Lapas attēli

a million policies in force. I wish to testify in favor of Senate Concurrent Resolution 32.

I do this because I believe that one of my major problems—in common with other executives in established businesses-is to prevent the loss of the company's assets and customers in a nuclear cloud, as a result of all-out war. This loss would be likely to occur if there were an all-out war. We work to improve our companies, to raise the earnings of the men and women on our staffs and to give better products or services to the public. All could be wiped out in a few minutes of nuclear exchange. This is a posibility—but I hope not a probability-which threatens us all.


The United States is spending many billions of dollars a year for military weapons and for its defense establishment. In spite of these expenditures we do not feel secure. We have an uneasy balance of terror between the U.S.S.R. and ourselves. Fortunately tensions between us have lessened as the Soviet Union has become more and more a "have-nation," with rising standards of living and education for its people, and I hope there will be further tension-reducing steps such as the nuclear test ban and the hot line between Washington and Moscow. But what about the Red Chinese? I do not feel competent to answer it, but I do feel if we do not get the right answer, it may turn out to be a question of more than 64 million American lives. In the life insurance business we have to look ahead 20 to 50 years or more. We have to consider ways to reduce the changes of undesirable developments and ways of meeting them if they do occur. If there is a situation which is less than satisfactory, we take a good look at just where we are, at how we got there, and we plan ways to improve matters. It is important for a business to plan. It is even more important for our Government to plan what institutions will give us security. Military planning alone is not enough. New concepts in political and economic areas must be considered. If we clearly define our goals and possible steps toward them, we greatly increase our chances of reaching them.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 should be a distinct aid in the formulation of U.S. Government policies in planning for peace. I feel it gives an opportunity for people throughout the country to be considering what are the possible steps forward. It will be helpful if the Senate will definitely support the President in strengthening peacemaking institutions. I believe that it is time for the United States to take a new initiative toward strengthening the United Nations. We do not wish to be the world's policeman, but the world needs a strong peacekeeping force. I believe that the specific ideas which the resolution suggests should be embodied in definite proposals. I believe that they are realistic suggestions for our world today.

Man's new power over matter, his new knowledge and his new techniques have created an era of new fears and of new vision-of new dangers and of new opportunities. In my report to Baltimore Life policyholders on the 1961 operations of their company, I wrote:

The major problem of your company, at this time, is to control or adjust to new conditions and new possibilities in a world which has been changed much by science. New ways of saving and prolonging life have been found and applied.

At the same time, new possibilities of destroying all life through nuclear weapons or chemical or biological war are being discovered. New problems have been created for all individuals, companies, and nations.

Defense and international relations are such complicated subjects that some persons feel that they should be left to experts or high government officials. In Communist countries, they are so handled. In a democracy, however, the people have a large voice in the direction of the Nation's policy. Many Congressmen and Senators in deciding what to vote for will be influenced by what they believe their constituents want or will accept. If most of the constituents are thinking in terms of things as they were prior to the bomb on Hiroshima. They may refuse to accept the best steps toward security in today's conditions. Last September, our State Department, with the backing of our President, took a big step forward when it published "Freedom From War: The U.S. Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World." This program is aimed at increasing the security of our Nation as well as all others. I believe that it is a realistic plan for gradually applying man's knowledge and imagination to the greatest problem of our time. I believe that this problem can be solved if America lives up to its high traditions of freedom for the individual and of the responsibility of each citizen to others and to the Nation.


As I see it, the Congress is up against the problem of the lack of knowledge of many of its constituents of what are the real problems. We tend to oversimplify so often and say this government is Communist or this is not Communist, as though there were only two sides of the question.

I remember the briefing that I had at the Foreign Service Institute before going to India when I was told

Do not any of you who go to Asia ever speak of being broadminded as Americans often do, saying I am very broadminded because I can see two sides to any question, because to an Asian they see far more than two sides. Even a lump of sugar has six sides, and these complicated Cuban problems and the national problems are such that we have to look at many, many sides.

I believe it is up to business to do what it can toward getting people to think about the problems of security.

In line with this business philosophy of encouraging citizens to think about peace and security, the Baltimore Life has been conducting a contest among high school students for the best answer to the question, "What steps should the United States take toward insuring world peace?" Incidentally, three of our judges are Congressman Morgan and Ambassador Wadsworth and Brig. Gen. Jack Rothchild. The first prize is $2,500 for use in obtaining a college education. Entries have come from over 3,000 students from the seven-State area of the contest. I have read a great many of the entries and am impressed by the overwhelming belief of these students that the United Nations should be strengthened; that it should be well financed; and that it should have an effective police or peacekeeping force. There was overwhelming support for the idea of world law which would be enforced for the security of all nations. These young people I found are thinking in terms of the future which is changed from the way the future looked when I was in college or in high school, because, as Senator Tydings so well indicated, we used to have a second chance. We now may have only one chance to avoid destruction.

As a life insurance executive, I represent a business that is particularly interested in preventing inflation. I believe that the most effective way to control inflation would be by creating a situation

in which our military expenditures could safely be reduced or eliminated. I realize that absolute safety is not attainable. Our present buildup of weapons is not giving us real security. It may be the best that could have been done over the past years. But there are dangers in our present buildup of weapons. A new situation could have far less risks than the present balance of terror or than the present chance of escalation of the war in Vietnam.

The opposite danger from inflation is depression and loss of buying power of our people. I do not fear this as a possible result of decreased armaments. The war on poverty can keep our economic activity going at a high rate for an indefinite period. Also, during the foreseeable future much elaborate scientific detection and informational equipment will be needed for use in protecting the peace of the world. I do not foresee a sudden abandonment of all arms but a probable buildup of the methods of control to know what is going on and whether agreements are being followed.

World conditions are constantly changing. Do we wish to drift or do we wish to plan ways of influencing the changes, ways, which may give us greater security than we have at present? I believe that Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 is a step in the right direction. Thank you for this opportunity to appear.

Senator LAUSCHE. You stayed strictly within your 10 minutes. Mr. NILES. I thought those were the rules and I had better try to obey.

Senator CLARK. You believe in the rule of law.

[blocks in formation]

Senator CHURCH. No questions. Thank you very much.
Senator LAUSCHE. Senator Clark?

Senator CLARK. Just to indicate my strong support for your line of testimony, to commend you for the essay contest you are conducting which I think is most useful, and to indicate my agreement with the approach that if you do not plan in the life insurance business, you will go broke, and the possibility that if we do not plan for peace, we may go broke, too.

Mr. NILES. I think also there is the psychological aspect that if you do not look ahead and visualize what you may like to have, you are very unlikely to get it. As I see this resolution, it is not something which says we must have these five points established next year, but it is something which says we must be thinking about them. We must be using our creative imagination in a realistic manner to meet the new situation, the actual situation that confronts us in the world today.

Senator CLARK. I know our friends from State and from ACDA are going to be very unhappy with some of the things that have been said this morning. They are going to tell us they are planning. They are sitting up nights planning and thinking. What their planning and thinking is, I am afraid, is just how to put out that brush fire that started yesterday rather than how we are going to clear the woods so there will not be any more brush fires.

Thank you, sir.

Senator LAUSCHE. Thank you very much, Mr. Niles.

[blocks in formation]


Senator LAUSCHE. The next witness is Mr. James P. Warburg of New York.

Mr. Warburg, if you will take the stand.

Senator CLARK. Mr. Chairman, could I say for the record that it is at my request Mr. Warburg came down here; no doubt many of you know, he is the author of a good many books on the general subject of war, peace, and disarmament.

He is a very keen student, and to my way of thinking, one of the clearest thinkers in the country in this general area.

Mr. WARBURG. Thank you, sir. It is always a privilege and a pleasure to meet with your committee.

On this occasion, I am here to give my wholehearted support to Senate Concurrent Resolution 32, introduced by the Honorable Joseph S. Clark of Pennsylvania.


As stated by the resolution, it is urgently necessary at this time for our Government to pursue with greater speed and energy its frequently declared aim to achieve peace and disarmament under adequately enforced world law and to develop international or supranational institutions capable of permanently preserving peace among the world's nations. I emphatically endorse the request to the President in section 2 of the resolution "to formulate as speedily as possible specific and detailed proposals" for the achievement of these goals.

I have just read with dismay the letter addressed to this committee by the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, stating that in its judgment "any present attempt to spell out these proposals in greater detail would seem to be of doubtful value." I agree with Senators Aiken, Clark, and Church that the President is ill served in his quest for peace by the failure of this Agency and the Department of State to provide him with constructive ideas designed to overcome the existing obstacles. The mere recital of the obstacles and the advocacy of "a slow evolutionary process" without detailed and precise proposals for an approach to the desired goals seems to me anything but helpful. I hope that the passage of this resolution will clearly express the dissatisfaction of the Congress with this negative attitude on the part of those upon whom the President must rely in carrying out the request addressed to him in this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot endorse this resolution without saying that, within the last 4 months, there have been a number of developments in the area of U.S. relations to the world which cause grave concern, because they seem to lead away from rather than toward the achievement of our professed objectives. Permit me to list them.

1. Having failed in its unilateral effort to assist the unstable government of South Vietnam to suppress the Vietcong insurrection, the United States embarked last February upon an undeclared war against North Vietnam in the hope of interdicting by air attack North Vietnamese assistance to the insurrectionists and of thereby bringing the rebellion to an end. Last week, I submitted a paper on this subject to the White House, to each member of your committee, and to each mem

ber of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The paper expressed the view that our Government's present policy in Vietnam will, if continued without modification, not only end in failure but that it is more than likely to lead to a catastrophic major conflict in which we shall have few if any allies; and that this policy has the effect of alienating our friends, of stiffening enemy resistance, and of cementing Communist solidarity by driving a reluctant Hanoi into the arms of Peiping and making it impossible for the Soviet Union to take a hand in keeping all of southeast Asia out of Chinese control. The paper suggested three specific modifications of our present policy:

(a) Willingness to include South Vietnamese rebel leadership in negotiations for a peace settlement;

(b) Willingness to permit all-Vietnamese free elections on condition that the sovereign independence and neutrality of an all-Vietnamese government, no matter what its ideological complexion, be guaranteed by the major powers, including the United States, the Soviet Union, and the Peoples Republic of China; and

(c) Cessation of attacks upon North Vietnam.

Mr. Chairman, I ask your consent to have the full text of this paper, "Vietnam-A Proposal for the Modification of the President's Policy," included at this point in the record of my testimony.

Senator LAUSCHE. It will be so done.

(The document referred to follows:)


WASHINGTON, D.C., April 26, 1965.

It is important to recall that our Asian policy originated as part of an ideological anti-Communist crusade launched by the Truman administration to halt the expansion of what it conceived to be a worldwide, Moscow-centered aggressive Communist conspiracy.

Success in stopping Stalin's expansion into Europe led, under the Eisenhower administration, to the wholly inappropriate application of the Truman doctrine to an area lacking Europe's social and economic development and its experience in democratic self-government-an area in which freedom in the Western sense had never existed.

In his global application of the Truman doctrine, Secretary Dulles attempted to encircle the entire, vast Sino-Soviet periphery with a ring of military bases and alliances. The southeast Asian segment of this encircling ring was to be held by aiding France to reestablish her rule over Indochina. When this effort failed and a defeated France withdrew from Indochina in 1954, Dulles attempted to fill the resulting gap by forming a Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, similar to the NATO alliance in Europe. However, because none of the three newly independent Indochinese States wished to become military allies of the West, the Geneva Accords of 1954 provided for the temporary partition of Vietnam (the northern part being firmly in the hands of the Communists) and for the neutrality of South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. The United States did not sign these accords but promised to honor them.

Thailand was the only southeast Asian country eager and willing to join the SEATO alliance. Burma, India, and Ceylon were not interested. On the Asian mainland, only Thailand and Pakistan joined SEATO, conceived by Dulles to contain communism throughout Asia. It has since become clear that Pakistan became a Western ally primarily to obtain military strength vis-a-vis India, rather than from a desire to help contain Communist aggression.

Having failed to enlist the three Indochinese States in SEATO, Dulles proIceeded, in violation of the Geneva accords, to attempt to finesse two of these States-Laos and Vietnam-into becoming pro-Western bastions of anticommunism. In Laos, a pro-Western military regime was boosted into power in place of the neutralist government of Prince Souvanna Phouma. In Vietnam, and anti-Communist dictatorship was established at Saigon under Ngo Dinh

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »