at the hands of the countries that have received this alleged aid, and that time after time he would be called upon to defend himself because of positions that this bill would lead him into; situations from which he would not be able to escape.

I think that we ought not to encourage the making of profits by our selling of arms. I feel that the sending of arms down there would be a very great mistake, as there is, in my view, no defense to be secured by that course.

I feel right now that the world has gotten to a point where if it proceeds further down this road that we are encouraged to go down by this bill, that while this bill calls for aid to this hemisphere, I should feel that we would be on very much safer ground if we left this hemisphere out of it and depended on what we can do with a larger unit, the United Nations, and gave our whole and undivided support to it.

I feel the time has come when we should make a real turn-about in our approach to the problem of world defense, in view of the fact that there is no one here, military or otherwise, who can tell us that we would have any security by former military expedients in view of what has been absolutely demonstrated at Hiroshima. Notwithstanding the fact that it has been suggested that we use small atom bombs, and not large ones, should we get into another war, do you think there would be a limit to anything of that sort?

If we get into an atomic-bomb war and in our military training have no better plan for our boys than to train them to gather up the fragments after several of our big cities have been laid waste, then I think the time has come for us to make a face-about, and there are means by which I think it could be done.

I recall a story about an old farmer who came to town with a wagon and he was on a busy street and he wanted to turn around when a traffic officer said to him, "Here, you can't make a U turn here." He said, "Well, I think I can if I am real careful.”

If we are real careful, I think this is a possibility of making that

turn.

I further think there are some of our national slogans that could be changed to advantage. One is, in this present situation, "Keep our powder wet," and the other is "Speak softly but tell the truth." Chairman EATON. Thank you.

Would the gentleman, before he leaves the stand, clear up one question: Who is getting his thumb sucked and by whom? Mr. TAYLOR. Probably you haven't heard about that. Chairman EATON. No; I never did.

Mr. TAYLOR. In the course of human development, young babies, before they get much experience, go through the thumb-sucking stage, and we haven't arisen yet to a high point in spiritual developmentthat is, all of us haven't-but there have been evidences in the past where another method than the way of force worked out. The experiment with the Indians in Pennsylvania where for 70 years William Penn and his colonists lived with them without bloodshed, while surrounding colonies, using methods of violence, had all sorts of trouble with the same kinds of Indians.

Chairman EATON. Thank you very much, sir.

We are very grateful. We appreciate your being here.

Chairman EATON. The next witness is Miss Heloise Brainerd, the legislative secretary of the Women's International League.

STATEMENT OF MISS HELOISE BRAINERD, COORDINATOR OF INTERAMERICAN WORK, WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR PEACE AND FREEDOM

Miss BRAINERD. On behalf of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, United States section, I have asked to appear before your committee in opposition to the Inter-American Military Cooperation Act. By way of introduction I will say that our organization has had connections with Latin-American countries for over 20 years, and has made intensive studies of conditions in several of them.

Since 1935 I have been in charge of the league's relations with the other American Republics, my position now being that of coordinator of inter-American work. At the present time the league, continuing earlier policies, is sponsoring an inter-American congress of women to be held at Guatemala City next August, the first meeting of its kind.

As to myself, prior to taking up this volunteer work in the Women's International League, I lived for over 3 years in Mexico City, and then was associated with the Pan American Union of this city for 26 years, becoming chief of its division of intellectual cooperation.

may add that, in addition to working with the United States section of the league, I am chairman of a similar committee of our international organization, with headquarters at Geneva, Switzerland. I have visited all but one of the American Republics, and have personal friends in all of them.

With regard to the bill under consideration, I should like first to explain the reasons for our opposition to the plan, and second, to suggest an alternative policy of constructive aid to Latin America.

Our first objection arises from the results we have observed as coming from past action on the part of the United States in helping to arm our southern neighbors. Let me give a few illustrations. It was widely reported at the time that Morinigo was inaugurated as President of Paraguay that American jeeps and tanks-part of the lendlease equipment sent him-figured prominently in the inaugural ceremonies. Since then Morinigo has managed to maintain an especially harsh and cruel dictatorship, and the latest revolution which began several months ago has not been able to dislodge him, thanks to the arms he acquired in the United States.

The present chaotic condition of Bolivia may be ascribed in no small part to large purchases of armament, in contrast to a pitiably small budget for schools, although the population is said to be 70 percent illiterate.

It is reported to me that arms are constantly being purchased in the United States, and that at the time of the recent revolution when President Villarroel was dragged from the palace and hung from a lamppost, the populace used American tanks taken from the arsenal to batter down the doors of the palace. Whatever our opinion of President Villarroel, none of us would approve that method of getting rid of him. Now, it is said, a large part of the population of La Paz are armed, and also the miners and thousands of Indians, so that the prospects for civil peace in that unhappy land are small.

In January a dispatch from New York, quoted in a Peruvian newspaper, stated that Señor Eduardo Rodriquez Larreta, Minister of

Foreign Affairs of Uruguay, then in the United States, had declared that while the hemisphere defense plan had some merit, he feared that in many countries the receipt of such arms would lead to repressive measures against the people and would reinforce dictators, adding that "native Fascists are strong, and represent the real danger to our existing democracies."

To send a large quantity of arms to Latin-American countries would be a disaster. As a matter of fact, outside of military circles there is no clamor for arms in Latin America, so that the thought advanced that these countries will buy arms from someone else if not from us does not seem to me a strong one.

From the point of view of inter-American peace, the possession of up-to-date armament has a tendency to aggravate existing differences between countries, which might otherwise lie dormant or be solved peacefully. Some of us recall the stubborn fighting that took place only a few years ago between Peru and Ecuador over a boundary question, and the vivid accounts of how American planes were used by the Peruvian Army to bomb fleeing refugees from El Oro Province, and American tanks used against other Ecuadorians. When peace was finally made, our Government poured large sums into the restoration of the Province of El Oro, in partail compensation for the great losses sustained by the Ecuadorian people in that unnecessary conflict.

Again, we recall that some months ago the Colombian Government arranged to purchase 13 combat planes in the United States. Although Colombia and Peru, once near fighting over the Leticia incident, are now on friendly terms, Peruvian military authorities immediately demanded even more planes, and got them. How can it be said that the sale of arms by the United States would not promote an armament race?

Another instance is that of Argentina which, already heavily armed, is greatly feared by her neighbors, Chile, Uruguay, and others. Shall we add to this distrust by still further increasing her war potential?

The bill proposes to train Latin-American military and naval personnel in the United States. Aside from the large amount that this would cost the American taxpayer for the instruction, maintenance, and travel of such trainees, let us consider what such training has brought to Nicaragua. In the late 1920's the American marines, in an effort to end revolutions in that country, trained a national guard for Nicaragua, and picked out Anastasio Somoza to head it.

They trained him and his men so well that he soon took control over the country and has been in power over since. At a recent fake election Somoza's hand-picked candidate was elected, but on the latter's proving somewhat independent, Somoza kicked him out and took over the reins again through a puppet President. American arms and American training have made him practically invincible. How do we know this would not happen elsewhere?

This program would encourage Latin-American countries to spend large amounts of money which are desperately needed for productive enterprises. Moreover, they do not have sufficient dollar exchange now, and are in a precarious financial situation. If they use their dollar exchange for armaments, this will cut off other imports vitally needed, such as food products and supplies for industry. We would thus contribute further to inflation and misery.

Thinking people in those countries realize what their real needs are. Some months ago two groups in Costa Rica opposed the proposal of their Government to purchase a million dollars' worth of arms in the United States. Women belonging to the local branch of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, and the Costa Rican Chamber of Agriculture, both urgently requested that instead of arms, agricultural and industrial machinery be purchased so as to hasten the material prosperity of their country. A Bolivian educator declared: "Schools are the crying need of Bolivia. In our people's lack of education are rooted all our country's ills; in the mind of the ignorant it is easy to sow any sort of idea."

How will this policy affect our security? After all, its chief purpose is to create hemisphere solidarity against any aggressor. But how dependable is military solidarity based at the other end of the continent on Argentina, which has traditionally been neutral and admittedly now has a very totalitarian set-up? There are still high-up Nazi advisers in Argentina, as well as the son of Mussolini; large uranium deposits have been found, and the Peron government is reported to be working hard on the development of the atomic bomb; it follows closely the Hitler pattern internally and is working by economic and other pressures to create a southern bloc of nations under its control.

As an instance of economic pressure, it will be recalled that the Peron government halted food shipments to Bolivia, and cut off deliveries of wheat to Uruguay, in reprisal for failure to follow the "Argentine line." The arms we send to Argentina will strengthen opposition to our plans rather than cooperation with them.

And what of the effect on our prestige in Latin America? Will not our cheeks be red if it is known that we have furnished arms to Peron, to Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, to Carias in Honduras, perhaps even to the now defiant Somoza in Nicaragua ?

President Truman has said that there was "a determination to guard against placing weapons of war in the hands of any group who may use them to oppose peaceful and democratic principles," but these undemocratic elements are the very ones who will demand arms under such an act, and if we can and do refuse them we will have made enemies rather than collaborators.

In this connection I should like to quote from a letter appearing in the Washington Post, June 22, signed by a "Democratic Argentine,” who says:

The Argentines, who once used to defend the United States politics with earnestness and sincerity, are now terribly disappointed and utterly confused. We ask ourselves if it is true that the United States and all the United Nations fought a war defending real democratic ideals. Because, if so, how can they accept and favor governments (such as ours) which they know are real dictatorships? If you do favor it not an honest or intelligent human being will trust you, nor will they believe in your claim of freedom and democracy. We realize your great problem with the Russian republie, but we cannot realize why you are selling arms to our country.

* *

*

*

*

Finally, may I point out that the commitments of mutual assistance to be embodied in a treaty which will carry out the Act of Chapultepec, which it is expected will be drafted at the meeting of Foreign Ministers at Rio de Janeiro next August, can be fulfilled without the proposed inter-American military cooperation plan. This plan is a further step in nowise necessary to the carrying out of that original agreement. It

therefore should be considered strictly on its merits, and not rushed through as a prerequisite to action at Rio de Janeiro.

To sum up our objections: This plan will cost American taxpayers many millions of dollars. It will cost Latin-American countries large sums badly needed for other purposes. It will tend to promote dic-, tatorship and inter-American strife. It will impair rather than enhance our security.

In conclusion, as an alternative we favor expanding the following peacetime programs of the State Department:

(1) The training of teachers, engineers, agronomists, and other specialists in this country. This program has been going on for years, largely under private auspices, but should be greatly strengthened. By so doing we will help raise the standard of living and of culture, promote democracy, and create a soil in which "isms" do not flourish. We also will create good will toward this country.

(2) Making United States culture known in Latin America through the sending of our professors, scientists, and other leaders on exchange visits; through cultural relations attaches, who have helped immensely to raise our prestige in Latin America; and through publicity programs such as broadcasting. If we were to cut off these entirely, we would leave Russia in sole possession of a very important field.

(3). The work of the Institute of Inter-American Affairs and the Inter-American Educational Foundation, which are carrying on in 18 of the other American Republicans, and in active cooperation with them, programs in public health and sanitation, food supply through local agricultural assistance, and basic education such as vocational, rural, and related teacher training.

Testimony given on behalf of the State Department before a subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations last April tends to show that the work of these Institutes have benefitted several millions of people in the way of raising standards of living, and that they are regarded as positive evidence of the good will of the people of the United States.

To quote from the testimony:

They build up the democratic framework in Latin America. They directly assist and stimulate the middle class, show a practical means of overcoming poverty, and create among the peoples a stronger capacity for orderly democratic development

The American Ambassador to Paraguay, Mr. Willard L. Beaulac, in asking for a continuance of the program there, called attention to the fact that the United States has funds enough to provide mili-. tary and naval missions to countries requesting them, and asked:

Shall we take the position that our Government can afford to supply our neighbors with military and naval missions, but cannot afford to supply them with health and agricultural missions? My own view is that we cannot take this position. We cannot afford to adopt this negative approach to peace.

We would heartily second this viewpoint, and urge that instead of he huge sums which would be required to implement the InterAmerican Military Cooperation Act, even a part of them be devoted o the upbuilding of our sister nations in meeting their basic human eeds. With a raising standard of living and of culture down there, › which we have voluntarily contributed, the United States can eny real security in its own hemisphere-a security which no amount arms can bring.

63902-47—9