« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
than the application of our best energies and maximum inventiveness over an extended period. A national debate over peacekeeping machinery could serve to make the public more adequately aware of the fact that the solutions to our international problems are not easy, and cannot be solved merely by distinguishing between the good guys and the bad guys. Let me hasten to say, however, that I am greatly heartened by the progress in sophistication already manifested in the public's reaction to current crises, as compared to its reactions of 10 or 15 years earlier. There is a learning process going on for all of us, and it is the Government's responsibility to stimulate that process by opening up for discussion, rather than covering up, those elements in the national consensus that exist only by virtue of the fact that we have not yet really faced up to the problems involved.
From this point of view, the only question raised in my mind by Resolution 32, is as to whether it adequately sets the stage, first, for the needed preliminary research, and second, for the national and international debate required for such fundamental policy issues. While this resolution would undoubtedly strengthen the hand of those in the administration who would like to give more sustained attention to fundamental and long-range planning, if would not in itself remedy the very serious deficiencies in the Government's capabilities to do such planning, nor could it overcome the deep-seated bias existing, inevitably, in those with day-to-day operating responsibilities who hold the posts of leadership. I doubt, therefore, that the Congress should leave it entirely to the President to "formulate * * * specific and detailed proposals” for the foreign policy objectives so ably described in this resolution. Rather it would seem appropriate to enlist the widest range of talents available, for the fashioning of new institutional mechanisms, including, in the first instance, the rich mine of resources to be found in the Congress. Perhaps something in the nature of a national commission, or indeed an international commission, would be an appropriate instrument; I do not feel myself knowledgeable enough in the field of governmental mechanisms to venture a positive opinion. I merely wish to underline the point that what is required here is not that the President call together his advisers and improvise some quick decisions on some relatively obvious points, but rather that the Nation as a whole, and indeed the world as a whole, commit a substantial amount of its best intellectual resources to confront what is perhaps the most difficult and certainly the most fateful problem ever faced by the human race, for it is on the solution of this problem that the survival of our race may, in the end, depend.
Senator CLARK. Senator Javits, we will be happy to hear from you now. I hope it will not make you feel any lonelier than you do anyway to express my gratification to you for being the only member of the Republican Party who cosponsored this resolution.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACOB K. JAVITS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEW YORK
Senator Javits. Well, I am very hopeful that when the time comes to vote, we will have Republican votes, and treat me, if you will, Mr. Chairman, as a spokesman today for as much of the Republican Party as we could get on the resolution. I think we will have a fair vote on the Republican side. There is great interest in this.
Senator CLARK. Of course we have got to get it out of the committee first. Perhaps you can help us there.
Senator Javits. My first remark, Mr. Chairman, was to congratulate the Chair upon getting these hearings.
Senator CLARK. It took me 9 years.
Senator Javits. It is quite a signal achievement, and I also congratulate the Chair on the initiative of this resolution and the concept which it embodies. I think it is very important. I think we are inclined as Senators to treat with each other without the light of history, because it is personal and we are human and we see each other all
the time, but in the long corridor of history, I think this will be one of the significant contributions, perhaps the most significant, which the Senator from Pennsylvania has made to the future of his country and the future of mankind.
Senator CLARK. Let us hope so, and I am grateful to you, Senator.
Senator JAVITs. Now, Mr. Chairman, there are two things that strike me so markedly in respect of this resolution. First, most people agree that sometime, someħow, somewhere, there will be an international peacekeeping organization, supranational in character, which will probably be built upon the new concept of regionalism in the affairs of mankind, which is very quickly developing right under our very eyes, and we are undoubtedly going through a stage of a transition from nationalism, perhaps the first really historic transition since medieval times which saw the birth of nations, the beginning of the birth of nations, and now into regionalism.
The European Economic Community perhaps is the most marked of those beginnings, but they are very obvious in defense, in security, in economics, and in many other areas of international life.
Senator CLARK. Fiscal affairs, too.
CONCEPT OF RACE IS DISTORTED
Senator CLARK. Do you get the feeling which I have that we are really engaged in a race between the capabilities of man to internationalize himself and the nation state to the extent necessary to prevent annihilation and the other side of man's nature, which is turning, as it has ever since we came down out of the trees, toward military solutions of political problems, which to my way of thinking are obsolete. Nevertheless who knows who is going to win that race?
Senator Javots. You are absolutely right, and let us hope we will will win by the skin of our teeth. So that is point one.
Agreeing on that, and the other point is that most every American who is thoughtful and reads at all understands, even if he does not know, that in our Defense Department and security apparatus in the country we have the most complete strategic plans for any kind of a war anywhere, and if we do not, somebody has to get fired or shot because we should. This is the essence of our security.
And taking these two ideas together, it seems to me this resolution is so very timely because all it does is to seek in the field of peace what we have done for so long and must do in the field of war.
Senator CLARK. Have you had a chance to read the responses of the State Department and the ACDA to this resolution?
Senator JAVITS. I have not.
Senator JAVITS. At least this seems to me to be the essential rationale for this resolution, and hence I am honored to testify in support of it because I think it is so very essential, and when you think of the amounts involved—of course the Senator from Pennsylvania has already eloquently paid his respects to the minuscule amounts which are dealt with here, and the unbelievably great sums we are spending for defense—which the Senator from Pennsylvania has voted for, which I
have voted for, which we do not begrudge for a minute. We only ask that they be joined at least with some decent effort in the field of peacemaking and peacekeeping.
Senator CLARK. Your thought is that our emphasis is out of balance.
Senator Javits. Exactly right, completely, both in substance and in financing.
Now, the last point that I would make to the Senator is this. This is why I think we may very well get some Republican support. This is essentially an aspect of the national goals idea, and it is planning for tomorrow on the world's most important problem.
CONTRIBUTIONS OF REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION TO PEACE
a group of dis
Now, one of the things to me that was the most impressive about the Eisenhower administration—whatever may be its strengths or shortcomings—was the national goals concept, and I have sought-and I know the Senator from Pennsylvania is an ardent proponent of the philosophy of his party as I am of mine I have sought to make one of the properties of my party to have the national goals concept as an alternative to governmental planning.
Senator CLARK. I agree wholeheartedly with the Senator. I think one of the finest things the Eisenhower administration did was to appoint that Commission on National Goals. I thought within the pragmatic limitation of the application of it today, the report was a bold one and a fine one. I now see in the
that tinguished economists have attempted to implement the statement of national goals in order to determine to what extent the policies we are now following will result in a shortfall in reaching those national goals, evidently our gross national product and the way we are spending it will result
in a shortfall of well over $100 million. I think that is a matter which I commend the Senator for calling to our attention. This again raises the question of priorities, and again we say how necessary and how important it is to advance the cause of peace in order to make it possible for use to achieve those national goals.
Senator JAVITS. And so, Mr. Chairman, I think that as an aspect of the national goals concept, which is so opposite to the general feeling of America as contrasted with some basic planning mechanism, this resolution really deserves to be passed.
Now, I would like to add just one other point. I have had some experience personally with the unbelievable complexities of many of these problems. For sometime I had an opportunity to work with those who were in the federalist field, who were trying to develop and present a concept of what some world organization operating under the rule of law with powers to enforce the rule of law, just exactly how it would be organized and what would be the details of its function, and it was just an unbelievable work and indicated the tremendous range of the problems, the relative paucity of creative thinking which had been done in the field, and the enormous amount of scholarship and effort and debate and discussion which would have to ge into such a development.
Senator CLARK. I am sure you are familiar with the really monumental work prepared by Grenville Clark and Louie Sohn published
back in 1958, revised since then, which as far as I know is the only comprehensive effort to put on paper the very difficult problem the Senator has referred to.
Now I do not say that is the only solution, but I say it is the most comprehensive and effective and thoughtful suggested solution which has come forward. I am a little depressed that it has not found more favor in the State Department under either administration or in the Arms Control Agency,
Senator Javits. The main point I was trying to make, Mr. Chairman-I was coming to the Clark-Sohn study--the main point I was trying to make is that there is but an edge of the whole problem and that by just two enterprising scholars. Think of the range of issues and of thought and development, debate, research, et cetera, which would have to go into the specifics of a resolution, when merely an effort to do something about world law can call for such a tremendous treatment.
And so I deeply believe that it deserves governmental attention upon the highest level, and finally, the mere fact that we will be dealing with this matter in pragmatic terms will be tremendously encouraging to the world. I think that peacemongering is a mighty good business when you are being accused so widely of warmongering and when it is so easy to pick up the fact that you do engage in military operations, and I support them as I know the Senator from Pennsylvania does, and we must engage in them in Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic, in Vietnam, and perhaps tomorrow in other places, giving to the demagog a tremendous credence when he speaks of American warmongering.
What the Senator wants us to do is to engage in peacemongering of the same kind of a public and broad scale and profound character. I just cannot conceive of how we can avoid it.
It is very interesting that our British cousins have moved in this field with far more depth than we have dreamed of doing, and I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to the Senator from Pennsylvania for codifying what we could do, for being indefatigably concerned with bringing about these hearings, and all I can do is thank him for bringing his resolution and join with him and pledge my full support for it in getting it out of the committee.
Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Senator Javits. I am deeply grateful to you for taking the time out of your very busy life for coming here and giving us the support which is so badly needed.
Has Mr. Oscar de Lima appeared ? He was to be our first witness, but he has been delayed. If not, our next witness will be Mr. L. D. MacIntyre, special representative, National Women's Conference of the American Ethical Union.
STATEMENT OF L. D. MacINTYRE, SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE,
NATIONAL WOMEN'S CONFERENCE OF THE AMERICAN ETHICAL UNION, BETHESDA, MD.
Mr. MacIntyre, we are happy to have you here. Your statement will be printed in full in the record. Will you please proceed in your own way
(The prepared statement follows:)
STATEMENT OF L. D. MACINTYRE
Mr. Chairman and committee members, my name is L. D. MacIntyre, my home is in Bethesda, Md., and I am a former president of the American Ethical Union, having served in that position as a volunteer for the period 1951-59. The American Ethical Union, with headquarters at 2 West 64th Street, New York City, is the National Federation of Ethical Culture Societies in the United States: Religious fellowships which seek through education, service, and community action to increase man's knowledge, practice, and love of right living.
The National Women's Conference of the American Ethical Union which I am here to represent was founded in 1929 and one of its objectives was then and is now to develop interest and encourage action in matters of ethical importance in the community-local, national, and international. Its concern with the problems of international peace has been constant since 1932 when representatives attended a convention held here in Washington, D.C. It has representative status as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) at the United Nations and at the U.S. Mission to the U.N. It is my privilege to represent the National Women's Conference at NGO meetings held in Washington. D.C.
The American Ethical Union, of which the National Women's Conference is a constituent body, holds national assemblies where policies are made and resolutions passed by the delegates. In 1948 the assembly resolved “as a religious group dedicated to the promotion of a just and decent relationship between people everywhere, (we) recognize the paramount importance of promoting effective and genuine international cooperation toward world peace * * *" In succeeding years resolutions were passed in support of the United Nations as a force for peace, the latest resolution in 1960 emphasizing four points :
“1. The speedy achievement of universal disarmament,
“2. The safeguarding of the national security of each nation by creating an effective international United Nations force as a representative of world authority which under the direction of the United Nations will protect nations against aggression,
"3. The banning of the tests of all nuclear weapons backed up by a realistically comprehensive program of control and inspection,
“4. The strengthening to the utmost of the U.N. organs now available to settle international disputes, and especially to enhance effectiveness and authority of the International Court of Justice as an expression of the conscience of the world and rule of international law."
In closing, the resolution broadened the scope beyond the U.S. Government and the American people by addressing a request to the Executive Committee of the International Humanist and Ethical Union meeting in Utrecht, the Netherlands, that "it use its full intellectual and moral influence in all affiliated countries to implement these conditions for peace, disarmament, world organization, and cooperation between nations."
This background information is furnished as an indication of our continuing concern that practical steps be taken toward achieving peace with justice under world law, a necessary foundation for ethical living for ourselves and others indeed an essential for the survival of human life itself.
We were encouraged by President Kennedy's address at American University, by the limited nuclear test ban and by discussions of enforcible arms control to look forward to further steps and more rapid progress toward a peaceful world. Today we see no progress and the forces for peacekeeping seem to be losing ground. Our Government is assuming more and more responsibilities which might be carried internationally at less cost to us in money and recrimination.
This is the 20th anniversary of the end of the war in Europe. In closing his reminiscences with Field Marshal Montgomery by way of the Early Bird satellite last Saturday, General Eisenhower said that he promised his soldiers that they would win the peace. They did not but he said that we must join together to strive anew for that peace. I suggest that this year, also the 20th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations and designated by President Johnson as International Cooperation Year, is a most appropriate time to develop new initiatives in steps toward world peace as envisioned in the concurrent resolution before this committee.