Lapas attēli



Mr. FISHER. The problem as to whether or not you make a fight on an unimportant issue or whether or not you are at the side of the road watering down an important issue for the purpose of getting agreement is a problem as old as government. But I think the mechanism. of the deputies, of the principals, and then of the President if there is a problem is as good a way as there can be to resolve this problem in which disarmament policy does become a part. As the act requires arms control and disarmament policy must be consistent with national security policy as a whole. You have to have the consultation necessary to get that, and as Mr. Cleveland said, that means taking everybody into account, and I make no apologies for that.

Senator CLARK. Let me interrupt. Without revealing the specific questions involved-I would not want you to do that-in your experience with the Agency which is now 4 years old

Mr. FISHER. Yes, sir, not quite.

Senator CLARK. About how many times would you say that the Director has found it necessary to go to the President with a disagreement with other members of the Committee on Principals on matters of disarmament or arms control? I say that with particular interest because before the Foreign Relations Committee not too long ago. Secretary McNamara came down and made a very eloquent statement about his view that foreign policy was a matter for the Secretary of State and not for the Secretary of Defense, that his job was to carry out the foreign policies established by the President under the advice of the Secretary of State. That, of course, where national security or defense matters were involved, he had the right, indeed, the duty to differ with the Secretary of State, and if he did, he would carry the matter to the President, but in 4 years had had never done it.

Mr. FISHER. I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to give you an indication of the number of times we have gone to the President and who has been overruled by whom.

Senator CLARK. No, I do not want that. I think that would be quite inappropriate.

Mr. FISHER. But I think it is perfectly clear that the Director not only has the authority, but has exercised the authority to go to the President and present the varying views.

Of course, it involves, as it does with any responsible public official, if there are varying views making sure they are presented, but there has been no problem of access to the President in the 3 years and 8 or 9 months or so since the Agency has been created.


Senator CLARK. Now, would you also clarify the rather anonymous position in which the Director finds himself, vis-a-vis the Secretary of State and the President-as I understand it you are in the State Department. The Secretary of State is certainly your superior in a way, and yet you have direct access to the President. Has that situation created any administrative problems?

Mr. FISHER. Well, I will have to correct the observation in one degree, sir, with the greatest respect. We are in the State Department only in that we are in the building. We are not institutionally a part of the State Department. We have Foreign Service officers assigned to us as we have military officers assigned to us. We are, though, under the direction of the Secretary, institutionally distinct from the Department of State.

This was a matter that was considered at considerable length when the act was passed.

Senator CLARK. I remember very well.

Mr. FISHER. I think in the whole it has worked out pretty well; being completely divorced from the Secretary would create a great deal of confusion when you have an international negotiation going on, when you speak for the United States.

Senator CLARK. Are you not actually in about the same position as the Director of AID?

Mr. FISHER. It is not too dissimilar, sir. It is a little bit different problem, because his control over funds is probably of a little bit different order of magnitude than ours, and our activity is a little bit more related to negotiations than is his. But when one considers the relatively different functions of the two organizations, taking that into account the role is roughly comparable.

Senator CLARK. One more question. I do not want to press you in open session about how many times Director Foster has found it necessary to go to the President to resolve a disagreement, but I would like to press you a little bit as to how frequently Mr. Foster in the last year or two has discussed these matters personally with the President.

Mr. FISHER. I can only say many times, sir. This has never been a problem.

Senator CLARK. That is good enough.

Mr. FISHER. This has not been a problem.
Senator CLARK. Are you through?
Mr. FISHER. Yes, sir.

Senator CLARK. Senator Gore?
Senator GORE. No questions.
Senator CLARK. Senator Pell?

Senator PELL. No questions except to express my full support of the resolutions and my congratulations to Senator Clark.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much for your patience, Mr. Fisher, and also your very careful control of your temper.

We will ask to have printed in the record now the testimony of Mr. Herman Will, representing the General Board of Christian Social Concerns of the Methodist Church who could not be with us.

(The statement referred to follows:)


My name is Herman Will, Jr. I am Associate General Secretary of the General Board of Christian Social Concerns, an official agency of the Methodist Church, and I have particular responsibility for the Division of Peace and World Order.

The statement I am presenting is based on official pronouncements of the General Conference, the highest authoritative body of the Methodist Church, which meets quadrennially and is composed of about 900 delegates, half lay and half clergy. While the General Conference speaks officially for the denomination, it does not claim to represent the point of view of every Methodist.


The General Conference of the Methodist Church, meeting at Pittsburgh, adopted the following statement on May 8, 1964:

The use or threat of use of weapons which by their very nature are indiscriminate and difficult to control cannot be morally justified. The nations of the world should halt the immoral, futile, and suicidal quest for military supremacy. Every phase of a nation's foreign policy must be judged in part by whether it makes possible disarmament under law. There is no real substitute for worldwide safeguarded disarmament under agreements that provide for adequate verification and enforcement.

A sense of stewardship should lead the nations to seek every reasonable opportunity to reduce the vast amounts of resources and manpower now devoted to the production of armaments. The people of most countries urgently need increased food production, decent housing, improved sanitary conditions, adequate medical services, literacy training, educational opportunities, and essential consumer goods. The substantial savings which can be achieved from significant reductions in arms spending could and should be used, at least in part, to create social and economic conditions which contribute to the maintenance of peace with justice.


In calling for "worldwide safeguarded disarmament," the General Conference of the Methodist Church was well aware of the necessity for developing stronger international institutions for the achievement of justice and the maintenance of order.

The two following paragraphs illustrate this concern:

We believe the United Nations and its agencies should be supported, strengthened, and improved. Moreover, if these facilities are to become most effective, the United Nations, with membership open to all nations which seek to join and which subscribe to its charter, must be given sufficient authority to enact, interpret, and enforce world law against aggression and


We support the greater use of the International Court of Justice and urge the nations to remove any restrictions which they have adopted which impair the Court's effective functioning.

In addition, the Methodist General Conference urged that "all nations, and especially the great powers, should utilize to the fullest possible extent the avenues of the United Nations for the peaceful resolution of international conflicts."

Specific attention was called to the need for adequate financial support of the United Nations, its peacekeeping operations, and its specialized agencies.


On the basis of the official positions cited above, it is clear that the Methodist Church supports the purpose stated in Senate Concurrent Resolution 32: That the President should be supported in his efforts to achieve peace and disarmament under legally effective controls and to develop international institutions capable of permanently keeping the peace.

The Methodist General Conference, in calling for the United Nations to be given sufficient authority to enact, interpret, and enforce world law against aggression and war, has indicated that it favors the kind of effective international machinery referred to in the resolution under consideration. The subjects to be considered such as an international disarmament organization, a permanent world peace force, world tribunals for the peaceful settlement of international disputes, and reliable financial support for peacekeeping machinery, are certainly items that should be studied in any effort to strengthen international organization for the maintenance of peace with justice.

While differences may and undoubtedly will arise in regard to specific proposals for world organization, the formulation and publication by the President of the United States' foreign policy objectives in this area should lead to fruitful discussion of the major issues by the American people and by the people of many nations. The development of an informed public opinion is essential to any intelligent consideration of further steps in the direction of strengthening world order. Since the Methodist Church has members and churches in more than 30 countries, the last provision in the resolution asking the President to transmit copies of the resolution to the heads of other governments and to invite them to make similar studies, is especially welcome.

The time is ripe for serious consideration of how an effective world organization can best be achieved. When international affairs are relatively calm, there is always the temptation to let well enough alone. Present conflicts and tensions may enable the leaders of the nations and their advisers to discern more clearly the specific ways in which existing international organization should be modified, strengthened, and supplemented so that the world may move forward in its struggle to replace aggression and war with a just peace.

Senator CLARK. Our next witness is Mr. Robert E. Jones, director of the Washington office of the Unitarian Universalist Association. Mr. Jones, I think I should perhaps indicate my personal bias by stating for the record that I also am a Unitarian Universalist, and ask you to proceed in your own way.


Mr. JONES. We are awfully proud of our coreligionist who has offered this resolution.

Dr. Dana Greeley, the president of the association, is very sorry he could not be here today because of prior commitments. Dr. Homer Jack, who is something of a disarmament expert himself, is currently working with the U.N. Disarmament Commission in New York as their consultant. So the task has fallen to me.

I will be very brief because I know everyone is looking forward to lunchtime. But I think in summary I would like to say that this resolution, Senate Concurrent Resolution 32, is especially welcome and timely.

At a time when not only Senators of the United States but other citizens of this Nation and the responsible leaders and citizens of other nations including our closest friends in the world have become uneasy over the course of events in recent weeks, in both southeast Asia and Latin America, passage of Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 will do much to right the balance, to correct the picture of the United States in the world today.

(Discussion off the record.)

Senator CLARK. Back on the record. Go right ahead, please.


Mr. JONES. For, rightly or wrongly, the image of the United States at this time is not that of a peace-loving nation. Rather, it is that of a great power taking unilateral military actions without adequate regard for the sensitivities of other, smaller nations, as in the Dominican situation; and without adequate regard for the dangers of a general war in Asia, involving the commitment of large land armies, as in Vietnam.

We are committed as signatories to the charters of the United Nations and the Organization of American States, to the settlement of in. ternational disputes by orderly recourse to the international machinery established in those two organizations. And yet, we see that, in the case of Vietnam, the United Nations has not been involved, though certainly the peace of the world is threatened by an enlargement of that struggle; and in the Dominican crisis, we see that our Government has violated the OAS Charter by intervening unilaterally with military force, and only taking our case to the OAS after the fait accompli.

These actions are of great concern to those who believe in international cooperation. We have just marked the 20th anniversary of the end of hostilities in the European theater of World War II. That great and terrible conflict-World War II-resulted in over 35 million deaths and untold miseries in terms of the injured and maimed, the widowed and orphaned and uprooted and turn humanity. In order to prevent a recurrence of that kind of tragedy and the international anarchy which spawned it, the United Nations was founded.

We find a great reservoir of support for the United Nations in this country, public opinion polls have found that the overwhelming majority of Americans support the U.N. The Congress of the United States, in 1962, underlined its own tangible support by voting for the $100 million bond issue to help the U.N. in its financial crisis.

I have attached to this statement resolutions of our Unitarian Universalist General Assemblies in 1963 and 1964 endorsing both the international cooperation year of the United Nations and the efforts for arms control and disarmament leading to general and complete disarmament.

Since our 1963 disarmament resolution was passed, the United States has been a signatory to the partial nuclear test ban treaty. Other encouraging steps have been taken. Establishment of the hotline between Washington and Moscow, the U.N. resolution banning nuclear weaponry in space, and there have been others in both the United States and the Soviet Union to reduce excessive defense expenditures, including the closing of some of our bases and the mutual reduction and production in production of fissionable materials.

But I want to ask what have we done lately in this field. Has our increasing commitment in Vietnam and perhaps the necessity of paying more attention to the domestic concerns of equal rights and poverty, has this slowed down the momentum gained by the test ban treaty?

Have we allowed this momentum to dissipate and indeed to run out? The promise of the resolution of Senator Clark and his colleagues is that once again we will get moving in the direction of our stated goals of peace and general and complete disarmament under effective international law and control. Senator Clark has done his nation a great service by putting disarmament once again on the agenda. Resolution 32 calls on the President to formulate specific and detailed proposals to implement our objectives of "general and complete disarmament effectively guaranteed by adequate inspection and controls," and asks the President to consider the establishment of an international disarmament organization, a permanent world peace force, the development of world tribunals for the peaceful settlement of international

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »