FOREIGN RADIO AND PRESS REACTION TO PRESIDENT NIXON'S REPORT ON U.S. FOREIGN POLICY FOR THE 1970'S

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: Library of Congress
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
• Release Decision: RIFLIM
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 38
• Document Creation Date: January 11, 2017
• Document Release Date: September 7, 2010
• Sequence Number: 73
• Publication Date: February 26, 1970
• Content Type: REPORT

No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5 /
For Official Use Only
FOREIGN
BROADCAST
INFORMATION ,/
SPECIAL MEMORANDUM
FOREIGN RADIO AND PRESS REACTION
TO PRESIDENT NIXON'S REPORT
ON U. S. FOREIGN POLICY FOR THE 1970'S
For Official Use Only
26 February 1970
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
WARNING
Laws relating to copyright, libel, and communications require
that dissemination of this publication be limited to persons
having an official interest in its contents. Exception can be
granted only by the issuing agency, and users are warned that
noncompliance may subject violators to personal liability.
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
CONTENTS
I. NONCOMMUNIST COUNTRIES
West Europe . . ? . . . . ? . ? ? . ?
The Middle East . ~+
Asia.... ...... 8
Africa . 11
Latin America . . . . . . 13
The USSR . . . . . . ' . . . ' . . . . . . . . 16
East Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Vietnamese Communist Media . . 28
North Korea . . 30
Cuba . . . . . . . . 31
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
FOREIGN RADIO AND PRESS REACTION TO PRESIDENT NIXON'S REPORT
ON U,S, FOREIGN POLICY FOR -ME 1970'S
SUMMARY
WEST EUROPE: West European reaction. to the President's report is
mostly favorable. The British press widely welcomes the pragmatism
of U.S. policies, and a number of editorialists concur in the view
that Europe's share of. defense costs should rise. French commentators
express relief that an era of "U.S. interventionist policies" seems
to be drawing to a close. West German observers describe the report's
conclusions as sober and responsible. Elsewhere there is widespread
approval, mixed with a few warnings that a gearing down of U.S.
military might will involve some risk to Western interests.
MIDDLE EAST: The reaction of the Arab states is almost entirely
negative, with commentators treating the report as confirmation of
Arab views that the United States is pursuing a totally pro-Israel
policy and will furnish more arms to Israel. Arab radios give
extensive play to negative Soviet reactions to the report. Israeli
reaction is cautiously. optimistic and positive, with commentators
lauding the President's stress on the dangers of Soviet intentions
in the Middle East and welcoming his reassurances to Israel. The
Athens radio hails the report for its "realistic assessment" of the
world situation,
ASIA: Official Japanese circles and most of the major Tokyo papers
welcome the report as indicative of U.S. efforts for world peace.
A number of editorialists agree that Japan must accept increased
responsibility for peace and progress in Asia in the new era, but
some express concern at the possibility of a larger military role
for Japan. Nationalist China commentators indicate a lack of
sympatr for any increased reliance on Japan and disagreement with
the President's position on Communist China. South Korean papers
are fearful lest the reorientation of U.S. policy encourage aggression:
by Asian. communists. Little comment is available from other Asian
sources.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
AFRICA: A Nigerian paper angrily denounces the President's comments
on Africa., but available reaction from black Africa is otherwise
negligible. South African and Rhodesian commentators see a measure
of realism in the Africa section of the report. Tunisian reaction
is favorable, Moroccan comment is mixed, and Algerian reaction is
wholly critical.
LATIN AMERICA: Official circles in Bolivia, Chile, and Venezuela*
see "positive aspects" in the report and a measure of better under-
standing of Latin America's problems. Scant; available newspaper
reaction is mixed, with some editorialists describing the report as
nothing but "rhetoric."
COMMUNIST COUNTRIES
THE USSR: Moscow concludes that the President has offered "nothing
new," with the most authoritative commentaries--by Matveyev in
IZVESTIYA and Mayevskiy in PRAVDA--pressing the Soviet propaganda
call for deeds, not words. Soviet commentaries devote primary
attention to Vietnam and the Middle East, but deal with both
chiefly in stock generalities. Soviet propaganda has acknowledged
the President's remarks on U.S.-Soviet relations, while complaining.
that he laid the blame on the USSR for their "far from satisfactory:"
state. To date there has been no Soviet mention of his remarks on
Eastern Europe or. on the strategic arms limitation talks. And Moscow
comment has only belatedly acknowledged the observations in the
report about comparative U.S. and Soviet nuclear strength. The
President's remarks on U.S.-Chinese relations have been noted in
Soviet media without comment.
EAST EUROPE: East European reaction is generally negative except
for Romania's. While tracing a modification of U.S. "tactics" to
domestic pressures, the media'cite U.S. policy in Vietnam and the
Middle East as evidence that Washington's "imperialist" goals, have
not changed. At the same time, East European coverage is marked
by a diversity stemming from the individual countries' special
political concerns. Hungary, for exwnple, complains of "discrimina-
tory" trade measures, and the now orthodox Czechoslovaks accuse the
United States of "launching divisive sallies" against the East
European countries. Bucharest alone refers to the President's
comments on Romania, highlighting his recollections on his visit
last year and his hope that equally good relations can be established
with the rest of Eastern Europe. Albania, apparently concerned over
the possibility of improved U.S.-Peking relations, underlines the
theme that new U.S. tactics call for a stronger U.S.-Soviet "alliance"
and strengthened imperialist pacts directed mainly at Peking. The
Yugoslavs are notably critical in reading the message as a reaffirma-
tion of a policy based on blocs.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FI3IS REACTION REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
THE VIETNAMESE COMMUNISTS: Hanoi press and radio comment and r:
commentaries from the Liberation Front's radio and news agency,
describe the presidential report as a "rehash" of old positions.
Both Hanoi and the Front repeat standard allegations that the
United States wants to use Vietnamization to prolong the war and..
maintain that the Vietnamization program is failing. Hanoi
reiterates the charge that the United States is responsible
for the stalemate in the Paris talks.
NORTHUKOREA.: Typically vituperative Pyongyang comment takes the
occasion. to repeat routine charges that the United States is trying
to incite ,a "war. of aggression" in Korea. The North Korean press
is personally abusive of President Nixon, describing him as "the
boss of the U.S. imperialist war maniacs."
COMMUNIST CHINA: Peking has yet to mention the foreign policy report..-
CUBA:. Havana's comment, uniformly hostile, decries the' President's
emphasis on "partnership" as a "facade" behind which the United.
States intends to continue traditional "imperialist" policies.
Cuban commentators emphasize the conclusion that the report offers
"nothing new" on Latin Amekica.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
NONCOMMUNIST COUNTRIES
WEST EUROPE
BRITAIN British reaction to the President's report is mostly
favorable, with emphasis on the pragmatic nature of the
policies set forth. Publicity for the report is extensive, most
notably in the TIMES.
On 19 February the TIMES devoted half its front page to news dispatches
on the report, plus'a full inside page of extracts and a lead editorial.
"Mr. Nixon keeps his hands free everywhere," the editorial says,
'"except perhaps on the antiballistic missile." This "lack of commit-
ment to specific policies is not aweakness," the TIMES declares, but
rather "liberates him from the shackles of past errors." On 20 February
a TIMES editorial on the British defense white paper notes the President's
"challenge" to European countries to assume a fairer share of*defense
costs.
The DAILY TELEGRAPH's editorial calls the report "the most comprehensive
and explicit statement of foreign policy aims and programs ever
voluntarily made public by any major power." Stressing that the tone
.of the report is "inexorably practical," the TELEGRAPH expresses the
hope that "somewhere in the Kremlin are sources capable of offering
similar high-quality advice." The President's pledge not to
disengage from Europe is welcomed by the TELEGRAPH and other papers.
Several, including the GUARDIAN, go on to caution that this pledge
does not mean U.S. military strength will remain at present levels
and that Europe itself must,use the time to search out "new.
alternatives." _
The SUNDAY TELEGRAPH's editorial page contains a lengthy favorable
review of the report by Gordon Brook--Shepperd, who calls it a triumph
of pragmatism over preaching. He says it marks the formal end to the
25-year Pax Americana, for the President has "ditched the moral -
approach to world affairs" and returned to 19th century practice by
substituting national interests for supranational ideology.
The Sunday OBSERVER's Raymond Heard, writing from Washington, calls
President Nixon's comments on Africa a victory.for the "realists" over
the "liberals" and notes that his remarks have been applauded by South
Africa and Rhodesia. The SUNDAY TIMES carries a report from Washington
by Henry Brandon saying that the new Nixon Doctrine is aimed at
protecting America's world role from being corroded by the "traumatic
disillusionment" caused by Vietnam. Brandon observes that the report
is more an analysis than an action document and that it proposes no
drastic policy changes.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL u5B Uiv.ur "nib xtju?J-Luid REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
The ECONOMIST argues in its lead editorial that the notion of "a new
era of American policy" is "a grand idea" but "a bit too grand."
According to the weekly, the closer one looks, "the more one doubts
whether the role the United States plays in the world will have
changed as much by the time Mr. Nixon leaves office as he is trying
to make people think it will." The "solid core" of what the
President is trying to do, the weekly says, is to persuade the
allies to take on more of the strain of defense "while he gets his
own country out of its shellshock." The ECONOMIST, agreeing that
this aim is valid, publishes a chart to show how the allies'
combined GNP has risen dramatically while they have stood pat on
defense spending.
FRANCE Paris newspapers emphasize that the report signifies an
end to past U.S. "interventionist" policies. LE MONDE
says "the interventionist zeal of yesteryear has disappeared," and
L'AURORE asserts that the President "has decided to break away from
the policy of interventionism" and follow a future course in which
there will be "no talk of domination or paternalism." A French
radio commentator concludes that "the cold war era is now over for
the United States" and "the era of great negotiations" is commencing.
An editorial in LA NATION asserts that France has been saying for
years what President Nixon now recognizes, that West European countries
must be responsible for European affairs. On the eve of President
Pompidou's visit, the paper declares, "Nixon's statements enable
one to predict that the two men will have no difficulties in agreeing
on the future outlook for Europe."'
The French CP organ L'HUMANITE carries a factual report on the main.
topics covered in the report and a critical commentary by Yves Moreau,
who concludes that'the President's new strategy "represents no
break with the old policy of intervention which the United States
continues to pursue in various forms and on all continents." As
for peace in Europe, Moreau says that President Nixon has no intention.
of ending the divisive military bloc policy and that he rejects
any notion of disengagement.
WEST GERMANY West German commentators, while judging the report
to be long-winded and."preachy," in most cases
describe its conclusions as sober and responsible. Hamburg'.s DIE WELT,
in an editorial by Heinz Barth, praises the document for "establishing
a system of priorities" and for attempting "to bring method and style
to Washington's foreign relations," but expresses concern over the
"carelessness" with which the suddenly discovered economic.prosperity
of America's allies is "assessed as an increase in politicalstrength."?
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
Barth sees the United States "in a phase in which it has to make
good on historical omissions." Because its foreign policy has not
kept pace with its rapid growth, a "rehabilitation had to be
tackled sometime." A successful rehabilitation, the editorial
concludes, is possible only through "such a sober and antidoctrinaire
administration as that of Nixon."
The Munich MUENCHNER MERKUR says the report "should be the constant
companion of diplomats East and West" and sees it as an indication
of President Nixon's "preeminent-compulsion" to give a settlement
with Moscow priority over his solicitude for his allies, a
solicitude for which these allies "will now have to pay a higher
price in hard currency." An editorial in FRANKFURTER RUNDSCEAU
welcomes the "healthy sobermindedness" manifested in the report,
particularly with regard to U.S. intentions "to treat the communist
opponents primarily as nations which are pursuing interests of their
own." Noting that the recognition or understanding of such interests
is a prerequisite for trying to make conflicting interests compatible,
the editorial warns that it is not easy to persuade the opposite side
to make such a deal. Seeing merit in the President's call to'shift
power from the superpowers to the smaller nations, the editorial
observes that "very soon it will become clear whether it can be
successfully applied in day-to-day politics. The Middle East is a
test case which does not offer much cause for hope."
ITALY The major Italian papers comment favorably for the most
part. L'UMANITA feels the report will prove to be "one
of the foundations of world equilibrium," while IL TEMPO calls it
"a new political fact requiring all nations of the old continent
to take concrete initiatives rapidly." IL MESSAGGERO notes approvingly-
that the President wants to see the development of a .Europe based on-
stability and .a healthy economy.
The communist L'UNITA sees nothing beyond fine words in the report
and concludes that the references to the missile race mean that "the
decade which has just begun is in danger of becoming another?decade
marked by a continuing arms.race."
AUSTRIA An Austrian radio commentator sees the report as evidence
that "America no longer wants to play the role of a world
gendarme." While there is no completely new concept of U.S. foreign
policy, he explains, the President is trying to adjust.to world
realities. A Vienna KURIER editorial says the consequences of.the
President's decision to gear down the U.S. military machine "may
involve dangers for the Western world, but at the same time it will
promote the development of all countries toward genuine sovereignty
and independence."
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY rJ3J i tizAUTJ.uN REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
OTHER COUNTRIES Madrid's YA says that "Nixon has been explicit
in regard to relations with Europe, and the era
of making unilateral decisions is over." EL ALCAZAR feels that*the
report "will serve Nixon in good stead for his first meeting with
the Paris government." The Portuguese DIARIO DE NOTICIAS'says the
President "errs on the side of overoptimism" in regard to the threat
of communist subversion in Africa. The danger is still real, the
paper asserts, "although our soldiers are contributing toward
stemming that tide."
Little comment is available from Scandinavia; Oslo's MORGENBLADET'-
says "the Nixon Doctrine reveals firmness as well as a desire to
maintain a distance," which "does not imply another period of
isolation."
THE MIDDLE EAST
THE (JAR Cairo radio views the presidential report as demonstrating
the validity of Arab charges of U.S.-Israeli collusion
and U.S. hostility toward the Arab states. One commentator suggests
that the timing of the report, immediately after the Israeli bombing
of a UAR civilian factory, makes it a "new and flagrant provocation."
Cairo's Voice of the Arabs radio and other broadcast media concentrate
on the sections dealing with the Middle East, concluding that the
President's declared intention is to continue supplying Israel with
arms. Other sections of "the report---on Vietnam and Africa---get only
passing attention. The political editor of Cairo's MIDDLE EAST NEWS
AGENCY (MENA) comments that the President "definitely confirmed the
U.S. anti-Arab, pro-Israel policy" and the "complete agreement"
between U.S. and'Israeli policy. Observing that the President
"ignored" Israeli attacks which had resulted in the killing of dozens
of Arab civilians, the MENA editorial charges that "Nixon has
personally played a major role" in supplying Israel with the
"long-range offensive weapons" that make such attacks possible.
Cairo newspapers have said very little about the report. An exception
is AL-JUMHURIYAH, which commented on 19 February that the President
"confirms that it is useless to discuss the Middle East crisis on
the basis of rights and justice" and that President Nixon "is
leading the battle against us."
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) radio,.Cairo's Voice of
Palestine, quotes the President as saying the United States has
achieved none of its aims in the past 12 months. Both the Voice of
Palestine and Cairo's Voice of Fatah single out what they term the
President's "reaffirmation" of U.S. "determination" to supply Israel
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5 ? '
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
- 5 -
toward the Arab liberation movement, which is now "seriously
endangering imperialist--and particularly U.S.--interests" in the
area. The radio says President Nixon claimed "fear" of Soviet
infiltration and growing Soviet influence in the area as a pretext
.for his decision to supply Israel with more arms. "Our people,"
it says, "know that the United States is not just their enemy but
the No. 1 enemy," and they also know who their "natural allies"
are.
with arms. A Voice of Fatah commentary exhorts Arab world listeners
to fight to destroy "all imperialist interests in the area, particularly
the Zionist presence," and adds that. "all U.S. attempts to undermine
our, people's steadfastness and to subjugate them to a fait accompli
must be destroyed." This commentary was followed by prominent play
for the, Moscow TASS' conclusion that major U.S. policy objectives
are unchanged and that U.S. policy is based on,"nzilitary force.
Subsequent Cairo radio coverage was confined exclusively to reports
that PRAVDA had accused the President-of hypocrisy and that Radio
Moscow had criticized his call for a cease-fire in the Middle East.
SYRIA Damascus newscasts feature the TASS and PRAVDA comments on
the President's report after broadcasting only one news
story of'their own--to the effect that the President declared his"
intention to supply Israel with more planes and weapons and that he
attacked Soviet support for the Arabs. The radio also cites
NOVOSTI reports of "mass rallies" in the Soviet Union---Moscow
describes them as protest meetings at various enterprises--in support
of the Arabs. .
Two Damascus radio'commentaries on the subject.have been monitored
so far. One of them terms the report a reaffirmation of U.S.
"animosity for the Arab people" and of the "rancorous" U.S. attitude
IRAQ Iraqi comment is sparse, with Baghdad radio highlighting
the report in only one newscast and thereafter confining
its coverage to prominent play for the PRAVDA and TASS reactions.
The only monitored Baghdad radio comment, on 23 February, says,
escalation of fedayeen action is "the" reply to continued "imperialist"
support for Israel and U.S. policy as set forth in the President's
report. Baghdad's AL-JUMHURIYAH is reported by the radio as suggesting
that "liquidation of U.S. interests in the Arab world should be the
Arab governments' first step" in making "the only answer to Nixon's
message" and to "the White House rulers' flagrant aggression against-
the Arab nation."
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIb K AUTIUA REPORT
-6-
26 FEBRUARY 1970
JORDAN There is no monitored Jordanian radio comment on the
report. Amman radio carried no factual accounts of its
own in monitored broadcasts, confining itself to citing international
criticism--all negative--attributed chiefly to. East European radios,
NOVOSTI, PRAVDA, and LE MONDE-of Paris.
LEBANON The Beirut radio, whose presentation of the Pre'sident's
report on the whole has been more objective than that
of other monitored Arab media, reported on 18 February that the
President "affirmed his intention to give arms to Israel," adding
that he said "when necessary." It also' acknowledges the President's
statement that he had "frequently, and in vain, proposed to Moscow
a complete ban on arms to the Middle East." Lebanese press reaction
includes a Beirut AN-NAHAR'appraisal likening President Nixon to
John Foster Dulles in his views on U.S. and Soviet spheres of
influence. AN--NAHAR says avoiding responsibility has,become "second
nature" to the United States, which avoids taking the lead in
settling the Middle East crisis because of its commitments to
Israel. Beirut's AL-ANWAR, a.pro-UAR paper, contrasts Arab views
of the United States and of the Soviet Union, saying the Soviet
presence is regarded as "sympathy and support" for which Arabs
are grateful, while the United States is heading for "another grave
mistake" by "taking advantage of the Soviet desire for peaceful
coexistence to go to extremes in its policy of arming Israel and
intensifying the Middle East struggle."
ARABIAN A Kuwait AR-RAY AL-AMM editorial says U.S. policy
PENINSULA stipulates that the Arabs should confront Israel
unarmed so that Israel can serve as an effective
military base for U.S. interests in the area. The paper also
represents President Nixon as saying the United States will abandon
its role as "world policeman"--except in the Middle East.
LIBYA Bayda"radio carries no factual coverage of the report but
does cite PRAVDA. The radio denounces the report in two
commentaries, saying the "fluctuating" U.S. policy in the Middle
East is aimed solely at consolidating aggression and increasing
tension in the area, primarily to secure U.S. domination of Arab
countries and their rich natural resources. The radio imputes five
objectives to the President in expressing "partiality" for Israel:
1) containing the Arab revolution, 2) liquidating the Palestinian
issue, 3) striking at progressive forces, 4) enabling Israel to
"reap more fruits from its aggression and while putting the United
States in a position to bargain with the Arabs to restore U.S.
influence," and 5) convincing the Soviet Union it should stop support-
ing the Arabs.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
-- 7 --
ISRAEL Foreign Ministry Director General Gideon Rafael said''-
on 18 February, in an interview broadcast by Jerusalem
radio, that for Israel the Nixon report means: 1) President Nixon
stresses that making peace is the responsibility of the two sides
and can be done only through negotiations; 2) "most important" is
the President's explicit appeal to the Soviet Union; and 3) the
report is "one of the clearest declarations made by U.S.
administrations in recent years" on Soviet intentions in the area.
Asked whether he saw any hint on the arms procurement issue,
Rafael replied: "We do not need hints, we are discussing the
matter with them," and President Nixon has said the United States
will supply arms to friendly states when this become necessary.
Cautious optimism is expressed by most Israeli papers. reviewed by
the radio. For example, ISRAELSKI*FARRsees the President's call
for a cease-fire and negotiations as the prime condition for peaceful
settlement; it views his recognition of Soviet ambitions in the
area and his firm warning against them, as well as his insistence
on balance of arms, as indications that he has "finally'been convinced
that Israel's. stand is right-and realistic." Although most papers
see little or no policy change in the report, all of them cite
these points as positive and, in HAARETZ' words, as providing room
for hope that U.S.-Israeli differences will become fewer and narrower.
The radio says MAARIV also "praises" the President for "ruling out"
the possibility of a U.S. departure from the region.
IRAN Teheran radio reports fully on the Middle East portion'of
the President's report and highlights the sections on U.S.
relations with the USSR in the Middle East and Vietnam. On
19 February Teheran broadcast a commentary by Mohammad Reza Askari
containing excerpts from the report and linking the President's
remarks on the Middle East with recent French moves to sell arms to
Arab nations. The commentator says the reactions to the report in
Moscow and Cairo demonstrate that no serious hopes exist for a
peaceful solution to differences in the Middle East. In his weekly
review, Teheran radio commentator Turaj Farazmand notes the mixed
reception given the report throughout the world, observing that it
was received with pleasure in the,West.and Israel but had a "cool
and sometimes hostile" reception in Moscow and in Arab capitals.
GREECE Greek media are enthusiastic in praise of the report,
Athens radio commenting that it outlines U.S. foreign
policy "with wisdom and clarity" and demonstrates America's love
for peace, understanding, and willingness to cooperate with friends
and negotiate with foes. ELEVTHEROS KOSMOS calls it a "realistic
assessment" of the world'situation. A commentary in NEA POLITIA,
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
_8-
like other monitored*Greek comment, concentrates almost exclusively
on the President's remarks on the Soviet Union and the communist
world, applauding his courage and firmness.
TURKEY Ankara radio broadcasts routine factual accounts with
emphasis on U.S.-Soviet relations. No Turkish newspaper
comment is available because of the Bairam holiday, when no papers
were published.
CYPRUS The Nicosia radio's Greek service and the clandestine
Bayrak radio's English service broadcast one factual
account each, while the clandestine Voice of Cyprus notes that the
report drew "violent" criticism from the Arab world and TASS. The
main Cyprus papers have not commented.
ASIA
.JAPAN Japanese Government circles and most of the wide-circulation
papers welcome the report as indicative of the President's
efforts for peace. The four opposition parties have issued statements
reflecting their varying attitudes. The Japan Socialist Party,
according to KYODO, "said that it contained nothing new" and that
the emphasis on Japan's role "is nothing but an indication of a U.S.
scheme to make'a tool of Japan in continuing the policy of war of
aggression and domination in Asia." The Komei Party "evaluated the
new U.S. posture as one of trying to shift its policy from confronta-.
tion to negotiations" while retaining the "principle of power
politics," KYODO reports.. The Democratic Socialist Party noted
.the "main points'.' of the report and "said that the Government,
grasping the new U.S. moves correctly, should be prepared to develop
an independent and coexistent diplomacy of its own," according to
KYOD0.. .
A statement by the Japan Communist Party assails the report.as an
attempt to cover up U.S. "aggressive" aims, and an editorial in
the party newspaper AKAHATA says the report "constitutes a challenge
to peoples all over the world, especially in Asia, including the
Japanese people."
All major Tokyo papers carry editorials on the report. The Mainichi
papers, the MAINICHI DAILY NEWS in English and the MA.INICHI.SHIMBUN
in Japanese, note that "Japan will be expected to assume the
nonmilitary role of assisting Asian nations in economic matters but
will not be. asked to take part in military security matters outside
Japan.". While this U.S. expectation no doubt shows regard for
national feelings in Japan, "it may also derive from the view that
strengthening Japan's armaments might eventually pave the way for
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 19TO
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS RUA.UW1UA 1EPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
the nuclear armament of'this country, which would not be desirable
from a long-term perspective of the world situation," the Mainichi
papers say.
-The Japanese--language SANKEI expresses satisfaction that the report
"indicates maturity on the part of the United States." Foreseeing
a speedup of withdrawal of U.S. ground forces from Asia, S.tKEI
comments: "Whether Japan likes it or. not, we shall soon have to face
up to the fundamental problem'of Japan's own self-defense within
the framework of the Japan-U.S. security system." SANKEI-adds that
"the climate of the world is changing and the United States is also
making a large turn," and it asks, "Is Japan ready to change its
diplomacy and defense policy?"
The ASAHI EVENING NEWS*calls'the report "an extremely important
document" marking the end of an era in some respects. The paper
expresses unease over the Vietnam section, however, arguing that'
Vietnamization, "which aims at bolstering the war potential of
the South, has no connection with peace."
The English-language YOMIURI comments that President Nixon's reference
to the. proposed ABM system serving the goal of ultimate disarmament
!'has drawn criticism, yet it cannot be equated with the heavy emphasis
on military strength characterizing previous American foreign policy."
YOMIURI's conclusion is: "Certainly this country's responsibilities -
must increase in the new era of the partnership with the United States,
but peace and stable security in Asia presuppose coexistence with
China and the success of the development effort in the emerging nations.
The U.S.-Japan partnership must be shaped so as to promote these
causes; in particular, military coloring of any kind must be avoided."
REPUBLIC While. Nationalist.China media register disappointment
OF CHINA with the President's announced foreign policy course
and evince uneasiness about Japan's role, commentators
draw solace from the reaffirmation of U.S. commitments to the
Republic of China and from a conviction that Peking and Washington
will never be'able to reach an accommodation.
A Taipei radio commentary terms the President's expressed desire to
improve relations with Peking "a great loss to the free world" and
views it as "inconceivable that the United States, as the leader of
the free world, should assume that the communist bandits will sooner
or later return to the international community." Taipei's CENTRAL
NEWS AGENCY (CNA) reports government spokesman Dr. Wi Yu-sun as
praising the President's "incisive analysis of the prospects of
establishing contact with the Peiping regime."
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5 ;PORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
Taipei newspapers reviewed by CNA charge the President with "risking
the peace of Asia." The papers CHUNG KUO SHIH PAO and SHIW SHENG-PAO`
warn that "Japan's seesaw foreign policies may ruin the hope of a
partnership to maintain peace in Asia" and that reliance on Japan
to shoulder major political responsibility in Asia and for Asians
to be responsible for their own defense "is an ostrich-like policy
of Asian defense" which cannot replace a tightly organized Asian
collective security system.
REPUBLIC The Seoul radio reports favorable reaction in various
OF KOREA world capitals, but the Korean press, as reviewed by
the HAPTONG news agency, expresses concern and calls
for caution. One paper, the KOREA TIMES, warns the United States
that setbacks could be suffered in implementing the Nixon Doctrine
in Asia "without due consideration of the realities of free Asian
nations." The paper stresses that "mutual cooperation and
assistance to prevent in advance any outbreak of emergency is the'
key to maintenance of peace and security."
CHUNGYANG ILBO and TONGA ILBO convey concern over the "significant
switch" in the orientation of U.S. foreign policy. They argue
that Asian communists may be encouraged to pursue a more aggressive.
strategy against their free neighbors through a misreading of
President Nixon's indication that the United States will refuse to
be drawn into certain types of wars launched by the communists in
the future. At the same time, according to HAPTONG, all the papers
express ".'conviction' that the new U.S. policy . . will not
affect the 'historic relations forged in blood' between Korea and
the United States."
AUSTRALIA The Melbourne HERALD'S political commentator sees the
report as a "very important" statement by "a politician
turning into .a world statesman." The report indicates a "broad, low-
profile policy for America's future dealings with Asian nations,"
including Australia, the commentator declares. The AUSTRALIAN calls
the report a rationalization of President Nixon's intention to
withdraw from Asia and shift greater attention to Europe, with.
Japan nominated as "heir-apparent" to "America's waning influence"
in Asia. The AUSTRALIAN expresses gratitude for the President's
"reinterpretation of the Guam Doctrine, which Mr. Agnew had so
successfully obfuscated."
OTHER COUNTRIES The Saigon radio and press have not commented on
the report, and Bangkok media have also 'been.
silent. No comment has been monitored from Indian and Pakistani
sources. The only available item from Indonesia, a Djakarta radio
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY .r'i3J b tSi AU'1J U1Y REPORT.
26 FEBRUARY 1970
commentary, says that while there is "nothing new" in the report
in terms of traditional U.S. foreign policy,"it offers new prospects."
AFRICA
NIGERIA The only available Nigerian reaction to the President's
report is a hostile editorial of 23 February in the
Kaduna NEW NIGERIAN. The paper deals solely with the section on
Africa and sees the President's "indiscreet" statements as an
embarrassment to Secretary Rogers, who was "still gallivanting
around in Africa" trying to cram the Nixon African policy "down the
throats" of African leaders. The paper rejects U.S. strictures
against use of force to stop racial discrimination in southern
Africa, declaring that constitutional means have failed to secure-
"fundamental human rights for Africans and that "violence and
armed conflicts cannot be ruled out." The editorial observes
that Africans do not need to be told their economic salvation
depends upon themselves and that Mr. Nixon's "ill-timed" policy
statements on Africa, which it says should have awaited Rogers'
return, constituted a superfluous attempt to "subtly warn" Africans
of a possible cutback in U.S.Said.
SENEGAL The Dakar radio on the 19th suggested that the report's
advocacy of nonviolent means to solve the South African
and Rhodesian problems "certainly lost, at least for the time being,
the sympathies of the Organization of African Unity Secretary General
.and a large portion of African opinion which militates in favor of
using violence" in these cases. At the same time, it added, the
President undoubtedly won the sympathies of those who "in the name-
of realism advocate a policy of overture toward the white regimes
in South Africa." .
SOUTH AFRICA The Johannesburg radio quotes South African Foreign
Minister Mueller as saying the report's section on
southern Africa "indicates a realistic approach to the problems of
the area" and that the declaration that the United States would not
intervene in African states! internal affairs but would come to
their aid in the event of an external threat "was in line with.South
Africa's own thinking." A Johannesburg radio commentator views the
President's African policy as "a refreshing approach" grounded in
realism rather than in idealism. The radio calls Mr. Nixon's appeal
to Africa to abandon violence "a service to the peoples of Africa,"
and it adds that most "moderate" African states will probably
welcome the Nixon report but that the OAU will give.it a "frosty"
reception.
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
RHODESIA A Salisbury radio commentary observes that "at no point
in his references to southern Africa did President Nixon
refer either to Rhodesia or to South Africa by name." Note is also
taken of Mr. Nixon's affirmation that there would be no U.S.
intervention in the internal affairs of African nations. In Salisbury
radio's "Weekly World Survey," Harvey Ward sees the President's
omission of any condemnation of southern African countries as "a slap
in the face of the African states which have advocated force and
other strong measures against white-controlled southern Africa."
And the President's statement that the United States will not
intervention African internal affairs is seen as support for the right
of independence and. "again becomes a blow to the OAU," which plans
"an all-out struggle against the white regimes of Africa.".
TUNISIA Tunis radio broadcasts favorable accounts of the report,
singling out the President's remarks on the Middle East
and noting that there can be no chance of a solution until.distrust
is overcome. The theme of mutual trust runs through a short radio
comment on the report, which says that the basic points of the Nixon:
Doctrine are cooperation to safeguard a lasting peace, maintenance
of the power necessary to defend common interests against threats,
and the will to negotiate. .
The TAP news agency reviews a comment in the daily LA PRESSE DE TUNISIE,
which says that what makes the Nixon Doctrine "so important and so
different from all that one has become accusomted to seeing and hearing
in the world" is the President's call for young nations to disengage
themselves, from all external interference. This paper sees "the
greatest power in the world" as believing it possible and necessary
to conceive of relations with its allies and enemies not in terms of
strength but in terms of dialog and cooperation. This wish is not -
new, the paper adds; what is new is that "it is stated with such-vigor
by the head of a great power." According to a Tunis radio review,
the paper AS-SABAH sees the report as a "clear admission of the misery
in which the world is struggling." AS--SABAH declares that the greatest
obstacle to extending international aid torelieve'this misery'is'
"the mad arms race between the two giants."
MOROCCO A Rabat AL--ALAN commentary observes that U.S. policy is
not the work of a president or a party, but of "those.
with economic and colonialist interests who occupy key posts,,.
particularly in the White House." It asserts that "the mess" in which
America finds itself results from "a colonialist doctrine" closely
resembling those of earlier European colonialist powers. The paper
comments that the United States intends to renounce the role of
"world gendarme" and adds that "President Nixon at least gives the
impression of becoming aware of the dangers of letting oneself be
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5 ON REPORT
1!Utt UP'i''.LLLiAL UZ)rj U1Vi.L .t'.U...V.. LW_".-i
26 FEBRUARY 1910
13.-
le d down the dangerous path which American policy has been following
since World War II." AL-ALAN is skeptical, however, about the
chances that this awareness can be translated into concrete acts,
because "capitalist interests" remain in control of foreign policy.
The Istiglal party paper L'OPINION is quoted by AFP on the l9th as
remarking that'the President has decided the United States should
"cultivate its own garden and not play policeman to the world any
longer." Proof of the seriousness of the President's declaration
on the "increasing importance" of Africa to the United States would
be best displayed, the paper adds, through more economic aid,
withdrawal of numerous "psychological advisers" who work in Africa
"under various humanitarian pretexts," and "dealing with Africans'
as adults."
ALGERIA Consistently negative reaction from the Algerian radio
and press is exemplified by a 19 February Algiers radio,
comment calling the report an outline of the main features of
"what the new imperialist policy will be in the 1970's." The radio
interprets the Nixon Doctrine as meaning the United States "wants
to continue its aggression while not being held responsible for it,"
through a policy which employs "local wars waged by intermediary..
powers and forces" in the military sphere and "by means of systematic
neocolonialization" in the economic sphere.
Algerian comment on the Middle East sections predictably lines up with
Eastern Arab states, saying that the President "reaffirmed that
the pivot of American policy is the Zionist state in the Middle East."
An Algiers AL-MOUJAHID editorial on 19 February sums up the report
as calling for "a general Vietnamization" of U.S. foreign policy,
.implemented by limiting direct U.S. intervention while "letting
local puppets and strawmen take action to strictly implement a
policy that remains unchanged."
LATIN AMERICA
ARGENTINA According to the Buenos Aires IFS news agency, four
weekly Buenos Aires publications devoted the lead
portions of their international sections to the Nixon report.
Generally speaking, IFS says, the commentaries indicate that
Argentine public opinion has not ascribed "any far-reaching importance"
to the report. :.
PERISCOPIO, reflecting the opinion of "nonmilitant nationalists,"
says the report contained "long tirades full of sympathy, rhetoric,
and formulas," although the measures it outlined do show hope for
a "softer than usual position and a touch of realism." PANORAMA,
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5 - '
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FB15 k ;AW iU1v REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
14
which IPS says represents interests close to former President,
Frondizi, says the report follows the spirit of the President's
31 October speech, adding that Mr. Nixon has apparently "changed
the stand adopted on 31 October" on dealing with presently
constituted governments and now feels that.the United States must
consider how to'evaluate changes in Latin America.
ANALISIS, described as "interpreter of a new current of Argentine
conservatism," ignored the president's references to Latin America,
as did CORREO DE LA TARDE, spokesman for liberal circles.
EL CRONISTA COMERCIAL, a businessmen's publication, points out that
the-tone of the statements on Latin America indicates that the
United'States is making efforts to abandon positions which "could
be interpreted as interventionist."
CHILE The Chilean Foreign Ministry issued a statement through its
diplomatic information service judging the report of
"special interest" in that it shows "a new and positive outlook
that will permit U.S. policies and programs to be in accord with
the fundamental changes that have occurred in Latin America." The
foreign ministry applauds the President's "clear recognition" of
the problems in Latin America and says his desire to solve them
gives rise to the belief that in the next few years the "old hopes
of Latin America will be satisfied." The pro-government Santiago
LA NACION sees little hope the United States will increase its aid
to Latin America because of the tight financial situation, the
fact that most aid programs are based on export subsidies, and the
fact that the White House, with elections coming up in November,
will not want to alienate voters with additional taxes for foreign-
aid. Nevertheless, LA NACION adds, the President warned that Latin
America faces more instability in the 1970's if "bigger financial
resources to bring. about its development" are not forthcoming.
The independent EL MERCURIO sees the United States' "new attitude"
as more "a matter of rhetoric" than anything else, because the Latin
American continent "continues to represent the vital interests of
which President Nixon speaks and, within the limits of his austerity
plan, the Latin American republics cannot remain excluded from the
preferential attention of the United States."
The communist EL SIGLO dismisses the report as "lyrical and hypocritical."
BOLIVIA IPS quotes information Minister Alberto Bailey as saying
that although the report contained some positive aspects
indicating a deeper understanding of Latin America, Mr. Nixon made
certain statements which "depart from reality, particularly regarding
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07 : LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5 MT Rrpnum
-- 15 -
26 FEBRUARY 1970
nationalism." Bailey said that while the President complained of
Latin American ultranationalism, he failed to "comprehend its causes."
According to IPS, the President's report has aroused "expectation
in economic circles and skepticism in political circles" in Bolivia.
Bolivian economic groups have not commented,'it says, indicating
that they are waiting to see if any of its objectives are carried
out. 'Leaders of the Bolivian Socialist Falange and the Christian
Democratic Party jointly declared that the message "does not
offer-any concrete solutions and seems to be a document of prose
and demagoguery," IPS reports.
VENEZUELA Venezuelan President Caldera, at his 19 February
press conference carried by the Caracas radio, saw a
"series of favorable aspects" in President Nixon's-references to
Latin America. Caldera specified the concept of multilateral aid,,
the importance of liberalizing international credits for development,
and creation of a permanent consultative system on economic decisions
which may influence U.S. trade with Latin America. "We maintain
that these are the most important items in President Nixon's report."
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC A typically partisan commentary on Santo
Domingo's Radio Sensacional manages to tie
in the President's policy statement on Latin America with an attack
on the Balaguer forces, but does see in it facets "highly significant"
for the Dominican Republic--notably, the "Nixon criterion that the
inter-American community must determine how to evaluate the internal
political instabilities and the extralegal changes in our governments."
This means, according to the commentary, that the President will be
guided by the 1965 Rio de Janeiro foreign ministers' conference -
resolution on, recognition of de facto regimes as well as by the OAS
charter. "During the next few months" Dominican-- will be able to
see if the Inter--American Charter is being observed and "if Nixon's
words are kept or not."
PANAMA A Panama City Televisora Nacional commentator says the
President's report had a "certain philosophical tenor"
reminiscent of the speeches of President Kennedy. The commentary,
devoted to East-West relations, observes that in effect the report
"ends U.S. postwar policy," since it'proposes a new era of
negotiations with the USSR and "mutual moderation" in the practice
of power by both nations throughout the world.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
,- 16
II COMMUNIST COUNTRIES
THE USSR
Soviet comment on the report--accounting for a substantial three
percent of Moscow's total comment on all subjects during the week
ending 22 February--is virtually uniform in the conclusion that the
President offered "nothing new." The initial TASS report on the
18th, reprinted the next day in various central newspapers, says
that while the document points to the need for a revision of some
"old positions. and for a 'new approach' to the problems of peace, the
main aims and tasks of U.S. policy remain unchanged." In the.same
vein, a domestic service commentary on the 19th says the document
makes clear that Washington, "as in former times, intends to pursue
the same policy of scraping military blocs together, of the'arms race,
and of military invasion."
Also on the 19th, Radio Moscow lists for North American listeners
Vietnam, the Middle East, Europe, and the arms race as "key problems"
for peace and concludes that "the Republican Administration fails
to show any new constructive approach" to any of them. Complaining
that the President tried "to put the blame on the Soviet Union for
certain dangerous developments in the world," this commentary says
defensively that in aiding the Vietnamese and the Arabs, the USSR
"is only siding with the victims of'aggression."
The negative assessment of the report is echoed in available press
comment, the most authoritative to date being articles by Matveyev
in IZVESTIYA and Mayevskiy in PRAVDA. Matveyev on the 20th calls,
the report an attempt to "calm" the American people by suggesting
that the Administration wants "to alter course and pass from the
'cold war' to the era of negotiations." But policy, the commentator
concludes, is judged by actions, and "even the most; euphonious words
in favor of peace and international mutual understanding cannot
serve as a substitute for practical deeds."
In an International Review article in PRAVDA on the 22d, Mayevskiy
says that despite the "eulogistic salute of the monopolies'
propaganda artillery," sober political observers have concluded
that Washington's foreign policy "remains as before." Welcoming.
the President's remarks on the need to abandon the cold war and
to negotiate on the ways to create a lasting peace, Mayevskiy says
that these phrases are unfortunately "accompanied by attacks on the
Soviet Union and the other socialist countries., by a repetition of
worn-out anticommunist fabrications, and by an open striving to
lay the blame on someone else."
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
- 17 -
Soviet commentators devote primary attention to Vietnam and the Middle
East. At the same time, there is considerable tailoring of material,
both over Radio Moscow and over the purportedly unofficial "Radio
Peace and Progress," for audiences in Africa and Latin America.
Typically, a Radio Moscow English-language broadcast to Africa on
the 20th questions the since?ity of the President's remarks on "white
minority" regimes, concluding that they represent little more than
"flowery but hypocritical and hollow" phrases. And a broadcast-in
Portuguese to Brazil on the 22d says Washington's attitude toward
Latin America is "aimed at maintaining and consolidating the positions
of U.S. monopolies on the continent under the guise of partnership."
MIDDLE EAST Moscow sees nothing to inspire hope in the passages
on the Middle East, noting that the President again
calls for "mutual concessibns," fails to condemn Israel's "annexationist
and predatory" policy and military actions, and identifies U.S. policy
in the area as balanced and impartial, while stating the American
intention to continue supplying arms "to what is described as friendly
nations." A foreign-language commentary by Shakhov on the 19th finds
the impartial policy "a strange kind of balancing, to say the least,"
and concludes that the United States still regards military strength"'
as the cornerstone of its foreign policy.
Referring to the President's "attempt to cast aspersions" on Soviet
policy, commentators repeat Moscow's support for implementation of
the November-1967 Security Council resolution and for a political
settlement, promising that the USSR will continue to help those
"fighting for their legitimate rights." Mayevskiy, in the 22 February
PRAVDA, is "amazed" by statements "to the effect that the Soviet.
Union is not showing, they say, 'constructive flexibility'" in talks
on the Near East and that "it is striving for 'preferential influence'
there, and so forth." Reiterating that the USSR is seeking a peaceful
settlement, Mayevskiy says the Soviet position is clearly set forth
in the Kosygin letters to the leaders of the United States, Britain,
,and France, and in the 16 February TASS statement on the Middle East.
Mayevskiy does not allude to the President's remarks on increased
Soviet activity in the Middle East and the Mediterranean, but he
charges that the U.S. plans in the Middle East are "indissolubly
linked with the NATO plans" in the Mediterranean, and he sees
Secretary Rogers' African trip as having a "direct bearing" on
American strategy in the Mediterranean.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
-. 16 -
While recent propaganda has been generally reticent on the issues.
of arms limitation and the cease-fire, a panelist in the Moscow
domestic service commentators' roundtable on the 22d objects to the
fact that the presidential message, giving precedence to the cease-
fire question, treats the problem "in isolation from the general
settlement" of the conflict. To examine the cease-fire question
without settling the issue of Israeli withdrawal is to give Israel
freedom to continue occupying and even to assimilate these territories,
as it is now attempting to do, he says.
The roundtable panelist goes on to examine in more detail than other
commentators the U.S. positions on a settlement outlined in the
report, observing that it contains "practically 'nothing new." He
again rejects the idea of direct Arab-Israeli talks, saying that
this "old and familiar position" places the "aggressor" and his
victim on the same plane. And he adds that there is no sign
anywhere of a desire to settle the "main question" of Israeli
withdrawal. The President declared, he says, that the Americans
did not achieve as much as they had hoped for in the bilateral
talks with the Soviet Union, but that the United States intends
to continue the dialog. The reason why this dialog has so far
been unsuccessful, the commentator adds, is that in their
proposals the Americans "leave open all points favorable to the
Arabs while they try to get everything favorable to Israel firmly
down on paper."
The commentator misrepresents the President's statement that the
time has passed when the powerful countries can or should dictate
the future to less powerful nations; asserting that the report
says "the time has come" when the powerful states must dictate
the future, he calls this an application of the policy "from a
position of strength," and he argues that they must not dictate
but must-frond a just settlement which will prevent the "aggressor"
from gaining any advantages from his actions.
Moscow buttresses its own assessments by pointing to Israeli.
"satisfaction" with the report and to the UAR's view that the
President has expressed full agreement with Israel's policy..
PRAVDA correspondent Yuriy Glukhov reports under a Cairo. dateline
on 21 February that the Arab press and public are sharply critical
of the report and believe that "at the heart of the so-called
'new American peace strategy' is an arms race."
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
VIETNAM Moscow deals with the Vietnam section of the report in
stock generalities and acknowledges little of-'its
substance. The initial. TASS account as well as subsequent radio
commentaries and a news report printed in IZVESTIYA on the 20th
complain that the President, while "admitting that the Vietnam war
has already divided American society," reaffirmed the "old policy"
of Vietnamization which means continuation of the war by the Saigon
"puppets." Matveyev, in IZVESTIYA on the 20th, finds "absolutely
nothing new" on Vietnam in the report.
A participant in the 22 February domestic service roundtable discussion,
commenting on antiwar sentiment in the United. States, says that the
"mass movement" for ending the war continues "unabated" but that
the President has succeeded in calming "a part, however insignificant,"
of his critics with talk about his "alleged" intention to withdraw
troops from Vietnam. The roundtable panelist, like other Moscow-
commentators, complains in routine fashion that the withdrawal is
proceeding at an "insignificant rate" and that a deadline for
withdrawal of all troops has never been announced. He adds that
Vietnamization boils down to the creation of a situation that is
a "repetition, in some form or other, of South Korea." Commentator
Soltan, addressing foreign radio audiences on the 19th, registers
the standard Soviet complaint that the President expressed "readiness"
to withdraw troops on "condition" that the liberation forces refrain
from struggle and that the Saigon government and army be strengthened
to protect U.S. interests---"conditions" which amount to "unconditional
surrender" to U.S. demands.
Other Moscow comment pegged to the report repeats charges that despite
promises to end the war when the Administration took office, the war
is not only not over but is spreading into Laos and Cambodia. One.
commentary on the 18th says the President "threatened the North,
blaming it for the lack of progress at the talks in Paris,".while
other comment repeats charges that the United States is to blame.
A roundtable panelist, commenting on the report's "attempt.to_
transfer responsibility" at the Paris talks to the DRV and South
Vietnamese "patriots," says it is the United States which has for
a "considerable" period "practically conducted no serious talks."
Aleksey Leontyev, in a .broadcast to North America on the 21st,
asserts that Washington has "snubbed" the PRG's "realistic" 10-point
program for a settlement, "deliberately sabotaging the Paris talks"
in favor of a "military solution" and placing its hopes in
Vietnamization.
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
-- 20
Some commentators, referring to the report's statement that
pacification will be extended, call the pacification program
"bloody terror" and "mass annihilation" and cite the example of
Son My. Leontyev, in his commentary for North America, says in
this connection that Son My and other "massacres" have gained
"nothing" and that American forces will have to remain for "years
and years" before the South Vietnamese population can be pacified.
Mayevskiy in PRAVDA on 22 February, commenting on responsibility for
the continuation of the war, says that the authors of the presidential
report are "wasting their ink" when they try to lay responsibility on
"the Soviet Union because it is helping the Vietnamese people"---an
allusion to the expression of regret, in the section of-'the report on
relations with the Soviet Union, that the USSR bears a heavy
responsibility for continuation of the war because it gives the DRV
the overwhelming majority of its war materials. Mayevskiy ignores
the statement that the Soviet Union has "failed to exert a helpful
influence" over the North Vietnamese at Paris.
ASIA AND Moscow comment on the section of the report on policy
PACIFIC toward Asia and the Pacific and the Guam doctrine notes
that the President said the United States wants to turn
from dominance toward partnership with its allies and asserts that
this signifies a desire to extend the Guam doctrine to areas other
than Asia. A foreign-language talk by Glazunov on the 20th comments
that while the Guam doctrine was at first presented as applying only
to Asia, it is now being treated as "a doctrine of global implications."
A participant in the 22 February domestic service roundtable says that
the report repeats the "old American policy based on a position of
strength and calls it a new Nixon Doctrine." The "so-called partnership
thesis," the panelist says, "is nothing more than a return to the policy
of Dulles;" who also "demanded that Asians fight Asians." A domestic
service broadcast on the 19th, noting that the document pledges
continued fulfillment of U.S. "so-called obligations" in the Pacific,
comments that "the message does not exclude the possibility of direct
armed actions by the United States" in that area.
A broadcast in English to South Asia on the 22d says that despite the
report's "high-flown phrases" about America's peaceful intentions,
U.S. strategy in Asia apparently remains the same: The United States_
continues to widen the war in Indochina, intends to build still more
bases in the Philippines and Thailand and to take-over some British
bases in Malaysia and Singapore, and continues to support "aggressive
military blocs" like SEATO. A broadcast in Japanese on the 20th
observes that the report assigns Japan a "leading role" under the Guam
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
doctrine, stating that the partnership between the United States, and
Japan is a "key" to the doctrine's success in Asia. The commentary
adds that the presidential message "seriously viewed" the return of
Okinawa, but that this issue is being used to draw Japan deeper into
the U.S. strategic system in the Far East, with the United States
"plotting" to maintain its military bases on Okinawa.
U.S.-SOVIET RELATIONS, The President's remarks on U.S.-Soviet
MILITARY BALANCE relations are acknowledged in the initial
TASS report, which notes that he said "e.
good start" was made in these relations in 1969 although overall
they remained "far from satisfactory." TASS says the report shows
that the Administration "continues to lay the accent on military
force as the basis of foreign policy." Matveyev comments in IZVESTIYA
that the section on U.S. military policy "will undoubtedly satisfy
the militarist circles," containing as it does "the pet hackneyed
propagandist hobby-horse of those circles--interested in accelerating
armament--about a notorious 'Soviet threat."' This in no way accords,
Matveyev adds, "with the phrases in the message which speak of the
importance of developing the United States' and the USSR's relations
for the cause of universal peace and security."
A participant in the commentators'-radio roundtable on the 22d says
one cannot take exception to the President's suggestion that the
United States and the USSR must hold talks on the questions which
divide them, but concludes that the report reveals no concrete
proposals or measures aimed at normalizing relations between the
two countries. The commentator further voices displeasure over what
he sees as the President's attempt to lay the blame for the "unsatis-
factory" relations at the feet of the USSR.
The TASS account of the report and some followup commentaries take.
note of the President's reaffirmation of intent to move ahead with
the second phase of the Safeguard ABM system, but no monitored Soviet
propaganda to date has mentioned his remarks on the strategic arms
limitation talks (SALT) scheduled to open in Vienna on 16 April.
Moscow has only belatedly picked up the President's observations on
comparative U.S. and Soviet nuclear strength. On the ~2d, a
participant in the domestic service roundtable says that the
President now "admits that. the Soviet Union, and I quote him, has
at its disposal 6. powerful and perfect strategic force which surpasses
[preobladat nad] that of the United States. Due to this circumstance,_
says Nixon, the United States has tried to formulate a rational and
coordinated strategy and defense requirements for 1970 and the
following five years." Unfortunately, the commentator adds, the
United States has not abandoned "the notorious policy of strength."
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
A domestic service commentary by Yukhananov on the 23d offers an
atypically positive assessment of the President's report, noting
that its text "permits the assertion that America's present leaders
have begun to think seriously about the limits and. possibilities of
their global policy." This commentary reviews the factors listed by
the President as underlying the new approach to foreign policy,
including the "new balance of military power"--the "new correlation
of U.S. and Soviet strategic forces." Yukhananov says the President
observed that both the United. States and the USSR "have acquired the
capability of inflicting on each other unacceptable damage, regardless
of who strikes first. The power which provokes an exchange of
thermonuclear strikes will gain no advantage and certainly win no
victory." This "realistic admission" by the President, the commentator
says, is explained "by the fact that the Soviet Union possesses powerful
and advanced strategic forces."
EUROPEAN Soviet propaganda touches briefly on the President's
SECURITY observations on the need to preserve NATO and his
"reservations" about a European security conference--
for which Moscow has been pressing. Matveyev says in IZVESTIYA that
"not a very able attempt was made in the presidential message to throw
a shadow over the idea of an all-European conference." A 21 February
commentary for North American listeners says the President has
questioned the feasibility of a conference, "though leading West
European nations back the idea," and his objections "make you doubt
the sincerity of his statement about the desire to settle outstanding
issues through negotiation.." The commentary is notable for the
statement that the United States could attend a European security
conference, a point virtually ignored in Moscow propaganda since
Soviet Foreign Ministry spokesman Zamyatin, at a 13 January press
conference, reported that the USSR had informed Washington "of its.
favorable attitude" toward U.S. participation.
U.S.-CHINESE President Nixon's remarks on Washington's relations
RELATIONS with Communist China are brought up briefly in news
accounts, but so far they have drawn no Soviet comment.
TASS reports that the President said "it is in the interests of the
United States to improve its practical relations with Peking" and
that "steps in this direction have already been taken." The 23 February
Yukhananov domestic service commentary, in its rundown of factors
underlying the President's new approach to foreign policy, notes
briefly that Washington is counting on "tense Sino-Soviet relations."
From this, Yukhananov? says';' the United States "draws far-reaching
conclusions which are applied in external strategy."
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
EAST EUROPE
East European reaction to the President's message, except for Romania's,
is generally negative in perceiving no new initiatives or solutions
to international problems. Although the United States is repeatedly
said to be modifying its tactics because of domestic pressures, the
media variously cite U.S. policy in Vietnam and the Middle East as
evidence that Washington's "imperialist" goals have not changed.
As in the past, East European treatment of U.S. policy'is also marked
by a diversity that points up the individual countries' special
political concerns. East Germany, anxious to achieve wider
recognition, is especially critical of what it conceives to be U.S.
efforts to "thwart" a European security conference. Hungary,
pressing for increased trade with the West, complains of continuing
U.S. "discriminatory measures" which run counter to normalization
of relations in Eastern Europe. The now orthodox Czechoslovaks
accuse the United States of "launching divisive sallies" against
the East European countries, while the maverick Romanians highlight
the President's recollections of his visit to Bucharest and his hope
that similar relations can be established with the rest of Eastern
Europe.
Albania, apparently concerned over the possibility of improved U.S.-
Peking relations, underlines the theme that new U.S. tactics call
for a stronger U.S.-Soviet "alliance" and strengthened imperialist
pacts directed mainly at the PRC.
The Yugoslavs, intent on organizing a new nonalined meeting, are'
notably critical in reading the message as a reaffirmation of "bloc"
policy.
The Budapest MTI is the only monitored source to mention the President's
statement that he does not accept any doctrine which curtails the
right of East European countries to improve relations with the United
States and other countries. Except for Bucharest, no East European
source refers to the President's comments on Romania.
THE GDR East Berlin media characteristically outdo Moscow in
denouncing the presidential report as a forecast of no
change in U.S. "interventionist" policy but display some sensitivity
to the U.S. stand on a European security conference. The party organ
NEUES DEUTSCHLAND comments in articles on 19 and 20 February which
stress that U.S. "hegemony in Europe remains the U.S. goal." In a
report headlined "Nixon Stresses the War Course, Bonn's New Eastern
Policy Supported as Paxt of U.S. Concept," the paper says on the 19th
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBTS REACTION REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
-24--
that the President "reaffirmed" that "U.S. troops stationed in
West Europe will not be reduced" and "made it understood that
the United States also wants to thwart the European security
conference." The East German news agency ADN on the 18th had
similarly interpreted the President's "warning against a single
big conference" as an indication that "the United States intends
to prevent a European security conference."
Both articles in NEUES DEUTSCHLAND see the President supporting
Bonn's "nuclear ambitions" as "a prize for good conduct" and point
to a U.S. intention to extend "planning for use of 'tactical nuclear
weapons'" to the "aggressive NATO bloc."
BULGARIA All the main Sofia dailies carry lengthy commentaries
on the President's report, noting--as GDR comment
does--"stipulations" in the document that are allegedly aimed at
sabotaging efforts to convene a European security conference. An
article in RABOTNICHESKO DELO on the 20th accuses the President of
raising a "smokescreen" about a "nonexistent 'Soviet threat' so as
to justify monstrous expenditures for military purposes." The
report, it adds, "gives no hope when it comes to the peace-loving
assurances of the President," since "past policies of maintaining
tension in the Near East through military aid for Israel" are
"confirmed." A Sofia radio commentary on the same day observes
that although the President speaks of normalizing relations in
Europe, "a number of stipulations are made which aim at "thwarting
the efforts to convene an all-European security conference."
The President's call for "partnership," says VECHERNI NOVINI, in a
broadly held Bulgarian view, is "mainly a striving by the United
States to impose the so-called 'Guam doctrine' in all parts of the
world." While trying to give the "impression" that this is something
new, the paper asserts, "in fact it does not advance a single concrete
solution for a single one of the problems of our time."
POLAND The party organ TRYBUNA LUDU, in a dispatch from Washington
correspondent Berezowski on the 19th, calls the report a
recapitulation of principles, formulas, and intentions "supplemented
with a large dose of rhetoric." Berezowski observes that while the
report fails to "detail" how the United States is to "gradually
normalize" its relations with the socialist states, the "policy of
'softening up' has not been struck off the American program," as
indicated by the President's statement that the United States no
longer regards the East European countries as a monolith. The
paper carries no further mention of the report in issues through
23 February.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION' REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
An article in the government organ ZYCIE WARSZAWY on the 21st,
as reviewed by PAP, describes the report as "new wrapping" of
"more digestible formulations" to continue the policies of President
Nixon's "unfortunate predecessor"; the "generalities" do "not veil
the substance" of the President's message, "which does not serve
the cause of peace and coexistence."
In its editorial on 20 February, the semiofficial Catholic organ
.SLOWO POWSZECHNE describes as "equivocal" the President's assurance
that the question of Soviet military security in East Europe will
be respected "because, aside-from the purely military problem, there
is a whole range of actions which can harm the socialist camp and its
cohesion, and Nixon has not renounced them." The "conditions"
which the President lists for negotiations with the socialist countries,
the paper adds, lack "a broader approach to and understanding of the
specific nature of modern coexistence and its requirements"--some-
thing "President Kennedy demonstrated to a great extent."
HUNGARY Initial Hungarian reportage of the message was notable
for a generally objective presentation of the President's
report and for references to U.S. willingness to negotiate. Authorita-
tive press comment, however, has been much more critical of the
President's new foreign policy strategy, dismissing it as a smoke-
screen for "the old policy of U.S. hegemony." The party organ
NEPSZABADSAG, in a report headlined "It is Not a Strategy for Peace-,"
while conceding that the call for negotiations is "worthy of respect,"
objects to the "contradiction" between the acknowledgment of present
limitations on U.S. "military might" and the continued desire to
lead "the military alinement systems created in the years of the cold
war.` Turning to the section on relations with the socialist countries,
it adds: "The message stresses a willingness to normalize relations
with the rest of the socialist countries, although it fails to-,
explain why the U.S. Administration maintains discriminatory measures
that serve anything but normalization."
An article in MAGYAR HIRLAP on the 22d says: "One would welcome without
reservations the statement that we should normalize our relations"
were it not for "the suspicion that the President's remark that he
does not want.to negotiate with a 'monolith' means not an aspiration
to correct relations but more a continuation of the loosening-tip
attempts." Another commentary in MAGYAR NEMZET on the 20th complains
that the President did not devote "a single word to the idea of
establishing a European security system or the proposed security
conference."
FOR OFFICIAL USE.ONLY
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
-. 26 --
CZECHOSLOVAKIA In line with the increasing implementation of the
"normalization" process in Czechoslovakia, Prague
media, with a few cautious exceptions, hew closely to the Soviet line
that the report signals no real changes in U.S, foreign policy. An
article in the Bratislava PRAVDA on the 20th, charging that "the U.S.
strategy has not altered," accuses the President of "launching
divisive sallies" against the East European socialist countries
.while at the same time expressing an interest in "normalizing"
relations..
of the b al
strength."
Prague-television commentator Petr Krul sees the report as primarily
a ploy with an eye to the coming congressional campaign and the 1972
presidential race. He derides the President's formulations on the
preservation'of peace,. asserting that "for Nixon, peace is a product
A more tolerant tone is adopted b"y MLA.DA FRONTA commentator Arnost
Prazak, who sees "several aspects that sound positive" in the words
about "the end of the cold war era" and the "forthcoming 'period of.
great negotiations with the communists." Prazak, however, perhaps
with some chagrin, notes that the United States "respects Soviet
security interests in Eastern Europe" and quotes the report to the
effect that Washington "will regard its communist opponents in the
first place as nations pursuing their own interests as they understand.
them . .
ROMANIA The Bucharest radio remained silent on the President's
report until 21 February--an indication that the document
was_ given careful consideration--when it supplied a lengthy review*
notable for its focus on U.S. relations with the socialist states.
No comment was carried in any of the major Bucharest dailies through
23 February; coverage of the report by the Romanian news agency
AGERPRES was published in SCINTEIA and other papers.
Although the Bucharest radio account is critical of U.S. Vietnam
policy (a routine demonstration of socialist credentials) and of
Washington's assumption of the "right to play a role in the affairs
of other countries" (a sensitive issue to Bucharest), it approvingly
notes President Nixon's recollection of his visit to Romania and his
support for the establishment of "similar relations" with other
socialist countries "as sovereign states." This is as close as
the radio comes to reporting the President's rejection of the limited
sovereignty doctrine. It goes on to cite the President's support
for an end to European division and a peace "in which the legitimate
interests of each are respected-and the interests of all are
safeguarded. "
FOR OFFICIAL'USE ONLY
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
-27-
The focus on U.S. willingness to normalize relations with Eastern
Europe and promote European detente appears to accord with present
Romanian efforts to counter Soviet bloc propaganda on the dangers
of Western bridgebuilding. Moscow continues to use the spectre of
an increasing Western "threat" to justify greater CEMA and Warsaw
Pact integration, which is vigorously opposed by the Romanians.
YUGOSLAVIA Limited Belgrade reaction stresses the theme that
President Nixon's new peace strategy for the seventies
is based on "bloc positions." A Sarajevo daily OSLOBODJENJE article
on the 20th, reported by TANYUG, says: "The essential American
orientation . . . starts from bloc positions" and "endeavors to
solve world problems in accord with agreements with the Soviet Union,
while other peoples and states are grouped in the category of
second-rate partners." In a similar vein, VJESNIK's New York
correspondent remarks on the same day that the President did not
"anticipate even a desirability for disbanding the blocs; on the
contrary, he sees the restoration of peace between the two blocs
as a first step toward a final division of the globe between super-
powers."
Radio Belgrade's station editor Bozidar Kicevic, in a commentary on
the 20th, hails the President's call for negotiations and "the
solving of acute world problems through peaceful means," but
adds that "the platform profferred is not adequate for such aspirations."
He goes on to criticize the U.S. Middle East stand and "the policy
of spheres of influence which stands out in Nixon's statements on
the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China."
The Belgrade daily BORBA, in issues through 23 February, carries no
original comment on the message, limiting its coverage to publication
of TANYUG dispatches from Washington and a TANYUG roundup of world
press reaction.
Belgrade's generally negative reaction to the message as a confirmation
of U.S. adherence to "bloc" policies comes against the background
of President Tito's current African tour and his efforts to line up
support for a new nonalined conference. it may also be read as
an expression of pique that Yugoslavia was not mentioned in the
portion or the President's message dealing with East European-U.S.
relations.
ALBANIA Playing its customary theme that the United States is
in an advanced state of domestic crisis, Tirana suggests
that the report reflects a change in tactics, but that Washington
retains its "imperialist" aims. A lengthy article in the party organ
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
-- 28
ZERI I POPULLIT on the 25th suggests that because of Vietnam and U.S.
domestic unrest, the United States is "trying to find other forms
and means to continue the old road, to realize the old counter-
revolutionary imperialist objectives." Part of the new plan is to
"further develop the counterrevolutionary alliance with the Brezhnev-
Kosygin clique" while at the same time seeking to rely on the
forces of "puppet regimes" to support the war in Vietnam, the
paper says.
Predictably failing to acknowledge the President's stated desire
for improved U.S. relations-with Peking, the ZERI'I POPULLIT article
pointedly argues that the message confirms that the United States
is trying to strengthen its control over "aggressive alliances
to suppress the national liberation movement" and "to oppose and
fight against the great socialist China, other revolutionary peoples,
socialism and revolution." Perhaps registering concern over any
Sino-U.S. rapprochement, Tirana has still not acknowledged the resumption
of the U.S.-PRC talks in Warsaw.
VIETNAMESE COMUNIST MEDIA
Hanoi media carry fairly widespread comment on the President's report,
with the first available reaction appearing in a domestic broadcast
on the 19th. There is additional comment in a broadcast on the
20th--excerpted by VNA on the 21st. On the 22d commentaries are
published in the party paper NHAN DAN and the army paper QUAN DOI
NHAN DAN, and a VNA commentary is publicized by the press and radio.
The 22 February NHAN DAN comment, noted in the Hanoi radio press
review, has not been disseminated by the radio or VNA; but on
26 February VNA carries an account of another NHAN DAN commentary
of the 26th. In addition to its own comment, Hanoi radio has broad-
cast foreign criticism of the report.
The initial domestic radio commentary on 19 February outlines
Hanoi's view of the report's section on Vietnam--a view reiterated
in similar terms in later comment. The radio says that the report
exposed Mr. Nixon's "very stubborn stand" and that it "rehashed"
positions advanced in previous speeches. Noting the reference to
President Thieu's 11 July 1969 elections proposal, it dismisses the
proposals as advocating elections organized "by the puppets under
the cannon muzzle of the puppet and U.S. occupation troops." -The
broadcast routinely scores the report's comments on the Paris
talks, blames the United States for stalemating the talks, and charges
that the report demonstrates that the Administration refuses to
seek a negotiated solution to the war and "only wants to score
successes by means of force."
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS.REACTION REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
The radio commentary mentions the establishment of the Vietnam
Special Studies Group to monitor the Vietnamization program,
commenting that it is a measure of the Administration's
"embarrassed and distrustful state of mind" that'the presidential
report poses relevant questions for the study group but does not
suggest answers. One such major question, the radio says, is
whether Vietnamization will succeed.
The Hanoi radio commentary on the 20th repeats the comment in the
previous day's broadcast and goes on to*assail U.S. global
policies reflected in the'presidential report. It also responds
to President Nixon's warning of "strong measures"'in the event of
increased enemy activity, a point mentioned only briefly in the
commentary on the l9th: Ridiculing the President for "still
talking big," this commentary adds that it is "futile" to attempt
to "intimidate our people."
In line with earlier comment, the QUAN DOI KHAN DAN commentary on
22 February, publicized by VNA on the 22d and broadcast by Hanoi
radio on the 25th, says the report clearly reveals the U.S. "scheme"
to prolong the war through Vietnamization and charges that the
President has "used negotiations as.a smokescreen" for his scheme.
The army paper observes that the report "clamored" about progress
in Vietnamization, but that the President could not conceal his
""anxiety" over the program's "very gloomy" prospects.
The 22 February VNA commentary, available only from Hanoi radio,
provides typical Hanoi comment on the global policies outlined in
the President's report. It maintains that the U.S. position in the
world is basically "weakened and defeated" but that the Nixon
Administration continues to pursue an "expansionist and aggressive..
foreign policy" seeking to oppose "revolutionary movements," in
order to realize a "plot to police the world through neocolonialism"
and to "camouflage' maneuvers with more flowery and deceitful words.!'
Commenting on the Nixon Doctrine, the 22 February QUAN DOI NHAN DAN
typically describes it as one of the many "cunning and perfidious
.measures and methods" used by the United States in attempting to
"save U.S. colonialism and retrieve the positions it has lost."
THE FRONT The first South Vietnamese communist reaction was a
. brief derisive comment by PRG delegate Mme. Binh'
at the 19 February Paris session. There is a LIBERATION PRESS
AGENCY (LPA) commentary publicized on the 22d and a Liberation radio
commentary on the 23d.
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
Liberation Radio quotes Mme. Binh as stating in Paris on the 19th,
characteristically, that President Nixon "once again tried to deceive
public opinion by asserting that he invariably continues the 'search
for a just peace' in South Vietnam. But prolonging the aggression,
carrying on the massacre of the South Vietnamese people with all
kinds of weapons, including chemical ones . . . is this the way
Mr. Nixon 'searches for peace?"'
Liberation Radio on. the 22d provides the fullest available account
of the LPA commentary on the President's report; the commentary was
also publicized by the Hanor press. LPA says that the section of
the report dealing with Vietnam is merely a "rewrite"of the
President's principal addresses on Vietnam in 1969, all of which were
"repeatedly rejected by the Vietnamese people." LPA charges that
the report demonstrated the President's intention to prolong the
war and that the President revealed his "evil colonialist design to
firmly cling to the Thieu-Kyr-Khiem clique" when he stated that a.
great power cannot renege on its pledges. Commenting on the
report's statement that U.S. acceptance of the DRV-PRG position
would leave nothing to negotiate, LPA says: "The South Vietnamese
people must plainly tell Nixon that the Vietnamese people's basic
national rights and self-determination are not merchandise for
trade or negotiations."
The 23 February Liberation Radio commentary takes up other aspects
of the President's report, in addition to Vietnam, charging that
the foreign policy described in the document essentially reflects
"an ambition to become master of the world by means of neocolonialism."
Addressing itself to the two-part Vietnam policy of negotiations
and Vietnamization, the commentary takes the President to task for
holding firmly to his "reactionary" and "rejected" eight-point stand
and for "advertising" President Thieu's 11 July 1969 election proposals..
It denounces Vietnamization in a standard fashion and cites remarks
by Senators McCarthy and Fulbright on the 19th to support. its
attack.
NORTH KOREA
Pyongyang's reaction is couched in typically vitriolic language,
built around North Korea's customary propaganda portrayal of a
villainous, predatory "U.S. imperialism" out to increase American
domination by using "puppets and satellites" as "bullet shields
against the Asian people" and to provoke "a new war in Korea."
Pyongyang's first reaction--a domestic service commentary on 19 February,
carried in a shorter version by KCNA the next day--acknowledges that
the report calls for negotiations in a new era replacing the era of
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
confrontation but declares that this "long, transparent harangue,
full of hypocrisy and empty talk," simply means the United States
is using the "cloak of peace" to mask an unchanged policy of
"aggression and war." The report's reference to the Guam doctrine,
says the commentary, makes clear President Nixon's intention to
"step up colonial policies" and to "beef up local mercenaries."
All this, it says, is closely related to U.S. "preparations for a
war of aggression in Korea."
Pyongyang's KCNA, rounding up the North Korean press on 21 February,
summarizes comment in a similar vein in Pyongyang dailies on the
report "made public by Nixon the rascal, the boss of the U.S.
imperialist wax maniacs." The party daily NODONG SINMUN is quoted
as calling the report "the sophistry of a wolf in sheep's clothing,"
and MINJU CHOSON is quoted as calling the document a program for
adapting "all the former policies of aggression of the U.S.
imperialists to the trend of the times under the cloak of the 'Nixon
Doctrine.'" MINJU CHOSON decries the President's "sugar-coated
words" about Japan's role in Asia as confirmation that the United
States intends to use its Japanese militarist "stooges" as a shock
brigade in Asian aggression. The President did not conceal "the
brigand.ish design of the U.S. imperialists to perpetuate their
occupation of South Korea and unleash a new war in Korea," MINJU
CHOSON adds.
CUr3A
Havana media carry a moderate volume of uniformly hostile, comment,
criticizing especially the President's emphasis. on "partnership,"
which it calls a facade behind which the United States will continue
traditional "imperialist" policies of economic exploitation and
military aggression. Havana comment dwells at length on rebuttals
to the Western Hemisphere section of the report, which it stresses
contains "nothing new." The comment is relatively free of personal
invective against the President, however, like most previous Cuban
comment on the Nixon Administration.
The tenor of the Cuban reaction is exemplified by a 19 February
Radio Havana commentary which observes that while the President
"talks about association, about not imposing Yankee domination, . . :..
the entire message reflects the policy of imposition that is
typical of imperialism." It charges that the United States "imposes
on its allies" the continuation of the Vietnam war and the Middle
East crisis, "encouraging Israel by sending more weapons." It
calls the report as a whole a restatment of "the same policy
pursued by Yankee presidents and their philosophy of world domination
ever since the United States was created." The commentary concludes
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
 No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FBIS REACTION REPORT
26 FEBRUARY 1970
that the President "cloaks his imperialist ambition in the same
hypocritical phrases used by his predecessors" and attempts to
conceal .a traditionally aggressive policy "behind the mask of.
the 'partnership policy.'"
Cuban comment on the Western Hemisphere section of the report assails-
it for failing to accept Latin American demands for a better policy
on exports to the United States, for its reference to "misguided
nationalism" in describing Latin American attitudes toward foreign
investment, and for mentioning the need to attract investment
capital for economic development. A Havana TV commentator
criticizes the President for offering Latin America "the same
private investments" that were "just refused" at the Inter-American
Economic and Social Council meeting earlier this month in Caracas,.._.__.
for failing to offer "a regional system of preferred custom
tariffs" to open the U.S. market to Latin American products, and
for failing to suggest any remedy for the increasingly "lopsided"
terms of U.S.-Latin American trade.
A Havana radio commentary beamed to the Americas on 22 February
chastises the President for considering U.S. investments as part
of foreign aid to Latin America when in reality they have resulted
in "the siphoning away of thousands of millions of dollars that wind
up in the bank accounts of the Yankee monopolies," so that Latin
America in effect "finances the development of the United States."
In Havana's only reaction so far to the President's statements on
U.S.-Soviet relations, a TV commentary on the 19th charges that
while the President acknowledged these relations to be unsatisfactory
he did not s:ecept "U.S. responsibility for this state of affairs,"
instead blaming the Vietnam war and the Middle East conflict. The
commentary observes that he did not propose "any formula" to
improve these relations, but announced that his Administration would
"not seek any new ways to solve the Israeli-Arab conflict," would
continue "the Vietnam aggression and the Vietnamization policy,"
and intended to go on "squandering millions on the Safeguard ABM
program."
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
No Objection to Declassification in Full 2010/09/07: LOC-HAK-422-7-73-5