« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
PLANNING FOR PEACE
WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 1965
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,
The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m. in room 4221, New Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph S. Clark presiding.
Present: Senators Clark, Gore, and Pell.
Senator CLARK. The committee will be in session.
We have a list of perhaps 10 or a dozen witnesses this morning, and we want to give everybody an opportunity to be adequately heard. We would appreciate it, since all formal statements will be printed in full in the record, if each witness would attempt to summarize and hit the highlights of their statements rather than reading them.
I hope that several other Senators on the committee will be showing up. I certainly have a few questions I would like to ask some of the witnesses.
Our first witness this morning will be Mr. Stanley M. Andrews, chairman of Americans for National Security.
Mr. Andrews, let me express my appreciation to you for being willing to stand aside yesterday and come back today. For those of us on the Hill I remember when you were working for a distinguished member of this committee, Mr. Lausche, and we are happy to have you with us.
Will you please proceed in your own way.
STATEMENT OF STANLEY M. ANDREWS, CHAIRMAN, AMERICANS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will probably stick rather close to my statement except when I discuss the development of the letters which you received yesterday.
I am the Reverend Stanley M. Andrews, chairman of Americans for National Security. We have appeared before this committee on a number of occasions including the hearings on the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the various authorization hearings relating to the work of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
Senator CLARK. Dr. Andrews, would you mind stating for the record your denomination and the general organization and membership of Americans for National Security.
Mr. ANDREWS. Yes, surely. I am acting moderator of the Conservative Baptist Alliance, and as a matter of fact, Senator, at the present time my group is purchasing a new church in nearby Maryland.
Americans for National Security is a clearinghouse and a coordinating center such as you suggested is needed for the peace organization. We strive to do that for groups opposed to the Disarmament Agency. Senator CLARK. I imagine in that connection you work fairly closely with the Liberty Lobby.
Mr. ANDREWS. Yes, we have.
Senator CLARK. Which testified here yesterday.
Mr. ANDREWS. Yes; we have. We send out when we have mailingswhich are not on a regular basis-but when we send out mailings, we reach some 130,000 people.
Senator CLARK. And could you give us just a rough idea of your annual budget?
Mr. ANDREWS. I could not do that. I have an arrangement-in fact the arrangement was made when I went with them-that I would have nothing to do with the financing of it.
Senator CLARK. I see, but you work for them on a salary.
Mr. ANDREWS. That is right.
Senator CLARK. Thank you, sir. Please proceed.
ARMAMENTS HELP MAINTAIN WORLD PEACE
Mr. ANDREWS. Today, we are speaking in opposition to Senate Concurrent Resolution 32. Once again we are faced with the problem of the best means of maintaining peace in our times. The proponents of this resolution would have you believe that the piling up of arms by the United States is a major factor in the present world crisis. Actually, history points out to the discerning that rather than arms, it has been the desire of nations to expand their physical borders, to enrich the nation by seeking another nation's natural resources, that has brought nations into bloody conflict with one another. Significantly only nations which were adequately militarily prepared have been able to repulse the land and economic grabs, made under the guise of war. It is for this reason that AFNS has consistently opposed legislative attempts to reduce the military strength of the United States. Past history demonstrates the fact that predatory nations do not attack nations which are militarily strong and prepared.
The resolution now before this committee can best be characterized as too much too soon. It is too much because it calls for the setting up of new international machinery. Already our Government is spending $150 million a year on the United Nations. Already there is a disarmament organization within the framework of the United States. This resolution can be pointed out as a good example of Parkinson's Law. It would merely add more organizations, more machinery, more employees, and more expense.
This resolution would call for the President to formulate specific proposals for the establishment of an international authority to keep the peace under condition of general and complete disarmament. The American people have seen already the peril of depending on international authorities to move promptly and effectively against threats to peace. Cuba, Vietnam, and Santo Domingo are all examples where the United States has had to take unilateral action first, while the in
ternational organizations to maintain peace debated and delayed effective action. Also inherent in this proposal is the surrender of national sovereignty to an international authority which would have power to make and enforce its decisions regardless of the desires of nationals of a particular nation.
Again, this resolution in calling for specific proposals from the President ignores the fact that already before the Geneva Conference lies the American proposals for general disarmament. Since 1962 the 118 nations have had this proposal. It has been stalemated, not by the United States, but by the Soviet and its allies who resist firmly any attempts to impose strict inspection of armaments within its area of interests. President Kennedy once said:
(February 7, 1962) We will support the passage of an effective treaty which provides for effective inspection, but we cannot take less.
Of course, we did take less and the unexplained nuclear explosion in Soviet territory last year proves that we should not have taken less than a real inspection system.
A friend of AFNS wrote to the Department of State concerning the Geneva proposals for complete disarmament. In a letter of April 16, 1965, he states:
I am further advised by the State Department that conditions such as these make general and complete disarmament unrealistic of achievement in today's world, as the executive branch itself realizes.
Senator CLARK. May I interrupt for a moment?
Mr. ANDREWs. Surely.
Senator CLARK. Is that letter from a friend of the AFNS?
Mr. ANDREWS. That is right.
Senator CLARK. It is not from the State Department.
Mr. ANDREWS. It is quoting a letter from the State Department. I have the original here of the letter.
Senator CLARK. I just want to be clear, Mr. Andrews. Who is he, the friend of AFNS?
Mr. ANDREWs. That is right.
Senator CLARK. The subquote is from the State Department.
Mr. ANDREWS. That is right.
Senator CLARK. Thank you.
Mr. ANDREWS. If this reflects the view of the executive branch, then certainly all of this resolution is "too much," "too soon."
Of course this testimony as you know, Senator, was written prior to the receipt by your committee of the letters from the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency or the Department of State yesterday.
Senator CLARK. Mr. Andrews, I would very much appreciate it, if you do not think it is a violation of confidence, if you could get your friend to send the committee the name of the individual in the State Department who signed that letter.
Mr. ANDREWS. Senator, I have already written for that, because I would like to know, too.
Senator CLARK. Would you let the committee have the benefit of what you find out?
Mr. ANDREWS. I certainly will.
FINANCIAL BURDEN OF INTERNATIONAL PEACE FORCE
Mr. ANDREWS. And I will see that you get a direct reply.
This resolution suggests that the President propose an international permanent world peace force. The world has not yet recovered from the U.N. peace force in the Congo, where cross purposes and intrigue between the world powers created chaos and death to many. Small peace forces in Cyprus and the Arab resettlement area, made up of volunteer units of several governments, demonstrate that under some circumstances these can serve a useful purpose. Yet the maintenance of even these troops has given the U.N. a financial burden which threatens to bankrupt that organization. To this very hour the Soviets have not paid their share of this expense, and if newspaper reports are true, our Government has now abandoned all efforts to make the Soviets pay up. Under these known facts, do the proponents of this resolution suggest that the United States pay the Soviet's share in some future U.N. peace force venture?
The resolution calls for the establishment of world tribunals to settle all international disputes that cannot be settled by negotiations. We ask-Would the Soviets come before such a world tribunal willingly to face charges of welshing on their U.N. obligations? It is absurd to think they would deny their own national sovereignty and come before such a tribunal. Nor would Red China recognize any such world tribunal.
The fourth suggestion which this resolution makes to the President is that he consider other international institutions necessary for the enforcement of world peace under the rule of law.
Frankly, I do not know, nor have the sponsors of the resolution spelled out, what this means. What other institutions are needed for enforcement? What enforcement power or agency would be needed besides the proposed International Peace Force? The resolution is not only vague in this case, it leaves a vacuum of ideas.
Senator CLARK. Mr. Andrews, I would suggest the answers to your questions might be found if you were to peruse the draft treaty of general and complete disarmament which has been tabled by the United States at the 18-nation Geneva Conference. I think you would find the answer to most of your questions in that treaty.
Mr. ANDREWS. Senator you said yesterday-if you will forgive me for quoting you that treaty proposal was so full of holes that you could drive a beer truck through.
Senator CLARK. It is indeed, and I think I was right.
Mr. ANDREWS. I think you are, too.
Senator CLARK. But I think nevertheless you will find the answers to your questions in the treaty.
Mr. ANDREWS. All right.
MORE U.S. FUNDS FOR U.N. OPPOSED
The fifth proposal suggests that the President press for changes in the U.N. Charter to set up more reliable financial arrangements for peacemaking machinery. I think I have already touched on this general problem of finance. I must point out, however, that many organizations interested in this general problem are definitely opposed