William C. Foster, United States disarmament director, predicts a safe passage in the Senate for any nuclear test ban treaty signed by Russia and the West. He does not agree with those who predict that a treaty would provoke the most bruising battle in the Senate since the proposal to join the League of Nations after World War I. Nor does he believe it would suffer the same dismal fate. “It would be tough,” the 66-year-old Mr. Foster said in an interview, “but we could get a treaty through the Senate." Mr. Foster, director of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, will not take part in the United States-British-Russian nuclear test-ban treaty negotiations in Moscow next month. But, from his office here, he will back up the efforts of the American negotiators. The chief negotiator for the United States at the Moscow talks, scheduled for next month, will be Undersecretary of State Averell Harriman...

President Kennedy announced Monday that the United States, Russia and Britain have agreed to send high-level negotiators to Moscow next month in a fresh start at hammering out a nuclear test-ban treaty. He said the agreement to start the high-level talks had been reached by Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan and himself. In the meantime, the President announced, the United States will not conduct any nuclear tests in the atmosphere - so long as the Soviet Union and other nations hold back on their tests, too. Mr. Kennedy spoke of the talks as a badly needed first start on negotiations "where the end is in sight." But he cautioned that his announcements were "no substitute for a formal binding treaty - but I hope it will help us achieve it." British officials seemed more optimistic...

The dark lean man joins President Kennedy. They chat on the yacht, Honey Fitz, at Palm Beach. They laugh during the Army-Navy football game in Philadelphia. They applaud a performance of "Irma la Douce" at Washington's National theater. They dine at a private party in the White House. Their friendship and companionship is rare and near unprecedented in Washington. The lean man, a year younger than the President has a high forehead, long swept-back hair, and a sharp very British nose. He is Sir David Ormsby Gore, a friend of John F. Kennedy from younger, more carefree days. He is a politician. He is the heir of a nobleman. And he is the British ambassador to the United States. Traditionally a British ambassador should be a career diplomat, advanced in years, prim and proper in his dealings with the chief of state. Ormsby Gore is a politician in his first post as ambassador, the only political appointment in the entire British foreign service, 44 years old, and the constant companion of his old friend Jack, who happens to be chief of state...

FOREIGN AID PATTERN - Will the developing nations have to adjust their sights and hopes to meet the new look in American foreign aid? Officials at the Agency for International Development (AID) have declined to divulge just how the new guidelines for foreign aid will affect specific nations. But non-government experts surveyed by the Associated Press have applied the principles laid down by Gen. Lucius Clay's special study committee and by President Kennedy in his foreign aid message to congress on Tuesday, and generally have come up with these conclusions...

Rep. Otto Passman, D-La., said today he finally feels vindicated in his long battle against foreign aid "but vindicated in words, not in action." So he still will wield his ax when President Kennedy's $4.5 billion foreign aid bill comes his way. For nine years, the ax of this dapper, jocular 62-year-old businessman from Monroe, La., has been a major obstacle for any foreign aid bill trying to wend its way through Capitol Hill. No bill has emerged unscathed. Passman derives his power from his position as chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations. He derives his distaste for foreign aid from a simple philosophy, "Head to a bar tonight and watch some people drinking cocktails," he said in an Interview. "Then watch the drama that unfolds each time the waiter brings the check. Everyone grabs for it. We are a nation of check grabbers...."

[Christian A. Herter, U.S. trade negotiator, discusses in this exclusive interview the prospect for battering down foreign tariffs.] Christian A. Herter, special U.S. trade negotiator, said today he does not feel that the significance of his new job was shattered by the recent French veto of Britain's entry into the Common Market. "In some respects the veto enhanced the importance of the trade expansion program." Herter said in an interview. "It certainly complicated the matter." Just how much the matter has been complicated may become clear in the next two months when international trade experts meet in Geneva. The Geneva talks may determine whether Herter, armed with the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, can help batter down foreign tariffs and launch booming, new U.S. trade in the 1960s. Some congressmen have introduced bills that would amend the Trade Expansion Act to get around the French veto. The amendments would allow Herter to negotiate for the complete elimination of tariffs when the United States, the Common Market, and Britain together account for 80 per cent of the world's trade...

[EDITOR'S NOTE - Although the United States owns more than $3.8-billion worth of foreign currencies, it often has to dip into its own gold supply to meet expenditures abroad.] Rep. Adam Clayton Powell, D-N.Y., squired two good-looking, female assistants to the Lido night club in Paris last summer and paid his way with U.S.-owned francs. The night on the town provoked outcries back home. Powell had a quick defense. He quoted Secretary of the Treasury Douglas Dillon as saying if Powell and other congressmen didn't use these francs the U. S. government would have to burn them. "This is money going right down the drain," Powell said. Dillon said he had no recollection of making the remarks and added that he felt these funds "require the same prudent management and careful handling as any other moneys of the government." In fact, other administration officials say that most times that a congressman uses funds like these, he forces the United States to buy more foreign currencies with American dollars. Powell's night on the town, the outcry, his defense, and the denial by Dillon reflect one of the most complex and massive problems in American international finance... [article also published in the Congressional Record Appendix, 13 March 1963, p. A1354]

A News Analysis - Is the present furor over Cuba based on fluff or substance? The real answer may lie in the secret correspondence of Soviet Premier Khrushchev and President Kennedy. In the last few weeks of controversy and confusion, an odd drama has been played In Washington. Critics first railed at the administration, crying that Soviet missiles and missile sites still remain in Cuba. The storm drove the administration into an unprecedented picture-show defense of its intelligence operations. But, in the defense, the administration revealed a concern and an uneasiness not about missile and missile sites but about the removal of Soviet troops. None of the published correspondence between Khrushchev and Kennedy contains any promise to remove Russian troops from Cuba. But the secret correspondence reportedly does. In short, the critics, still may have helped draw attention to a raw nerve of the administration on Cuba policy...

Exact Cost To US Hard To Determine IRS Official Says - The United States government, through loss of tax revenue, will share substantially in the cost of paying the ransom that brought the 1113 Bay of Pigs prisoners back from Cuba. The exact cost to the treasury and thus to the taxpayers may be impossible to determine. But one official, Mitchell Rogovin of the Internal Revenue Service, estimated today that the tax loss, at the highest, could reach $20,000,000 spread over three years. Rogovin added in an interview that the loss could be less. And he stressed he considered it a loss only in the sense that every time there is a disaster relief or community chest drive, the government loses tax revenue through income tax deductions...

President Kennedy has promised no more than sympathy to those bargaining for the release of 1113 Bay of Pigs prisoners. But the evidence is clear that he has given more. Official statements in Washington maintain that the committee now negotiating with Fidel Castro in Cuba for the release of the prisoners is a private one, supported by private funds. But the prisoners, if they are released, will owe their freedom in large measure to the U.S. government. It is doubtful that the private committee could complete a deal of such magnitude without active support of the Kennedy Administration

THE UNITED STATES hovers over the Dominican Republic these days, waiting eagerly for a reward. The reasoning is simple: Everyone sees that the regime of Generalissimo Rafael Leonidas Trujillo Molina is tottering; everyone knows the State Department nudged it a bit; surely, after the crash, the new regime will embrace the nudger. But, in the chaos and anger that will follow the fall, there will be no embrace. The sudden anti-Trujillo policy of the United States and the dramatic condemnation of the Dominican Republic by the Organization of American States (OAS) at San Jose have come too late to avert what State Department planners fear most: an anti-American, Castro-leaning successor to Trujillo. For thirty years, the United States has bolstered the brutal tyranny of El Benefactor. Now that his enemies have him on the run, the United States has jumped to their side. For the final push, this new aid may be accepted and used; but the United States will receive in return only a few cold stares, a polite nod, contempt, smoldering bitterness. However, there are degrees of bitterness and contempt, and the exact character of the post-Trujillo regime will depend on the forces used to overthrow the Generalissimo...

TO AT LEAST one Congressman, a sugar bill posed no problem. The issue was simple, Representative William E. Miller of New York, chairman of the Republican Congressional Committee, told his colleagues: You are either for Castro or against him. Since few praises for Castro have sounded through the chambers of Congress recently, Miller’s analysis, if accurate, meant that a sugar bill could be legislated with ease, speed and clarity. But the analysis was far from accurate, and when Congress, after a twenty-three-hour session during the Fourth of July weekend, finally did bring forth a sugar bill, its haggard members looked neither easy nor speedy nor clear. Their decisions had been shaped and pounded by unceasing and sometimes contradictory pressures — pressures so varied, fascinating and obvious that even a hurried survey of them can reveal some of the realities within our legislative process. The story of the 1960 Sugar Act is a case history in American politics. Despite Miller, the issues turned on much more than an attitude toward the Cuban Premier...

The underdeveloped nations of the world can't terrorize each other in a nuclear arms race. Instead, they pant through a small arms sprint. While the great nations thunder missiles into space, the weak nations gobble up the rifles left behind. There are recent - sometimes dramatic - examples. Last March 4, the French freighter La Coubre exploded in Havana harbor, killing more than 75 seamen, dock workers and firefighters. It was carting 76 tons of Belgian grenades and ammunition to the army of Fidel Castro. Last year, the new African nation of Guinea asked the United States to sell arms to her 2,000-man army. When the United States refused, Guinea bought three shipments of rifles from Communist Czechoslovakia. Conditions are perfect for this dash for little arms: 1. A glut of small arms on the world market. 2. A host of military governments and revolutionaries hungrier for guns than bread. 3. Help from major powers in satisfying that hunger. There is no official estimate of the amount of small arms available on the world market during a year. But some light on the market's vitality is shed by news dispatches and government reports of transactions...

ON MARCH 4, the 4,309-ton French freighter La Coubre, carting seventy-six tons of Belgian grenades and ammunition to the army of Fidel Castro, exploded in Havana harbor, killing more than seventy-five seamen, dock workers and firefighters. The series of deadly blasts triggered a series of sensational questions that hit headlines in both the United States and Cuba. Had an American agent or anti-Castro Cuban slipped aboard and left a time bomb in the hold? Had a careless dock worker dropped a match into the munitions? Had a cargo net snapped, unleashing crates of grenades against the deck? Had a plane sneaked low across the harbor and tossed bombs into the freighter? Other questions, tinged with less excitement, were also evoked. But, too theoretical, old and uncomfortable, they made few headlines. They are questions which have arisen time after time, applied to incident after incident, in the last decade. Their most cogent expression came from Colombian liberal Eduardo Santos in 1955. “Against whom are we Latin Americans arming ourselves?” he cried out before a Columbia University forum...