LETTER TO MR. PIERRE SALINGER FROM(Sanitized)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 41
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 7, 2002
• Sequence Number: 24
• Publication Date: October 27, 1960
• Content Type: LETTER

Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024=5-
M r. Pierre Salinger
Press Assistant to Senator Kennedy
Room 362, Situate Office Building
Washington 25, D. C.
Dear Mr. Salingero
Reference is made to our letter of 17 October 1960
attachment thereto.
Mr. Dulles has :asked that I forward to you for Senator
Kennedy the fi i in the series of our memoranda coverint
world comment on the Republican and D*mocratic national
tickets.
Sincerely,
Acting :Executive officer
Attachment
Special Memo
No. 5, Z7 Oct 60
O/DCI/ gd 28 Oct 60
Distribution:
orig and encl - Addressee
1 JSE w/o encl
ER w/ encl
Attachment is No 5, "World Comment on Rep thlif' =
and Democrati National Tickets"
Approved For Release 2002/11/13: CIA- RDP80B01676R0069eOt 40 -5
STA+
STAT
 Approved For Release 2002/11/13 :-CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
STAT
SPECIAL MEMORANDUM
FOREIGN COMMENT ON
REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL TICKETS
NO. 5 -- 27 OCTOBER 1960
STAT
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
 Approved For Release 2002/11/13 'CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONKL.TIST COUNST
LEM
EAST GERMANY
CZECHOSLOVAKIA
BULGARIA
HUNGARY
yU(}OBLAVIA
Cc 4UT IST CHINA
cHER Cowziaii
16
LWITED KINGDOM
16
FRANCE
17
WEST G] MAJ1Y
18
SWEDEN
TUNISIA
ISRAEL
CUBA
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
26
NONCOMMUNIST CHINA
2'7
30
Sot)TH VIETNAM
38
AUSTRALIA
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
 Approved For Release 2002/1ltl3J!.'S;ISM-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
KENNEDY, NIXON SUPPORT BAN G UPT POLICY
Moscow, Soviet European Service in Danish, Oct. 11, 1960, 1930 Gtr---L
(Excerpts) The ordinary American, burdened by taxes and wearied b?r they
war psychosis, longs for peace. The election platforms of the two big
parties, including their foreign policy sections, pursue quite different
aims, however. The basis of their foreign policy program is the banknipt
policy of strength.
The Republican Party has as its main aim an increase in U.S. military
potential. Eisenhower, speaking at his party's convention, pointed
out, as though it were very meritorious, that military expenditure
during his term had more than quadrupled. Vice President Nixon proclaims
that the United States will pay most attention in its policy to miLitar:i
considerations. Kennedy, the Democratic Party's presidential candidata,
also demands an increase in military appropriations. These statemr~;,nts
are far removed from the promises of peace which the Democratic and
Republican parties inserted in their election platforms to camoufl ge
their true foreign policy.
It must be emphasized that both parties of U.S. capitalism try to justify
the arms race with nonsense about an imaginary threat of communism. The
press, radio, and television, all propaganda media, are directed at
frightening the electors with the Red threat which is supposed to hover
over the United States.
What is the cause of this anti-Soviet hysteria? The peace-determined
foreign policy of the USSR must be known to everyone. The Soviet
Government has submitted to the United Nations concrete proposals for
worldwide and total disarmament. In this respect, the USSR has imple-
mented several unilateral measures, such as relinquishing military
bases on the territories of other countries, reducing considerably its
armed forces, stopping nuclear tests, and much else. The U.S. ruling
circles know this; what, then, makes them wave the anticommunist tanner"
To understand the real idea behind anticommunism one must turn to
history. Today the idea of a crusade against communism has been
seized on by the U.S. imperialists. Under cover of this slogan, eggres..
sion is being prepared against the socialist countries. This has been
frankly stated by Vice President Nixon, who has declared that he i.ntertcii
to pursue the strategy which is called "victory over communism."
With the slogan of the struggle against communism the U.S. ruling circl.ea;
are trying to suppress every liberation movement. A clear example of the.s
is Guatemala, where the U.S. Government made use of the anticommunist
slogan to smash the national liberation movement. Today the United St
is trying in vain to repeat this attempt in Cuba.
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
 Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
It is furthermore necessary to mention that anticommunism still p1Ftys an
important role among the reactionary circles in.the United States. With
shouts about the so-called Red threat, the arms suppliers are trying .o
justify a further increase in arms production.
NIXON, LODGE SPLIT ON NEGRO ISSUE
Moscow, Soviet Home Service, Oct. 18, 1960, 1600 GMT--L
(Text) The incident I wish to discuss might be called a blot on the
escutcheon of a noble family--if the family in question were reall;r
noble. In this case the heroes of the scandal are the two leaders
of the U.S. Republican Party, Richard Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge, who.
as you know, head the ballot of the Republican Party for the election
of Nov. 8.
One must say that this incident is without precedent. Electoral b;ittlew3
of words in America usually take place between representatives of he
Republican and Democratic parties, but in this case it was representative_3
of one and the same party who got into a quarrel, and on the eve o:-' the
elections. In spite of the unusual nature of this event, the main point
is something else, that is, the reason why Nixon and Lodge fell out.
Addressing voters recently, Lodge, the vice presidential candidate. deeid43d
to use what he thought was a clever political trick. He stated that if
the Republicans won, the government cabinet would include Negroes. The
idea was that this promise would attract the votes of those Negroe.3 in
the Northern states who have the right to vote.
However, Nixon, the presidential candidate, at once rejected Lodge's
promise. In the first place, he was obviously not pleased with the
prospect of a Negro cabinet member. Second, Nixon decided that suh
a promise would drive the Southern racists away from the party. Lodge
began insisting on his point of view, Nixon on his.
According to the American press, they got together yesterday but did
not come to any agreement. As a result, the Republicans have, in the
opinion of experienced observers estranged both Negro voters and i
considerable part of the voters in the Southern states.
This whole story of how Republican politicians have put themselves in
tight spot shows very obviously the complete lack of principle of
bourgeois leaders, who are ready to speculate on the most urgent e:d
painful problems to get more votes. One supposes that Nixon and Lodge
will eventually come to an agreement, but their clash has opened tae
political backstairs of Washington for a moment, showing the unattractive
face of its leaders.
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
 Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
U.S. ELECTIONS PROVIDE NO REAL c-4OI0ES
Moscow, in German to Germany, Oct. 19, 1960, 1;c:; '.r--L
(Text) The U.S. election campaign is nearing its climax; there &:e c,niy
three weeks remaining in the presidential election campaign. The U.S.
voter is now faced with a nonsensical situation: There are elections
ahead with no choice to be made. The U.S. press itself admits that it
is very difficult for the U.S. voter to find any difference betwe,?n
Nixon and Kennedy, the respective candidates of the Republican and
Democratic parties, which replace each other in office from time to
time. AP states that neither party possesses real superiority.
Both Nixon and Kennedy are trying very hard to prove that they are
different. Each makes promises in the press, radio, and TV broadcasts
that if elected he will serve the electorate better than the other man.
But the U.S. people have not failed to notice that neither presidential
candidate stands for a program of peace. Both Nixon and Kennedy favor
the continuation of the cold war. Both stand for a policy of strength
and for an uninterrupted arms race. The only difference is that Nixon
bears responsibility for the aggressive policy of the U.S. Government
and for its shameful failures in his capacity of vice president, and
Kennedy only in his capacity as senator.
Nixon assures the voters of his desire for peace. But who could fail
to remember his backing for the Dulles policy of brinkmanship? The
Eisenhower-Nixon administration tried to go even further. Let us
remember that Nixon was impudent enough to claim for the United States
the right to commit espionage through the U-2 flights. What is the
meaning of such a claim? It means that the United States claims the
privilege to commit aggression. And what is Nixon's attitude toward
internal affairs such as an unstable economy, growing unemployment, a
decrease in earnings, and ruin for the farmers--all that is U.S. real
Nixon denies it; he asserts that no better policy has ever been pursue?o
in the country. A fine policy indeed! Aggression externally, and belt-
tightening domestically.
James Reston wrote in the New York TIMES that Nixon depicted things it
such a way that no well-informed person could take him seriously for e
single moment. As the Americans say, an empty sack will not stand by
itself.
Senator Kennedy uses different tactics. He admits what his rival derieE.
He.admits, for example, that brinkmanship has brought U.S. intertaticira)
prestige to its lowest ebb. Kennedy wants to prove that the U.S.
Government is responsible for worsening living standards of many millir1r.s
of U.S. workers and farmers and for the crises in education, the health
system, and housing. Kennedy naturally gives the assurance that if h is
elected he will correct everything.
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
 -4-
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
But how? Kennedy's platform is so much like Nixon's that you could not
tell them apart if they did not bear the different labels of the
Democratic donkey and the Republican elephant. Both platforms speak of
the need for substantially increasing military expenditure. Like Nixon.
Kennedy favors continued manufacture and testing of nuclear weapons,
aggression against Cuba, and a "carrot and stick" policy toward Latin
America, and is against the liquidation of the shameful colonial systen.
Kennedy tries to outdo Nixon in showing hostility toward the principles
of peaceful coexistence.
This being so, all promises on domestic "prosperity" made by the two
presidential candidates are just bluffs. The cold war policy is bound
to lead to increased taxation and higher prices, to reductions in
housing construction and in civilian construction activities in general.;
in short, it leads to further subjection of the U.S. nation to the
Pentagon and its growing appetites.
The Pentagon is not interested in party or political nuances; it boa
only one master, Wall Street. That is precisely the place from which
threads run to both candidates. A significant detail illustrates this.
Kennedy recently appointed a group of experts to advise him on national.
security if he should be elected president.. This group is headed by
Paul Nitze, a long-standing partner of the firm of Dillon, Reed, and Co.
which is close to the Rockefellers.
But could Nixon possibly be opposed to the leading U.S. monopolists--say,
the same Rockefeller people? The very opposite is true. It was precise-L3-
Rockefeller with whom Nixon reached agreement on the eve of the RepublicE:r:
convention, an agreement that forms the basis of his electoral platform.
Small wonder that the U.S. voter is now facing the elections without hav::
any choice, As they say in the United States, the U.S. voters do not vo tf
for, but against a candidate. Some will vote against Nixon, others
against Kennedy. No other choice is open to the U.S. voter. That is whui,
they call "democratic elections."
LITTLE DIFFERENCE IN CANDIDATES' VIEWS
Berlin, Deutschlandsender in German to East and West Germany,
Oct. 11, 1960, 1610 GAIT--L
(Commentary by U.S. correspondent George Lohr, read by announcer)
(Summary) The two U.S. presidential candidates, Richard Nixon and
John Kennedy, faced each other recently in a televised debate. When it
was over, the New York TIMES conducted a public opinion poll by telephor_e
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
 Approved For Release 2002/11/13 :+ cIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
Most of those questioned complained that neither of the two candidates
had seriously dealt with the problems of our time. It is also a fact
that there are no fundamental differences in the views of the two
candidates. When in four weeks the U.S. voter has to make up his mind
for whom to vote, he will only know for certain that both candidates have
talked a lot about their yearning for peace but neither was able to
produce any positive plan to turn this yearning into a reality.
"As to Nixon, he still adheres to the disastrous foreign policy pursued
by President Eisenhower. This man also asserts that under the Republicri
Eisenhower, U.S. prestige reached an all-time high. He continuously
repeats his abusive tirades against Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and
does not shrink from asserting in a silly and impudent manner that he is
the only man whom the Soviet leaders fear.
"But Kennedy, too, behaves as if Khrushchev were his opponent in the
elections and not Nixon. He does repeat from time to time an earlier
remark that, had he been in Eisenhower's place in Paris, he would {nave
apologized to the Soviet Union about the U-2 espionage flight so a3 to
save the summit conference. He is cunning enough to know that thi3 state-
ment will make him very popular with the electorate. Kennedy, as well as
Nixon, has said very little about the proceedings at the U.N. General
Assembly. Both made the well-worn assertion that the Soviet proposals xn
the colonial problem and the disarmament problem are more propaganda.
Kennedy even went so far as to say that the next summit conference could
only take place after the United States had rearmed even further. In lis
view, U.S. prestige reached a new low under Eisenhower. On Berlin and th?
German question Kennedy is giving full backing to past U.S. policy.
"The well-known Democratic politician and statesman Stevenson, who is
supporting Kennedy, recently said of this candidate that if he wens
elected president he would abolish the veto which the Pentagon is at
present exercising over U.S. foreign policy. Stevenson, as so often
before, also spoke in favor of nuclear disarmament. To this day people
have waited in vain for such sensible views to be uttered by Kennedy.
On the contrary, while a few months ago it was generally said that if
Kennedy were elected he would appoint Stevenson secretary of state,
experienced journalists who meet Kennedy daily say that Kennedy seems
to have changed his mind."
CZECH 0 S L 0 V A K I A
NOVOTNY DERIDES CONDUCT OF CAMPAIGN
Prague, Czech Home Service, Oct. 14, 1960, 1800 GM--L
(Editor's Note: A rally was held at the Congress Hall in Fucik Park of
Culture and Rest in Prague in the afternoon of Oct. 14. President
Novotny delivered a report on the U.N. General Assembly, which included
the following passage.)
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
 Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80B01676R0009000400 5
(Excerpt) The convening of the General Assembly coincided with t1le
election campaign taking place in the United States, which is being
fought out between two candidates of the monopolies, Kennedy for the
Democrats and Nixon for the Republicans. During the entire undisputed three 1hat
weeks of the General Assembly, was, however, the U.S. public, the press, and the radio were not concerned foremost
with the election campaign, but with the course of the proceedings in
the General Assembly. Only in the last few days were more space enc
attention devoted to the presidential candidates. There are report.
about their meetings, their utterances, and their promises to the workers
or farmers. It is worth mentioning that both are forced to concern
themselves more than any of their predecessors with international
questions, and with admitting the decline of U.S. prestige and with
seeking ways to again build up this prestige.
During our stay in New York, the two candidates appeared on television
and replied to questions and discussed matters among themselves. Wiat
they said is not interesting because neither will act according to
his. promises, but will faithfully carry out the desires of the
monopolies. What is interesting, on the other hand, are some of tha
circumstances surrounding their performances and the entire election
campaign. The press, radio, and television reported, for instance,t~hat
one of them demanded that the temperature in the television studio be
increased, whereas the other wanted it lowered. Both demanded equal
lighting, so that neither of them would outshine the other on the screen.
Nixon maintained before the transmission that during the last broadcast
he had been less handsome than his rival, whereas Kennedy insisted on
staying as he was. (Laughter)
te~?.
The press is very worried over which Asoyou see,
Mrs. Nixon or Mrs. Kennedy, spends more on
comrades, the whole process of electing a U.S. president is a mere
comedy which is concerned with gaining electors not by some political
program, but by the most embarrassing methods of advertising. Comrade
Khrushchev has rightly said, when asked by journalists whether he had
viewed the Nixon-Kennedy television program, that if he were to wa':ch
a comedy, he would prefer Gogol's "The Government Inspector." (Laughter,
applause)
CANDIDATES DISAGREE ON U.S. PRESTIGE
Prague, Czech Home Service, Oct. 19, 1960, 1815 GMT--L
(Excerpts) Czechoslovak citizens are less interested in the good 'Looks
and other such considerations of the two U.S. presidential candidates,
and more interested in their political views and what they intend doing
toward easing international tension. Let us first take Richard Nixon,
who is in a much worse position than Kennedy since he has to defend the
line of ? the Republican Party which he has been helping Eisenhower to
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
 - 7 -
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
apply in practice for eight years. According to his view, the United
States is now at the summit of its worldwide prestige and military
strength. Any criticism of U.S. views on foreign political problem
is denounced by Nixon as defeatism. This means that he completely
identifies 'himself with U.S. spy flights, sabotage of internations L
negotiations, economic and political pressure on Castro's Cuba, arm
all the other features of U.S. foreign policy in recent times.
Nixon is untiring in warning against what he calls the aggressiveness
of international communism, but he has had to admit sorrowfully that
the ideas of communism have a strong effect on the mentality of marry
sensible people in the United States. As he sees it, the reason for
this is that today communism can be identified with the country of the
largest school program and the heaviest interplanetary satellites.
Nixon is a man who raised high the banner of anticommunist hysteria
which fell from the hands of John Foster Dulles.
The Democratic candidate, John Kennedy, is much more cautious in his
foreign policy views, but he is in no way less anticommunist than Nixon.
For reasons of pre-election tactics, he is sharply criticizing
Republican policy. He says quite openly that U.S. prestige in the world
is far from glorious, and he shows apprehension about the Soviet econom3~.
successes and advanced rocket techniques. He criticizes the shortcfiomir* ;
of the U.S. educational system and the fact that social services play the
part of Cinderella in the U.S. budget. Kennedy complains that the
Republican administration fails to respond sufficiently to the so,,caller'
Soviet economic challenge.
At this time one cannot gain a clear picture of the chances of the one
candidate or the other. It seems that Kennedy is slightly better c>ff,
for he has the most agreeable features and displays more realistic
opinions. But against him is the fact that he is a Catholic. Nix CM
is a Quaker and as such is more acceptable. But the American people's
experience with the Republican administration is a heavy burden for the
Vice President. We shall have to wait and see. Television productions
or other equally important political factors can substantially charge
the prospects of the two candidates on the very eve of election dad.
By the way, it is not essential whether Kennedy or Nixon sits in the
White House. A decisive turn in U.S. policy can be brought about only
by the American people's successful struggle against U.S. monopolies.
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
 Approved For Release 2002/11/13 CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
B?.ULGkRIA
NIXON AND KENNEDY BOTH OPPOSE PEACE
Sofia, Bulgarian Home Service, Oct. 17, 1960, 1600 GMT--M
(Text) The election campaign in the United States continues. The press,
radio, and television call on Americans to vote for Nixon or Kennedy.
The Republicans praise their candidate by attacking Kennedy, the
Democratic candidate, for not having sufficient experience for the higt
post of president. On the other hand, the Democrats are not inclined
to pardon Nixon, blaming him for the failures of the Eisenhower govern-
ment in foreign policy.
In their attacks on each other, both candidates make use of their
oratorical gifts, mainly on matters of foreign policy. Both Nixon and
Kennedy have gone to the point of making declarations on matters Which
are no concern at all of Americans. Thus, in his declaration the c.ay
before yesterday, Kennedy again attacked Nixon and the government for
showing lack of foresight in their policy toward Cuba, He tried to
present the struggle of the Cuban people for freedom and independence
as a mistake of American foreign policy. Without feeling ashamed of
his ridiculous argument, Kennedy charged that the American Government,
during the dictatorial Batista regime, failed to give the Cuban people
an opportunity to clearly understand the love of the United States for
freedom. To prove this love for "freedom," Kennedy called the handful
of crooks of the Batista regime now in the United States the "repre-
sentatives of the real voice of Cuba." It is clear that with such
political discoveries Kennedy wants to win to his side those who lost
their factories and plantations in Cuba and who are against the relaxatial
of international tension.
In order not to fall behind his opponent, Nixon declared in Los Angeles
that if elected he would start a crusade for peace, with the coope:^ation
of Eisenhower. This policy, which in no way differs from the current
one, led to the failure of the Paris summit meeting, proclaimed es-oidnage
flights as official U.S. policy, and resumed nuclear weapons testi=ng.
Despite the different colors with which they decorate their speech--s, bct..
presidential candidates believe in the same creed--the continuing Intensi-
fication of international tension.
By this Kennedy and Nixon are proving that they are serving not the
American people, who are for peace, but the big magnates who do not
wish to lose the business of arms production. One cannot deny the
juggler's dexterity shown by both candidates in pronouncing the word
"peace," but as far as the establishment of real peace throughout the
world is concerned, it is absolutely clear that both of them are against
it.
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
 -9-
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
HUNGARY
U.S. FEIGN POLICY HARKS PRESTIGE
Budapest, in English to North America, Oct. 20, 1960, 0001 GM['--E
(Text) The current debate in the U.S. election campaign centers around
whether the United States has lost prestige in the world. Kennedy
claims that it has. Why, he asks, should the new nations of Asia and
Africa look to Russia? He gives as one of the reasons why they should
not the fact that, in his opinion, the American Constitution and
Declaration of Independence are still the most revolutionary documents
ever written.
Nixon denies Kennedy's accusation and, to support Nixon's denial,
President Eisenhower points to the fact that many government heads are
still visiting the United States and the United States has not lost a
vote in the United Nations. It would be a mistake to regard this a~; a
passing issue of election campaigning. It is rather--as Walter Lip man ,
New York HERALD TRIBUNE columnist, pointed out--e problem of suprewy
importance to the United States and, in my opinion, not only to the
United States but to all of us. Quite apart from the election campaign
and how the issue is being used, and although I completely disagree with
some of Kennedy's solutions, he will nevertheless have done a world
service in raising this issue if it will result in that long-overdue
reappraisal of U.S. foreign policy.
If the United States wants to regain some of that lost prestige, it-must
change its policy to conform with the changing situation of the present-
day world. Whether the new administration is Republican or Democratic,
it will have to come to terms with this new situation. If not, it will
not only keep on losing prestige but also place the United States
politically, economically, and morally in a most disadvantageous pcsitior.
Perhaps that should be of little concern to any but the American people.
If that were the only danger, perhaps it would be of little concert, but
it is not.
The danger has been and continues to be that, refusing to take itxtc
account the new situation, the United States has been pursuing a policy
which is detrimental politically and economically to other countries and
which can lead to war. It is all this that accounts for the U.S. presti4;e
shrinking in the world.
Walter Lippmann pointed out that the turning point in world relations
came in 1949, when the Soviet Union not only broke the U.S. monopoly or
nuclear weapons but showed the world that out of the devastation of war
the USSR had achieved an economy capable of the highest feats of t?-ch-
nology and production. The story of the 1950's, Lippmann wrote, is the
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
 Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
story of U.S. failure to rise to this challenge and achieve a foreign
policy for what was becoming a wholly new balance of power in the would
and a wholly new situation. It followed, rather, a policy of entangle-
ments with Syngman Rhee, Chiang Kai-shek, and Dr. Adenauer.
It is in this situation that Kennedy and other critics of U.S. policy
must look for and find the reasons why the new nations of Africa and
Asia are looking to the Soviet Union. Support for Chiang Kai-shek and
S yngman Rhee, and the U.S. role in China, Japan, and Korea account a
great deal for the alienation of the Asian and African countries, w]:ile
the tremendous achievements of the Soviet Union and its willingness
to aid these new nations with no strings attached have been among the
inspirations for their struggle. Averill Harriman recognized this fact
when he pointed out, "The most disturbing aspect of the Soviet Unic :'s
rapid economic development from a poor peasant community in the brief
space of one generation is the effect it may have on peoples of other
underdeveloped areas." Harriman regards this as a disturbing factor.
What is far more disturbing is that the fear of this effect account:
for U.S. cold war policy.
On Dec. 5, 1959, Allen W. Dulles, director of the U.S. Central Inte:_ligen'f=
Agency, warned the annual meeting of the Congress of American Industries:
"The danger from the peaceful coexistence program of the Soviet bloc will
increase if the Russians feel free to shift a substantial part of their
spending from military to non-military measures." This statement pets
into a nutshell an attitude which is very widespread in high busine:3s
and government circles. It is the fear of coexistence, due to the '?eliea
that peaceful coexistence with socialism will lead to U.S. defeat in the
underdeveloped countries. This, by the way, is one of the major
obstacles to disarmament.
As I have already said, I do not agree with many of Kennedy's solutions.
He does not, for example, propose to break with Chiang Kai-shek. All he
proposes is that the offshore islands should not be defended, becaue
they are indefensible and not because he regards the fundamental policy
as wrong. He offers no real program of trade and exchange based on
mutual respect of sovereign rights, but wants to rest on the revolutionary
nature of the Declaration of Independence. Nobody will argue the
revolutionary nature of that document--the fact is that Ho Chi Minh,
president of the Vietnam Democratic Republic, used it as a guide for
his country's constitution. But the American revolutionary war of
independence was one thing and American imperialism is another. The
one can still inspire, but the other is being rejected in many parts of
the world.
It is not the documents of the past but the deeds of the present that
affect the attitude of the new nations toward the United States. Kennedy
does not contribute much if that is all he can contribute, but if the
current debates result in a genuine reappraisal and if the present or
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
 Approved For Release 2002/11/13-F OM-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
future Government of the United States sets out from a new world
situation, taking into account the demands of the new nations, then not
only will it affect American prestige in the world but also eliminate
a number of afflictions which exist today.
Y U G O S L A V I A
PROTESTANT DRIVE AGAINST KENNEDY SEEN
Belgrade, Serbian Home Service, Oct. 20, 1960, 1400 C2T--M
(Text) It is expected that a public campaign against the electier of
Catholic Kennedy as the American president will be started on the 3ve
elections in all Protestant churches from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Conservative Protestant pastors, who are actively working against cennecty.?
because he is Catholic, will Ynld so-called Reformation Sunday on Oct. :4=
in honor of the anniversary of Martin Luther's rebellion against the Poix
and will preach anti-Kennedy and anti-Catholic sermons. This eruption
of religious feelings in the concluding stages of the electoral aampaiki
is considered dangerous to the Democratic candidate, although the libexr-i:.
Protestants, ministers of other American churches, and headquarters of
both parties formally denounce the exploitation of Kennedy's religious
beliefs for electioneering purposes.
The reported anti-Kennedy meetings in the Protestant churches con.ftitu,,>
a follow-up to the months-long activities involving anti-Catholic
brochures, leaflets, pamphlets, printed matter, and various sermons
from the Protestant church pulpits. One of the direct consequencf:s of
the activities is the fact that all Catholics in the United State;,
numbering about 41 million, side wit Kennedy, although a majorit y of
them had voted for the Republicans. Although this religious campaign
is being officially denounced, it is considered that it may have a
decisive influence on the outcome of the presidential elections.
COMMUNIST CHINA
KENNEDY THREATENS AG(IESSION IN CUBA
Peking, NCNA, Radioteletype in English to Europe and Asia, Oct. 1j, 1960,
1547 GMT--W
(Text) Peking, Oct. 16--U.S. Democratic presidential candidate John
Kennedy at Johnstown, Pennsylvania, yesterday presented a "five-paint
program" for aggression against Cuba, according to a New York report.
He openly advocated a further increase in the strength of the Organizatacn
of American States, which serves as an instrument for U.S. control over
Latin American countries, and intensification of aggressive and sub-
versive activities against Cuba, so that it would be "restricted, isolctd,
and" left to die on- the. vine'."
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
 - 12 -
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
Kennedy complained that the measures of the Eisenhower administration
to consistently nurture the Batista dictatorial regime had brought
"major disaster" to U.S. foreign policy. "The whole Western Hemispheres
security system" is "drastically threatened," and an "incredibly
dangerous development" is now taking place in Cuba.
Kennedy then talked about his "five-point program" for stepping up
aggression and subversion against Cuba. He asserted that the United
States wants to continue to occupy by force the base at Guantanamo
and to pose threats against Cuba's nationalization of some U.S. enter-
prises which had plundered the Cuban people. Kennedy advocated that
the Organization of American States should be "given real strength and
stature" to "resist any further communist penetration." He also bluntl
declared intensified support for the Cuban rebels and "anti-Castro
forces" in other countries to carry out conspiratorial activities to
subvert Cuba, and advocated the stepping up of subversive propaganda
by the notorious "Voice of America" against the Cuban people.
The reactionary American Legion national commander, Martin McKneally,
also viciously attacked the Cuban revolution at a press conference on
Oct. 14. He attacked the Cuban Government under the pretext of
"communism," alleging that the Cuban revolution had been "eommuniet-
oriented" since its very beginning. He asserted that the U.S. Government
should sever diplomatic relations with Cuba.
Peking, NCNA, Radioteletype in English to Europe and Asia, Oct. 16, 1960.
1943 MU--B
(Text) Peking, Oct. 16--U.S. Vice President Richard Nixon advocated or.
Oct. 14 that the United States mobilize all its forces for the "cold
war" and prepare for "hot war," according to reports from Los Angeles.
In an election campaign speech in Los Angeles, Nixon asserted that it
was now time for the United States "to launch a new effort, an a31-
out offensive for peace and freedom." He presented a plan calli for
the "mobilization" of U.S. forces in all fields for struggle against
the socialist camp. He declared that, if he is elected, he would
immediately convene in the military field a council of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, the secretaries of the three services, plus the ranking
military commanders at home and abroad to "reexamine" the Soviet policy
and the rapid pace of technological change, and, in the light of theses
factors, to "reevaluate" U.S. strategy in the nonmilitary fields. He
would also call a meeting for the first week of December of representa-
tives of "a cross-section" of American life to discuss the question of
how the U.S. Government would mobilize the "total resources" of the
"free world."
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
 - 13 -
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
In the diplomatic sphere, Nixon proposed, beginning next spring, a ser:ues
of four "regional meetings" (West European, Latin American, Africa:, and
Asian conferences) with the participation of the heads of government.
These conferences would study the questions of "strengthening" the
"United Nations" and. "strengthening the free nations, politically,
economically, socially, and militarily." In addition, he favored the
exploration during the December meeting of the NATO Council of Minister=-
of the expansion of the spring meeting of this bloc into a summit
conference of all heads of NATO governments.
Nixon also declared that Eisenhower had agreed to be his "adviser" if
he is elected. In order to justify his plan to step up war prepar.tions.
Nixon furiously slandered the socialist countries, especially the -eads
of government of these countries. He alleged that "communist leaders"
have engaged in "rude and threatening conduct" at the current U.N.
General Assembly session. He even compared the leaders of socialist
countries with "Hitler and Mussolini." He did his utmost to advocate
the adoption of a stiff position against the socialist countries.
Nixon admitted that the U.S. ruling cliques "are going to have trouble""
in carrying out their policy. He tried to refute the contention or
Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kennedy that U.S. "prestige"
was at an "all-time low." But he said reluctantly: "I certainly
wouldn't say that American prestige is not in difficulty in some parts
of the world,"
KENNEDY SHCWS NAIVETE ON ISLANDS ISSUE
Peking, in Mandarin to Taiwan, Oct. 18, 1960, 1300 G!!2--B
(Text) U.S. Senator and Democratic candidate for the presidency g-3nnedv
recently presented a talk on an NBC television program regarding the
so-called defense of Taiwan. In his talk, he expressed skepticism
regarding the shady policy adopted by U.S. President Eisenhower concern-
ing the Chinese offshore islands of Quemoy and Matsu. Kennedy said
that Quemoy and Matsu were not vital to the U.S. occupation of Taiwan.
He held the view that, in order to deceitfully win over the American
people and so-called world public opinion for the support of the U.S.
encroachment on Taiwan, the United States should compel the Chiang
Kai-shek clique in Taiwan to abandon Quemoy and Matsu and draw a so-called
sharp and clear line of defense in the Taiwan Strait.
Kennedy's talk has once again exposed the plot of the U.S. aggressive
bloc of isolating Taiwan and of creating two Chinas. It is known to
all that politicians of the U.S. Republican and Democratic parties
have been harping on the so-called two Chinas theme in order to win
the next presidential election. For example, U.S. Congressman Bowles,
foreign affairs adviser to Kennedy, published an absurd article in the
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
 - 14 -
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
U.S. magazine FOREIGN AFFAIRS not long ago on reconsidering the China
question. In the face of the powerful CPR, Bowles cannot but admit,
that our central government has been ruling the China mainland in
stable manner and that the United States, by refusing formal recog-
nition of New China and by rejecting the restoration of New China's
position in the United Nations has caused disagreement and a predica-
ment. On the other hand, however, Bowles still indulged in the wish-
ful thinking of setting up a so-called "Sino-Formosan nation." In
order to achieve this shameless goal, Bowles also advocated neutralis-
ing-the. offshore islands close to the China mainland.
There are a great number of people in the two American political partiL-who share Bowles' views, A recent UPI news report disclosed that .
large number of leaders of the Democratic Party, like the Republican
leaders, insisted upon the encroachment of Taiwan and the creation of
two Chinas. They also demanded that the U.S. Government adopt what is
called more positive action to force both the Nationalists on T aivn
and the Chinese Communists into agreeing that the Taiwan Strait is the
boundary line of China, so as to permanently divide the country in two.
Kennedy's absurd talk about abandoning Quemoy and Matsu, continuin the
occupation of Taiwan, and drawing a line of defense in the Taiwan
Strait is another substantial proof of this. The U.S. aggressive sloe
in fact, indulged in this kind of wishful thinking as early as
Jan. 24, 1955. In his so-called message to Congress, U.S. Preside.-It
Eisenhower proposed a so-called cease-fire in the Taiwan Strait under
the auspices of the United Nations. In August 1955, when the Sind-U.S.
ambassadorial talks began, the United States again wishfully consilered
demanding that China relinquish the use of force for the liberatioca of
Taiwan. In September 1958, when the PLA bombarded Quemoy, the United
States again proposed a so-called cease-fire in the Taiwan Strait.
The wishful thinking cherished by the U.S. aggressive bloc was the idea
of asking the Chinese people to relinquish the right to liberate their
sacred territory of Taiwan. They wanted China to give up its own
territory of Taiwan so that the United States could occupy it.permanent:iy.
It was reported that the conditions offered by the United States were
that the United States would recognize China's rights in the United
Nations and neutralize the Chinese offshore islands.
When the Chinese people responded to such an intrigue with unreserrred
exposure and merciless denunciation, the United States then started to
exert pressure on the Chiang Kai-shek clique on Taiwan. Since the
Chiang-Dulles talk in October 1958, the United States has been
repeatedly urging the Chiang Kai-shek clique to cut down its armed
forces and to withdraw its forces from Quemoy and Matsu. It is ob'ious
that in so doing, the U.S. aggressive bloc is attempting to isolate
Taiwan and to create a situation for the United States to rule Taiwan b--1
drawing a line in the Taiwan Strait so as to achieve its goal for
permanently dividing China and occupying Taiwan.
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
 - 15 -
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
(Editor's Note: The above commentary was also carried on two other.
Peking to Taiwan broadcasts--at 2300 GMf, Oct. 18, and at 1300 GMT
Oct. 19. As of 1652 GMT, Oct. 19, no monitored Peking home service,
international service, regional, or NCNA casts have carried the
commentary or otherwise mentioned the subject.)
NIXON, KENNEDY URGE STEPS AGAINST CUBA
Peking, NCNA, Radioteletype in English to Europe and Asia, Oct. 19, 1960,
1426 GMr--w
(Text) Peking, Oct. 19--U.S. Vice President Richard Nixon yesterday
advocated that the United States step up measures for intervention in
Cuba, according to a Washington report.
Speaking at the American Legion convention at Miami Beach, Nixon v.cious
attacked Castro's revolutionary regime as "an intolerable cancer" within
the Western Hemisphere. He proposed that the "free nations" of the West
move promptly to intervene in Cuba under the pretext of preventing
"further Soviet penetration." Nixon was especially displeased with the
Cuban people's takeover of the enterprises of U.S. monopoly capital in
Cuba in order to safeguard their state sovereignty. He howled: "Our
goal must be to quarantine the Castro regime" and "we will very promptly
take the strongest possible economic measures" to "counter Cuba."
Speaking at the same gathering, U.S. Democratic Party presidential
candidate John Kennedy also cried that the United States would speed
up its policy of aggression against Cuba. He especially proposed that
the United States expand its influence by such means as "economic aid,''
and'.the training of "future leaders in Africa, Asia, and Latin America,"
as well as sympathy with the national independence movement in these
places. All these hypocritical measures are aimed to fool the people of
these countries. He held that only such methods could avoid renewal of
the Cuban revolution on the "doorstep of the United States." On Oct. 15
Kennedy presented a "five-point program" for aggression and subversion
in Cuba, advocating openly that Cuba would be "restricted, isolated,
and left to die on the vine" by the United States.
Two days later the U.S. State Department issued a statement expressing
its outrage at the execution of two U.S. spies by the Cuban Government.
Doing its best to cover up the U.S. conspiracy to subvert the Cuban
Government, the State Department in its statement minimized the event
as private acts of "individual Americans." "The consequences of
demagogic exploitation of such individual acts, as far as the U.S.
position is concerned, are also potentially very serious,'" the statement
said in threatening the Cuban Government.
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
 - l6 -
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
U N I T E D K I N G D O M
London, General Overseas Service in English.. Oct. 24, 1960, 0150 (IT--E
(Excerpts) The sudden rise last week in the price of gold is commented
upon by a number of papers. The TIMES says gold comes into its own
when faith is being lost in currency, and last week's flurry was a
culmination of doubts about the American dollar. The dollar has been
under suspicion for some time and the feeling that Senator Kennedy,
with a far more inflationary program then Vice President Nixon, we
gaining ground in the presidential election campaign added consider-
ably to the doubts. Since the American Treasury denied it has any
intention of changing the value of the dollar, and the denial that
Senator Kennedy if elected would also have any similar intention, some
of the gold fever has subsided, but it is not yet over. The truth
of the matter is that there is a fundamental lack of balance between
the American economy and those of several European countries; and
until this is-put right currency disturbances are bound to arise.
The SCOTSMAN says: "if if became clear that any undue rise in gold
would bring tut a flood of metal from Fort Knox, one could hardly
imagine the speculators persisting in their efforts to force up the
price. The governor of the Bank of England has commented that gold
and currency reserves are there to meet the situation caused by sudden
international movements of funds. He also suggested a freer use of
the reserves of the International Monetary Fund. Is it too much
to hope that one day it could act in such crisis times as the present?"
the paper ends.
FRANCE
KENNEDY'S STAND ON ALGERIA DISCUSSED
Paris, AFP, Radioteletype in French to Agency Offices, Oct. 17, 19b0,
0412 GMT--E
(Excerpts) Paris--L'AURORE says that France would have found a
solution to the Algerian problem a long time ago had the conflict
not been poisoned from the outside. "This applies to Bourguiba, who
talks, keeps talking, and now seems to be turning to the White House?
and not without concern about its future occupant, Mr. Kennedy is
certainly free to take any position he wants on this question, even
if he does not know much about it. But when he speaks of bad faith
in the negotiations, one may ask whether he means France. If so,
his friends should advise him that,fi.the interest of his authority
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
 - 17 -
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
on international affairs, he should be a little more careful with
language which some day may be that of a president. If the use of
shades of meaning is foreign to him, it is to be feared that we
and the Americans will have to be prepared for quite some surprises
should he become president."
PARIS-JOUR saysa "Noting-that it is impossible to oppose the comm lists
in,the name of Algerian independence, Bourguibe is turning toward tae
NATO powers. What will be the French Government's reactions to this
new peril, and what will be those of our Atlantic allies? General tie
Gaulle does not seem to change his position. He will not make any
move until after the end of the U.N. debate on Algeria. However, tae
new element of Chinese-Soviet aid may make him reexamine the situation.
Our allies probably 'would have liked to have waited until after the
American presidential elections before taking up the problem raised
by the Tunisian head of state. They could, however, get together with
Paris in order to face the danger to the free world since Africa is
becoming ever more clearly the target of Moscow and Peking. This is
the position taken by Democratic candidate Kennedy."
NIXON'S STAND ON CDER-NEISSE LINE NOTED
Hamburg, DPA, Radioteletype in German to Authorized Recipients,
Oct. 22, 1960, 1300 GMT--L
(Summary) The opinion expressed by Richard Nixon in an election speech
that the Oder-Neisse line must be regarded as Germany's eastern frontier
was received with reserve in Bonn government circles, which stressed
that they wanted to avoid interfering in the American election campaign.
The SPD executive and the CDU-CSU parliamentary group refused to make
any comment.
A spokesman of the Free Democrats said that the statements made in the
American election campaign should not be scrutinized too closely.
Nixon's visit to Warsaw has obviously helped to influence his present
remarks on the question of Germany's eastern territories.
Nixon's statements were described by Seiboth, chairman of the BHE, as
a matter "to be taken very seriously." If official American polio
endorses the view that it is allied militarily with Germany but
politically with Poland, this could gravely undermine German trust
in American policy, Seiboth said.
Schneider, deputy chairman of the German party, regretted Nixon's
remarks about the Oder-Neisse line. In Schneiderts view questions of
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
 18
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
international law should not be made the subject of an election
campaign, the more so when in this way the opinion hitherto up-
held by the American Government is being made open to question.
Hamburg, DPA, Radioteletype in German to Authorized Recipients,
Oct. 22, ig6o, 1719 GMT--L
(Text) A Federal Government spokesman today welcomed the fact
that, following U.S. Vice President Nixon's remarks on the Oder-Neisse
line, a spokesman of the U.S. State Department clarified the U.S.
Government's attitude to that question. The State Department spokes-
man said that the decisive factor for his government, now as in the
past, is that the Polish western frontier can only be fixed in a
peace settlement with all of Germany. The Federal Government spokes-4
man said: "The attitude of the U.S. Government is known to Bonn and
it was not expected to change in any way."
SWEDEN
SWEDISH NEWSPAPERS SEE NIXON AHEAD
Stockholm, in English to North America, Oct. 17, 1960, 1400 GMT--E
(Text) One of the subjects beginning to attract increasing editorial
comment is the presidential election campaign in the United States.
Noting that election day is just around the corner, several Swedish
newspapers refer to the American public opinion polls which give the
two candidates an equal chance. This verdict is not shared, however,
by a number:-of commentators, who claim that the signs point to Nixon
as having the edge over his opponent.
The Social Democratic CREBRO-KURIREN, for instance, says that the
very fact that the outcome is regarded as uncertain is sufficient
proof that Nixon has made considerable progress in recent weeks. :he
reason for this is explained by the paper in these words: "Nixon's
election campaign has kept major world political issues in the fore-
front, particularly the struggle between East and West. In this
context he has stressed the point that because of his greater
experience in world affairs he is more qualified to face up to the
problems of the times. The Vice President also makes the claim that
under his leadership U.S. foreign policy will be pursued with force,
energy, and determination."
Discussing the fear that Nixon's association with the unsuccessful
foreign policy of the Eisenhower administration will prove to be a
big handicap, this newspaper concludes: "Paredoxically,Senator Kennedy
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
 - 19 -
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
is prevented, by the tactical considerations of his campaign, from
indulging in any criticism of foreign and defense policy with the
force and intensity that are needed for the good of the nation.
This can be partly attributed to Vice President Nixon's oft-repeated
assertion that all is well with American policy and that the situat:.on
is quite satisfactory. Statements of this nature are, of course,
exactly what the voters like to hear. There is also another factor
to consider, probably the most important of all. Any attack on
current American policy is almost immediately construed as a
personal attack on President Eisenhower. The President continues
to enjoy widespread popularity and sympathy; and whenever he comes
under fire, it seems as if the whole nation rallies to his aid.
We have only to recall the reaction to the recent assaults launched
on him by Soviet Premier Khrushchev to appreciate the validity of this
argument. Senator Kennedy, therefore, knows he has to tread the path
of criticism very carefully and skillfully."
The Social Democratic FOLKET, published in the steel center of
Eskilstuna, holds similar views. Its editorial says: "Everyone is
aware that Nixon cannot hope to bask in the same aura of personal
good will as President Eisenhower. Nevertheless the Republican
candidate is still in a stronger tactical position than his rival.
It is a case of the voters preferring to hear the more pleasant but.
boastful claims from the Vice President of the strength and success
of U.S. policy than the unpleasant truth from Senator Kennedy about
economic stagnation and shortcomings in American political leadership.
DAQENS NYfIETER finds it surprising that Kennedy has been accused o.
being unpatriotic because he complained of U.S. weaknesses during
Khrushchev's visit to the General Assembly. The paper says; "Theolitical plan to give preference
to the problems of the people of the New World.
Kennedy has said: We need new attitudes to~.5 ko the Latin Americe-i
nations coparticipants in the rapid development of the Western
Hemisphere. This is precisely what is needed; new attitudes, new
ideas which will erase the memory of that certain stormy period of
inter-American relations, and create a new climate of harmony and
the true solidarity Vhich:,America needs to accomplish with dignity
and foresight the role which destiny has reserved for her in the
future of Western civilization.
NONCOMMUNIST CHINA
CHIANG REAFFIRMS STAND ON MATSU, QUEMOY
Taipei, in English to Japan and Korea, Oct. 13, 1960, 1005 GMT--W
(Summary) President Chiang Kai-shek told a visiting American corres-
pondent recently that the Republic of China will under no circumstances
give away any of the offshore islands it now holds. The President's
remarks were the first official reaction from the Chinese Governmev-t
to the statement made by John F. Kennedy that the offshore islands
should not be included in the U.S. defense line.
Authoritative sources in Taipei, commenting on Senator Kennedyts
statement, declared that Free China will fight to the death to defend
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
 Approved For Release 2002/11/13?CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
the offshore islands. Without Quemoy and Matsu, there will be no
Taiwan or Pescadores, they maintain. No one in Free China wants
to interfere in the domestic issues of their American ally, but
Quemoy and Matsu are part of Chinese territory. It has been proved nd the
offshor that tathesenislandsearepaniintegraloparteof the defenseelineaofs~
and that
Free China.
The sources maintained that the security of Taiwan would be seriously
threatened hlnout
ca eventual
capture of the offshore islands is a stepping stone to the
assault on Taiwan itself.
These sources also warned that Senator Fulbright's observation on
admitting Communist China to the United Nations borders on appease-
ment. His contention that the Peking regime would behave itself
after being admitted to the United Nations is wishful thinking.
The U.S. Government has negotiated with the Peking regime both in
Geneva and in Warsaw, and the conduct of the Communist Chinese ha!
not changed one iota. Where is the assurance that they will chan&;e
their conduct after being admitted into the United Nations? The
communists are not worthy of being admitted to the Uniteda Nations.
Their,-admittance to the world body will destroy it, n
reform the communists. The prestige of the United Nations would be
hurt if the Communist Chinese shoot their may into it.
and thought
certainly Senator
s t
The Chinese foreign n only minister his pestated tt rsonal view he
does F not r refle
statement re
the policy of the U.S. Government.
Statement by Liu Ho-tou
Taipei, Taiwan, Home Service in Mandarin, Oct. 13, 1960, 1200 am--B
(Text) Taipei--Admiral Liu Ho-tou, the military spokesman of the
Republic of China, on Oct. 13 said that the Republic of China will
never let the communist bandits have Quemoy and Matsu. Admiral
Liu tosthe world China repeatedly
its determination
if Sit has to fight to the last man.
Foreign Ministry Statement
Taipei, Taiwan Home Service in Mandarin, Oct. 13, 1960, 1200 G --B
(Text) Taipei--Fo .loVIhd the release of a Gtateuient to UPI newsmen
by Admiral Liu Ho.-tou, military spokesman of the e'public of Chi .-A.,
reiterating Chinats'determination to defend Quemoy and Matsu islands,
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
 - 50
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 :CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
Shen Chien-hung, spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, has also denied
that the Chinese Government has ever considered withdrawigg its
forces from Quemoy and Matsu islands.
Shen Chien-hung stated that such consideration is bbsolutely wrong.
He added that many government officials have expressed deep concerr
over the debate on the defense of the two islands in the political
circles of the United States. Many Chinese Government officials love
repeatedly declared that the Chinese Government has proved on many
occasions that it has sufficient power to defend the offshore islands
without any help from the United States.
Yang Kuang-ta, chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the
Legislative Yuan, has also expressed full support for the Chinese
Government's stand on defending the offshore islands. He declared
that it is his opinion that after winning the election no presidential
candidate of the United States would suggest abandoning the Quemoy
and Matsu islands unless the United States is preparing to withdraw
from all of Asia. Yang Kuang-ta stated that a farsighted person
such as Kennedy should know what damage would be done to the feelings
of the people of all Asian countries if the United States, leader of
the free world, suggested that one of its allied nations give up
the defense of its own territory. I;,,woiacld .like to tell my American.
friends, he said, that we will never withdraw from Quemoy and Matst:
islands under any conditions or upon anybody's advice.
opposition Party Position
Taipei, AFP, Radioteletype to English to Agency Offices, Oct. 14, 1.950,
0915 GMT--w
(Text) Taipei, Oct. 1I--The Taiwanese leaders of the opposition Mina
Democratic Party today threw their support behind the government it
defending the Nationalist Chinese position concerning Taiwan and the
offshore islands. Both Li Was-chi,, publisher of the newspaper
LUN PAO, and Henry Kao, former mayor of Taipei, declared that they
support the government policy of the recovery of the mainland and
are opposed to the suggestion of turning Taiwan into an independent
state, as voiced by U.S. Senator William Fuibright.
With publisher Lei Chen in jail, Li and Kao, who have::become the tcop
men of the new opposition party, urged the government to enforce
"political reform"in order to win more friends. They conceded that
prospects of the Nationalist Chinese representation in the United
Nttions are not bright, as indicated in the recent voting. Henry
Kao, acting as spokesman for the new opposition movement, added that
'only by uniting ourselves into one solid front can we save our nation
from external pressure."
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
 - 30 -
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
"The people in the United States enjoy 100 percent freedom of speech,"
he snapped. "Why should we get mad at Senator Fulbright's remarks:"
Pointing to the fact that the Taiwanese on this island are paying
80 percent of the taxes and that their sons have been drafted into
the army, the influential opposition leader asked if it was possible
to keep the local people as "political underdogs" forever.
Taipei, APP, Radioteletype in English to Agency Offices, Oct. )A, 1960,
0900 GMT--W
(Excerpt) The military spokesman, Rear Adtnival Liu Ho-tu, also tuck
pains to spell out the strategic value of the tiny islands in the
defense of Formosa and the Pescadores, for which the United States
is obligated under the Sino-American mutual defense treaty. The
admiral stressed that all the Nationalists want for the defense of
these islands off the mainland coast is "moral and logistic support"
from the United States as well as other friendly allies. "We need
no American soldiers," he added. When a reporter asked him 'why
American soldiers are not needed, the spokesman replied: "We are
strong enough to hold-vthese islands ourselves."
CHINESE PRESS SCORES KMMY'S VIEWS
(Editor's Note: The following editorials are from the Chinese-lar*:uage
newspapers published for the large Chinese community of Saigon-Cholon.
In addition to the three texts, summaries of other editorials have
been excerpted from a daily press summary prepared in Saigon.)
Dispute on offshore Islands
Cholon, YUAN TUNG JIH PAO, in Chinese, Oct. 12, 1960--S
(Editorial: "The U.S. Presidential Campaign and the Question of the
Mutual Defense of Quemoy and Matsu")
(Text) With the U.S. presidential election now just four weeks away,
Republican and Democratic presidential candidates Nixon and 1ennedy are
quickening their campaign activities in a last-minute effort to win
over as many voters as possible. Only last Friday they both appeared
on a nationwide television broadcast and discussed a number of major
foritIgn policy topics in order to permit the U.S. voters to have a
better understanding of their policies and thus decide which of the
two will be their choice as the next president of the United States.
The fact that their campaign activities are being carried out in a
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
 Approved For Release 2002/11/13: aA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
fair and democratic way indicates the soundness of the U.S. democratic
political system--a system of which the U.S. people can be proud.
When the communists compare their controlled elections with the free and
democratic elections of the United States, they should feel ashamed of
themselves.
It is curious to note that in discussing the question of U.S. defen~3e
of Quemoy and Matsu, Nixon and Kennedy expressed entirely different
views and completely disagreed with each other on this issue. In
view of the fact that the question is closely connected with the fu-:.ure
of Free China's counteroffensive for the recovery of the mainland, Lt
is worthwhile for us to make a comparison of the views expressed by
the two.
Let us quote what Nixon stated on the U.S. defense of Quemoy and Matsu.
He said: "I think as far as Quemoy and Matsu are concerned, that t'ae
question is mt these two little pieces of real estate,..it is the
principle involved." Now let us quote what Kennedy stated; "I do
not believe that the line should be drawn at those islands, but
instead at the island of Formosa. As long as they are not essential
to the defense of Formosa, it has been my judgment that our line
should be drawn in the sea around the island itself."
In other words, Kennedy believes that the United States should not risk
the danger of world war over Quemoy and Matsu. This clearly reflects
the entirely different views between Nixon and Kennedy on the question
of U.S. defense of the two islands. While the former emphasizes the
"principle" involved, the latter is only concerned about "realism."
According to Kennedy, the United States should draw a clear and
definite line to exclude Quemoy and Matsu from the sphere of mutual"
defense of the island of Taiwan. Granted that the two islands are
not essential to the defense of Taiwan, Kennedy, in making such a
statement, has inadvertently encouraged the Chinese communists to
invade and occupy the two offshore islands. This will not only greatly
lower the morale of Free China, but of the free world as well.
Nixon is right when he says that the question is not that of these
islands are just two pieces of real estate. What he means is that if
the United States wants to give these two islands to the communitts
in order to avoid the risk of being dragged into a war, it is betreyir*;
a principle.
In view of the fact that these two islands are only a few miles off
the coast of the Chinese mainland, it may be true that they are
strategically indefensible. Though President Eisenhower has not
clearly indicated whether Quemoy and Matsu are to be included with.n
the sphere of defense of Taiwan--the U.S. President has been authorized
by the Congress to make his own decision.on this question--one notes
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
 - 32 -
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
that in the past few years the Chinese communists have not dared to
make a single attempt to attack these two islands, not only becausc_
of the fighting spirit of the islands' defenders, but also because
they fear the U.S. Seventh Fleet might intervene. Therefore, it it',
a question of political rather then strategic value whether these
two islands are defensible. In other words, once the United Stately
decides to mutually defend Quemoy and Matsu, the Chinese communist;
will never dare to launch a move against these islands.
Kennedy has stated that it is unwise for the United States to take
the chance of being dragged into a war over the two islands. We m:iy
ask: Will there be no risk for the United States in the defense o:'
Taiwan? Kennedy should understand that the reason the Chinese
communists dare not launch a military venture in the Taman Strait
is that they fear the Nationalist army will mount a counteroffensiie
and the United States will retaliate. Everyone can clearly see that.
It is a sign of weakness if the United States draws a line that
places Quemoy and Matsu outside the sphere of mutual defense for
Taiwan. This may prompt the Chinese communists to launch a bold
military move in the Taiwan Strait. Thus, in order to avoid war,
the United States will instead be dragged into a major conflict
which may lead to world war. It is worthwhile for the U.S. people
to ponder the consequences.
Finally, it is necessary to point out that the views expressed by
the U.S. presidential candidates in campaign speeches may not
represent the policies they will adopt if elected. It may be that
their campaign speeches are one thing and that the policies they are
going to adopt, if elected, are another thing. What is important for
the people and army of Free China is that in addition to fulfilling
their duties and responsibilities to the country, they must make a
determined effort to win the sympathy of allied countries.
Islands' Importance Stressed
Cholon, CHUNG KUO JIH PAO, in;Chinese, Oct. 13, 1960--S
(Editorial: "The Question of the Defense of Quempy and Matsu")
(Text) A few days ago, the U.S. Democratic and Republican presidential
candidates, Kennedy and Nixon, held a heated debate on the question of
mutual defense of Taiwan's two offshore islands, Quemoy and Matsu.
The views expressed by the two were entirely opposite. While Nixon
strongly favored the defense of these two islands, Kennedy expreseed
the absurd view that they should be abandoned. Since the issue is
closely connected with our future, we cannot help expressi. g our
deep dissatisfaction with Kennedy's argument, which no one can
tolerate.
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
 - 33 -
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
No one can deny that Taiwan constitutes an important fortress in the
free world's defense against communism in this part of the world and
that Quemoy and Matsu are two important fences for safeguarding the
security of Taiwan. If the free world regards the strategic value
of Taiwan highly and if it strongly believes in the defense of this
island, it should pay equal attention to Quemoy and Matsu. To abandon
these two offshore islands and defend only Taiwan means to tear down
the fences of the home island, which will make it vulnerable to attack
from the enemy; it is just like opening the door of a house to invite
thieves-In. No one can be so stupid. Moreover, we must not ignor-4
the fact that, in addition to their military importance, these two
offshore islands also have political and economic value. Let us
explain in the following to illustrate this point:
Militarily, Quemoy and Matsu are merely a few miles off the coast
of mainland China. Though it is not absolutely necessary for the
Nationalist army to use the islands,es steppingstongssfor a
counteroffensive against the mainland, they are nevertheless
indispensable vanguard posts.
These two islands can serve as ideal supply stations when the
Nationalists carry the war to the mainland. Because of their
inestimable strategic value, Quemoy and Matsu have become a thorn
for the Chinese communist bigwigs Oho must concentrate hundreds
of thousands of troops along the coast to meet the eventuality of
a surprise attack from the islendil defenders.
The fact that the Chinese Communists have been forced to deploy a
great deal of manpower and resources and have spent a considerable
amount in military expenditures for the defense of this line indicates
that they regard these two islands as a serious obstacle to carrying
out their expansionist policy in Southeast Asia. As long as Quemoy,
and Matsu are defended by Nationalist forces, the Chinese communists
will not be able to sleep in peace.
Thanks to the fighting spirit of the offshore islands' heroic defenders,
the Chinese communists have been compelled to "lie low" and to sloe
down their policy of aggression. Without Quemoy and Matsu in
Nationalist hands, the.oommunists would have envaded Taiwan long
ago and even countries in Southeast Asia. These are undeniable facts
which must be recognized by all.
The fact that President Eisenhower has never issued a statement
clarifying the U.S. position on the defense of these two islands
proves that he is an extremely clever statesman. This has made
the Chinese communists hesitate to launch a military venture.
Without saying yes or no to the question, Eisenhower has succeeded
in frightening the communists into postponing their plans to attack
Quemoy and Matsu. We cannot but admire his clever diplomacy.
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
 Approved For Release 2002/11/13 :-c -PDP80B01676R000900040024-5
Nov Kennedy wants to make his absurd view known to the communists.
instead of keeping his mouth shut, he cried out loudly that the
United States should draw a definite line to exclude Quemoy and
Matsu from the sphere of U.S. defense of Taiwan. He even pointed
out that in order to avoid being dragged into a war, the United
States should not defend these two islands which, he says, are
not only not essential to the defense of Taiwan, but also strategically
indefensible, How could Kennedy be so stupid?
Despite heavy shelling--more than one and one-half million rounds
of artillery fire in the past 10 years--the two islands remain
unshaken, a fact which has greatly increased the confidence of our
600 million compatriots on the mainland in Free China's determination
to recover the country. It also reflects the firm will and capab,lity
of Nationalist forces and indicates the weakness of communist military
strength*
All this has not only greatly bolstered the morale of the people a_n
Taiwan and abroad, but has also sparked and intensified the people's
anticommunist resistance movements on the mainland. Because of the
successive military victories by the heroic defenders of Quemoy and
Matsu, the Chinese communists have failed to suppress the people's
increased revolts throughout the mainland.
If Quemoy and Matsu were lost to the communists, not only the dea:re
for freedom of 600 million Chinese of mainland China would be hope-
less, but the freedom of people in all Aaia.as well as in the word
would be affected. Therefore, how can we regard the two islands as
merely two little pieces of real estate?
Economically, these two islands constitute a serious obstadle to
the communist military and economic supply lines by sea. Because
of Nationalist China's blockade, the Chinese communists have been
depending solely on land transportation of merchandise and materials
from North China to Southeast China. The military supplies for their
naval bases and airbases on Hainan Island and their military bases
in Haiphong, North Vietnam, must pass through Hankow and Canton
and other inconvenient areas before reaching their destination. rf
the offshore islands were lost, the communists could use the sea
route from the port of Dairen directly to the port of Yulin, and
USSR military transport could take the route from Port Arthur
directly to Hainan and Haiphong. In this way, not only could the
Chinese communists save time and money, but they could also impose
a direct threat on the security of Southeast Asia countries.
Thus, no one can doubt the political, military, and economic importance
of Quemoy and Matsu. It is unthinkable that Kennedy, as a presid-ntiai
candidate of the leading free world country, could regard such an
important strategic point between the two blocs as merely two ltt,~le
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
 35 -
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
pieces of real estate. He even consulted a map to say that these
two islands, which are only five or six miles off the mainland
coast, are strategically indefensible. He judged that a line
should be drawn in the sea to leave the offshore islands 150 miles
from Taiwan. For those who have a sense of military knowledge,
such a judgment is indeed unthinkable and indicates a total lack of
common sense.
The utter absurdity of his judgment makes people doubt that he on='e
served in the navy. Let us point out a simple military question
to illustrate the point= In wartime it is necessary for a combat
unit setting up a camp in a certain area to bond a few scouts sore
hundred yards away from the camp to look out for possible movement
or attack from the enemy. Those who have received elementary military
training can understand this. Now we may ask: Why should Taiwan,
as a base for Free Chinas future counteroffensive for the recovery
of the mainland and as a most important fortress for the free world's
anticommunist lineup, pull its troops back from these two islands,
two impenetrable outposts, to defend only the island itself?
We may again ask- Will Kennedy accept Khrushchevts demand to with-
draw more than 200 U.S. overseas bases and defend only the Atlantic?
With the exception of a few lunatics, no American would agree to
this. Kennedy should understand that in the eyes of the Chinese,
these two islands are much more important than the 200 U.S. over-
seas bases. We can only take for granted that either Kennedy has
gone crazy or he made the statement without thinking.
Nixon was right when he said he hoped that Kennedy would change his
mind if he should be elected. He advanced the most clearsighted
view that "if we abandon Quemoy and Matsu, we start a chain reaction
because the communists are not only after these two islands." NC
wonder Nixon accused Kennedy of "woeuy.~thinking."
Kennedy Defeat Predicted
QUEMOY, MATSU MAY SPELL KENNEDY DEFEAT
Cholon, AH CHAU JIH PAO, in:Ch rase, Oct. 18, 1960--3
(Editorial: "Nixon Steady, Kennedy Reckless")
(Excerpts) With the election drawing closer, the U.S. Republican
and Democratic presidential candidates are now engaged in an unpre-
cedented seesaw battle in a final effort to win as many votes as
possible. Reactions to the two candidates= speeches from varioun
circles indicate that both have had their favorable and unfavorable
moments. Thus, it is extremely difficult to say which of the two is
definitely enjoying a favorable position which may assure his fu'~ure
victory.
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
 Approved For Release 2002/11/13:a A=RDP80B01676R000900040024-5
Both Nixon and Kennedy are clever enough to make the most of foreign
policy topics in order to impress the U.S. people. Besides making
personal tours throughout the country to expound their respective
views on world issues, they have also appeared many times on
television discussing and advancing their arguments on major inter-
national topics.
What Nixon and Kennedy have said on foreign affairs indicates that
the former has expressed a comparatively steady and conservative
view, while the latter expresses a volatile and more or less reck-
less view. The key to their victory will depend on whether the U.S.
people refer Nixon's steadiness or Kennedy's volatility.
We once pointed out that Nixon is more experienced thaniiK.nnedy because
of his eight-year role as vice president. However, we must not
ignore Kennedy's good relations with the people. The fact that
neither Nixon nor.Ketnedy has the magnetic appeal and high prestige of
Eisenhower or Roosevelt, both of whom scored landslide victories ov=2r
the opponents, indicates that their views on foreign policy constitute
a decisive factor in the election. But Nixon is definitely enjoying
the advantage over Kennedy on one point: He has the whole-hearted
support of president Eisenhower.
In the eyes of the U.S. people, Eisenhower is not only a war hero,
but also a kindly old man who has devoted his whole life to the cause
of peace and freedom. They feel so close to him that they consider
his every gesture and action a correct pattern for them to follow.
He is the only person capable of influencing and winning the full
support for the Vice President. Eisenhower has contributed greatly
to increasing Nixon's prestige and bolstering his position, a boost
which Kennedy does not enjoy.
Furthermore, Kennedy has made a reckless and wrong move on the
question of U.S. defense in the Per East. While strongly favoring
the defense of Berlin in order that it will become a protective wall
for assuring peace in Europe, he proposes the abandonment of Quemoy
and Matsu in order that the United States will avoid being dragged
.nto a war. Now let us coolly ponder Kennedy's two entirely differEnt
views: Is there a difference between Europe's Berlin and Asia's Quemoy
and Matsu? Since he is determined to safeguard peace in Europe,
why is he not determined to safeguard the same peace in Asia? As a
future leader of the free world, how can Kennedy entertain such a
biased view? Will such a view be supported by the U.S. people?
Moreover, Kennedy today proposes the abandonment of Quemoy and Matsu
in order that the United States will not be dragged into a war.
Who can tell but that tomorrow he will call for the abandonment
of Hong Kong, and the day after tomorrow favor the removal of allied
troops from Berlin in order to Insure that his country will not be
dragged into war with the Chinese and Soviet communists?
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
 Approved For Release 2002/11/13-: 81 RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
His view regarding Quemoy and Matsu may spell his defeat in the coring
U.S. presidential election. The reason is simple: The U.S. peopla
always regard foreign policy as more important than domestic issue3.
As long as the U.S. people believe that U.S. defense in the Far Es33t
should remain unchanged, Kennedy will certainly be defeated in the
election.
other Paperet Views
CHUNG KUO JIH PAO on Oct. 17 attacked Senator Kennedy's "absurd and
cowardly view," comparing him to Neville Chamberlain, "whose appease-
ment of Hitler at the expense of Czechoslovakia only led to World
War II." The defense of the islands is solely the affair of the
Republic of China, the paper concluded, and the United States has
absolutely no right to force Taipei to give them up to the communists.
MAY JIH LUAN ZAN accused the Senator of making the islandat defense
the main topic in his campaign as a device to win votes at t6tionelist
China's expense. The paper concluded: "If these two islands are
abandoned, all talk about safeguarding U.S. security and the free
world's freedom will be nothing but a hollow shell. Let us tell
Kennedy that no matter what the U.S. decision on Quemoy and Mateg
may be, Nationalist China will never abandon the offshore islands."
SUN WUN JIH PAO welcomed Chiang Kai-shek's reply to "Kennedy's short-
sighted view" and praised Vice President Nixon's position--"that any
appeasement of Communist China will only lead to war"--as correct
and clearsighted. The paper added: "Unless Kennedy abandons his
absurd view and stops flirting with the Chinese communists, he will
be the target of the criticism of freedom-loving people throughout. the
world."
On Oct. 18 SHIN YUEH JIH PAO asserted that "we must stand our ground
firmly and determine to defend these islands; we must not be inf luencec.
by the views of others into changing our position." SHIN SHUN JII1
PAO accused Senator Kennedy of "obviously trying to please the
communists at the expense of Nationalist China."
On Oct. 19 CHUNG KUO JIH PAO hailed Chiang Kai-shek's statement that
Quemoy and Matsu would be defended to the last man; the paper terned
the statement a "firm rebuke to Kennedy's absurd view" that the
islands should be abandoned. The newspaper's editorial concluded,
"If your neighbor asks you to give up part of your garden, or you:
house, or even your wife, would you accept? Any normal person wo,ild
give him a piece of his mind. Since no one likes having his character
maligned, how can we endure having our national character insu].teii."
We wonder how Kennedy, as a presidential candidate of the world's
leading nation, could express such an insane view." MAY JIH LUA4
ZAN culminated a sharp attack on Senator Fuibright's advocacy of a
United Nations seat for Communist China in these words: "Fuibrigzt
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
 - 38 -
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5
must have seen Khrushchev's hooligan behavior at the U.N. session.
The United Nations has had enou&h problems dealing with the Soviei
Union alone; with the participation of Communist China the -ac:~ld
peace organization would be redac,!d to utter conf-.asion."
A U S T R A L I A
LITTLE DIFFERENCE IN POSITIONS SEEN
Melbourne, Australian Overseas Service in English, Oct. 18, 1960,
0850 GMT--W
(Summary) The campaign for the election of the president of the
United States, which is gainit,g increasing world attention, is
probably the most important election in the whole democratic worli,
although our press can find little difference in the foreign
policies of the two candidates.
The Melbourne AGE sayst "Federal politicans in Australia are
always able to tell the voters where they stand on pressing inter-
national issues. TTlpy can do so with the comfortable knowledge
that neither Washington nor Moscow is deeply interested in their
policies. American voters will go to the polls to elect a represc:ntet:. L
whose presence at future world conferences may determine the history
of the next four years in the diplomatic Oor.flict between the great
power blocs. Foreign affairs have been well aircft in, preelection
debates, but we may agree with Khrushchev, for once at least, in
saying that the decision is one for the American people, as they are
preparing to do business with the candidate they choose, whirhevw,r
he may be. Although both are making the most of t1heir party
disagreements, this is all part of the ritual of the presidentia:-
election. To the outside world there does not seem to be very
much difference if the Republicans retain control of the White House
or the Democrats return to power," concludes the Melbourne AGE.
Approved For Release 2002/11/13 : CIA-RDP80BO1676R000900040024-5