OCR Text |
Show J. M. Cornwell, President of USPA, Reports on Policy of Secretary of State Dean Rusk (Editor's note: Utah State Press Association delegated its current president, J. M. Corn-well Corn-well of the Murray Eagle to attend at-tend the Secretary of State's briefing conference on foreign policy. He was one of only 28 weekly newspapermen admitted to the two day briefing, at which daily reporters and columnists were also enrolled and was the only Utahn in attendance. This is the last of two installments). Utah's future in the missile age is bright. But the men who direct developments in space favor fa-vor liquid and nuclear fuels over solid propellants. They're impressed with the high degree of thrust offered by solid fuel, yet they've budgeted far more money to liquid. Utah's co-product, the Minute-man, Minute-man, is in high regard. Defense authorities place it on a level 4 with the Polaris as the "least (Continued on page 4) J. M. Cornwell, President of USPA, Reports on Policy of Secretary of State Dean Rusk change of foreign students brought 5000 young people from 100 countries here last year; took 1900 Americans abroad. About 50,000 foreigners actually studied in the U. S. last year, the vast majority without financial finan-cial aid from us. Impressing these people of the true United States has intangible but definite value. "It can not be measured with a yardstick or slide rule," was the comment, but it's noteworthy that 178 members of the German Bundestag Bunde-stag have been in America under un-der student exchange program. A 10,000 person staff is engaged en-gaged in the USIA. Their attack is based on movies, magazines published in foreign languages, Voice of America radio, dissemination dissemi-nation of literature through libraries li-braries and even teaching of the English tongue. The object is to make American policy every- . where intelligible, and, where possible, palatable. The USI budget bud-get is approximately equal to the cost of one combat loaded Polaris submarine. Assimilation of these opinions is not only sobering but disheartening. dis-heartening. A ray of hope in the gloom seems to be this administration adminis-tration statement: "I don't accept ac-cept the view that there is a slow inevitability the Communists can defeat the West. We are in for extremely difficult times. They will test our strength and will. We are going to have to recognize recog-nize that in these coming years there will be many setbacks, and I hope many successes." Is the dark picture administration adminis-tration propaganda or statement of fact? You can draw your own conclusions. The sincerity of administration ad-ministration speakers makes it difficult to remain skeptical yet this portrait of a proud land in desperate straits of deep world conflict is a hard one to conjure. At best the situation is not good. At worst, it's bleak indeed. If the truth lies somewhere in the middle ground we evidently must gird ourselves for a perilous peril-ous excursion through a rough four year journey along what has been termed the "New Frontier." Fron-tier." In Washington that( term is used with straight face or a chuckle as the political inclina-nation inclina-nation dictates. We leave it to you to arrive at a personal analysis of the serious nature of our nation's situation in today's embattled world. you're involved, you can not throw it off. When people become be-come dissatisfied, it's already too late," was the reply. Quotable quote from the UN discussion. We prepare for war like precocious giants and for peace like retarded pygmies. Trouble is anticipated, probably prob-ably this year, over Berlin, the fulcrum of conflict with Russia. Observers feel Khruchchev has ignored the German question too long. Speculating on Russian strategy strat-egy is difficult. It was admitted that we know absolutely nothing about what goes on in the ruling body of the Soviet nation. These leaders, though, are such dedicated dedi-cated Communists that they are convinced it is their duty to have this system all over the world. Suppose the Russ attack .in Europe? Our NATO defenses might be only a temporary deterrent, de-terrent, a strategist conceded. They would fight a delaying, defensive de-fensive action. The air force will be the striking unit. "Is it true we might hold out only two weeks or so?" a militarist mili-tarist was asked. His reply indicated indi-cated this might well be, even though our European armies are the "best trained this country has ever put in the field." In event of a less than nuclear attack, the UN hopes for a temporary tem-porary pause early in the fighting. fight-ing. At this time the involved powers would try to inject caution cau-tion into the struggle; to bring it to a halt before it became an all out nuclear effort. Some of our allies wonder if there could be, any kind of conflict con-flict that would not develop into nuclear war. Others are fearful lest we would not enter our nuclear might because of our own vulnerability. "There is no doubt that we ixrnnlrl rc txrVint wo aro rnmmit. (Continued from page 1) vulnerable intercontinental ballistics bal-listics missile." Where does our country stand in space? Obviously speaking, behind Russia. We may make an un-manned orbit of the moon by '64. With an "all-out effort," we might put a man in lunar orbit in 1966. Russia, it appears, could land a man on the moon by 1967. We're not likely to. While conceding it will be embarrassing to land on the moon and be met by a Russian welcoming committee, our experts ex-perts argue that we have learned more than they about space science sci-ence and that a moon landing is of negligible military value but more so prestige wise. What retards us? Some say miniaturization the necessity of making all instruments smaller and lighter. We can launch only a 2500 lb. vehicle. The Russ with more power put up 10.000 pound vehicles. The immediate U.S. objective is a one man space flight. Next year, approximately 18 orbits of the earth by a manned rocket. By 1965 three man vehicles in the same flight. Could we overtake Russia in the space race? Probably. With time and all out spending. The administration, though, has vetoed ve-toed this approach in favor of protecting ourselves militaristic-ally militaristic-ally and developing our own space program as rapidly as possible pos-sible within our financial scope. Currently that is a budget of $1,235 millions, of which $900,-000 $900,-000 is in research and development. develop-ment. Problems to continue in the U.N. is the tenor of expert remarks re-marks in that field. Russia's weapons: The veto, which virtually vir-tually nullifies Security Council, and strangulation by refusal to support other measures. This forces the burden of financing on ww VVV M WW V V.". w ted to do," said an administration spokesman. Which, bluntly, says we will . unlimber our nuclear weapons if the need arises. Short of a shooting war, the speaker warned that we must accustom ac-custom ourselves to the long-range long-range nature of the struggle. "I know of no one who believes a conclusive decision is imminent," he added. Intelligence on Russia is complex. com-plex. "The free world stands at a tremendous disadvantage. Russian Rus-sian people know only what the government tells them. By contrast, con-trast, all work of our government is carried out in the glare of publicity." ' Bad? To the contrary. .The speaker opined we should never resort to Russia's secrecy; that it's better to have our intelligence intelli-gence handicapped than to surrender sur-render freedom of the press. Central Intelligence Agency, at it should be, is teh best veiled secret in Washington. Few know its budget or its staff. Even its entire location. It is accountable only to top leaders. It disseminates dissemi-nates information gleaned from an unlisted number of operatives and intelligence sources of every imagineable nature. A CIA spokesman denied an accusation of agency ineptness in the Cuban invasion. He said inadequate in-adequate data was given those making the decision. CIA's importance was underscored under-scored by one speaker. He said Soviet secrecy is the most dangerous dan-gerous single thing in the world today. Not all our anti-Soviet meas-ules meas-ules are based on strength. Ex- 1 other nations, principally our own. Even though we could afford af-ford it, we've learned carrying the lions share of the load has not endeared us to other lands. This psychological reaction generally gen-erally brings abandonment of the idea; accomplishing Russia's original purpose. These were observations of a second-day speaker. He was one of a host of noted men whose identities and titles ran like this: Philip M. Stern, public affairs deputy; Foy D. Kohler, European affairs assistant; Roger W. Jones, administrative deputy; G. Men-nen Men-nen Williams, African affairs aide; Edward R. Murrow, USIA director. Allen W. Dulles. Central Intelligence In-telligence Agency director; Ros-well Ros-well L. Gilpatrick, defense deputy; dep-uty; Lt. Gen. Earl G. Wheeler, director of the joint chiefs of staff; Chester L. Bowles, undersecretary, under-secretary, and the President, whose final talk tied the string about the package. How will America program its UN efforts? Continue to work for and extend to countries with possibilities of economic development, devel-opment, long term financial help. In some areas we are admittedly dealing with countries where there's little hope of sufficient economic growth to become self sustaining. "Why not let some of these countries go into Communism and find out by experience what they'll lose?" asked a reporter. "Because Communism is like at room without an exit. Once |