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. I was present in 1948. 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-these points, I think, are pertinent to the concurrent resolution.

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.

And we took that position because we felt that nations were not willing to disarm unless they had some other protection against aggression. We thought of that protection as international in scope, a world peace authority.

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.

Mr. Chairman, we are not unmindful that the Connally reservation gives to our own Government the decision as to what is domestic and what is international, and other governments have taken advantage of that reservation, and to that extent we believe that limits the effectiveness of the International Court of Justice.

Senator CLARK. I share your distaste for the Connally reservation. Our problem is we do not seem to have the votes to change it. Mr. MACINTYRE. That is my regret, too.

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 in these days.

We were encouraged by President Kennedy's address at American University, by the limited nuclear test ban, and by discussions of enforceable arms control to look forward to further steps and more rapid

progress toward a peaceful world. We were disappointed in that today we see no progress and the forces for peacekeeping in the present situation in the United Nations-a lack of funds and so on-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 less damage to us in recrimination.

This is the 20th anniversary of the end of the war in Europe. I looked at the Early Bird satellite last Saturday and the conversation between General Eisenhower and Field Marshal Montgomery. 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, such as are provided for in this resolution, in steps toward world peace as envisioned in the concurrent resolution before this committee.

Attention was centered on this need by the encyclical of Pope John XXIII, "Pacem in Terris," which was addressed to "all men of good will” of all faiths and of no faith. My organization took that encyclical most seriously.

It was my privilege to be invited to the "Pacem in Terris" convocation sponsored by the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions held in New York City last February. Here 2,300 persons from many parts of the world made the foundations for world peace their first concern. I summarize the discussions as a declaration that: National independence must be subordinated to international interdependence; international law must reside within the United Nations; the U.N. should be strengthened and modernized; peaceful coexistence demands an evolution of ideologies; and the use of national force-no matter in what name or form or cause-must be supplanted by world law carried out by a permanent world peace force.

NEW PERSPECTIVES NEEDED BY WORLD POWERS

In opening this convocation, Secretary General U Thant said: We are now trying to make the step forward from a world of antagonism, domination, and discord to a world of cooperation, equity, and harmony * * *. We must eventually arrive, in the affairs of the world, at a state of political maturity in which it will be considered statesmanlike, rather than weak, for even a great country to alter its course of action or to change its national policy in the common interest or in deference to the will of the majority * * *.

If we turn from statesmen to scientific advisers on national security, we find that we are faced with the dilemma that steadily increasing military power is matched by steadily decreasing national security. This is not my personal opinion. This is the opinion of advisers such as Jerome Wiesner and Herbert York, writing in the Scientific American, giving as their profesisonal judgment "that this dilemma has no technical solution."

I suggest that the resolution before this committee may work toward the end of finding a solution.

In summary, I urge that we must strengthen the United Nations by giving it responsibility for peacekeeping and the means to carry it out; that working cooperatively with other countries toward mutually desired ends may cost our Nation less and gain us more in understanding than unilateral action; and that we balance our military might by leadership now in the pursuit of a world of peace with justice under law, for all men are members of one human family.

There is no need here to stress the frightful alternative toward which we move slowly but inexorably. To reverse this trend and resume the path of peaceful settlement-in short, to support our President, in his announced policy to pursue every avenue to peace, we earnestly endorse Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 submitted by Senator Clark and 25 cosponsors.

Mr. MACINTYRE. On page 5 of section 4 of that resolution, Mr. Chairman, it is requested that it be made available to heads of government. During yesterday's hearings it was suggested that this resolution might be distributed to governments at the 20th anniversary of the United Nations in San Francisco. May I add that we feel the sense of urgency. We too hope that this committee will mark up this resolution and report it out in the Senate in time to be passed before the commemorative session of the United Nations on Saturday, June 26. I recognize that is optimistic, but we hope that it comes to pass. Thank you for this opportunity to make our views known.

Senator CLARK. Thank you, Mr. MacIntyre. We appreciate having you with us. Several of the other witnesses have suggested the sense of urgency about this resolution. As the principal sponsor, I shall certainly do my best, but I think one has to be quite an optimist to hope we can do it on the time schedule you suggest.

Mr. MACINTYRE. If I was not an optimist, I would not want to contine living right now.

Senator CLARK. The Chair is happy to recognize the presence of the chairman of the Subcommittee on Disarmament, Senator Gore. Senator, do you not want to take over and preside?

Senator GORE. No; please proceed.

Senator CLARK. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. MacIntyre.

In order to make it possible for the only out-of-town witness to catch a train or plane to get back to New York, I am going to deviate from the normal order and ask Mrs. Marion H. McVitty if she will testify at this time.

Mrs. McVitty, it is always a pleasure to have the benefit of your thinking. I have had the chance to share it with you a good many times in the past. Your testimony will be printed in full. Please proceed in your own way. You know we are operating under a 10-minute rule.

STATEMENT OF MARION H. McVITTY, EDITOR OF INDEPENDENT OBSERVER, NEW YORK, N.Y.

Mrs. McVITTY. I do, sir. I want to thank you very much for taking me out of order on the list. I appreciate it very much.

I am testifying as the editor of the Independent Observer today. Perhaps I should explain that, after 10 years as organization repre

sentative at the United Nations, I felt there was a need for a periodical analysis in some depth of important U.N. issues. My publication seeks to fill that need for opinionmakers.

Senator CLARK. Actually, you have been a close and personal observer of what has gone on in the United Nations for how long? Mrs. McVITTY. For 14 years, sir.

Senator CLARK. You still do it.

Mrs. McVITTY. I still do it full time.

My statement will not take more than 4 or 5 minutes of your time, but I would like to request that this booklet be added to the record, which is called "A Comparison and Evaluation of Current Disarmament Proposals." It goes into the substance of the matter which I will not have time to do here this morning.

Senator CLARK. I am familiar with it. I think it is a most valuable document. It will be filed with the record.

(The booklet referred to is on file.)

Mrs. McVITTY. Thank you very much. My particular concern to be heard here is because I was afraid that Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 would not be understood to be immediate, because it does deal with long-range planning, and yet it seems to me that it is extremely urgent, because the United States has been actively negotiating a draft treaty outline for general and complete disarmament in the 18-Nation Disarmament Committee for 3 years. That treaty outline proposes, but does not formulate, the essential peacekeeping components that must accompany national disarmament. It enumerates, but does not blueprint the security powers which an international organization must exercise for the protection of all peoples when national defense establishments have been dismantled. The U.S. treaty outline foresees the need for an international authority to exercise such powers, but it is, in my judgment, ambiguous as to what international institution shall be given that authority.

DRAFT TREATY IS UNCLEAR

As presently drafted, the U.S. proposal may intend to authorize an international disarmament organization to enforce peace, as well as to control disarmament. On the other hand, it may intend to place primary responsibility in a reconstituted United Nations. It may, in the third place, equally well be interpreted to suggest that peacekeeping and arms control may be the shared responsibility of the disarmament organization and a revised United Nations.

Senator CLARK. In other words, the draft treaty is very fuzzy, indeed, and I think deliberately so. I can understand there are some advantages in keeping it fuzzy, but my fear is that if we do not get our own thinking clarified pretty soon, we are going to be in more serious trouble than we think.

Mrs. McVITTY. I quite agree with you, sir. You are really almost anticipating me here. I think there might be some reason for keeping it fuzzy in order to have flexibility in negotiations, but I have the feeling that if the United States itself does not know precisely what kind of an international authority this country would deem adequate for the whole plan, we can get into trouble.

We may agree to first steps which will prejudice the effectiveness of the authority that we would like to see at a later stage.

Senator CLARK. My own major criticism of our policy in this regard is that we are dealing with the whole thing on an adversary basis. We think this is a prizefight between us and the Soviet Union. Therefore we have to mask our punches. We have to keep some of our thinking in the background. We have to overstate our case on the theory that we will come down to negotiation later.

We are treating it as though we are two lawyers trying to settle a very important lawsuit. My view is that it should be a cooperative undertaking, and I understand that the Soviet Union is tough and mean and hard to deal with, but it seems to me in the long run we would get a whole lot further if we put our cards on the table and say what we really think instead of holding back in order to obtain a possible tactical advantage in negotiations on a cold war basis.

Mrs. McVITTY. It also seems to me, sir, to neglect the views of a great many other nations, and perhaps their real stake in the issue at hand. We all know that the major military powers can be called principally concerned when it comes to military technical aspects of arms reduction. But when it comes to the kind of warless world you are going to have

Senator CLARK. We hope.

Mrs. McVITTY. We hope, and the kind of international security system that would be needed, it seems to me this concerns all nations, just as primarily one as the other. And so it seems to me that if we are not careful in our failure to give attention to as important a point as the nature of the institutions themselves, we do run the risk, both at home and abroad, of a rather cynical disbelief in the serious intention of our own Government to carry out its own proposals.

Senator CLARK. And would you agree with other witnesses that since we live in a democracy and public opinion is an essential ingredient to the formulation and carrying out of policy, the sooner we get at the job of educating the American people, the sooner we will be able to get something effective done?

Mrs. McVITTY. I do, sir, and as I go about the country speaking a great deal, I find they know very little on the subject, and they tell me they do not see much about our long-range objectives in the press and radio and so on.

It seems to me that Sen. Con. Res. 32 addresses itself to the heart of this problem, and I just quote whether we should have "effective international machinery for the supervision of disarmament and the maintenance of peace * * * may best be achieved by revision of the charter of the United Nations, by a new treaty, or by a combination of the two." It requests study, formulation, and public information, with respect to an adequate answer.

It seems to me this is the heart of the problem.

In concluding, I just would like to repeat that because the U.S. disarmament treaty outline is being negotiated with other Governments this is not a long-range problem which can be worked out at leisure in terms of planning. We need to know now what we are talking about to others. I do not think adoption of S. Con. Res. 32 can

come a moment too soon.