Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

(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 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.

I do not believe that the passage of this resolution should be construed as interference with the prerogatives of the Executive or as a criticism of President Johnson. The proposal made by the President in his address at Johns Hopkins University on April 7 for negotiation of the Vietnam problem without preconditions, indicates his deep desire for peaceful settlement of that conflict. In the meantime, I can only express my admiration for his firm resolve to resist aggression in the Far East. Aggression by overt attack or subversive infiltration cannot be allowed to exist anywhere in the world without encouraging further acts of aggression and lawlessness. But our objectives in resisting such aggression should be clearly and repeatedly spelled out, and we should constantly reexamine our own motives, our own prejudices and selfish interests, as well as those of others. Certainly the problem of policing the world cannot rest on our shoulders alone. At the same time that we are resisting aggression in the field, and are continuing to spell out our ultimate objectives, we should be devoting an all-out effort toward completely rebuilding the United Nations to make it capable of taking over this and other police actions. This may take years to do, but our country should be in the forefront of efforts toward this end.

If we do not press forward with concrete proposals for the United Nations with power to enact, interpret, and enforce world law in matters of aggression and disarmament, the people of the world may be led to believe that the United States is interested in becoming a benevolent arbiter of all the world's conflicts and ills, with a grandiose concept of U.S. infallibility. On the contrary, I believe our objectives should be to challenge the other nations of the world to participate in a realistic joint effort to outlaw war and aggression.

The President has already recommended Senate ratification of two minor amendments to the United Nations Charter enlarging the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council. These amendments are, I believe, of minor nature in recognition of the increased membership in the U.N. and should be approved promptly. Enactment of S. Res. 32 would give the President confidence of Senate support for much more basic structural changes. I am talking, of course, about the great power veto, the matter of representation in the General Assembly, the questions of mandatory jurisdiction of the World Court (in specific areas), a permanent United Nations police force, and adequate means of financial support. To my mind this means a limited governmental structure enforceable not only against governments, but against individuals, carefully limited to specific areas of aggression, war and disarmament. History shows us that government has been the only practical means to secure peace over any reasonable period of time. Let us begin to propose this realistic, practical, and historically proven solution to conflict, and let the chips fall where they may as to whether or not and how soon others will accept it. Certainly it will never be accepted, understood, or even debated, until some world power seriously proposes it. In the meantime, men and nations will continue to pour lives and treasure into futile and repetitious violence and war, while proclaiming earnestly that all we desire is peace.

We, in Missouri, are proud of the part that our own Senator Long has played in cosponsoring and supporting this resolution to the end that we may, together, arrive at a more satisfactory solution to the overriding problem of our age, international war.

I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you, and will be happy to try and answer any questions you may have.

EXHIBITI

RESOLUTION BY BOARD OF CHRISTIAN SOCIAL CONCERNS REGARDING PEACE AND

WORLD ORDER

Whereas the Methodist position on peace and world order, as set forth in paragraph 2024 of “The Discipline," calls for universal and complete disarmament, enforcible under law, preferably by a revised United Nations given the authority to enact, interpret and enforce world law to prevent aggression and war, be it

Resolved by the Missouri East Annual Conference, meeting at Fayette on June 11, 1964, That this Methodist position is substantially reflected in the

"Planning for Peace” resolution (S. Con. Res. 64 and H. Res. Nos. 218 et seq.), the operative clauses of which read as follows:

“Section 1. That the President should be supported in his efforts to achieve general and complete disarmament under legally effective controls and to develop international institutions capable of keeping the peace during and after disarmament.

"Section 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.

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

“Section 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.” and that the secretary of this annual conference be instructed to write Senator Symington and to Congressmen Curtis, Karsten, Sullivan, Jones, and Ichord, asking their support for the “Planning for Peace” resolution; to the chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee asking that hearings be held on the resolution ; and to Senator Edward V. Long expressing appreciation of his leadership in being 1 of 20 Senators who originally introduced the resolution.

EXHIBIT II

SAVE AND STRENGTHEN THE UNITED NATIONS : A DECLARATION The year 1965 may mark not only the 20th anniversary of the founding of the U.N. but also the beginning of its destruction. Either the nations and peoples of the world will revive the United Nations in 1965—or they will bury it, and with it the best hopes of humanity for survival in the nuclear age. And if the U.N. is allowed to die, mankind will have to create another world organization to take its place.

The U.N. is in peril for one simple, tragic reason: it was not made strong enough at San Francisco in 1945, nor has this been done in the intervening years.

The United Nations can live only if it is granted independent life-only if it is endowed in its own right with the necessary capacity to establish and preserve the peace. The U.N. does not now have that strength. It is allowed to act only with the consent of the nations affected by its actions.

The peoples of the world deserve something better than to live in constant dread of world war III. With the development of mainland China's nuclear device, the people of the world can only hope that the necessity for universal, enforcible world law will become too plain to be disregarded. They can only hope that the recent spectacle of the United Nations, unable to collect its dues, to decide its issues, indeed to vote at all on any question, will so shock the consciences of the member nations that they will at last act to strengthen the U.N. The people of the world can only hope that this is the darkest hour just before the dawn.

Yet hope is not enough.

Twenty years ago mankind wrote its hope for peace into the United Nations. That was before the first atomic bomb exploded in Hiroshima. After that event, mankind's hope for peace and for survival itself-has rested primarily in the United Nations despite its weaknesses.

Today—20 years later and in the midst of International Cooperation Yearthose weaknesses have been revealed by the General Assembly's recent display of importance. Either the United Nations will be strengthened or it will wither away.

The hour is at hand for a true world statesman to arise and speak for man, to say that his nation is ready to vest in the United Nations sufficient peacekeeping power to prevent the existing world situation from plunging mankind into the disaster of world war III. It is time for a world statesman to challenge all nations to propose the kind of United Nations that could effectively police peace and render justice.

Now is the time for some nation to define the terms under which the United Nations could survive and develop.

As Methodists, we have, through the united voice of the general conference, affirmed that “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.”

As Americans, we cherish such a role of world statesmanship for the President of the United States. Presented with what may well be the ultimate challenge of the ages of man, he would speak not only for this Nation but would voice the hope of all mankind.

Adopted by the Bishop's Assembly on Peace and World Order, Columbia, Mo., April 10, 1965.

METHODIST CONCERN FOR PEACE

Mr. HARDY. I might start by identifying myself. I am president of the Hardy Salt Co. in St. Louis, Mo. I have long been concerned with the problem of peace, which I feel is basically in its essential elements a problem of law which this resolution is directed toward. It has long appeared to me that the United Nations in its peacekeeping functions as set out in the charter, has been inadequate, and as a businessman, it sort of seemed to me like trying to run a business on 100 percent borrowed money, or without an accounting department. You could get along for a while, but eventually it is going to catch up

with you.

I think that there has been a lack of attention on the part of the American people to the basic considerations of the essential elements of peacekeeping, and this has bothered me considerably. I have worked in my church, and I was particularly pleased some years ago to see the basic position that the Methodist Church has taken on this subject, not only recently but over a period of years. As you may know, the Methodist Church holds a quadrennial general conference, and just to quote from the position of the church at the last conference in 1964 in Pittsburgh, the statement concludes:

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.

This seems to me to be a very basic statement and one which I heartily endorse. It seemed to me that with this position of the church, there was an opportunity to bring discussion to members of the church through greater awareness of this.

As a businessman, I do not have time to devote to this, and the idea was conceived to bring a pilot project to Missouri wherein we would hire a full-time director of peace education to work among our 800 churches. I was encouraged by my minister in this and by the general board of Christian social concerns of the church were in Washington. So this idea was brought to our two annual conferences in

Missouri, the Missouri east and the Missouri west conferences, 2 years ago and was voted in, and the project was launched.

It was financed partly by special donations and partly through conference support. Bishop Frank, our Missouri bishop of the church, appointed an area committee for peace education which was the administering agency. We were most fortunate, I think, in finding a man to fill this position in James P. Speer II. He was a Methodist from Albuquerque, N. Mex. He had been a foreign service officer with the State Department in China, Peru, and other countries. He was in business in Albuquerque but had been thinking along the same lines and was ready to bring his family to Missouri to take up fulltime work in this field.

Our project concludes on June 15 of this year, and during this time Mr. Speer has given over 500 talks throughout Missouri, stimulating discussion among Methodist people. He has taken pulpits; he has addressed retreats; he has publuished a newsletter of over 4,000 circulation in our 800 churches. He has prepared a film strip. He has organized institutes on peace and world order in Kansas City, Springfield, and St. Louis where top speakers address Methodists on this subject. He has published some six articles in Methodist publications. He has inspired us to bring deputations to Congressmen to discuss the subject.

Following the first year of this program, the two annual conferences in Missouri endorsed the uniting for peace resolution which is our subject this morning. Jim Speers' report to the East Missouri Conference on the program I think is worthy of note, and I would like to quote from his report which he just recently made.

The peace education program has been received with much apathy, considerable support, and occasional opposition There is, however, consensus that nations must give up the right and the ability to make war and accept enforceable world law under a restructured U.N.

A month ago we held in Columbia, Mo., a bishop's assembly on peace and world order addressed again by top-level speakers. Dr. Presley McCoy of the Danforth Foundation, which has done so much in the field of education, Dr. Eisendrath of Kansas City, a psychologist who spoke on the psychopathy of war, Dr. Vernon Nash of Santa Barbara, Calif., and by Senator Long of Missouri.

At the conclusion of this meeting a month ago, a declaration was issued, and I would like to just quote a couple of paragraphs from it, the declaration on the United Nations.

The hour is at hand for a true world statesman to arise and speak for man, to say that his nation is ready to vest in the United Nations sufficient peacekeeping power to prevent the existing world situation from plunging mankind into the disaster of World War III. It is time for a world statesman to challenge all nations to propose the kind of United Nations that could effectively police peace and render justice.

Now is the time for some nation to define the terms under which the United Nations could survive and develop.

As Methodists, we have, through the united voice of the general conference, affirmed that “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."

As Americans, we cherish such a role of world statesmanship for the President of the United States. Presented with what may well be the ultimate challenge of the ages of man, he would speak not only for this Nation but would voice the hope of all mankind.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »