Recent years have been witnessing a complex series of negotiations to reach that European political settlement which eluded the victors after World War II, the absence of which prompted the Cold War that followed. More important than the particular negotiations themselves, certain forces have started in motion which are likely to alter considerably the postwar political landscape. No one can say with great assurance what sort of world these trends will lead to. None is free from ambiguity; all have aroused strong countertrends which may well reverse them. Nevertheless, taken together, they do furnish at least a working model for considering Europe’s likely shape in the future.

It pleases me that the emphasis in this discussion has shifted from what I thought was going to be both a backward and static look, to a more dynamic contemplation of the European scene. I don’t know what the title of the panel is now. The Chairman repudiated that of ending World War II and moving toward a “final” European settlement and for this I’m glad.

I think Professor Jacobsen’s analysis of the unity, the comprehensiveness of the forward movement of Soviet policy and its military, diplomatic, political, economic, cultural advance may be quite true, but I wonder if we are not really only talking about a difference in degree from the U.S. system. I think the fact that Soviet policy is conceived of as a web, and that individual geographic areas or political, military, economic issues are not viewed or treated in isolation, is a concept or a method of conducting policy that is not peculiar to the Soviet Union. We have the same thing, with perhaps only a slight difference in degree as a result in part of the ability of the Soviet system to centralize.

I shall focus attention, in the brief time allotted, on the role of the U.S. Government in promoting trade with the Communist countries, having in mind not the larger political and economic questions which underlie governmental action but the institutional questions arising from the fact that the entire foreign trade of Communist countries is conducted by state agencies, operating under a system of national economic planning, while the foreign trade of the United States, as that of other market economies, is conducted primarily by individual, privately owned business units operating more or less independently of government.