« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
of administrations of both parties-the great leaders of which many are in the room today.
I know that the American people would not have it otherwise. The value of international cooperation and understanding is recognized by all of us. The extent of cooperation and understanding is recognized by all of us. The extent of cooperation that is in existence is realized by too few. Today the United States participates in some 80 international organizations. We take part in nearly 600 international conferences, and we faithfully honor 1,430 treaties and agreements that we have made with other nations in the world.
Two points are clear:
First, international cooperation is simply not an idea nor an ideal. We think it is a clear necessity to our survival. The greater the nation, the greater is its need to work cooperatively with other people, with other countries, with other nations.
Second, international cooperation is no longer an academic subject; it is a fact of life, as I have just illustrated. Our challenge is not to debate the theory or the concept, but our challenge is to improve and to perfect and to strengthen the organizations that already exist.
In 1965, it is the hope of your Government that International Cooperation Year may be used for a useful review and purposeful planning. For this end, I am appointing a special Cabinet Committee to direct this work and to develop all possible proposals for the future.
It is my thought that we can find many areas to encourage much more progressive and purposeful labor among the nations of the world. This is what we shall be doing. I have asked you here this morning to make a special appeal to you and to request your labors, too. I hope that each of you will help me and the Secretary of State and others of your Government to carry the story of international cooperation and organization to the American people.
Public understanding, public support, is vital and basic to our success in striving for world understanding and cooperation. You can't be a statesman unless you get elected, and it is pretty difficult for us to be successful in a movement of this kind if we do not have the broad, solid support of the people, because under our system they are the masters.
More than that, I hope that your talents may be turned to systematic study of the next steps that private organizations may take to further this cooperation. There is more extensive interest in this on the private level than I think there has ever been before. Business organizations, farm organizations, labor unions, universities, church bodies, women's groups, professional societies, are all expanding their interests and their operations abroad and are all concerned with what is happening in the other 120-odd nations in the world to an extent that has never been equaled before, I say pridefully and proudly.
There is much going on in this field in this country and throughout the world. There is much energy and enthusiasm and interest to do even more if we have the right kind of leadership. So your task is to help bring these together, how to harness these resources and channel them in the proper direction. Those with the experience and background that you have must make known what is going on, what the next steps are, and how those with time and resources can most usefully join these labors.
In this day and age man has too many common interests to waste his energies, his talents, and his substance in primitive arrogance or destructive conflict. In short, you are going to have to be the captains of a movement to lead people to love instead of hate. You are going to have to be the leaders in a movement to guide people in preserving humanity instead of destroying it. You are going to be the leaders in a crusade to help get rid of the ancient enemies of mankind-ignorance, illiteracy, poverty, and disease because we know that these things must go and we also know from our past that if we do not adjust to this change peacefully, we will have to adjust to it otherwise.
As a great leader said in this room not many years ago, "if a peaceful revolution is impossible, a violent revolution is inevitable." So I believe that the true realists in the second half of this 20th century are those who bear the dream of new ways for new cooperation.
You will be frowned upon. Some will call you an idealist. Some will call you a crackpot, and some may even call you worse than that. They may say you are soft or hard or don't understand what it is all about in some of these fields, but what greater ambition could you have and what greater satisfaction could come to you than the knowledge that you had entered a partnership with
your Government that had provided the leadership in the world that had preserved humanity instead of destroyed it.
So this year and next year and in the years to come, international cooperation must be an enduring way of life in the community of man.
If I am here I am speaking now politically and not physically-I don't anticipate any violence-but if I am here I intend next year to call a White House conference and I want all of you to start thinking about it now. I want you to talk to your friends about it. I want to call a White House conference to search and explore and canvass and thoroughly discuss every conceivable approach and avenue of cooperation that could lead to peace. That five-letter word is the goal of all of us. It is by far the most important problem we face. It is the assignment of the century for each of you and if we fail in that assignment, everything will come to naught.
If we succeed, think how wonderful the year 2000 will be, and it is already so exciting to me that I am just hoping that my heart and stroke and cancer committee can come up with some good results that will insure that all of us can live beyond 100 so we can participate in that glorious day when all the fruits of our labors and our imaginations today are a reality.
It now gives me a great deal of pleasure to sign the proclamation designating 1965 to be International Cooperation Year in the United States of America. am very proud this morning that I am a citizen of a country and the leader of a Nation that can have voluntarily assembled in the first house of this land the quality and quantity of talent that faces me now. To each of you, for the time you have taken and waited, for the money you spent in coming here, for the thought that you have given, but more important, for what you are going to do, on behalf of the Nation, I say we are grateful.
Mr. AMTER. I am quoting the President now:
I intend next year to call a White House conference and I want all of you to start thinking about it now. I want you to talk to your friends about it. I want to call a White House conference to search and explore and canvass and thoroughly discuss every conceivable approach and avenue of cooperation that could lead to peace. That five-letter word (peace) is the goal of all of us. It is by far the most important problem we face. It is the assignment of the century for each of you and if we fail in that assignment, everything will come to naught ***
Our C.R. & D. Committee is charged with the responsibility for making a report to the President on how the support of our country's citizens can be mobilized to help develop international institutions capable of achieving peace. It would seem that your Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 has the same purpose. Our C.R. & D. Committee will be very interested in the conclusions reached by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about this resolution. Likewise, you and the sponsors of Senate Concurrent Resolution 32 might be interested in knowing how our committee is planning to proceed.
Senator CLARK. I may say that I think we are very much interested. Mr. AMTER. Thank you. Briefly, let me tell you what we intend to do. We have made tentative, but not final plans. Let me explain briefly what these tentative plans are:
Step No. 1, our committee will seek opinions from the country's best thinkers on how best to mobilize our intellectual, moral and financial resources to assist the President in his efforts to achieve peace.
Step No. 2, the committee will recommend how best to utilize all of our behavioral and physical scientists in a research and development program for peace.
Step No. 3, the C.R. & D. Committee will inventory present institutions that are working toward peace and evaluate their assets and liabilities, presenting proposals for strengthening these institutions and developing new ones.
It is our expectation that the report of the National Citizens Commissions Committee for Research on the Development of International Institutions, will show America yet another way to world leadership by mobilizing for peace.
Senators, we welcome your suggestions concerning our committee's program. May I again express my sincere appreciation for the privilege of appearing before this committee in support of the "planning for peace" resolution.
Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Amter.
May I say that I think this statement is extremely significant and most helpful, and that I hope that you and your C.R. & D. Committee will keep in touch with the staff of the Foreign Relations Committee in order to keep us advised as to what you are up to, so that as this White House conference approaches, we will be able to see what if any contributions at the congressional level could be made in connection with its deliberations. I wonder if you are familiar with the Conference on World Law, the International Conference, which has been called to meet in Washington in September of this year, which I think might well dovetail with the work of your committee.
I note that you are an attorney, and the moving spirit in this International Conference on the rule of law is Mr. Charles Rhyne, who was formerly the president of the American Bar Association. Are you tying in with that at all?
Mr. AMTER. Yes. Mr. Rhyne is also chairman of one of these other substantive committees that was appointed at the request of the President. His committee is called the Committee for Development on International Law. So I think probably this conference will be one of the International Cooperation Year efforts.
Now I have talked to Mr. Rhyne, and I am assisting and collaborating with him in that endeavor, which I think is an excellent one. Senator CLARK. I think that is fine. I am on his program committee. Mr. AMTER. Fine.
Senator CLARK. I think it is interesting to see the various citizens agencies coming to support this resolution, interesting from various aspects in this search for peace.
It has always been my hope that some kind of an informal clearinghouse could be created among them, if not a merger at least a federation, so the right hand could know what the left hand was doing. We recognize the frailties of human nature and the difficulty sometimes in getting programs to jell and to mix.
I am sure you, too, are keenly aware of the need to try to establish a consensus for all these different agencies, and I congratulate you on what you have done.
Mr. AMTER. Thank you very much.
Senator CLARK. Thank you, sir. I say for the benefit of witnesses that there will be a vote on the floor of the Senate at 1 o'colck. It is our intention to finish as many witnesses as we can before then, and then adjourn until 2:15 p.m., at which time we would hope to hear the remaining witnesses who we have been unable to hear this morning.
Our next witness is Mr. W. B. Hicks, Jr., of the Liberty Lobby. Mr. Hicks, we are happy to have you with us.
I see your statement is quite brief. It will be printed in the record in full, and I will ask you to proceed in your own manner.
STATEMENT OF W. B. HICKS, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, LIBERTY LOBBY, WASHINGTON, D.C., ACCOMPANIED BY KEVIN J. CULLINANE
Mr. HICKS. I would like to introduce Mr. Kevin Cullinane, our research director.
Senator CLARK. Happy to have you with us, Mr. Cullinane. Mr. HICKS. I would like to have my statement entered into the record as if read, and I will make a few summary comments. Senator CLARK. That will be done.
OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee; I am W. B. Hicks, Jr., executive secretary of Liberty Lobby. On behalf of our 135,000 subscribers we wish to direct your attention to the fact that this resolution, if passed, would call upon the President to propose legislation that is clearly unconstitutional. The Constitution is very explicit about the powers of making war, keping peace, the jurisditcion of the courts and the methods of amending those powers. Nowhere in the Constitution is to be found the power of relegating those functions to any other body or union of States, or international organization of any kind, without first amending the Constitution.1
No treaty, no matter how properly ratified, can supercede the Constitution (art. VI, sec. 2).2 No law may be passed except in pursuance thereof. So, when you request the President to propose that the peacekeeping power over the United States be transferred to an international organization, you ask him to propose an unconstitutional act. When you request him to propose that the defense power of the United States be yielded to an international organization, you ask him to propose an unconstitutional act. When you ask him to submit disputes between American and foreign powers to the jurisdiction of an international court, you ask him to propose an unconstitutional act.
The creators of the Constitution could never have imagined that the United States might even consider the idea of surrendering its independence in foreign relations but they nevertheless provided barriers which, short of constitutional amendment neither you nor the President can surmount, without demonstrating contempt for the Constitution.
Mr. Chairman, this is not the ordinary kind of "Disarmament" Act, or proposal or resolution, that regularly comes before the Congress to demonstrate that the Congress wants peace and is willing to leave
1 Liberty Lobby takes the position that when the several States agreed to surrender the Sovereignty concerning their right to protect their borders from foreign incursions, and when they agreed to surrender the sovereignty over the jurisdiction of their legal codes to the Federal Government, they did not deed to the Federal Government the right to surrender that sovereignty to an international government when and should the Federal Government grow weary of the responsibility. This right to surrender the Nation's Sovereignty over the States is in no way implied in the treaty powers authorized to the President in sec. 2 of art. II of the Constitution.
2 U.S. Constitution, art. VI, sec. 2: "This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
3 S. Con. Res. 32, sec. 2, p. 4, line 9.
4 Ibid., p. 5, line 1.
the door to disarmament open. On the contrary, this resolution is a positive call for the establishment of what is known as "disarmament” as the law of the land. This resolution does not "express the will of the Congress" that all nations should submit to the "rule of international law," but proposes that the United States take steps to place its own interests, and those of its own citizens, in the hands of an international court that is not bound by the narrow strictures of the Bill of Rights, and that owes no allegiance to the carefully set precedents of American jurisprudence, but is free to exercise all the prejudices and political impulses of a world that is oblivious to the constitutional and traditional rights of our citizens. Such a court is unlikely to provide the quality of justice that is demanded by our own Constitution, to say the least, but, even worse, it is proposed in other quarters that it be allowed to determine its own jurisdiction, through the repeal of the Connally reservation. In effect, to vote for this resolution is to go on record in favor of not only the repeal of the Connally reservation, which protects American citizens against arbitrary rulings of the World Court, but it is to vote for the passage of the Genocide Treaty, the creation of an international military force with no guarantee of civilian control, and even the adoption of unilateral disarmament of the United States, since there is no way to implement the truly effective controls against deception that are necessary, as proven by the history of the Geneva discussions, even if disarmament were constitutional.
SOVIET THREAT TO PEACE
True, the Soviet Union has, by coincidence, made new offers at Geneva. At the same time, we note, it has paraded its military might, including a new giant ballistic missile, through the streets of Moscow.
At the same time, it has made delivery of new antiaircraft SAM missiles to the North Vietnamese.
At the same time, it has attempted the subversion of yet another Western Hemisphere nation.
At the same time, it prepares the subversion of still another: Colombia.
At the same time, its agents take part in student demonstrations and "teach-ins" on the campuses and in the streets of America, while its puppet East German army violates the Berlin wall.
At the same time, its engineers struggle to establish military platforms in space.
Liberty Lobby knows that there is more than coincidence in these events. The tactical and strategic principles of psychological warfare are not secrets. They are there, in the textbooks, for all to read; and the American people are today the subjects of a psychological warfare offensive of which this resolution is an important part, though its sponsors be not aware of its role.
5 Ibid., line 2.
Students of the manipulation of public opinion know this about psychological warfare: Acceptance of a previously unacceptable proposal can be obtained by a twofold approach which, first, creates an atmosphere of confusion, despair, and apprehension and, second, quickly offers the distasteful program as the only workable alternative to impending disaster * a "single ray of hope" so to speak. That