 It's time for the Lawn Jean Chronoscope, a television journal of the important issues of the hour brought to you every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, a presentation of the Lawn Jean Wittner Watch Company, maker of Lawn Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world-honored Lawn Jean. Good evening. This is Frank Knight. May I introduce our co-editors for this edition of the Lawn Jean Chronoscope? Larry Lassur from the CBS television news staff, and John Oaks from the editorial board of the New York Times. Our distinguished guest for this evening is the Honorable Harold E. Stassen, director of the Foreign Operations Administration. How many persons in the executive branch or government have a bigger or more controversial job than a director of foreign aid? But even this year, an economy-minded Congress cut only 3% from the vast appropriation he asked for. $3.5 billion in foreign aid. Mr. Stassen, how long do you think the taxpayers of America will have to bear this burden of money aid to our allies overseas? I think it will continue to reduce, but in some degree it will be necessary as long as there is a grave Soviet threat in the world. Mr. Stassen, several senators have been saying that the present bill can be cut by 50% or so because of previous unallocated appropriations. I'm sure there's an answer to that. Would you tell us what it is? Yes. The previous unexpended appropriations are committed to the building up of jet air forces in various countries, and it takes a long time to build them. If we decide today in this Congress to help establish jet squadrons in Spain, it will probably be four years before that money is spent. And that's why there's always a big carryover of unexpended and in many instances unobligated money. So suggesting that $2 billion or so is simply waiting to be spent isn't quite an accurate picture? No, it's a matter of what we call the lead time, the time it takes when you plan with Congress until you finally get the forces in being or the technicians established in overseas areas. Mr. Stassen, how do you know what's doing any good? No, it's not true, of course. Take for example the situation of Germany and Japan to begin with. They were not exactly friends 10 years ago, but the people are very friendly and building strength together at the present time. And of course, there are disagreements and there are criticisms at times from other countries that's a part of freedom. We do not have the forced agreement. But actually, there's a lot of friendship around the world to the United States. In that connection, I'd like to ask you what you think of the policy that sometimes advances to the United States. We do not have the forced agreement of the Soviet area, but actually there's a lot of friendship around the world to the United States. In that connection, I'd like to ask you what you think of the policy that sometimes advanced of using our economic strength to influence the internal political policies of the countries that are recipients of our aid such as forcing land reform in Italy through our economic aid or tax reform in France, that type of thing. Well, you should not try to force internal conditions to that. It's a matter of persuasion, that's right. It's a matter of how will the aid money be used and how can it be effective. In that respect, land reform, better wages for workers, greater productivity, a freer exchange of goods between the countries of Europe, for example, those are a part of the way in which the free world can be stronger and the conditions of living be better and therefore, in turn, communism have less chance. Mr. Stassman has been quite a hassle in Congress over some of the projected writers which have been attached to the foreign aid bill. And one of them I believe now, Senator Nolans is rather vague, but it does say in effect as I read it that the President would have the right to reconsider our membership in the United Nations if Red Shiner were admitted in the coming fiscal year. Now, do you think you should sign the bill with such a writer attached? The writer doesn't really go that far as it's now presented in the committee. It indicates that if that eventuality should occur, the President should immediately consult with Congress indicating it's a very grave situation. But I feel that in its present wording, I would recommend that the President sign the program which would include that writer. Well, how about the writer that goes along that would cut off possible aid to Italy and France if they don't join the European Army, EDC? Well, those writers, I do not consider a desirable process, but that one too is informed such that we can carry on with it and therefore, when you consider the alternative of either reaching an agreement with Congress or of not having the program, clearly I would recommend the President approve the bill and go forward with the program. Do you think that type of writer would have any actual effect in persuading the French or the Italians to join EDC any more quickly? No. In my judgment, you do not get results by laying down ultimatums when you're working with friends. I think that it's a matter rather of persuasion. Well, that applied to the other writer too, Mr. Stassen, the one that forbids us to give any help to any nation that signs a Locarno-type treaty in the Far East, which might mean Britain in case Britain entered such an agreement. That writer again, in its present form, we can work the program with it, and it is an expression of congressional intent, and so we accept it that way. But I'd rather be correct to say that it's been my own observation, not only in this present work, but through life, that if you're working with friends, you get farther by persuasion, by talking things through than you do by trying to give ultimatums. Speaking of friends, Mr. Stassen, a lot of people in this country do believe that if we stayed home and just traded in our own hemisphere, we'd be better off than giving money to people who don't agree with us many times and who possibly may not fight for us. Now, do you think we could afford to stay home and save our money? By no means. If you did that, what you would tend to do is increase the danger that the communists would take over Western Europe, take over the Near East with all the tremendous oil reserves there, take over in Africa or in the Far East. And if you let that go on for a few decades, then you really face a rather gloomy outlook for America and the Western Hemisphere. In other words, you feel it's actually a must that we must expend this money in order to keep communism from gobbling up these countries abroad? Well, Larry, here we are with about one third of the world's total production of goods and services. We have a tremendous position of leadership in the world, and that carries with it a responsibility. And unless we exercise that leadership, we abdicate, and when we abdicate, we do it at our own peril. Now, you have been attacked, of course, by a former political associate of yours, with whom you certainly are no longer associated, named Mr. McCarthy, for encouraging what he calls the blood trade between America's allies and the enemy. Meaning, of course, trade between the free world and the Iron Curtain or Eastern countries. Would you care to comment on this question of East-West trade or free, unfree trade? Yes, I feel that unless you're to conclude that a third world war is inevitable with all of its horrors, and unless you take that hopeless attitude, then you must look for the way in which there's a chance of developing a peaceful world relationship over a period of years. And so that when the other free nations say we want to trade in non-strategic, non-war, non-armament goods, in consumer goods and consumer manufacturing goods, then I say that is a desirable process. There's a chance that you move the whole Soviet area and its people and the pressure of its people toward peace instead of war. Well, to go a step further, do you think it would be wise to offer the communist country some alternative to direct aggression? Do you think that if we offer to trade with them in non-strategic goods that we might soften them up in the future and make them less aggressive? That's right. In other words, I think that the basic policy that Secretary Dulles has enunciated is right. You must keep before the communists the alternatives. That if they are aggressive, if they are belligerent, they will be met firmly and with great force. If they will move toward peace, toward living peacefully with the rest of the world, then there is an opportunity for expanded trade and for peaceful relationship. Nevertheless, you said recently... Those alternatives always have to be there. You said recently that our trade with Russia was the lowest it's ever been. Yes, in 1953, in the atmosphere of the Korean War picture, the total trade was lower than ever before. But on this question of strategic or non-strategic trade, do you feel that are we in agreement in the first place with our allies on what constitutes non-strategic trade? Not entirely. There are different views of it. It's hard to know just where to draw the line. We'll say everybody will agree that a powder puff or a pound of butter is to be classed non-strategic and everybody agrees that all kinds of guns and heavy machinery are strategic. Then you come in between. What about a heavy farm tractor? Is that strategic or non-strategic? Is that sort of thing still under negotiation? That's right. We are making headway and we've talked just this last weekend with the President of the British Board of Trade. Matter of fact, I'm going to Paris tomorrow, Sunday, rather, to carry on the talks on Easter. But does your bill hold any possibilities of switching trade from one region to another, say taking it away from Indochina and sending more to Latin America where we've recently had some real money on our hands? Yes. The program presented to Congress has flexible authority on the part of the President so that if waiter needs arise, like in Latin America, he can transfer some funds from one area to the other. That flexibility has proved very successful in the past. That's, in fact, the way in which he carried on the East German food package. You remember when the riots occurred? We moved in immediately with food packages. That was done under that transfer power to meet a sudden emergency and meet it effectively. Well, we still have a little time, sir. I'd like to ask you one question. Just what do you think would happen if we did stop all this aid and saved our money again? I think you'd immediately increase the danger of another great depression in America and of a third world war. In other words, after World War II, after World War I we didn't do anything like this. We didn't have a program in relationship to foreign countries. We pulled back and in the single generation we had the worst depression in our history and we got World War II. I feel that following effective leadership in these economic and security matters and the humanitarian approach of technical cooperation gives the best prospect of economic success at home and security for the United States. Thank you very much, Mr. Stassen, for your very candid comment. The opinions expressed on the Laun Jean Chronoscope were those of the speakers. The editorial board for this edition of the Laun Jean Chronoscope was Larry Lisser and John Oakes. Our distinguished guest was the Honorable Harold E. Stassen, Director of the Foreign Operations Administration. A Laun Jean watch is one of the most perfectly functioning mechanisms made by man. Now on first acquaintance, one is astonished by its day-to-day performance. As months pass into years, it's part of these of great accuracy and reliability become truly priceless. These persuasive words are backed by facts. In competition with the finest watches of all the world, Laun Jean watches have won highest honors. Ten worlds fair, grand prizes, and 28 gold medals are some of these honors. For greater accuracy, Laun Jean watches have won countless honors from the great government observatories. Honors too, in sports, aviation, and in science. Now in a watch, the best costs spot little more than the least. Laun Jean watches do not carry a prohibitive price tag. You may choose from many beautiful models, both for ladies and gentlemen, for as little as $71.50. Now, if your present watch is not what it should be, or if you're planning to buy a watch as an important gift, these are facts to remember. Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, the world's most honored gift. Premier product of the Laun Jean Wittner Watch Company, since 1866, maker of watches of the highest character. We invite you to join us every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday evening at this same time for the Laun Jean Chronoscope, the television journal of the important issues of the hour, broadcast on behalf of Laun Jean, the world's most honored watch, and Wittner, distinguished companion to the world honored Laun Jean. This is Frank Knight reminding you that Laun Jean and Wittner watches are sold and serviced from coast to coast by more than 4,000 leading jewelers who proudly display this emblem. Agency for Laun Jean Wittner Watches.