically revolutionary than the Chinese-but having said that, I have always had the feeling that the Indians were somewhat wishful on this issue. That is, the Indian Government discovers schisms as between the two countries, discovers conflict where it may not exist, because the existence of that conflict is so extremely important to its sense of survival.

COMPARISON TO U.S. RELATIONS WITH FRANCE

Senator GORE. You have some doubt then that the schism, though apparent and existing, may not be of sufficient severing quality to depend upon?

Mr. GALBRAITH. One doesn't know what these schisms mean. We have our difficulties with de Gaulle, don't we? And yet the notion of an affinity between France and the United States is something we take for granted; it is fundamental, it has lasted for 200 years. Senator GORE. And when the chips are down, it will be there. Mr. GALBRAITH. It has lasted for 200 years. In the short run, Americans and Frenchmen can say disagreeable things. I can imagine somebody sitting in Moscow saying, "By God, the French and the Americans have come to the parting of the ways and they will never be able to agree again." They would be quite wrong.

I have a feeling that while Peiping and Moscow may trade some criticisms-and they are not like we are, they are more disagreeable, it is part of the Communist tradition to use harsh languagewe might bear in mind that when the chips are down, there may be affinity there in political organization and commitment to the Marxian system which parallels that between France and the United States.

Senator GORE. Mr. Ambassador, it is an even 12 o'clock, and we thank you very much. It has been very enlightening and very helpful, very pleasant.

Senator LAUSCHE. Yes, I am very glad I came to the meeting. Thank you very much.

Mr. GALBRAITH. Thank you. It has been a pleasure to be here. Senator GORE. The committee is recessed.

[Whereupon, at 12 noon, the committee stood in recess.]

[Following adjournment, the committee was polled and 13 members were recorded as in favor of reporting the nomination of Mr. Battle favorably to the Senate, with none negative.]

MINUTES

THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1962

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICAN AFFAIRS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met in executive session at 9:15 a.m., in room

F-53, the Capitol.

Present: Senator Gore (subcommittee chairman).

The subcommittee was briefed on the proposed Port of Monrovia settlement in Liberia by Henry J. Tasca, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs.

No record was kept or transcript taken at the meeting.

(524)

MINUTES

THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 1962

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The committee entered into executive session at 11:35 a.m., in room F-53, the Capitol.

Present: Chairman Fulbright and Senators Sparkman, Lausche, and Hickenlooper.

George W. Ball, Acting Secretary of State, appeared to discuss the bill (S. 3252), To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to permit the President to authorize a foreign government to operate a radio transmitter at or near its mission in Washington when that government has provided reciprocal privileges to the United States to operate a station within its territory. He was followed in his presentation by Admiral M. E. Curts, Department of Defense.

Consideration of the bills (H.R. 8982, H.R. 9883, and S. 3238), authorizing the construction of bridges across the Rio Grande River in Texas, was postponed temporarily.

Consideration of the bills (S. 2380, and S. 3329), Authorizing war damage claims payments to the Government of the Philippines, was postponed until the next meeting.

Consideration of the nomination of Matthew H. McCloskey to be Ambassador to Ireland also was put over.

The committee discussed a communication from Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, Minority Leader, expressing concern over press mention of an executive policy planning document prepared under the direction of Walt W. Rostow, counselor, Department of State, after which it was decided to call Mr. Rostow before the committee. The committee discussed an informal inquiry from Ambassador Stevenson at the United Nations proposing that congressional delegates to the U.N. sessions might be named advisers instead of delegates as such. After consideration, it was the consensus that the congressional participants at the United Nations should continue as delegates.

The committee concluded to explore further a proposal from members of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. to meet with them. on the same basis as the Congress holds other meetings with parliamentarians of the world.

For the record of the proceedings, see the official transcript. [Whereupon, the committee adjourned at 12:50 p.m.]

MINUTES

FRIDAY, JUNE 22, 1962

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICAN AFFAIRS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met in executive session at 9 a.m., in room F-53, the Capitol.

Present: Senator Gore (subcommittee chairman), and Senators Morse and Church.

The subcommittee heard G. Mennen Williams, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, review the situation in the Congo. No record was kept or transcript taken at the meeting.

(526)

BRIEFING ON GENEVA DISARMAMENT

NEGOTIATIONS

FRIDAY, JUNE 22, 1962

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISARMAMENT,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in room F-53, U.S. Capitol Building, Hon. John Sparkman, presiding.

Present: Senators Sparkman, Humphrey, Hickenlooper, and Aiken.

Also present: Mr. Marcy and Mr. Denney of the committee staff. Senator SPARKMAN. Let the committee come to order. I am sorry to be late.

I am glad to be here, glad to see you gentlemen.

Mr. Dean, why don't you just give us a rundown on what has happened and what the present situation is.

STATEMENT OF HON. ARTHUR DEAN, AMBASSADOR ON GENEVA DISARMAMENT NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. DEAN. I thought you might be more interested if I first gave you some of my general impressions of the conference and where we stand on it.

As you know, the plan that President Kennedy presented to the United Nations on September 25, we have now worked out in considerably more detail an outline of the treaty. We had the benefit of the Joint Chiefs and the Defense Department and a lot of experts on it.

In the course of it, I think that we all found that it paid off to try to draft a complete outline of a treaty, because I think it was the first time we ever really thought through all of the problems that you really would run into on the assumption that you really could carry out general and complete disarmament.

In the past, I think we all know that the Russians were not really truly interested in disarmament. But they have gotten away with a tremendous amount of propaganda throughout the world on the theory that they were the one nation that was interested in peace, and we were the so-called imperialist warmongers because we used phrases like arms control or arms limitation, or something, but not the phrase general and complete disarmament.

We also felt that while you were carrying out the disarmament, you had to maintain the present military mix. That is the makeup