Memorandum for the Secretary of State: I have read the draft of your talk to the CIO and I must say that, in general, I enthusiastically approve.1 The suggestions that follow may have sufficient validity that you will want to consider them briefly:
I. On page 6, at the point marked, I suggest that it might be well to expand your idea a little bit, somewhat as follows:
"Based upon this clear understanding,2 the present Administration believes that the formulation and execution of a clear, positive, and effective American foreign policy are impossible except as it is presented against a background of American prosperity, well-being, and opportunity that extends from the most to the least fortunate among us. Specifically and concretely, this Administration is committed to the development of policies that will bring the greatest good to the greatest number. This means that there must be lifted from the minds of men the fears of disaster, poverty, and old age. Further, this means that appropriate governmental connection with our entire economy must be so adjusted as to develop and sustain a prosperous agriculture, manufacturing, and services, and above all such equitable distribution of the resulting products that the 160 million people will constitute always the finest advertisement for freedom."
I make this particular suggestion because I think there should be emphasized--especially for your audience--the direct connection between a prosperous and happy America, and the execution of an intelligent foreign policy. The language I have used is merely suggestive, but I do think the point could be emphasized.
This would also point out that prosperity is not merely a matter for the Labor Department, Commerce, and the Treasury. It would show that State and all other Departments are equally interested.
II. On page 10, where you take up colonialism, it might be well to advert momentarily to Russia's adventure into Manchuria, Outer Mongolia, and so on.
III. At the bottom of page 12 and top of page 13, there is the implication that the economic development of natural resources will one day be complete. I doubt that you mean exactly this.
IV. On page 17, it seems to me that a little explanation should be inserted between the clause that shows that the Associated States could not alone retain their independence, and the next clause suggesting the French Union as an applicable method.3 Specifically, I think that it might be pointed out that these states, to withstand the continued pressure of aggression or threatened aggression, will need economic, political, and military aid. Possibly there should be added the thought that, if they go into the French Union, it should be by their own voluntary action.
V. On page 21, at the bottom, I do not think you should admit that these people are better acquainted than you personally with some of the Soviet exploitations of people.4
If any of the above suggestions prove helpful, I shall be pleased. If not, throw them away with a clear conscience.5
