Lapas attēli

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

World Federalists.


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 The old choice which sometimes existed between peace and freedom is no longer valid.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
Neil McElroy

Douglas C. Wynn


[ocr errors]
« iepriekšējāTurpināt »