Lapas attēli

and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World, which the United States submitted to the 18th National Disarmament Committee on April 18, 1962, general proposals are made for the strengthening of peacekeeping machinery to accompany disarmament, such as the establishment of an international disarmament organization and a United Nations peace force and the strengthening of the structure of the United Nations to improve its capability to maintain peace. The planning for peace resolution would call for the formulation of detailed proposals along these lines, thus encouraging the policymakers not only to study peacekeeping arrangements but to come to decisions on what the United States really seeks.

The peacekeeping machinery mentioned in the resolution includes an international disarmament organization, a permanent world peace force, world tribunals for the peaceful settlement of all disputes not settled by negotiations, other international institutions necessary for the enforcement of world peace under the rule of law, and appropriate and reliable financial arrangements for the support of the peacekeeping machinery.

It is my firm belief that the passage of the planning for peace resolution will help us move closer to the goal of peace. While we have grown used to a state of constant international tension, we need not grow resigned to it. While we demonstrate our willingness to maintain and use the military force necessary to defend freedom, we need not abandon our intention to develop a better method for preserving both peace and freedom. By encouraging still more planning for peace in the United States, I believe we will generate more efforts toward peace throughout the world.


Mr. Chairman, I consider the planning for peace resolution that is being studied by this committee one of the most important matters now before the Congress.

The grave crises in Vietnam and the Dominican Republic dramatize the urgent need for a crash program to develop peacekeeping machinery that will provide for the peaceful solution of international conflicts.

Certainly the presence of more than 40,000 American troops in Vietnam and more than 15,000 of our troops in the Dominican Republic is dramatic proof of the urgent need for peacekeeping machinery.

Certainly it is not necessary to tell members of this distinguished committee that the world situation is grave and there appears to be little prospect for improvement in the coming years. Until we can develop the necessary machinery to settle such conflicts, as in Vietnam, peacefully, we are going to have to live with the threat of war hanging heavily over our heads.

Some say it is impractical to discuss disarmament and peace plans at a time when tensions are building and guns are firing. Actually, the present crises make it all the more urgent to begin such discussions and planning. The tragedy of current conflicts as well as the threat of all-out war should heighten the incentive for peace planning, not diminish it.

This resolution would give President Johnson congressional support for his effort to achieve peace and disarmament under legally effective controls. It would also urge the President to formulate a plan to strengthen existing international institutions and developing new ones designed to keep the peace. The resolution asks the President to consider the need for establishing :

An international disarmament organization.
World tribunals to settle international disputes.
International institutions necessary to enforce world peace.

An orderly method of financing the peacekeeping machinery.
While such efforts in the past have not been entirely successful, some progress
has been made. We must continue and accelerate our efforts to achieve peace.
There is no alternative.

Senator CLARK. The committee will stand in recess until 10 a.m., tomorrow. The record will be available in room 4229 for any corrections which witnesses may want to make in their testimony at that time.

(Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., May 12, 1965.)




Washington, D.C. 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. No; I do not. On a per diem basis.
Senator CLARK. Per diem?
Mr. ANDREWS. That is right.
Senator CLARK. Thank you, sir. Please proceed.


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.

Nr. 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.
Senator CLARK. Thank you, sir.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »