Lapas attēli

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 ČLARK. 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 Goverments 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.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Mrs. McVitty, for your very helpful testimony.

Mrs. McVitty. Thank you, sir, for giving me this opportunity.


My name is Marion H. McVitty, and I appear before you as editor of “The Independent Observer.” Perhaps I should explain that after 10 years as organization representative 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.

I have asked to be heard by the committee because S. Con. Res. 32 seems to me to be the most significant foreign policy initiative before Congress. It is my fear that its immediate importance may not be realized, because its primary concern is with the long-range development of international organization capable of enforcing general and complete disarmament.

The United States has been actively negotiating a draft treaty outline for general and complete disarmament in the Eighteen-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.

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. Whatever the intent of this document may be in this regard, the schedule of disarmament stages, the program for constituting international peace forces, and the references to the International Disarmament Organization and the U.N. demonstrate confusion over this vital matter.

It may be wise to leave this difficult question out of the U.S. outline in order to permit flexibility in negotiations. However, if the United States does not, itself, know rather precisely what kind of an international authority this country would deem adequate for the whole plan, we may agree to first steps which will prejudice the effectiveness of the authority in later stages, or we may unwittingly concur in the impairment of the United Nations without having set up a workable alternative.

Furthermore, a failure to give attention to so important an aspect of the disarmament process must be expected to engender, at home and abroad, a cynical disbelief in the serious intent of this Government to pursue its own proposals.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 addresses itself squarely to this question as to whether effective international machinery for the supervision of disarmament and the maintenance of peace *** may best be achieved by revision of the Charter of 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


I repeat–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. Adoption of Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 cannot come a moment too soon. Thank you very much for this opportunity to be heard.

Senator CLARK. Our next witness is Bernice Steel of the Women Strike for Peace.

Mrs. Steel, we have your prepared statement. It will be printed in full in the record. Will you summarize it if you will. It really does not do any good just to read these statements. It just means they do not get printed twice. If you could just hit the highlights in 10 minutes, we would be very grateful.


WASHINGTON, D.C. Mrs. STEEL. I would be glad to do so. I would like to begin by saying that the Women Strike for Peace has been dedicated from its beginning to complete disarmament under effective international controls. As you know, we have been working actively and very hard in every area of crisis. We are exceedingly concerned about the development and the use of the United Nations as an international organ as we move along toward disarmament. I do want to bring up, as I have in my statement, our current total despair at times about Vietnam and about the Dominican Republic and the terror that grips us at times because of the situation of the world, and the fact that the U.N. for some reason at this time is inadequate and incapable of handling this. That is why we are so pleased to be here today to wholeheartedly support resolution 32 as a step very much in the right direction, hopefully away from this warlike feeling that we are being subjected to left and right.

We do feel very strongly, and perhaps as women we feel it more intuitively, that we need to have a different kind of perspective of the world situation, particularly in relation to the smaller nations that today are in a period of revolution.


We live in such a fast-moving age and in an atomic age, and the whole diplomacy is so old fashioned. We are fighting force with force. We are meeting every impasse with military solutions rather than political solutions, and as Senator Javits said, "It is inevitable that we must have an organ that is above national power to which we can turn for negotiation, for study, for something other than a military solution."

As women we are terribly concerned about the fact that approximately two-thirds of the world is in a state of starvation. We feel very strongly that not only in the United States do we have to have a war against poverty but that we need to think of this in terms of the total international problem. .

We have, before the Congress, Senator McGovern's suggestion for economic reconversion away from a war economy. Of course we feel very strongly that we must begin to cut down on our defense spending, on our military spending; even a very small percentage would release such enormous funds that our war on poverty could be a terribly exciting thing. This is true also on a world basis, to think what we can do internationally by releasing some of the defense funds and feeding people in developing countries and avoiding the kinds of problems that we now have in other areas of the world.

But the main point here today I think, and I think, Senator Clark, you are putting it forward often and very clearly, is that the people have to know, they have to understand, and they have to want this to be done. The proposals and the money and the plans are all available. There are many, many things that could be done. But for men to want to do them and for the people to want them done is the important thing, and the American public is not geared in this direction at this time.

It is part of our motivation to try to activate the American public in understanding and engaging in this kind of thinking.


A further point that I brought out in the paper that I prepared is the fact that the United Nations has had under study since 1952 the development of the lower Mekong River which is of particular interest to us now because of President Johnson's proposal that we begin giving further aid to that area of the country as a solution to the problem over there. It is of particular interest, I think, that 25 nations are engaged in this, that the so-called Basic Mekong Committee is made up of Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and the Republic of Vietnam.

According to a recent report out of the United Nations, these four countries have been able to have regular meetings, to meet and do constructive work even though they are in deep trouble and in war in that section of the country. It is a purely nonpolitical project.

Our own General Wheeler of the U.S. Army Engineer Corps has contributed a great deal of technical assistance. The United States has contributed large sums of money, and it occurs to us that if the American public had known of this, had supported it, and this area of the country had really been developed as it is just beginning to be, that perhaps we would not have a war in Vietnam today.

Our plea to the Senate and to the Congress is to begin looking at these problems before crises rather than when they occur, to know and to have perspective in a new kind of diplomacy rather than the old sort of thing that just simply is not working.

We have a further question about the Upper Mekong River which is in China, which no one is mentioning, and we ask whether possibly we might begin to act with humanity and perspective in this area or do we again have to wait until war breaks out before considering any such aid in that area.

I have quoted in my conclusion two parts of President Kennedy's speeches. One is from the American University speech of 1963. He asks: "What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war."

At the University of California in 1963 he said: “We must reject oversimplified theories of international life—the theory that American power is unlimited, or that the American mission is to remake the world in the American image."

Women Strike for Peace, every one of us, cherishes the right and accepts the responsibility of the individual in a democratic society to act to influence the course. I ask that the underlined section 3, page 5 in which it is recommended or suggested that the President give his proposals to the Congress and to the American public generally, this to us is vital. We must begin engaging in an exciting new way of living with the rest of the world.

Senator CLARK. Thank you so very much, Mrs. Steel. We are very pleased to have you here.

(Mrs. Steele's statement in full follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BERNICE STEEL, WOMEN STRIKE FOR PEACE Mr. Chairman and members of the committe, it is our pleasure and privilege to give wholehearted support to the resolution under discussion here today. Since its inception, Women Strike for Peace has been dedicted to the achievement of general and complete disarmament under effective international controls. We desire a total test ban, an end to the arms race, and abolition of all weapons of destruction under United Nations safeguards.

We are alarmed, at times in total despair, over the war in Vietnam which seems to promise more and more escalation into the total war. It is as if two immovable objects have no alternative but to clash, perhaps even in nuclear holocaust. Now the landing of thousands of Marines in the Dominican Republic engages us in more military thrusts in political areas. Much of the world reacts negatively and with great concern to such unilateral military action on the part of the United States; as does a large segment of the American public.

If, as our administration has stated, the United Nations is ineffective and inadequate to meet such crises as Vietnam and the Dominican Republic, then it behooves us to examine thoroughly the inadequacies of the United Nations and to make specific recommendations for its improvement, as suggested by this resolution. There will be other crises and we must have an international organ through which to solve international problems creatively and imaginatively.

Originally, the charter of the United Nations expected the five victorious powers of World War II to act unanimously in preventing or enforcing measures against aggression, potential or real. Since that time, to qoute U Thant, Secretary General to the United Nations, “_Alinements changed; old enemies became new friends; old comrades in arms found themselves in opposite camps; and the United Nations could not function in the way it was intended to function. The provisions of the charter relating to action with respect to threats to peace and acts of aggression were subjected to various interpretations. I must say in all frankness that in these circumstances the charter provisions are somewhat out of date. It is is this anachronism in the charter-the kind of anachronism which is inevitable in our rapidly changing world—that is partly responsible for the present constitutional and political crisis in the United Nations."

As women, we are geared intuitively to watching our children take each step into maturity. We know that they have to learn to creep before they can walk, and that they must have the freedom to make mistakes and learn by them. We hope to help them anticipate problems and solve them before, rather than after, crisis. In this revolutionary, atomic age the small nations of the world must have the same freedom to make mistakes, to creep, to anticipate and solve problems, and to grow. They can be helped to do so by the great powers. We feel a special urgency for such perspective and maturity in our own Government. The world and its people have moved beyond feudalism and holy wars. We must now catch up with the enormous scientific revolution that threatens to engulf us. We must learn to live with and understand the changes in and the needs of all mankind. Wars and killing are no longer the answer to every impasse, they cannot be the only answer. We must arrive at a state of maturity where it is statesmanlike for a great and powerful nation to show its strength by moral leadership rather than military might.

To quote U Thant again, “Beneath the present realinements, the world is in fact divided in a number of ways. It is divided economically; it is divided racially; and it is divided ideologically, although this latter division may prove to be less basic than the first two. These divisions must be faced and discussed with reason and determination. We ignore them at our peril, for if they are allowed to persist and grow larger they will unleash, as they already show signs of doing, darker forces of bigotry, fear, resentment, and racial hatred than the world has ever seen. We cannot agree to live in such a nightmare, still less bequeath it to our children.”

We are launched on a fight against poverty in the United States. If defense and military expenditures were out only slightly, enormous funds would be released to improve the lot of our own people. We feel sure this can be done to the benefit of our economy, and would be an essential move away from the military-industrial complex of which President Eisenhower warned us.

As Americans, it is difficult for us to comprehend that almost two-thirds of the world is living in starvation. If the members of the United Nations, as

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »