Abbildungen der Seite



A View From the Governor's Mansion




Washington, D.C.

The committee met at 10:15 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 4221, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Sparkman (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Sparkman, Clark, Case, and Percy.
Senator SPARKMAN. Let the committee come to order.


Today the Foreign Relations Committee resumes its series of hearings on foreign policy choices for the seventies and eighties with a view from the Governor's mansion.

As you may know, previous hearings in this series have featured the thinking of mayors, religious leaders, farm and labor officials, representatives from the current and past administrations, and a panel of public opinion pollsters.

In the future we will be hearing among others-from Secretary Kissinger, plus labor leaders Leonard Woodcock and Jerry Wurf. The intention of these Bicentennial hearings is to further public education and discussion hopefully throughout the country.

In late spring, at the conclusion of this series, we will have on the record a full spectrum of American thinking concerning the kind of nation we want to be in the next decade.

It is rather unusual for this committee to hear from Governors. In most cases, witnesses before the Foreign Relations Committee come from those areas of society most closely associated with legislation, crises, or programs that have traditionally been affiliated with the foreign policy community.

But this is a changing world. Today foreign policy is more than ever a reflection of domestic policy. In some cases the opposite is true. Domestic policy is a reflection of events that occur overseas. The energy crisis is a prime example.

It is the committee's opinion that the view from the Governor's mansion will be valuable. Governors not only reflect their electorate on such matters as energy, resource use, and the overriding values and goals of our society, they themselves are often a part of the process which we call international relations.


I could list many examples, but it is sufficient to point out only two. First, I would expect that more U.S. trade missions abroad are led by Governors than any other representatives of the people. Secondly, the energy crisis and its ramifications on the people of the United States has been one of the most thoroughly discussed topics in the entire catalog of Governors' problems.

Today we have asked two distinguished State leaders to give us their thoughts on where this nation might be going.

I might add that Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts fully expected to be with us today. Although pressing State business has prevented his appearance, the Governor's prepared statement will be entered into the record.

Just as all Senators are equal, so we consider all Governors to be so. Therefore, we will ask that their appearance be in alphabetical order. First we will hear from Governor Daniel Evans of Washington State, followed by Governor Richard Lamm of Colorado.

Questioning will be held after the Governors' presentations have been completed.

Senator Percy, you have a statement to make, I believe, before we



Senator PERCY. My statement is very brief indeed. The committee is very honored to have two distinguished Governors with us, certainly representing States that I have a deep personal interest in. I have just been to Colorado once again to ski. We earn our living in Illinois and enjoy life in Colorado. Certainly we are glad to have Governor Lamm here.

Governor Evans has been a long-time personal friend. He has two constituents very close to me, my son and daughter-in-law, in Seattle.

I would like to say for the record that this Governor has served three terms, and according to a Seattle Times survey, would have, in a try for a fourth term, a larger vote than all other six Republican and Democratic potential contenders combined. That is testimony to a great Governor.

We are very happy and honored to have him here. His interest in the Pacific is well known.

I think that he should know that in the debate yesterday on the Mariana Islands covenant, the strongest argument I could use, after surveying our interest in the Pacific, is that this symbolically was terribly important to Japan and South Korea and other powers.

The United States is a Pacific power and intends to stay a Pacific power. We are not withdrawing. We are intensifying our interest, despite the problems that we suffered in South Vietnam.

Certainly we have a Governor here who can tell us what our interests are in the Pacific. I look forward to having the testimony from both of our very distinguished witnesses this morning. Senator SPARKMAN. Senator Clark?


Senator CLARK. Mr. Chairman, I have no statement, except just to say in passing I join with you and Senator Percy in saying we are very pleased to have two most distinguished Governors here.

I have had occasion to meet and work with both of them. I know that they will represent the views of the Governors of many States because they are both very closely in touch with the national issues as well as the State issues. We are delighted to have you here and pleased to have your testimony.

Senator SPARKMAN. We have copies of the prepared statement of Governor Evans. Governor Lamm, I understand you do not have a prepared statement.

Let me say, Governor Evans, your statement will be printed in the record in full. You may present it as you see fit.


Governor EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate this opportunity to appear. I will attempt to summarize the written statement, particularly in the specific recommendations made in the latter part of that statement; but to precede that by saying that it would be somewhat presumptuous of a Governor involved as we are in domestic policy and the issues of our State to present to you a global view of American foreign policy. I think there are, as the chairman has pointed out in his introductory remarks, some quite specific areas where Governors have had and are having an influence on potential foreign policy, particularly that of the future.


I will attempt to deal with the problems of the Pacific rim. As a Governor of a Pacific rim State, and one who has visited the Far East, including the People's Republic of China, and a number of other areas in recent years, and that does include the Siberian regions of the Soviet Union, let me confine my remarks to that part of the world.

I might say in passing that two-way foreign trade of the State of Washington has increased at a very rapid rate during the course of the last decade or more. From 10 years ago, at about a $2 billion annual foreign trade, we have come to 1975 where our two-way foreign trade exceeded $12 billion, which is more than the foreign trade of many fairly good sized nations of the world; more, for instance, than Austria and other countries of similar size.

So we believe our future-the economic future, the job futureof our State depends very heavily on the relationships we have with other countries, and particularly the countries of the Far East. Over half the world population is in Asia. Japan, China, the Soviet Union are all Asian powers.

Our capital investments are still not large in the Pacific rim, but it is interesting to note that recent statistics indicate that the trade with East Asian and South Asian countries is larger than our trade with the Common Market countries. So we are already at a point. where the significance of the Pacific rim is quite apparent to the United States.

That is in contrast, of course, with our traditions-our traditions of our own culture, our own background, our revolutionary heritageall of which tend to point to Western Europe as an important element in our foreign policy. But I think that in the remainder of this

century and the beginning of the next century we are much more likely to be dealing not with the problems of political ideology but, more accurately, the central problems of poverty, of low agricultural productivity in some areas, hunger, disease, high infant mortality rates, which paradoxically seem to lead to high birth rates. All of those have immense future potential for the foreign policy of the United States.


No country on this planet has solved its population problems in this century without first substantially solving its poverty problems. The population grows simply in order to provide sufficient insurance against childhood deaths so that some will live to maturity and to provide the social security for those parents who have no other way of living in their old age, other than through the efforts of their children, however many live to adulthood.

The decay of the political institutions, which arises out of poverty and of hunger, the military adventurism, the fury of the masses of people, have all a potentially explosive impact on the United States.


Therefore, I think that we do have some important reasons to readjust some of our priorities, to pay considerably increased attention to the Pacific rim and to the masses of people who live on the Pacific rim, to give at least equal billing to that part of the world, as compared with our traditional relationship with Europe and the more industrialized nations.

Given the events of the last few years and our problems in Southeast Asia, we need to make clear to the governments and the people of South and East Asia that our interest is not to enforce any ideological viewpoint on their governments but, rather, to help them improve basic living conditions.

As George Marshall in 1947, a third of a century ago, put it in words that are just as relevant today: Our struggle must be "against hunger, disease, desperation, and chaos."

In those years we responded remarkably well in the wake of postwar chaos in Europe. We need to respond equally well today with the potential chaos or problems in the less developed countries in the highly populated countries of our Pacific rim.

Let me summarize then by suggesting six steps which can be taken. Some of them may be so self-evident they need not bear repeating.


But, first, a continued effort, a strong effort on the part of the United States to limit and ease the tentions between the United States and the People's Republic of China, the United States and Japan, the United States and the Soviet Union. They are all essential to our well-being.

And while those bilateral relationships and the tensions involved must be eased, I am under no illusions it will be easy to do so while maintaining equally good relationships with all three.

It is obvious that they have problems between themselves. Our relationships, however, have to be such to reduce tensions.

Diplomatic efforts to help lessen the tensions between North and South Korea I believe are essential to avoid another powder keg and explosive condition in Asia; and renewed efforts, difficult though they may be, to reawaken our understanding with India. All of these are perhaps obvious but sometimes overlooked in our attention to other parts of the world.


I think we should recognize, second, that while we may continue to live in the short term with the existing system of bilateral alliances with East and South Asia, we must seek a restructuring of the old alliance system which recognizes our changing interests in the area and which will best enable us to cope with the terrors of poverty, hunger, and population.


Third, I believe we should engage in a massive increase in direct food aid to Asia, particularly those countries which are not selfsufficient; those countries which are having continuing major difficulties in food production.

I believe we should return very quickly to at least our 9- to 10million-ton level of early 1970; and, better still, to the midsixties level, considerably higher than that.

The value of food shipments to our own self-interest can be most vividly seen in our trading of wheat to the Soviet Union. I know very well, as a major wheat-producing State, the reactions of farmers to first the sale and then the embargo and then the release of the embargo on wheat to the Soviet Union.

But more important, I believe that if we had rigidly rejected these shipments from the very beginning, it is doubtful that any semblance of détente could have been maintained, and it is quite reasonable to believe a new and possibly more hostile government in the Soviet Union might well have taken over.


No. 4, more funds need to be committed to long-term economic development and better means provided for resource transfers from the United States to the less developed countries of Asia.

It is imperative that we help these countries achieve the economic self-reliance which will enable them to break this poverty, hunger, and then population cycle.

I believe the dramatic result achieved in land reform, in economic aid from the United States, has resulted in dramatically increased food production. And self-sufficiency in Taiwan, in South Korea, indicate that that job can be done if we are willing to provide the impetus for it.

68-012-76-vol 2-17

« ZurückWeiter »