Lapas attēli

When I hear that kind argument I always think of this great Congress and of our 50 States, and I take renewed strength in the ability of mankind to strengthen the United Nations and make it a meaningful instrument of world peace and world law.

After all, this is a nation where Mississippi and California, Rhode Island and Texas, Maine and New Mexico are able to work in relative peace and harmony with all the same tensions, fears, and problems we usually assign to the United Nations.

We live in a world where Germany and France, Belgium and Italy, and hosts of other nations are learning to live in peace and harmony. These things have not come about because men and nations were timid. These realities are the results of the clashes of towering personalities, strong-willed nations, and men.

With the threat of war, limited or general, hanging as a pall over the world today, this is no time for the State Department or the Congress to be timid. These are times which try the souls of men and the foundations of national com. mitments. If we want peace let us wage peace.

To this committee and to the State Department I say, in the words of our late President, John F. Kennedy, "Let us begin."


Seventy-seven years ago the founders of the National Council of Women of the United States, who numbered among them such women as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and May Wright Sewall, stated their conviction that "an interchange of opinions on the great questions now agitating the world will rouse women to new thought, will intensify their love of liberty, and will give them a sense of the power of combination.”

The council therefore welcomes the opportunity to make known to the Committee on Foreign Relations its positions over the years in the field of international relations and peace in the light of Resolution 32 now under discussion.

The National Council of Women of the United States, founded in 1888 as an educational organization and coordinator of women's organizations, committed itself to "active work for the promotion of peace and international arbitration as the one great moral cause in which women of all classes and all organizations could unite their efforts." Since then it has continued to work toward the creation and support of such international cooperative bodies as the Pan American Union, the International Court of Justice, and the League of Nations.

Twenty years ago the council heralded the creation of the United Nations as a constructive step toward international understanding and the peaceful settlement of disputes. As a nongovernmental organization accredited to the United Nations, it has continued to draw the attention of its membership, which today represents over 5 million women, to the economic and social aspects of the United Nations and its specialized agencies and to areas of current concern and emphasis. The council believes that the U.N. represents the best instrument yet de vised for the protection of world peace.

Regionally, the council observed and applauded the growth of the interAmerican cooperative body now operating as the Organization of American States. As events unfold and inadequacies appear, the need for reevaluation of the structure emerges. In this respect the council hopes that new peacekeeping machinery will be developed within this regional system. In like manner, across the Atlantic, it looks forward to the emergence of the NATO alliance, after its reassessment meeting, as a stronger and more useful grouping-helpful alike to developing nations and to the world community.

Over the years the council has protested against war and aggression in any form; urged that all international disputes be settled by international courts; supported the United Nations in its work for the establishment of a just and durable peace; urged the limitation of the nuclear test explosions and applauded the limited test ban treaty. Most recently, in a series of proposals to both political parties at the meeting of their platform committees in the summer of 1964, the council urged that peacekeeping machinery be strengthened, expanded, and improved within the framework of both the United Nations and the OAS.

It is obvious that structures such as the OAS and the U.N. must ever be under review and that constant appraisal of their operation and system is necessary. The basic principles and the motivation, however, with which the United States agreed upon their formation remain constant. This President Johnson affirmed

with his statement on the need to be "vigilant for opportunities for improving the hopes of peace.” Our Government has agreed on principles and on certain procedures to further the implementation of these principles. We must therefore continue to put into practice that which has been agreed. The more we use the machinery of peace, the more others will be encouraged to use it.

Therefore, the National Council of Women of the United States would welcome the strengthening, expansion, and improvement of the peacekeeping operations and machinery within international institutions.

STATEMENT OF RODNEY D. DRIVER, ALBUQUERQUE, N. MEX. Nothing is of more vital concern to thoughtful Americans than the search for world peace with justice and with safeguards for freedom.

I am a mathematician working in a defense industry and living in a community whose economy is largely dependent on defense spending. However, it is becoming more and more apparent that in the longrun weapons cannot assure peace or justice or freedom.

Thousands of years of human experience have demonstrated that disputes will occur between individuals, groups, and nations; and, if uncontrolled, they frequently lead to violence. There seems little likelihood that the human race will change radically in this respect.

In our cities, in our States, and in our Nation, we depend upon enforceable law to preserve peace and to provide for the just settlement of disputes. We would not expect peace in most communities without law. However, at the international level (where the sources of friction are much greater and the potential consequences much more disastrous) we have no law, and it is not surprising that we have no peace.

The United Nations is in peril of collapse because it cannot take effective enforcement action (except against small nations by agreement of larger nations) and it cannot even collect the dues it assesses on its members. This, too, is not surpi g. For the United Nations is not a world government but an association of sovereign states founded on an assumption of mutual trust and goodwill. This did not work when the American colonies tried it in the 1780's so it can hardly be expected to work at the international level.

If we recognize that stronger international institutions will be needed to preserve world peace, then it is important that we and other nations begin to think about the form that such institutions should take. For example, would we want a world organization based on the principle of Federal Union invented by our forefathers at Philadelphia in 1787? If so, what systems of representation would be equitable and what powers would we want to delegate to the international organization ?

To initiate studies of these and countless other related questions, I sincerely hope that Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 will be approved by Congress and promptly implemented by the President.


Washington, D.C., May 12, 1965. Hon. J. W. FULBRIGHT, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.O.

DEAR SENATOR FULBRIGHT: The Council for a Livable World wishes to go on record to express its wholehearted support for Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 "relative to planning for peace.”

While most of the work of our organization is directed in support of limited measures which will increase international security and reduce the risk of nuclear war, we recognize that a nation cannot effectively pursue the small steps toward a lessening of international hostility unless it has some greater vision in mind. We do not claim to know the precise nature of the "livable world” for which we strive, but we do believe that a nation committed to this resolution will be more effective in its quest for a just peace than would be a nation lacking great goals. The American commitment to "liberty and justice for all” is a commitment to a dream; yet this commitment is sincere and essential to the American way of life. Similarly, we do not know that general and complete disarmament is achievable in our time—or ever—but we do believe that a

sincere national commitment to this goal is a valuable ingredient in our quest for a safer and more livable world.

A nation not committed to such goals is a nation committed to international anarchy and to the rule by might instead of law. If the great powers deny a vision of a world in which there is rule of law, then it will be impossible to convince the smaller nations that there is wisdom in their restraint in the quest for nuclear arms. The vision of broad disarmament, accompanied by concrete steps to turn down the arms race, is essential if we are to halt the spread of nuclear weapons and take even the most elementary steps toward a world in which man has some control over his destiny.

We believe that greater emphasis on the development of international institutions is essential. The United States has been a pioneer in research related to arms control and this research should be made available to others. An International Disarmament Organization (IDO), versed in modern arms control theory and prepared to act on short notice in support of arms control agreements, should be created. Even in the absence of specific agreements which this IDO might help design and verify, it seems desirable to organize such an institution, educate its members and allow it to demonstrate its competence and to win the confidence of nations.

Existing international institutions which have already proved their value should also be strengthened. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been an international forum in which the United States and U.S.S.R. have cooperated to encourage the orderly development of nuclear energy programs and to lessen the risk of diversion of fissile material to nuclear weapons programs. With the increasing use of nuclear reactors by many nations this institution will not be able to prevent the diversion of fissile materials unless it is substantially strengthened; in particular, countries not adhering to IAEA regulations regarding the sale of nuclear fuels threaten to undermine the work of this organization. The United States should explore the possibility of enlarging the role of the IAEA as a supplier of nuclear fuels. In order to maintain adequate safe guards over nuclear fuels the great powers should consider ways of making IAEA controlled nuclear fuels so attractive economically that those who would circumvent this organization will not find markets.

While strongly supporting Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 in its present form, we believe that it could and should be improved. There tends to be an enormous gap between the kind of short-run arms control and peacekeeping proposals which the United States can make for immediate adoption and those which are considered for the distant future under almost utopian conditions of general and complete disarmament. We believe that constructive thinking both about today's problems and about those of the more distant future would be greatly facilitated by a conscious effort to formulate some proposals for peacekeeping institutions under intermediate conditions—say 5 or 10 years hence, and assuming that nation-states retain significant amounts of armaments. We suggest the development of such proposals not as an alternative to those now requested in the resolution but in addition to them.

To implement this suggestion we would recommend the committee's considering amending the present first sentence of section 2 of the resolution to read as follows (new matter in italic):

“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 (a) under conditions of partial disarmament, say 5 or 10 years in the future, and (b) under conditions of general and complete disarmament effectively guaranteed by adequate inspection and controls.”

We believe that hard and careful work on such intermediate proposals could improve the quality both of our long range plans and of the proposals which the United States will make in the immediate future. It may also help bring home to the people of this country that we need more effective peacekeeping machinery whatever level of disarmament we are able to attain. Sincerely yours,

BERNARD T. FELD, President.


Chappaqua, N.Y., May 12, 1965. It is herewith recommended that Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 be expanded to call upon the President for bold new dimension strategic planning for the peace of the world, utilizing breakthrough global war safety control capabilities which have never been available before in history. Without in any way weakening the national defense posture or determination to prevent aggression anywhere in the world, the President can now unleash great new American power initiatives to reverse the world's drift toward war, without having to first seek the political approval of the enemy which is committed to the domination of the world through utilization of power. If the American Government will plan for world peace with the strength and daring that it has planned for war, the tide of world crisis can be turned.

PLANNING FOR PEACE There will always be war and aggression between nations until there is created a world public authority capable of providing positive protection for every nation, large and small, from threats of war or domination by any foreign power. Planning for peace means planning for the control of war. The control of war is the most difficult and complex problem man has ever confronted, and will require new kinds and dimensions of power and new safety structures of world dimension. Such new safety power may now be within reach if a great new effort is made.


A generation of forced investment in defense development has produced unexpected new strategic capabilities without precedent in military or political science. Fully developed, this new strategic power may cause greater reappraisal of national strategy, and policy, and purpose than was caused by earlier breakthroughs into air power, and nuclear power, and space power. The President could unleash new strategic initiatives based on increasing national strength, to turn the tide of world crisis, except that the new strategic powers are beyond the current vision of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Council, and the Congress. Planning for global control of war requires a new echelon of strategic command reporting personally to the President, superior to the necessary emergency climate of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and National Security Council, now preoccupied with tactical problems fighting a global war against an oncoming enemy. Since no committee in the Senate or the House has authority broad enough to encompass the present strategic vacuum and paralysis, a higher echelon committee is required to integrate responsibilities of the different committees concerned with the military, technological, legal, economic, public opinion, political and moral aspects of this new strategic power, and its use.

THE POWER OF LIFE AND THE POWER OF DEATH No man can halt the relentless forward march of technology and knowledge. Man can only determine toward what goal this march will proceed. The President has such authority.

For the past generation the American people have been mobilized to create antihuman military force now capable of destroying the structures of world civilization. The U.S. Government has planned for the power of death for mankind, and we have created it.

If the Government will now plan for the power of life in the form of a worldsized security system to protect all nations, we can create it. If the President has strong bipartisan support in Congress, he now has the opportunity to mobilize the coming generation to plan, develop, build, test, and demonstrate to the world prohuman global war safety systems, and to provide leadership to the people of all nations for the difficult and dangerous transition out of the Age of Anxiety and into a new age in which men and nations will not live in dread of the threat of war.

TWO-POWER STRATEGY Like a victorious football coach, for the coming generation the President of the United States must have full command of two kinds of superior power (1) superior defense power to contain the opponent and prevent him from reaching his goal of world domination, plus (2) superior forward power to move man

kind toward the quite different goal of a proper moral world order in which each nation will be secure, and independent.

A defense-only football team is under a great handicap. Initiative has been surrendered to the opponent. All energy is burned up in containment. The team can only hold the line, or lose ground.

Under a defense-only national strategic planning directive, for the last 12 years the American people have lived in greater potential national danger each year, than they lived in the year before, in a relentless retreat from positive national security. The national security this month is in greater jeopardy than it was last month.

We are fighting defensively in Vietnam, in a location chosen by the enemy, at a time chosen by the enemy, in terrain favorable to the enemy, with tactics in which the enemy excels. Failure of strategic planning is evidenced by the fact that we play the enemy's game, in the enemy's ball park, according to the enemy's rules, when and if the enemy wants to play. We have no great plan for peace in the world toward which we choose the times and places and impacts for the thrusts of power.

The defense-only football team would meet sudden disaster if it began disarming and weakening the half-strength it had. The game would soon be over.

The hierarchy of defense policy and power in the United States knows that there can be no gradual disarmament agreement negotiated with the increasingly powerful enemy committed to world domination. * * * but the hierarchy encourages the small budgets for nonpower discussions of disarmament, (a) for reasons of international propaganda, and (b) to keep the domestic peace groups preoccupied and to let them feel busy.

If, by wild imagination, the nations of the world agreed to banish all nuclear power, all spacepower, all missile power, all airpower, and all naval power * * * and to create an international enforcement agency with power to make this agreement stick * * * world civilization would then be back to the 13th century, when the Mongols killed 18 million Chinese in 10 years, without using or needing, nuclear power, spacepower, missile power, airpower, or naval power. The establishment of an international authority with inspection and controls to enforce general and complete disarmament even down to this fantastic level, would provide the strategic opportunity for Chinese and Russian masses to begin to move across the land, as the Mongols did, fighting among themselves, and capturing one nation at a time, across Scandinavia, Europe, Middle East, Far East, Asia, and Africa, to dominate the strategic land masses of the world. * * * while a disarmed and impotent United States sat by, helpless to prevent the world's bloodiest centuries ahead, and helpless to assure the future security of the United States.

For similar reasons of national defense calculation, the Kremlin also could never afford to allow its disarmament propaganda to materialize into reality. A disarmed Russia eventually would be overpowered by the land-and-people power of China. There can be not integrity in the disarmament propaganda or negotiations of either the United States or the Soviet Union, for basic military reasons.

Planning for peace must work in bold new dimensions with new vision and great new powers for the global control of war * * * and with integrity.


Without in any way disarming or weakening national defense posture or power, the President can create additional command and planning echelons operating from his office, and can issue directives to the National Security Council and the Joint Chiefs of Staff,, to plan and develop and demonstrate to the world new global war safety control systems strong enough (at some future date) to protect Israel people from the Arabs * * * protect Arab people from the Israeli * * * protect European people from the Germans * * protect German people from the Russians *** protect Russian people from the Chinese * * * protect people of all nations, large and small, from threats of aggression or domination from any foreign power * * * strong enough to prevent the export or import of military materiel across all national borders * * * strong enough to prevent the preparation for war within any nation, within an entirely new world security system, or a vastly revised United Nations in which no nation will be able to veto the activities of the all-nation safety systems, or war control authority. Man can now develop nonviolent power, safety power.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »