Lapas attēli


International cooperation for peace, President Johnson said recently, is the "assignment of the century." The President was addressing nearly 300 prominent Americans from Government, industry, citizens groups, the arts, sciences, and professions. He concluded his remarks by signing a proclamation designating 1965 as International Cooperation Year in the United States. This proclamation rededicates the U.S. Government to the principle of international cooperation, directs the executive branch to examine what additional steps can be taken, and calls upon national citizens' organizations to undertake education programs and to consider further steps toward international cooperation.

President Johnson in signing the U.S. proclamation on October 2, 1964, emphasized that international cooperation is a clear necessity to our survival. Calling it a fact of life he noted that:

Our challenge is not to debate the theory or the concept, but our challenge is to improve and to perfect and to strengthen the organizations that already exist. Secretary of State Rusk, in countersigning the proclamation, summed up the reasons for its issuance.

Peace and freedom

He said

are not free. Both will require diligent work. Both will require our highest intelligence. Both will require the most dedicated commitments. And that is what this year of international cooperation is all about.

Is there anyone in this room that would disagree with these eloquent statements by our President and our Secretary of State? I do not think so. Yet to many people today these words have a hollow ring when measured against the current headlines: India and Pakistan appear to be on a collision course, without recourse to the United Nations, Indonesia has withdrawn from the world organization and threatens Malaysia; an uneasy truce prevails in Cyprus; on the Israeli borders and in the Congo we have a very disturbing situation, gunshots fired across the border; Red China beats the propaganda drums and shows no signs of becoming a mature member of the world community; the U.S. Government has seized the initiative in the war going on in Vietnam and within recent days has unilaterally dispatched marines to the Dominican Republic.

We must do everything we can to reverse this dangerous and omnious trend. We must return to our avowed purpose of waging peace and promoting international cooperation.

I agree that we must keep our defenses strong in a world threatened by messianic communism. I agree that we cannot allow weak nations. to fall prey to Communist expansion, either by direct military aggression, as in Korea, or by subverting and exploiting indigenous social and political revolutions around the globe. I agree that there are times when we should use our power to prevent totalitarian regimes, of the right or left, from gaining power by undemocratic means, and thus threaten to end true self-determinism, particularly in smaller


However, in this day and age, we cannot go it alone, nor can we hope to achieve a lasting peace solely by the use of force. In Viet

Nam and in the Dominican Republic, it is argued, we had to assume leadership because there was no other nation or group of nations willing or able to act.

This may be true, but that grim fact testifies to the reality that somewhere along the line we have not acted boldly enough or imaginatively enough in concert with our allies and with the other nations of the world to develop the international machinery needed to maintain peace in the world today and to protect the freedoms of all peoples, of Viet Nam and the Dominican Republic, and their right to selfdetermination.

The United States, as you so well know, can no longer rely for its security solely on its arsenal of nuclear weapons or on its ability to act independently. We cannot by ourselves police all of the nations of the world and protect them from communism or all other forms of totalitarianism. It is probably safe to assume that the pace of Communist activity is increasing, that there will be more and more efforts on the part of Communists-from Peiping or from Russia or even perhaps "home grown"-to create disorder and to exploit social and political discontents in Asia, in South America, and in Africa. If this indeed is what we are facing, then we will need more, not less, cooperation with our allies. If this indeed is what we are facing, then more than ever we need to work with other nations of the world to promote the objectives so clearly stated in the Charter of the United Nations. Article 55 declares the need to work toward:

a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development.

b. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.


The idea of international order may sound utopian, but the prospects for success may not be as dim as the present disordered state of the world would lead one to suppose. When armed conflict seems certain to lead to mutual nuclear obliteration, the responsible nations of the world may very well accept an "impractical" idea as the price of survival in the nuclear age.

Last week I had occasion to speak on the floor of the Senate about the need for a permanent United Nations peacekeeping force.

The Charter of the United Nations calls upon its members—

to maintain international peace and security, and to that end, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace. The United Nations Charter also provides for regional groups or agencies which shall


make every effort to achieve pacific settlement of local disputes through regional arrangements.

There can be little doubt that such peacekeeping machinery is sorely needed both at the world level and on this hemisphere. Our present position on the Dominican Republic would be far more tenable, both legally and politically, if we had been able to send our troops as part of an Organization of American States peacekeeping force. I feel we would have been wiser to have consulted the OAS before moving in the Marines.


Last year, when the United Nations forces went to the island of Cyprus, which was then practically a smoldering volcano, the United Nations was for the 13th time answering the need for peacekeeping forces. However, it took 2 weeks for the first troops to arrive, after the Security Council had decided to establish the Cyprus force. Another week passed before the United Nations force was inaugurated. Afterward, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Adlai Stevenson, observed:

Cyprus has vividly exposed the frailties of the existing machinery.

His prescription, a standby United Nations peace force composed of national military units, makes sense to me.

Such a peace force is certainly practical. To date, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, New Zealand, Iran, Canada, and The Netherlands have offered to select military units which they might make available, upon request, to the United Nations. In late February of this year, Great Britain joined in supporting this concept, by offering to commit itself to provide logistical support to six infantry battalions of a United Nations peace force. Until called into service by the United Nations, these units would be financed and controlled by their own governments.

In view of this evidence of considerable world support, it seems clear that the possibilities for a peacekeeping force deserve the closest intensive consideration by the President and Congress. I am aware that some thinking and discussion on this matter is now going on in the State Department. That news is indeed welcome. But we must do more than talk. We should be taking the lead among the nations of the world in finding ways to keep the peace. We should be as well prepared to wage peace as we are prepared to wage war.

Finding answers to peace will not be easy. The obstacles to agreement are great. But so is the desire to survive. Therefore, I certainly hope that your committee will persevere in this entire area. I would say, let us seek solutions that are not so bold as to be utopian yet are bold enough to be practical, bold enough to meet the requirements of our nuclear age, bold enough to deal with aggression that relies on subversion and infiltration rather than overt and direct armed attack. As Senator Clark's resolution suggests, let us consider seriously, and in detail: (1) An International Disarmament Organization; (2) a permanent World Peace Force; (3) world tribunals for the peaceful settlement of all international disputes not settled by negotiations; (4) other international institutions necessary for the enforcement of world peace under the rule of law; (5) appropriate and reliable financial arrangements for the support of such peacekeeping machinery.

Congressional support of Senator Clark's resolution would make it clear to the President and to the rest of the world that we in the Congress are firmly and sincerely committed to the principle and objectives of American foreign policy so often and so eloquently expressed.

There is in Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 a sense of urgency. It calls for the formulation as speedily as possible of specific and detailed proposal. And this sense of urgency I believe is deserving of our support.

Let us remember that the present world situation is unique in history. Up to now mankind has always enjoyed the privilege of being able to learn from experience. We have always had a second chance because no past mistake has ever spelled complete extinction for the species. This time history offers us no second chance. If we wait to experience full-fledged nuclear conflict before we learn to abolish war, there will be few, if any, survivors to be the wiser. This time, if mankind is to survive, it will have to take effective measures to prevent nuclear conflict prior to experiencing it.

In closing, I would like to quote the eloquent words of President Johnson when he spoke last month in our State at Johns Hopkins University on the Vietnam crisis. President Johnson said that evening:

We often say how impressive power is. But I do not find it impressive at all. The guns and bombs, the rockets and warships, are all symbols of human failure. They are necessary symbols. They protect what we cherish. But they are witness to human folly.

Mr. Chairman, it has been my privilege while serving in the Senate to listen to debate in the areas of foreign policy on many afternoons. I have heard you and the distinguished senior Senator from Vermont, Mr. Aiken, speak on a number of occasions. I have heard Senator Mansfield and other Senators discuss the problems and crises which face this country all over the world.


It would seem to me that the Committee on Foreign Relations of the U.S. Senate could perform a great service for the people of the United States, for President Johnson, and for others if it could direct a little more effort, a little more attention, to strengthening and preserving the only real institution we have left which is committed solely to preserving world peace under law, and that is the United Nations, an institution committed to preserving world peace under law.

My grandfather was defeated for the U.S. Senate in 1920 when he ran at President Wilson's suggestion on a platform solely in support of the League of Nations. The League of Nations never really got started when the United States failed to join after World War I. At that time it was considered a noble experiment, but too utopian for the U.S. Senate to go along with.

After World War II, I think civilization took a long step forward when the United Nations was established in San Francisco. Many of us, I think, have been disturbed because the United Nations has been unable in recent months, for one reason or another, to take leadership in the area of preserving the peace which I for one would like to see it take. I do not wish to simply criticize the United Nations. I think perhaps the blame should fall on all of us, including the United States and the Congress of the United States.

Today we need the United Nations more than we have ever needed it before, and yet in New York, at the seat of the United Nations, there is little if any really constructive activity going on because of an apparent dilemma over the payment of sums for the peacekeeping operations of the United Nations.

I realize that the Foreign Relations Committee has many responsibilities, including advising the President on Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, and other areas. But I submit to you gentlemen that if we let the United Nations go by the boards, we will have permitted a great tragedy to take place in our generation.

One other comment I would like to make is that historically the people of the United States and the Members of the Senate look to the Foreign Relations Committee for leadership, and we look to you gentlemen for leadership now. I do not think that the Constitution, as it was written at the Philadelphia Convention, gave the Senate the power to advise and consent, to appropriate, to approve the appointment of Ambassadors, and to ratify treaties, with the idea that these were the Senate's sole responsibilities in the field of foreign relations. We in the Senate along with the people of this country, look to you on the Foreign Relations Committee to provide leadership today, and I can think of nothing more important than strengthening the United Nations and trying to promote government by law rather than by force of arms.

The more I read the newspapers, the more important it appears to me it is that we take action on measures such as Senator Clark's planning-for-peace resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 32.

I thank you very much for your courtesy and kindness in permitting me to appear before you at this time.

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you, Senator Tydings.

Are there any questions? Senator Lausche? Senator Clark? Senator CLARK. Senator Tydings, I want to thank you for your testimony here today, and assure you on behalf of myself and the 26 sponsors of this resolution, 5 of them members of this committee, that we have that sense of urgency of which you spoke.


My fear is that many of our colleagues do not, and it is quite clear that there is no particular sense of urgency in connection with moving forward on planning for peace in either the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency or the State Department. To be sure, they endorse the general principles of planning for peace. They endorse the concept of the United Nations. They actually endorse the concept, although rather lackadaisically, of that general and complete disarmament to which President Kennedy committed our country.

But their feeling is that we must move very slowly-I am paraphrasing from the statements offered with respect to this resolution by both the ACDA and the Department of State-they indicate there is an insufficient basis for agreement at this time, that the present attitude of the Soviet Union and others indicates that not much can be done toward developing effective international machinery for supervision of disarmament and for maintenance of peace.

There is no consensus among the five permanent members of the Security Council, and lacking such consensus, any present attempt to spell out these proposals in greater detail would seem to be of doubt ful


I am in complete disagreement with that point of view. It seems to me we should be taking the lead in this regard rather than sitting back on our haunches and waiting for others to take the lead.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »