Produced by Lawrence E. Spivak.
     Guest: Henry Cabot Lodge.
     Panel: Pauline Frederick, NBC News; Ernest K. Lindley, Newsweek Magazine; Robert M. White, New York Herald-Tribune; Lawrence E. Spivak, regular panel member.
     Moderator: Ned Brooks.

     Mr. BROOKS. The presidential campaign shares public attention this week with the opening of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Our guest today, Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge, has an association with both of these news stories. He served as Ambassador to the U.N. for seven and a half years before resigning to campaign for the Vice Presidency. His long experience in dealing with world problems is being heavily accented by Republican campaigners. Mr. Lodge served for 13 years as a Senator from Massachusetts, and he managed the Eisenhower nomination campaign of 1952.
     Mr. SPIVAK. Ambassador Lodge, you said in a recent speech: "Peace in certain specific ways appears to be a little closer." Most of us who look at the tense world today and the rising tensions feel that we are further away from peace rather than closer to it. On what do you base your optimistic statement?
     Mr. LODGE. I didn't say that peace was generally closer. In that speech I said that this was a very dangerous world and full of mysterious dangers that we couldn't see, as well as those we could. I don't think it is a picture of unrelieved gloom. I think the muscle, the strength that the United Nations has acquired, largely with American support, is a factor that didn't exist as strongly as it does now, and I believe that that is a little bit of something on the bright side.
     Mr. SPIVAK. You said that "in certain specific ways" peace appears to be a little closer." Can you give us some idea of what you mean, in what "ways"? We seem to be on the losing defensive in Cuba, in the Congo.
     Mr. LODGE. No; I don't agree with that at all. That is a common generality, if I may say so, and I don't think the facts bear that out. If it hadn't been for the United Nations and for the action which was taken in the United Nations concerning the Congo, we might have very well have had a war there now. The United Nations came in with this force and has so far successfully prevented the Congo from becoming a bone of contention between the major powers. I was glad to see former Governor Stevenson, a man whom I respect and esteem, say in the New York Times magazine today that the United States has much to be proud of - I think those were his words - in connection with the work of the United Nations. And Senator Mansfield, who is a Democrat from Montana, has spoken well of the work that Secretary Herter and I have done in the United Nations on this African question. That is the most recent question. But of course there are other illustrations, for example, in 1958, the validation by the United Nations of the action that we took in Lebanon. That had a very stabilizing effect. I think the creation of the United Nations emergency force and the two-thirds-voted resolution stationing the emergency force in the Gaza strip converted that area from something that had been explosive and dangerous into an area that is quiet. Those are all tangible accomplishments, and they can't be overlooked just by a sweeping generality. I don't say you are making a sweeping generality, but it has been done.
     Mr. SPIVAK. Do you think that we, today, the United States, is stronger in the minds of the world than we were, for example, when you first came to the U.N.?
     Mr. LODGE. I think our prestige is higher than that of any other country, and there is no place on earth where you can measure prestige as well as you can in the United Nations because any member, large or small, can get a meeting of the Security Council or a meeting of the General Assembly, can get a resolution passed criticizing the United States if he can get the votes, and none of them has ever done it, and what is more, the United States has never been defeated, and what is more, even on ticklish questions like the Cuban action against us a few months ago and the RB-47 case, even the Afro-Asian members of the Security Council who are uncommitted, so-called neutral countries, voted with the United States. That is not the symptom of a country which lacks prestige.
     Mr. SPIVAK. How, in view of all that, do you explain the increasing toughness and belligerence of the Soviet Union in the world today?
     Mr. LODGE. They are no tougher than they have been since the end of the war. They are always tough, and sometimes they say hello to you in the corridors, and sometimes they don't. That depends on the mood, but they are always tough, and they are always looking for opportunities, they are always pushing out and pressing out. But to say that the developments in the Congo have any relationship with American prestige is, I think, the most farfetched thing you can possibly imagine. The developments in the Congo are brought about by entirely different circumstances.
     Mr. WHITE. Mr. Ambassador, you probably know Mr. Khrushchev better than any other American, having traveled with him when he was last here. I would like to ask you several short questions about him: Why is he coming here? What is he going to try to accomplish? How is he going to conduct himself ?
     Mr. LODGE. You are asking me to engage in prophecy. I would say this in reply, that with Communists you shouldn't take what they say or do at face value. I have established that to my own satisfaction many times over the last 7½ years. There is always a hidden meaning.
     You have certainly got to be prepared for his coming here for the purpose of making propaganda, and if that is his purpose, then it need worry us not at all, because we can use this session of the General Assembly to reveal the fallaciousness and the speciousness of his propaganda. We have done it many times, and we can use this Assembly to show some of the truths about the disarmament question, about the fact that disarmament cannot be dealt with simply by slogans, the way he would do, but that there has to be consideration of the safety of nonaggressive countries like ours and that true disarmament has to be accompanied by inspection and control. So if that is what he is coming over here for, that is one of the things we ought to get ready to do.
     Mr. Wadsworth last night, our representative - my successor at the U.N. - did an extremely brilliant thing when he caught the Soviet representative completely off balance, got this special session of the General Assembly and has unmasked before the whole world the highly improper conduct of the Soviet Union in seeking to penetrate and subvert and take over the Congo in defiance of the United Nations resolutions. That has put them on the defensive, and that is the kind of thing that I have in mind that we should be ready to do when the occasion calls for it, when Mr. Khrushchev gets here.
     Mr. WHITE. What is so all-fired important now - this particular moment in the United Nations? Why is he coming now . Why is he bringing this pack of - Castro and this kind of person with him? Why now?
     Mr. LODGE. This is the opening; they have the so-called general debate every year for the first 10 days: It begins on the 22d, I think it is, and they always have 10 days. It is the chiefs of state and foreign ministers who come, and it is a time for anybody who wants to come and get up onto the world stage and try to influence world opinion, to try to do so. But it is an open forum, and if you have the brains and the wits and the facts and the truth on your side, you don't need to worry.
     Mr. WHITE. May I ask one more question in this connection. These new countries coming into the U.N. - is there any danger that we will begin losing these elections? Is there any danger of the Communists actually taking over the leadership in the U.N.?
     Mr. LODGE. I can't conceive of it. As long as our aspirations harmonize with the general aspirations of mankind, which they have always done, I am sure that the majority will always be on the side of the United States. I can't conceive of the time ever coming when our aspirations don't, because as Abraham Lincoln said of the Declaration of Independence, it gave hope not only to the American people, but for all humanity for all future time. As long as we are animated by American ideals, we don't need to worry about new countries coming in.
     Miss FREDERICK. Mr. Ambassador, I am sure there is no question in the world about your high regard for the United Nations, and serving there as long as you did you understood completely the role of the United States as the host of this organization. I would like to ask you if you feel that it is in the spirit of our position as host and also in keeping with our dignity as the host to the United Nations that we place any restrictions on the heads of any delegations coming to the United Nations, especially if there are also chiefs of government?
     Mr. LODGE. I presume you refer to Mr. Khrushchev, and unless you say that you don't, that is what I will assume.
     Miss FREDERICK. Yes; you may assume that.
     Mr. LODGE. What I can't understand is why Mr. Khrushchev would want to be treated differently from the routine that is applied to the heads of the Soviet delegations. Mr. Khrushchev broke up the summit meeting. Mr. Khrushchev insulted President Eisenhower. Mr. Khrushchev withdrew the invitation to President Eisenhower to visit the Soviet Union. Mr. Khrushchev made it perfectly clear that he didn't like the U.S. Government, that he didn't want to be friendly with the U.S. Government, therefore, why should we treat him like a bosom friend. What I can't understand is that the people in this country and at the United Nations - and I won't mention any names - solemnly wag their heads because we are treating Mr. Khrushchev like the head of the Soviet delegation. That is what he is. He is the head of the Soviet delegation. Why treat him like a bosom friend when he has made it clear he doesn't want to be treated as one. This is typical of Communist tactics. When they have done something wrong, they immediately accuse you of doing something wrong. It is the old Tammany motto - the old Tammany boss who said, "Claim everything; concede nothing; and when defeated, allege fraud." That is how the Communists run their affairs, and I am amazed that so many people get taken in by it. That is my answer to you. Maybe you won't agree with it, but that is how I feel about it.
     Miss FREDERICK. I am not expressing my own views, as you know; we don't, even by our questions.
     But isn't there a possibility here of confusing our role of having relations, a certain kind of relations, with these delegations and our role as host to the United Nations? If the United Nations is going to continue to attract heads of government and other delegations who are so unpleasant to us and whom we dislike so much wouldn't it be better for the United Nations to move out and go to some country where they would have free access to the U.N.?
     Mr. LODGE. I am not saying, and I have not said, and I am not insinuating, that we should not live up to the headquarters agreement. We are living up to the headquarters agreement when we make it possible for Mr. Khrushchev to visit all the diplomats in New York and go to the United Nations - and he can go to the theater; he can go to the bank; he can go to the department store; he can go to the hospital; he can do all those things - I don't know why it is necessary to give him a great big trip around the United States, when we gave him one last year, and when he has just withdrawn the invitation to President Eisenhower to do the same thing in Russia. I can't understand that reasoning. We are living up to the headquarters agreement.
     Miss FREDERICK. If by some miraculous chance he was coming here with a serious motive - of course we don't believe he is - but if he should be coming here with a serious motive, you know him well enough to know how he reacts. How do you think this motive might be affected by coming here and realizing that he is going to be brought into a pier at the East River where no other ship has docked for a long time, that he is going to be restricted and treated the way he is?
     Mr. LODGE. He'd think that is good, tough action of the kind he understands well and has meted out to many others and which he knows inspires respect in many people. He will not take it sentimentally, I can assure you.
     Miss FREDERICK. Have you advised the U.S. Government to put the restriction on him?
     Mr. LODGE. I am not advising the U.S. Government; I am not in the U.S. Government. I am a citizen and taxpayer and a candidate for public office, and I am not advising the U.S. Government. I just watch the U.S. Government at work.
     Miss FREDERICK. Press reports say that you have been advising---
     Mr. LODGE. The press is usually right, of course, but sometimes they romance a little bit.
     Mr. LINDLEY. Candidate Lodge, then, you have said - and I refer especially to a speech you made in Columbus, Ohio, on September 12 - that through our diplomacy we must win and hold the initiative. A great many people have said that for about 14 years, since the cold war started. We heard a great deal about it in 1952 from General Eisenhower, John Foster Dulles, and I think yourself, among many other Republicans. Now in effect, aren't you conceding that we have not succeeded in 8 years in winning and holding the initiative?
     Mr. LODGE. Not at all, not at all. A man never does a perfect job. There is always room for improvement. We have had many very successful initiatives: The President's Atoms for Peace program, the President's open-sky plan, which was a wonderfully successful thing. Our initiative on U.S. inspection over the Arctic, our initiative in Lebanon, the initiative creating the United Nations Emergency Force, the initiative in the Congo, the most recent one. I could find a great many others. We have used the initiative all the time. I think the world is getting smaller and smaller, and as it gets smaller, you've got to have more initiative, and you have to have quicker and quicker machinery. I think what we have done has been adequate, and I think we can take honest pride in it, as Governor Stevenson said in this article in the New York Times magazine today.
     Mr. LINDLEY. But overall do you think we have the initiative in the eyes of the world?
     Mr. LODGE. I think broadly speaking, the Soviet Union is reacting to us all the time. I think we are the constant preoccupation to them. I think tactically we have the initiative in the United Nations a great part of the time. I do.
     Mr. LINDLEY. In answer to a question from Mr. Spivak, you said we have more prestige than any other nation.
     Mr. LODGE. I think so.
     Mr. LINDLEY. Relative to the Soviet Union, do you think we have as much prestige and as much influence in the world as we had 8 years ago?
     Mr. LODGE. In return, let me just point to the U-2 case. You might say that if ever there was a case where we didn't have the law on our side, it was the U-2 case. Yet when the Soviet Union proceeded against us in the Security Council, on the U-2 case, they got the most dreadful defeat. Does that show that the Soviet Union has got more prestige than we have, when they had a case where you might say that they had us in the wrong To me that answers your question in a very convincing way.
     Mr. LINDLEY. Since 8 years ago they have had their great rocket development
     Mr. LODGE. But this was last spring. This was in May.
     Mr. LINDLEY. Yes; I know.
     Mr. LODGE. That doesn't show their prestige is very high - compared to ours.
     Mr. LINDLEY. But you have cited other cases in the United Nations when it seems to me - you correct me if I am wrong - your main effort was to avoid defeat. You accepted very watered-down resolutions. That may be a tribute to your parliamentary skill; I am not criticizing.
     Mr. LODGE. You would do me a favor if you would mention one which I watered down.
     Mr. LINDLEY. I would take the treatment of the RB-47. They didn't accept your version of it, which I believed, of course.
     Mr. LODGE. I think you are misinformed. The resolution which we sponsored was a resolution for an impartial investigation, and which both the Afro-Asian members of the Council voted for, which the Soviets then vetoed, and when they vetoed a resolution for an impartial investigation, they said to the world, "We were lying. We were not telling the truth. This plane was not over the Soviet Union." It was the most complete justification for our cause you could possibly have. There was no watering down there.
     Mr. SPIVAK. Ambassador Lodge, a great many American observers and some of our leading observers believe that so far we have been losing this cold war. I take it you think we are winning it.
     Mr. LODGE. I didn't say that. I didn't say we were winning it. I said that our prestige was good because in the U.N. where you can measure prestige, we do not get defeated. I point to what Governor Stevenson said in the New York Times today about the United States having done so much of which we could be proud. There is a very prominent Democrat. I pointed to Senator Mansfield of Montana, what he said about Secretary Herter and me in connection with Africa. Bipartisan support like that doesn't indicate that in this country people think we have lost prestige or that abroad we have.
     Mr. SPIVAK. Where do you think we stand in the cold war? You have said we will win the cold war by ending it?
     Mr. LODGE. I hope we can; yes.
     Mr. SPIVAK. You hope we can?
     Mr. LODGE. I certainly do.
     Mr. SPIVAK. Where do you think we stand today in the cold war? We are on the defensive in Cuba, we are on the defensive in Berlin
     Mr. LODGE. You are making a speech, Mr. Spivak, which you have a right to do, but I thought you were supposed to ask me questions.
     Mr. SPIVAK. This is the question: Where are we winning it, since we are on the defensive in Cuba and in Berlin?
     Mr. LODGE. We are not on the defensive in Berlin any more than they are. And in Cuba, when they brought their complaint against us into the United Nations, we got the votes to send it to the Organization of American States, which is the beginning of the solution to that problem, by having the other Latin American countries do it. You certainly wouldn't have thought it right, I shouldn't think, if Secretary Herter had been mousetrapped into making another Hungary out of Cuba in which the United States took the role in Cuba that the Soviet Union did in Hungary. I don't think you would have liked that. At the same time it would be obviously intolerable for Cuba to become an active imperialist Communist base, and the nations of the American hemisphere won't allow that. But there has to be some patience as well as some firmness. Walter Lippmann said, I think, "Nothing becomes a strong nation so much as restraint and patience."
     Mr. SPIVAK. Do you think our position in Berlin, in Cuba, in Korea, and Japan is as good as it was 5 years ago, 3 years ago, 4 years ago?
     Mr. LODGE. I think in South America in many ways we have fewer of these dictators. I think that is a good sign. I think the sentiment for us in Japan is friendly. I think the situation in Korea is - at least nobody is getting killed there; there is that to be said for it. I think in Berlin we are just where we stood. We are going to keep our word. I personally would think that we ought to be prepared to see the Berlin thing brought up at the General Assembly, and I personally would like to see the United Nations brought into Berlin, supplementary to what is there already, let's say, by some such device as having United Nations guards at the checkposts, something like that. I am not saying there isn't a chance to do a little negotiating on Berlin, but basically our honor has been pledged. If we go back on our word on Berlin, we destroy every commitment we have made all over the world. That is not a criticism of us. We ought to be praised for keeping our word. We are not on the defensive in Berlin any more than the Communists are.
     Mr. WHITE. Mr. Ambassador, I would like to bring you back to the immediate campaign, perhaps a projection of it, though. Other than presiding over the Senate, the job of the Vice Presidency is just about whatever the President wants to make it. If you and Mr. Nixon are elected, what kind of responsibilities do you anticipate carrying out for the President?
     Mr. LODGE. Mr. Nixon announced the day after we were nominated in Chicago that if elected he would give the next Vice President the job of directing all the nonmilitary aspects of the world struggle. And, of course, that would be a tremendous job and would keep any Vice President extremely busy.
     Mr. WHITE. Staying in the context of the campaign, what is your position on the religious issue?
     Mr. LODGE. I do not want anybody to vote for me on a religious ground. I refuse to accept the proposition that my three Catholic grandchildren or my two Episcopalian grandchildren for that matter or anybody's children or grandchildren, are debarred from becoming President because of religion or race. Communism is against all Christianity. Communism is against Judaism as far as that goes. People who believe in God should stand together. The question has no place whatever in this campaign. Even to bring it up, even for a journalist to bring it up, violates the spirit of the Constitution, and that is what I think about the religious question.
     Miss FREDERICK. One brief question about Mr. Khrushchev, and then another one, if I may. If Mr. Khrushchev asks for a private talk with President Eisenhower, do you think the President should agree?
     Mr. LODGE. I would certainly look at that with a very different eye if Mr. Khrushchev had released Lieutenant Olmstead and Lieutenant McCone, whom he is now illegally detaining in an absolutely outrageous manner. Those two officers ought to be released. That would be my initial reaction to that question.
     Miss FREDERICK. So the President should not---
     Mr. LODGE. I didn't say that. I said that would be my initial reaction to that question.
     Miss FREDERICK. And one other question: You have spoken about the United States being willing to discuss the U-2 case and the other cases at the United Nations. Why is not the United States willing to discuss the question of Red China in the United Nations?
     Mr. LODGE. We think that Red China should be kept out of the United Nations because it is in flagrant violation of every single thing that the United Nations stands for, and to admit Red China would be to stultify the United Nations. When, as, and if the time comes that Red China's behavior changes, that will be the time to look at the question of discussing it.
     Mr. LINDLEY. You have said that the Communist leaders "have contempt for our lack of mastery of what they call the art of revolution." Do you think we should master the art of revolution, and where should we practice it?
     Mr. LODGE. I think we should move ahead on this whole business of the nonmilitary aspects of the world struggle. I think we have done well, but I think with the world getting tighter all the time, smaller all the time, we've got to step up our whole approach on the nonmilitary aspects.
     Mr. LINDLEY. Is this a way of advocating revolution promoted by us on the other side of the Iron Curtain?
     Mr. LODGE. No.
     Mr. LINDLEY. Is this a reversion to rollback and liberation?
     Mr. LODGE. It certainly is not, and it is not trying to outdo the Communists at their own game, but it is an attempt to make the people of the world understand that we believe the American revolution holds promise for them and to talk about the promise of the American revolution and not about the menace of the Communist revolution.
     Mr. LINDLEY. If you do take charge of all the nonmilitary aspects of the world struggle on behalf of the United States, what new instruments would you want; what new agencies that you don't have now?
     Mr. LODGE. I would want to have an office which contained a staff which would pull together all the nonmilitary aspects of foreign policy. That is, economic aid, strategy, tactics at the U.N., exchanges, ICA, loans and grants, USIA, all these various things, and a group to try to think constantly in short-range and long-range to try to gain the initiative.
     Mr. BROOKS. I am sorry to interrupt, but our time is up. Thank you, Ambassador Lodge, for being with us.