L

But Secretary Acheson's figure is only a fraction of our huge arms burden, which is already having a crushing effect on the living standards of America's working people.

Percentage-wise, another billion dollars for arms is no more than a 7 or 8 percent increase in the current war budget. But that 7 or 8 percent is not small potatoes when we consider that the present war budget is taking 50 cents out of every dollar spent by the Government. It is placing an enormous tax on every worker's pay check, and unbalancing the family budget of the working farmers, the middle class and the professionals. Four years after the end of World War II, the American people are paying taxes as high as those they carried at the war's peak. This war tax is drastically reducing the amount the American people can spend on food, rent, and clothing. It is depriving them of needed social services and essential Government aid-of adequate housing, education, health and medical care, of a higher minimum wage and expanded and more adequate social security benefits.

The figure of something over a billion dollars is only a first down-payment. No limit has been set to the billions required for the arming of the Atlantic Pact countries, already staggering under the burden of their present huge war budgets.

An additional billion-dollar outlay for arms means an increase of at least 20 percent on the dollar value of the western European armament program. No wonder that the conservative British Economist reported on January 8: "There is no means by which the Marshall plan countries can, even with the present scale of American aid, prevent a serious fall in their standard of living in 1952." This deterioration of the ecenomic situation in western Europe must inevitably increase the suffering with which the developing economic crisis threatens the people of the United States.

Moreover, the stimulation of rearmament in western Europe presupposes the revival of western German war industry. In anticipation of this, Gen. Lucius Clay, on April 25, already called for the integration of western Germany into the so-called European union-that is for the rebuilding of its war potential as an arsenal and base for military operations against the Soviet Union and the democracies of eastern Europe.

The American people and those of all other countries are suspicious of the Atlantic Pact, and fearful of its ratification. That is the very reason it was rushed to signature, and presented to them as an accomplished fact.

The main selling point of the big business interests behind this treaty, and of their bipartisan hucksters, is the myth that an invented threat of Soviet aggression threatens our country and western Europe.

All the facts totally debunk this fabrication, as even some supporters of the treaty admit. Thus, the New York Times of February 27 said editorially that a Soviet attack on the United States is "fantastically improbable." On April 20, the Times' rabidly anti-Soviet columnist, Anne O'Hare McCormick, declared: "It is absurd to believe that the Soviet Union contemplates sending an army across Europe or starting a shooting war against the United States."

But it is no secret that powerful forces in the United States do contemplate starting a shooting war against the Soviet Union and the countries of eastern Europe. The bipartisan supporters of the "cold war" in which the treaty is an ominous new development boldly advocate "preventive" war. Congressman Cannon was the latest of many public figures to urge the atomic pulverization of Soviet cities and the mass murder of the peoples now rebuilding homelands ruined by the Nazi invaders.

Because it is a Socialist state, the Soviet Union does not need profits wrung from conquest and colonial exploitation. It needs neither to dominate the economies nor to annex the territory of other lands. Consequently, the Soviet Union pursues a resolute policy for world peace. It is not, and cannot be, an aggressor. Unable to point to a single act of aggression or threatened aggression on the part of the Soviet Union, the proponents of the Atlantic Treaty argue that a war alliance is needed to protect other nations against the invented danger of "indirect aggression" emanating from Moscow.

Article 4 of the pact specifies consultation by the signatories for the purpose of taking armed action "whenever, in the opinion of any one of them, the territorial integrity, political independence, or security" of any member of the alliance is threatened.

But the threat to territorial integrity, political independence, and national security comes from the dominant power within the alliance-from the United States. The Atlantic Treaty itself, like the Marshall plan, is an instrument of intervention against the peoples and nations of western Europe and threatens their territorial integrity, political independence, and security.

American imperialist intervention is not only a threat, but a recorded fact. It can scarcely be claimed that because the intervention of the United States in China failed of its purpose, it did not take place. Or that because it is meeting stubborn resistance in Greece it is not being ruthlessly carried on. The road to the Atlantic Treaty was paved by Wall Street's political and economic interventions in the internal affairs of the signatory countries, particularly France and Italy.

"Indirect aggression" is the treaty's transparent excuse for the repression of labor and of any movement for social change or national liberation which the rulers of the existing social order consider a threat to their profits and power. Article 4 reveals that the treaty is a holy alliance for the repression of the labor and Communist movements of western Europe. This is admitted by James Reston, in the New York Times of March 1; "The executive branch of the Government is convinced that some of the western European nations must have military aid not only to defend themselves against external aggression but primarily to bolster their police powers against their own Communists."

And Secretary of State Acheson, explaining the treaty on March 18, confessed that while a purely internal revolution would not be regarded as an armed attack, "an uprising, inspired, armed, and directed from the outside would be a different thing."

This statement is reminiscent of those habitually made by big business, which professes to respect the right of workers to organize and strike-but defends its use of antilabor violence on the ground that the workers are being "misled by outside agitators."

In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, all popular movements against feudalism and monarchy were denounced as inspired by American or French revolutionaries. Today every movement for the improvement of the people's living standards, for national liberation, or social advance is denounced as "Moscow inspired." The Atlantic Pact commits the United States to the forcible suppression of all popular movements, and thus makes a mockery of the Atlantic Charter, the Four Freedoms, and the aims for which the peoples fought the Second World War.

Article 4 is not only an instrument for intervention against any people which defends its national independence, rejects reaction and fascism, or decides that capitalism has outlived its social usefulness. Article 4 is also designed to continue the oppression of all the colonies of the imperialist powers associated in the new alliance.

This was made plain enough by Belgian Foreign Minister Paul Henri-Spaak when on March 18 he declared in Brussels that "consultations between the signatories could also take place in case of an incident occurring outside the geographical area of the pact if one of the signatories considered its security involved."

Thus Spaak admits that the treaty is intended to keep a handful of imperialist rulers in effective domination over much of Asia and Africa. He also strips the pact of its last claim to be a purely regional arrangement, confined to Atlantic powers.

Some Senators have indicated that they oppose ERP aid for the Netherlands if that country continues to defy the United Nations with respect to Indonesia. It will be interesting to see what stand they take on the Atlantic Pact, which is designed to give the American monopolists a greater chance to muscle in on the empires the pact seeks to maintain by force.

This committee has heard both charges and denials that the Atlantic Treaty violates the Constitution of the United States. The plain fact is that the treaty arrogates to the executive branch of the Government unresricted power to make war.

It would leave Congress only the power to make formal declaration that a war is being waged.

But the treaty invites and promotes other violations of the Constitution and would advance the process of nullifying the Bill of Rights already going on. In advancing the military preparation for a third world war, the treaty accelerate the growth of fascism-and particularly the adoption of measures aimed at the total suppression of every force that struggles against the war makers.

The current political heresy trial of the 12 Communist leaders, as well as the police-state legislation adopted by a number of States and pending in the Congress, are war measures auxiliary to the Atlantic Treaty. So are the witch hunts and book burnings, the mounting antisemitism and increasing violence against the Negro people, the growing attacks against labor and Americans of foreign birth-all of which have accompanied the preparation for the Atlantic Treaty.

It is inherent in the logic of the treaty that its bipartisan proponents filibuster against antilynch and antipoll-tax legislation, and retain the Taft-Hartley Act while this war measure is being rushed to ratification. The attempt to brand as treason the patriotic struggle for peace threatens the suppression of all movements in defense of the people's living standards and democratic rights.

The signing of the North Atlantic Pact has increased, rather than diminished, the growing opposition to it in all parts of the world. This treaty is opposed not only by the nations and peoples against whom it is most obviously directed, but by the majority of the people in the signatory countries-including the United States.

The working class and its Communist vanguard in western Europe is a serious force for peace. But the Communists and their allies, particularly in the key countries of France and Italy, are by no means the only forces opposing the treaty. It is whole peoples, including the masses in all political parties, who are demonstrating their determination to repudiate the war commitment made by the governments of the signatory countries, and who voice the people's refusal to fight for the gain, and glory of Wall Street.

The great world peace conference recently held in Paris spoke not only for the Communists and the left. It spoke for the hundreds of millions of plain people everywhere in the world who are rallying in united action against the imperialist war schemes of the United States monopolists.

Nor is it only the left, including the Communists, in the United States who oppose this war alliance. The committee must have considerable evidence of the far wider organized, and unorganized, opposition which is already substantial and grows rapidly. Strong opposition to the treaty has been voiced by major church groups in this country, and by the outstanding cultural leaders. Among the rank and file of the trade-unions, the Negro people, and the farm organizations sentiment against the treaty is increasing and becoming more vocal. In view of the temper of the people, and taking into account the forthcoming meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, further consideration of the Atlantic Treaty should be halted. To cut these hearings, in an attempt to rush ratification before the people have made themselves heard, would reveal that the United States approaches the Foreign Ministers' Conference in bad faith. Our Government cannot even pretend to good faith in negotiations for a peaceful settlement of differences with the Soviet Union, if in advance of negotiations it concludes this aggressive military alliance.

The masses of the American workers and people recoil with horror from the prospect of the atomic war which the Atlantic Treaty in effect assumes to be inevitable.

In accord with the desires and needs of the American people, we Communists call for a pact of peace and friendship with the Soviet Union, and for the repudiation of the aggressive Atlantic war alliance.

We call for universal disarmament, and for a policy that will make the United Nations work for peace.

We call for implementation of the UN resolution on curbing the warmongers for the destruction of all atomic bombs and the outlawing of their manufacture. We call on our Government to negotiate with the Soviet Union a settlement of the German question along the lines of the Potsdam agreement, and for AmericanSoviet cooperation such as the Roosevelt policies made possible.

We call for the establishment of friendly relations with the new, liberated, China.

We call for normal foreign trade relations without interference in the affairs of other nations, and for an expansion of Government expenditures to meet the American people's peacetime need for homes, education, health, and social security.

The Communist Party, declaring that World War III is not inevitable, proclaims the inevitability of the people's continuing struggle for peace.

We are confident that the American people, refusing to be intimidated or stampeded, will organize and unite to defeat this infamous war alliance. But Atlantic Treaty or no Atlantic Treaty, we believe that our people will strengthen the effectiveness of their struggle for peace. We Communists are and will remain

an integral part of the American people's movement of resistance to the imperialist and war-breeding policies of Wall Street. We are confident that the workers and people of our country and of the world will enforce their will to peace.

AFTERNOON SESSION

(The committee reconvened at 2:45 p. m., upon the expiration of the recess.)

The CHAIRMAN. Rev. Kenneth Ripley Forbes. All right, sir, tell the reporter your name and your business and whom you represent.

STATEMENT OF REV. KENNETH RIPLEY FORBES, THE PHILADELPHIA COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL OF ARTS, SCIENCES, AND PROFESSIONS

Reverend FORBES. I represent the Philadelphia Council of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions. I am pinch-hitting for somebody else. I have no documents or manuscript to hand you, but I want to present the following things.

I am not going to try to analyze the past. I am not able to, and I would not if I were. There are others far better qualified that will do a job of that sort.

There is just one thing I would like to present to this committee, and that is the fact of the very considerable volume of opposition to the ratification of the pact as it stands today. I think people in general take for granted that this thing is going through, perhaps is; but I doubt whether it is generally recognized how much widespread oppositon there is to the pact.

OPPOSITION TO THE TREATY

I would like to give these few concrete examples for whatever they may be worth. On the 13th of last month there were 16 Midwest union leaders of the CIO, the A. F. of L., and the railroad brotherhoods, who took a position in opposition to the pact. On the same day— The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean by a resolution or what? Was there any written

Reverend FORBES. By a resolution, I suppose. I have not seen the thing in writing. I have just seen the facts stated in the press. I have not seen the statement, that is, the resolution.

But on the same day I understand 267 New York leaders of the CIO and the AFL ran a good-sized advertisement in the New York Times— that, of course, is generally known, and is on record-in opposition to the pact.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you aware that the American Federation of Labor and the CIO have both indorsed ratification of the pact. Reverend FORBES. So I understand; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Reverend FORBES. I am just trying to point out that in the lower echelons of both these organizations there appears to be considerable organized opposition to the pact in various of their local units. The same is true of the CIO farm equipment workers, who, on the 27th of March, opposed the ratification of the pact.

On the 16th of March, 70 leaders of farm trade-unions, religious, veterans, and business people, expressed themselves also in opposition

to the pact. Then, as was presented by somebody eariler today; a well-known fact that on the 4th of last month was the open letter of 300 distinguished religious and educational leaders, including the president of the Council of Bishops of the Methodist Church, who put themselves on record in opposition to the pact.

The Farmers' Union, who, I suppose, represents several million Americans, in a statement passed unanimously by its national board, said, among other things, these words, according to the records in the press [reading]:

There continue to be certain very disturbing elements in our Government's foreign policy. Of these, the most alarming is the proposal for a North Atlantic Security Treaty, obviously to be followed by extensive arms aid to Europe.

We cannot prove such, of course. We believe it to be directly contrary to American precedent and history, and to be a futile gesture. We deplore the sponsorship by the United States or by Russia of, or participation in, regional or bilateral defense agreements, and believe such efforts will weaken the United Nations.

Those are samples of what seems to be a fairly extensive and important section of public opinion in the lower echelons of organization against this pact. My only point, except to mention those, is to maintain that it is a very dubious wisdom, if American opinion is divided even by a representative substantial minority, to enter into something that will be an entirely new departure in American policy. The pact, as I understand it, is not even reviewable for 10 years. It is not denounceable for 20 years. And if the opposition that we are starting with today grows from any sort of motives or reasons, such as one might imagine-taxation, for instance-it would put us in a very weak and embarrassing position.

That is my only contribution to your committee, that we face a more or less divided opinion in America about this pact. Therefore it seems to me that we ought to go pretty slow before we ratify what is so very widely opposed in so very many quarters. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Any questions, Senator Green?
Senator GREEN. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you a question. You appear for the Philadelphia Council of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions. We have another witness here. He represents the National Council ofReverend FORBES. He represents the national council.

The CHAIRMAN. So the two of you really are representing the same organization. Is that not true?

Reverend FORBES. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Which is padding things up pretty badly. We have got a great list of witnesses.

Reverend FORBES. I have not consumed much of your time.

The CHAIRMAN. No; but I just wanted to observe that we cannot hear two or three different people from the same organization.

Senator GREEN. May I ask a question? It has occurred to me since I said I did not care to.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

CHOICE BETWEEN RATIFICATION AND NONRATIFICATION

Senator GREEN. You realize, do you not, when you state there are objections to this, that most of the choices in the world today are choices between two evils. The choice is: Which is the least objectionable?