shores and to associate as many nations as possible in sharing with us the burden of defense. Our manpower is but 6 percent of the population of the world; it cannot hope by itself to man the bastions of freedom. Our present rate of national production and defense mobilization depends on raw materials made available to us by our allies. Our capacity to retaliate effectively against the Soviet Union depends on air bases made available to us by our allies. It would be irresponsible in the extreme to turn our back on these invaluable assets. Let us face the hard fact: these assets, in the main, cannot be replaced. The manpower, the raw materials, the strategic bases, once lost to us, cannot be duplicated from our national and continental resources. That strength, which provides the margin of our own safety, would go instead, if our allies collapsed, to increase the capacity of the Soviet Union to destroy us. The cost of trying to make up out of our own resources for the loss of these assets would not only fail to produce anywhere near as much national security. It would also cost incalculably more than the $7.9 billion contemplated in the Mutual Security Program. Moreover, as a beleaguered island in a sovietized world, the United States would be forced into a state of garrison centralization fatal to our traditions of political and economic freedom. Either our allies are worth supporting or they are not. If they are not, let us abandon them. But let us recognize candidly where the logic of abandonment leads us. That logic is that either the Soviet Union has no aggressive aims or that, when we finally decide to oppose Soviet aggression, we should do so, not in distant countries but only on our own continent and our own homeland. Americans for Democratic Action believes that through the policy of collective strength we can restrain Soviet aggression without war. We sharply reject the counsels of those who believe that the Soviet Union presents no threat or those who say, in effect, that it is better to meet that threat in Detroit, Puget Sound, and Staten Island than to meet it in Korea or central Europe. One other point: While we believe that hard-boiled considerations of national security make aid to our allies necessary, this is not the only reason we favor such aid. In last analysis, in our judgment, the hope for world peace depends on the progressive moral leadership of the United States. We can appeal to the free peoples only if we show some concern for their freedom as well as our own. A policy which would whittle away their freedom in the interests of our own fatter living is a policy which would destroy our hope for moral leadership. Let it never be said that the United States could so selfishly sell its birthright for a mess of pottage. 2. The indivisibility of strength Military aid is obviously of first importance. Without military strength, the free peoples would have no hope of living with the threat of Soviet aggression. But military strength cannot be purchased at the price of economic and political weakness. Military strength in the modern world is not just in arms alone; it is in a functioning economy, it is in a healthy people, it is in the morale and determination of a modern nation. To concentrate on building military strength tọ the neglect of other forms of strength would be to build a massive wall around a nation while it crumbles internally into moral and economic collapse. The concentration on military defense alone is the psychology of the Maginot line. Bitter experience should have taught us that the Maginot line approach does not provide reliable strength. We believe, therefore, that the $1.819 billion for defense support in Europe is as important as the $4.070 billion for direct military assistance. Defense support is essential to enlarge the economic base in order to make military expansion possible. Those of us who worry over the capacity of the American economy to bear the burden of rearmament must recognize that the European economies face the same problems and that the strain and disruption of war have left these economies in a far less robust condition than our own. Defense support is further essential as a means of economizing our own expenditures; funds invested in defense support in Europe will yield two to three times as much military strength as the same funds invested in the United States. If we eliminate defense support from our program, /we will cause a sharp cutback in the military build-up and capabilities in Europe. This is a shocking responsibility to assume in a period of world crisis. It would represent a retreat from our whole policy of peace through collective strength. Because strength implies political and moral health in addition to economic and military power, ADA favors other measures designed to strengthen the European economy. We favor, in particular, the strengthening of free trade unions, the promotion where needed of programs of land reform, the reorganization and reform of taxation systems, the break-up of cartels and monopolies, and the equalization of the burden of sacrifice among all classes in the population. In the case of Spain, where American aid cannot be justified by the claim that Spain, like Yugoslovia, is in the first line of defense against Soviet aggression, we are opposed to any aid so long as labor enjoys none of the rights granted to it as a matter of course through the rest of the Atlantic community. We also hope and trust that Western Europe will continue to make steady progress toward political and economie unity. 3. Mutual security cannot be for defense alone The Mutual Security Program cannot be just a holding action. We believe that Soviet aggression must, of course, be contained; but containment is not enough. The Mutual Security Program can play an indispensable role in firing the free peoples with faith in their own future. As such faith develops among free peoples, it cannot but have its influence among the enslaved nations behind the iron curtain. The development of a fighting faith in the free world will speed and enlarge the resistance to Soviet tyranny in the satellite states. This is true in Europe. It is even more urgently true in Asia. Here we face a problem of peculiar difficulty. Throughout the underdeveloped areas of the world, old social structures are in the process of visible disintegration and decay. New mass energies have been released. These energies focus on the demand for national independence and for social change. These genies can never be put back into the bottle; nor, as a democratic nation, born in a struggle for national liberation, should the United States ever wish to put them back. Our problem in Asia is to convince the leaders of the new national and social movements that they can solve their problems within a framework of friendship with the west. The best way to doing this is to work with them in programs for their own economic improvement. The policies of technical and economic cooperation known as point 4 are therefore of decisive importance in the battle of Asia. In the long run they will be far more important than the delivery of arms and ammunition to the discredited leaders of old Asia. While we favor military support in cases where independent states are resisting actual aggression, as in Indochina, we feel that our main effort in the underdeveloped areas must be in the affirmative terms of point 4. India, in our judgment, is the key to the defense of Asia. For this reason we would call special attention to the importance of backing the program for development in India recently worked out under the direction of Ambassador Chester Bowles. As President Truman well said in his message, "In one district in India, the production of food has already been increased 46 percent. Repeat this: across the continents of Asia and Africa and Latin America, and we enter a new era in the history of man.' 4. Can we afford mutual security? We in ADA have never been among those who had doubts and fears concerning the strength of the American economy. We believe that the American economy can do whatever is necessary to assure the national security. We do not feel that the $7.9 billion for the Mutual Security Program, even with the $58 billion proposed for other forms of security, will create an intolerable economic strain. We would direct the attention of the committee to the analysis recently undertaken by a group of professors in the Harvard Business School and published under the title "Our Economic Capacity To Meet Defense Goals" in the January issue of the Harvard Business Review. This analysis, endorsed by 19 members of the business-school faculty, concludes: "On an over-all basis, American consumers will have as much available for their purchase in the summer of 1952 as they actually bought in the second quarter of 1951, virtually the same as in the period just before Korea, and significantly more than they chose to consume at any time during the postwar period." The security programs are well within our economic capacity. The Mutual Security Program, on its record of achievement, deserves support. Mr. Averell Harriman, the Director for Mutual Security, has shown himself a farsighted and courageous statesman. The policy of peace through collective strength has more than justified itself in terms of results. This policy, we believe, affords the best hope of restraining Soviet aggression without resort to war. If this policy is carried out in the properly dynamic spirit, it will help light a new and militant faith among the free peoples of the world. In that faith lies the best hope of setting in motion a democratic revolution which will win the minds and hearts of the masses of the world and lead to the eventual collapse and disappearance of communism. Senator GREEN. Now I would like to make a statement for the record, since statements to the contrary seem to have appeared in some of the newspapers, that we have heard or received written communications from all persons who have asked to be heard on this matter. Everyone has been heard from, perhaps not to the extent they would like, but often-in most cases-where oral addresses were delivered they were allowed to amplify them by written statements. So this concludes these public hearings. (Whereupon, at 4:10 p. m., the open hearings were adjourned.) (The following statements were received subsequent to the hearings and are inserted at this point:) STATEMENT OF FLORA B. LUDINGTON, CHAIRMAN, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS BOARD, AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION The long-range aspects of international economic and technical development should not be overlooked. By assisting in the increase of knowledge and skills on the part of large numbers of peoples, especially in the undeveloped areas, we can help them to become more effective participants in the economy and government of their areas. If we are to make the most effective use of our personnel, they must have access in the field to appropriate technical publications. The training of local personnel to take over and to extend what we shall have begun requires comparable materials. A network of libraries, technical and general, supported the Tennessee Valley Authority from its inception. Scientific and technical publications are an indispensable part of any development program, wherever located. The less developed the area, all the more essential are the elementary manuals and pamphlets suited to local needs for training purposes. If the local population participates in the production and use of benefits, the broad impact on the life of the region requires a well-conceived program of adult education. It is in the best interests of the United States to promote economic self-sufficiency, especially in undeveloped areas. We need the resources of these areas now. In the future we will need their personnel, their skills and resources. We look forward to the ever more effective participation of their citizens in world affairs. STATEMENT BY THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES The League of Women Voters considers the Mutual Security Program to be basic to the present foreign policy of the United States. Members of the league, now totaling over 100,000 in some 800 communities, have followed the development of the program during the past year. A summary of our views about the importance of the program follows. 1. Collective security and NATO The league has worked for 30 years to build support for the idea of collective security. To this end we worked for the establishment of the United Nations and later for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as a regional arrangement within the framework of the UN Charter. We believe that the formation of NATO was desirable and that its progress to date has been rapid. In order for this progress to continue, Western Europe needs some help from the United States, both to stabilize economies strained by rearmament and to arm the forces being organized to defend the West. The expenditures for defense support in the Mutual Security Program seem to the league to be as necessary as those for military aid. Indeed, it seems to us that there is little real distinction between military and economic aid. The main point is to help Western Europe develop and sustain a viable economy while it rearms for the safety of all of us. Whatever contributes to this goal is important, whether it be wheat and cotton or guns and planes. Defense support, further, should be available to strengthen those new efforts at European integration-the Schuman plan, the European army, the European Payments Union-which offer so much hope for the birth of a strong and independent federation of states of Western Europe. 2. Aid to underdeveloped areas The league especially favors those parts of the Mutual Security Program which authorize economic aid and technical assistance from the United States to the countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. We believe this aid is vital because it gives those nations a chance to become independent partners in the task of building a peaceful world. League members are aware of the social and political revolutions in many underdeveloped areas, of which intense nationalism is one aspect. Aid such as is now being extended through the point 4 program can help turn this tide in a constructive direction. It is certainly in our national interest that this should be done. Experience has shown that much can be accomplished in underdeveloped countries with a moderate expenditure of funds. We urge Congress to provide adequate appropriations to carry on this program for advancement. 3. Technical assistance through the U. N. Letters from league members all over the country show they feel strongly that more of the money made available by the Congress for technical assistance should be directed through the United Nations. If the U. N. is to develop into an effective instrument for international cooperation, member countries must make use of it. In view of the sensitivity of nations recently emerged from colonial status, technical assistance from the U. N. is often welcome where aid from the United States might be suspect. This is a particularly good program, therefore, to be developed through the United Nations. In closing, we should like to point out that our members, along with most other citizens, are seriously concerned about economy and efficiency in the Federal Government. We urge you to scrutinize every request for authorization of funds. We would be the last to say that waste should not be eliminated wherever it may be found. On the other hand, we want to be sure that cuts for the sake of economy do not involve a risk to our national security or an undermining of the longrange goals of our foreign policy. The danger is that we shall be so impatient for results that we will fail to see the great progress which has been made and which would be wasted if aid were withdrawn just when progress is beginning to be apparent. We recommend, therefore, (1) that there be adequate appropriations for defense support as well as for military aid; (2) that we continue the program for aid to underdeveloped countries and that these appropriations be in adequate amounts and with full use of United Nations agencies. STATEMENT BY THE AMERICAN LABOR PARTY The American Labor Party respectfully urges this committee to reject the 7.9 billion dollar proposal which masquerades under the title of Mutual Security Assistance Program. The program constitutes the exportation of huge funds to implement the disastrous bipartisan policies of war. It seeks to bolster with billions of dollars the great lie of our day-that war is inevitable. It underwrites at the expense of the living standards of the American people a vast enterprise in blueprinting war, under the pretext of so-called security. We believe, as do millions of our fellow Americans of all political affiliations, that war is not inevitable. We believe that the best defense of America is a program of peace, not the stockpiling of atom bombs. We believe that cessation of hostilities in Korea, unrestricted foreign trade, and economic and diplomatic amity among the United States, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Great Britain, France, the People's Republic of China, and all the nations of the world should replace the atom bomb, dollar-bill diplomacy which is wrapped up in the 7.9 billion dollar program under consideration by this committee. Throughout our Nation, there is growing awareness that the essence of the present bipartisan foreign policy is war. We respectfully call to your attention the very significant protest publicly declared by the Connecticut Council of Churches, in behalf of approximately 800 Protestant churches, on March 24, 1952. The council urged the immediate dismissal of Maj. Gen. Robert W. Grow who confided to his diary a passion for the commencement of an aggressive war by the United States as soon as possible. The council pointed out that, "After World War II, the Nazi leaders, among them several military men, were sentenced in Nuremberg and some of them executed for the very reason that they prepared an aggressive war in peacetime and harb red ideas which we cannot distinguish from those harbored by General Grow." The views contained in General Grow's diary are reflected in the purpose, spirit, and contents of the program you are considering. The phrasing may be more adroit in the so-called mutual security assistance measure; the aim may be more skillfully disguised. But, the Grow diary and the Mutual Security Assistance Program are twin proclamations of the same policy: War, lowered living standards for American families, and nullification of the Bill of Rights to suppress the great demand of the American people for peace, civil liberties, and economic security. Of course, big business has sent its spokesmen here to endorse the Mutual Security Assistance Program. Big business wants to continue its orgy of war profiteering and has a huge stake in fostering war hysteria which it utilizes to obtain lush contracts. Here, gentlemen, is a mere sampling of the profits reaped by the giant corporations: Total profits (after taxes) made by 808 companies last year. Total profits for 28 petroleum companies (an increase of 17.2 percent). Total profits for 58 railroads_ Total profits for 13 rubber companies. $7, 729, 023, 837 1, 087, 363, 403 672, 680, 962 169, 564, 245 120, 223, 651 752, 933, 834 While big business and Pentagon big brass beat the drums for the 7.9 billion dollar "Operation rathole," the American people are staggering under the burdens of the wage freeze, record high cost of living, increased withholding taxes, indirect taxes through higher prices, growing unemployment. Discrimination against and segregation of the Negro people is being intensified here at home while colonial oppression abroad is financed through such measures as the Mutual Security Assistance Program. To the anxious questions being asked by the American people, the answer is official repression on every level of government-legislative verboten signs incorporated in the Smith and McCarran Acts; judicial aid in tyranny incorporated in supine decisions which betray, instead of protect, American civil liberties; executive tyranny through executive orders which hound the people with political inquisitions, and exalt the business of informers, spies, stool pigeons, and perjurers. Gentlemen, the American Labor Party most earnestly urges that you defeat the proposed Mutual Security Assistance Program. Use the almost 8 billion dollars to chart a return to the peace policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Use it to build the homes America needs, to improve social security, to launch a program of Federal aid to education, to establish a system of health insurance and medical care. A program of peace is the surest instrument for security. STATEMENT BY THE NATIONAL BOARD OF THE YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION The national board of the Young Women's Christian Association, which has supported both the European Recovery Program and the Mutual Security Program since their inception, respectfully requests the Congress to authorize the Mutual Security Program proposed for the fiscal year 1953. We believe that this program is an investment on the part of the United States for freedom, security, and good will in the world. It serves our own interests at the same time that it serves the welfare of large parts of the globe. We were gratified to learn that the amounts proposed for the point 4 program have been increased. Promoting the well-being of people in underdeveloped areas is bo tha positive goal and one of the best ways to halt the spread of communism in the world. In developed countries as well, improved living standards and a greater sense of security will help prove to the leaders of the Soviet Union that democracy serves people and to disprove their theory of an inevitable collapse of our way of life. In regard to the amounts proposed for Western Europe, we believe that direct military aid and defense support are closely interrelated. Both are economic in the sense that they involve a portion of our resources. Both are military since |