« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
Our next witness is Mr. Shelby Southard, Assistant Director of the Washington Office of the Cooperative League of the U.S.A. Thank you very much, Mr. Southard, for being with us us. Your testimony will be printed in full in the record. Please proceed in your own way. STATEMENT OF SHELBY SOUTHARD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, WASH
INGTON OFFICE, COOPERATIVE LEAGUE OF THE U.S.A. Mr. SOUTHARD. Thank you, Senator. This statement incidentally is a condensation of a much longer one, and if I seem to follow it rather closely, it is because it has already been condensed.
Mr. Chairman, the Cooperative League thanks the committee for affording us this opportunity of being heard on the matter which we regard as being one of the greatest urgency. The congress of the Cooperative League of the U.S.A.-which meets every other yearhas said in formal resolution, that,
Because the fear of mutual total destruction in any future war among the great powers of the world hangs heavily upon the people of the earth;
Be it resolved that we support every move of our Government toward a system of universal world disarmament enforceable through an international ageucy with authority to carry out its responsibilities * * *
This resolution is one of many on this general subject which we have passed at our biennial congress over the many years.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the expression of a democratically elected and representative body chosen by the regional and local member cooperatives from coast to coast-from some 23 regional cooperatives and other units of a broad constituency with a membership of millions of families.
Senator CLARK. What is your total membership, Mr. Southard ?
Mr. SOUTHARD. Allowing for certain overlapping, I would say that it is a net of about 15 million families.
Senator Clark. How many ?
Mr. SOUTHARD. About 15 million families. That would include credit unions, farm marketing and supply cooperatives, prepaid group health plans, rural electric, housing, and consumer cooperatives and many other types of business. Their spokesmen, people elected to the biennial cooperative congress, reflect a broad cross-section of our population from the high rise cooperative apartment dweller in Manhattan to the Kansas farmer who belongs to a supply cooperative, one being in a housing cooperative and the other in a cooperative for his farm. I might say, sir, every regional accent you hear on Capitol Hill you also hear in a session of our Congress represented by some 500 members.
HUMAN COOPERATION NEEDED
Our league is a body which asserts no special competence in the technicalities of armament production and control; but in the same breath it needs to be said it is made up of people who have a long history of experience with what overcomes the roadblocks to human cooperation. And, Mr. Chairman, I submit that can be a complicated and frustrating subject, too. That is our field and it is a field in which we have enjoyed some success over the years. Senate Concurrent Resolution 32—the planning for peace resolution—is also predi
cated on human cooperation. Without it you are wasting your time.
When stripped of the rhetoric and platitudes that often muffle its importance, the subject of this resolution probably stands foremost on the list of things to concern the 89th Congress. We are seeing right now how the absence of such a peacekeeping mechanism, as this resolution proposes, forces the United States into unilateral actions with all the attendant dangers of misunderstanding and misinterpretation of our motives. A peacekeeping force is needed that will be responsive to the collective moral conscience of freedom-loving people everywhere one that will act for all of them. No single nation can hope to impose its concept of international morality on other peoples without becoming unpopular all around the globe. It is part of the human condition that
men like to make these decisions for themselves, or at least be a party to them.
There is a temptation pulling at everyone who expounds on this subject to wander off into a discussion of the intricacies of military science, nuclear physics, and rarefied diplomacy. But that really isn't the question here and never has been. The question is, whether man shall remain in bondage to his own technology. Can we not see that all men everywhere, our ideological opponents as well as ourselves, are equally afflicted by the insatiable technology of the arms race? The proposal in S.R. 32 is a simple, well-conceived first stepand only a first step—to reverse this suicidal course into which we have drifted.
But what is important, Mr. Chairman, is that such a step, however short and faltering, is in the right direction. It reverses the trend toward first an economic and later a nuclear disaster which neither the world as we know it nor any modern state can survive.
Two years ago we had a practical example of what a tonic morale effect one of these short steps in the right direction can be. I refer to the decisive ratification by the Senate of the limited nuclear test ban treaty. The effect of that action swept right around the world and reached down into levels that don't usually concern themselves with the subject we are discussing here this morning. It too was limited in its application but it answered the hunger men feel for their leaders to "do something," even when they are not sure what that "something" should be.
POSITIVE ASPECTS OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION The particular qualities about this proposal which appeal the strongest are, first, its realism. It looks through no rose-colored glasses but takes in the world of our ideological opponents and sees conditions as they are. It is flexible in its concept. It gives the President both room and
encouragement to direct our foreign affairs into more constructive channels and lets us adapt our foreign policy to developing experience, to capitalize on hopeful turns of events, which nobody can anticipate. And finally it suggests greater selectivity in our arsenal of defense, setting up a mechanism to cope with a variety of contingencies. Two decades have shown the one fixed characteristic of the cold war to be constant change-change in the way the power monoliths react to each other. For this we need selectivity and we need to be freed from the necessity of having to go out and hire a policeman after every breach of international order. That was never more apparent than it is in this spring of 1965.
Let's put the policemen to work full time. Let's give those in the peacekeeping force an opportunity to gain experience and develop esprit. Protecting the peace can become the proudest assignment any force of men every drew. Only a few weeks ago the United Kingdom offered to make a permanent commitment of logistical support for as many as six infantry battalions in a United Nations peacekeeping force.
The attraction of this language in Britain's defense White Paper was to bring the idea down out of the clouds and talk about it in specific terms. That is what your resolution does. This country and others need to match Britain's precision and get specific too. Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 meets that test. It is specific, measurable, and calls for definite action by our Government and its leadership. This is why the Cooperative League hopes the 89th Congress will lose no time in passing it.
Such a mobile force with broad international support will bring closer these desirable goals:
First: A United Nations with power to act quickly, discreetly, but decisively, and thus earn the confidence people want to place in it.
Second: A situation in which we may more easily continue to hold in high esteem long-time traditional friends who may become temporary victims of power-hungry opportunist leaders.
Third: A better chance to discriminate among countries involved in various degrees with totalitarian rule and tailor our foreign policy with greater precision to help the ones with programs that seem to be responsive to the real needs of their people.
Fourth: Provide a brake on the simplistic tendency that would polarize the world even more into good guys and bad guys without recognizing the infinite variety of forces at work threatening stability in the world.
Senator CLARK. I interrupt to stress my own view that that is very important indeed.
Mr. SOUTHARD. We think so, and you are creating a climate here, sir, for making that more apparent to a larger part of our citizenship.
Senator CLARK. Let's hope.
The plan finally for a peacekeeping force cannot be, and does not have to be, perfect at the outset. I have listened to some of the testimony here this morning, and realize how this is not generally understood even by some of our best informed witnesses. Events and contingencies are certain to modify it, perhaps many times, once it becomes a reality. But this hopeful process of refinement cannot even get underway until you take this first step. This would give us something, not just to talk about, but to work upon and improve as experience with it shows the way.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate your willingness to come down here and help us out. I think your testimony is very valuable.
Mr. SOUTHARD. Thank you, sir.
Senator CLARK. Our last witness is Mr. Eric Cox of Washington, D.C. Mr. Cox, we are happy to have you with us. We are sorry to have kept you waiting so long.
STATEMENT OF ERIC COX, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Cox. Thank you very much, Senator Clark.
Mr. Cox. No, sir; I did not prepare one. Frankly I never previously testified before a congressional committee.
Senator CLARK. Are you appearing as an individual?
Senator CLARK. Please go right ahead. You have 10 minutes if you need them.
Mr. Cox. Thank you very much. I come here, Mr. Chairman, to speak on behalf of Senate Concurrent Resolution 32. There are various reasons that one can cite. I would rest my testimony on what I refer to as thermonuclear necessity.
The United Nations is an instrument which is preatomic. When the people gathered in San Francisco to fashion it, they did not have knowledge of atomic weapons. About 2 months later the first atomic bomb was exploded. This in a sense made the charter obsolete almost from the start.
With thermonuclear weapons, weapons that are a thousand times more powerful than the first nuclear weapons, and with the means to deliver them instantaneously around the globe, the whole framework of defense in my judgment has been altered. There is growing literature suggesting how nuclear war could
There are various possibilities of unintended war, such as accidental
with the so-called self-fulfillment prophecy, and the possibility of an unauthorized action through somebody who loses his mind or purposely undertakes without authorization to start a war.
I think both of these categories are unlikely despite the currency of novels and movies with such a theme.
There is a possibility of war by miscalculation.
I think that the Communists perhaps would not have undertaken activities in Korea and in Cuba ħad they anticipated the firm and, I think, correct response of the West.
What I am suggesting is that it is possible for the other side or any nation to miscalculate, and this miscalculation can be very dangerous, in part because when there is a confrontation of existing powers, often a situation can exist whereby neither side will back down because of what the literature refers to as credibility. This means that both sides have to make it clear that they are willing to go into nuclear war because if they do back down, the currency of armaments, if you will, is depreciated. I think this situation occurred in the Cuban conflict when both sides admittedly came very close to nuclear war.
There is a possibility of war by what is referred to in the literature as catalytic war, that is of one nation undertaking actions which will involve other nations in war, for example, if a nation is No. 3 in the world power structure and it wants to be No. 1, it may contrive actions to undertake power No. 1 and power No. 2 in a nuclear war under the theory that if they polish each other off, power No. 3 will move up to power No. 1 position.
Then finally there is a possibility of preemptive or preventive war, which might occur if one side in the nuclear race became behind due
to a change in weapons technology, occurring at a time when the military in that nation were in ascendency, and it would be possible, although I think unlikely, for there to be an intentional war.
These possibilities that I have mentioned of nuclear war are much greater, will be much greater when additional nations have atomic weapons, when the so-called cheap bomb is produced, and when it will be possible for any two-bit dictator to engage in nuclear blackmail.
Consequently for these reasons I think the period ahead is one of grave danger, and led President Kennedy to make a comment at the United Nations that the world hangs under a nuclear sword of Damocles capable of being cut at any time by accident or madness or miscalculation, and which led Mr. de Gaulle of France to make the observation that nations have to unite in a world government or perish, and which led Mr. Churchill to make the observation that the prospects for mankind indeed are dark unless the world unites in a super world government, which is a position somewhat beyond mine. These observations suggest that many of the people around the world are aware of the grave dangers in the future, and although it is psychologically uncomfortable to look at these whole facts frontally, I think it is very necessary to do this.
POSSIBILITY OF ENFORCING PEACE EXISTS TODAY
I think for the first time in the history of mankind it is now possible to create instruments of law to keep the peace. I think Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 is a long step in this direction, providing as it does for an international disarmament organization, a worldwide peace force, legal instruments, and financial instruments to implement these provisions.
I think basically the problem is that on the world level anarchy exists, and this is extremely dangerous in a thermonuclear age. What is necessary is the creation of instruments of law to keep the peace, and particularly instruments of enforceable law to keep the peace as enforcibility is a crucial concept.
I think that if one were to argue for the elimination of policemen and courts from the cities of Washington and New York, one would be regarded as a radical, a dangerous radical. Yet on the world level there are no international policemen, and there are no effective courts to prevent international vandalism and war and consequently there is a very dangerous situation.
I don't feel that we can do away with the causes of war. I think it is possible to create instruments of enforceable world law which could in effect prevent these causes of law from actually spilling over into war. That is, I think that one cannot proceed under the assumption that nations and mankind are all of a sudden going to be good, but rather you have to make negative assumptions, and therefore create instruments of enforceability.
Even though we don't trust the Communists and the Communists don't trust us, I think it is possible to create instruments of law which can be trusted by both sides, and I think that this is a very important concept.