124. Memorandum From the President’s Special Assistant (Schlesinger) to the President’s Special Assistant for National Security Affairs (Bundy)1
SUBJECT
- The Rusk-Murrow Memorandum on “An Effective Countertheme to ‘Peaceful Coexistence’”
The attached memorandum for the President from Dean Rusk and Ed Murrow proposes that we attempt to combat the Soviet propaganda emphasis on “peaceful coexistence” by developing the countertheme of “peaceful world community.”2 USIA has apparently already instructed its people to employ the term whenever it is appropriate.3 I am not convinced by this memorandum; and, before it is taken up with the President, I would welcome your views on the matter.
Obviously a new propaganda phrase is not going to solve our problems. In any case, I doubt whether this phrase is the right one for the simple reason that it does not do what it is supposed to do—that is, it does not establish an “understanding of the difference between our and the Soviet concept.” The heart of that difference, I would have thought, lies in the question of human dignity and freedom—and this is not immediately suggested by the proposed phrase. If one were to ask Khrushchev whether he was against a “peaceful world community,” he would of course reply—and truthfully in his terms—that this is exactly what he is working day and night to bring about. “Peaceful world community” and “peaceful coexistence” do not constitute a meaningful antithesis.
I am informed also by Roger Tubby and Philip Stern of State that the phrase “peaceful world community” presents tricky problems in translation. In many languages, it will come out, when translated, very close to “peaceful coexistence.” In Russian, I understand, the words for “peaceful” and “world” are identical, which would make our proposed slogan very clumsy indeed (mirnoye mirnoye obschchestvo). Also “community” is hard to render; in many languages, it will come out as “village” or, if transliterated, will be hard to distinguish from “communism.”
[Page 240]I share the Tubby-Stern view that “world of free choice” would be a preferable phrase. “World of free choice” suggests an immediate antithesis: the pluralistic world vs. the monolithic world. The phrase implies human dignity, political freedom, self help, cultural independence, etc. It should strike a particularly responsive chord in the underdeveloped world where nations and individuals probably care much more at the moment about freedom for national self-assertion than about a peaceful world community. Since free choice is one thing the Communists can’t bear and always eradicate at the first opportunity, Khrushchev would be much harder put to claim that he too wanted a world of free choice. Moreover, the phrase apparently presents no very serious translation problems.
Let me quote from Dean Rusk’s eloquent statement on May 31 before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “We seek, above all, a world of free choice in which a great diversity of nations, each faithful to its own traditions and its own genius, will learn to respect the ground rules of human survival. We do not wish to make the world over in our own image-and we will not accept that the world be made over in the image of any society or dogmatic creed. Against the world of coercion, we affirm the world of choice. We believe that the revolution of human liberty will never come to an end.”4 This seems to me to be the main point.
- Source: Washington National Records Center, RG 306, USIA Files: FRC 68 A 1415, Policy and Plans-Nuclear Testing/61. No classification marking.↩
- Document 123.↩
- In a memorandum of April 18, Murrow notified Under Secretary of State Bowles of USIA’s intention “to employ the term ‘peaceful world community’ in all media whenever appropriate.” (Washington National Records Center, RG 306, USIA Files: FRC 68 A 1415, Policy and Plans-General, Jan-Jun 61)↩
- For full text of Secretary Rusk’s May 31 statement, see Department of State Bulletin, June 19, 1961, pp. 947–955.↩