Telegram to the Vice President on Answering Political Criticisms Relating to the Operation of Foreign Policy.

The Honorable Richard Nixon

Hotel Ambassador

Los Angeles, California

I have now read Foster Dulles' interpretive statement of yesterday morning. I think this should clear the atmosphere, particularly in pointing out that there is no real difference between the two of you.

For my part I want to point out the following. Both political parties have taken a common stand for a number of years on the essential foundations of a foreign policy. Both of us are dedicated to peace, to the renunciation of force except for defense, to the principles of the United Nations Charter, to opposing Communist expansion, to promoting the defensive and economic strength of the free world through cooperative action, including mutual aid and technical assistance.

While in my view these, with rare exceptions, should not and do not lend themselves to political argument, the matter of administrative operation of foreign policy--whether or not agreed goals are in fact realized-has time and again been challenged both by ourselves in the past and very recently by some of our political opponents. As foster pointed out, these need to be answered whenever they occur. Questions and criticism have involved Lebanon, our relationship with Nationalist China, the defense of Quemoy and Matsu, etc. These actions, when criticized, should be supported by our side. No one can do this more effectively than you.

At times it is of course difficult to distinguish between policy and administrative operations. However, the generalization I have made, is, I believe, a good one.

All the best to you.

D.E.