"WHAT WE FACE"

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 16
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 25, 2008
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: October 29, 1983
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
-..tea/
"WHAT WE FACE"
by
WILLIAM J. CASEY
Director of Central Intelligence
THE FORTIETH
JOHN FINDLEY GREEN FOUNDATION LECTURE
WESTMINSTER COLLEGE
Fulton, Missouri
Delivered on
October 29, 1983
Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
 Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
THE JOHN FINDLEY GREEN FOUNDATION
The John Findley Green Foundation was established in 1936 by the late
Mrs. John Findley Green of St. Louis, Mo. It is a memorial to John Findley
Green, an attorney of St. Louis, who was graduated from Westminster
College in 1884 and who served on the Westminster Board of Trustees
from 1906 to 1932.
The deed of gift provides for annual lectures designed to promote un-
derstanding of economic and social problems of international concern. It
further provides that, in order that there may be the greatest benefit from
this educational effort, it is desired that the speaker shall be a person of
international reputation, whose topic shall be within the aim of these lec-
tures and who shall present it with regard for Christian tolerance and
practical benevolence."
A listing of previous Green Lecturers appears on the back cover.
Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
 Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
WHAT WE FACE
President Saunders, Ambassador Luce, honored guests, teachers, parents and
students of Westminster College. I thank you my dear friend Clare Luce for the
generosity of that eloquent introduction. I am honored and grateful at becoming
an honorary alumnus of Westminster and the warmth of your welcome and at
the honor of being asked to speak here at Westminster in the Green Lecture series
on which Winston Churchill and those who followed him have been conferred
such distinction.
I feel more at home here than you might imagine. I came here from the CIA
campus in Virginia, across the Potomac from Washington. Contrary to the spy
novels and movies, most of our people in intelligence spend their time sitting at
computers or in libraries evaluating and analyzing information. Today's James
Bonds have graduate degrees and are more conversant in economics, science,
engineering, demography and history than with gambling casinos, fast cars,
smokey bars or run-down hotels around the world. They develop and use techni-
cal marvels and apply the finest scholarship to gather, analyze and interpret facts
and relationships from every corner of the earth and beyond.
The most difficult task in intelligence is forecasting developments a few
months or years ahead. Winston Churchill had an uncanny, perhaps unique,
capacity to look into the hearts and minds of civilization's adversaries and ac-
curately foretell their intentions years and even decades ahead. He was a prophet
alone in the early 1930s and, more significantly, he was still a prophet nearly
alone in his vision of Russia here at Westminster College in 1946.
On that occasion, he defined a challenge with which my generation has strug-
gled for a third of a century and which the generation now at Westminster must
also face. Listen to his words:
From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has des-
cended across the continent ... The Communist parties which were very small
in all three Eastern States of Europe, have been raised to pre-eminence and
power far beyond their numbers and are seeking everywhere to obtain
totalitarian control."
He went on to say:
"In a great number of countries, far from the Russian frontiers and throughout
the world, Communist fifth columns are established and work in complete unity
and absolute obedience to the directions they receive from the Communist
centre."
Speaking of the American atomic bomb and the peril that would exist if a com-
munist state had that capability, he said:
"The fear of them alone might easily have been used to enforce Totalitarian
systems upon the free democratic world, with consequences appalling to human
imagination."
All this, less than a year after we had won the long struggle against Hitler with
Russia by our side, was new and startling to the American people. Churchill
allowed himself a cry of anguish that again his warning would go unheeded:
"The last time I saw it all coming, and cried aloud to my own fellow country-
Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
 Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
men and to the world but ... no one would listen and one by one we were all
sucked into the awful whirlpool."
How mcuh more alarmed would Churchill be if he looked around the world to-
day and saw how the Soviets have grown in strength and how far they have ex-
tended their power and influence beyond the Iron Curtain he so aptly labeled. He
would see Soviet power:
? In Vietnam along China's southern border and astride the sea lanes which
bring Japan's oil from the Persian Gulf;
? In Afghanistan, 500 miles closer to the warm water ports of the Indian
Ocean and to the Straits of Hormuz through which comes the oil essential to
Western Europe;
? On the Horn of Africa overlooking the passageway of Suez which connects
the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean;
? In southern Africa, rich in minerals, which the industrial nations must have;
? And in the Caribbean and Central America on the very doorstep of the
United States.
And what would Churchill think of the cataclysmic events in Lebanon and
Grenada during the last seven days. For reasons which you will understand, I am
not in a position to go into in any detail beyond what you have learned from the
media, and like any good reporter I'm prepared to go to jail to protect my sources.
But I will hazard an attempt to relate the events to what Churchill called the
Sinews of Peace when he spoke here.
The disaster in Lebanon would have reminded him of the awful price that can
be levied to maintain peace. The response of both our Marines in Lebanon and
the flood of new recruits here would have reminded him of the courage and spirit
his countrymen demonstrated when they stood alone against the forces of dark-
ness in Europe.
He would have been gratified to see in Grenada a free nation act to check the
potential communist aggression which he warned against here as he had failed to
get his own country to act against the fascism of the thirties. He would rejoice
that for the first time the west has restored to a colony of the Soviet empire the
freedom which had been stolen from it.
Today, we are as a nation challenged on many levels. The most potentially
devastating threat comes from the nuclear missiles which are aimed at us. The
second comes from the land, air and sea forces of the Warsaw Pact nations in
Europe which continue to gain on NATO forces in quantity and quality. The
third is the growing ability of the Soviets to project power over long distances, an
ability vividly demonstrated by their use of air and sea transport to link up ad-
vanced Soviet weapons with Cuban troops thousands of miles from their borders.
We saw them do this first in Angola and again in Ethiopia.
The fourth level of threat is something we might call creeping imperialism.
The Kremlin uses a variety of techniques to exploit economic, racial and
religious divisions around the world and to destabilize and subvert other coun-
tries by fostering internal insurgency. The Soviet Union then supplies weapons,
training and advisors to bring in radical governments which will extend Soviet
power and further Soviet interests.
It is to the strategic nuclear threat and that of conventional forces in Europe
Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
 Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
William J. Casey, Director of Central Intelligence and 40th John Findley Green
Foundation Lecturer at Westminster College, Fulton, Mo.
Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
 Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
that we devote most of our concern and commit most of our defense resources.
Yet, the appalling devastation which would result from the use of these weapons
is such that this threat is less likely to materialize than that of aggressive protec-
tion of power and intrusion into other countries.
All of these threats are interrelated, and the measures needed to deal with
them are closely interconnected. We must maintain a strategic posture that con-
vinces the Soviets that the risk of any attack on the US or its allies far outweighs
any possible benefits. But more than that is necessary. The growth in overall
Soviet military power, unmatched by the West over the last 15 to 20 years, has
encouraged them to try intimidation to split our allies away from us and under-
mine our credibility. If the adverse shift in the strategic balance of recent years is
permitted to go far enough, it will become easier for the Soviets to exploit soft
spots around the world. It will seem to have become less risky for the Soviets to
involve themselves in smaller conflicts especially in less developed parts of the
world.
To face these threats effectively we have to deal with the Soviet Union not as
we would like it but as it is. We live on the same planet, we have to go on sharing
it. We must therefore stand ready to talk to the Soviet leadership. The character
of modern weapons, not only nuclear but conventional, makes this dialogue in-
dispensable. But we must resolve not to hand an advantage to the other side, to do
nothing that would either risk the credibility of the Western alliance or unsettle
the military balance on which peace itself depends.
We must recognize, too, that the Soviets will exploit arms control talks and
agreements to slow down improvements in Western military capabilities while
they continue to build up and modernize their own forces. Thus far they have
succeeded in this objective. They have negotiated ceilings which permit their
continued military buildup or they have avoided restrictions on new weapons
they intend to build. The Soviet Union has been unwilling to forego any of its
major military programs in order to induce us to drop our own programs.
Nevertheless, we should persist in arms negotiations in order to contain this
competition. We must continue to hope that at some point there will be a change
in Soviet perceptions and behavior.
Here at Westminster, Churchill wondered:
"Nobody knows what Soviet Russia and its Communist international organiza-
tion intends to do in the immediate future, or what are the limits, if any, to their
expansive and proselytizing tendencies."
A month after Churchill made his speech here are Westminster College, his
question was echoed in Moscow. The new US Ambassador to Russia, General
Walter Bedell Smith, met with Stalin in the Kremlin to ask, "What does the
Soviet Union want and how far is Russia going to go?" Stalin accused the US of
trying to thwart Russia and declared that Churchill's speech here at Fulton was
an unfriendly act. Asked again, "How far is Russia going to go?" Stalin coolly
replied, "We're not going much further."
We know today that Russia has gone a lot further. It is essential that we under-
stand how this was accomplished. During the mid to late 1970s, the Soviets un-
furled a new strategy on a new front - the Third World. And their strategy has
worked.
Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
 Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
The most effective technique employed in this strategy has been the use of
proxies. This is not exactly new in history. The Romans used men from con-
quered countries to fight their enemies. Later, Swiss and German mercenaries
were available to the highest bidder all over Europe. The British army had its
Ghurkas and the French their Foreign Legion. But the Soviets use the Cubans,
East Germans, Libyans and Vietnamese in a quite different role.
These proxies act in peace as well as war. Their role is as much political as
military. East Germans in Africa, Cubans in Latin America, Vietnamese in Asia
have a certain legitimacy and freedom from imperialist taint that Soviet troops
would not enjoy. Different proxies have specialized functions. Of the more than
40,000 Cubans in Africa, 80 percent of the soldiers are on active duty. Vietnam,
with the fourth largest army in the world, keeps China and Thailand worried as it
solidifies its position in Kampuchea. Most of the thousands of East German ex-
perts in Africa or Latin America are active in administration, education, indus-
try, health, and, above all, the security forces which protect the regimes from the
people.
Libya, Cuba, South Yemen, East Germany, and Bulgaria operate camps for
training terrorists and insurgents who are then sent around the world. The Li-
byans have helped promote Soviet foreign policy goals through their invasion of
Chad and through their assistance to rebels in the Philippines, Morocco and
Central America. Let us also not forget their coups, plots and assassination at-
tempts against the leaders of pro-Western countries, nor their financial help to
so-called "liberation" groups and terrorist organizations in the Middle East and at
least ten countries in Latin America.
Grenada provides a vivid illustration of how the Soviets practice creeping im-
perialism by proxy. Early reports indicate that, in addition to the Cubans on the
island, there were on the island Soviets, North Koreans, Libyans, East Germans
and Bulgarians working together to establish a military base in the Eastern Carib-
bean. This should come as no surprise. It is a microcosm of Nicaragua. For more
than two years Managua has been an international city with Cubans, Soviets,
East Germans, Vietnamese, North Koreans, Bulgarians, Libyans and PLO ele-
ments working together to fasten a totalitarian grip on Nicaragua, to make
Nicaragua militarily dominant over its neighbors and to project revolutionary
violence into El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica and Guatemala.
With the exception of the Allende government in Chile, committed pro-Soviet
governments have never come to power through peaceful means but always
through violence, coups and civil wars. The Soviets recognize that in most Third
World countries power rests with the military. They have focused, therefore, on
either winning over the officers' corps or helping to overthrow and replace them
with others more likely to do their bidding. Having for decades denounced the
"merchants of death," the Soviets have become the world's leading supplier of
arms, Over recent years, their arms shipments to the Third World have been four
times greater than their economic assistance. This has made Third World arms
recipients dependent on the Soviets for thousands of advisors, for spare parts,
and for continued logistical support.
Yet the Soviet Union is crippled. It is crippled in having only a military dimen-
sion. It has not been able to deliver economic, political or cultural benefits at
Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
 Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
home or abroad. Without exception, the economic record of the countries which
have come under Soviet influence has ranged from poor to very poor. Economic
progress has been far greater in the free areas of East and Southeast Asia, in
Central America until disruption by Soviet and Cuban-backed insurgency, in the
Ivory Coast and other non-socialist countries in Africa.
Military support can establish a relationship between a superpower and a
small country. But in the long run it is economic, financial, scientific, technical
and cultural exchanges which attract, deliver benefits, and maintain close rela-
tionships with Third World countries. The Soviet Union cannot compete in these
areas. This forces the Soviets to rely on subversion and disruption of stable politi-
cal and economic relationships to weaken Western relationships and create a
condition of chaos in which their surrogates and internal allies can seize power.
In this strategy of disruption, the areas most heavily targeted are clearly the
Middle East and Central America. By fanning the flame of conflict between Arab
and Israeli, Sunnie and Shia, radical and moderate Arab, by playing both sides
against the middle in the Iran-Iraq war, and by nailing down a military position
in Syria and Afghanistan, the Soviets hope to keep the Middle East in turmoil
and the oil resources on which the Western world depends under constant threat.
The other sensitive target is the Caribbean and Central America. Soviet power is
already solidly established in Cuba and Nicaragua. This threatens the Panama
Canal and the sea lanes of the Caribbean. Insurgencies and revolutionary
violence have been unleashed to topple governments in El Salvador, Honduras
and Guatemala.
Since World War II, we have seen that countries falling under communist con-
trol promptly produce a heavy flow of refugees - people votng with their feet to
go elsewhere. Millions of refugees have left Eastern Europe and Cuba since the
communists took over. Hundreds of thousands of people have put their lives at
stake to escape from Indochina in leaking ships. More than one-fourth of the
population of Afghanistan has fled to Pakistan and Iran. The flow of refugees
from Central America is already under way.
A Cubanization of Central America would quickly create new refugees by the
millions. The Soviets can calculate that a greatly increased military threat on our
southern flank and the internal disruption that would result if millions of Latin
Americans walked north would distract the United States from dealing with
what could be more lethal threats elsewhere in the world. At the same time,
American influence in Central America will be damaged if the West is unable to
sensitively and constructively assist the people of Central America and Mexico
in defending themselves as well as solving their social and economic problems
on their own terms.
The US needs a realistic counter-strategy. Many components of that strategy
are familiar, but they must be approached and linked in new ways. The measures
needed to address the Soviet challenge in the Third World have the additional
appeal that they also represent a sensible American approach to the Third World
whether or not the USSR is involved:
1. We have too often neglected our friends and neutrals in Africa, the Middle
East, Latin America and Asia until they became a problem or were threatened by
developments hostile to our interests. These countries now buy 40% of our ex-
Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
 Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
ports; that alone is reason enough to pay greater attention to their problems
before our attention is commanded by coups, insurgencies or instability. The
priority of less developed countries in our overall foreign policy needs to be
raised and sustained.
2. We must be prepared to demand firmly but tactfully and privately that our
friends observe certain standards of behavior with regard to basic human rights.
It is required by our own principles and essential to political support in the US.
Moreover, we have to be willing to talk straight to those we would help about
issues they must address to block foreign exploitation of their problems - issues
such as land reform, corruption and the like. We need to show how the Soviets
have exploited such vulnerabilities elsewhere to make clear that we aren't
preaching out of cultural arrogance but are making recommendations based on
experience.
3. We need to be ready to help our friends defend themselves. We can train
them in counterinsurgency tactics and upgrade their communications, mobility,
police and intelligence capabilities. We need changes in our foreign-military-
sales laws to permit the US to provide arms for self-defense more quickly. We
also need to change our military procurement policies so as to have stocks of cer-
tain basic kinds of weapons more readily available.
4. We must find a way to mobilize and use our greatest asset in the Third
World - private business. Few in the Third World wish to adopt the Soviet eco-
nomic system. Neither we nor the Soviets can offer unlimited or even large-scale
economic assistance to the less developed countries. Investment is the key to
economic success in the Third World and we, our NATO allies and Japan need to
develop a common strategy to promote investment and support it with know how
in the Third World. The Soviets are helpless to compete with private capital in
these countries.
Without a sustained, constant policy applied over a number of years, we can-
not counter the relentless pressure of the USSR in the Third World. It is past time
for the American government - Executive Branch and Congress - to take the
Soviet challenge in the Third World seriously and to develop a broad, integrated
strategy for countering it. The less-developed nations of the world will be the
principal US-Soviet battleground for many years to come.
There is also a political weapon we can deploy around the world which is more
powerful than the Soviets' military arsenal and subversive bag of tricks. All the
people of the world on both sides of the Iron Curtain remain united as they were
in Churchill's day on one issue - their abhorrence of dictatorship in all its forms,
most particularly totalitarianism and the terrible inhumanities it has caused in
our time - the great purge, Auschwitz and Dachau, the Gulag, and Cambodia.
They have certainly noted it was not the democracies that invaded Afghanistan
or suppressed Polish Solidarity or used chemical and toxic warfare in
Afghanistan and Southeast Asia.
Around the world today, the democratic revolution is gathering new strength,
in Asia, in Africa, in our own hemisphere. In Latin America, 18 of 34 countries
have freely-elected governments and 6 are working toward democratization,
altogether representing 70% of the people of that continent. In the United Na-
tions, 8 of the 10 developing nations which have joined that body in the past five
Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
 Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
years are democracies. We must foster the infrastructure of democracy, the
system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities, which allows a peo-
ple to choose its own way to develop its own culture, to reconcile its own
differences through peaceful means.
Finally, if we are to win the struggle for the world's freedom and liberty, we
need to reestablish what Sir John Plumb described so eloquently as the true
dominion of history when he spoke on this campus at last May's Kemper lecture,
It is in the true study of our history and our values that we can establish the same
historical confidence in our society that Winston Churchill had in his and which
enabled him to speak so eloquently to his people and they to respond so
wholeheartedly. It is your challenge, as our future leaders, to bring a proper sense
of our destiny to our affairs and that can only come through a knowledge of our
past and a feeling for the heritage which is ours to preserve and pass on. And I
can imagine no setting and no atmosphere more conducive to kindling and
developing that learning and that sentiment than the one which blesses you in
these surroundings and in the tradition of your challenge.
President Kennedy some twenty years ago observed that we were involved in a
long twilight struggle. Winston Churchill's speech here at Westminster College
marked the initial recognition by the West that the struggle had begun. Churchill
also observed that, "What we have to consider here today while time remains, is
the permanent prevention of war and the establishment of conditions of freedom
and democracy as rapidly as possible in all countries."
It is now nearing 40 years since Winston Churchill spoke here. The thought
that I would leave with you is that the struggle with what the Soviet Union repre-
sents is not confined to Churchill's generation, or to my generation, or the
generation of your faculty and parents, or your generation. This is a conflict
deeply rooted in ideas. This conflict is as old as recorded history. The threat
posed by the Soviet Union is the lineal descendent of the same threat Western
civilations have faced for better than two thousand years: it is the threat posed by
depotism against the more or less steadily developing concept that the highest
goal of the State is to protect and to foster the creative capabilities and the liber-
ties of the individual. It is a contest between two elemental and historically op-
posed ideas of the relationship between the individual and the State. The chief
threat posed by the Soviet Union, therefore, is not necessarily in the vastness of
its military forces - though vast they are - but in the relentlessness of their
assault on our values.
Three days after his speech here in Fulton, Mr. Churchill addressed the
Virginia State Assembly, the oldest legislative body in the Western Hemisphere.
In that speech he stated:
It is in the years of peace that war is prevented and those foundations laid
upon which the noble structures of the future can be built. That peace will not be
preserved without the virtues which make victory possible in war. Peace will not
be preserved by pious sentiments expressed in terms of platitudes, or by official
grimaces and diplomatic correctitude, or by casting aside in dangerous times our
panoply of war-like strength. There must be earnest thought. There must be
faithful perserverance and foresight. Greatheart must have his sword and armor
to guard the pilgrims on their way."
Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
 Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
I am confident that Sir Winston would agree that despite our fondest hopes to
fulfill Isaiah's prophecy, all of human history, and especially all of Russian histo-
ry, points to our need and the need of our children for swords as well as
plowshares. I see, therefore, the same future Churchill saw here so long ago -
not an easy future -but, with perserverance and devotion to our duty, a free one
in which our values and opportunities are preserved.
A HISTORICAL POSTSCRIPT
While at Westminster, I read Martin Gilbert's lecture on "The Origins of the
Iron Curtain Speech," the first in a series endowed by the Crosby Kemper Foun-
dation. Mr. Gilbert, Churchill's official biographer, disclosed a letter which
Churchill wrote, two days after speaking here at Westminster, to his successor
Prime Minister Atlee. Churchill confided that, in his journey from Washington
to Fulton, President Truman informed him that the United States would send the
body of the Turkish Ambassador, who died in Washington a few days earlier,
back to Turkey on the American battleship MISSOURI. This ship, on which the
Japanese surrender had been signed, was at that time probably the largest battle-
ship afloat. It would be accompanied by a strong task force which would remain
in the Sea of Mamara around Turkey for an unspecified period. Churchill told
Atlee that he viewed this as a very important act of state calculated to make
Russia understand that she must come to reasonable terms of discussion with the
Western democracies. It would reassure Turkey and Greece and send a signal
against cutting the British life line to the Mediterranean by establishing a Rus-
sian naval base at Tripoli, as well as against ongoing treaty breaches in Persia,
encroachments in Manchuria and Korea and pressure for Russian expansion at
the expense of Turkey. Churchill emphasized that some show of strength and
resistance power was necessary to a good settlement with Russia.
The MISSOURI, carrying the remains of the Turkish Ambassador, departed
New York on March 22nd, anchored in the Bosphorus off Istanbul on April 5th,
and rendered full honors, including a 19-gun salute, during both the transfer of
the remains of the late Ambassador and the funeral. The MISSOURI departed
Istanbul on April 9th, sailed to Piraeus, and stayed in Greek waters until April
21st.
All this was in response to Soviet misbehavior in Iran, Turkey and Greece. Dur-
ing the war the British and Russians had occupied Iran to restrain a government
suspected of pro-German sympathies and to secure a supply line vital to support-
ing the Soviets' fight against the Germans. After the war the Soviets stated that
no time limit had been set for the Soviet military presence in Iran and, in other
ways, showed great reluctance to withdraw. Matters reached a point where, on
January 19, 1946, Iran complained about Soviet behavior to the United Nations
Security Council. Three days before Churchill spoke here, the Soviets announced
that they would withdraw only a portion of their troops; the rest would remain
"pending examination of the situation." Earlier the Soviet Government had de-
nounced the Turkish Treaty of Friendship and Neutrality and demanded the
Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
 Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
secession of parts of Turkey, joint Russo-Turkish control of the straits, and a new
alliance of friendship along the lines of those signed with the East European
countries.
Churchill noted this in his speech here saying: "Turkey and Persia are both
very profoundly alarmed and disturbed at the claims which are being made upon
them and at the pressure exerted by the Moscow Government."
While the MISSOURI was on the high seas, agreement was reached between
Moscow and Teheran and on May 22nd discussions in the United Nations were
concluded and Gromyko confirmed the evacuation of all Soviet troops from Iran.
The MISSOURI arrived at a time when, in addition to great Soviet pressure on
Iran, there were ominous Russian overtures and activities in the entire Balkan
area. Greece had become the scene of a communist-inspired civil war, as Russia
attempted to extend Soviet influence throughout the Mediterranean region. De-
mands were made on the Turkish government to grant the Soviets a naval base in
the Dodecanese Islands and joint control of the Turkish straits leading from the
Black Sea into the Mediterranean.
The MISSOURI's voyage was seen as a symbol of U.S. interest in preserving
Greek and Turkish liberty and to convey that the U.S. was ready to use her naval
sea and air power to stand firm against a clearly threatening tide of Soviet sub-
version against nations along its southern borders and seaways.
President Reagan has recently made a similar response to ominous Russian
and Cuban overtures and activities on our Caribbean approaches. Addressing a
joint session of Congress on April 27, 1983, President Reagan quoted from Presi-
dent Truman's promulgation of the Truman Doctrine before a joint session of
Congress in 1947, to wit: "I believe that it must be the policy of the United States
to support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed
minorities or by outside pressures." On that occasion President Reagan asked the
question: "Will our response - economic, social, and military - be as appropri-
ate and successful as Mr. Truman's bold solutions to the problems of postwar
Europe?"
Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
 Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
CITATION
for
WILLIAM J. CASEY
Upon the Occasion of Conferring the Degree
of
DOCTOR OF LAWS
Saturday, October 29, 1983
As one who has been afforded the privilege of speaking at Westminster College under the
auspices of the John Findley Green Foundation, I regard it as a high honor and a personal
pleasure to have this opportunity to return and present a friend of long-standing as the 40th
Lecturer in this prestigious series.
Our speaker began his career in government service in 1943, after being commissioned in
the United States Naval Reserve. It is particularly noteworthy, in view of his present
responsibilities as our nation's Director of Central Intelligence, that his first government
assignment was as a member of the wartime staff of William J. Donovan, founder of the Of-
fice of Strategic Services. As we all know, that organization was the forerunner of the pre-
sent Central Intelligence Agency, which he now administers so ably.
A man of multiple talents and diverse interests, he has contributed significantly to the
welfare of his nation and the free world in a number of important assignments spanning the
past four decades.
In 1948, as associate general counsel at the European Headquarters of the Marshall Plan,
he directed his energy and his considerable business acumen toward the rebuilding of the
continent which had been so utterly devastated by World War II. Upon completing that
responsibility, he returned to private life and a successful career in law and business.
In 1971, he, once again, answered the call to serve his country by accepting an appoint-
ment as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. This assignment was
followed by impressive tours of duty as Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and
as President and Chairman of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.
He returned again to private life, but, once more, was summoned to public service in
January of 1981 by his close friend and admirer, President Ronald Reagan, who called upon
him to assume the most sensitive position in the federal government. Today, with the
patriotic dedication and unstinting zeal he has committed to every endeavor upon which he
has embarked, he serves his nation and all men and women who revere freedom and de-
mocracy. He, better than anyone in the country, recognizes the enormous importance of the
crucial role intelligence plays, and will continue to play, in the security of the free world.
We are fortunate, indeed, to have him with us to share his insights on this subject of intense
national interest.
Mr. President, it is with pride and joy that I present to you, for the honorary degree of
Doctor of Laws at your hand, the distinguished Director of Central Intelligence of the
United States, a fervent patriot, a brilliant and decisive leader, a man who has given un-
selfishly of himself in the service of his country by undertaking awesome responsibilities,
and a dear personal friend - The Honorable William J. Casey.
Presenter: The Honorable Clare Boothe Luce
37th John Findley Green Lecturer
Honorary Alumna of Westminister College
Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
 Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
The Honorable Clare Boothe Luce, 37th John Findley Green Lecturer, who in-
troduced Mr. Casey and cited him for the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws.
Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
 Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
JOHN FINDLEY GREEN FOUNDATION
LECTURERS
OSCAR D. SKELTON, Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs
for the Dominion of Canada, 1937; Some Gains and
Losses of the Present Generation."
JOHN LANGDON-DAVIES of London, 1937; "Conflict
Between Democracy and Fascism in Europe."
FRANCES B. SAYRE, former High Commissioner to the
Philippines, 1939; "The Protection of American Export
Trade."
T. V. SMITH, Member of Congress and Professor of
Philosophy at the University of Chicago, 1940; "The
Legislative Way of Life."
COUNT CARLO SFORZA of Italy, former Ambassador to
China, to Turkey, and to France, and subsequently
Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs, 1941; "The
Totalitarian War and After."
SAMUEL GUY INMAN, Lecturer on Latin American Re-
lations at University of Pennsylvania and Yale Univer-
sity, 1942; "Pan American Postwar Program."
WINSTON CHURCHILL, former Prime Minister of Eng-
land. who was introduced by President Harry S. Tru-
man, and accompanied by high dignitaries of the United
States, 1946; "The Sinews of Peace."
REINHOLD NIEBUHR, Professor of Applied Christian
Ethics, Union Theological Seminary, N.Y., 1949; "This
Nation Under God."
J. C. PENNEY, Merchant, 1949; "The Spiritual Basis for
Improving Human Relations."
ROSCOE POUND, Dean Emeritus of Harvard Law School,
1950; "Justice According to Law."
CHARLES H. MALIK, Ambassador of Lebanon, 1953;
"The Crisis of Reason."
HARRY S. TRUMAN, former President of the United
States, 1954; "What Hysteria Does to Us" and "Presi-
dential Papers, Their Importance as Historical Docu-
ments."
GUY E. SNAVELY, former Executive Secretary of the As-
sociation of American Colleges, 1954; "College and
Church in America."
STANLEY N. BARNES, Circuit Judge. United States
Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1956; "Government
and Big Business."
WILLIAM YANDELL ELLIOTT, Williams Professor of
Government at Harvard University, 1957; "The Uses
and Limits of the United Nations in Relation to Ameri-
can Foreign Policy" and "Meeting the Political Strategy
and Tactics of the Soviet and Chinese Communist Bloc
in the Post-Stalin Period."
DR. EDWARD McCRADY, Vice Chancellor and President
of the University of the South, 1958; "Freedom and
Causality."
THE RT. HON. THE VISCOUNT HAILSHAM, Q. C.,
Lord Privy Seal, London, England, 1960; "The Iron Cur-
tain, Fifteen Years After."
DR. LIN YUTANG, noted Chinese author, New York City,
1961; "Chinese Humanism and the Modern World" and
"Some Good Uses of Our Bad Instincts."
HENRY R. LUCE, editor in chief of Time, Life, et al., New
York City, 1962; "The Title Deeds of Freedom."
FREDERICK R. KAPPEL, Chairman of Board of American
Telephone and Telegraph Company, New York City,
1962; "From the World of College to the World of
Work."
M. MAX KOHNSTAMM, Vice-President of Action Com-
mittee for the United States of Europe, Brussels,
Belgium, 1963; "The European Community and Its Role
in the World."
SIR GEORGE PAGET THOMSON, Nobel prize winning
physicist for work in electrons, Past President, British
Association for the Advancement of Science,
Cambridge, England. 1964; "Science: The Great Adven-
ture."
ANDRE PHILIP, former Minister of Finance in France
and leading International Trade Expert, St. Cloud,
France, 1965; "Counsel From an Ally."
JOSEPH C. WILSON, President of Xerox Corporation,
Rochester, New York, 1965; "The Conscience of Busi-
ness."
KIM JONG PIL, Chairman Democratic Republican Party
of Korea, Seoul, Korea, 1966; "Dawn Over Asia."
HUBERT HUMPHREY, Vice-President of the United
States, Washington, D.C., 1967; "The Iron Curtain and
The Open Door."
DR. FRANC L. McCLUER, former President of West-
minster College, President Emeritus of Lindenwood
College, 1968; "The Continuing Struggle for Freedom."
THE RT. HON. THE LORD SNOW, author, scientist,
teacher, London, England, 1968; "The State of Siege."
THE RT. HON. THE LORD HARLECH, former British
Ambassador to the United States and television execu-
tive in Great Britain, 1971; "The Great Marauders."
THE HON. ROBERT H. FINCH, Counselor to the Presi-
dent, former Lieutenant Governor of California and Sec-
retary of H.E.W.. 1972; "Selecting the President: A Na-
tional Franchise."
GENERAL AVRAHAM YOFFE. Director Nature
Reserves Authority, General Israeli Army, 1972; "Will
We Succeed in Saving Ourselves?"
J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT, Senator in the United States
Congress and Chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Relations. 1974; "The Clear and Present Danger."
CLARENCE M. KELLEY, Director of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, 1976; "Perspectives of Power."
ARDESHIR ZAHEDI, Ambassador from Iran to the United
States, 1977; The Challenge Facing Iran and the World
Today."
GERALD R. FORD, former President of The United
States, 1977; "The Canopy of Tyranny."
GRIFFIN B. BELL, former Attorney General of the United
States, 1980; "The Sinews of Peace Revisited."
CLARE BOOTHE LUCE, former member of Congress and
Ambassador to Italy, 1980; "The Ghost at Westminster."
THE RT. HON. EDWARD HEATH, former Prime Minis-
ter of England, 1982; "The Changing Face of Power."
CASPAR W. WEINBERGER, Secretary of Defense, 1983;
"Churchill' Prophet, Pragmatist, Idealist, and
Enthusiast."
Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
 Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9
Approved For Release 2008/03/25: CIA-RDP85M00364R000600980003-9