The Republic of China, independent from the People’s Republic of China and which does not have U.N. representation, accepted an interview where they shared some important information about how the cabinet has been acting on the issue. Both nations China and India continue to be shocked by each other’s actions with their militaries and hatred towards both sides is building up.

Senator Humphrey, who was previously the majority whip, was not present, so it was elected by the rest of the senate that Senator Johnston would be whip, to cover in his absence. The responsibility of the whip is to keep everyone in line so they are following policy, which is important information to note. “There have been some conflicts that Senator Johnston has been involved in, but in the end, some senators, like Senator Young from Ohio, have been working across the aisle with Republican minorities, instead of working with democratic Allies,” Mansfield mentioned in an interview. It is already being seen that the whip who was elected is already working with opposing parties, which sparks the question, is that someone who you want to be representing your party?

Mansfield has been able to work around, listening in on what others are doing and saying, and has had many resolutions to the issue at hand, an example of one of the people who are staying in line, as one should be doing. A quote from Mansfield, “I went and worked with Senator Adkin of Vermont and we wrote a paper on agriculture that just passed. Other bills we have passed, in regards to our first topic which was innovation, and industrialism and developing the American interior, all four bills passed, which they don’t directly step over each other, but they do.” Mansfield has passed many bills, further showing that he is one of the few that can stay in line, as the senate should be doing.

There have been resolutions passed by both the Republican and Democratic Parties, two specific ones being written in part by Senator Young, and another by a Republican senator; both passing with 27 votes. But, it was seen that opposing parties were voting with papers that were from the opposing parties, which were directly seen in this situation. This is causing conflict within the Democratic Party because it is not allowing them to vote properly because some are voting for Republic papers that have opposing views to what they are trying to pass.

One proposal discussed was the removal of U.S. missiles from Turkey in exchange for the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba. However, the Cabinet debated how to approach this delicate issue. While there was determination to address the Turkish missile situation, the debate also acknowledged the unequal nature of the Cuban and Turkish arsenals. Members recognized that the situations were not equivalent and proposed relocating missiles to ensure Turkey’s security. The plan included providing military personnel to address Turkey’s defense needs while addressing the core issue of missile removal.

The Secretary of the Treasury emphasized economic considerations, expressing that the United States “cannot afford to ostracize Turkey and antagonize key allies at this time”. Instead, the suggestion was to seek Turkey’s consent for missile removal, accompanied by a proposal for reimbursement of naval and soldier expenses. This approach aimed to maintain regional stability while avoiding unnecessary strain on international alliances.

Conversely, the U.N. Ambassador urged against displaying weakness in negotiations. She advocated for a mutually beneficial deal, implying commitment to peaceful relations and reduced tensions. The Ambassador cautioned against outright succumbing to the demands, favoring a strategic compromise that benefited both parties.

However, not everyone in the Cabinet favored compromise. Some argued against any concession, fearing it would be perceived as weakness. They advocated for a firm stance to protect U.S. interests and the integrity of the NATO alliance.

The Cabinet’s discussions during the Cuban Missile Crisis underscore the delicate diplomatic balance required to address the crisis without alienating critical allies. The U.S. government is seeking a solution that balances the interests of all parties, recognizing the need for strategic compromise and the imperative to avoid direct military confrontation. Decisions made during this critical moment will shape international relations and set the stage for future negotiations between superpowers.