« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
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.
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.
SENSE OF URGENCY REQUIRED
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 doubtful value.
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.
I gather that you feel that there is an obligation on the United States, since we do support peace, since we have no aggressive intentions, to see what can be done in some detail to move forward in this search for peace, rather than, as I say, sitting back and waiting.
Therefore I feel as you do, that there is a sense of urgency. I feel further that one of the most important things is the education of the bureaucracies, and to some extent the education of the Congress in hoping they can be more effective in pressing for these objectives.
I wonder if you have any comment on that statement of mine.
LACK OF LONG RANGE PLANNING
Senator Tydings. I certainly think so. Let me say this:
I am a little concerned that in the Department of State sometimes we react rather than act, and quite frankly, we have not had in my judgment effective leadership in this area, in the area of developing the United Nations into an effective peacekeeping force by the Department of State.
I think that there is a sense of feeling by my constituents and across the country that we want the United Nations to be an effective peacekeeping organization. We believe in the principles. We feel that our brothers died for this principle in World Wars I and II. We do not quite know what the problem is or what is wrong with it, but we do know that there have not been many steps taken by any agency or responsible government body in recent months.
Now perhaps the urgencies of Vietnam and the Dominican Republic may have preempted the time of top people in the State Department. But gentlemen, I submit to you that these very urgencies would, it seems to me, require the strengthening or the broadening of peacekeeping operations.
How much happier a situation it would have been if the Department of State, under the prodding of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee or the Congress of the United States, had worked long and hard and spent some hours and days and nights building the Organization of American States to the point where, when the initial word reached us that Communists perhaps liad taken over the Dominican Republic in an uprising, instead of the United States having to act unilaterally, we could have immediately convened the OAS, and it would have been an effective agency and it could have moved a peacekeeping force in at once.
By the same token, gentlemen, the very areas of the world which are now smoldering-just take Cyprus for one, because at any time Cyprus can blaze up. We have a peacekeeping force there but suppose it gets completely out of hand. I do not know of any planning that the State Department or the United Nations is doing about building up an effective peacekeeping force.
I do not know of any real effective work, high-level work that the State Department is doing at the present time about the overall preservation of the U.N. or what we are going to do about the dues. this problem of paying for peacekeeping forces.
I know we seem to have gotten ourselves backed into a box with the United States apparently on one side and France and Russia on the other over whether or not you have to pay dues for a peacekeeping
operation which you do not agree with. I am not at all certain that the State Department's position in this matter is right. I am not at all certain that if a situation arises where Castro requested a peacekeeping operation from the United Nations to keep him in office down in Cuba if they had an uprising, and the U.N. voted to do it and send troops down there, whether the people of the United States would consent for one minute to us contributing to such a peacekeeping force when we did not agree with it.
So I am not absolutely certain that our State Department's position is realistic, in view of alĩ the facts, when they say that other countries, France, for example, has got to contribute to a peacekeeping operation if they do not agree with it. I do not want to get into the merits in one way or another except to say it does not seem to me there has been any work or effort or high-level leadership displayed by the Department of State in this matter, and I think it is high time that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee started finding out why there has not been.
I say we look to you gentlemen, I as the next to the lowest Senator in seniority look to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for leadership, what to do. We rely on it, and the people of the United States to some extent rely on you.
Perhaps the State Department is completely right in its position on peacekeeping, I do not know, but I would just feel happier and sleep easier if I felt that every possible effort was being pushed forward in this general area.
Senator LAUSCHE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question.
Senator SPARKMAN. Yes, Senator Lausche. Had you finished, Senator Clark?
Senator CLARK. I am through, yes, Senator.
ABSENCE OF RUSSIAN COOPERATION
Senator LAUSCHE. I do not believe that the Senator from Maryland contemplates placing an odium upon the United States and letting the impression be had that we, that the United States has not been working toward a world condition that would insure peace. The Senator of course knows that back in the fifties while Eisenhower was President, we offered to surrender all of our atomic power, if the Russians did likewise, to an international organization, and the Communists rejected that proposal. Is the Senator familiar with that?
Senator TYDINGS. Yes.
Senator LAUSCHE. Eisenhower also proposed that the Communists send their inspectors to the United States and we send our inspectors to Russia to ascertain what is being done in the two nations about setting up missile pads and instrumentalities that would be used for the projecting of these atomic bombs and that Russia refused to agree with that proposal.
Is the Senator familiar with that?
Senator TYDINGS. Yes. I think the Senator perhaps does not get the point I am making.
The United States has been a leading proponent since Woodrow Wilson conceived the idea of the League of Nations.
Senator LAUSCHE. Yes, I understand that.
Senator TYDINGS. The United States took the leadership after World War II in organizing the San Francisco Conference, from which the United Nations was born or conceived. We provided the land on which the buildings of the United Nations are located. We have provided a substantial part of the financial resources for the United Nations. We have been primarily carrying the load and the burden. My point is this, that the United States must continue to carry
that load and the burden. We cannot rely on the Russians or any other group to provide any real leadership assistance to the United Nations. It is the United States that must provide world leadership today. We have in the past, and we must do it in the future.
The purpose and the thrust of my testimony is that I think that we must work harder now than we have in the past, because I think the urgencies are greater.
Senator LAUSCHE. Does the Senator know that Eisenhower proposed the open-air inspection, that Russia would be permitted to fly over our country and we fly over theirs with the view of ascertaining what was being done in the use of missiles, and that Russia refused to concur with that proposal?
Senator TYDINGS. As far as I know, the Russians have refused to concur with any of our disarmament or peacekeeping proposals from President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, and President Johnson. If the Senator is going to wait for the Russians to agree, I think we are going to be waiting a long time.
Senator LAUSCHE. The Senator is not proposing that, but I do not want the United States placed in the light that we have been the promoters of violence and discord, not using our efforts to develop machinery that would bring peace, and I am afraid that that is the impact that will be left by what is being said here today. I concur with
about the United Nations. But the United Nations went into the Congo and incurred certain obligations in maintaining the peace force. Russia refuses to pay its share of it. France likewise has rejected its obligation. Now then, in addition to that we went into Gaza to maintain peace between the Arabs and the Israelites. Russia refuses to pay its share there.
Now, what shall we do about it?
Senator TYDINGS. That is one of the points that I was trying to make in saying that we have neither done enough thinking nor made enough effort to develop and support the United Nations, because, Senator, I do not think we can afford to let the United Nations wither on the vine because we have a dispute with Russia and France over who is going to pay for the peacekeeping chores. I think that we have got to develop machinery which will enable the United Nations to accomplish its tasks without political disagreement or confrontation between two or three powerful nations, as has happened here. Such complications completely bog down and dilute the effectiveness of the United Nations.
Senator LAUSCHE. Is the Senator of the opinion that nothing is being done in that direction? Is there not pending or being considered a proposal to establish sort of an intermediary committee in the United Nations that will be vested with the power of determining how the cost of peacekeeping operations shall be borne when one or more nations do not agree in what is being done?
Is the Senator familiar with that?
Senator TYDINGS. I am delighted to hear that something is being done, but I hope, with the prodding of the Congress, that even more will be done. I think it is a very urgent matter, Senator.
Senator LAUSCHE. I think it is urgent, and I do not believe the members of the Foreign Relations Committee do not believe it to be urgent. Everyone that I know is deeply concerned about this matter, and for the purpose of the record, we had a meeting several days ago in which one member of the committee spoke harshly about our participation in the Far East, and another member, against whom sort of side barbs were directed, said “You need not speak to me about that. I have a son that is in South Vietnam. I have another son who is on the way to South Vietnam. It means much to me.” This man said to the other member, “And I do not want you to say that I am not concerned about peace. My own flesh and blood is involved.”
Now then, let us take a look at this resolution, "That there shall be formulated proposals. The President is requested to consider whether development of effective international machinery for the supervision of disarmament and the maintenance of peace including, (1) an international disarmament organization."
This would imply that we have not been acting in the direction of getting disarmament.
Senator Tydings. I do not think it implies that all all, Senator. I think it merely reinforces the position which the United States has historically taken and which you have pointed out for the committee has been taken under successive Presidents; namely, that we have been pressing for effective disarmament. True we have been blocked constantly, but that is no reason why we should not continue to press, and I think this would be one area.
Senator LAUSCHE. I agree with that.
PROBLEM OF SOVIET VETO IN UNITED NATIONS
Now, No. 2, “The establishment of a permanent World Peace Force." I would go along with that in the United Nations. But do you think there is a chance in the world with Russia's attitude and the veto power in the Security Council that they will be able to establish a World Peace Force in the United Nations?
Senator Tydings. I think the Senator makes a very potent point in that he idicates that there is a very strong probability that the Russians might exercise a veto. However, I think merely by pressing forward with this proposal with the backing—which I think it would have of the great majority of members—we put the Russians in a position contrary to world opinion, and it may be that they might surprise us-certainly we did not expect the Russians to sign a nuclear disarmament ban—at least I for one did not.
The Senator's point is very well taken, it might well be vetoed. Nevertheless, it is a worthwhile proposal, and I think that we should go forward with it, even realizing that there is a very strong chance that it will be vetoed.
Senator LAUSCHE. No. 3, establish "world tribunals for the peaceful settlement of all international disputes not settled by negotiations."