NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.
| The State Department web site below is a permanent electronic archive of information released prior to January 20, 2001. Please see www.state.gov for material released since President George W. Bush took office on that date. This site is not updated so external links may no longer function. Contact us with any questions about finding information. NOTE: External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein. |
280. Action Memorandum From the Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for Population Matters (Claxton) to Secretary of State Rusk/1/ Washington, November 23, 1966. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1964-66, SOC 13. Confidential. SUBJECT Summary This memorandum reviews where we are on population policy and summarizes some of the increasing dangers of population growth to economic progress, sufficiency of food and political stability. It argues that excessive population growth is the most serious single problem facing most of the LDC's and that despite the very real advances made by the Department and AID in this field during the last two years, substantial additional attention, planning, staffing, persuasion and action are now essential to make the publicly announced policies of the President on this subject effective and to forestall enormously dangerous future crises. It requests your approval of steps to establish and carry out a policy of more positive action by the Department and AID to encourage and assist family planning programs in AID-assisted and other developing countries. [Here follow two sections entitled "Discussion" and "Policies and Actions Required."] Recommendations That you approve:/2/ /2/All recommendations were approved and initialed by Rusk on December 20 except for recommendation 7, which was labeled "previously approved." A handwritten comment by Gaud reads, "I agree with all the recommendations on pages 32-34, but not all the prefatory discussion and comments." These are the recommendations printed here. 1. The attached airgram (Tab A)./3/ /3/Not found. 2. The development by AID of necessary plans and programs and provision of personnel and material to encourage national public and private population control programs in AID countries and to assist them upon request--as a matter of priority. 3. Preparation by State and AID geographic bureaus of joint regional policy papers as guidelines for population activities in the individual countries in their areas. 4. Enlisting the assistance of the Peace Corps and USIA as outlined above (p. 28, at clip). 5. A renewal of efforts by the Department to increase action by UN related agencies to encourage and assist population programs in LDC's and to fund such activities adequately. 6. The development by the Policy Planning Council of a general long-range policy guideline in this field. 7. A briefing along the lines of Tab/4/ to be set up on a Saturday morning in late October or early November. /4/No specific tab is indicated on the source text. 8. The establishment of a Working Group on Population Matters to be composed of appropriate representatives of State, AID, USIA, and the Peace Corps to be chaired by the Special Assistant for Population Matters. 9. The establishment of an Interdepartmental Working Group on Population Matters composed of representatives of State, AID, USIA, the Peace Corps, and such other agencies as Agriculture, HEW, Defense, Bureau of the Census, Bureau of the Budget, the Office of Science and Technology, and the White House, also to be chaired by the Special Assistant for Population Matters. (Specific proposals for the membership and duties of such an Interdepartmental Working Group will be considered as a first order of business by the Working Group referred to in Recommendation 8 and the necessary letters to request heads of other agencies to designate members of this Working Group will be submitted to you later.) 10. That you approve the idea of an Advisory and Coordinating Committee on Population Matters, subject to later decision by you on a list of members and description of duties. (Specific proposals for the membership and duties of such a Committee will be considered as a first order of business by the Working Group referred to in Recommendation 8 and the necessary action papers submitted to you later.)
281. Memorandum From Secretary of State Rusk to all Assistant Secretaries of State, Assistant Administrators of the Agency for International Development, and Other Bureau Heads/1/ Washington, January 19, 1967. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1967-69, SOC 13. Confidential. Submitted by Claxton to the Secretary for signature under a January 12 covering memorandum. SUBJECT The President in his State of the Union Message has again declared that next to the pursuit of peace, "the really greatest challenge to the human family is the race between food supply and population increase"--a race now being lost. He again stressed the need for concerted action to produce more food and for the developing nations, especially the growing number with food deficits, to undertake voluntary family planning programs./2/ /2/For text of the January 10 State of the Union message, see Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1967, Book I, pp. 2-14. The quoted passage is on p. 11; it reads: "Next to the pursuit of peace, the really greatest challenge to the human family is the race between food supply and population increase. That race tonight is being lost." The President's statement underscores the urgency of the policy guidelines and instructions on this subject I have recently approved (attached)./3/ These state that for countries threatened by the effects of rapid population growth--either because of danger of famine or burden on economic progress--the Department and Missions must give population matters the high priority, quality and magnitude of attention we are now undertaking to give to food production. /3/Not printed; see Document 280. I would appreciate it if you would assure that all Country Directors, program officers and others in your bureau dealing with problems of developing nations be fully familiar with these instructions and give their attention to means by which they can be effectively carried out in their areas of responsibility. In view of the increasing urgency of this matter, I hope it will be possible for Missions to have available for me within the next two or three months outlines of their plans for carrying out the President's policy and their instructions in ways appropriate to the circumstances in their country, and their indication of assistance they may need from Washington for this purpose. I anticipate questions from the Congressional Committees on this subject during testimony on the Foreign Aid Bill a few months from now. I would also like a report on what effective contribution we can expect--or arrange for--international organizations and private organizations to make to this task. I have asked Mr. Claxton to be available to consult with you and your staffs on appropriate means to accomplish these purposes and to help arrange necessary assistance from other agencies and private organizations. Dean Rusk
282. Memorandum From Hugh Moore, Director of the Population Policy Panel of the Hugh Moore Fund, to John Rielly of the Vice President's Staff/1/ New York, February 2, 1967. /1/Source: Minnesota Historical Society, Hubert H. Humphrey Papers, Vice Presidential Files, 1965-68, 150.E.14.10(F), Box 933. No classification marking. Dear Mr. Rielly: You may have noted that all the polls show the American public to be overwhelmingly in favor of birth control. This goes for Catholics as well as non-Catholics. People are increasingly concerned by the rapid deterioration of living conditions in our country. Over-crowded cities, slums, mounting crime, traffic congestion, polluted air and water, loss of space for recreation, etc. Too many people! And let us not overlook the fact that the burgeoning billions of hungry people abroad will affect us here at home. We are feeding many of them right now and the appeals today are as nothing compared with the demands upon us in the not distant future when millions may be starving. It is therefore fortunate that Catholic laymen generally do not go along with the recent Bishops' injunctions against birth control quoted in a reprint from The New York Times enclosed./2/ /2/Not found; see footnote 5, Document 279. It is fortunate also that official Church attitudes do change, however slowly. Masses may now be said in English, meat eaten on Fridays, nuns' clothing modernized, etc. Conscientious public servants meantime should realize that the people at large applaud their efforts to stem the tide of humanity which threatens to engulf us. Sincerely,
283. Letter From Secretary of State of the Holy See Cicsquani to Vice President Humphrey/1/ The Vatican, February 21, 1967. /1/Source: Minnesota Historical Society, Hubert H. Humphrey Papers, Vice Presidential Files, 1965-68, 150.E.14.10(F), Box 933. No classification marking. Dear Mr. Vice President, The Holy Father was pleased to receive your kind letter of January 24th in which you expressed your satisfaction with the establishment of the Papal Commission on International Peace and Justice./2/ /2/In his letter Humphrey wrote: "This is a source of great encouragement to those of us in public office who have for a long time taken a deep interest in the issues of peace and world poverty." (Ibid.) The Pontiff has repeatedly urged international collaboration between the nations of the world because He sees in this a very valuable means for advancing an environment in which peace can prevail. Economic assistance and the interchange of technical knowledge will enable the emerging nations to enter with honour and dignity into the family of nations and will help immeasurably in dissipating suspicions. Richly endowed nations will have to shoulder heavy burdens, but history will record for all time their efforts to achieve understanding and respect, a preliminary step towards world peace. His Holiness would have me thank you for your encouragement and for your support of this very important initiative. With kindest personal regards, I am
284. Letter From the Chairman of the Board of the Population Council (Rockefeller) to Secretary of State Rusk/1/ New York, March 3, 1967. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1967-69, SOC 13. No classification marking. Dear Dean: My understanding is that a principal reason why President Johnson did not feel he could join in endorsing our World Leaders' Statement on Population was that he felt the group which had agreed to participate was not representative enough. With this thought in mind and recognizing that the Statement would obviously carry more weight if it should be signed by the leaders of some of the great countries of the West,/2/ we have now approached the heads of governments of the following countries: /2/See footnote 5, Document 279. Afghanistan This new group is based partly on the list of sponsors of the United Nations resolution on population which was adopted by the General Assembly on December 17, 1966 and partly on the basis of the impact that the country and its chief would have on world opinion. I wanted to send you this information for the record./3/ /3/In a March 10 memorandum, Claxton told the Secretary that Rockefeller's goal was to get a "sufficiently long list, including one or more European countries, to open the way for President Johnson to sign." Claxton also confirmed that Cater would be willing to approach the President again if, for example, Prime Minister Wilson and "one or two others" would sign. (Memorandum from Claxton to the Secretary, March 10; National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1967-69, SOC 13) It was good to see you the other day/4/ and I am pleased indeed that you now feel that the Presidential Commission idea has merit. Through Messrs. Gardner and Cater an approach will shortly be made to the President for an appointment with me sometime towards the end of this month. /4/Secretary Rusk last met with Rockefeller at 12:10 p.m. on February 7. (Johnson Library, Rusk Appointment Books) With warmest best wishes as always, I am
285. Information Memorandum From the Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for Population Matters (Claxton) to Secretary of State Rusk/1/ Washington, April 2, 1967. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1967-69, SOC 13-3. Limited Official Use. SUBJECT The portion of Pope Paul's Encyclical which deals with population matters (attached),/2/ although so ambiguously worded in places that I hesitate to try to analyze it, seems to me (after consultation with a Catholic demographer who was on the Papal Commission on birth control) to make at least three statements of which may turn out to be of great importance. /2/Not printed. The encyclical, Populorum Progressio, was released on March 28. It acknowledged that too frequently an "accelerated demographic increase adds its own difficulties to the problems of development: the size of the population increases more rapidly than available resources, and things are found to have apparently reached an impasse." 1. It recognizes that high rates of population growth add difficulties to the problems of development. 2. It states plainly ("it is certain") that public authorities can intervene both "by favoring the availability of appropriate information" and "by adopting suitable measures." The statement that public authorities can intervene is new and potentially of wide applicability. It should open the way for United Nations, national, state, and municipal authorities to provide appropriate information--presumably, but not plainly, meaning birth control information. They may also adopt "suitable measures"--a phrase perhaps intentionally left vague but apparently intended to be different from the "radical measures" that are rejected and may well be interpreted to include provision of some kind of fertility control program. There are two limitations on the "suitable measures:" (a) They must be in conformity with "the moral law," which is not defined, but may refer to the standing doctrine on birth control--or may not; and (b) They must respect the rightful freedom of married couples, which is not a material limitation in practice. 3. The statement very importantly repeats in plainer language some of the revolutionary statements made by Vatican II: "It is for the parents to decide . . . on the number of their children," with four considerations in mind: taking into account their responsibilities toward God; taking into account their responsibilities toward themselves--which presumably can mean their economic situation, the health of the mother and other such factors; taking into account their responsibilities toward the children they already have--which again is an important factor of broad meaning; and taking into account their responsibilities toward their community--again a new factor not in Vatican II and possibly important in communities where there are shortages of food, where economic growth is difficult and where social progress will be held back by excessively large numbers of children. The statement qualifies all this decision-making by the parents with another factor that was not stated by Vatican II: that the parents are to make their decision "with full knowledge of the matter"-- which might be read to mean adequate information concerning the possibilities of birth control. The statement concludes with a limitation which is potentially broad in that it says "they must" (and hence may) "follow the demands of their own conscience." This broad authority may be limited by the following phrase which speaks of the "conscience" as "enlightened by God's law authentically interpreted." A footnote to this clause refers to one of the Vatican II documents which refers to the statement of Pope Pius IX in 1931 regarding "natural" means of birth control. It is perhaps significant that the word "enlightened" is used--not such a word as "governed." The fact that the entire statement is ambiguous in several places and open to interpretation is itself important in giving flexibility to officials, individuals and perhaps individual priests./3/ /3/Commentators at the time interpreted the encyclical as progressive. For example, the March 28 headline in the Washington Evening Star read: "Pontiff Voices Eased View on Birth Control." This interpretation was shared by some observers in Latin American countries as well. The Embassy in Caracas reported: "Liberal Catholics in Venezuela have seen the Pope's statement as a new opening or at least a willingness to continue further study of the problem of birth control." (Airgram A-735, April 8; National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1967-69, SOC 13-3)
286. Editorial Note In April 1967 the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations took a major step on population matters. The committee chair, J. William Fulbright, ranking minority member Bourke Hickenlooper, and 17 other Senators supported an amendment to the Foreign Aid Bill authorizing $50 million per year for 3 years "to provide assistance for voluntary family planning programs in friendly foreign countries and areas, on such terms and conditions as he (the President) shall determine, to foreign governments, United Nations specialized agencies, United States and foreign nonprofit organizations, universities, hospitals, accredited health institutions, and voluntary health or other qualified organization." (AIDTO circular telegram 2417, April 12, 1967; National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1967-69, SOC 13-3) As a State Department analysis prepared in mid-1968 noted, policy developments in population matters in the Executive Branch were "in part led" by developments in Congress. (AID circular cable PA 201, July 13, 1968; ibid.) In mid-1968 the Senate Committee re-emphasized its concerns of the previous year, charging that State Department and AID officials had not given the population problem "the priority it deserves." (Ibid.) The House Foreign Affairs Committee agreed and urged that family planning be a central element of AID activities: "In order to counteract any possible tendency . . . to continue business as usual and to regard family planning programs as a fringe operation, $50 million of economic assistance funds have been set aside to be used only for this purpose." (Ibid.) The Department believed that the discussion surrounding the amendment of the Foreign Aid legislation, which ultimately passed as Title X, signaled six major elements of policy favored by leaders of both parties in Congress: "1. The Congress is deeply concerned that present rates of population growth in many developing countries are seriously impeding efforts toward economic and social development and threaten serious food shortages in only a few years; "2. The Congress wants the Executive Branch to move much more rapidly and effectively than it has in the past to provide assistance in this field to developing nations; "3. The Congress is willing to provide greatly increased funds for this purpose and wants the funds used more liberally--even permitting grants to be made where loans are required for older programs; "4. The Congress knows that the fundamental decisions for action can be made only by each developing nation itself and that the United States and other outside agencies can help only as we are wanted; "5. The Congress would like to see U.S. program assistance conveyed as far as is reasonably practicable through United Nations and other multilateral channels and wants to see the widest practical involvement of private organizations; "6. The Congress wants to be sure that U.S. aid goes only to programs where participation is voluntary and each individual is free to practice methods of family planning consistent with his or her beliefs." (Ibid.)
287. Memorandum From John Rielly of the Vice President's Staff to Vice President Humphrey/1/ Washington, April 14, 1967. /1/Source: Minnesota Historical Society, Papers of Hubert H. Humphrey, Vice Presidential Files, 1965-68, 150.E.14.10(F), Box 933. No classification marking. A handwritten note by Humphrey at the top of the page reads, "John R. See me." SUBJECT Although I know you are familiar with the Pope's encyclical/2/ and discussed it with him two weeks ago, I doubt if you had a chance to read much of the text or to go over it thoroughly. I am attaching a copy of the text together with an article from the Times on it./3/ /2/See Document 285. /3/Neither found. The encyclical provoked a stronger reaction both here and in Europe than most encyclicals do. The reason is clear: language is blunt and direct both in its indictment of the status quo and in its prescription for the future. It states clearly that no purely economic standard, whether Marxist or capitalist, can be the ultimate guide to governing a society. Because it condemned the evils of unrestrained capitalism and insisted that private property and profit must be subordinated to a higher common good, it was criticized by the Wall Street Journal as "warmed over marxism." Similar judgments were rendered by certain conservative journals in Europe, particularly in Italy. They were further annoyed by the fact that it does not discuss communism per se (just as the encyclical Pacem in Terris/4/ did not) but concentrates instead on the problems arising from the disparities involved between developed and underdeveloped nations. /4/See Document 271. In contrast to earlier encyclicals, the discussion focuses on the propertyless nation rather than the propertyless class. The status of the underdeveloped countries today is regarded as similar to the proletariat in European nations a century ago. The situation will get worse instead of better until action is taken. The Pope makes it unequivocally clear that not only individuals have a moral obligation but nations as well. Humanitarian aid is not enough, but rather "it is a question, rather, of building a world for [where?] every man, no matter what his race, religion or nationality, can live a fully given life, freed from servitude imposed on him by other men or by natural forces over which he has not sufficient control; a world where freedom is not an empty word and where the poor man Lazarus can sit down at the same table with the rich man." The implications of all this are very concrete for wealthy nations like the United States and Western European powers. These countries must face the explosive political questions of paying taxes to help developing nations. Will we pay higher prices for imported goods from these nations? Will we be willing to work out some alteration of our trading policies to guarantee a fair and stable price for agriculture products and raw material? These are of course some of the questions being discussed at the Latin American Summit Conference in Punta del Este this week/5/ and they are the questions which come up in the United Nations every year. The President indicated a greater willingness to consider these measures than we have previously done. /5/A meeting of the Latin American Heads of State was held April 11-14 at Punta del Este, Uruguay. Through the newly established Papal Commission on Justice and Peace,/6/ through a similar secretariat at the World Council of Churches and the National Council of Churches here, a concerted effort will be made to change popular thinking precisely on these issues discussed in the encyclical. It will be a long, slow process, resisted by many vested interests here. But, if the prescriptions suggested in this encyclical are ever to be followed, it will take a long-term massive shift in public opinion before any legislative body will approve a program implementing what the encyclical proposes. It is not so much the cost--some one figured out that the Marshall Plan in total cost roughly what the Vietnamese war takes for seven months. Rather one must convince the public that it is just as worthy to spend money to build nations as it is to spend it in a war. /6/See Document 283. I think you should probably plan to make one address on this subject during the commencement season. The last time you gave a full speech on this was at Fordham University two years ago (incidentally, the message of the Fordham speech and the encyclical are almost identical--note attached)./7/ You have one commencement speech scheduled at the College of St. Thomas in St. Paul which might be an appropriate forum for such a speech./8/ /7/Not found. /8/The Vice President wrote "Yes," underlined twice, in the margin next to his sentence.
288. Memorandum of Conversation/1/ Washington, May 11, 1967, 11 a.m. /1/Source: Minnesota Historical Society, Hubert H. Humphrey Papers, Vice Presidential Files, 1965-68, 150.E.14.10(F), Box 933. No classification marking. The meeting was held in the Executive Office Building. PARTICIPANTS The Vice President opened the conversation by commenting on what a powerful document the Pope's encyclical on "The Development of Peoples"/2/ was. He had discussed it with the Pope and he had been thinking about how one could best translate this into action. We should not be content just to have it discussed for a few weeks then dropped. /2/See Document 285. Monsignor Gremillon explained that this is precisely what the Papal Commission on Justice and Peace in Rome and the National Secretariat on Justice and Peace in Washington were set up to do./3/ He said that his own office was in Rome and that Monsignor Bordelon was setting up an office in Washington under the auspices of the United States Catholic Conference. /3/See Document 283. The Vice President wondered whether the energies of Vietnam could be redirected and rechanneled into positive development avenues after the war was over. He hoped this would be so but was not sure. Monsignor Gremillon explained that the whole effort to arouse and educate the consciences of people to the problem of development must be strictly ecumenical. He explained that he was in regular contact with his colleagues in the World Council of Churches and only three weeks ago had visited Eugene Carson Blake in Geneva. Blake was coming to Rome next week for further meetings. It turned out that they were also cooperating regularly with the Russian Orthodox Church. The Archbishop of Leningrad invited a group of 30 leaders from the World Council of Churches and from the Catholic Church to come to a meeting in the Soviet Union sometime this year to discuss the whole theory and doctrine of development. The Archbishop said not only would this be very worthwhile world-wide, but would be immensely helpful to them in Russia. The Vice President stated that that is a most significant development. He believed that leaders of some of the socialist countries should be encouraged by certain parts of the Pope's recent encyclical because of the sharp critique of certain forms of capitalism contained in it. This does not necessarily apply to the United States, but it does apply to capitalism in some areas. Monsignor Bordelon suggested in that regard that one of the functions of the Washington National Secretariat here is to serve as a vehicle for communicating with the Vatican on issues of concern to the United States or to any important segment of the United States public. For example, the American business community has not really participated in the writing of the recent encyclicals. As a result there really has been no encyclical which elaborates fully on the difference between the American private enterprise system and this sort of laissez faire capitalism that the Pope condemns. The Vice President said he was concerned about the debasement of public opinion in the United States today. This not only applies to international affairs but to the poverty program, civil rights, as well as foreign aid. Therefore, we have a great problem in trying to get people to think about war on hunger, social justice and the other themes discussed in the encyclicals Pacem in Terris and The Development of Peoples. We would like to see people get aroused about this as well as about the war. The United States Government is ultimately responsive to public opinion. If public opinion on this issue changes, Government policy will reflect the change. But, meanwhile, millions of people are dying. Monsignor Gremillon said that he hoped what he was trying to organize would do precisely that. He told the Vice President that at a meeting this week in Detroit, where he talked about the encyclical and the problem of development, he discussed the issue of developed nations contributing one percent of their gross national product to foreign assistance. Walter Reuther, who was the respondent on the platform, said he believed it should be two percent. Monsignor Gremillon said that at the recent meeting of the Papal Commission an idea was put forth by Barbara Ward to develop a "package plan" among developed nations. They agreed to aim at $30 billion by 1970. This would be divided between the United States and Europe. Once all developed nations agreed on a package there would be pressure put on them to live up to the commitment. It would clearly be a multilateral effort, involving not only governments and other groups but church groups, professional groups and a wide variety of lay associations. The Vice President said that the more the United States becomes involved in military programs the greater the need for the United States to be involved in programs in the field of social justice overseas. He said he was going to discuss this subject at an agribusiness conference in Chicago tonight. Monsignor Gremillon said he hoped that he and Monsignor Bordelon could work with the Vice President and his staff, given his background and history of interest on this subject. The Vice President said he wanted to work closely and he hoped they would feel free to share with us their problems and any ideas they may have. He said Mr. Rielly of his staff would be available to keep in regular touch. Occasionally when people come through Washington Mr. Bordelon should bring them around to see him. The Vice President then concluded the conversation with a summary of the highlights of his conversation with the Pope when he was in Europe.
289. Action Memorandum From the Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for Population Matters (Claxton) to Secretary of State Rusk/1/ Washington, May 25, 1967. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1967-69, SOC 13. No classification marking. Cleared by R.T. Ravenholt (AID), R. Petree (EA/J), Goldstein (EUR/BMI), and L. Van Nort (IO/OES). SUBJECT Discussion I understand from Mr. Cater that Mr. John Rockefeller's visit to the President/2/ resulted in the following: /2/Rockefeller wrote Rusk on May 5 that he had a meeting scheduled with the President for May 12. (Letter from Rockefeller to Rusk, May 5; ibid.) Rockefeller did meet with the President in an off-the-record session. According to the President's Daily Diary, "Cater's briefing memo indicated that he would like to mention briefly the progress in Latin America and elsewhere in the area of population planning--also Rockefeller believes that it would be highly appropriate for the President to set up a Commission on population." (Johnson Library) 1) The President was sufficiently interested in Mr. Rockefeller's proposal for a Presidential Commission to study the population problem that he asked Mr. Rockefeller to submit a detailed memorandum. He also asked Mr. Cater to follow up on it./3/ /3/President Johnson asked Rockefeller to submit a detailed memorandum complete with mandate and list of possible participants. (Memorandum from Rockefeller to the President attached as an enclosure to a letter from Rusk to Rockefeller, August 18; National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1967-69, SOC 13) 2) Mr. Rockefeller expressed the hope that the President would find it possible to sign the World Leaders' Declaration on Population./4/ He mentioned his hopes that Prime Minister Wilson would do so and said that Mr. Kosygin had expressed interest. Mr. Cater told the President he understood you would have some recommendations for him. The President said: "That's fine." /4/See Document 284. Background: You will recall that the World Leaders' Statement (Tab B)/5/ as released by the Secretary-General with a statement of his own (Tab B) on Human Rights Day, December 10, 1966, was signed by 12 Heads of State or Government. (Names at Tab C.)/6/ The Prime Minister of Japan had indicated he would sign but declined after it became known that the President would not. When Mr. Rockefeller asked the President to sign early in December 1966, you believed it would be better for him to defer until the leaders of one or more of the major developed nations would also sign, so that the President would not be the only such signer. Since then, Mr. Rockefeller has asked an additional 25 leaders to sign (list of countries at Tab C). The leaders of Iran, Jordan, Barbados and Ghana have agreed (Tab C). Former Prime Minister Zjilstra of the Netherlands agreed but is no longer in office. I anticipate that Mr. Rockefeller will ask Prime Minister de Jong to sign. He has reasonable hopes from the reply to his letter to Prime Minister Wilson that he will sign as part of a governmental statement on population. Mr. Kosygin sent Mr. Rockefeller a message through the Soviet Mission to the U.N. that he would give Mr. Rockefeller's request careful consideration as a matter of importance. Apparently his requests to several other Heads of State or Government are also still under consideration by them. /5/Not printed here, but see Document 279. /6/Not printed; see footnote 5, Document 279. Comment: I believe it is appropriate to recommend to the President that he should now decide to sign and that he permit his decision to be used to encourage Prime Minister Wilson and other leaders still considering the matter to decide to sign with him. I feel sure Mr. Cater agrees with this conclusion. My reasons are: 1) The resolution is fundamentally right, sound and conservatively worded. 2) Each of the four statements beginning "We believe . . ." is fully in line with comparable statements made by the President. The key statement "that the opportunity of families to decide the number and spacing of their children is a basic human right" is closely in line with the President's statement in his Domestic Health and Education Message, March 1, 1966: "We have a growing concern to foster the integrity of the family, and the opportunity for each child. It is essential that all families have access to information and services that will allow freedom to choose the number and spacing of their children within the dictates of individual conscience." 3) Since December 1966, acceptance of the ideas involved in government assistance to voluntary family planning has continued to increase in the United States: We are not aware of any publicly or privately expressed opposition to Mr. Gaud's statement before the House Foreign Affairs Committee that AID would now receive requests to provide contraceptives; Representative Zablocki has said publicly that he does not oppose aid to family planning as long as there is no coercion; there seems to have been a generally favorable public reaction to the fact that the recently disclosed Report of the Papal Commission on birth control showed that the overwhelming majority favored a Papal statement allowing contraception. 4) Pope Paul's Encyclical shows a substantial advance: It expressly recognizes that "too frequently an accelerated demographic increase adds its own difficulties to the problems of development . . ." On the most delicate point, it says: "Finally, it is for the parents to decide, with full knowledge of the matter, on the number of their children, taking into account their responsibilities toward God, themselves, the children they have already brought into the world, and the community to which they belong." 5) The President's leadership at this point might have an encouraging effect on those leaders who are still considering whether to sign. 6) The absence of the signature of the President of the United States when the next group of signatures is released would be inconsistent with the position the U.S. takes domestically and internationally. Recommendation That you send the President the proposed memorandum at Tab A or discuss the matter with him along the same lines./7/ /7/Tab A, a June 8 memorandum from Rusk to the President, is not printed. It shows that on June 8 Rusk approved the memorandum to the President recommending "That you decide to sign the World Leaders' Declaration on Population and authorize me to tell Prime Minister Wilson, the Prime Minister of Japan, and the leaders of several smaller countries now considering signing, that you hope they will join you in signing."
290. Letter From the President's Special Assistant for Science and Technology (Hornig) to President Johnson/1/ Washington, June 15, 1967. /1/Source: Minnesota Historical Society, Papers of Hubert H. Humphrey, Vice Presidential Files, 1965-68, 150.E.14.8(8), Box 931. No classification marking. Dear Mr. President: I am pleased to send you an advance copy of the report on the World Food Problem which was prepared by a Panel of the President's Science Advisory Committee./2/ The report will be released by the White House on Sunday, June 18. This report defines the magnitude of the food problem, describes the reasons why the United States should be concerned, and outlines and recommends what must be done if the problem is to be solved. /2/Not printed. The President tasked the Science Advisory Committee to undertake the study in his Food for Peace message on February 10, 1966. (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1966, Book I, pp. 163-169) The June 17 White House announcement of the release of the report is printed in American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1967, pp. 134-135. The report, which was published in late 1967 as The World Food Problem, consisted of three volumes; for a summary of volume III, "Resource Papers," see Department of State Bulletin, December 25, 1967, p. 874. I believe the scope and significance of the report are apparent from its four basic conclusions: 1. The scale, severity, and duration of the World Food Problem are so great that a massive, long-range, innovative effort unprecedented in human history will be required to master it. 2. The solution of the problem after 1985 demands that programs of population control be initiated now. For the immediate future, the food supply is critical. 3. Food supply is directly related to agricultural development and, in turn, agricultural development and overall economic development are critically interdependent in the hungry countries. 4. A strategy for attacking the World Food Problem will, of necessity, encompass the entire foreign economic assistance effort of the United States in concert with other developed countries, voluntary institutions, and international organizations. If you have any questions concerning the report or its recommendations, please feel free to call my office. Sincerely yours,
291. Memorandum From the Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for Population Matters (Claxton) to the President's Special Assistant (Cater)/1/ Washington, June 23, 1967. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1967-69, SOC 13. Limited Official Use. A covering memorandum, also June 23, from Read to Rostow states that Claxton had been working with Cater on the President's request that additional efforts be made to induce British Prime Minister Wilson and Japanese Prime Minister Sato plus other world leaders to sign. SUBJECT John Rockefeller 3rd is, of course, very pleased by the President's decision to sign the Declaration./2/ He is anxious to follow the President's wish that further efforts be made to obtain the signatures of other leaders. I have worked out with him and his assistant, Mr. Raymond Lamontagne, the following procedure: /2/The date on which President Johnson actually signed the declaration has not been determined; for information on its public release, see footnote 2, Document 292. A. Rockefeller will: 1. Work out with U Thant an arrangement for a second announcement of additional signers in the late summer like the announcement last December. This would include the President and all other signers who can be accumulated by that time. 2. Renew his requests to the Prime Ministers of the UK and Japan as a matter of priority. He has already talked to their Ambassadors at the UN, both of whom are confident that their PM's will sign. He has written Prime Minister Sato. 3. Renew his request to Kosygin, telling him the President has signed. I have spoken to Ambassador Thompson about this. He believes the President's signing will have some favorable influence on Kosygin. Rockefeller wrote Dobrynin a few days ago offering to talk with Kosygin on this subject. Kosygin replied through a Washington Embassy Counsellor that he was "terribly grateful" for Mr. Rockefeller's invitation; he could not accept on this visit; he is interested in the matter; it will receive his attention and Rockefeller will hear from him in the near future. 4. Renew his requests to the Prime Ministers of Australia, New Zealand and Canada. All these have given him favorable personal reactions but have not signed because of concern within their governments. Now that France is repealing its anti-contraceptives legislation, it is possible the atmosphere may change in Canada. 5. Renew his requests to the leaders of Norway, Turkey, Pakistan, Thailand, Liberia, Jamaica and El Salvador, most of whom have not replied either way. He talked to the King of Thailand here. The King said he was personally sympathetic and would speak to the Prime Minister. 6. Probably approach the President of Costa Rica who in April announced family planning services would be provided in government health clinics. 7. Talk to the President of the Philippines on a visit there in August. 8. Consider writing President DeGaulle. Rockefeller will send each of our Ambassadors a copy of his new message to the local leader. B. The State Department will: 1. Send special messages to our Ambassadors in the UK, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, informing them that the President has agreed to sign and instructing them to tell the Prime Minister the President would welcome the Prime Minister's joining him. Messages are attached for your concurrence (Tab A)./3/ /3/Tabs A and B were not found. 2. Send a circular airgram to our Ambassadors in Norway, Turkey, Pakistan, Liberia, Jamaica and El Salvador to the same effect. The circular is attached for your concurrence (Tab B). 3. Inform our Embassy in Thailand of Rockefeller's discussion with the King. 4. Ask our Ambassador in the Philippines to coordinate his approach to the President with Rockefeller. 5. Follow up with our Ambassador to Costa Rica and to France as appropriate. Rockefeller tells me he has received from each signing leader a short letter to him which he has given, or will give, to U Thant as a means of official notification of signature. He would like such a letter from the President, possibly with some appropriate brief expression of personal feeling. A draft of a proposed letter is attached (Tab C)./4/ /4/Not printed. Phil
292. Memorandum From the Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for Population Matters (Claxton) to the President's Special Assistant (Cater)/1/ Washington, August 4, 1967. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1967-69, SOC 13. No classification marking. Attached is a covering memorandum, also dated August 4, from Read to Rostow. SUBJECT Prime Minister Wilson has now informed Mr. Rockefeller that he has decided to adhere to the World Leaders' Declaration on Population on behalf of the Government of the U.K. He asks to be told what plans are being worked out with U Thant for the release of additional names (Tab A)./2/ (As I have mentioned to you before, Rockefeller has talked to Philippe de Seynes, U Thant's Under Secretary, about a release of several names in the late summer or early fall and de Seynes has assured him there would be no difficulty.) /2/Not printed. British Prime Minister Harold Wilson informed Rockefeller on July 19 that he would sign the declaration. (Letter from Wilson to Rockefeller, July 19; ibid., SOC 13) Secretary-General U Thant's Statement on Population also is attached to the memorandum. On December 11 the Secretary-General released a list of new signatories of the World Leaders' Declaration on Population. President Johnson, British Prime Minister Wilson, and Japanese Prime Minister Sato were among the 18 new signatories, bringing the total to 30. Rockefeller at once asked the Japanese Ambassador to follow up with Prime Minister Sato. The Ambassador has cabled Sato, telling him of Wilson's agreement and asking for an early decision. Rockefeller would like to have this before writing Prime Ministers Pearson, Holt and Holyoake to tell them of Wilson's action and again invite their signatures. However, he will write these three before leaving August 11 for the Far East, even if he has not heard from Sato. He will send copies to each of our Ambassadors which will initiate their follow up with their Prime Ministers, as requested in our messages to each Ambassador. I mentioned to you that the principal statements in the Declaration (Tab B)/3/ go no further than Pope Paul's statements in the Encyclical Populorum Progresio (Tab C). You asked for a comparison. One is attached which also shows comparable statements made by the President (Tab D). /3/Tabs B-E are not printed. You may also be interested in the apparent derivation of the statements in the Encyclical from the majority report of the Papal Commission on Birth Control (Tab E). Phil
293. Memorandum From the Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for Population Matters (Claxton) to the President's Special Assistant (Cater)/1/ Washington, December 5, 1967. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1967-69, SOC 13. Limited Official Use. SUBJECT Some time ago, before the President decided to defer action on the Rockefeller proposal for a Presidential Commission on Population,/2/ you asked me to see what the interested people thought about it. Here is a summary of the information I had collected. /2/See Documents 270 and 289. Rockefeller spoke to Rusk again in August 1967 when he submitted a memorandum to the President (see footnote 3, Document 289). At that time, Claxton told Rusk that the White House had submitted the proposal to the Bureau of the Budget, which had responded unfavorably. (Memorandum from Claxton to the Secretary, August 15; National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1967-69, SOC 13) After consultation with Laurence Rockefeller, Cater decided that the matter should be deferred until late September. (Ibid.) In October Cater asked Claxton to survey interested agencies for their opinions. Rockefeller also approached Mrs. Johnson: "Mr. Cater told me later that Mrs. Johnson took the matter up with the President who replied that he did not want to go forward with the Commission idea then." (Ibid.) Secretary Rusk believes the Commission should be undertaken at an appropriate time, primarily as a matter of importance to the United States internally, but also because the existence of such a study will put us in a less vulnerable position as we endeavor to obtain appropriate attention by foreign countries to their population growth problems. The list of members should be looked at for proper balance. Phil Lee told me that Secretary Gardner, who last year was doubtful about the desirability of such a study, now believes it should be undertaken. He thought it should have a domestic emphasis. The immediate need is for additional funding of domestic and foreign programs in the population/family planning field. Since a Commission would presumably recommend such increases, it would be wrong to go forward unless the President believes he could propose such increases to the Congress. Secretary Gardner would like to go over the membership list with care before appointments might be made. Secretary Udall strongly favored such a Commission. He suggested a blue-ribbon group to focus sharply on the domestic population problem with the thought that recognition that we have a problem and are taking action to move on it would help us abroad. He would like to review the list of names suggested to be sure highly qualified people from minority groups are included. He believed strongly the Commission should be public in nature with a report to be made publicly. Secretary Weaver's office reported that he would go along with the proposal. Sargent Shriver was not convinced that the public visibility of a Presidential Commission is needed at this time. He thinks good progress is being made in obtaining public acceptance of the need for providing opportunities for family planning through individual freedom of choice--such as the Family Planning Program conducted by OEO. He was concerned that the publicity attendant on White House projects might upset present acquiescence and tacit support by groups in our society that are evolving new positions in this sensitive area. However, if such a Commission were established, OEO would cooperate fully with it. The membership of such a Commission should be less professorial and should include those who can speak for the poor, including Negro spokesmen for that group. Phil
294. Editorial Note On July 29, 1968, the Vatican released Pope Paul VI's encyclical letter, Humanae Vitae, on birth control. It reaffirmed traditional Catholic views, calling every form of contraception except voluntary continence "illicit." In doing so the Pope overruled the recommendations of the majority of the Papal Commission set up by his predecessor to provide a factual basis for a reply by the Church. The encyclical also viewed economic development and social progress as the only solutions to the problems of the developing world. A detailed discussion of the encyclical and a comprehensive analysis of world reaction is in INR Research Memorandum RSF-2 to Secretary Rogers, February 17, 1969. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1967-69, SOC 13-3)
295. Telegram From the Department of State to All Posts/1/ Washington, August 12, 1968, 2031Z. /1/Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1967-69, SOC 13-3. Confidential. Drafted by Claxton; cleared by Gaud, Brown (S/S), and Pauker (USIA), and Poole (ARA/LA) for paragraph 3; and approved by Secretary Rusk. 219240. Subj. Population/Family Planning Programs. Joint State/AID/USIA message. For Ambassadors, USAID Mission Directors, Public Affairs Officers. 1. We do not wish to engage in any public discussion of the Papal Encyclical/2/ and you should decline to comment if asked. If answers to questions on U.S. policy toward population/family planning activities are called for, they should be along the following lines: /2/See Document 294. a. The U.S. Government is deeply interested in the economic development and social progress of developing countries and in the health and well-being of individual families in those countries. b. It is of course for each country to determine its own policy on population and family planning matters. c. It is also for parents to decide voluntarily whether they wish to accept family planning services. d. If any country wishes assistance that we can provide for a voluntary population/family planning program it decides upon, we will be glad to offer it. e. If appropriate, it might also be pointed out that the U.S. has a national policy and program to provide family planning information and materials to its own people through the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Office of Economic Opportunity, and many State and local programs.) 2. CA-4609 of December 1966/3/ continues to apply. /3/Dated December 20, 1966. (National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, Central Files, 1964-66, SOC 13-3) 3. For ARA Posts: We are told that both OAS SYG Galo Plaza and PAHO Director-General Horowitz have told their staffs to go ahead with their respective population programs previously planned. Rusk [Continue with the next documents]
|
