« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
We now have the World Court. I do know that many nations have reserved for themselves the right not to have their matters settled, but that is as far as we have gone on that.
Senator TYDINGS. I think on point 3 the Senator is quite correct. A number of nations, including the United States, reserve certain areas where we refuse to give up sovereign immunity insofar as jurisdiction by world tribunals is concerned. But in recent years the American Bar Association together with the responsible bar associations of the Western World have had a number of meetings, including a world conference at Athens two summers ago, in which they have been working to broaden jursidiction of international law. This is a difficult problem. But this I think the more we can expand the situations where a nation is willing to go into a World Court, the sooner we will have a more responsible United Nations and a better community of nations.
I think initial steps have been taken under the lead of the American Bar Association and other responsible western bar associations.
Senator LAUSCHE. I agree with that.
No. 4. Establish "other international institutions necessary for the enforcement of world peace under the rule of law.” That involves the same principle.
Senator TYDINGS. Yes.
Senator LAUSCHE. And No. 5. Establish “appropriate and reliable financial arrangements for the support of such peacekeeping machinery.”
Now then, all I want to say is that in the 7 years that I have been on this committee, I have not agreed with what the State Department has done in many instances—I disagreed with the setting up of a neutral government in Laos that has now brought upon us our great difficulty in South Vietnam, when they set up a troika government in which Communists were members. We should have known in advance that the Communists were going to take over. I do not agree with what the State Department did in Cuba, that is they had proof that Castro was a Communist, but we made a Robin Hood out of him.
Now then, have you read Gardner's recent book on the United Nations?
Senator TYDINGS. No; I have not.
Senator LAUSCHE. Gardner is a member of the State Department, and it is worthwhile reading. It is a book containing many laudatory comments about the United Nations, and I think in it you will find a discussion of these various matters that you and I have been exchanging views on. Senator TYDINGS. I certainly will make every effort. Senator SPARKMAN. Senator Aiken.
Senator AIKEN. I think the testimony of the Senator from Maryland is quite commendatory, and I am glad that he is interested in promoting world peace and has given us the benefit of his views.
WEAKNESSES OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
I cannot quite agree that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has the power which he seems to think it has. Certainly we do have power in this committee and I believe should exercise what we have. However, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee cannot make a declaration for peace and enforce it. We can make a declaration of war in the Senate and in the Congress and then implement the waging of that war.
I am rather disappointed with the attitude of our State Department and the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency for the reports which they have submitted to this committee today. It seems they are kind of wishy-washy, meaningless reports where, for example, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency refers to building peace brick by brick and year by year, a comment in rather sharp contrast to the statement a few years ago that we would have complete disarmament, in 9 years' time, which would mean at least laying two or three bricks at a time.
I think they are weak. These agencies are so weak as to be almost impotent. Practically they are afraid of the President. They are afraid they are going to say something he will not like, or they are going to breathe out when he is breathing in.
Senator CLARK. Would the Senator yield?
Senator AIKEN. I have one more statement, and then I will yield. If they would show some strength and really advise the President instead of trying to find out what he wants to hear from them and then saying that, we would get a lot more benefit from them.
The Senator from Ohio referred to President Eisenhower's recommendations for world peace and ways in which it could be accomplished. It is true that the other nations did not accept his offers. It is also true that for 8 years there was no American serviceman killed in combat. I think that is worthwhile, too.
I wish we had some stronger agencies of Government. I think the President would listen to them if they dared to tell him what they know they should tell him and what they really think.
Now I yield.
Senator CLARK. I would like to suggest to the Senator that I completely agree with what he has said. One of the real difficultieswhich I hope the Committee on Government Operations which Senator Jackson is heading up—will take note of the fact that apparently neither the State Department or the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency is prepared to bring any proposal to the President unless it has first received the concurrence of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That is the way the Committee of Principals operates. Any proposal that ACDA brings forward goes to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If they do not completely agree, 9 times out of 10 that is the end of it.
While I am a great believer in coordination and a great admirer of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I do not think we are going to make very many moves toward peace under that procedure.
Senator AIKEN. I agree with you. I think the President could do with some new advisers.
Senator LAUSCHE. Do you have anything further, Senator.
Mr. Chairman, we do have one distinguished citizen from Baltimore City here who would like to testify at some time in your proceedings. That is Mr. Henry Niles, and I would like to take the occasion to at least introduce him even if you want to wait until later to hear his testimony. But Mr. Niles is a very distinguished citizen of Baltimore City. He is a leader in the insurance industry. He has coauthored two books on the personnel factors of life insurance. He is president of the Baltimore Life Insurance Co. He has been a consultant to the Office of the Quartermaster General. During the war he was an official in the OPA. In 1951 he went to Germany as a Marshall plan consultant and led conferences on human relations in industry with German industrialists.
In late 1952 he took a year's leave of absence from the Baltimore Life Insurance Co. to go to India for the U.S. Technical Cooperation Mission. He traveled 25,000 miles in that vast country visiting many remote villages and jammed cities. Mr. Niles and Mrs. Niles made many friends in India.
He has been a leader in the United Nations organization in Maryland. He is, as I have indicated, a leader in business and finance and president of the Baltimore Life Insurance Co., and as a distinguished citizen of Maryland it is my pleasure as the junior U.S. Senator from Maryland to introduce him to this distinguished body.
Senator LAUSCHE. Senator Tydings, Senator Church would like to ask you a question.
Senator CHURCH. I had no questions to ask except to commend you on your excellent statement this morning. I listened with fascination to Senator Aiken’s remarks and to Senator Clark's. I want to say that I am largely in agreement. I would just want to suggest one addendum. I do not know whether the agencies are more afraid of the President or the Congress when it comes to the matter of forthright program for peace.
Senator CLARK. I think this is a very good point, if I may say so, Sentor Aiken. One reason why I introduced this resolution, was that if we could get it passed, the State Department and the ACÓA would no longer be quite as terrified of the Congress, of its alleged belligerency, as they appear to be.
Senator AIKEN. They are apparently concerned enough with Congress to write us these two reports which we have received this morning. Neither one of them means anything so far as I can see. Senator LAUSCHE. Mr. Hardy, will you return to the witness chair?
STATEMENT OF T. WALTER HARDY, JR.—Resumed Senator CLARK. Mr. Hardy, first, thank you very much for being willing to stand aside for Senator Tydings. It was very courteous
Secondly, I would like to commend you on what I think is a splendid statement, and call attention to a couple of the points in it.
You say on the first page that "there may be a feeling on the part of some that a congressional resolution of this sort is of no real importance because of the fact that it would have no effect in law," which of course is true. But you then note your strong view that it is important to the Congress to go on record in these matters in order to encourage the executive and perhaps encourage the country, and pos
sibly even encourage other countries in persisting in the search for peace.
I take it you do not feel that there is any reason why we should hold back in adopting this resolution merely because it does not have the force of law.
SENATE SUPPORT REQUIRED Mr. Hardy. No, I certainly do not. That was my point, and beyond that this idea of the extreme complexity of the situation as it is now maturing with all of these problems around the world and everything thrown into disorder, and as it has just been remarked, the innocuous statements which apparently you have received from some of the executive agencies, that the advice of the Senate in that sense of advise and consent is very much needed in order to anticipate what will be ultimately consented to.
Senator CLARK, I take it, sir, that you share my view, at least, and that of the sponsors of the resolution that this business of planning for peace is not a Sunday school picnic. This is a complicated, difficult, complex matter requiring long, hard thought, and to try to handle this matter on an ad hoc basis, meeting each crisis as it comes up instead of sitting down and thinking the thing through all the way is almost a certain way to disaster.
Mr. HARDY. I would certainly agree; yes, sir. That, it seems to me, is the great importance of this, that you are outlining a philosophic approach to the entire problem. You are opening the entire problem up for study by these agencies and for debate in the Congress and among the people.
DEFECTS OF U.N. CHARTER
Senator Clark. And finally, my last question. You would agree, would you not, that the present Charter of the United Nations, as it has worked out in experience since 1945, has revealed defects which seem to require an earnest effort to revise and to remedy. I like to think the present Charter of the United Nations is not unlike the Articles of Confederation under which our Government struggled unsuccessfully during the years between 1783 and 1789, and just as we then needed a constitutional convention to remedy, update, and streamline the Articles of Confederation, so it would be my view that pramatically and practically—but in due course and pretty soon--we ought to be devoting our very best attention, just as Hamilton and Madison and Jefferson devoted their very best attention to the framework of our Government, to revising the framework of the United Nations.
Mr. HARDY. I would certainly agree to that, and if I may just add one comment on Senator Lausche's earlier remarks about the difficulty of obtaining agreement from the Soviets—and I certainly agree that this is going to be a continuing problem-but I do think that there has been some agreement; there have been some agreements made although with much difficulty and much patience on our part. For example, the Antarctic Treaty, wherein inspection is actually taking place in a part of the world; the Austrian Treaty, for example, wherein the Soviets actually withdrew from that country, and then, of course, most recently the test ban treaty.
So there is some room, some room for feeling that there can be progress. But we have to get these matters out and really have them discussed, just as we did in Missouri. I mean the people are looking at it "brick by brick" as has been said, and we have got to get the entire philosophic issue of what is it that makes for peace out for discussion and consideration, and not everybody being afraid of offending the next person and not talking about it.
Senator LAUSCHE. Have you given any thought as to the advisability of trying to amend the United Nations Charter so as to place in the votes in the General Assembly a weighted representation in place of the one that now exists where Mali and the Cameroons each have one vote equal to that of the United States?
Mr. HARDY. Yes, sir; I think that that is essential that this be revised. Certainly if we are to have, as is suggested in this resolution, an International Disarmament Agency with any power, in that portion of the United Nations at least, the voting system is going to have to be realistic. It is going to have to reflect the power situation as it exists in the world. We cannot have this undemocratic, let us say, system of the one-nation, one-vote view.
Senator LAUSCHE. You would not want our Nation's course tied to a majority or let a two-thirds vote of the 114 nations that now represent it, with practically a half of the representation being of nations in Africa and the Far East.
Mr. HARDY. No, sir; I certainly would not want that. I think that basically it seems to me, getting beyond the resolution if we are to discuss the issues, it seems to me that it might well be that the delegates to the United Nations—there should be several from different countries where perhaps they would have an opportunity to speak their own minds and not necessarily the view of the government, where this country would have several representatives that might differ one with the other. That is another possibility.
Senator LAUSCHE. The tabulation of the voting shows that those nations now have in the main voted with us.
Mr. HARDY. Yes, sir; I think the United States has had a very fine
Senator LAUSCHE. But it is your view that we ought not to allow our course to be ultimately determined by each one of those nations having one vote, the same strength that we now have.
Mr. HARDY. No, sir; I would never agree to that.
Senator LAUSCHE. Do you think there is any prospect of getting that rule changed now, with Russia having the veto power?
Senator CLARK. Will the Senator yield before he has the answer to that? Our State Department is on record against weighted voting. I am not sure they are right, but at the moment they do not want weighted voting.
Senator LAUSCHE. I just wanted to ask that.
Mr. HARDY. I have not studied the official remarks from the Soviets, but I think probably a greater problem, it seems to me, would be the smaller nations.
Senator LAUSCHE. Surely. The smaller nations would vote against it. A nation with 200,000 people, no economy, no experience in government, wants to have the same power as our country with 190 mil