« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
the door to disarmament open. On the contrary, this resolution is a positive call for the establishment of what is known as “disarmament" as the law of the land. This resolution does not "express the will of the Congress” that all nations should submit to the rule of international law," but proposes that the United States take steps to place its own interests, and those of its own citizens, in the hands of an international court that is not bound by the narrow strictures of the Bill of Rights, and that owes no allegiance to the carefully set precedents of American jurisprudence, but is free to exercise all the prejudices and political impulses of a world that is oblivious to the constitutional and traditional rights of our citizens. Such a court is unlikely to provide the quality of justice that is demanded by our own Constitution, to say the least, but, even worse, it is proposed in other quarters that it be allowed to determine its own jurisdiction, through the repeal of the Connally reservation. In effect, to vote for this resolution is to go on record in favor of not only the repeal of the Connally reservation, which protects American citizens against arbitrary rulings of the World Court, but it is to vote for the passage of the Genocide Treaty, the creation of an international military force with no guarantee of civilian control, and even the adoption of unilateral disarmament of the United States, since there is no way to implement the truly effective controls against deception that are necessary, as proven by the history of the Geneva discussions, even if disarmament were constitutional.
SOVIET THREAT TO PEACE
True, the Soviet Union has, by coincidence, made new offers at Geneva. At the same time, we note, it has paraded its military might, including a new giant ballistic missile, through the streets of Moscow.
At the same time, it has made delivery of new antiaircraft SAM missiles to the North Vietnamese.
At the same time, it has attempted the subversion of yet another Western Hemisphere nation.
At the same time, it prepares the subversion of still another: Colombia.
At the same time, its agents take part in student demonstrations and "teach-ins” on the campuses and in the streets of America, while its puppet East German army violates the Berlin wall.
At the same time, its engineers struggle to establish military platforms in space.
Liberty Lobby knows that there is more than coincidence in these events. The tactical and strategic principles of psychological warfare are not secrets. They are there, in the textbooks, for all to read; and the American people are today the subjects of a psychological warfare offensive of which this resolution is an important part, though its sponsors be not aware of its role.
Students of the manipulation of public opinion know this about psychological warfare : Acceptance of a previously unacceptable proposal can be obtained by a twofold approach which, first, creates an atmosphere of confusion, despair, and apprehension and, second, quickly offers the distasteful program as the only workable alternative to impending disaster * * * 'a "single ray of hope" so to speak. That
5 Ibid., line 2.
such a distasteful program is not an alternative at all but merely an ultimate objective, is a point lost to the target audience through preconditioning achieved by the confusion, despair, and apprehension previously promulgated.
Is the American public being subjected to such confusion and despair? Liberty Lobby offers that confusion is currently being widely and rapidly disseminated on the campuses of this country, and in other centers of informed public opinion, through a guise known as “teachins.” This program, which is progressing in a separate but parallel course as the resolution before us, is exploiting the sudden flareups in the cold war whose timing is curiously propitious to the whole of the disarmament movement. We are also well aware of the plans to further confuse the issue by acts of civil disobedience, staged by pacifist groups seeking to prove the Government's inability to cope with the problem of international unrest.
Liberty Lobby trusts that the Congress will strengthen the resistance of the American people by rejecting this resolution.
The witnesses who have appeared before your committee this morning have unanimously commended this resolution for stimulating planning efforts on the part of the United States, but this resolution, as we read it, calls for action—not planning alone. It calls for the President to propose certain actions for the Congress consideration and for the consideration of the United Nations.
It is our feeling that this action, if carried out by the Congress as it is stated in this resolution, would be an unconstitutional surrender of American independence in its true meaning, and that in order to achieve the actions called for under this resolution, a constitutional amendment would be called for.
My statement includes a detailed indictment of Soviet actions of recent days and weeks. My statement points out that these actions, on the surface, tend to add a sense of urgency to this resolution and to the desire of all peoples to achieve some way out of the impending crisis that appears about us.
However, should we not consider the consequences arising if the Soviets should suddenly agree to everything that is proposed in this resolution?. Would we not then be faced with one of the toughest decisions this Nation has ever had to make? Should we, by the terms of this resolution, give up a portion of our sovereignty because the Soviet Union was willing to do so, and completely ignore the existence of Red China ?
I really feel that this is one of the great dangers that we are overlooking
What would the consequences be if the Soviets are simply building up to a crescendo of tension designed to suddenly overcome resistance in the United States to the surrender of national sovereignty, or some portion of it-only to suddenly extend the handclasp of peace and expect us to join with them in giving up our arms and establishing some world peace force, all the while however, leaving Red China on the outside complete with nuclear armament looking down our throats? It is that point which I would like to call to the attention of this committee and to thereby close my statement.
Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Hicks. We appreciate your coming in here to help us.
Our next witness is Mrs. Richard B. Persinger, for the National Board of the Young Women's Christian Association.
Mrs. Persinger, we will have your statement printed in full in the record.
Will you please proceed in your own way.
STATEMENT OF MRS. RICHARD B. PERSINGER, IN BEHALF OF THE
NATIONAL BOARD OF THE YOUNG WOMEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION
Mrs. PERSINGER. Senator Clark, we are very glad to be here. I would like to take issue with a couple of statements by other witnesses and suggest an addition to your resolution which I think would strengthen it greatly in view of the facts as they are.
My organization, the YWCA, maintains liaison with the United Nations. I hold that office presently. The YWCA has been doing research in the need for planning for peace and the requirements for peace for 50 years. I would like to suggest that the complaint made here this morning that some of the agencies of Government in charge of planning for peace needs to be strengthened really might better be a complaint that the support in the Congress which they are given needs to be strengthened. This would, in fact, strengthen them.
Senator CLARK. You are absolutely right, and that is why we are holding these hearings, to try to persuade some of our colleagues that the search for peace is not a futile gesture and escape.
Mrs. PERSINGER. This is our reason for commending this resolution and for wanting to support it.
ARMS CONTROL AGENCY NEEDS MORE SUPPORT
The Disarmament Agency has all it needs, it seems to me, except for procedural problems which have been thrown in its way, to do a first-class job, and I think it has in the proposals submitted, as you mentioned before, to the 18-Nation Disarmament Commission back in 1962. But they feel that they are working with all kinds of problems, and chief among them, it seems to me, is lack of support not only in their own branch of government but in the legislative branch.
I find in talking to members of the executive branch that they are extremely cautious and I would say sometimes even frightened as to what the reaction to their proposals will be in the legislature.
Senator Clark. And, of course, their concern is justified. If you had the dubious privilege of sitting in on some executive sessions when the Disarmament Agency people appeared before this committee, you would indeed be startled at the lack of support for the objectives which they are required by law to carry out. It appears to be in certain areas, I guess that is as far as I should go, perhaps farther than I should
Mrs. PERSINGER. It seems to us that this resolution should be passed right away just as Mr. Eichelberger suggested. We realize it won't, but we want to urge very prompt reporting and passage in view of the fact that the United Nations Disarmament Commission is meeting now in New York. This is the big parent body, as you know, of the 18Nation Committee, which is much more effective and businesslike, and
may be called into sessions by the commission if there is enough support from member governments.
It seems to me that this resolution could give that support, because it almost paraphrases in vague outline the proposals which have been made by our Government to the 18 nations, members of the 18-Nation Commission. These proposals are extremely specific, extremely detailed. They are in general exactly what you are asking for in this resolution. It seems to me that our negotiators need the kind of support which congressional backing could give them and then we might see some action.
Senator CLARK. You know the terrible time we had getting the partial test ban treaty ratified in the Senate.
Mrs. PERSINGER. Oh, yes; we worked on that very hard. Senator CLARK. That was an extended period of labor. I agree with everything you say, so why should I interrupt any further.
Mrs. PERSINGER. I won't go on then saying things with which we know you agree, so I would like to say something with which you may not.
It seems to me that section 2(5) should be amended to include the possibility of using United Nations machinery as presently constituted. You have excluded this possibility at a time of growing public hysteria, it seems to me, over charter revision. I don't believe that the charter is in all that need of being revised. It seems to me that the political crisis in the General Assembly is similar to that produced by a Senate filibuster, and we certainly don't suggest changing the entire structure of the U.S. Government just because the Senate can't do business, and certainly these occasions have
Senator CLARK. Sometimes I think we should.
Mrs. PERSINGER. So I would like to suggest that we haven't really tried hard enough, that the institutions and instrumentalities of the United Nations are in constant evolution, that they grow as we use them. Without their use, they atrophy.
Therefore, I would like to suggest that you include in section 2 or perhaps as another item the use of the United Nations machinery, fuller use of United Nations machinery.
I would also like to suggest under the section on tribunals that the World Court is exactly the instrument you are calling for except that the United States has disqualified itself from full participation in the decisions of the Court through the Connally reservation.
Senator CLARK, Let me interrupt to say, Mrs. Persinger, that while you are in part right that the Connally reservation should be repealed, I certainly go along with you there, the World Court has a very limited jurisdiction. It has no jurisdiction over political problems, for example, and what was intended in that part of the resolution where you refer to other international institutions necessary to the enforcement of world peace under the rule of law, we had in mind things like mediation, conciliation, courts of equity, other expansions of international jurisprudence which should be broader in terms than the more legalistic concept of the World Court.
Mrs. PERSINGER. I certainly agree. I would only like to suggest that we really are not able to use even that property, and that a first step is required. We are unlikely to get further tribunals without having used this one.
Senator CLARK. The problem there is to get the votes.
Mrs. PERSINGER. And a move to repeal the Connally reservation certainly seems to me to be a first step in this direction.
MORE CONTACT NEEDED BETWEEN CONGRESS AND THE U.N.
Before my time is up, I would like to suggest that this morning's comments, both from the Senator and from the witnesses, suggest to me that there is a deplorable lack of communication between the legislative branch and what is actually going on in the United Nations. It seems to me that if there were some way of keeping in closer touch other than doing a lot of homework which people don't have time to do, that there would be more confidence in the ability of this instrumentality to meet our needs and the pursuing of our own interests.
For example, meetings are going on in the Committee of 33. The committee to study peacekeeping
operations is meeting morning, noon, and night in New York now. They are considering extremely sensitive proposals. Our negotiations need the support of every branch of the Government, and understanding what they are about and what they really are trying to do seems to me to be essential to this kind of support.
In closing, I want to thank you, again, and ask you to try to get this committee to realize that its support of this kind of activity on the part of our Government, negotiations within the U.N. body, is far, far more imporant than people here seem to realize from the point of view of those of us who are out looking in both directions. It can almost be said that without it nothing will happen and we will face the kind of results which some of the witnesses have predicted without such measures as the resolution before you.
Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Mrs. Persinger.
Speaking as one member of the committee, I am in complete accord with what you say, and I hope that the other four members of the committee who are among the 26 cosponsors of the resolution will agree that we need to press the committee pretty hard.
(The prepared statement referred to follows:)
STATEMENT IN BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL BOARD OF THE YOUNG WOMEN'S
Mr. Chairman, I am Mrs. Richard B. Persinger, of 26 Judson Avenue, Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., a member of the National Board of the Young Women's Christian Association which has headquarters at 600 Lexington Avenue, New York City. I am also the YWCA's observer at the United Nations.
The National Board appreciates this opportunity to offer its views on Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 on planning for peace, a subject in which the YWCA is deeply interested. In fact, last year at the most recent national YWCA convention, representatives of 242 million members, meeting in Cleveland, Ohio, stated that "the values cherished by women, indeed by all people of good will, depend primarily upon the maintenance of world peace. We believe that the most effective way of assuring this is by strengthening international machinery for collaborative effort and for the settlement of differences without recourse to war.”
That convention further pledged the YWCA to support efforts to strengthen the United Nations and its related and specialized agencies. Both through the U.N. and our own Government we seek to achieve the following basic goals:
1. Agreements by all nations for the control and limitation, under proper safeguards, of armaments and nuclear testing.
2. The development and control of nuclear power for peaceful purposes.