« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
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. by 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 wars. 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 to glorify us human beings. Now it is absolutely 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:
Joseph A. Amter
Mrs. Emily Otis Barnes
Lloyd V. Berkner
Rufus E. Clement
Rev. Edward A. Conway, S.J.
C. W. Cook
Harold Jefferson Coolidge
Howard S. Cullman
Donald K. David
Oscar A. de Lima
John S. Dickey
Rev. John J. Dougherty
Peter F. Drucker
Milton S. Eisenhower
Erik J. Eriksen
Luther H. Evans
Dr. Dana L. Farnsworth
Joseph L. Fisher Charles Frankel John W. Gardner Harold S. Geneen Roswell L. Gilpatric Eli Ginzberg
Leonard H. Goldenson James H. Gross
J. Peter Grace Edward Gudeman Werner P. Gullander William W. Hagerty Patrick Healy
Rev. John E. Hines James N. Hyde Frank N. Ikard William B. Johnson Joseph F. Johnston Marian Anderson Harry S. Ashmore Dr. George P. Baker Roger Baldwin Joseph A. Beirne
Dr. Philip G. Davidson
Dr. John Hope Franklin
Mrs. Katharine Graham Ernest A. Gross
Joyce C. Hall
Dr. Thomas H. Hamilton
Members of the National Citizens' Commission for International Cooperation, as of March 4, included-Continued
Sol M. Linowitz
George C. Lodge
Mrs. Maurice T. Moore
Stanley M. Rumbough, Jr.
Judge Edith S. Sampson
Marlin E. Sandlin
Robert J. Manning Stanley Marcus Kenneth L. Maxwell Stacy May
Mrs. Madeleine H. Russell
William P. Steven
Conrad L. Wirth