You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Soviet Union’ tag.
February 18, 1960
“NEW YORK—Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev took the opportunity of his visit to India to attack foreign aid given by the United States as being purely selfish, whereas that given by the Soviet Union is, by implication, unselfish.
As a matter of fact, foreign aid given by any nation is never totally unselfish, because helping a nation to improve its economic condition means that that nation will produce something that is salable and, therefore, become a better market for the goods of some other nation. This means a better economic world atmosphere and is much to be desired by all nations.
Mr. Khrushchev also spoke slightingly of the new idea of several nations joining together to give foreign aid. Yet, this is a much more unselfish way of giving aid and is designed to give the country receiving the aid more sense of security, because then no one nation can be accused of attempting to dominate.
Mr. Khrushchev should understand that his remark, “If aid is to be rendered, we will render it ourselves,” will not be too reassuring to those nations that are rather hopeful of keeping themselves not only politically but economically free from the domination of any foreign nation. Also, his slighting remark about United Nations aid will not be acceptable in India, I believe, for India is very conscious of the value of work done by various of the U.N. specialized agencies.
President Eisenhower’s message asking our Congress for a foreign aid appropriation called for half the aid to be of a military kind, the other half economic aid.
I always question the value of military aid, though the assurance that this aid is given to strengthen other nations against possible Communist attack has an attractive sound for our Congress.
In reality I greatly doubt whether any nation receiving aid of a military kind could stand up long against a Communist attack, but I realize the advantage of having much of this money spent in this country, since it will relieve us of arms that have already, for us, become obsolete…”
September 30, 1957
“What is the Soviet Union really like? It is a mass of contradictions and it takes study and thought to understand it. There is one symbol—the dove of peace—that you meet practically everywhere. I saw it painted on the side of a truck as I was driving through the streets, I looked down on it from the tower of Moscow University outlined in stone below me. The circus ended with the release of a number of doves of peace. Everywhere this seems to be the symbol. You might think that it was an effort to keep the people reminded of their need for peace. Heaven knows, they don’t need a reminder! They suffered enough in the war and you are soon aware of it. But that is not why it is done. It is done to remind the people that they must sacrifice and work for peace because their great enemy, the U.S., is trying to bring about a war. The dove of peace is a symbol that you carry away with you as being ever present, but don’t forget for a minute that it is really intended to teach the people of the Soviet Union that while they love peace and want no war, the government of the U.S. is planning an aggressive war and the Soviet government is only trying to protect the people of the Soviet Union from U.S. aggression. If you forget this, you will be lulled into a kind of security which is very dangerous for all of us, but you are going to need much more understanding, much more willingness to learn before you can hope to avoid this war that these people are being indoctrinated into believing that we in the U.S. might start. Guns and atomic weapons are not going to win this war or prevent it. Much, much more has to be done and to try to show you why I say this, I am going to tell you as much as I was able to find out about what the Soviet Union is today. I will begin by giving you my interview with Mr. Khrushchev. You may not agree with my conclusions but I want to give you the basis for my thinking and so I will take you to see in these articles one thing after another that I saw and then I will try to evaluate the price that is paid by the people of the Soviet Union for these things, and what they mean not only to the Soviet people but to the people of Asia, Africa, and South America as well. On this understanding alone, I believe, can we form a policy which may save us from the war that the people of the Soviet Union dread as much as we do.”
April 3, 1958
“NEW YORK—The Soviet Union’s announcement that it will stop all nuclear testing was, of course, a diplomatic triumph that will advance the Soviet states in the eyes of the uncommitted nations who dread war and want to see steps taken to prevent it.
Why our government could not have brought nuclear testing negotiations to some kind of conclusion before this will always be a mystery to me. As it is now, the Soviets are in a perfect position, for they say they will stop but put no time limit on when they will begin again because, they say, it depends on when the rest of us will follow suit.
Therefore, we and great Britain must bear the entire responsibility for continuing these tests. Of course, we can say that we have no way of knowing whether the Soviets are actually living up to their announced decision and we already have said, “There is no system of verification.”
But the world is going to believe that we are able to tell if the Soviets continue these tests, and the peoples of the free world are going to ask their governments to work out some system of verification, if not to improve the machinery for detection.
The temper of the people of the world, as a whole, favors a start toward doing away with the possibility of war and our Western governments had better realize this.
There has been no enthusiasm, as far as I can find out, for our announcement that we will develop a “clean” bomb. Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko, in his speech to the Supreme Soviet, made fun of the idea that there could be such a thing as a “clean” nuclear bomb.
I do not think people are interested in whether or not we produce a bomb with less danger of radioactive fallout. They want no bombs.
The governments of the Western world had better begin to recognize the fact that their people are anxious to see results leading toward disarmament. On the whole, I think, they would like to see the steps taken within the United Nations. They feel more confident when the whole world is included in these negotiations, but they want to see progress made and the Soviets have taken the initiative away from us.
I am sorry that our government has allowed this to happen. This Administration has been meeting emergency situations when they arise, but it has been shortsighted in preventing emergencies from arising and in beating the Soviets to the punch with actions appealing to the people of the world.”