Whereas the United States program for general and complete disarmament in a peaceful world, introduced at the sixteenth session of the United Nations General Assembly, defined the objective of the United States as "A world where there shall be a permanent state of general and complete disarmament under effective international control" and the "institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations" and called for the creation of an International Disarmament Organization to insure compliance with disarmament obligations, a United Nations Peace Force to keep the peace during the period of disarmament and thereafter; and improved processes for the peaceful settlement of international disputes; and Whereas President Kennedy, in addressing the eighteenth session of the United Nations General Assembly on September 20, 1963, called for the revision of the Charter of the United Nations to permit the development of that body into "a genuine world security system", and declared that the peacekeeping machinery of the United Nations must be strengthened by the adoption of sound financial arrangements and the maintenance of standby peace force contingents by member nations, and that resort to special missions for the conciliation and adjudication of international disputes be increased; and

Whereas the realization of these goals through international negotiations, United Nations Charter revision, or otherwise, is a matter of urgency because (1) technological and political developments have given rise to new perils to peace through the increasing spread of nuclear weapons, as evidenced by the successful detonation of a nuclear device by the Chinese Communists, the continued development of an independent nuclear deterrent by France, and the possibility that several other nations, which have the capacity to make nuclear weapons, will follow a similar course; and (2) the increasing cost of the arms race is preventing human needs from being met in all the countries of the world; and

Whereas the United Nations General Assembly, during recent sessions, has resolved to keep in being the Committee on Arrangements for the purpose of reviewing the charter, and has further resolved to ask the Committee to submit periodic reports, with recommendations, to future sessions of the General Assembly; and

Whereas the achievement of an international accord for general and complete disarmament under effective controls and the development of international peacekeeping machinery require not only the support of the Congress, but also an informed public opinion in the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the President should be supported in his efforts to achieve peace and disarmament under legally effective controls and to develop international institutions capable of permanently keeping the peace.

SEC. 2. The President is hereby requested to formulate as speedily as possible specific and detailed proposals for the implementation of the foreign policy objectives of the United States regarding the establishment of an international authority to keep the peace under conditions of general and complete disarmament effectively guaranteed by adequate inspection and controls. In formulating such proposals, the President is requested to consider whether the development of effective international machinery for the supervision of disarmament and the maintenance of peace, including (1) an International Disarmament Organization; (2) a permanent World Peace Force; (3) world tribunals for the peaceful settlement of all international disputes not settled by negotiations; (4) other international institutions necessary for the enforcement of world peace under the rule of law; and (5) appropriate and reliable financial arrangements for the support of such peacekeeping machinery, may best be achieved by revision of the Charter of the United Nations, by a new treaty, or by a combination of the two.

SEC. 3. The President should make such proposals available to the Congress and to the public generally.

SEC. 4. The President is requested to transmit copies of this resolution to the heads of government of all of the nations of the world and to urge them to initiate within their governments studies of matters germane to this resolution and to formulate and make generally available recommendations based upon such studies.

Senator SPARKMAN. After the resolution was referred to the committee on April 19, the committee requested the comments of the Department of State, and the Arms Control Disarmament Agency on it. These comments were received on May 10 and will be made a part of the record at this point.

(The documents referred to follow :)

Hon. J. W. FULBRIGHT,

U.S. ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT AGENCY,
Washington, D.C., May 10, 1965.

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,

U.S. Senate.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of April 20, 1965, requesting comments from this Agency on S. Con. Res. 32, submitted on April 8, 1965, by Senator Clark for himself and others.

The Arms Control and Disarmament Agency strongly endorses the resolution's expression of support for the President "in his efforts to achieve peace and disarmament under legally effective controls and to develop international institutions capable of permanently keeping the peace." Moreover, we believe that the resolution is useful in restating the necessary relationship between comprehensive disarmament and the establishment of strengthened procedures for the supervision of disarmament and the settlement of international disputes. Comprehensive, verified, and balanced disarmament has been a stated national goal ever since the first U.S. general and complete disarmament plan was advanced in 1960. However, international negotiations at the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Conference and elsewhere have made it clear that major changes in the outlook of the Soviet bloc and many others toward world affairs would be necessary before such a plan could be realistic. Basic differences of opinion exist on matters we believe to be essential elements in an effective disarmament agreement, including effective verification and procedures to keep the peace.

Recognizing the long-term nature of our comprehensive disarmament effort, the United States has given increasing attention to more limited measures designed to reduce the risks and dangers of war and help promote a climate more favorable to general and complete disarmament. The limited nuclear test ban, the "hot line" agreement, and the U.N. resolution against weapons of mass destruction in space were such measures. Current U.S. initiatives, foremost among them being proposals to control the spread of nuclear weapons to nonnuclear countries, are similarly oriented. As President Johnson said in transmitting his proposals to the Geneva Disarmament Conference last year: "While we continue our efforts to achieve general and complete disarmament under effective international control, we must first endeavor to halt further increases in strategic armaments now."

Given the present attitudes of the Soviet Union and other nations, it would appear that insufficient basis for agreement exists at this time on "the development of effective international machinery for the supervision of disarmament and the maintenance of peace," within the meaning of section 2 of the resolution, whether the means utilized are revision of the United Nations Charter, a new treaty, or a combination of the two. No consensus exists among the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council or among other U.N. members on the role of the United Nations in maintaining international peace and security under present world circumstances. Moreover, there is no international consensus on the broad peacekeeping proposals contained in the pending U.S. treaty outline on general and complete disarmament. Lacking such consensus, any present attempt to spell out these proposals in greater detail would seem to be of doubtful value.

This Agency believes that the framework of the existing U.N. Charter offers the best present opportunity for strengthening peacekeeping capabilities commensurate with the area of agreement now possible. While we commend the objective of the sponsors of Senate Concurrent Resolution 32, we believe that step-by-step evolutionary improvements in the U.N.'s capacity to keep the peace are the most likely to succeed for the foreseeable future. In an address in Detroit last September, President Johnson celebrates the "heroes of peace" saying: "These are the men who-brick by brick-year by year-patiently, laboriously, carefully work to build a world where freemen can live without the fear of war. On their success depends the hopes of every person on this planet."

The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for giving the Department of State an opportunity to comment on Senate Concurrent Resolution 32.

The Department agrees with the general objective of this resolution. This administration, like its predecessors, supports the ultimate goal of general and complete disarmanent, and believes that progress in disarmament must be accompanied by the development of strengthened peacekeeping institutions.

The U.S. position on these questions was recently expressed by Ambassador Adlai E. Stevenson in the United Nations Disarmament Commission on April 26, 1965. Ambassador Stevenson stated: "We are determined to work for general and complete disarmament as part of our common, long-term effort to achieve a better and safer world through the application of the principles of the charter of the United Nations, and the steady development of international law and effective peacekeeping arrangements."

As you know, the United States in 1962 submitted to the Conference of the Eighteen Nation Committee on Disarmament (ENDC) in Geneva an outline of basic provisions of a treaty on general and complete disarmament in a peaceful world. The Geneva discussions over more than a 2-year period on this proposal and on a Soviet draft treaty on general and complete disarmament have indicated strong disagreements on such fundamental questions as the application of the principle of balanced disarmament, the formulation of effective verification procedures, and the development of progressively strengthened peacekeeping machinery. Differences of views on these matters are so basic that it has not been possible to make any significant progress in the negotiations on general and complete disarmament. While the United States, so far as it is practicable to do so, has formulated proposals in its treaty outline on international machinery to keep the peace, any present attempt to spell out these proposals in greater detail would be of doubtful value in view of the lack of consensus even on the broad outline.

While the United States supports continued negotiations on general and complete disarmament, it is increasingly apparent that the ENDC at this time can profitably give primary emphasis to initial collateral arms control measures which can be implemented now. Agreement on such measures as the limited test ban treaty and the U.N. resolution against placing weapons of mass destruction in space has clearly shown that concentration on such initial measures offers more realistic and immediate possibilities for progress. We are continuing to press for realistic discussions of practical arms control and disarmament actions along the lines of the proposals which President Johnson placed before the Geneva disarmament talks on January 21, 1964. In the Disarmament Commission of the U.N., which is now meeting in New York, we are likewise seeking support for these proposals and urging an early return to the Geneva negotiations.

As we indicated during the recent hearings on charter amendments to enlarge the membership of the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council, we do not believe that far-reaching charter revisions would be a practical means at this time of seeking to strengthen the United Nations. There is no consensus among the five permanent members of the Security Council or among other groups in the United Nations on the proper role of the Organization in the maintenance of international peace and security even in present circumstances, let alone in a disarmed world. We doubt that the members of the United Nations could reach agreement on extending its present role through revision of the charter or by negotiation of a new treaty. Indeed, we doubt that agreement could be reached on an organization with powers equal to those provided for in the U.N. Charter drafted 20 years ago. The most likely consequence of a comprehensive review of the charter would be the introduction of controversial and divergent amendments-many of which would seek to diminish the powers

of the Organization. The end result of a debate on such amendments would be to weaken rather than strengthen the United Nations as an instrument for peace and security.

The Department of State strongly supports efforts to strengthen U.N. peacekeeping capabilities. It believes that the most feasible way to develop these capabilities is through a process of evolution and that the framework of the present charter is adequate to accommodate the area of agreement that now exists. The earmarking of standby forces for emergency U.N. service by the Scandinavian countries, Canada, and others is an example of the kind of steps which are contributing significantly to the U.N.'s capacity to keep the peace within the limits of what nations are now willing to undertake.

In view of the broad considerations set forth above, the Department of State has not made specific suggestions for language changes in the resolution. The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours,

DOUGLAS MACARTHUR II,

Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations
(For the Secretary of State).

Senator CLARK. Will the Senator yield? It is my understanding that while the comments of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency did arrive in time to be reproduced and copies are now available, we still do not have as the hearing opens the State Department comment. I hope as soon as it is available it will be brought into the hearing because I think it is quite important, and we should have a look at it.

Senator SPARKMAN. I was under the impression that the comments had been received but have not yet been reproduced, but I am sure that it will be done and will be made available in the course of the hearings. In the light of the number of requests to testify that have been received, the committee has had to ask the witnesses to limit their oral presentation to 10 minutes so that members of the committee may have an opportunity to ask questions. There is, of course, no limitation on the question and answer period. Additional material may, of course, be furnished for the record.

The first witness that we will hear this morning is Mr. T. Walter Hardy, Jr. We are rearranging the schedule a little bit because Senator Tydings and Mr. Niles were supposed to be the first witnesses. They are listed as the first two, but we have word that they will be a little late. So, Mr. Hardy, if you will come around we will be very glad to hear from you at this time.

I might make an announcement for the benefit of all witnesses before you start, Mr. Hardy. Transcripts of the testimony will be available for correction in rooms 4229 and S-116 tomorrow morning if they wish to revise their statements or make corrections. S-116, of course, is the committee room over in the Capitol, and 4229 is a part of the offices here just down the hall.

All right, Mr. Hardy, we are very glad to have you.

May I say to all witnesses that if you have a prepared statement, the statement will be printed in full in the record whether you read, discuss, or summarize it.

All right, Mr. Hardy.

STATEMENT OF T. WALTER HARDY, JR., PRESIDENT, HARDY SALT CO., ST. LOUIS, MO.

Mr. HARDY. Thank you, Senator Sparkman.

I do have a prepared statement, but I would like to speak informally and address myself to the matter.

(Mr. Hardy's statement in full follows:)

STATEMENT OF T. WALTER HARDY, JR.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to present my views with regard to the subject resolution, which I consider of the utmost importance in the light of the present situation in the United Nations, and current international and technological developements.

First I would like to identify myself. I am president of the Hardy Salt Co., with home offices in St. Louis, Mo., and producing facilities in Manistee, Mich. As a businessman, I have been interested in international economic relations, and am a member of the Committee for a National Trade Policy. I believe in the extension of multilateral trade and have testified twice in behalf of extensions of our Reciprocal Trade Agreements program. I am chairman of the Division of Peace and World Order for the Missouri East Conference of the Methodist Church. The organization of the Methodist Church in Missouri is composed of two conferences, with Bishop Eugene M. Frank as administrative head of the Missouri area composed of some 260,000 Methodist laymen and 1,100 ministers. Both the Missouri East and the Missouri West conferences, at their annual legislative meetings in June of 1964, passed resolutions (exhibit I) in support of the "Planning for Peace" resolution (then designated S. Con. Res. 64). This is in conformity with the longstanding position of the Methodist Church, as expressed in the 1964 "Discipline" which states, "The United Nations, with membership open to all nations which seek to join and which subscribe to its Charter, must be given sufficient authority to enact, interpret, and enforce world law against aggression and war."

Over the past 2 years the Methodist Church in Missouri has carried on an extensive pilot program in peace education in support of these basic principles and positions. Mr. James P. Speer II, a Methodist layman from Albuquerque, N. Mex., was hired as director of peace education and moved with his family to Kansas City to take up full-time work for the church. During the 2-year term of the program, Mr. Speer exchanged views with over 500 audiences in Missouri. A newsletter was edited and mailed on a more or less monthly basis to 4,000 persons in every local church. A filmstrip entitled, "A Primer for Peace" was made for use in the local churches. A recent official Methodist study report, "The Christian Faith and War in the Nuclear Age" was studied primarily in our women's and young people's groups.

Institutes on peace and world order were held in Kansas City, Springfield, and St. Louis and on April 10, 1965, a "Bishop's Assembly on Peace and World Order" met in Columbia for a full day of study, adopting the attached declaration on the United Nations (exhibit II). Thus, although, of course, I cannot speak for individual Methodists, I am here in an official capacity to speak for the organized Methodist Church in Missouri in strong support for Resolution 32.

Now, as to the resolution itself, there may be the feeling on the part of some that a congressional resolution of this sort is of no real importance because of the fact that it has no effect in law. It is my belief, however, that the inadequacies of international organizations in the past, and the present necessity for farreaching and revolutionary steps of a complex nature, demand the strong participation of Congress, and especially the Senate, in the development of the philosophic approach necessary as a guide for the formulation of detailed studies and proposals by the executive branch. The international organization needed for adequate maintenance of world peace in the atomic age is too involved and complex to simply wait for Senate debate after a treaty has been negotiated involving over 100 nations. What is needed is the advice of the Senate in advance of its consent.

That is why so many of us in Missouri regard the “Planning for Peace" resolution of such crucial importance at this time, when the entire United Nations peacekeeping structure is at the point of collapse, and a more adequate approach is clearly indicated. Studies and recommendations by the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the Departments of State and Defense can be much more productive if some indication of the mind of the Senate can be determined beforehand. Furthermore, full debate of Resolution 32 on the floor of the Senate will stimulate and encourage much more debate and discussion among our citizenry and within our citizens organizations.