1954 became something of a pivotal year with regards to our presence in Asia. The Korean conflict had come to an end, but the one in Vietnam was about to heat up. Only earlier in the year the French suffered a paralyzing defeat at Dien bien Phu, bringing about their withdrawal from the former colony and our increased presence in the form of aid (military and economic) to the South Vietnamese government. China was again saber rattling with the island of Formosa. It was an uneasy time.

So on September 23, 1954, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles addressed the United Nations General Assembly.

John Foster Dulles: “The people of the United States believe wholeheartedly in the purposes and the principles set out by the charter of the United Nations. And that document marks a milestone in an understanding of the nature of peace. It recognizes that peace is not merely a passive concept. But peace is a call to action. It is not enough to dislike war and to denounce it, war has been hated throughout the ages, yet war has been recurrent throughout the ages. One reason is that men have never put into winning the peace efforts comparable to those which they put into winning a war.”

Lofty words, yet given the amount of "meddling" we were involved in at the time, it would seem a somewhat hollow gesture. Granted, there was a Cold War raging. The Independence movement was going full-tilt in Africa and the Soviet Union were doing their level best to influence those newly discovered rights of self-determination with both financial and military aid and it was something of a popularity contest. But we weren't making the world any safer by our support of regimes and dictatorships with endless lists of human rights violations. In our somewhat bungling quest to wage world peace, we were doing much to sow the seeds of discontent simply because we were always helping out the wrong guy. Were we, in 1954 just lousy judges of character? Or did we really think dictatorships, such as those in Cuba and Nicaragua, would see the error of their ways and magically embrace democracy with the Batista's and Somoza's stepping down "for the good of the people"?

We're still trying to figure that one out.

(Korea: Police Action - swore up and down we'd be there a few weeks)

Note: This is a repost from last November, but the misfires linger on.

Our legacy of Foreign Policy misfires is long and involved and certainly not the exclusive property of the last twenty or so years. Although it does make you wonder how long we've been screwing up and has it always been this bad.

There was that matter of Korea and the Domino Theory of Communist takeovers in the Far East put forth by the Eisenhower Administration. There was also the matter of the Red Scare and how the Marshall Plan was a dismal failure guaranteed to make the U.S. a weaker superpower. There was the blame game where the United Nations was a dismal failure, also guaranteed to make the U.S. a weaker superpower and how we needed to divest ourselves of that body.

But nowhere in all the arguments, even going back to 1950, was there an alternative to what we were doing and doing badly.

Everybody agreed something was wrong and something needed to change drastically over how we were dealing with the rest of the world and both sides of the political aisle varied wildly over what the solution was. This exchange between Senators William Benton (D-Connecticut) and George Malone (R-Nevada) offer ample proof. The program was The American Forum Of The Air, broadcast on July 9, 1950 - the subject: "Do We Need A New Foreign Policy?". The ensuing shouting match said it all.

Sen. George Malone: “We have not yet had a definite Foreign Policy. I note that your subject today, do we need a new foreign policy? I say definitely we do, because we have never yet said and the President has not said in Korea whether or not the integrity of Korea is important to our ultimate safety. He (President Truman) has said he has got us in it on account of the United Nations and half of the world is not with us in the United Nations. Eastern Europe, Russia, Communist China. We better make up our minds just what our foreign policy is and let the American people know it and let the other nations know it. So we can come out. Now if he has any ideas at all, if he has any ideas, I say he ought to let us know what they are.”

60 years later and the arguing doesn't look like it's ending anytime soon. Meanwhile, there's the body bags . . .

Help keep this thing going. Newstalgia, Crooks and Liars, Late Night Music Club - everybody depends on you. So . .

News for this June 21st in 1955 was mostly all about the 10th Anniversary celebrations taking place in San Francisco, site of the first meeting of the United Nations. June 21st commemorated the signing of the UN Charter. Right after the newscast is a re-cap of the days activities and excerpts of addresses from British Foreign Secretary Harold Macmillan.

With the news was also enthusiastic anticipation over the upcoming Big Four Conference, to be held in Geneva in July. Macmillan voiced optimism that the issues of the Cold War were becoming more agreeable. In addressing the assembly, Macmillan hoped for a continuing of good relations between East and West. Former Prime Minister Winston Churchill was less unreserved, saying he welcomed the softening of positions, but was still wary that the Cold War was still very much with us.

In other news, it was reported two North Korean pilots defected to South Korea. CIO Leader Walter Reuther rejected an offer by the Auto Makers for uniform contract negotiations and President Eisenhower extended the Reciprocal Trade Agreements.

All that and a re-cap of the celebrations at the United Nations for this June 21, 1955 as reported by Ben Grauer of NBC Radio News.

On this particular day in 1957, President Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles returned from the NATO Conference, armed with some optimism and addressed the nation, reporting on the progress made during the meeting.

Pres. Eisenhower: “There was one basic purpose implicit in every discussion and debate of the conference, that was the pursuit of a just peace. Not once during the week did I hear any slightest hint of saber rattling or of aggressive intent. Of course, all of us were concerned with developing the necessary spiritual, economic and military strength of our defensive alliance. We are determined that there must be no war.”

During the Cold War there was always room for optimism of a thaw.

(John Foster Dulles - it had nothing to do with fruit . . .much)

When a coup overthrew the popularly-elected leftist government in Guatemala in June 1954, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles delivered an address to the American people extolling the virtues of our improving ties with Latin America, based on the recently adjourned Caracas Conference. It wasn't until much later that it was disclosed the overthrow was hatched, aided and executed by the CIA and that it had much to do with, of all things, fruit.

John Foster Dulles: “Throughout this period that I’ve outlined, the Guatemalan governments and the Communist agents throughout the world have persistently attempted to obscure the real issue; that of Communist Imperialism. By claiming that the United States is only interested in protecting American business. We regret that there had been disputes between the government of Guatemala and the United Fruit Company. We have urged repeatedly that these disputes should be submitted to settlement by an International tribunal or by international arbitration. That’s the way to dispose of problems of this sort.”

Despite claims to the contrary, it had very much to do with business since Dulles was a major shareholder in the United Fruit Company. But because we were knee deep in red-scare politics, any mention of the real intent to overthrow the government just didn't seem too necessary to mention at the time.

The left hand paying no attention to what the right hand was doing.

(Allen, the shady Dulles brother)

Allen Dulles was head of the CIA from 1953-1961, putting him smack in the middle of the Cold War, the Middle East, Vietnam, the Red Scare, just about everything America found itself knee deep in during the Eisenhower years. It is also interesting to note that his brother, John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State during that time (until his death in 1959) - no doubt it was an interesting atmosphere around Washington then. But in 1968 we had the infamous Pueblo Incident, where an admitted spy ship was seized in North Korean waters and the resulting embarrassment lasted for years. Dulles comfortably assesses the damage from the comfort of his retirement. As always, the Cold War has really never ended, especially in 1968.

In this interview, conducted by Mitchell Krauss for the NET series "Newsfront" in February of 1968, Dulles busily promotes his new book "Great True Spy Stories" and skillfully evades some pertinent questions.

Allen Dulles: (with reference to the Pueblo incident) “It is very important to get the type of intelligence that a ship like the Pueblo can gather. And therefore it was reasonable that it should be in that general area in order to carry out its mission. Obviously, it’s important to know what the possible antagonist is planning and doing and so forth and so on. One of the ways is to pick up from the airwaves, you know, what he’s saying.”

All in all, a rather easy game of softball, but one of the rare interviews done by someone who certainly knew where all the mummies were buried.

(Edward J. Corsi - Assassination by Innuendo)

With America hot in the grips of the Red Scare, it was possible to settle all manner of vendetta by simply implying someone had "Communist Friendly" ties. Such was the case of Edward J. Corsi, who had been appointed in 1954 by John Foster Dulles to oversee the State Department Immigration Program. Corsi, who was a liberal Republican, had apparently run afoul of a Congressman from Pennsylvania who decided Corsi was ill-equipped to handle the position and was rumored to be tied in the past to Communist front organizations. Corsi's boss, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles promptly fired him and it sent shock waves throughout Capitol Hill. The scandal was thought to have political repercussions for the upcoming 1956 elections and his firing set up an outcry that came from many unlikely sectors of the political spectrum, including Eleanor Roosevelt.

While the scandal was fresh, CBS' program Face The Nation on April 17, 1955 sat down with Corsi, and with a panel of journalists, hammered questions at him.

John Madigan (Washington Bureau Chief of Newsweek): “Do you believe you were fired in this instance because an influential Democratic Congressman made some charges concerning your alleged associations previously with Communist front organizations?

Edward Corsi: “ I haven’t the slightest doubt about that Mister Madigan, because the Secretary himself told me that.”

Madigan: “Mister Dulles has told you that he fired you because of charges made by Representative Walter of Pennsylvania?”

Corsi: “Mister Dulles told me that it was essential that he maintained friendly relations with Congress.”

Madigan: “But did he tell you that was the reason you were fired, in order to keep up such relations?”

Corsi: “Well I think that would have had no other meaning for me other than that. What he said he had to maintain friendly relations with Congress and this controversy had embarrassed those relations with Congress and I was to go to South America so that the controversy would end.”

It's interesting that political assassination by innuendo is still very much alive and used today.

In 1955 it was just as nasty.

(Lake Success 1949 - John Foster Dulles and Andrei Gromyko - between them, an iceberg)

With the upcoming General Assembly meetings at the UN, I thought it would be interesting to take a look back sixty years, before the United Nations headquarters was built and meetings were held in New York at Lake Success. In 1949 it was about forming the Atomic Energy Commission and the subject was inspections. The USSR had only announced a few weeks earlier that it had tested its first Atomic Bomb, adding one more name to the club that has grown increasingly ever since.

But in 1949 the UN was still grappling with the ground rules - where was this new potentially devastating power heading - and who else was going to get it?

During the weekly radio program Memo From Lake Success, co-produced by CBS, the CBC and United Nations Radio, the subject of regulating nuclear energy high on the list.

Future Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson is interviewed, explaining his take on the situation.

Interviewer: “Mister Pearson, the West maintains that atomic energy can be controlled internationally only by this proposed agency which will manage and operate the Atomic Industry. Would it be possible to set up, by treaty beforehand, a system of quotas, allocations of atomic plants and nuclear fuels. And then a system of continuous rigid inspection be set up for the international agency, which might be effective and perhaps necessitate a little less of the insistence on ownership and operation?"

Lester Pearson (Canadian Foreign Secretary): “ Well, of course naturally that point had occurred to people, but you must remember that the representatives of the majority in this commission, have gone through this matter very, very carefully. And they have come to the conclusion that the only safe way is to have international operations and control. But if it were possible to give more power of operations to nations, and take away some power from the international agency, then that would make it all that more important that you had complete international power of inspection at any time without any reservation of qualification. And that means a really . . well . . .quite important interference in what our Russian friends call National Sovereignty. And they have given no indication whatever at any time that they are willing to accept that kind of international supervision or inspection. And that seems to me to be the fundamental difference between the two positions now. We are willing to go very far in the direction of international inspection and supervision. They are certainly not willing to go so far."

The climate has changed considerably since 1949. There is no more Soviet Union for one thing - only now there's North Korea and Iran.

Two more members of the ever-expanding club.

(Coined the phrase "Massive Retaliation" - Ike ran with it)

Fifty years ago this week, former Secretary of State John Foster Dulles died after a two-year bout with cancer. Largely credited as the architect of America's Cold War Policy, Dulles wasn't a big believer in negotiation as a way to deal with the Soviet Union, but rather a staunch believer in nuclear options as a deterrent. His brother, Allen was one of the first directors of the Central Intelligence Agency and with tacit encouragement of John instituted many policies which are still in use today in the area of surveillance.

The clips I ran across are a series of tributes broadcast from May 26-28, 1959 by conservative far-right columnist and commentator Fulton Lewis Jr. Lewis made no apologies about his undying love for Dulles and these broadcasts take fawning and demigodery to new heights. Lewis was an ardent anti-communist and supporter of Joe McCarthy, once referring to Arthur Miller as "That pinko playwright" in one of his broadcasts. His popularity flourished in the 1950's as a result of his brand of "folksy wingnutery"over the Mutual Radio Network.

Lewis was not alone in his anti-liberal rants. A further indication the media was never the bastion of left-wing thought as many would have us believe.

In any event, after Dulles' passing, a general thaw was beginning in our East-West relationships, only to be re-frozen when the U-2 incident came to light - a policy instituted by Dulles and continued despite claims to the contrary.

Old habits are just hard to break I suppose.