The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Kansas.

The motion was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The committee amendment is open to further amendment.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER.

clerk will call the roll.

The

recrimination and speculation which and speculation which seems to be so rampant would stop, and that due recognition would be given to the facts as they are rather than to wild speculation, which seems to be so much the mood of the moment.

gram in Latin America. I was glad to agree to that. I do not know what the outcome would have been on my amendment, but I believe it had a very good prospect of being approved. It should have been approved on its merits. But, be that as it may, it is important that the record on the foreign aid bill con

ANCE ACT OF 1961

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

ago.

ATTENDANCE AT NATO CONFERAT NATO CONFERENCE BY WIVES OF SENATORS Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I have been reading on the news ticker a story to the effect that two wives of Senators have been mentioned as accompanying the House delegation to the NATO Conference some days There have been some questions raised about those wives going, and I wish to say on the floor of the Senate, and for the RECORD, that they went in good faith. Their husbands and other Members of the Senate had been appointed by this body to represent the Senate at the annual NATO Conference, and at my request every single one of those Senate Members stayed here to be on the floor during the debate on the foreign aid bill. They stayed here on a day-to-day basis, in the hope that it might be possible for them, in light of the directions laid down by this body, to attend that most important Conference; but, because of the developments over which they had no control whatsoever, and because I requested them to stay here, they did so.

I believe that instead of fault being found with the wives of these Senators, who went to the Conference in the expectation that their husbands would join them shortly, as they had every right to anticipate, we should give a great deal of credit to Senators who remained behind, who missed a most important conference, and who attended to their primary duty on the floor.

And by the same taken, I think these two ladies deserve some credit instead of carping criticism. In the circumstances they were cast in the role of unofficial representatives of the Nation, as are Foreign Service wives or military wives or Cabinet wives or any other wives of officials of this Government who happen to be abroad. I have no doubt that the two ladies acquitted themselves in a most commendable and exemplary man

ner.

Furthermore, may I say, if my understanding is correct, that the two ladies who did go usually travel in separate planes from their husbands, because of the safety factor involved, for their children-a practice which my wife and I followed until our own daughter was 18 years of age.

So I would hope that this fact would also be set out on the RECORD; I suppose it is too much to hope that the petty

the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and for other purposes.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment to H.R. 7885, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which I ask to have read.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated for the information of the Senate.

The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 52, line 14, of the committee amendment, it is proposed to strike out "$675,000,000" and to insert in lieu thereof "$655,000,000." The

PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment to the substitute committee amendment, as amended.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I shall discuss the amendment shortly. discuss the amendment shortly. Some discussions will be held off the floor of the Senate in regard to the amendment while I speak briefly on another matter.

This amendment seeks to strike $20 million from the Social Progress Trust Fund. I do not wish to say any more about it until the discussions off the floor have been concluded.

Following action on the amendment, the Senator from Alaska has two or three amendments to offer. If we are successful in reaching an agreement on this $20 million saving-and I shall show later that the $20 million saving is reasonable and fair-and we can make the saving, so far as I am concerned I shall not offer any further money cut amendments, and the bill might reach the stage of a third reading before the late afternoon or early evening.

I wish to take a few moments to make a record in regard to the significance of the amendment that was agreed to, offered by the Senator from Alaska and modified in conferences among the Senator from Alaska, the Senator from Arkansas, the Senator from Minnesota, and myself. I believe the amendment is perhaps the most important that has been adopted during all this debate. I am not so sure that it is not now the most important part of the foreign aid bill. It is not fully comprehended in the Senate.

There is great concern in many countries of Latin America concerning certain types of military aid. This amendment, in my judgment, is worth millions of dollars. If we could evaluate good will, it is worth millions and millions of dollars in American good will in Latin America, because it will come as a great relief to many of our best friends in high government positions in many countries in Latin America.

Part of the adjustment that was made, in agreeing is the amendment of the Senator from Alaska, was that I would not press a money cut amendment for a $10 million cut in the military aid pro

created by the United States in Latin America as a result of the types of military aid which we have been giving.

A few months ago, when I attended the inauguration of the new President of Peru, I witnessed a military parade that included about 40 American Sherman tanks furnished to Peru by the United States through military assistance. What useful purpose those tanks could possibly serve in Peru escapes my imagination.

The purpose they do serve in Peru and elsewhere on that continent is to pose a constant and continual threat to the civilian governments of those countries. They are the gun at the head of every elected President of Latin America-a gun that we have manufactured and furnished free of charge. All too often, these weapons have been used to thwart and overturn the governments that have been seeking to carry out the objectives of the Alliance for Progress which, of course, we are also financing.

When I say "gun" I mean heavy equipment like tanks and jet aircraft. The kinds of guns that the armed services in Latin America do need to control guerrillas and terrorists are the small arms and mobile equipment that we can furnish under a ceiling of $40 million.

Let me point out that the military castes in some of these countries have become so arrogant in their demands for expensive equipment, and have become such a threat to civilian governments because of it, that some governments have sought to obtain equally heavy equipment for other branches of their services merely to offset the others. If one country has an air force whose power and prestige have been elevated with late model U.S. jets, then it is not unusual to find that government anxious to balance its air force with an army equipped with Sherman tanks, and a Navy equipped with large ships, and a few jets of its own to keep the air force from taking over. This kind of rivalry is going on within individual countries. And it has led to a similar rivalry among the armed services of neighboring countries.

Senators will find at my desk a letter I received from the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs on June 24, 1963. It contains a breakdown of the military aid that went to each country in Latin America in fiscal year 1963. Of course, it is marked "Confidential." Therefore, I am unable to read it to the American people.

But I can report that of all Nations in the hemisphere, it was none other than the Dominican Republic that received the most military aid from us in proportion to its population. It received far more on a per capita basis than any other country.

What a harvest we reaped from that assistance. What a harvest the people of the Dominican Republican reaped

from it. With that military assistance, the armed services of the Dominican Republic slaughtered a free, elected, constitutional government.

Look at the other figures, if Senators will but come to my desk. The next largest recipients of military aid from us, relative to population, were Bolivia and Chile. It is an interesting thing to note that Bolivia remains one of the most unstable nations of the hemisphere, both economically and politically. She is a recipient of endless American financial aid. She is beneficiary of the Presidential contingency fund, for contincontingencies that plague Bolivia but which do not threaten the vital interests of the United States. She is the recipient of nonproject money, which means she gets it purely for budget support because the Bolivian budget must finance the nationalized tin mines. Because of the huge, inflated payrolls of those tin mines, her budget is grossly out of balance, and the United States makes up the difference, just as we do in Turkey with her socialized industries.

Yet, because of this tenous economic condition, there are those who believe Bolivia is also threatened by internal communism. I suggest that the I suggest that the revolution that occurred in Bolivia in 1952 was a revolution of the extreme leftwing, if not actually a Communist revolution. It was then that the tin mines were nationalized. They have served ever since to provide jobs for the working people of Bolivia, even though the mines do not support those payrolls.

But Bolivia has already had a leftwing revolution. What useful purpose do we serve in sending her military aid now to seek to hold down by force the pressures that the revolution itself brought to Bolivia?

The two nations ranking next highest in the per capita military aid standings in Latin America are Nicaragua and Honduras. I need not remind Senators what the military forces in Honduras did with our military aid. They, too, murdered an elected government to prevent an imminent election from being held. After Nicaragua and Honduras, the recipients of the military aid on a per capita basis were Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay. There is another junta in that group-the military junta of Peru.

Colombia, Guatemala, and El Salvador rank next in this list. Guatemala is still another example of a military coup which ousted an elected government.

Senators, Congressmen, all Americans, must face the fact that we are arming the military castes of Latin America to destroy civilian government. How can anyone reconcile that with our own beliefs, or with our objectives in Latin America?

I have been heard to say it many times, and I shall say it many times in connection with this bill: We do nothing in the world but further the causes of Castro and communism when we, or the governing classes of Latin America, reduce the choices of their people down to a choice between communism and military fascism. It is the game of Castro to force this choice upon the masses in Latin America, because he knows that eventually communism will triumph over

militaristic fascism. That is how Castro himself came to power. He knows very well that when any people are suppressed in their political and economic activities by a police state, backed up by tanks and other weapons, they will turn to equally extreme and violent measures to throw off that suppression.

The Communist cadres in Latin America have their greatest opportunities in those countries run by military police states. The whole reason for the Alliance for Progress was to give the 240 million people of the continent to the south of us a chance to make some economic and social progress by peaceful and progressive means. The military juntas are every bit as much an enemy of the Alliance as are the Communists. Neither faction wants to see the changes envisioned by the Alliance accomplished. Their reasons are quite different: The Communists do not want the Alliance to succeed because they want to appear to be the only vehicle whereby the people of Latin America can improve their standard of living. The military castes do not want conditions to change at all. For them, the Alliance is as much a threat to their privileged existence as are the Communists.

We ought to take notice of where large numbers of the sons sons of the oligarchs go. They go into the military forces. They are a part of the military caste system. The sad fact is that large numbers of the oligarchs take advantage of American foreign aid in Latin America. To the extent that it does help in some economic conditions, frequently the chief beneficiaries are the oligarchs. By and large they profit economically and take the increased profits that come out of the expenditures of American foreign aid and invest them in New York and Swiss banks, and not in the future economy of Latin America. But we are expected to pour additional millions of dollars of taxpayers' money into Latin America to make more money for the oligarchs.

Too often that is the pattern, and that is why I say, most respectfully, to my President that when he talks in New York about doing something to help the poor, we must see to it that our foreign aid is not so used by the rich that they grow richer and the poor become poorer. Indirectly, it is true it may help them; but the indirect effects are unimportant.

Indirectly, I believe that the amendment of the Senator from Alaska, of which I was proud to be a cosponsor, and the wonderful cooperation it received from the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT], chairman of the committee, and from the majority whip, the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. HuмPHREY], in modifying the amendment in a manner that would be acceptable to the chairman of the committee and the whip, are among the most important things we have done in connection with the entire foreign aid program.

By this amendment, if it remains in the bill when it is finally adopted in conference, the United States, as a matter of policy, announces that there will be no more military aid to Latin America, save and except when the President finds it is in our interest and in the interest

of the country concerned, from the standpoint of defense of the hemisphere, and so reports his reasons to the Con

As will be seen from several communications I shall read shortly from some of our best friends in Latin America, it will take the tremble out of their knees. Some of our best friends in high places in Latin America have been trembling as a result of their fears concerning what may happen to their governments if military juntas decide to use American heavy military equipment to overthrow their governments, as has been done so frequently in the past in other places.

I cannot congratulate the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Arkansas too highly. Congratulations are due them for writing into the bill the policy contained in the amendment.

Under this amendment, if aid is necessary, and the President so finds it is necessary to provide internal security for defense and economic needs, the amendment makes it possible.

As I said before, when we were trying to make an adjustment in the amendment, what is needed in Latin America is not Sherman tanks, not mile upon mile of heavy artillery equipment, not jet planes. What is needed is small arms, rifles, machineguns, tear gas, and helicopters to protect a country internally from a possible Communist uprising.

That intention was brought out as we made the legislative history at the time the Senate adopted the amendment. Under the amendment, aid for these purposes is available.

Mr. President, that is worth much more than a $10 million cut from a $50 million aid program as it came from the committee, which cut I was about to propose.

It is worth much more than that in the savings we could make, because psychologically it will be a great thing for Latin America, and it will be a great thing for the United States from the standpoint of the resulting good will that will come from the adoption of the amendment. That is true of all of Latin America. It is not possible to buy such good will. Therefore I am pleased and proud that I had a little part to play in my conversations with the leaders and with the Senator from Alaska which resulted in the adoption of the revised amendment.

The Senate, the Congress, and the United States have been firm in cutting off aid to Cuba because we see no point in assisting a government that is subverting much of the hemisphere and the United States, too. Yet we make it possible, through misguided military aid, for the oligarchies, backed by the power of their military establishments, to subvert the Alliance for Progress.

This amendment to reduce the ceiling on military aid goes hand in hand with my proposal to cut off entirely aid to juntas that overthrow elected governments.

Later this afternoon I hope to be able to present to the Senate a modification of my junta amendment with the approval of the administration which, if accepted by the Senate, will have as helpful an effect in regard to the junta issue in

Latin America as the amendment of the Senator from Alaska has in connection with military aid.

By sending military aid that cannot be used for any hemispheric defense, that cannot be used against any Communist guerrillas or street fighters, by sending military equipment that only enables a military faction to shoot up a city or bombard a presidential palace until its occupant is killed or surrenders, we are undoing with one hand what we try to build up in Latin America with the other. It is a great irony that the same taxpayers are paying for both programs.

In areas of tax reform, land reform, interest rate, and budget reform, as in many other areas, Latin American efforts to live up to the pledges of the Punta del Este conference have fallen short. Self-help is proceeding at a disappointingly slow pace. But of all the reverses and failures of the Alliance and the United States is responsible for some of them, too-the most shattering and potentially dangerous is the recent series of military coups d'etat against legitimate governments.

The number of military or militarybacked dictatorships in Latin America has almost doubled since the Alliance was launched, increasing from four to seven in a little over 2 years. There have been four coups d'etat in 1963, in Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, and the Dominican Republic.

It may be, as has been suggested, that these military coups are merely rearguard actions of a dying old order, but it may on the contrary be that they are profound political retrogressions from the principles of Punta del Este. It is quite possible that we are seeing the oligarchies of Latin America turning their backs on peaceful progress, choosing to take their chances on communism rather than fulfill the obligations they undertook when they entered into the Alliance for Progress.

At best, they are a tactical setback in the democratic revolution of Latin America; at worst, they will destroy the Alliance and serve final notice upon the great booming masses of its people that they are reduced to the alternatives of communism or military fascism.

The United States, too, must make up its mind what it really wants to accomplish in Latin America. We, too, must decide whether we are going to base our policy on the assumption that is widespread in many parts of this country, including very high places in the Departments of State and Defense, that Latin people are incapable of self-government. It is a widespread assumption that they are not now and probably will never be good for anything but military rule, autocratic rule, the kind of government that directs their lives from above and tells them what to do economically, politically, and socially.

I have heard variations on that line many times. I have heard men experienced in international affairs shrug at the problems of Latin America, and tell me that they never have had a legal system or a social or economic system that would permit the kind of peaceful progress envisioned by the Alliance for Progress. I have been told, "People have al

ways lived under military dictatorships in Latin America and they always will. They don't know how to govern themselves any other way."

That is the kind of talk that Castro likes to hear from us. That is the kind of policy he likes to have us follow, too. And we do follow it when we go on building up military factions there with our free military equipment, and when we go on doing business as usual under the Alliance for Progress with for Progress with military juntas.

I am not asking Senators to interfere with what kind of governments these people choose for themselves. I am not advancing any policy of intervention in how Latin American countries are governed. But I am saying that we have the duty to decide how American money shall be spent down there, and for what purposes. Cutting off aid to a junta is not U.S. intervention. Reducing somewhat our level of military aid is not intervention. nations that want to help themselves and help advance the living conditions of their people through democratic institutions is not dictation to them. It is not an effort to force Anglo-Saxon institutions upon Latin peoples, as some of us are accused of doing.

Aiding

What I am calling for is a policy of pragmatism. I believe the evidence of recent history in Latin America is very clear, and that it compels us to reach the conclusion that putting American taxpayers' money into Latin American military machines and into the perpetuation of oligarchies is pure waste. If we go on doing it, communism will sweep the hemisphere, anyway. We cannot build a barrier to communism in Latin America with nothing but American dollars.

Neither can we build it with tanks and jet aircraft. We can only build that barrier with the institutions that the people there must erect themselves. All we can do is contribute a little of the capital it takes, and not very much of that.

The amendment of the Senator from Alaska, which, so far as I am concerned, eliminates any necessity for my amendment, which would seek to cut an additional $10 million from military aid for Latin America, now gives us a new opportunity, a changed opportunity, and gives to free nations in Latin America a different opportunity, too, because we say, "We will help you in the face of any threat to your internal security from the standpoint of Communist coups, from the standpoint of the Communist takeover which seeks to destroy a free government, but we are not going to damage you, and we are not going to weaken you; we are not going to put you in danger from a threat by giving the other kind of military aid that we have been giving for so long, which makes it possible for a military coup to build itself up and threaten the survival and the perpetuation of a free government.

Mr. President, we have a long way to go in Latin America. Sometime ago, the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations stated clearly that the Alliance for Progress would not be built in a few years—and it will not be if the Alliance for Progress grows into the fru

ition of which it is capable. However, if we kill it before it starts to bud; if we discourage the people of Latin America before the Alliance for Progress blossoms, we shall lose Latin America, so far as having an effective ally is concerned. We will then be confronted with a conflict between military fascism and revolutionary communism in Latin America.

I am concerned about some of the happenings in Latin America among some of our so-called friends, such as Brazil and Argentina.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD an article entitled "Brazil Plan for Alliance Is Rejected at Parley," published in the Washington Evening Star of today, November 14, 1963.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

BRAZIL PLAN FOR ALLIANCE IS REJECTED AT PARLEY

SÃO PAULO, BRAZIL, November 14.-A U.S.

backed proposal to give Latin Americans greater responsibility in direction of the Alliance for Progress apparently faced smoother sailing today after general rejection of a Brazilian plan to bring in as many European contributors as possible, including even the Communist bloc.

Diplomats said the Brazilian proposal won only Bolivia's support from among the 20 nations attending the Inter-American Economic and Social Council session.

There was no official U.S. comment, but most Latin American delegates privately censured the proposal, circulated quietly among delegates to sound out their reaction. As a result of the cold reception, the Brazilians decided not to submit their plan to a working committee.

AIMED AT U.S. PLAN

The Brazilian proposal apparently was intended to torpedo the U.S.-backed plan to create a seven-nation coordinating committee to pass on aid projects and give Latin Americans more influence in overall control of the multibillion-dollar economic and social development program.

The Brazilians reportedly had still another maneuver in said reserve. Informants Brazil has indicated that if the seven-nation committee is approved, it will insist that the action be ratified by the congress of each member nation. This could delay formation of the committee for several years.

The Brazilians argued that the sevennation committee would only impede the aid program by increasing red tape. But many delegates, particularly those from smaller countries, agreed that Brazil's opposition was based on the feeling that she would be reduced to the level of other nations applying for aid funds and that a mostly Latin American committee would be less sensitive to

political considerations than the United

States has been.

FIRM U.S. BACKING

U.S. Under Secretary of State W. Averell Harriman, head of the American delegation, placed U.S. support firmly behind the proposed committee yesterday and said if the program to accelerate Latin America's economic growth is lagging, it is largely Latin America's fault.

Mr. Harriman said that since the Alliance for Progress was launched 27 months ago, the United States has poured out $2.3 billion. "Within Latin America," he declared, "there have also been delays in establishing effective planning machinery, in mobilizing domestic resources, in establishing priorities, and above all in the development of wellconceived and technically sound projects."

Mr. Harriman said the Alliance needs "a greater multilateralization of effort and strengthened political leadership." He said the proposed committee, "under the leadership of a distinguished Latin American chairman, can and should give a vigorous new impetus to our common efforts."

Mr. Harriman's 45-minute speech was warmly received, even by the chief Brazilian delegate, Finance Minister Carlos Alberto Carvalho Pinto.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point as a part of my remarks an article entitled "Brazil Suggests All Nations Join Alliance Giving," published in the Washington Post of November 14, 1963, dealing with a proposal invitation to other nations, possibly even the Soviet Union, to contribute to the Alliance for Progress.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

that the United States would accept modifications of the plan.

beaten by repressive forces. Senator Mella also is under arrest and treated with lack of consideration. Once more human rights are

OFFICER. The

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I shall hasten this discussion by asking unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD a letter dated October 5, 1963, from Jose Figueres, former President of Costa Rica, in support of the principle that I have upheld in regard to juntas and military aid.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,

BRAZIL SUGGESTS ALL NATIONS JOIN ALLIANCE as follows: GIVING

SÃO PAULO, BRAZIL, November 13.-Brazil is sounding out Latin American nations on a suggestion to invite other nations, possibly even the Soviet Union, to contribute to the Alliance for Progress, informed sources said today.

They said first reaction was cool from other delegations attending the Inter-American Economic and Social Council session in São Paulo.

Many delegates obviously fear that the opening of the Alliance to those outside the Western Hemisphere would endanger U.S. financial support. The United States is committed to give Latin America economic aid to the tune of $10 billion over 10 years.

The Brazilian paper circulating among delegates was said to be an explanation why Brazil opposes the present plan to create a seven-man coordinating committee to spend Alliance aid.

The sources said Brazil's plan is not in the form of a proposed resolution but merely is advanced as a suggestion.

The idea would be to internationalize the Alliance for Progress program, now strictly United States-Latin American operation. One highly placed informant said the plan would open the Alliance to all comers, including the Soviet Union if necessary.

This is the Brazil plan as reported: All Latin American countries would contribute a total of $1 billion a year to the Alliance program; the United States would contribute

$1 billion; then other countries would also be invited to participate.

Last week at a meeting of Alliance experts, Brazil opposed the generally agreed upon plan to set up a seven-nation inter-American coordinating committee.

The Brazilian paper now in circulation is said to argue that the committee would only increase the redtape and bureaucracy that Brazil insists is holding up the program now. Officially, the conference took no notice of the Brazilian proposal.

The Alliance came in for criticism from Bolivia's Roberto Jordan Pando, who claimed that the aid program was being bogged down by U.S. bureaucracy.

Bolivia also joined Brazil in opposing the creation of the seven-nation inter-American Alliance Committee.

However, the committee plan was supported by U.S. Delegation Chief W. Averell Harriman.

He conceded that no one is "wholly satisfied with the progress of the Alliance program," but he said much more has been done than often is recognized by public opinion.

While backing the creation of the sevenman Alliance committee, Harriman indicated

HARVARD UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES, Cambridge, Mass., October 5, 1963. Hon. WAYNE MORSE,

The Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Congratulations on your stand on the Dominican and Honduran crises.

In the New York Times, October 5, page 1 continued, Tad Szulk says that the U.S. military mission encouraged the coup in Santo Domingo.

This is what is happening everywhere. The military call communism any social reform, and act independently.

It is a waste of time, money, and health to try to do anything wholeheartedly until the U.S. Government adopts a uniform policy toward social reform through elected gov

ernments.

Sincerely,

JOSE FIGUERES.

Mr. MORSE. I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD a telegram I received from Francisco J. Orlich, President of Costa Rica, dealing with my position in regard to military juntas and military aid.

There being no objection, the telegram was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

SAN JOSE, COSTA RICA,
October 17, 1963.

power. Would that it were possible that the committee over which you preside might intervene with the appropriate organ so that the Human Rights Commission might be sent with the purpose of ending the persecution and outrages against the citizens and legitimate representatives of the people. Cordial regards,

MORA OVIEDO,

Senator.

ESPINAL HUED,

Senator.

CASMIRO CASTRO,

Senator.

That letter was from three Senators

of the Dominican Republic Senate. A sordid tale is told of the persecutions and denial of civil liberties and human rights practiced upon many persons in the Dominican Republic as a result of the junta. Thus there can be no denial of the position which the senior Senator from Oregon has taken in opposition to any assistance to that junta until constitutional government is returned.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD, Without taking the time to read it, a letter to the editor of the New York Times from Miguel Ydigoras-Fuentes, Constitutional President of Guatemala, dated November 6, 1963, and published in the New York Times of November 13, 1963.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

GUATEMALA UPSET SEEN-OUSTED HEAD BELIEVES OPPOSITION IS RISING TO REGIME To the EDITOR OF THE NEW YORK TIMES:

Although I do not agree with all of Paul Kennedy's appraisal of the present political tragedy of the Guatemalan people, he deserves praise for his November 3 news article "Guatemala Chief Facing Pressure," for it sheds light on the tragedy.

Some of the business sector accused my

administration of being inept and corrupt, as your correspondent states, but that was due to the agrarian reform, the first income tax law and other social measures adopted by my constitutional government, which greatly affected the vested interests of the wealthy in Guatemala. They went so far as to imply that I was also a pro-Commu

Respectfully,

FRANCISCO J. ORLICH,
President of Costa Rica.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, under date of November 2, 1963, I received the following cablegram from three members of the Senate of the Dominican Republic:

[Translation]

SANTO DOMINGO, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, November 2, 1963.

Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.:

Today Dr. Juan Casasnovas Garrido, President of the Republic in accordance with the Constitution, was arrested, wounded, and

The opposition to Col. Enrique Peralta Azurdia's de facto and dictatorial regime is certainly growing, as I predicted. It should be borne in mind, however, that the despotic regime never did enjoy a wide and deepseated popular appeal. That is the reason why it abolished the Constitution, eliminated Congress and converted Guatemala into a police state.

Almost all political parties, as Mr. Kennedy's article points out, are bitterly against the present de facto regime, opposing by all means at their disposal the brutal internal ures adopted by Peralta and his associates in policies and the senseless international meas

INCREASED TERRORISM

Terrorism and guerrilla warfare have increased lately. Both have been so great, in fact, that on several occasions road and other communications have been severed between Guatemala City and other points in the interior, notably the northeastern seaboard. Military unrest has been growing despite Colonel Peralta's attempt to court the affection of younger military officers and more liberal-minded military that remember with shame their oath to defend the Con

The only legal solution is to return to constitutional government, calling the Vice President (First Designate) to rule the country and in accordance with our National Constitution, article 165, to call for presidential elections in the next 4 months, supervised by the Organization of American States. Guatemala deserves this solution in order to benefit from such great undertakings as the Alliance for Progress.

MIGUEL YDIGORAS-FUENTES, Constitutional President of Guatemala. MIAMI, FLA., November 6, 1963.

Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD a letter dated October 5, 1963, that I received from Miguel Ydigoras Fuentes, constitutional President of Guatemala, in support of many of the positions I have taken.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

SAN MARCO ISLAND, MIAMI, FLA.,
5 de Octubre de 1963.

Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senator from Oregon, Chairman, Latin
American Subcommittee, the Senate of
the United States, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Since our last con-
versation in the middle of the summer, when
we exchanged points of view regarding the
military coup in Guatemala which ousted the
legitimate Government I had the honor of
presiding, in accordance with the mandate of
the majority of Guatemalans expressed in
the free elections of January 1958, other
military takeovers have occurred in Latin
America and the social-political situation in
Guatemala has gravely deteriorated.

My own struggle against communism is, I believe, well known in the United States and in Latin America. It is, I am sure, recognized by the political leaders in your country and by many Latin Americans who have the responsibility of government. It is stated in my book: "My War With Communism," Prentice Hall (July 1963).

I say this because the American Continent must, on the one hand, repudiate the imperialist and aggressive policies and purposes of the international Communist movement, and, on the other, condemn in no uncertain terms the objectives and the methods of the right extremists, since they are intrinsically antagonistic to the democratic aspirations of the peoples of the Western Hemisphere and destructive to their free institutions.

As it happens with any human society, on occasions legitimate and democratic governments commit errors in procedure which, unfortunately, are greatly exaggerated in press dispatches. The Guatemalan press had been under censorship prior to 1958. The parties opposing my government and defeated at the polls, began, by means of the freedom of the press I imposed, a vicious campaign against my government, never seen before. One thing is to correct the mistakes that might be committed in a democracy, and quite another to take advantage of the freedoms of democracy to destroy it.

During the past 2 years, the inter-American community has come to realize that "political" and "social" democracies must go hand in hand, because they mutually complement each other. This realization has received great impetus, in my opinion, thanks to the courageous and dynamic leadership

of President John F. Kennedy. I am referring specifically to the Alliance for Progress, that gigantic and multilateral effort destined to raise, in the social and economic fields, the standard of living of millions of Latin Americans. You may recall my own efforts, initiated during the first semester of my term in 1958, to accelerate the economic integration of the Central American Republics; and President Kubitscheck's vast plan which he entitled "Operation Pan America," of the same year. But it is also true that without President Kennedy's understanding of the problem and without his complete support, the Alliance for Progress would not have been established at Punta del Este, on August 17, 1961.

The Alliance is a most ambitious program, but it must be implemented, as the "Declaration of the Peoples of the Americas" reads, in a free climate, with free institutions, always respectful of human rights. If it were otherwise, as the Communist claim to be doing in the enslaved island of Cuba, the joint effort would make a mockery out of representative democracy and, in the end, it would be completely useless.

The military that overthrow legitimate, constitutional and democratic regimes in Latin America do so ostensibly on many grounds, but in fact because they abhor the democratic way of life, free and constructive dialog, and the right to dissent from the philosophy that guides any government or the means used to achieve the ends sought. To them the multiplicity of political parties, the establishment of labor unions and the free expression of opinion, for example, are characteristic of "decadent" societies, and roads which inevitably lead to chaos and This is the outlook-very primianarchy.

tive indeed-of the extremists of the right, of the totalitarians a la Hitler and Mussolini. In other words, their outlook is completely negative and obstructionist; and, what is worse, they form a close and fraternal alliance with every other bitter enemy of democracy in that they wish democracy to fail. They pretend to stay in power by pointing out, falsely of course, that the sole alternative to Communist rule is military misrule and oligarchic reaction.

Some have advocated that dictatorship and de facto governments should be excluded from participating in the InterAmerican System. A year ago, at the Organization of American States, several Latin American democratic countries introduced a resolution to have a Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs discuss that possibility. Although my Government was naturally sympathetic to the initiative, it instructed its Permanent Mission not to vote affirmatively because (1) it was uncertain as to the effectiveness of the step proposed and (2) it believed that other measures (joint breaking of diplomatic relations and collective economic sanctions, for example) could be taken outside the InterAmerican System, in a less formal but more effective manner. What my Government had in mind, my dear friend, was to consult with other legitimate governments as to the possibility of "continentalizing" Article II of the Central American Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed in Washington on February 7th, 1923, through which de facto and unconstitutional regimes would not be rec

ognized diplomatically.

What the Latin American community needs, in my opinion, is to intensify its economic development and to greatly accelerate social justice, before it is too late, but certainly preserving in the process-the fundamental rights of man. It is intolerable to have any part of the population pass dogmatic judgment on the desires and needs of the majority; and much worse if any popular sector denies, through undemocratic means, the wishes of other popular sectors. If a group of Colonels believes that the legitimate government, freely elected by the

people, is conducting its business in an illmannered fashion, the thing for its members to do is to resign from the Armed Forces and enter politics, observing as any one else the rules of the game. When they usurp power and oust a democratic and constitutional government, no matter what pretext they might advance for their action, the international community should react with energy, vigor and indignation-sanctioning their ill-conceived and ill-executed performance.

In normal times, the international family of nations suffers inmensely when a democratic regime is decapitated. In this atomic era, when years are reduced to weeks and months to minutes, any democratic setback is much more dangerous to the community because it affords its enemies an excellent opportunity to give the West a major setback in international politics.

As to the present situation in Guatemala, the de facto and dictatorial regime has openly and defiantly violated the Charter of the United Nations, the Charter of the Organization of American States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, the Declaration of Santiago de Chile of 1959 and most of the instruments pertaining to the rule of law and the protection of fundamental freedoms. It has converted the country into a terrible police state.

Colonel Enrique Peralta and his associates in crime have ruthlessly suppressed the freedoms fully enjoyed by the Guatemalan people under my administration. Monstrous laws have been decreed. Congress has been abolished. Habeas corpus has been eliminated. An indefinite stage of seige exists in the country. Military tribunals judge ordinary offenses (called, by the ruling and reactionary clique, seditious and subversive). Hundreds have been jailed, and many mistreated before being sent into exile in foreign but friendly lands. There is a growing list of Guatemalans being summarily shot. The paredon as in Cuba, is becoming a national institution. Freedom of expression is not only a myth: it is admittedly nonexistent. High schools have been militarized. Social progress has come to a complete stop.

I denounced all these terrible violations to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in late August, and requested that body to investigate the charges and take appropriate measures. In statements and letters to the press I have warned that repressive measures are on the increase and that the hatred of the Guatemalan people for the present regime is growing. Guatemalans, from every walk of life, are responding to the situation with greater acts of bravery, and even with terrorist acts and increased guerrilla activities, because there is no solution in sight.

Not a word has been said officially about general elections. And even if they were convoked, there is absolutely no guarantee that they would be free. As a matter of fact, they could not be, unless a new government took over and conducted itself fairly, restoring the fundamental freedoms which have been trampled over by the military boot.

Colonel Peralta's regime has not only defied the sovereign will of the Guatemalan people, but with incredible audacity and impunity-has defied all the American Cortinent. Its contempt for the opinion of democratic leaders of the Americas has no bounds.

Should you wish, my dear Senator MORSE, to distribute copies of this letter to your distinguished colleagues in the Latin American Subcommittee of the Senate of the United States and, particularly, to my good friend Senator BOURKE B. HICKENLOOPER, Of Iowa, you may do so without any hesitancy. If, however, you desire to include it in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, feel free to do so.