gentleman was born to be hanged, or to die of a loathsome disease." His antagonist replied, "That depends on whether I embrace your policies or your mistress." That is a sample of the things they used to say in the Parliament which was the Mother of ours. But we have become quite refined over the years. It is now 30 years since anyone made a remark even approaching that, and it was made from the Speaker's Chair. Speaker Reed, a Republican and one of the great names in our Congress, a huge man weighing 300 pounds, was sitting in the Chair when someone in the well of the House, who was expounding, produced that old cliche, "I would rather be right than be President". Speaker Reed then said "What are you worrying about? You will never be either." Such comments have now passed from the American political scene but frankness has not and I would hope that if ever we are invited back here againand it is pleasant to come here--no one will hold it against us that we were frank. Perhaps next time our worst problem will not be with France, but with somebody else, and, if so, you can expect me to speak as vigorously as I did on what I believe to be the dangerous situation facing us today. We are extremely grateful, all of us, for the opportunity of this visit. We have only been here for three days, but we have had to have our clothes altered because the food is so good and so rich. But we have enjoyed the vigorous exchange of views as well as the social amenities and I believe that my colleagues and I have benefited. I do not know how you feel. That will be evidenced by whether we are ever invited to come back. The PRESIDENT. Would Lord Listowel now put his question? Lord LISTOWEL. I am sure that we are most grateful to the two distinguished Congressmen who are staying to answer the questions which would have been put to Mr. Wayne Hays. As Mr. Hays asked for confirmation, I want to confirm that he was quite right that the late Government of Ghana wasted a great deal of Western money. But, on the other hand, much more was spent on constructive economic development schemes like the Voita hydro-electric scheme. to which he referred, than was spent on air-conditioned Cadillacs-which, of course, is broadly true of all developing countries. The conclusion we should draw is that more care must be taken to see that money is not wasted rather than that Western aid should be reduced. I would like to ask two questions. First: does Mr. Mailliard not agree that in the interests of world stability and world need at least the present level of Western aid to developing countries should be maintained? Secondly, does not he think that the industrial countries, including the United States, who is a member of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, should try to agree on measures for increasing the share of the developing countries in the massive increase in world trade? Mr. MAILLIARD. I would respond to the distinguished gentleman from the United Kingdom by saying that I think Mr. Hays, in mentioning Ghana, was trying to establish the example of the improvements rather than in any way to denigrate the success of the efforts made there. I think that we would all agree, all of us who are supporters of our own foreign aid programme, that present levels are probably pretty minimal. Some of us feel that if we could somehow get some of the defence burdens off our backs we could very usefully devote more resources to the attempt to breach this gap between the haves and the have-nots. But I would still like to reiterate the point Mr. Hays made, which is that if we do not have political stability and reasonable governmental efficiency our expenditure of public moneys will not generate the follow-on of private invest ment without which I do not believe all of us put together of the so-called developed nations could spare enough money to meet this enormous deficit in development that has accumulated in other countries. It seems to me that unless these two ingredients-essential stability and efficiency in the use of public funds-generate private investment, we are fighting a losing battle. Mr. MORSE. May I add to my colleague's response to the second part of the question about improved trade proposals. There is a school of thought in the United States which believes that some sort of preferential arrangements may be necessary in the years ahead. We recognise the very difficult job that would be, and the enormous impact it would have on trade relations to achieve that. It is very much under study in the United States both in the executive branch of the Government, in the Congress and elsewhere, but it is something on which we have no firm views at this moment. The CHAIRMAN. I call Mr. Feyzioglu. Mr. Feyzioglu (Turkey) expressed his complete agreement with Mr. Hays in that economic aid should be given only to those countries which were prepared to help themselves, to those with sufficient political stability and with the genuine will to improve the social and economic situation of their peoples. It was well known that items of news which were spectacular, such as the Cadillacs and golden beds purchased by African leaders, would oust from the headlines those which were of more genuine value, such as new hospitals and schools; especially the news on foreign aid which was often exaggerated. This was understandable but in reality stagnation in the underdeveloped countries was due to much deeper causes and in particular to the rapidly growing populations. The world's population doubled in 30 years, and this was why the underdeveloped countries must win the battle mentioned by Mr. Hays. They could win if these countries were prepared to help themselves, but not if the giving countries failed either to increase aid or to alter the conditions under which it was given. Mr. Feyzioglu referred to President Johnson's recent expression of the new tendencies in foreign aid in the USA, when he said that greater stress would be laid on aid for agriculture and less on that for industry. He asked why this revision of principles had taken place? Mr. MAILLIARD. May I say to our friend from Turkey that his discourse was an extremely interesting one. I would like to comment on one or two points and not attempt to answer the question, I am not sure that I can answer it definitively. The population increase he mentioned is a fundamental factor in the new emphasis on agricultural development. Perhaps the fact that the United States has been called upon to supply enormous quantities of food to maintain the populations of countries that really are essentially agricultural would clearly indicate that if these countries cannot learn to develop their agricultural resources in order to feed their people it would seem to us that almost any industrial effort will be somewhat futile and probable tend rather to shake than to stabilise it. To attempt industrialisation when the essential needs of the people cannot be met would do just that. The United States has tried for many years, and in recent years with considerable success, to get other more highly developed countries to soften the terms of their assistance. I think that there is now fairly general agreement that this must be done, because we shall only be posponing problems if we saddle the developing countries with debts which they cannot service. I cannot recall the particular statement by our President which was mentioned, as to the emphasis on agriculture and education in the sense of this indicating a lack of emphasis on industrial assistance, but I think that there is a general view in our country today that we must meet the food problem and that it will become very acute in a relatively short time. Even the enormous surpluses produced by the United States will be small compared with world needs in a period not far ahead. We have also become convinced that the self-help ingredient in this whole programme depends increasingly on higher educational standards in countries which are trying to help themselves. Without the essential resources of food for their people and education so that they can participate effectively in the development programme, all the rest will be almost meaningless. Mr. BJORK (Sweden). I should like to develop the question of the admission of Peking China to the United Nations a little further. If, in the next few years, the majority of the member nations of the United Nations were to vote in favour no only of the admission of Peking China as a member, but of its right to China's seat on the Security Council, what would be the American reaction to such an outcome? Would it mean a change, or might it mean a change, in the general attitude of the United States to the United Nations organisation and its work? I should like to ask about the general attitude of the United States to diplomatic relations with Peking China. Although the United States is unable to maintain diplomatic relations with Peking, what is your feeling about other democratic nations which have such relations with Peking or intend to initiate them? Do you regard this as a positive or a negative fact? Do you think that systematic diplomatic isolation of Peking is still desirable, or do you think that there may be some use in creating the possibility for a dialogue and further contact between the democratic nations and the regime in Peking? Mr. MAILLIARD. I cannot answer the first question, because I am asked what the reaction might be in certain circumstances. As a practising politician, I believe that any Government in the United States would have great difficulties in Congress regarding support for the United Nations if the United Nations were to admit Peking to the exclusion of the Nationalist Government in Formosa. This would be a tremendously difficult political question in the United States, partly because we have not completely forgotten the Korean War and there are still emotional attitudes to the Peking regime. That does not answer the question, but it is the best that I can do. On the second question, the United States feels that it is one for the other countries to determine. I do not believe that the majority of our people or our Government were particularly upset when Great Britain recognised the Peking regime and attempted-probably "attempted" is the right word to use-to maintain diplomatic relations, though not altogether successfully. Recognition has had a significance for us which historically it has not had in other countries. I do not think that there would be any violent reaction in the United States; we should think it was something for Sweden or Norway or any other country to decide for itself. The PRESIDENT. Mr. Moutet, do you still wish to put a question? Mr. Moutet (France) said that the climate of opinion in the debate did not truly reflect the real feelings of France and the United States for each other. He wanted to say that Frenchmen had long feelings of gratitude to the United States and that the votes in the Assembly had not reflected the truth. Mr. Nessler might have been right to defend the opinion of the French Government but Mr. Moutet defied the French Government to organize a referendum and find out whether France really wished NATO and the United States to leave French soil. He thought that most Frenchmen would say no to that. The Congressmen should not be upset by these incidents because it was easy to criticize the strong, the United States first of all. The treaty signed in 1949 had corresponded to the conditions of the time. Now that things were different it also should be changed and he asked whether they thought that NATO should be modified, perhaps by making it more of an institution with a consultative assembly like the Council of Europe. He asked if they would discuss this at the next meeting of NATO Parliamentarians. There might be some European hostility to such an idea but it would satisfy all the nations in NATO by giving them a voice at the summit. Mr. MORSE. The honour falls to me to respond to the distinguished and scholarly gentleman from France. Before I answer his question, I would say that the difficulties that we are all experiencing today may have one dangerous effect. In the United States, there is still a latent isolationism, and I fear that the difficulties through which we are going may stimulate it. It is our job to work together to ensure that that isolationism does not grow to any greater extent. With respect to Mr. Moutet's specific proposal, there are opportunities under Article 2 of the NATO Charter for any number of political initiatives which could usefully be taken. Perhaps new institutions could be developed which would permit consultation on matters of trade with the Eastern European countries on a multilateral basis, which would be a useful kind of initiative. Possibly, there could be arrangements made under Article 2 whereby a multilateral programme for assistance to the developing nations could be worked out within NATO. On the particular question, always at bottom is the matter of nuclear control. I hope that the McNamara Committee, as it is called, which is working on this very difficult and complicated subject will come up with some suggestions which will permit the kind of nuclear sharing which is permissible under our law and which will meet the needs of Europe. I can say that, in general, I agree wholeheartedly that the kinds of political initiatives that M. Moutet discussed are something that we must explore if we are to keep the Alliance the vital and vibrant thing that it must be. The PRESIDENT. Thank you very much. That brings our ad hoc Sitting to an end. I am grateful to you, Mr. Mailliard and Mr. Morse, for staying on and answering questions. We have all gained a great deal from them. COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS EIGHTY-NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON S.J. Res. 108 TO AMEND THE JOINT RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR MEM- 64-328 MAY 18, 1966 Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS CLEMENT J. ZABLOCKI, Wisconsin L. H. FOUNTAIN, North Carolina JOHN S. MONAGAN, Connecticut RONALD BROOKS CAMERON, California JOHN C. CULVER, Iowa LEE H. HAMILTON, Indiana ROY H. McVICKER, Colorado FRANCES P. BOLTON, Ohio E. ROSS ADAIR, Indiana E. Y. BERRY, South Dakota |