This
document is considered to be
public property of the
Citizens of the
United States of America, & is therefore not protected by any
copyright laws which would prohibit its reproduction.
Part of a subsection of a node in the Cold War Document and Speech Meta Node
Participants:
United States
The President
The Secretary
Ambassador Matthews
Ambassador Thompson
Mr. Bundy
Ambassador Bohlen
EUR--Mr. Kohler
Mr. Nitze
Mr. Salinger
D--Mr. Akalovsky (interpreting)
Mr. Khrushchev interjected that he fully understood this.
Even the Russian Revolution had produced convulsions, even intervention
by other countries, the President continued. He then said that he wanted to
explain what he meant by "miscalculation". In Washington, he has to attempt
to make judgments of events, judgments which may be accurate or not; he made
a misjudgment with regard to the Cuban situation. He has to attempt to make
judgments as to what the USSR will do next, just as he is sure that Mr.
Khrushchev has to make judgments as to the moves of the US. The President
emphasized that the purpose of this meeting was to introduce greater precision
in these judgments so that our two countries could survive this period of
competition without endangering their national security.
Mr. Khrushchev responded by saying that this was a good idea and that this
was what he called demonstration of patience and understanding. However, judging
by some of the President's statements, the Soviet Union understood the situation
differently. The US believes that when people want to improve their lot, this
is a machination by others. Mr. Khrushchev said that he liked the President's
statement in his message to Congress to the effect that it was difficult
to defend ideas not supporting better standards of living. However, the President
drew the wrong conclusion. He believes that when people rise against tyrants,
that is a result of Moscow's activities. This is not so. Failure by the US
to understand this generates danger. The USSR does not foment revolution
but the United States always looks for outside forces whenever certain upheavals
occur. One example of USSR's determination not to interfere in internal affairs
of other countries is Iran, an ally of the United States. The Soviet Union
does not want a revolution there and does not do anything in that country
to promote such a development. However, the people of the country are so poor
that the country has become a volcano and changes are bound to occur sooner
or later. The Shah will certainly be overthrown. By supporting the Shah, the
United States generates adverse feelings toward the United States among the
people of Iran and, conversely, favorable feelings toward the USSR. This,
of course, is to the US's own disadvantage. The Soviet Union does not sympathize
with dictators or tyranny. This is the crux of the matter. No agreement seems
to be possible on this point, but this fact should be taken into account.
Mr. Khrushchev reiterated that the President's views were correct but that
he drew the wrong conclusion. Another example of this situation is Cuba. A
mere handful of people, headed by Fidel Castro, overthrew the Batista regime
because of its oppressive nature. During Castro's fight against Batista,
US capitalist circles, as they are called in the USSR, supported Batista
and this is why the anger of the Cuban people turned against the United
States. The President's decision to launch a landing in Cuba only strengthened
the revolutionary forces and Castro's own position, because the people of
Cuba were afraid that they would get another Bastista and lose the achievements
of the revolution. Castro is not a Communist but US policy can make him
one. US policy is grist on the mill of Communists, because US actions prove
that Communists are right. Mr. Khrushchev said that he himself had not been
born a Communist and that it was capitalists who had made him a Communist.
He continued by saying that the President's concept was a dangerous one. The
President had said that the US had attacked Cuba because it was a threat to
American security. Can six million people really be a threat to the mighty
US? The United States has stated that it is free to act, but what about Turkey
and Iran? These two countries are US followers, they march in its wake,
and they have US bases and rockets. If the US believes that it is free to
act, then what should the US do? The US has set a precedent for intervention
in internal affairs of other countries. The USSR is stronger than Turkey and
Iran, just as the US is stronger than Cuba. This situation may cause miscalculation,
to use the President's term. Both sides should agree to rule out miscalculation.
This is why, Mr. Khrushchev said, he was happy that the President had said
that Cuba was a mistake.
The President said that he agreed with Mr. Khrushchev and expressed the belief
that unless the present Prime Minister of Iran improved the lot of his people
and ensured better living conditions, there would be important changes in
that country. The second point he wanted to make, the President said, was
that he held no brief for Batista. The disagreement between the United States
and Castro is not over monopolies; this question could be subject to discussion.
The main point is that Castro has announced his intention to act in that general
area, using Cuba as a base. This could eventually create a peril to the United
States. A further point is, the President said, that the United States recognizes
that it has bases in Turkey and Iran. However, these two countries are so
weak that they could be no threat to the USSR, no more than Cuba to the
US. The President reminded Mr. Khrushchev of the announced policy of the
USSR that it would not tolerate governments hostile to it in areas which it
regards as being of national interest to it. He inquired what the USSR's reaction
would be if a government associated with the West were established in Poland.
The United States stands for the right of free choice for all peoples and
if Castro had acted in that spirit, he might have obtained endorsement. The
United States has never taken any action with regard to such countries as
Guinea or Mali, because the governments in those countries were freely
elected and their policies are regarded by the United States as the judgment
of their leadership. The President concluded by saying that it was critical
to have the changes occurring in the world and affecting the balance of power
take place in a way that would not involve the prestige or the treaty commitments
of our two countries. The changes should be peaceful. Finally, the President
said, if certain governments should fail to produce better living for their
people, if they failed to give better education, higher standard of living,
etc., to their people, and if they worked in the interest of only a small
group, their days would be doomed. But in all these developments, the President
reiterated, we should avoid direct contact between our two countries so as
not to prejudice the interests of their national security.
Mr. Khrushchev said he agreed with the President's conclusion. Likewise,
there were some points of agreement between him and the President with regard
to Cuba, although there was still considerable disagreement. For instance,
Mr. Khrushchev said, he agreed that the right of free choice should be ensured
to all peoples but the question of choice should be solely up to the people
themselves. If Castro has not held any elections, this is an internal affair
and it grants no one the right to intervene. If Castro fails to give freedom
to his people he will detach himself from them and he will be removed just
as Batista was. It would be a different situation if our two countries took
it upon themselves to decide this question. Mr. Khrushchev then said that
he had noted some inconsistency in US policy. He specified that he did not
mean the policy of the President personally, because he had been in the White
House only since quite recently, but rather US policy in general. He said
that the United States places great emphasis on democracy. However, if one
takes Iran as an example, the ruler there is the Shah, who says that his power
was given to him by God. Everybody knows how this power was seized by the
Shah's father, who had been a Sergeant in the Iranian Army and who had usurped
the throne by means of murder, plunder, and violence. Now the United States
supports the Shah and the Iranian people transfer, as it were, their anger
from the Shah to the United States. The United States is spending vast sums
of money in Iran but that money does not go to the people; it is plundered
by the Shah's entourage. The situation with regard to Franco/5/
is a similar one. The US knows how he came to power and yet it supports him.
The United States supports the most reactionary regimes and this is how
the people see US policy. This weakens US policy. The United States knows
that Soviet policy is more popular than US policy in many areas where there
is no Communism today. The USSR supports the aspirations of the people but
it believes that the main thing is to be tolerant and not to interfere. People
should be left to decide for themselves which form of government they desire.
As to Fidel Castro, he was no Communist but then the US put pressure on
him and applied sanctions against him, the USSR came to his assistance, in
the form of trade and technical support. Under the influence of this aid he
may turn Communist but, Mr. Khrushchev said, he as a Communist could not see
which way Castro would go. Mr. Khrushchev then expressed the hope that the
relations between the US and Cuba would improve in such fields as trade, etc.
Such a statement, Mr. Khrushchev observed, might sound strange to the United
States, but the USSR believes that such a development would improve relations
not only in the Western Hemisphere, but also throughout the world. Mr. Khrushchev
then referred to Turkey and said that in the recent change that had occurred
in that country, the USSR had remained neutral because it regarded the change
as an internal affair of that country. Likewise, there had been a second change
in Korea within a relatively short time. Neither the USSR nor North Korea
had interfered. One can say, however, that the present government will not
last very long because it cannot give anything to the people. Of course, if
South Korea did something in North Korea, the latter will act and the
USSR will support it. However, the USSR's position is that of non-interference
and of not creating new points of friction. It is a policy directed at bringing
about a stable situation throughout the world. Mr. Khrushchev then addressed
himself to the Laotian situation and said that the President knew very well
that it had been the US Government which had overthrown Souvanna Phouma.
One should be frank and recognize that both the United States and the USSR
are supplying arms in Laos. The side supported by the USSR will be more successful
because the arms supplied by the United States are directed against the people
and the people do not want to take them. In China, the arms supplied by the
United States to Chiang Kai-shek went to Mao Tse-tung. Chiang Kai-shek
became sort of a transfer point for American arms to Mao Tse-tung. The reason
for that was that Chiang's troops simply would not fight against the people.
At that point Mao Tse-tung was weaker militarily than Chiang Kai-shek, but
he won because his ideas won. In general, the history of revolutions is very
instructive. During the Russian Revolution, the revolutionaries were weak
and a counter-revolution occurred. The revolutionaries had to fight against
the counter-revolutionaries, the British, the Japanese, the French, and others.
Even the United States intervened. Mr. Khrushchev recalled in this connection
that he had read a book by an American Colonel entitled "U.S. Adventure in
Siberia"./6/ Notwithstanding all this, the revolution
was victorious because the people were on its side. Mr. Khrushchev then said
that we must be patient. If the United States supports old, moribund, reactionary
regimes, then a precedent of internal intervention will be set, which might
cause a clash between our two countries. The USSR certainly does not desire
such a development.
/5/General Francisco Franco y Bahamonde, Spanish Chief of State.
/6/William S. Graves, America's Siberian Adventure, 1918-1920, New York, 1931.
FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES - 1961-1963 - Volume V - Soviet Union P42