« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
for moral leadership and we can best begin to provide it by adopting the proposals of section 2 of Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 as the very keystone of the arch of American foreign policy.
I think your committee can win an honored place in history if it will adopt Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 with an overwhelmingly favorable report so ringingly eloquent and persuasive that there will be no question as to its approval by the Congress.
I wish you godspeed in your role as instruments of decency, wholeness, and destiny.
SatL, EWING, REMICK & SAUL,
Philadelphia, May 13, 1965. Hon. J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.O.
DEAR SIR: I respectfully urge yon and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to vote favorably in support of Senator Clark's “planning for peace” resolutionSenate Concurrent Resolution 32. As stated in this resolution, our national policy under both Republican and Democratic administrations has been to work toward enforceable worldwide law to outlaw war and weapons.
The intended effect of this resolution is to implement our statement of high principles by formulating definite proposals and mechanics for effectively carrying out these high ideals.
At a time when we seem to be resorting more and more to force as an instrument of our foreign policy, it is important that we should remember the olive branch in our national emblem, and take steps in that direction.
Would you please be good enough to include this letter in the record of your committee's hearings on this resolution. Respectfully yours,
NORMAN R. BRADLEY.
HOWELL & SISLER,
Chicago, Il., May 10, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR FULBRIGHT: I ask that the following be included in the record of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Senate Concurrent Resolution 32.
I favor Senator Clark's resolution called Planning for Peace. I think the Senate should authorize a study to be made of what charter revisions are necessary, so that we do not go off half-cocked.
I am a Republican and am greatly distressed that no Republican Senators have initially sponsored this resolution. To me this matter of United Nations Charter review is too technical to be decided on by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee or by the full Senate. It must be studied by a special team authorized by the Senate, I understand that this law will accomplish that result.
We must be supple and flexible in our positions in regard to U.N. Charter review. At the same time, we must look out for the security of the United States. The best way I think this can be accomplished is to pass this resolution and have the problem of charter review studied for the Senate.
I have four small boys, and I don't want them to serve 4 years in the U.S. Marines as I did if it can be possibly be helped. I think the United Nations is the only answer, but I think it is not rightly constituted now, and I can almost sympathize with some Birchers who feel averse to the U.N. as it is now set up. We must learn how it should be set up and then how we go about using our influence to secure this. I appreciate your consideration of my views. Respectfully yours,
WILLIAM J. HOWELL,
FISCHER MACHINE CO.,
Philadelphia, PQ., May 10, 1965.. Hon. John SPARKMAN, Foreign Relations, Committee, Capitol Building, Washington, D.C.
GENTLEMEN : I respectfully request that, since I am unable to make a personalappearance before your committee, you include the following as testimony on the above resolution placed before your committee.
There appear to be two obvious vacuums in th world order that are re. sponsible for the rash of increasing and unresolved conflicts.
The first is the lack of a standing committee to come to grips with international tensions before they break into violence where a position must be takenthe end result of which is never in sight.
Secondly, an international agency should be developed so constituted as to be able to win maximum respect from all parties concerned. This involves a strengthened United Nations or equal organization to carry on what was originally intended by the founders of the United Nations.
To this end I urge your committee to take action on the above resolution so that “the President should be supported in his efforts to achieve peace and disarmament under legally effective controls * * Very truly yours,
WILLIAM F. FISCHER, Jr.,
THE COOPERATIVE LEAGUE OF THE U.S.A.,
Chicago, Ill., May 13, 1965. To the Members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
DISTINGUISHED SENATORS: I know it is almost inexcusable to write a mimeo graphed letter to Members of Congress. But time is short and I simply cannot get this communication in the mails soon enough unless I do it this way.
I'm writing to most earnestly plead with the members of this committee to approve Senate Concurrent Resolution 32. I shall make only one point. This resolution is desperately needed at this very moment in history.
Our country has been compelled to undertake a peacekeeping and order-restoring effort in the Dominican Republic. Because of commitments made many years ago, we are also engaged in conflict in Vietnam. However defensible our motives may be, when our country undertakes action of this kind, we inevitably expose ourselves to criticism and misunderstanding even among our best friends throughout the world. Loss of life is entailed which is irreparable. Risks are multiplied. At this point in world history, no one nation should be called upon or should feel itself compelled to engage in unilateral actions of this kind.
Yet the peace must be kept and the opportunity of people freely to decide their own fate and form of government must somehow be preserved.
In a world saturated with weapons of ultimate destruction of man, there is only one decent workable answer to this problem and only one way that our country could be relieved of the kind of burdens and dilemmas which we have felt ourselves compelled to assume. That one way is embodied in section 2 of Senate Concurrent Resolution 32. The resolution empowers and calls upon the President to work for development of effective international machinery for the supervision of disarmament and the maintenance of peace, including a permanent world peace force.
Such a world peace force should have been instituted through the United Nations long ago. The time is past midnight for its institution now. Such a force could prevent aggression, police agreements, protect the free opportunities of people to determine their own fate and relieve countries like our own of the almost insurmountable problems and frustrations we face in these trouble spots.
We have a choice between a world of continuing and increasing anarchy, skating nearer to the bring of ultimate disaster, or the establishment of the kind of peacemaking machinery and world peace force which this resolution contem. plates.
Most earnestly do I urge the members of the committee to take favorable action on Senate Concurrent Resolution 32. Sincerely yours,
SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT, NEW YORK METROPOLITAN REGION WOMEN STRIKE
MAY 27, 1965. Hon. J. W. FULBRIGHT, Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
SIB: The Women Strike for Peace of the New York metropolitan region, numbering some 10,000 active participants, wishes to support testimony before your committee pertaining to Senate Concurrent Resolution 32, already presented by our Washington representatives on May 12, 1965.
In addition, we submit for the record in the form of a blue book various memorandums prepared by our women in support of stronger U.S. participation in the United Nations; and in support of open public debate on specific questions relating to war and peace.
November 1961 saw thousands of women all over this country "go on strike" against contamination of the atmosphere from thermonuclear tests conducted by all the nuclear powers at that time. We also "went on strike" against the aimless drift toward nuclear war, and lobbied extensively with our legislators, our President, and the public for steps which we felt would bring about a better climate of understanding among all nations, thus avoiding a senseless war which no one of us could hope to survive.
Many other thousands of women, and men, listened to us as we spoke out for our children and for the children of all nations. We protested the health risks predicted for children by scientists concerned with the betterment of the human condition. We did not feel that we could wait for a generation, and then count up the casualties of radioactive fallout. Recent reports of studies conducted in the Marshall Islands show that we have been more than justified in expressing our concern. As you know, the limited test ban treaty signed in July 1963 not only found corroboration in national and world opinion, but also eased international tensions and created more reasonable conditions for world understanding.
We support now in particular:
1. Establishment of a national peace research institute financed by Federal funds (such as that in Sweden); or granting of adequate Federal funds to the several regional centers already established in this country within the academic community; or a substantial increase of funds for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; or any combination thereof.
2. Declaration in the United Nations Disarmament Commission of U.S. Gov. ernment support for the disarmament package proposed by the delegate of Sweden ; namely:
(a) A test ban treaty to include a prohibition of underground nuclear tests;
(b) A halting of the production of fissionable materials for military purposes ;
(c) An agreement to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to states that do not now have them. We hope deeply that this can be accomplished during the current meetings of the U.N. Disarmament Commission.
3. Declaration by the U.S. Government of decisive support for articles 31, 33, and 35 of the United Nations Charter providing for international settlement of all disputes between or among nations.
We cannot support the fact that in recent years we and our children are living constantly on the edge of crisis and in real fear of a thermonuclear catastrophe.
4. Adoption of the principle of open, public hearings on questions affecting the possibility of war or peace, to be conducted in the national interest by the appropriate bodies of the Congress.
The American principle of open covenants, openly arrived at is a good one. When introduced, the world was not ready. But 45 years have passed, during which enormous changes have made it a practical principle of which we can be very proud.
5. Finally, initiation by the U.S. Government of proposals for a substantial increase in contributions of all industrialized nations to the operating budget of the United Nations and to its lending institutions.
With reference to page 4 of the memorandum attached entitled “Response to President Johnson's Speeches of April 7 and April 27,” we think it important to demonstrate the practicability of such American ideas as finding the moral equiv
alent to war, and of international cooperation itself, for which our people have twice taken the initiative, and given up at a fateful juncture. The history of wars and killing is at least a hundred thousand years; the history of international cooperation only 45. But the central fact about this planet is life. Our problem, and that of any nation, is how better to nourish life.
We must keep the promises our generation made to our children: to do everything to bring about a better life: to do everything to prevent and abolish war. Our country is rich. We can afford to keep such promises.
Senator Clark's Joint Congressional Resolution 32, therefore, with whic many other Senators and Representatives have associated themselves, is a vital step in the direction of peace, prosperity and the Great Society to which our President and our people are devoted.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this supplementary statement. We commend our "WSP Blue Book” to your close attention. Respectfully yours,
JANE F. WEISSMANN, New York Metropolitan Region Women Strike for Peace. (Enclosures are on file with the committee.)
DUBLIN, N.H., May 18, 1965.
STATEMENT OF GRENVILLE CLARK
The basic reason why the planning-for-peace resolution (S. Con. Res. 32) should be adopted without delay is that the time is long overdue for an influential government such as ours to formulate and put forward a genuinely adequate plan for peace.
The experience of 20 years since the adoption in 1945 of the United Nations Charter has amply demonstrated the inadequacy of that organization to fulfill its main purpose; namely, to maintain international peace and security. The rule of one vote for every member nation in the General Assembly, irrespective of population or any other factor, makes the larger countries unwilling to entrust any substantial powers to that body, while the requirement of unanimity on important matters between the five permanent members of the Security Council has often paralyzed that organ. Moreover, the lack of any machinery for the raising of sufficient and reliable revenues is another fatal weakness.
In consequence, despite many valuable services, the United Nations has been unable to halt the arms race, which continues at an annual cost of some $130 billion, the weapons become ever more numerous and deadly, and our main reliance for peace continues to be a precarious balance of terror. At the same time, the gap in living standards between the “have” and “have not" areas of the world tends to widen rather than contract, with ominous ultimate consequences for all concerned.
Mankind deserves better than this and it has become ever more clear that to achieve genuine peace nothing less will suffice than a system of enforcible world law in the limited field of war prevention binding upon all nations and all individuals.
But, although this is the mature conviction of thoughtful persons the world over, it still continues true that not a single influential government or group of governments has yet come forward with a plan even remotely adequate to the problem.
This is where the planning-for-peace resolution comes in. Let it be adopted and let the President direct the formulation by the most creative minds available of a comprehensive and truly adequate plan for universal and complete national disarmament and for the settlement of all international disputes by peaceful means alone. In so doing, the Congress, the President, and the American people would earn the gratitude of all mankind.
STATEMENT ON SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 32 BY NORMAN COUSINS,
SATURDAY REVIEW Resolution 32 is an immensely constructive and urgent proposal. Its importance has been heightened by recent events, particularly in Vietnam and the Dominican Republic, both of which highlight the need for an international authority to keep the peace under conditions of general and complete disarmament effectively guaranteed by adequate inspection and controls.
Inevitably and understandably, many will protest it is premature to talk about international control and disarmament. But the present crisis has illuminated vividly the dangers of seeking solutions outside the framework of world laws.
Resolution 32 offers no sure-fire solutions to conflict or crisis; all it does is to create better machinery for trying to avert or resolve conflict and crisis.
A mark of national greatness is the ability to think constructively and for the long pull even though a country may be under the gun. Resolution 32 gives the United States realistic opportunity to prove to ourselves and to the international community that the United States yields to no nation in planning for peace. I strongly, urgently support this bill.
THE AMERICAN ETHICAL UNION,
New York, N.Y., May 24, 1965. Hon. J. W. FULBRIGHT, Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.O.
DEAR SENATOR FULBRIGHT: On behalf of the Public Affairs Committee of the American Ethical Union I should like to endorse heartily the testimony of Mr. L. D. MacIntyre, representing the National Women's Conference of the American Ethical Union, which was submitted to your committee in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 32. I hasten to assure you that this represents as well the views of the Public Affairs Committee of the American Ethical Union and should like this statement of our endorsement spread upon the record of the proceeding.
In this connection I should like to note that the notice and date of the hearings came to our attention before official action could be taken by us, and that is why I trust that our support of the resolution can be incorporated in the record of the proceedings. Yours very truly,
ROBERT M. STEIN, Chairman, Public Affairs Committee.
CLEVELAND, OHIO, May 13, 1965. Hon. J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, 0.8. Capitol, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR FULBRIGHT: Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.
I urge you and your committee to report favorably on Senate Concurrent Reso lution 32 submitted by one-fourth of the Members of the Senate.
We spend more than half our Federal budget preparing for war. We must put thought and energy into preparing for peace, before it is too late.