« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
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,
ELDON P. ROE, Owner, E. P. Roe Stores; President, Greater Cleveland Chapter, United
STATEMENT BY NORMAN THOMAS CONCERNING SENATE CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION 32, PLANNING FOR PEACE 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 The old choice which sometimes existed between peace and freedom is no longer valid.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.
| The essentials of peace are these:
1. Disarmament down to a police level for preserving order in nations and between nations. There is some truth in the statement that wars cause armament rather than the reverse. Yet Sir Edward Grey, the British Foreign Minister, believed that the naval race between Britain and Germany was a major cause of the stupid and brutal World War I. There is high probability that if, after the stalemated War of 1812, we had not gained a total disarmament along the Canadian border, some of the boundary quarrels of the 19th century would have led to war. Moreover, there is extraordinary danger in giving any group of men weapons of obliteration with which to play. To trust to indefinite deterrence. iby balance of terror is a little like keeping peace in a kindergarten by giving quarreling children revolvers.
Disarmament will have to be in stages, but it must be rapid. If only quantity of arms is at stake the United States and Soviet Union have many times over what they need. But there is and always will be in a world that trusts primarily to armament, a qualitative race in arms so that no nation will dare stop increasing its armament with what it thinks are the newest weapons.
2. Disarmament must be under control of international authority. We shall neither get nor maintain disarmament except in a world where law supplants war much as law supplanted blood feuds within tribes and nations. I can best express my views on the nature and extent of international controls by endorsing the well-known book by Grenville Clark and Louis B. Sohn, entitled “World Peace Through World Law.” I agree with Messrs. Clark and Sohn that today, with the flood of new nations in the U.N., the revisions they suggest for the charter are unattainable; but I also agree with them that it might be possible to persuade the U.N., and of course its member nations, to supplement the U.N. by a Council on World Development and Disarmament, connected with the U.N., but able to exercise an effective control as the U.N. scarcely can under its present charter.
I say this as a strong supporter of the U.N. although I always was a critic of its peacekeeping machinery. It was poor statesmanship that led the question of assessments of unwilling nations to reach its present serious point. One can imagine the protest from the U.S. Senate if an assembly in which the tiniest nation has the same vote as the United States should levy an assessment for a socalled peacekeeping operation in which we did not believe.
3. Disengagement. There is small likelihood that passion, accident, or design would lead to a frontal attack by one nation, strongly armed with thermonuclear weapons against another, so armed, but there is great danger under our confused system of alliances that small wars will escalate into thermonuclear
It is a fantastic optimism to believe that nations which have spent so much time, ingenuity, and money on weapons of absolute destruction would never use them in any war of any magnitude which might arise. There is a case for police power in an anarchic world but it must be left in the hands of an international agency truly representing all the nations, yes, that means China, too, on the face of the earth.
The present most serious danger to peace is precisely such enterprises as the American intervention in the Vietnamese civil war and now in the Dominican Republic. We have neither the wisdom nor the strength to play policeman in other people's wars, especially since there is a growing sentiment in the world that the United States is heir to the white imperialism of the past and acts only from the passion for power and profit which has always characterized imperialism. The fact that this is not altogether a fair interpretation of American motives does not affect the importance of this idea in world affairs. Moreover, there is nothing in history or human psychology to make us believe that we shall indefinitely play, at very considerable cost, a role of benevolent policemen without seeking the kind of compensation which the older imperalisms sought.
All the tangle of alliances bequeathed to us by former administrations, including NATO, need close reexamination. Why, for instance, do we have to keep troops in prosperous Western Europe, beyond, perhaps, a token force in West Berlin? Are not most of our bases more of a liability than an asset in world opinion and a drain on our resources at a time when balance of payment is a serious issue in our economy?
I do not suppose that the committee which I am addressing is especially concerned with the immediate problem in Vietnam and the Dominican Republic, but I should observe that it is rather ridiculous to believe that we shall make any further progress in disarmament or even in discussion of it, while we send more
and more troops halfway around the world to intervene in a civil war which only by the most fantastic stretch of imagination can be said to affect our national security.
I have urged elsewhere and often that the President himself should initiate a call for a cease-fire in Vietnam and that his unconditional negotiation should specifically involve the presence at the council chamber of representatives of the National Liberation Front which controls large territory in South Vietnam. Of course it must include the real China, not Chiang, who represents nothing but the 7th American Fleet, and North Vietnam. There are reasons in the division between Russia and China, in the ancient dislike of Vietnamese for China, and the desire of the people for peace, to believe that negotiations could succeed and bring about neutralization. The fate of Vietnam must in the end be determined by the Vietnamese themselves, and if they should elect to have a kind of southeast Asian Yugoslavia, it would be far better than this brutal and immoral war which because it is a war will not and cannot be continued without steady escalation.
In the Dominican Republic, the administration by its own present admission by no means conducted a mere relief expedition for Americans. The fewer were the Americans in Santo Domingo, the more troops our administration sent. In the Dominican Republic, in every respect we emulated Russia in Hungary at the time of the Hungarian revolt. We intervened contrary to treaty agreements to prevent a possible Communist takeover of what was a popular rising intended to restore Juan Bosch, the democratically elected president of the country, to power. Russia intervened contrary to the U.N. Charter, Khrushchev said, to prevent a takeover of the Hungarian revolt by Fascists and Nazis, and certainly one could find proportionately as many Fascists and Nazis in Hungary as Communists in the Dominican Republic. Our intervention has not even been neutral but has definitely aided a military group which many observers believe was on the point of surrender until they got our aid.
I am not challenging President Johnson's motives in either Vietnam or Dominican Republic, although in the latter nation there are unquestionably American economic interests which would like us to follow our old course of protecting any dictatorship which would recognize American economic interests. Whatever the motives, in a world where I am skeptical of absolutes, the rule must be that it is not the business of the United States to play policeman in other people's wars. In the long run even here in America, and certainly abroad, we are doing an immense service to communism by the course we are following. (I speak with first-hand knowledge of a great many American campuses.)
4. The fourth prerequisite for peace is intelligent and imaginative American participation in a war against poverty, illiteracy, and disease. That war against disease which has been nature's way of balancing populations has been turning to man's advantage, thanks to the humanity and skill which tend glorify us human beings. Now it is absol ly necessary that the United States, throughout the world, should actively aid an intelligent control of the birth rate. There is no greater aid to the future that our country can give. Without it, it will be almost impossible for industrial progress to do much to better conditions for the masses.
We may get a kind of uneasy peace of coexistence in a world where twothirds of the people live on the borderline of hunger and starvation. We shall have no real peace. Hence the need of a cooperative attack on poverty, not only in the United States, but throughout the world. The nation which has to its credit the Marshall plan must take leadership in this fight, but the struggle to be genuinely effecive must be cooperative, and can be better carried on through the agencies of the U.N. than of any single nation once the U.N. itself has won its proper place. Economic and military aid from the United States should be sharply separated, and military aid should be very exceptional. Disarmament is essential in the struggle against poverty since production of weapons that we pray God we shall never have to use satisfies no ordinary consumer needs and creates far fewer jobs than the construction of homes, hospitals, and schools.
Peace, I believe, will be furthered by the freer trade for which, in part at least, the Johnson administration stands. I think it might be furthered in this hemisphere by steps toward a common market and by putting some floor under prices for the raw materials on the export of which our Latin American neighbors so largely depend.
This is a brief summary of what I think are the roads (not the road) to peace. It is governmental foreign policy which primarily determines the is sue of peace and war. But a policy fit for peace must win a degree of popular support for a fraternity of races and nations than now exist. And this should be the concern of schools, and churches, and individual citizens as well as the Government in Washington.
Members of the National Citizens' Commission for International Cooperation, as of March 4, include: Frank Altschul
Barry Bingham Joseph A. Amter
Bruno V. Bitker Mrs. Emily Otis Barnes
Marvin Bower Dr. Stanhope Bayne-Jones
Harvie Branscomb George A. Beebe
Dr. Harrison Brown Lloyd V. Berkner
Robert M. Brunson Leonard Bernstein
Dr. Leroy E. Burney Eugene R. Black
Cass Canfield Jacob Blaustein
Erwin D. Canham Don G. Brennan
James B. Carey Detlev W. Bronk
Walter F. Carey William G. Carr
Dr. Jule G. Charney James B. Casey
Abram J. Chayes Joseph V. Charyk
Dr. W. Montague Cobb Lucius D. Clay
David L. Cole Rufus E. Clement
Gen. James F. Collins Benjamin V. Cohen
Dr. Andrew W. Cordier Rev. Edward A. Conway, S.J.
Gardner Cowles C. W. Cook
Dr. Philip G. Davidson Harold Jefferson Coolidge
Arthur H. Dean Norman Cousins
Jose de Cubas Oscar Cox
Frederick M. Eaton John Crichton
Joseph A. Fallon Howard S. Cullman
Dr. John H. Fischer Donald K. David
Prof. Roger Fisher Oscar A. de Lima
Irvin M. Frankel John S. Dickey
Dr. John Hope Franklin Rev. John J. Dougherty
William Friday Peter F. Drucker
Mrs. Katharine Graham Milton S. Eisenhower
Ernest A. Gross Erik J. Eriksen
Luther Gulick Luther H. Evans
Joyce C. Hall Dr. Dana L. Farnsworth
Dr. Thomas H. Hamilton John Fischer
George M. Harrison Joseph L. Fisher
Caryl P. Haskins Charles Frankel
Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh John W. Gardner
Rabbi Philip Hiat Harold S. Geneen
Mrs. Oveta Culp Hobby Roswell L. Gilpatric
Mrs. Anna Rosenberg Hoffman Eli Ginzberg
Dr. George W. Hoffman Leonard H. Goldenson
Clifford R. Hope James H. Gross
Palmer Hoyt J. Peter Grace
Dr. Eldon L. Johnson Edward Gudeman
H. F. Johnson Werner P. Gullander
Joseph E. Johnson William W. Hagerty
Frederick R. Kappel Patrick Healy
Dr. Robert Kay Rev. John E. Hines
Dr. George B. Kistiakowsky James N. Hyde
Harry W. Knight Frank N. Ikard
Dr. Joseph B. Koepfli William B. Johnson
Dr. Arthur Larson Joseph F. Johnston
James Laughlin Marian Anderson
Ralph Lazarus Harry S. Ashmore
Dr. Charles LeMaistre Dr. George P. Baker
David E. Lilienthal Roger Baldwin
Murray D. Lincoln Joseph A. Beirne
James A. Linen
Members of the National Citizens' Commission for International Cooperation, as of March 4, included-Continued Sol M. Linowitz
Robert J. Manning George C. Lodge
Stanley Marcus John L. Loeb
Kenneth L. Maxwell S. M. McAshan, Jr.
Stacy May James S. McDonnell
Margaret Mead A. N. McFarlane
Mrs. Roy Menninger Thomas F. Malone
Forrest D. Murden, Jr. Herbert R. Mayes
Raymond D. Nasher George Meany
Robert R. Nathan John M. Mitchell
Samuel I. Newhouse Maurice B. Mitchell
Herschel D. Newsom Hugh Moore
Earl D. Osborn Mrs. Maurice T. Moore
Fairfield Osborn Bishop Reuben H. Mueller
William S. Paley Waldemar A. Nielsen
Frederic Papert Eugene S. Northrop
Mrs. Harvey Picker Frederick D. Patterson
Clarence E. Pickett James G. Patton
William B. Quarton Dr. James A. Perkins
Maxwell M. Rabb Mrs. Dorothy B. Porter
Isidor I. Rabi W. Francis Pressly
Charles S. Rhyne Theodore S. Repplier
Thomas Robertson Walter P. Reuther
David Rockefeller Rev. James H. Robinson
Ragnar Rollefson William Ruder
Axel G. Rosin Stanley M. Rumbough, Jr.
Eugene V. Rostow Irving Salomon
Mrs. Madeleine H. Russell Judge Edith S. Sampson
David Sarnoff. Marlin E. Sandlin
Dore Schary Mrs. Mabel M. Smythe
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. H. Christian Sonne
Donald A. Schmechel Dr. Aaron Stern
Mrs. James Schramm Isaac M. Stewart
Thomas K. Sherwood Arthur Hays Sulzberger
Raphael D. Silver Mrs. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger
Joseph R. Smiley H. J. Szold
Louis B. Sohn Mrs. Gladys A. Tillett
Charles M. Spofford Dr. Herman B. Wells
Robert C. Sprague. John H. Wheeler
Frank Stanton John F. White
Harold E. Stassen Dr. Jerome B. Wiesner
Herman W. Steinkraus Frazar B. Wilde
M. H. Sterne Mrs. Joseph Willen
William P. Steven Geraldine P. Woods
Hazel K. Stiebeling Dr. Edwin P. Jordan
Jack I. Straus Joseph Kaplan
Anna Lord Strauss Milton Katz
Mrs. Robert J. Stuart David M. Kennedy
Jesse W. Tapp George L. Killion
Robert H. Thayer, Philip M. Klutznick
J. Cameron Thomson Alfred A. Knopf, Sr.
Douglas F. Tilden Antonie T. Knoppers
Juan T. Trippe Arthur B. Krim
Vincent T. Wasilewski York E. Langton
Thomas J. Watson, Jr. Sigurd S. Larmon
Walter H. Wheeler, Jr. Mrs. Albert D. Lasker
Lawrence A. Wien Peter I. B. Lavan
Francis O. Wilcox Henry Cabot Lodge
Charles F. Willis, Jr. Mrs. Oswald B. Lord
Logan Wilson Dr. Walsh McDermott
Conrad L. Wirth
Douglas C. Wynn