The Basic Assets

This week, in simple, ringing, memorable sentences, U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles laid out the nation's position in the world as of fall, 1955.

Because the Soviet Union's record is so sullied, Dulles told the American Legion's annual convention in Miami that it is impossible to tell whether the "spirit of Geneva" marks a genuine change of Communist purpose or whether it is a Communist maneuver.

As a result, the U.S. must follow a policy that will not rebuff a real change for the better, but will not expose the nation to mortal danger. "Fortunately," said the Secretary of State, "we have basic assets, material and moral," to underpin that policy.

Productivity. "We have productivity," he said. "Our rate of productivity is the greatest in history, now estimated at nearly $400 billion a year. The magnitude of that can be appreciated when it is noted that it is three times that of the Soviet Union with its much larger population. It is the result of free choice. No governmental decree forces men and women into work that is repugnant to them. And because people do work that they like, they strive to excel, and so become competitive and more productive.

"It is also significant that what our people freely produce is not only huge in quantity but it is widely distributed to bring rising standards of living. Forced labor can, of course, be made to produce some conspicuous results. The world is dotted with monuments of past despotisms, and some new ones are being built today. But admiration of such feats should not submerge pity for the human misery which they cost. Our duty and opportunity is to offer the world the example of an economy which, as a matter of free choice, produces vastly and distributes fairly."

Power. "We have power out of productivity; a part is set aside to make sure that the treasure house of freedom will not be pillaged. We do not like to divert human effort to nonproductive purposes, and it requires a strong sense of duty to apply, as we are doing, more than a tenth of all we produce to national defense. Our Government is striving to bring about conditions which might safely enable us to reduce this nonproductive diversion.

"We do not, however, intend to be reckless in this respect. We had to build hastily the military establishment we needed in World War I; and then we scrapped it. Then, with the coming of World War II, we built up what became the world's greatest military establishment; and again we scrapped it. Then, when the Korean war came, we had to build the third time. This time we do not propose to disarm ourselves unless we can be sure that others are doing the same."

Principles. "We have principles. Our productivity and our power do not rattle haphazardly about the world. They are harnessed to basic moral principles. There is a school of thought which claims that morality and foreign policy do not mix. That never has been, is not, and I pray never will be, the American ideal. Diplomacy which is divorced from morality also divorces the Government from the people. Our people can understand, and will support, policies which can be explained and understood in moral terms. But policies based on carefully calculated expediency could never be explained.

"As an example of the principles to which we adhere, I cite the principle that military force should not be used aggressively to achieve national goals. Recently, we were gravely provoked by the Chinese Communists, who retained and imprisoned 15 of our flyers in violation of the Korean armistice agreement. We had the power to take prompt and overwhelming reprisals. We did not do so, but relied upon the United Nations to bring moral pressures into play. Now all 15 are free and home. We hope that the Chinese Communists will accept for themselves this 'renunciation of force' principle. Until now, they have largely lived by the sword. But perhaps they are now beginning to see that persistence in the use of force will surely bring disaster.

"Some other nations would, at times, prefer it if the United States would deviate from basic principles to help them meet their immediate problems. If we do not do so, they may temporarily turn away. But underneath such surface dissatisfactions lies, I feel, a sense of respect for the United States because we at least try to live by principle. Certainly that is essential to our own sense of self-respect."

Partnership. "We have partnership. Modern developments in the field of communications have drawn nations physically together so that, as never before, what concerns one concerns many. It was always wrong to operate on the basis of 'each for himself and the devil take the hindmost.' Now it is also stupid. The United States now has partnership association for security with 44 nations. The result is to create a measure of security which no one, not even the strongest, could achieve on a purely national basis.

"The Soviet rulers profess to regard these developments as dangerous. They advocate--for others--what they call 'neutrality.' By this they mean that each nation should have the weakness which is inevitable when each depends on itself alone. But the Soviet rulers practice, for themselves, something very different from what they thus preach to others. They have forged a vast domain. The Soviet bloc represents an amalgamation of about 900 million people normally constituting more than 20 distinct national groups. [In view of this] the United States does not believe in practicing neutrality. Barring exceptional cases, neutrality today is an obsolete conception. It is like asking each community to forgo a police force, and to leave it to each citizen to defend his own home with his own gun."

Peace. "We have peace. Peace is the goal which we devoutly seek. But let us never forget that the peace we now have, and the peace which we would preserve, is not peace at any price. It is peace with freedom, purchased by those who were willing to fight and die. Last winter, when aggression threatened in the Formosa area, the Congress unitedly authorized the President to use the armed forces of the United States for the defense of our vital interests and of our ally in that area. I believe that this action contributed indispensably to the preservation of peace. Two years ago I said: 'If events are likely which will in fact lead us to fight, let us make clear our intention in advance; then we shall probably not have to fight.' The action of the Congress was an application of that doctrine."

Then John Foster Dulles set forth what is obviously the Eisenhower Administration's highest hope for results from its foreign policy. Said he: "There are some skeptics who doubt that change can be brought about peacefully. History does not justify this conclusion. The recent liberation of Austria came about primarily because world opinion insistently demanded it as a step which represented elemental justice. In the same way world opinion will act as a compulsion on the Soviet Union to relax its grip upon East Germany and to permit the unification of Germany. Also, I believe that world opinion will compel the restoration of national independence to the captive states of Eastern Europe. Independence must also come to those dependent countries whose people desire independence and are capable of sustaining it. We can, and indeed we must, look forward to an era of peaceful change. We do not seek other than peace, but also, we do not seek a peace other than one which will be curative and creative."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.