Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

5. Financial support for the U.N. which recognizes the obligation of all member states of the U.N. to contribute their fair share in the financing of its operations and to abide by the decisions of the authorized and appropriate U.N. bodies on all

matters regarding the expenditure of the funds.

These are not new positions for the YWCA. Our records show that the YWCA was the first national voluntary organization to call for U.S. entry into the League of Nations. For the past 20 years, we have vigorously urged the full use and support by our Government of United Nations machinery. We have continuously backed efforts by the United States to achieve disarmament under proper safeguards, including public support for the limited nuclear test ban treaty.

We hailed the establishment of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and have followed with interest and approval the steps referred to in the preamble of Senate Concurrent Resolution 32, particularly the proposals of the United States contained in the provisions of a Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World, presented to the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee on April 18, 1962, in Geneva. You are aware that these proposals, as subsequently amended, contain a detailed elaboration of a program such as the resolution before you sketches in vague outline. We therefore welcome this resolution and commend its sponsors for their desire to lend the prestige and practical benefits of congressional encouragement to the supremely importa need for peacekeeping machinery. It is generally agreed that no effort can be spared to develop and strengthen the institutions this resolution calls for if the proliferation of nuclear power is to be arrested and the danger of world destruction diminished.

Prompt action on Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 would be particularly timely as a spur to the convening of the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee, so much smaller, more workable, and businesslike than its parent body, the United Nations Disarmament Committee, now meeting in New York. As the foreign relations arm of Congress, the Senate could in this way also encourage the work of the Special Committee on Peace-Keeping Operations, which is in session morning, noon, and night at the United Nations. This Committee, charged with finding solutions to the problems which produced the political impasse in the Nineteenth General Assembly, could be moved forward in its deliberations by the knowledge that our representatives have the full backing of the Congress if they advance proposals undergirded by this resolution.

In behalf of the YWCA, which has continuously urged the fullest possible use of the United Nations agencies, may I suggest amending section 2(5), in order not to exclude the possibility that effective international machinery for the purposes enumerated can be developed within the framework of the United Nations as presently constituted.

The issues behind the political crisis in the Nineteenth General Assembly are well known to this committee. May I submit that the United Nations may be no more in need of reorganization as a result of the General Assembly's failure this spring to complete its agenda than is the United States after a protracted Senate filibuster United Nations machinery is naturally developing with use and will atrophy if it is bypassed. Discarding it before it is truly tried, seeking new institutions before allowing those we have to serve provide no experience for building new mechanisms which can consequently be no more effective than the old.

As an example, the resolution calls for the development of world tribunals. Let the first step be the repeal of the “Connally reservation” to U.S. participation in the World Court. The YWCA opposed the passage of this crippling amendment and continues to urge its repeal.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 would have other governments formulate similar recommendations. This committee could demonstrate the good faith of the United States by amending the resolution to include the fullest possible use by our Government of United Nations machinery before suggesting charter revision or a new treaty.

Again, may I thank the committee for this opportunity to be heard on a subject which for 50 years the YWCA has held to be of the utmost importance. Congressional reinforcement and active furthering of the program described in the resolution before you as it is actually being put forward by U.S. representatives can make the difference between success or failure of the negotiations; indeed, success or failure of the institutions which support them, and life or death for us all.

Senator CLARK. Our next witness is Mr. William Huntington, of New York, for the Friends Committee on National Legislation.

Mr. Huntington, we are happy to have you here. Your statement will be printed in full in the record. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. HUNTINGTON, ON BEHALF OF THE

AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE AND THE FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION; ACCOMPANIED BY EDWARD F. SNYDER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

Mr. HUNTINGTON. Thank you, Senator Clark. Out of respect for the time, I will only refer to certain excerpts in my statement.

My name is William R. Huntington, of 247 East 48th Street, New York City. I am director of the Quaker United Nations Program, which is the channel of Quaker representation at the United Nations. I am appearing today in behalf of the American Friends Service Committee and the Friends Committee on National Legislation.

I believe that the executive secretary, Mr. Edward Snyder, who is with me needs no introduction.

Senator CLARK. We are happy to have you here, too.

STEPS REQUIRED TO OUTLAW WAR

Mr. HUNTINGTON. No Quaker committee may claim to speak for all members of the Society of Friends, but the committees cited above and many individual Friends who support these bodies all share a faith that human society is capable of achieving and maintaining a state of peace, that this can be done on the international or world level as it has already so widely been done on local levels. Within national boundaries violence has been outlawed as an acceptable method of resolving disputes; Friends—Quakers—are among the ever-growing body of citizens who believe that war likewise can and will be outlawed effectively. It is for this reason that we support the organization which the peoples of the United Nations have established, out of their determination"to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," to maintain international peace and security. It is for the same reason that I appear today to support this concurrent resolution introduced by Senator Joseph S. Clark, of Pennsylvania, and 25 other Senators relative to planning for peace.

My associate in the Quaker United Nations Program, Robert H. Cory, appearing before your committee on April 29, 1965, in support of the pending amendments to the U.N. Charter, read three paragraphs from the 1956 Statement of Legislative Policy of the Friends Committee on National Legislation on supporting and improving the United Nations. I will not take your time to repeat these here, but they can be referred to as relevant background for this testimony today.

One of the greatest weaknesses in U.S. foreign policy is the lack of adequate planning for peace. Because of its leading world position, our country has been unable to escape involvement in successive crises in world affairs. Our Nation's leaders have been so preoccupied with short-term policies and ad hoc measures demanded by such crises that they have not taken the time or set aside the relatively small

[blocks in formation]

amount of funds necessary to plan for peace. Foresight, advance precautions, and adequate preparation can and should both'minimize the likelihood of the occurrence of crises and enable our Nation's leaders to deal practically with them when they come.

We took a big step when, with the other victorious nations, after the grim lesson of World War II, we set up the United Nations. But in spite of all the support the United States has given this organization we have not provided enough political strength and authority to enable it to keep the peace. I do not need to quote here the headlines and news stories of the past week about our involvement in Vietnam and the Dominican Republic. The President's own words succinctly point out our failure, even in this 20th year of the United Nations, in the task of making the U.N. the instrument for peacekeeping it was meant to be. In his message to Congress May 4, 1956, speaking of our engagement in Vietnam, he said:

There are those who ask why this responsibility should be ours. is simple. There is no one else who can do the job.

Lord Chalfont spoke eloquently with that realistic sense of urgency that does not expect immediate miraculous attainment of the goal but which insists on steady movement toward it. He had outlined the specific objectives of his government which were very similar to our

He said:

The answer

own.

END TO ARMS RACE URGED

Unless we do something to bring this mad arms race to a halt before it is too late, we may go down in history as the age in which great scientific discoveries were shamefully wasted because we could not overcome our bitterness, our pride, and our suspicion of one another. We may have to decide whether we want our children to enjoy what Winston Churchill called the “broad sunlit uplands” of a peaceful world or whether we want them to spend their lives wretchedly and painfully putting together again a civilization torn apart because we were too blind or too lazy or too cruel to preserve it. There is not as much time left as many people think.

I have also been attending the current meetings of the Special U.N. Committee of 33 on Peace Keeping Operations, to which the last witness just referred. This, as you know, is the committee set up by the General Assembly to find a solution to the crises in the United Nations, which has kept the 19th General Assembly from its normal functioning. This crises, which is regarded by many experts as the most serious the U.N. has encountered in its 20 years of existence, is the result of the lack of planning for peace of which I spoke earlier and which Concurrent Resolution 32 is designed to remedy.

Concurrent Resolution 32 refers, in its fifth preliminary paragraph, to the 14th General Assembly resolution of November 20, 1959, which adopted "the goal of general and complete disarmament under effective international control.” The General Assembly expressed the hope at that time that "measures leading toward the goal of general and complete disarmament under effective international control will be worked out in detail and agreed upon in the shortest possible time.

Though this goal is now also the avowed goal of the United States as stated in the outline submitted in April 1962 of basic provisions of the treaty on general and complete disarmament, this draft is still so sketchy and so far removed from the actual current policies that it cannot be said to affect the U.S. foreign policy in any way com

mensurate with the urgency of the task of establishing the working rules of peace. This outline treaty is indeed quite elaborate in its provision for military arms control and with regard to setting up an international disarmament organization. It is much less precise for proposals for establishing a U.N. peace force to take place of national armies and it is very general and unclear in providing for peaceful settlements of disputes.

Senator CLARK. Let me interrupt to say I completely agree with you. That is one reason why we have been pressing this resolution. That draft treaty of disarmament which has been filed for a year or two now at Geneva has holes so big you can drive beer trucks through them. The difficulty is the inability to get any consensus within our own Government as to the steps necessary to make it more effective. Now, the Russian treaties are even worse, in my opinion. They want you to agree on a principle. They can hardly state the principle before they will get down to the discussion of the details. I thoroughly agree with you that particularly in the area of enforcible world law our draft treaty of general and complete disarmament is entirely inadequate.

Mr. HUNTINGTON. We agree with you completely in it and the point is that these gaps are in the constructive side of it.

SECURITY NEEDED FOR EFFECTIVE DISARMAMENT

Senator CLARK. As you say you obviously can't disarm unless you have international security to protect the peace. If not, you will have chaos. This to my way of thinking is the great difficulty with the Russian proposal. Unless you have some enforcible world law it will be folly to disarm.

Mr. HUNTINGTON. Precisely as I have said at the top of page 4 of my statement. So that what we need is planning and we should with other nations contribute to planning with the same determination that went into the conference at San Francisco and which guided the preliminary conference which preceded it. This new planning or replanning in the specific areas might result in amendments to the United Nations Charter. It might lead to a revision of the charter. It might lead merely to new and clearer and stronger interpretations and implementations of the charter as it is.

Senator CLARK. Or it might even lead, as the resolution suggests, to the implementation of a treaty of general and complete disarmament by the major powers which have armaments, in a way which might enable us to bypass, without repudiating, the present problems which exist within the United Nations structure.

Mr. HUNTINGTON. I support the view that the last witness suggested, that provision there might be made broader, and that on line 9 page 5 it might be more flexible to read as follows:

May best be achieved through the fullest development of the possibilities of the United Nations Charter, through amendment or revision of the United Nations Charter, by a new treaty, or by more than one of these in combination.

Senator CLARK. Yes, I think that is a useful suggestion.

Mr. HUNTINGTON. The other suggestion that I would like to make, Mr. Clark, is that possibly at the beginning of section 2, line 6, on page 4, where “the President is hereby requested to formulate," would

it not be stronger to spell out that he is asked to appoint a special commission or agency--similar perhaps, to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, but separate from it, and from the Defense Department, to help him formulate proposals? As has been said here today in many comments about the Disarmament Agency, its function and its performance and as you pointed out yourself, its image has moved so close to the arms control area that it is not, it doesn't appear even to be capable of doing the job that we are talking about here.

Senator CLARK. I think perhaps the result of this hearing might be to get it back to the purposes for which it was created as set forth in the legislation which was enacted. You have also to remember that there is an Assistant Secretary of State for International Institutions, Mr. Cleveland, whose duties to some extent overlap those of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. I would be a little reluctant, speaking to some extent off the top of my head, to create still another governmental agency as opposed to attempting to put some teeth and some activity into those which we now have, and who are charged with doing just what you want.

Mr. HUNTINGTON. Perhaps then if not in a new agency you might encourage the ACDA to bring into it a group of individuals, some of those who have devoted much time and effort and thought to the task of building institutions of peace.

Senator CLARK. Perhaps we can make that suggestion to them tomorrow.

Mr. HUNTINGTON. As you gather, I urge very strongly the support of the resolution.

Thank you for the privilege of appearing before you.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Huntington, for your most helpful testimony.

(The prepared statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. HUNTINGTON, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN FRIENDS

SERVICE COMMITTEE AND THE FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION

My name is William R. Huntington, of 247 East 48th Street, New York City. I am director of the Quaker United Nations program, which is the channel of Quaker representation at the United Nations. I am appearing today in behalf of the American Friends Service Committee and the Friends Committee on National Legislation. No Quaker committee may claim to speak for all members of the Society of Friends, but the committees cited above and many individual Friends who support these bodies all share a faith that human society is capable of achieving and maintaining a state of peace, that this can be done on the international or world level as it has already so widely been done on local levels. Within national boundaries violence has been outlawed as an acceptable method of resolving disputes; Friends—Quakers—are among the ever-growing body of citizens who believe that war likewise can and will be outlawed effectively. It is for this reason that we support the organization which the peoples of the United Nations have established, out of their determination "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” to maintain international peace and security. It is for the same reason that I appear today to support this concurrent resolution introduced by Senator Joseph S. Clark of Pennsylvania and 25 other Senators relative to planning for peace.

My associate in the Quaker United Nations program, Robert H. Cory, appearing before your committee on April 29, 1965, in support of the pending amendments to the U.N. Charter, read three paragraphs from the 1965 "Statement of Legislative Policy of the Friends Committee on National Legislation” on supporting and improving the United Nations. I will not take your time to repeat these here, but they can be referred to as relevant background for this testimony today.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »