The leader, Miss Marie Lous-Mohr, our international co-chairman, is a school teacher who refused to follow Hitler's edict and spent 28 months in Grini concentration camp, 18 of them in solitary confinement. I well remember her statement to us at Luxemburg in 1946, when without bitterness or resentment, she said, "We must not dwell upon the tragedies of the past. We must go back into the schoolroom and teach the children and youth to build bridges of understanding and friendship between the nations."

I wish to have put in the record the report of the Norwegian section on the problem of Norway's joining the Atlantic Union, contained in the international letter No. 18, mailed from the WILPF International Headquarters, 12 Rue du Vieux-College, Geneva, Switzerland.

(International letter No. 18, referred to, is as follows:)

[Contained in the international letter No. 18 mailed from Women's International League for Peace and Freedom-International Headquarters, 12 Rue du Vieux-College, Geneva, Switzerland]

REPORT OF THE NORWEGIAN SECTION ON THE PROBLEM OF NORWAY'S JOINING THE ATLANTIC UNION

The preliminary work of our foreign department regarding the question if Norway would like to have an invitation from the United States of America to join the Atlantic union has been carried out very silently, and if you had been in Norway a month ago, you would have thought that everybody would like such an invitation. But when the question became acute through the conferences between the three Scandinavian countries, people began to realize at last what was going on.

Swedish newspapers then began to deal with the problem of a defensive Scandinavian union, and it turned out that the three Scandinavian countries had different opinions regarding the background and foundation of such a union. Sweden claimed that it ought to be a Scandinavian union without connection with the Atlantic union, while Norway was of the opinion that our geographical position (Norway lies on the Atlantic) made us dependent on the Atlantic union, and that we are especially dependent economically on the United States of America and cannot procure the necessary armaments without her help. Denmark is also absolutely in favor of a Scandinavian union, and worked cleverly to bring together the different points of view of Sweden and Norway.

The Norwegian section of the WILPF sent a note of protest to the Government, pointing out that the people of Norway had not been thoroughly informed of the negotiations and claiming that, in accordance with the democratic principles of our Constitution, no decision regarding a military union with the United States of America can be taken before all its consequences were put before the Norwegian people to give them the opportunity of discussing the problem.

In order to give the people the chance of such a discussion, the Norwegian section of the league arranged a public meeting with a prominent speaker for the Atlantic Union and one against it. The meeting was crowded, and a number of prominent men spoke against the union, among them Professor Leiv Kreyberg (whose pamphlet, the Biological Effects of the Atomic Bomb, has been distributed by us). At the meeting one of the representatives of the Labor Party of our Parliament also spoke against the Atlantic union, and it turned out that there was a strong division of opinion among members of the Labor Party in the Parliament as well as in the Government itself. After the meeting, there was a vivid discussion in all the newspapers as well as everywhere where people met, and we were said to have "incised the abscess."

To proclaim our own opinion, the Norwegian section, in cooperation with the Norwegian Peace Council and the Norwegian Group of War Resisters, called a meeting in one of the biggest picture houses at Oslo, where six prominent speakers spoke against the Atlantic union. It turned out to be of overwhelming interest, and, with more than 1,300 against 50 votes, the following resolution was passed:

"To the Norwegian Government:

"We oppose Norway's joining the Atlantic union because we believe that this step will enlarge the cleft between east and west and thereby increase the dan

ger of war; because it will spit Scandinavia as well as the Norwegian people; because it will mean a vote of censure to the UN.

"We are of the opinion that Scandinavia ought to lead the way to a peaceful settlement of all international conflicts and strengthen the United Nations.

"If the negotiations with our Scandinavian neighbors, on a common basis, should not be successful, the Norwegian people must be given time to get thorough information so that Norway's next move on her problem of defense will be well considered.

"We were informed that the most we could obtain at the moment was a delay of the decision concerning the Atlantic Union. The negotiations with our Scandinavian neighbors were not successful. Sweden was not involved in the Second World War and believes that, by leading a policy of strict neutrality, she will manage not to be involved in a contingent world war, and that joining the Atlantic Union will increase the danger that all Scandinavian countries may be involved in a contingent war.

"Fortunately, however, the Norwegian Government has decided that more background material must be procured before a decision can be taken on the question if Norway would like to have any invitation.

"Another very strong reason for not wishing to join the Union is that Norway has common borders with the U. S. S. R., and that we fear that such a Union will be a provocation against a country with which we have never been at war. "As long as Norway has been a free country, our policy has been that of absolute neutrality. We were occupied in the Second World War because of miscalculations, and we cannot see why we should attach ourselves to any of the big powers now, thus giving up every chance of conducting our traditional policy of neutrality.

"These are some of the reasons for which we believe it will be a great danger for our country to join the Atlantic Union. Later, after the other aspects of the problem will have been dealt with, I will send you a supplementary report, but hope that this will give our coworkers a picture of what is going on in Norway. We would like our American and British sections to deal with the questions and to see how they can help us.

"AASNEY ALNAES."

Mrs. STEWART. I would like to mention a sentence out of that statement. She comments on the preliminary work of their foreign department, somewhat like yours. She says [reading]:

The preliminary work of our foreign department regarding the question if Norway would like to have an invitation from the United States of America to join the Atlantic Union has been carried out very silently, and if you had been in Norway a month ago, you would have thought that everybody would like such an invitation. But when the question became acute through the conferences between the three Scandinavian countries, people began to realize at last what was going on.

Then, further along, she speaks about the meetings that she held, in which there was great division of opinion among members of the Labor Party in the Parliament as well as in the Government itself. After the meeting there was quite a bit of discussion in all the newspapers as well as everywhere where people met, and we were said, because the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom had initiated the discussion, to have "incised the abscess," which, I think, is a rather interesting term about a thing that means so much to people.

Then they held a meeting where about 1,400 people attended, and 1,300 voted against the pact and 50 for it, and they passed a resolution which I am putting in the record. The last sentence which I would like to quote from that is:

Another very strong reason for not wishing to join the union is that Norway has common borders with the U. S. S. R., and that we fear that such a union will be a provocation against a country with which we never have been at war.

OTHER REGIONAL PACTS

Then I would like to comment on one other thing before closing, and that is, "What are some of the alternatives?" I did want to ask a question about the possibility of other regional pacts. I understand from this book here on the Atlantic Pact, by Hoskins, of the Legislative Reference Service, which contains a chapter on "Proposals for Other Regional Pacts," that if this pact is ratified it means further pacts.

The CHAIRMAN. There is nobody who has any authority to make any such statement as that.

Mrs. STEWART. This is from the Legislative Reference Service.

The CHAIRMAN. It does not matter who it is from. It has no authority to speak for the Congress, the Senate, the President, or anybody else.

Mrs. STEWART. I hope very much this is not going to be. I hope very much we will find a substitute for the present North Atlantic Pact, but it makes here a rather significant statement that I think American people ought to know, that a Mediterranean Pact at least is being discussed, as the North Atlantic Pact was discussed all fall.

The CHAIRMAN. We are discussing the North Atlantic Pact now. We are not going out talking about what we are going to do 10 years from now.

Mrs. STEWART. This sentence suggests:

Although a Mediterranean Pact has not passed beyond an early stage of discussion, it is difficult not to suppose that some kind of defensive arrangement for parts or all of that area will receive attention once the North Atlantic Pact is an accomplished fact.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the statement of one man, supposed to be in the Legislative Reference Service. He is not in the Congress of the United States, he is not the President of the United States, but, of course, you are glad to pick up any crumb there that would indicate opposition to the present Treaty. We are just discussing the North Atlantic Treaty now.

Mrs. STEWART. Of course, Senator, isn't the fact that 12 countries are included in the North Atlantic Pact going to raise questions? Others are asking to come in.

The CHAIRMAN. We always have questions raised.

Mrs. STEWART. Doesn't it also mean that there may be the danger of countries outside either the Russian orbit or ours wanting to get in? The CHAIRMAN. Of course they may, but that does not mean we are going to do it.

IMPLEMENTATION WITH MILITARY MANPOWER

Mrs. STEWART. Then, another point I should like to take up for serious consideration is the implementation in terms of troops. There is still uneasiness and confusion as to what is implied. For example, Capt. B. H. Liddell Hart, former military editor of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, and one of Britain's outstanding military analysts, in the New Republic for February 14, 1949, after giving his estimate of the current military strength of the pact countries, comments on what he thinks the military defense of Europe would require. If the military strength of Europe is to be built up, according to Cap

tain Hart, it would probably mean a considerable increase in the number of professional soldiers to form operational forces either by the incorporation of Germans into the western union forces or by stationing a large American land force permanently in Europe.

Would this also mean permanent peacetime conscription in the United States?

The WILPF, United States section and internationally, has opposed the conscription of youth and would call your attention to this added implication commonly overlooked by many.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PACT

What are the alternatives to a North Atlantic Pact as a means of insuring peace?

We have already suggested a number of them as we have asked these questions. They may be summed up in these three points, similar to those in our letter to the New York Times, April 18, 1949, and the Washington Post, April 17, 1949.

1. The building up of democracy in our own country through adequate housing, educational facilities, health programs, and safeguards for civil rights and civil liberties at home and abroad.

Justice William O. Douglas, of the United States Supreme Court, advocated the adoption of a "positive aggressive program" to fight Soviet idealogy both domestically and abroad, the New York Times of February 19 reported. He said [reading]:

The real victory over communism will be won in the factories and rice fields of the world, rather than on the battlefields. * * * The fight against communism depends for its ultimate success on the people of the various nations, not on their governments.

2. Using the United Nations and its specialized agencies, FAO, WHO, ITO, and so forth, to their fullest capacities for cooperative policies to meet the economic and cultural needs of the world's peoples. If we were saved the expense of arming ourselves and our allies, we could afford to carry out the President's proposal for building up the undeveloped areas of the world.

3. Supporting the United Nations Assembly's proposal for world disarmament under international law.

We believe that such a positive program would bring hope and courage to the world's people and usher in a new era of peace and prosperity for all the nations.

Gentlemen, your committee has a great responsibility, and you are conscientiously trying to find a solution to the world's ills. As you weigh the best way to assure security, may you remember these "strugglers for peace"-the common people of the earth who will be the victims of atom bombs, germs that know no national boundaries, guided missiles, and stellar platforms. They are the ones about whom De Nouy wrote in Human Destiny. He has suggested that through the long steps upward from one-cell life to many-celled life, from plant to animal, from animal to consciousness, from consciousness to conscience

the uncomfortable nonadapting ones that kept struggling and wouldn't give up were the ones to effect the transitions.

The women of the WILPF are not alone in this struggle for peace. Countless other women and men share with them a determination to

find a way other than the North Atlantic Pact and its accompanying arms bill to meet present world needs.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your statement.

Senator Donnell?

Senator DONNELL. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. You are excused.

Mrs. Jane Hayford, of WOMAN, Inc., of New York City.
How long is your statement, Mrs. Hayford?

Mrs. HAYFORD. About 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF MRS. JANE L. HAYFORD, DIRECTOR OF WORLD ORGANIZATION OF MOTHERS OF ALL NATIONS

Mrs. HAYFORD. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, my name is Jane L. Hayford. I am here to testify concerning the North Atlantic Treaty in behalf of WOMAN, Inc., the World Organization of Mothers of All Nations.

Our chairman, Miss Dorothy Thompson, would have been here to testify on our behalf, but since she is in Europe, I represent her.

SUPPORT FOR TREATY AND PROPER IMPLEMENTATION

The necessity for firm, swift, united action of peace-loving nations to avert the rising threat of a third world war justifies the North Atlantic Treaty. We, therefore, favor the ratification of the treaty, even though we are far from being satisfied with it. There exist certain grave deficiencies in the treaty, which we hope will be remedied when the treaty is implemented. The treaty as it now stands may lull the peoples of the United States and Europe into a false sense of security-an American Maginot line. Furthermore, by excluding Russia from the pact under any conditions, the treaty merely intensifies the atomic threat and the armament race, and fails to offer any solution other than eventual war.

Many feel that the North Atlantic Pact is but a military alliance and even a menace to peace. But after viewing the possibilities inherent in it we can see it if properly implemented, as the nucleus for the strengthening of the United Nations, setting up under article 51, not only a defense mechanism for collective security but also a world pact uder a higher law-a law against aggression and preparation for aggression-with a court of justice to interpret that law, and a police force to enforce it.

Humanity has twice in this twentieth century attempted to establish an effective international authority to restrain aggressors. We must not repeat in the structure of the Atlantic Treaty the same tragic errors that wrecked the League of Nations and now paralyze the Security Council of the United Nations. For the third and perhaps last time there exists a historic opportunity for the United States to help create through the Atlantic Treaty now, and subsequently through a revised United Nations, an international organization of irresistible spiritual, legal, and military authority, so designed that no peaceful nation, whatever its form of government, may be excluded or threatened; and that no government may be permitted to arm for aggression or attack a divided world with any chance of success.