Lapas attēli

Although I am unable to make an appearance before the committee, I would appreciate having the enclosed statement included as part of the record.

Sincerely yours,




Mr. Chairman, during the past two decades we have witnessed the birth and development of a new attitude in international relations which stresses the need to overcome the divisive nationalistic tendencies that have triggered two global wars in this century.

This new realism is prompted by a series of events which have completely altered the framework of world affairs and the concepts which for so long guided our foreign policies. Foremost was the advent of atomic and hydrogen power with all the destructive force that this has put at man's command. No less important was the ideological division of the world into opposing camps and the onset of what we have come to define as the cold war. Finally paralleling these events was the dismantlement of the colonialist system and the emergence on the world scene of many newly independent nations eager to play a role in the affairs of nations.

In order to cope with these revolutionary factors, we have needed to devise methods aimed at achieving more meaningful internal cooperation to safeguard the peace of the world. The most durable and effective peacekeeping machinery established in the postwar period is the United Nations, which can now count 109 countries in its growing membership. This organization has already survived many crises, and in some it has rendered a positive and lasting contribu tion in bringing aggression to a halt.

Now, at a time when the United Nations is imperiled by a policy of financial irresponsibility on the part of certain member nations, the need to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons grows more urgent each day.

Not long ago we took the first long step in the right direction when President Kennedy succeeded in negotiating a partial nuclear test ban with the Soviet Union and other nations. Since that historic turning point, our progress toward the ultimate goal of general and complete disarmament effectively guaranteed by adequate inspection and controls, has been slow and disappointing. Nevertheless, the momentum for new initiatives remains if only we will take advantage of it.

Today we are considering a resolution that seeks to provide new impetus for the important work which has already begun. It envisions the creation of additional peace promoting agencies not to supplant existing ones but to strengthen them in their task.

No step can be taken that would endanger our security or the freedom of those nations we have pledged to defend, but no measure must be overlooked in creating a more peaceful and stable world. In this effort the major burden must rest upon the President, but the Congress can do its share in pointing to the direction that can be taken.

Senator CLARK. This concludes the testimony before the committee. The record will stand open for 10 days for further statements which may be offered and for the correction of any testimony which has been incorrectly reported. The committee will stand adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12:35 o'clock p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled proceeding was adjourned.)

(The following statements, letters, etc., were subsequently furnished for the record:)


Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Senate is again turning its attention to the urgent task of creating a responsible and secure world peace. The planning for peace resolution is, in my opinion, an important new step in the movement which gave us the test ban treaty and the U.N. bond issue, and which created the Peace Corps and the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.


As one of the original cosponsors of the resolution, I welcome these hearings. Congress has long needed this chance to take a fresh look at U.S. long-range peace policies. My friend Senator Joe Clark, the author of this resolution, has worked tirelessly and with dedication toward these hearings, and we are all very grateful to him.

First, I think it should be made clear that, in my opinion, there is nothing about this resolution which disagrees with current U.S. policy either in Vietnam or in our disarmament talks with other nations. We are in Vietnam because the objectives of this resolution have not been achieved. We are in Vietnam because the peaceful villages of South Vietnam are being attacked and overrun by aggressors supported by Hanoi and Peiping. How long the Communists will insist on aggression, I do not know. But until they stop, our forces will help the South Vietnamese people defend their freedom.

As to our present disarmament talks with other nations, the resolution is explicit :

Resolved *** 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 peace. (Sec. 1, S. Con. Res. 32.)

By passing this resolution the Senate would be supporting the administration's peace efforts. Under the leadership of President Johnson, U.S. peace efforts have continued to seek every avenue of possible agreement. The U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency has done an excellent job of convincing other countries that we are both practical and sincere in our desire for a secure world peace.

By supporting the administration's efforts we would be encouraging the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency to take more vigorous steps in developing disarmament proposals. And we would be urging the Department of State to take even longer strides toward improving U.N. peacekeeping arrangements. Second, events between 1962 and 1965 have brought new challenges and new problems which call for more detailed U.S. proposals and a clearer definition of U.S. goals. The last time the United States introduced a detailed, comprehensive proposal for peace and disarmament was on April 18, 1962. At that time we presented the "Outline of Basic Provisions of a Treaty on General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World" to the Geneva 18-Nation Disarmament Committee. It has been over 3 years since this treaty outline was introduced.

During those 3 years, the world has seen dramatic progress in the peace race: The Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the Moscow-Washington hotline direct communications link, the U.N. resolution against weapons of mass destruction in space, and the Soviet-British-American cutback in the production of fissionable material. During this 3-year period, the 18-Nation Disarmament Committee met more than 190 times to discuss many new substantive proposals. The 114-member U.N. Commission on Disarmament, which had not met since 1960, began meeting again this year on April 21. Last year, Moscow announced it might be willing to accept a peacekeeping force under the Security Council. There can be no doubt: these were active years for the cause of peace.

During that same period, however, new difficulties arose: A complete nuclear confrontation took place over Soviet offensive missiles on Cuba. A U.N. peacekeeping operation had to close shop in the Congo while another opened up in Cyprus. Communist China tested its first two nuclear devices. And, in southeast Asia, a major campaign of Communist aggression has intensified. Who can doubt that these 3 dynamic years have substantially altered the outlook for peace? In 1962, the treaty outline was received by a world still anxious from the 1961 Berlin crisis. The treaty outline was largely the creation of a new administration. When the treaty outline was introduced in Geneva the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency was only 7 months old. Today, while the threat of nuclear war continues, hope has risen for stopping the nuclear arms race. The United States and the Soviet Union announced some reduction in their military budgets last year. The many nonnuclear countries which have the ability to produce nuclear weapons before 1970 have shown remarkable self-restraint in the past few years. Only Communist China gives us immediate cause for concern in our effort to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

In all, the 3 years since 1962 have been filled with events which could not have been anticipated by the authors of the U.S. treaty outline. A ban on nuclear tests, a hotline arrangement, a ban on orbiting nuclear weapons in

space, and a reduction in the production of fissionable materials were all called for by the United States in stage I of the treaty outline. While these have each been partially achieved, we have reached no general treaty agreement with the Soviets on stage I.

Our success with these individual measures suggests that future agreements will continue to be made without any formal East-West agreement on the treaty outline itself. We must, therefore, prepare to take new initiatives and to make more detailed proposals than can operate outside of the treaty outline but which still move us closer to our long-range goals.

The intensification of the war in Vietnam suggests the need for U.S. proposals to establish a U.N. peacekeeping force that can handle future guerrilla operations. The continued hostility of Communist China suggests the need for new proposals showing how, with united international action, Communist China can be restrained in its plans for subversion in less-developed countries.

Third, not only have these 3 years brought new challenges and new problems, they have also brought many new disarmament and peacekeeping proposals. Modifications and enlargements to the U.S. treaty outline have been proposed. The growing body of vital research sponsored by the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency is producing numerous good suggestions and proposals which might be incorporated into a more detailed explanation of U.S. disarmament plans. Some proposals call for regional arms control and disarmament in less-developed areas (Africa and Latin America, for example). Other new proposals call for the international control of space exploration. In my opinion, conflict in space exploration would be something like a gasoline price war between filling stations in Nome, Alaska, and filling stations in Miami, Florida. But conflict in space ridiculous as it now seems-may occur if we fail to reach enforceable agreements for avoiding such conflict.

This resolution urges the administration to give more attention to plans for an international disarmament organization (sec. 2, S. Con. Res. 32). After all, we are seeking an enforceable system of disarmament and world law. Without the eventual establishment of an international agency to inspect and to enforce the agreements we are seeking, there can be little hope of creating a secure peace.

Efforts to achieve agreement on single proposals (such as the reduction of national forces) will eventually roll to a halt if there are no simultaneous efforts to agree on international organizations. If we are serious in our drive to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to nonnuclear countries we must be serious in our effort to create a disarmament organization which can inspect disarmament operations around the world.

There have, in the past 3 years, been many new proposals for peacekeeping. The current U.N. crisis over paying for peacekeeping underlines our need for realistic, long-range peacekeeping plans. We simply cannot allow an essential task of the U.N. to be continually threatened by financial difficulties. Our future peacekeeping proposals must seek ways of improving the U.N.'s ability to dispatch and finance peacekeeping forces. We must seek agreements to create a system of soldiers trained to serve in peacekeeping operations. Some have suggested that part of U.S. military aid to less-developed countries be allotted for the training of peacekeeping forces. Some propose that all nations designate national contingents (as Canada and others have done) for peacekeeping operations. Others urge the creation of a U.N. peacekeeping training camp in a less-developed country. And still others propose a permanent standing peace force. In my opinion, we must devise both U.N. peacekeeping proposals and regional peacekeeping proposals (as for the Organization of American States) so that no area of possible agreement is left unattended.

Voting procedures in the U.N. have also been the subject of new proposals. Among these proposals are various forms of proportional representation. Some experts are eager to eliminate the veto power so that the Soviets cannot bloc U.N. action in future international emergencies. Some proposals are designed to improve the "uniting for peace" system so that the major powers can have an increased say in the General Assembly's peacekeeping decisions. One idea is to permit the Assembly to handle small crises while the Security Council handles major crises. In my opinion, future political agreement on peacekeeping will never be reached if we fail today to provide the world with realistic proposals for tomorrow.

Finally, this resolution suggests the possibility of major revisions in the U.N. Charter. We have already seen the willingness of many nations to consider Charter revision. This distinguished committee has recently held hearings and

reported two Charter amendments which were recommended by a majority of the U.N. General Assembly. The growing support for these amendments reflects a genuine concern for improving and strengthening the United Nations.

Whatever new planning we undertake, it will undoubtedly require extensive research. Mr. Bill Wickersham, professor of extension education, University of Missouri in Columbia, recommends that peace research centers be established at a land-grant college or university in every State. In a report he prepared this year, he suggests that such centers should both conduct research and stimulate public discussion on the issues of peace. Few can doubt the need for involving the most talented professors and students of this country in the search for solutions to our most perplexing world problems.

One of the most important questions raised by this resolution is: Do long-range proposals for a peaceful world help or hurt the prospects for peace? Should we work one step at a time, without much reference to future steps? Or should we take each step with an intensified effort to make clear our goals for the future?

In my opinion, there is little merit in seeking step-by-step agreements if there is no well defined set of goals toward which each step is moving. I support the planning for peace resolution because it expresses the need for long-range planning. Every direction in which we now move has tremendous significance for American national security in the future. We must make it clear now what national rights and privileges we consider vital to our future.

Whatever turns our plans for peace take we cannot ignore the vital needs of national security. Our steps toward a secure peace must be constantly adjusted to protect national interests. However, our national interests must be under constant review. We should never be guilty of destroying the hopes of a better, safer world by sticking with old, out-dated policies and principles.

I would like to close this statement by pointing out that this resolution does not deal with one of the most basic components of peace planning: international cooperation. To our efforts for disarmament, peacekeeping, and world law we must add efforts to lessen tensions and to build international friendship through joint economic and cultural efforts. Both President Johnson and Chairman Fulbright have long stressed this point. Chairman Fulbright maintains that, in the long run, the building of an international community of common interests will come through a variety of enterprises which build the habit of cooperation. I fully subscribe to that view.

Through planned cooperation and through a definition of our long-range goals, this Nation can continue to hold the initiative for a responsible world peace.

Already many Missourians have discussed and have approved the planning for peace resolution. As Mr. T. Walter Hardy Jr., president, Hardy Salt Co., St. Louis, so ably stated in his testimony before this committee on May 11, 1965, 30,000 Missouri Methodists have been exposed to the ideas embodied in the planning for peace resolution and they have responded affirmatively. There are, of course, other Missouri groups involved in the vital mission of building a consensus on the need for peace plans. Among those is the Greater St. Louis Chapter of the United Nations Association of the United States. This chapter has one of the most active public education programs in the country. It exposes many to the need to strengthen the United Nations and to seek international agreement on disarmament and peacekeeping.

I have received hundreds of letters from all over Missouri supporting this resolution. The tremendous interest it has created is clear testimony to the need for Senate action. I therefore urge this committee to report favorably this important resolution.


Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present my views on this resolution, which I am convinced sets forth a course of action that is an absolute necessity if we are ever to attain a true peace and real stability for this troubled planet.

It must seem strange at this particular hour when we are engaged in a number of conflicts at various points on the globe to speak of the need for planning for peace. Yet the very fact that we are so engaged is graphic illustration of the need for the establishment of the peacekeeping machinery set forth in this resolution. The historic achievement reached by President Kennedy

in the establishment of the limited nuclear test ban was hailed by many, including the senior Senator from Wyoming, as a vital first step toward the establishment of real peace. But it was only a first step and as nuclear weapons proliferate around the globe in countries whose stability, whose judgment and whose sense of restraint is open to question, the possibility that we shall ever take a second step along this pathway becomes increasingly remote. Each month of delay, each failure to press for peace increases the improbability of success. Indeed, this prospect of a nuclear armament of a host of smaller nations, each harboring enmities and suspicions of its neighbors are such as to encourage pessimism among the most dedicated of pollyannas.

Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that the conflicts in which we find ourselves now represent a choice which we had to make in the long-term interest of peace, but that long-term interest cannot be permanently served by any nation regardless of its motives trying to stem aggression-unilaterally or with the aid of friends and allies. We must have a workable formula for the prevention of such strife and for the elimination of man's capabilities to commit international suicide. And I would note language in Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 which provides not only for the establishment of an international authority to keep peace and to oversee disarmament, but to establish "adequate inspection and controls" to see that this disarmament, both nuclear and conventional, is adhered to by all parties. History has amply demonstrated that disarmament without adequate controls is at best a sham and a fraud, but history has also demonstrated that mankind can-if it chooses-join in cooperative enterprises for its own selfpreservation.

In a world where our very action and our every hope and prayer for the future is overshadowed by a nuclear cloud, we have an obligation to posterity, to the history of our Nation, and to the history of the world to explore every avenue for the establishment of real peace, regardless of how its potential may appear at the moment. To hesitate in the face of obstacles or to equivocate in the face of protestations from those who regard negotiation as appeasement is to fail in our obligation to our Nation, our posterity, and ourselves.


Mr. Chairman, I am happy to support Senate Concurrent Resolution 32, Senator Clark's "Planning for Peace" resolution. If ever there was a time when we are involved with strife around the world and it seems as if our world is going away from the goal of peace rather than toward it—that time is now. Particularly because events have forced the United States to assume a warlike stance in so many parts of the world, it is all the more important now that we should take firm steps to reaffirm our dedication to peace. Now, above all, is the time when thoughtful men should get together and see how we can turn the world back on its goal for peace.

I am glad to join with my colleagues in sponsoring this resolution.


For those of us concerned with the preservation, utilization, and development of the world's vast potentials and resources, this is a decisive time. The complexity and rapid pace of modern living, coupled with international tensions create new problems daily for mankind. Not merely change, but the widening scope of change is a fact of the sixties.

Expanding population is a valid example of a problem which is accelerating at an ever-increasing rate. Reliable sources indicate that since 1940 the population of the earth has grown from about 2.5 billion to approximately 3.2 billion. This 700 million increase, in 23 years, exceeds the total estimated population of the world in the year 1800.

In the United States we have a relatively moderate rate of population growth, and yet our 190 million inhabitants are expected to increase to 225 million by 1975; then to about 322 million in the year 2000, and by 2050 we could reach 700 million. For those in positions of national responsibility the implications of such growth are obvious. Ever-increasing demand for food substances will accentuate the problems which confront many of the already-populous members of the world community.

48-210-65- -12

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »