Senator O'MAHONEY. Now, the Secretary of State made the assertion, according to your testimony here, released in the press conference, that the American soldiers, or military personnel now imprisoned in Red China, are held illegally and that they are to be distinguished from the case of private citizens who might want to go there under a passport. Did I understand that correctly?

Mr. WIGGINS. I believe the Secretary's view on the February 5 statement was that there had been an identification of the interests of the correspondents in travel and of the prisoners who are being illegally withheld, and that his statement seemed to suggest that at the time he thought that the prisoners were being withheld until this Government would consent to a larger cultural exchange, and he regarded this as an improper relation of the issues and would not yield and allow the obstructions to travel to be removed in the presence of that sort of blackmail.

I believe that was the sense of the Secretary's statement.

I have my own understanding of the situation; it was not exactly that, either from prior statements of the State Department or subsequent ones, where I had felt that the thing was rather the other way around, that the issuance of passports and the permission for general cultural travel was being withheld in the hope that the Chinese Red government was anxious to have resumption of normal travel, that by withholding travel until they released the prisoners we might use this as a lever to get some of the prisoners released.

I think that proper and a sound and a right and appropriate attitude is that these are unrelated questions and that the prisoners most certainly ought not to be held illegally and unjustly and the travel ought not to be obstructed.

I think neither act ought to wait upon the other.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Of course, it would be quite possible that ander completely free travel, newspapermen and others might find themselves in the same position as the military personnel who are now illegally held. The responsibility would fall upon the State Department to do nothing or something about it?

Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, this is a hazard of the profession which we have been accustomed to over a great many years, and occasionally it cannot be denied that it involves the Department. It did in the Otis case in Czechoslovakia.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Your conclusion is that the risks should be assumed both by the newspaperman and by the State Department. Mr. WIGGINS. Yes, sir.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Do you believe there should be any distinction between the way a newspaperman is handled and a citizen who is not a member of the press?

Mr. WIGGINS. The distinction, I think, is one that is to be made very carefully, and I would not limit it.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Can you suggest the manner in which it should be done?

Mr. WIGGINS. I would not limit it in terms of a newspaperman. I Would say persons who are in business of gathering information for the American people whose professional role it is to try to inform them, must on occasion be allowed to go into areas.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Must on occasion. Would that be a discretionary power in the Secretary of State to determine what was the occasion?

Mr. WIGGINS. I think under rules that are reasonable and orderly and laid down.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Does the newspaper organization you represent suggest what the rules should be? If we are going to write a law, we will have to have those.

Mr. WIGGINS. I would not be prepared to devise a statute at this present sitting.

I think in this particular case, in the case of travel in Red China, that at the moment that the travel of reporters representing the news and radio and television mediums ought to be permitted.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Do you have questions, Senator Ervin?

Senator ERVIN. I would like to make this observation: I want to commend Mr. Wiggins on the very clear way in which he has stated the proposition that freedom of press exists so that all of the American people might enjoy their right to knowledge; that it is seriously interfered with whenever a newspaperman is denied, unjustly or unwisely denied, the access to any area of the earth.

Also, I would like to observe that while, like Mr. Wiggins, I am unable to devise any statute at this particular time, I could think that the situation, like virtually every other situation that exists in government, can only be rightly resolved whenever we establish laws or regulations which are certain and uniform and which apply alike to all the citizens in like circumstances.

That is one of the objections I have fundamentally to the discretionary power granted to public officials which they can grant to one individual and deny it to another.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Wiggins. Thank you for your clear statement.

Mr. WIGGINS. Thank you, sir.

(Subsequently, the text of Secretary Dulles' remarks on March 5, 1957, referred to above, was received by the subcommittee.)

[March 5, 1957, Department of State for the press, No. 111]

SECRETARY DULLES' NEWS CONFERENCE OF MARCH 5, 1957

The following is the State Department's release of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles' news conference today, which is authorized for direct quotation: Secretary DULLES. I have a brief statement, copies of which will be available to you as you leave the auditorium.

It is a matter of great gratification to the United States that the Government of Israel has decided to complete its withdrawal behind the Armistice line in compliance with the United Nations Resolution of February 2 and that a schedule for effectuating such withdrawal has been worked out with General Burns, the Commander of the United Nations Emergency Force.

Once again it has been demonstrated that the free world nations have a decent respect for the opinions of mankind, as reflected in the General Assembly of the United Nations.

As President Eisenhower said in his letter to Prime Minister Ben Gurion of March 2, 1957, the Israeli decision was not an easy one. We believe, however, that the decision will prove to have been a wise one from the standpoint not only of Israel but of all the nations concerned. It should, as President Eisenhower said, make it possible to bring about conditions in the area more stable, more tranquil, and more conducive to the general welfare than those which existed heretofore.

Now I am ready for questions.

(Following are the exchanges relating to Red China:)

Question. Is the administration's position now the same as it was a month ago; namely, a flat opposition to letting these people go to Red China? Answer. Well, we have not altered the position which we then took. We are continuing to study and explore the matter to see whether any ways could be found to satisfy better the demand for news coverage without seeming to drop the barriers down generally, and to permit of what the Chinese Communists call "cultural exchange." So far, we have not found any solution, but, undoubtedly, we will keep on studying the matter.

Question. Mr. Secretary, on the question of newspapermen going to Red China, you said the President and you are still discussing the problem of dropping the news barriers. Did you mean ordinary barriers to travel to Red China? Is that what you had in mind?

Answer. One of the problems we face here is the fact that there is a general drive by Communist China to reestablish what it calls cultural intercourse with other countries and it is particularly pressing that on countries which are neighbors, the free countries, and where such relationship could not, I think, be reestablished without danger to those countries. And one of our problems is not to set an example which would be bearable by us but which, if it was extended generally, would have perhaps dangerous repercussions in other areas.

Question. Well, there have been recommendations that the State Department announce that any reporters going to Red China do so at their own risk and that they would thereby be permitted to go. Has any thought been given to this possibility of solving the problem?

Answer. Yes; I think we have given thought to all possibilities. Let me say this, it is a general principle of international law that no individual can waive the responsibility of a government to look out for its own citizens. There is also a problem as to whether or not it is possible to allow certain persons to go and other persons not to go. There are people who feel that their mission to go into all the world is just as commanding as that which impels the newspaper people. It's an extremely complicated subject.

(Mr. Wiggins' prepared statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF J. R. WIGGINS, SECRETARY OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEWSPAPER

EDITORS

Mr. Chairman, my name is J. R. Wiggins. I am executive editor of the Washington Post and Times Herald and the secretary of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. Mr. Jenkin Lloyd Jones, president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, asked me to appear before you in response to the request of this committee.

Perhaps the most helpful thing I could say to the committee about the views of many newspaper people about the refusal of the State Department to permit newspaper people to travel in Red China, would be to repeat here at the outset a statement on these issues to which the officers and members of the board of the American Society of Newspaper Editors subscribed on February 11. This statement was communicated to Secretary Dulles at that time. That statement follows: FEBRUARY 11, 1957.

Hon. JOHN FOSTer Dulles,
The State Department,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: On October 8, 1949, Red China ordered non-Communist newsmen out of that country. (The United States Government denounced this ban as an effort to blot out objective reporting of developments in the Communist-occupied territory of China.)

On May 1, 1952, the State Department announced steps to warn citizens of the danger of travel in Iron Curtain countries, including Red China, and said it would stamp passports "not valid for travel" in those countries "unless specifically endorsed by the Department of State for such travel."

So travel of American reporters was under a double ban.

On August 6, 1956, Red China invited some American correspondents to visit China, and on August 7 the Department of State stated it would not change its policies to permit such travel.

29174-58-pt. 1—4

Since then, three newsmen have gone to China, but most have conformed to the State Department's wishes. Rightly or wrongly, many believed that the continuation of the travel ban might help persuade the Red Chinese to release American prisoners wrongfully held.

At your press conference on February 5, you stated that there was "no necessary connection whatsoever" between these two matters. This we think in accord with sound principle. We believe there should be no such connection.

We urge that you now proceed to take steps in conformity with your stated belief that the problem of the imprisoned Americans and that of free-press travel are indeed separate problems.

We hope that American reporters once again will be allowed to have passports free from the limitations on their travel in Red China that have been in effect since 1952. We think this can be done whether or not the ban on travel by civilians generally remains in effect. We believe the order of 1952, under which you have been proceeding, allows this exception. We think it consistent with precedent and in conformity with the statutes. Reporters have, in the past, been allowed to travel into areas from which civilians generally have been excluded. They have been permitted in combat zones, in war theaters, in countries that we have not officially recognized.

The people of the United States have a right to know, through their own reporters, about conditions in Red China. This right should not be given or withheld as an instrument of diplomatic negotiation or made contingent upon policies of other countries with reference to separate and different issues.

We urge you to restore the right of a free people to have a free press that can freely travel wherever there is information that citizens must have if they are to enjoy the right to knowledge and the free use thereof.

JENKIN LLOYD JONES,

President, the American Society of Newspaper Editors.

With the concurrence and on behalf of the board of directors:
Virginius Dabney, Richmond Times-Dispatch, first vice president.

George W. Healy, Jr., New Orleans Times-Picayune, second vice president.
J. R. Wiggins, Washington Post and Times Herald, secretary.

Carl E. Lindstrom, Hartford Times, treasurer.

Stanley P. Barnett, Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Turner Catledge, New York Times.

Fred Christopherson, Sioux Falls Argus-Leader.

Michael Gorman, Flint Journal.

Lee Hills, Detroit Free Press.

Walter Lister, Philadelphia Bulletin.

Wallace Lomoe, Milwaukee Journal.

Kenneth MacDonald, Des Moines Register and Tribune.

Felix R. McKnight, Dallas Morning News.

Louis Seltzer, Cleveland Press.

C. G. Wellington, Kansas City Star.

Since this statement was made Secretary Dulles has conferred with the president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors and again made known the views of the Department on February 18. On March 5, at his press conference, the Secretary was asked:

"Is the administration's position now the same as it was a month ago; namely, a flat opposition to letting these people go to Red China?"

The Secretary answered:

"Well, we have not altered the position which we then took. We are continuing to study and explore the matter to see whether any ways could be found to satisfy better the demand for news coverage without seeming to drop the barriers down generally, and to permit of what the Chinese Communists call cultural exchange. So far, we have not found any solution, but, undoubtedly, we will keep on studying the matter."

So far as I know this study has not yet produced any change in policy.

I would like to expand the statement made to the Secretary in a few particulars that might be helpful. I think it worth adverting for a moment to the response which this Government made when Red China, on October 8, 1949, forbade the entry of non-Communist newsmen. Our State Department then said:

"The effect of this order is to blot out completely objective reporting of developments in the Communist-occupied territory of China. The order is not based on military security or censorship, but solely on the ground of nonrecognition of the newly annons Communist regime.

"It is evident that this order constitutes a crude effort on the part of the Chinese Communists to force recognition of their newly established regime by those countries which continue to have, on the basis of the record of the Chinese Communists to date, wholly justifiable doubts regarding the responsible nature of the regime according to generally accepted international standards.

"Further examples of the flagrant disregard of these standards have been the confinement of members of the staff of the United States consulate general at Mukden to their compounds for almost a year; denial of facilities for the withdrawal of the personnel of the consulate in contravention of assurances given as long ago as June 21, that they would be made available; and assent in, if not instigation, by Communist authorities at Shanghai of mob action against American businessmen in that city.

"Far from constituting the pressure toward recognition, such acts contravening recognized standards of conduct merely reflect discreditably upon the character of the Chinese Communist regime."

This declaration states the general view of the objections to restricting reporters' movements in a country which I think still is sound. Moreover, it is my belief that whatever policies prevail as to travel and cultural exchanges generally, the State Department has in time past, and can and should in the future, permit exceptions to general practices that will allow the American people to continue to have information and knowledge about areas in which general travel is not permitted. These exceptions, we think can be made under the travel policy that was imposed on May 1, 1952, which at the time seemed to contemplate precisely this kind of exception. At that time the Department said that "this does not forbid travel in these areas but it contemplates that American citizens will consult the Department or consulates abroad in ascertaining the dangers of travel in countries where acknowledged standards of protection do not prevail, and that if no objection is perceived the travel may be authorized."

The Department said further: "In making this announcement the Department emphasizes that this procedure in no way forbids travel in these areas."

I think the Secretary was eminently correct on February 5 when he said that he found no necessary connection whatever between the issues raised by Red Chinese detention of American prisoners and those involved in correspondents' travel. The prisoners are unjustly held and they ought to be released. American reporters are unjustly denied access to information to which the American people are entitled and they ought to be permitted to travel. Neither right action ought to be contingent upon the other.

Members of the newspaper profession probably are of different views on the wisdom of generally increasing the cultural exchange with Red China. They are, I think, as nearly of one mind as it is possible for the members of a contentious profession to get on the dangers of closing any corner of the globe to reporters and on the general unwisdom of forcing the American people to rely upon Government sources, rumors, and conjecture, or the press of other countries, for knowledge about any country or continent. Whatever citizens or newspapers may think about Red China, developments in that country certainly are of the utmost importance to the future of the world and to the policies of the United States.

American public opinion about Red China should be based on facts acquired through channels of information upon which American citizens generally rely. In language so effectively used in connection with the celebration of the bicenteanial of Columbia University at the time when President Eisenhower was himself the head of that institution: "The people have a right to knowledge and the full use thereof."

The present policies of the State Department obstruct that right.
Senator O'MAHONEY. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Senator O'MAHONEY. The next witness will be Mr. William Worthy, foreign correspondent for the Baltimore Afro-American.

The next witness will be Mr. William Worthy.