Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Wednesday, 21 April 1971


Senator RAE - The statement continues:

Some of you people have been present in a heavy bombing area.

The next sub-heading in President Eisenhower's speech reported in the New York Times' of Wednesday. 5th August 1953, is'Need for Ordered Plan'. The statement then continues:

You have seen the panic that overtakes people. The indispensable ingredient-


Senator Webster - I rise to a point of order. I request that the Senate give Senator Rae an opportunity to incorporate the balance of the statement in Hansard.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Is leave granted? Leave is not granted.


Senator RAE - May I continue reading?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Yes.


Senator RAE - I will begin again from the sub-heading:

Need for Ordered Plan

You have seen the panic that overtakes people. The indispensable ingredient of any civil defense is some self-control, and that's all that discipline is. On top of it then is an ordered plan to place people in a position of safety. On top of that you can build a number of artificial and organized defenses, even to include your warning services in the case the Federal Government takes over in the field of active defense. But without this ordered, and orderly, action on the part of the civilian population, all safety defense measures will fall Bat.

As it is today, suppose we had an emergency in a department store in Seattle. Any American would feel self-conscious if you gave him a job of, let's say, going out and helping dragging out fire hose or standing out on the sidewalk with a pocketful of sand.

He would feel self-conscious. Now, there is where the job of leadership has to work. How are we going to get Americans to do these things seriously and soberly and knowing them necessary?

The Federal Government has a very wide, definite, fixed responsibility in this whole program, but we can never do it unless the localities down to the last individual will cooperate.

I could go on enumerating every kind of problem that comes before the state. Let us take, though, for example, one simple problem in the foreign field.

I pause for a moment not only to have a drink of water but also to say that perhaps it is unfortunate that Senator Keeffe and Senator Milliner are not here to listen to this, but I will go on because this is the important part:

You have seen war in Indo-China described variously as an outgrowth of French colonialism and the French refusal to treat indigenous populations decently. You find it yet described as a war between the Communists and the other elements in Southeast Asia, but you have a confused idea of where is located Laos and Cambodia or any of the other countries that are involved.

The Asian Problem

You don't know really why we are so con cerned with the far-off southeast corner of Asia. Why is it?

Now, first of all, the last great population remaining in Asia that has not become dominated by the Kremlin, of course, is the subcontinent of India, the Pakistanian Government.

Here are 150,000,000 people who are still free. Now let us assume that we lose Indo-China. If Indo-China goes, several things happen right away. The peninsula, the last little bit of land hanging on down there, would be scarcely defensible. The tin and tungsten that we so greatly value from that area would cease coming, but all India would be outflanked.

Burma would be in no position for defense.

Now, India is front on that side by the Soviet Empire. I believe you read in the paper this morning that Mossadegh moved toward getting rid of his parliament,andofcourse he was in that move supported by the Communist party of Iran. All of that position around there is very ominous to the United States, because finally if we lost all that, how would the free world hold the rich empire of Indonesia?

So you see, somewhere along the line, this must be blocked and it must be blocked now, and that's what we are trying to do.

So when the United States votes $400,000,000 to help that war, we are not voting a giveaway program. We are voting for the cheapest way that we can prevent the occurrence of something that would be of a most terrible significance to the United States of America, our security, our power and ability to get certain things we need from the riches of the Indonesian territory and from Southeast Asia.

Now, that is the kind of thing that it isn't good enough for someone to decide in Washington. All of us understand, because out of that kind of thing grows the need for taxes. The security of the United States is not just the business of the Secretary of Defense and the Congress and the President and the Secretaries of the services, it's the business of every man, woman and child and, if it is their business, then it is the business of all of us. We need help.

I don't care what the problem is. I think I can always talk, my friends, just to get back to this one thought: unless the Governors of the state, I don't give a hoot whether a Democrat or Republican is in this kind of a job, we are Americans, in the Federal Government, unless we can cooperate on the basis of understanding of the facts and progress steadily, surely and confidently in carrying out a program that we believe will establish the security of the United States, not only from a bomb, from some kind of destructive action of the enemy, but make sure that its surpluses are carried abroad and in return for those surpluses we get back goods that will allow those people to buy our surpluses; unless we have that kind of economic strength we are going to have to live a very different kind of life than we do.

This can all be done only through cooperation. This is no partisan proposition. We don't have a monopoly on truth or on the facts that affect this country. We must work together.

So far as it goes, that is the document which was tabled. It may be of some interest to those who were keen to debate this subject but not keen to hear the subject matter read to have the opportunity of reading the statement tomorrow, if they so desire, so that they can see whether the context in which they used the statement was a good representation of the context in which it was used originally. I can but emphasise that what was not referred to tonight was the fact that General Eisenhower was talking about trade generally and the beneficial effects it had on the people in both countries who were involved in that trade. I do not debate the subject any further. It is interesting to know that the Opposition is so concerned that a speech of General Eisenhower's, which may or may not have been taken out of context, should not be available to anybody who reads Hansard that it refused me the leave to incorporate the speech, which caused the Senate to be detained for 15 or 20 minutes while I read the speech. I have now done so and I hope that people will now be able to see this matter in its proper context.

Thursday, 22 April 1971







Suggest corrections