« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
in the establishment of the limited nuclear test ban was hailed by many, including the senior Senator from Wyoming, as a vital first step toward the establishment of real peace. But it was only a first step and as nuclear weapons proliferate around the globe in countries whose stability, whose judgment and whose sense of restraint is open to question, the possibility that we shall ever take a second step along this pathway becomes increasingly remote. Each month of delay, each failure to press for peace increases the improbability of success. Indeed, this prospect of a nuclear armament of a host of smaller nations, each harboring enmities and suspicions of its neighbors are such as to encourage pessimism among the most dedicated of pollyannas.
Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that the conflicts in which we find ourselves now represent a choice which we had to make in the long-term interest of peace, but that long-term interest cannot be permanently served by any nation regardless of its motives trying to stem aggression--unilaterally or with the aid of friends and allies. We must have a workable formula for the prevention of such strife and for the elimination of man's capabilities to commit international suicide. And I would note language in Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 which provides not only for the establishment of an international authority to keep peace and to oversee disarmament, but to establish "adequate inspection and controls” to see that this disarmament, both nuclear and conventional, is adhered to by all parties. History has amply demonstrated that disarmament without adequate controls is at best a sham and a fraud, but history has also demonstrated that mankind can-if it chooses-join in cooperative enterprises for its own selfpreservation.
In a world where our very action and our every hope and prayer for the future is overshadowed by a nuclear cloud, we have an obligation to posterity, to the history of our Nation, and to the history of the world to explore every avenue for the establishment of real peace, regardless of how its potential may appear at the moment. To hesitate in the face of obstacles or to equivocate in the face of protestations from those who regard negotiation as appeasement is to fail in our obligation to our Nation, our posterity, and ourselves.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CLAIBORNE PELL
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to support Senate Concurrent Resolution 32, Senator Clark's “Planning for Peace” resolution. If ever there was a time when we are involved with strife around the world and it seems as if our world is going away from the goal of peace rather than toward it—that time is now. Particularly because events have forced the United States to assume a warlike stance in so many parts of the world, it is all the more important now that we should take firm steps to reaffirm our dedication to peace. Now, above all, is the time when thoughtful men should get together and see how we can turn the world back on its goal for peace.
I am glad to join with my colleagues in sponsoring this resolution.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JENNINGS RANDOLPH, DEMOCRAT, OF WEST VIRGINIA
For those of us concerned with the preservation, utilization, and development of the world's vast potentials and resources, this is a decisive time. The complexity and rapid pace of modern living, coupled with international tensions create new problems daily for mankind. Not merely change, but the widening scope of change is a fact of the sixties.
Expanding population is a valid example of a problem which is accelerating at an ever-increasing rate. Reliable sources indicate that since 1940 the population of the earth has grown from about 2.5 billion to approximately 3.2 billion. This 700 million increase, in 23 years, exceeds the total estimated population of the world in the year 1800.
In the United States we have a relatively moderate rate of population growth, and yet our 190 million inhabitants are expected to increase to 225 million by 1975; then to about 322 million in the year 2000, and by 2050 we could reach 700 million. For those in positions of national responsibility the implications of such growth are obvious. Ever-increasing demand for food substances will accentuate the problems which confront many of the already-populous members of the world community.
Expansion of the population is exceeding the growth in food production capability in many areas, particularly in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. One respected authority has referred to this trend as the greatest and most nearly. insoluble problem in the history of the world.”
The impact of change in the international arena has been particularly evident in recent months. In fact, during one memorable week last October we witnessed three significant evidences of shifting influences in world affairs : The Premier of the Soviet Union was removed from office; the Labor Party took power in. Great Britain; and, the Red Chinese successfully exploded their first atomic. device.
Each of these alterations has had profound effect on the United States, and individually, have had some effect on the prospects for peace. Granted, the ascendence of the Labor Party in England was much more comforting to the free world than the other two happenings. But all three are indicative of deeprooted changes, the effects of which will be felt.
On the world scene today there are evidences of unrest on every hand. The most obvious examples are the crisis in Vietnam and the situation in the Dominic can Republic. Unfortunately these are not the only instances of dangerous con. frontation. Uneasy truce prevails on the island of Cyprus; India and Pakistan have engaged in a recent and bitter exchange; Africa appears to be a constant trouble spot; and Berlin and Cuba continue to be sources of genuine concern, as is: the tense situation between Israel and the Arab States.
Any of these arguments could quickly become a more serious and tragic outbreak—the clash that could trigger world war III. And it is unfortunately a fact that we have not yet been able to develop the international institutions capable of ameliorating the existing differences.
Because I believe that our Nation must exhibit constructive leadership in stabilizing world events and because I believe that Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 offers reasonable approaches toward responsible solutions, it is my purpose today to reemphasize my support for that measure.
The search for stable and lasting peace will brook no half measures nor delay. The old proverb holds that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. For years the major portion of our national budget has been devoted to develop ing the “pound of cure” of powerful armaments. We have succeeded admirably. However, in my view, we have not yet achieved the “ounce of prevention” in the form of effective mechanisms to preserve harmony among mankind.
It is high time to turn our attention and energies toward peaceful ends; toward the enhancement of life for all men in an atmosphere of understanding; toward the goal of international cooperation under the rule of law. I suggest that Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 is a significant step along the road to peace.
STATEMENT OF THEODORE R. MOKELDIN, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BALTIMORE Mr. Chairman, this past month I joined with Gov. J. Millard Tawes and some 1,300 other Marylanders in asking the President of the United States to support the kind of broad policy studies called for by Senator Clark and Senator Javits: and many other Senators including the two Senators from Maryland, Senators Brewster and Tydings.
All around us the deadly, wasteful machine of war seems to be flexing its muscles. Though our cause may well be just, it is clear that the continuance and extension of this kind of peacekeeping provides this Nation and the world with a very bleak prospect indeed.
This Nation, as Ambassador Stevenson wisely said, has “no mission but peace, no enemy but war.” Having this as a goal is, however, not enough. We must have specific proposals to offer, and a clearly thought out plan of implementation..
The resolution now before you would have our country do no more than get down to brass tacks in five of the most vital areas of world peace. In calling for “development of effective international machinery for the supervision of dis-armament and the maintenance of peace" it does no more or less than ask us to spell out clearly what we want.
Many Americans in both public and private life are inclined to say that it is very noble to try this, but that Russia, France, and China will not cooperate. in this idealistic venture. This to me is the attitude of those who are not willing to respond to challenge with positive, imaginative, and clear-cut ideas: and programs which can catch the imagination of even the most extreme dissent
ing elements in the world community. The possibility of a lasting peace must be alive and real to us—if not out of love and compassion for humanity, then out of fear of the terror of war.
The quest for peace by this, and every other nation, should not be shackled by pessimism or parsimony. Just as I would mobilize all of our talent and resources to win a just war, I would do the same to win a just peace.
I hope this committee will approve this resolution. This country and the world can ill afford to leave any reasonable idea untried in the quest for world peace through world law.
FORTY-SIXTH ANNUAL NATIONAL CONVENTION OF THE AMERICAN LEGION, DALLAS,
Tex., SEPTEMBER 22–24, 1964 Whereas the Government of the United States, through its Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, has placed before the Geneva Conference on Disarmament a plan for "general and complete disarmament"; and
Whereas this proposal, if given effect, would (1) require the destruction of all national armaments and the elimination of all national military forces other than those necessary
maint nce of internal order, (2) estab sh a U.N. "peace force” strong enough to overpower any remaining national military forces, and (3) make all nations subject to the compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court, with all international disputes to be settled in accordance with the U.N. Charter; and
Whereas the placing of all effective police power and final legal authority in the hands of the U.N. would transform that body into a world government, and the sovereign rights and security of the United States would become subject 'to decisions dictated by whichever voting bloc happens to control the balance of power at any given time; and
Whereas the American Legion traditionally has advocated military preparedness as the best means of preserving peace, and believes that the United States must remain strong enough to back up its foreign policies and to defend the Nation against attack by any aggressor: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, by the American Legion in national convention assembled in Dallas, Téx., September 22-24, 1964, That the plan of "general and complete disarmament” as recommended by the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency is opposed by the American Legion, and that the plan is believed to be inconsistent with our national security policy as a whole; and be it further
Resolved, That the American Legion opposes U.S. entry into any disarmament treaty or arms reduction agreement with any nation or group of nations unless such treaty or agreement includes enforceable provisions for inspection, and ironclad safeguards against cheating; and be it further
Resolved, That the American Legion insists, in any event, (1) that the national defense posture of the United States must remain unimpaired so long as there exists a threat to our security and freedom such as is now posed by the forces of international communism, (2) that the United States must at all times maintain a state of military preparedness commensurate with our national and international responsibilities, and (3) that the United States must reserve to itself freedom of action in all matters respecting the national security.
Rye, N.Y., May 8, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR FULBRIGHT: Please do not permit Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 (relative to planning for peace) to die in committee.
The development of international institutions capable of permanently keeping the peace is the only logical solution to our mounting international crises.
The U.S. Government should take the leadership in sponsoring effective peacekeeping institutions among nations.
For this reason, Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 should be debated fully on the floor, with opportunity for adequate public information and support.
Those who are disturbed over the increasing unilateral activities of our
JEANNE P. RINDGE,
PAOLI, PA., May 8, 1965. Senator J. W. FULBRIGHT, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Capitol Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR FULBRIGHT: I am writing in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 relative to planning for peace, which I understand is coming up for hearings May 11.
I think it is of the utmost importance at this time for our Government to take the lead in planning for ways and means of keeping equilibrium and peace among nations for the future. This is no easy task, but it must be taken whether we like it or not. Our present predicament of being drawn into acting as a onenation world police force will be repeated ever more frequently and alarmingly.
I think this will continue until we succeed in establishing some kind of international authority either “by reason of the charter of the United Nations, by a new treaty, or by a combination of the two," as stated in Senator Clark's Resolution 32. This resolution must not be put aside because of more urgent crisis. I call upon our Senators to look ahead and to act now in this direction.
I believe the instinct to fight for one's rights, ideals, and survival is a right and healthy instinct but since the atom bomb it has become imperative that we learn to fight with the rightness of our thinking-our ideas-rather than the weapons of force. This resolution is a step in this direction, and must not be allowed to fail.
I have no title with which to give my words authority. I am the wife of Arthur Young, the inventor of the Bell helicopter. I now live near Philadelphia but come from a long line of old Boston families rather conservative and usually Republicans. I speak in the name of commonsense and believe there are many thousands of others who would give support to this resolution if they knew of it. Very sincerely yours,
RUTH FORBES YOUNG.
STATEMENT OF WALTER S. ORLINSKY, YOUNG DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL
COMMITTEEMAN OF MARYLAND
I have asked for the opportunity to testify on behalf of Senator Joseph Clark's Resolution 32, because I believe it is in the vital interests of this Nation and of the family of man that it receive the approval of our Government.
Within the past month this body passed legislation extending the life of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Section 2 of this bill stated what I believe to be the goal and purpose of American foreign policy. Let me quote, "An ultimate goal of the United States is a world which is free from the scourge of war and the dangers and burdens of armaments; in which the use of force has been subordinated to the rule of law; and in which international adjustments to a changing world are achieved peacefully."
With the sounds and fury of war all around us, it may seem to those of narrow vision that this goal is lost and forever unachievable. If we were to really believe this we would in fact be saying that the family of man is condemned to the bleak prospects of nuclear holocaust at worst or an eternity of war with all the death, misery, and waste of human life it entails.
The late President John F. Kennedy told this Nation and the world in his address before the 18th session of the United Nations General Assembly in 1963 that, “Peace is a daily, a weekly, a monthly process, gradually changing opinions, slowly eroding old barriers, quietly building new structures.”
I believe that to win peace one must wage peace just as hard and as energetically as one wages war to win war.
There is no amount of time, effort, energy, or money I would not commit myself or the Nation to, in the long journey to finding a genuine, honorable peace in a world under law and order.
When one considers the vast cost, not only of our own war machine, but of the world's at large, as well as the destruction of human lives and resources it takes when it is used and measures that against poverty at home and abroad, only the heartless and unfeeling would begrudge efforts to find å just solution to our world problems.
The resolution which I am happy to support is one of those many steps which must be taken if we are to find a way to end the lawlessness of war.
In the past, it is my understanding that the Department of State has objected to similar efforts by Senator Clark to move this broad scale policy study on the grounds that some of the work called for was already being done in the narrow sense, as in the field of disarmament, and that nobody really can foresee agree ment on the other points.
The State Department recently replied to a telegram to the President asking support of the kind of broad policy study now before this committee. This telegram was signed by Governor of Maryland, J. Millard Tawes, Theodore R. McKeldin, mayor of Baltimore, and many other distinguished Marylanders. The State Department's answer expressed the view that charter amendment after all can be vetoed by any of the so-called big five as well needing a two-third vote of the membership of the U.N., so why try to change.
In fact they said that they felt these efforts might result in weakening rather than strengthening of the United Nations.
I for one, am unconvinced by this line of argumentation. First of all, this resolution suggests we explore the possibilities of making changes through "revision of the Charter of the United Nations, by a new treaty, or by a combination of the two."
Secondly, this resolution does not require that we find any of the courses outlined proper, as to any of the areas of discussion.
I know that at one time or another this Nation has stated its belief in the value of each of the five areas this resolution asks us to study.
The reason I support this resolution and feel that it has the highest value is that with its passage it will force, not only the executive but the Congress and the nations of the world to seriously formulate specific proposals in these areas.
In 1955, you will recall that the Russians after months of intransigence suddenly accepted virtually every essential aspect of the British-French Disarmament Plan. Because we were unprepared for its implementation our Government had to call a “moratorium” on its support for this plan.
Only the perspective of history will tell us if this was a fatal lost chance of mankind. What this does tell us is that we must never assume the other nations will not accept our or other general offers of solutions to world problems and that we must be prepared for the specific implementations of these goals is we are serious about them.
As a further example, I am very interested in the prospects for a permanent world peace force. I know that the State Department is working on some proposals in this area. But this is not enough. This Congress must discuss it, and the nations of the world must discuss it, and the people of the world must discuss it. In England, Canada, Nigeria, India, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, Finland, Iran, and many other nations there has been talk about a permanent peace force.
Yet no nation in the world can make a more significant contribution to this idea than this country, if we really pushed the concept with vigor and imagination and not with the defeatist, negative attitude of the State Department, that Russia or France won't like it anyway.
These major powers, like any other power, are subject to world opinion and world movement. Our job is to head the world toward the goals we desire. Our job is to wage peace.
If two-thirds of the nations of the world were to agree to a peace force and a means for financing it, and Russia, France, and China would not, I believe we can work out the problems that challenge would bring.
It is morally reprehensible to excuse ourselves from the responsibility of these efforts called for by this resolution by saying the other peoples are not responsible and will not agree to our ideas. Many people in this country refuse to believe efforts for peace are possible in the United Nations because there are so many differing points of view. There are the racial problems, the battle between the haves and have nots, the large nations and small nations, the powerful nations and weak nations, and, of course, the differing philisophies of life and government.