« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
Mr. STANLEY. It is. It was passed, I believe, in 1961, and it is the statute which creates the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. It is a statement of policy, of foreign policy objectives by the Congress rather than one given by a President or some other leader of our Government in a speech.
I would comment that the goals of the United World Federalists are, I believe, 100 percent in line with those proposed in the statute that I have just read. Our activities go beyond this to give consideration to the immediate problems that are involved in creating and achieving the institution and the procedures required by this policy. We emphasize review and change of the Charter of the United Nations as the direction of first effort, fully recognizing there may arise situations where progress toward these objectives can be made through a disarmament organization of some type.
I have listed in my prepared testimony six reasons why I believe, why our organization believes that the adoption of this resolution would be beneficial to the interests of the United States in its quest for a secure peace, through freedom.
First, that it will add the weight of congressional support to the efforts of the President to achieve a safeguarded peace through the development of an international authority capable of permanently keeping the peace.
Secondly, that it will initiate more intensive study and research of 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.
Third, that it will stimulate parallel private research and study within the United States, which will add to the Nation's knowledge and it will accelerate the dissemination of knowledge to our public.
One of our principal problems, I believe, in this regard is education, education of our Government, education of the people.
Fourth, it will balance to our stance before the world at a time when the President has found it necessary to utilize force to achieve certain objectives of our foreign policy. Just as the American eagle clutches arrows in one claw and an olive branch in the other, our foreign policy needs a peace vector as well as a power vector. If we are wise, the peace vector will be more than just the negotiations and political settlement of the current conflict. How much stronger our position if our peace vector be a sound, vigorous, consistent endeavor to develop an international authority capable of permanently keeping a secure peace with freedom.
Senator CLARK. Therefore, you think that despite the troubled condition of the world today, the many foreign policies in which we are deeply involved, the situation in Vietnam, the Dominican Republic and elsewhere, that this is a good time to start what might be called a peace offensive for the purpose of perhaps rehabilitating the posture of the United States in the eyes of the world?
Mr. STANLEY. I would say "Yes.” I believe that the current crisis that we have in Vietnam and the Dominican Republic certainly underline once again the fact that the world lacks international or supernational institutions and procedures that are effective in dealing with threats and security of nations. As a powerful nation we carry a great burden.
We are finding, I am sure, that the judicial and effective use of our power is a difficult and precarious task. We find situations where we act unilaterally, saying that the international organizations cannot act fast enough. Isn't it incumbent upon us, then, if we really believe what we say that we want to use international organizations, that we redouble our efforts to develop and build international organizations, whether they be the OAS' the United Nations that are capable of that.
Fifth, it will encourage other nations to initiate or to intensify their study and research of the processes by which the required international authority can be developed to achieve a safe and secure peace.
Sixth, it will lessen the chance that the United States becomes so dependent upon the use of force that we neglect our simultaneous efforts to advocate stronger international institutions as the only permanent assurance of a secure and safe
I would conclude my comments by stating that I believe that this is the time in which we should act. If we have been told, and your committee is told in statements that are filed here today by the Irms Control and Disarmament Agency and by the Department of State that this isn't the time. We have to some extent heard these comments for many years. There will never be a time when a move to fully strengthen international organizations can be completely assured of success. Our problem as a nation, it seems to me, is to determine the emphasis that we want to put upon our efforts to achieve peace which we deeply desire.
How much do we commit to the short term? How much do we commit to the long term? Must these be to the exclusion one of the other? What resources can we devote to this ?-$30 million for the Disarmament Agency ?-$50 million to the armaments?-$100 million in round numbers aggregate to the United Nations ?-$700 million passed by the Congress in a matter of a few hours to add to a military budget.
It is never too soon to plan. No business can survive if it did the ineffective job of planning its relationships with its total area of interest as does the United States today. Change is inevitable. Study, planning must be a constant on-going process. The United Nations charter was hopelessly out of date almost before the United Nations came into being. It was a preatomic document. It was a document that was written before the great collapse of colonialism that brought a flood of additional nations into it.
If we mean what we say that we want international authority, that we want to work through international organizations, this, not 1 year, not 2 years, not 5 years down the line, is the time to think big, increase our commitment of effort and resources to the study, the research and education that is required.
For these reasons the United World Federalists are happy to support Senate Concurrent Resolution 32.
Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Stanley, for what to me at least is a most eloquent statement in support of this resolution.
Did you have an opportunity to read the somewhat tardy views of the Disarmament Agency and the State Department on this resolution which showed up this morning for the first time?
Mr. STANLEY. I read through them very hurriedly.
OPINION OF ACDA
Senator CLARK. So have I. I wondered if you would share my view that they express a rather disappointing attitude toward the basic purpose of the Disarmament Agency which you read into the record a few moments ago, and toward the point of view of the State Department.
We are in accord with the general principles of your resolution, but we think it is of doubtful value at this time.
I take it you don't share those views.
Mr. STANLEY. Well, I don't share them in their entirety, and yet I support the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and our organization worked for its creation. We would only hope that it could be given a bigger frame of reference, could be given the opportunity that I believe to be necessary if it is to accomplish the goal of the United States, which is spelled out in the legislation which created it.
Senator Clark. At the risk of being perhaps facetious, I think another thing we need to do is to give the Agency a prod in the rear.
Mr. STANLEY. Well, that usually helps forward progress.
Senator Clark. Thank you very much, sir. I didn't mean to interrupt you.
Mr. STANLEY. I am through.
Mr. Amter, we are happy to have you. We will put your statement in the record. We will be glad to have you proceed in your own way for 10 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH A. AMTER, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE FOR
RESEARCH ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, NATIONAL CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
Mr. AMTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Joseph A. Amter. I reside in Denver, Colo., with offices at First National Bank Building. I am an attorney, a banker, and now president of Peace Research Organization Fund' (PROF).
First, I want to thank the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the cosponsors for the planning-for-peace resolution for inviting me to appear today. If the “planning for peace” resolution is adopted, the executive and legislative departments of Government can join hands in one of the most significant efforts that has yet been made in behalf of peace.
I was instrumental in the formation of the Peace Research Organization Fund, an independent, nonpartisan organization, devoted to the pursuit of peace through research and education. I assisted in founding this organization because I was convinced of the real need to apply business and marketing methods to the pursuit of peace.
Our first job, as I saw it, was to ascertain what planning for peace we are now doing and how I as a citizen could help. My talks with leading experts in the foreign policy field, with university professors
and with members of the Departments of State and Defense, have made one point abundantly clear: In comparison with the efforts that are being made in the planning for military defense, the planning for peace efforts have been infinitesimally small.
ABSENCE OF PROFOUND RESEARCH FOR PEACE
Few institutions in the country are doing research for peace and they have received negligible funds for this purpose. Individuals work for the most part on a voluntary basis and receive no significant financial support. Yet, billions of dollars flow from the Department of Defense into institutions and universities that seem to be working almost entirely on ways to make war, or defend us from the warmaking efforts of others—a necessary and logical effort, because of the world we live in.
It is, therefore, with considerable pleasure that I support the purposeful planning for peace that is proposed by your resolution, which states at the outset "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 question remains: What active steps should the U.S. Government and private citizens take to plan for peace? To answer this question is the goal of the activity I want to take a few minutes to describe. This resolution, and the activities of a committee that I am chairman of, the Committee on Research and Development for International Institutions dovetail. When a resolution planning for peace can be introduced that is not in a vacuum, but which already finds meaning in citizen efforts, we know that no matter how idealistic the goal, we are not indulging in a meaningless exercise.
I support the President in this total effort and at his request have become a member of the National Citizens Committee for International Cooperation. I have been appointed chairman of its Subcommittee on the Research and Development of International Institutions, which I think should be called the C.R. & D. Committee. This committee's efforts will be financed by the Peace Research Organization Fund, of which I am president. The National Citizens Commission will hold a White House conference commencing November 29 of this year, at the President's request.
(The membership of the committee appears on p. 189.)
Senator CLARK. Mr. Amter, would you state for the record when that request was made and under what circumstances ?
PRESIDENT'S NATIONAL CITIZENS COMMITTEE
Mr. AMTER. The President in a proclamation in October of last year declared 1965 to be the International Cooperation Year, and you are familiar with his remarks at that time.
In the middle of March of this year, the first part of March, the President constituted the National Citizens Commission, and the National Citizens Commission met at the State Department, I believe, some place around March 19 or in that area. I don't remember the exact date.
Senator CLARK. Do you remember who the chairman of that commission was?
Mr. AMTER. The Chairman of the National Citizens Commission is Robert Benjamin, who is chairman of the board of the United Nations Association of the United States of America. He is in charge of the citizens segment, and the chairman of the Government counterpart committees is Assistant Secretary Harlan Cleveland. There are Government counterpart committees that he chairs. (The cabinet committee referred to follows:)
[White House press release (Austin, Tex.) dated Nov. 24]
PRESIDENT'S CABINET COMMITTEE FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION YEAR
President Johnson has named a Cabinet Committee for International Cooperation Year representing 19 executive departments and agencies to plan and coordinate U.S. Government participation in International Cooperation Year, 1965.
The President proclaimed 1965 as International Cooperation Year in the United States at a White House ceremony on October 2. At that time he de scribed the quest for peace through cooperation between nations as “the assignment of the century."
In accordance with the President's instruction that the new ICY Committee should be under the chairmanship of the Department of State, Secretary Rusk has designated Harlan Cleveland, Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, as Chairman.
The Committee will organize a concentrated agency-by-agency study of U.S. participation in international cooperative activities. Recommendations for new areas of cooperation and for strengthening or expanding existing international machinery will be put before a White House conference on international cooperation late in 1965. The Committee also will suggest ways to increase public understanding of the scope and effectiveness of U.S. activities in the international field.
The Cabinet Committee will work in close cooperation with the United Nations Association of the United States of America, which has agreed at U.S. Government request to coordinate ICY programs of nongovernmental organizations formally affiliated with the United Nations as well as those of other national organizations wishing to take part in the observance of International Cooperation Year.
The U.S. program is part of a worldwide observance of International Cooperation Year, 1965, called for by a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly in 1963.
Members of the Cabinet Committee in addition to the chairman are: Mrs. Dorothy H. Jacobson, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for International Affairs; Hollis B. Chenery, Assistant Administrator for Programs, Agency for International Development; John G. Palfrey, Commissioner, Atomic Energy Commission; Thomas G. Wyman, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Domestic and International Business; John T. McNaughton, Assistant Secretary of De fense for International Security Affairs; Raymond B. Maloy, Assistant Administrator for International Aviation Affairs, Federal Aviation Agency; Lee Loevinger, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission; James M. Quigley, Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare; Henry P. Caulfield, Jr., Director, Resources Program Staff, Interior Department; Norbert A. Schlei, Assistant Attorney General; George L-P Weaver, Assistant Secretary of Labor for International Labor Affairs; A. W. Frutkin, Assistant Administrator for International Programs, National Aeronautics and Space Administration ; Arthur Roe, Office of International Scientific Activities, National Science Foundation; Warren W. Wiggins, Associate Director, Peace Corps; William J. Hartigan, Assistant Postmaster General; Merlyn N. Trued, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; Thomas C. Sorensen, Deputy Director, U.S. Information Agency; and Francis T. P. Plimpton, Deputy U.S. Representative to the United Nations.
The commission consists of over 200 prominent citizens and has organized itself into 28 substantive committees, with counterpart