Lapas attēli

FISCHER MACHINE CO., Philadelphia, Pa., May 10, 1965..


Foreign Relations, Committee,
Capitol Building, Washington, D.C.

GENTLEMEN: I respectfully request that, since I am unable to make a personal+ appearance 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 the world order that are responsible 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 taken— the 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,



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. 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 aremultiplied. 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 theirown 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 ourcountry 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 contemplates.

Most earnestly do I urge the members of the committee to take favorable action on Senate Concurrent Resolution 32.

Sincerely yours,

Executive Director.



Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

MAY 27, 1965.

SIR: 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. Government 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 which so 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,


New York Metropolitan Region Women Strike for Peace.

(Enclosures are on file with the committee.)

DUBLIN, N.H., May 18, 1965.


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.



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.


New York, N.Y., May 24, 1965.

Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

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, Oнго, May 13, 1965.


Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
U.S. 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 Resolution 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.

The eagle has two claws. We have recently brandished our arrows with more belligerence than for 20 years. We must try to balance this dispatch of troops with dramatic and sincere efforts for peace.

We know that virtually every arms race has ended in war. To insure a future for the human race we must reenter the peace race a race against time, and myth, and myopia. We cannot tolerate underconcern in this age of overkill.

The approval of resolution 32 by your committee and the State can prepare the way for U.S. leadership for peace. Our Nation is powerful enough that it can speak for peace without being suspected of weakness.

We are engaged in a regrettable war in Vietnam, where our efforts look like political colonialism. We are engaged in a questionable occupation in the Dominican Republic, which appears to much of the world as reversion to gunboat diplomacy. Proper international organization and peacekeeping forces could have made unnecessary the continuation of our unilateral actions.

This resolution would strengthen the efforts of the 21 Nations Committee now reviewing the structure of the United Nations. It can bring a rebirth of hope that this can be the first International Cooperation Year, and not a grim cynical joke.

The U.N., if it survives, will come of age next year. It is time we came of age and supported efforts to make it a true international authority to keep the peace. We have voiced enough platitudes. It is time we stated the specifics which resolution 32 would have us develop.

No other cause is so urgent, no other need is so great.
Sincerely yours,


Owner, E. P. Roe Stores; President, Greater Cleveland Chapter, United World Federalists.


I regret that my absence in Montana where I had a speaking date of long standing prevented my appearing at the public hearing on planning for peace. I respectfully submit the following summary of what I should like to have said. The first essential of successful planning for peace is recognition of the absolute necessity for peace, at least in the sense of absence of war, in this thermonuclear age. The old choice which sometimes existed between peace and freedom is no longer valid. Liberty will not rise serenely from any shelters to view the agonies of the dying and the corpses of the dead. The absolute necessity is to find alternatives for war.

This will not be easy because, while men have hated war, they have also cherished it. It is among the oldest of human institutions. It brought glory and honor, power and profit to victors. It was the only arbiter of disputes between tribes, city-states, empires, in an anarchic world wherein each nation claims absolute control in war over its subjects or citizens.

With this fact in mind, we must reject the notion that the main business of American foreign policy must be the containment of communism. It must be the positive search for alternatives to war, and positive contributions to what has been well called the revolution of rising expectations throughout the world. Unquestionably communism raises a very serious problem, not so much by what most Americans regard as economic heresy, but by its ruthless totalitarianism, its denial of civil liberties, and its blunt affirmation that its standard of ethics is what advances the interests of the party. (This last ethical delusion is more or less matched by the religion of nationalism, and, in States like Mississippi and Alabama, the religion of white supremacy.) Communism grew out of war. Russia and China became Communist after wars in which the side on which we were had won complete military victory. What is wrong in communism has to be fought in the realm of ideas and the application of ideas to the ending of hunger and exploitation. Communism will not be conquered or indefinitely held at bay by war.

It is wholly improbable that any nation can win such military supremacy that fear of it will be anything like an absolute deterrent, if for no other reason than because of the large element of irrationality in the action of men and of government.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »