Senator CASE. I think we have to face this and have a clear understanding of why we are taking this action. It is so easy for proponents of the administration here to say "isn't it better to flush out people, take them prisoner, than it is to burn them out and annihilate them from some recess when they have to be eliminated for the protection of our troops and for the advancement of our cause." One must have a very solid belief that all chemical warfare ought to be abolished despite considerations of this kind. That is true; isn't it?

Mr. BUNDY. That is right, Senator.

If I might comment on that, I think this is a real problem which occurs with all questions of the laws of war. The obvious example that we have all lived with since 1945 is the use of nuclear weapons. There are many situations in which just one tactical nuclear weapon would save lives. Rightly, it seems to me, one administration after another has held to the view it is just terribly important to preserve the line between the use and the non-use of nuclear weapons.

Another one in traditional history is the treatment of prisoners. There are many situations where if you could squeeze information out of a prisoner you would save your own troops' lives. But the law of war, because of painful experience with torture, is that you are not required to give more than your name, rank and serial number, and even though it would save American lives, it is not legitimate warfare for Americans to press beyond that kind of inquiry into what a prisoner could tell you. I am not saying it never happens. I am saying that our law and our tradition and our military code are against it.

Senator CASE. I appreciate what you have just said and I agree with it completely. I accept your point of view and interpretation of the proposal, and I think we should follow it.

You can again multiply this by many things. The assassination of a tyrant

Mr. BUNDY. Certainly.

Senator CASE (continuing). Might be quite beneficial. We might have tried to kill Hitler.

However, there are possible actions that might be useful in the short haul but which set unfortunate precedents. The "humane" use of chemical weapons seems to be in this category.

COMMITTEE AND SENATE ACTION IN PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES

We do have a problem, as a committee and as the Senate, in what to do in the circumstances now presenting themselves. I am not anxious to have the Senate or this committee appear to be holding up action on a useful matter. Your suggestion about getting the views of the Court and further exploration of the attitudes of our friends who have either abstained or voted the other way, I think, is a very interesting one, but I just wonder whether in the circumstances we had not better make our own interpretation of the treaty and send it back and see if the administration in the meantime cannot be persuaded to change its mind by this inquiry without our holding up our action. That is my only disagreement with you.

Mr. BUNDY. I have no disagreement with that as a means of proceeding. I don't think the two ways of inquiry are mutually exclusive at all.

Senator CASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SPARKMAN. Senator Cooper.

Senator COOPER. Mr. Bundy, your statememnt is very terse and incisive.

Senator CASE. Would the Senator yield before he starts, I want to apologize to Senator Clark, since I have to leave for a hearing before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee right now.

It isn't because he is about to take the stand.

Mr. BUNDY. I shall be glad to yield.

Senator CASE. I will read his testimony with the greatest interest, but under the circumstances of a possible vote in the Appropriations Committee I ought to be there. My body will be there, but my spirit ought

to be here.

Senator COOPER. I would like to address these remarks to both Senator Clark and Mr. Bundy. We have a practical situation facing us in the Senate. I would prefer that we report this protocol and let the Senate vote upon it. We are faced with the situation that for 46 years this protocol has not been acted upon. The administration now has agreed to the principal part of the protocol and has added some reservations of its own, not just the reservation upon the use of herbicides and tear gases, but has added a declaration that the United States will not use in any case, even second use, biological and toxic weapons and that it also will not produce or store these weapons. This position is an advance over that of other countries. I wonder if we should throw away this advance which has been made, which is important, because the committee or the Senate would not accept the amendment dealing with herbicides and tear gas.

Mr. BUNDY. Well, I certainly don't myself think, Senator, that it would be good nor that it is necessary to back off from what, I think, is the important forward step which the administration has taken in renouncing not only second use but first use of biological weapons. I think that is a major forward step.

I think that would not be damaged by trying to hold action on this matter until we see whether we can get an understanding that commands more international support.

We have done pretty well up to Vietnam in staying away from chemical warfare even without adhering to the protocol and, it seems to me that it is better for the administration to move in this constructive direction taken by the decision of the President and not to try to take an action at this stage which would have an international effect of weakening the protocol, which is an international instrument.

WOULD DELAY IN ADHERENCE WEAKEN PROTOCOL?

Senator COOPER. Well, if we don't adhere to the protocol in some form, we may weaken it in a much larger sense; wouldn't you say? Mr. BUNDY. I think delay for the necessary time for broader study is a preferable course at the moment, because people do know that the administration has moved forward, people do know that there is a practical difficulty here. To try to take the time to work our way around that difficulty, and after these 40 years, seems to me reasonable.

Senator COOPER. You referred to the rules of warfare a while ago and, of course, they have changed radically, as you know so well. For example, there was once general agreement on open cities, that a belligerent would not bomb, would not attack by artillery or other means, open cities. That has been violated by perhaps every country, including our own.

I am not arguing against adding these limitations on herbicides and tear gas, but I wonder if you should deny the whole protocol because it hasn't for a moment reached perfection.

Mr. BUNDY. I Wouldn't want to deny the whole protocol, Senator. I am suggesting that we take a little time to see if we can't get a better and broader and more effective understanding in the interests of the long future.

Senator COOPER. Our position on toxic or biological warfare is already broader than that of other countries that have already adhered to the protocol.

Senator SPARKMAN. Senator Aiken.

PRESENT USE OF TEAR GAS AND HERBICIDES IN INDOCHINA

Senator AIKEN. I have one more question. Does the witness know if we are or our allies are now using tear gas and herbicides in Indochina?

Mr. BUNDY. I believe tear gas is still authorized for use and that herbicides are being phased out, but exactly what the present uses of the two weapons are I would not be qualified to testify.

Senator AIKEN. The tear gas is used for civilian uses. Is that your understanding?

Mr. BUNDY. As I understand it, and I may be wrong on this, Senator, but I know of no modification in the authorizations for tear gas and the classifications that have been offered in the past are, I think, six in number. The attack of occupied positions, the defense of U.S. positions, tunnel clearing, breaking contact with the enemy, defense against ambush, and rescuing downed airmen.

I know of no limitation on those classifications. Indeed, I know of no general limitation.

One of the things that worries me about this is that one gets the impression that military doctrine tends to expand to fill the available space with the available weapons, and I believe what we are faced with is the important question of whether these weapons, others like them, still others that may be included under a new category one begins to hear about, incapacitants, whether there isn't a danger that we will build in a rigid doctrine that permits all possible military uses of these kinds of chemicals. That is what, it seems to me, we should set our faces against.

Senator AIKEN. I was advised about a month ago by a representative of the Defense Department that strict orders had been given against the use of defoliants, and they were speaking particularly about the rubber plantations. I don't know when the order was given, but it seems to me that observing the spirit of the protocol is about the most important thing that we can do now.

Mr. BUNDY. I agree with that, Senator, and I think it is right. But, as I say, I have the same understanding that herbicides are being phased out. Exactly where we are in that process I don't know.

Senator AIKEN. Observance is more important than an autograph. Mr. BUNDY. That is right.

Senator SPARKMAN. Senator Church, do you want to ask Mr. Bundy some questions?

LIMITED APPLICATION OF PROTOCOL WOULD BE MISTAKE

Senator CHURCH. I am familiar with Mr. Bundy's statement. I am sorry I am late. I don't want to intrude on the committee's time except simply to say that it seems to me that it would be a mistake for the United States to enter into a treaty that is meant to have the moral force of this treaty and to do it with our hands behind our back and our fingers crossed. I think that if we enter the treaty and insist upon giving it a narrower construction than the other members to the treaty and a different and much more limited application than the overwhelming majority in the General Assembly indicated that the treaty included, then we would accomplish nothing for ourselves, and would not possibly strengthen our position before the world. I can't see how we could improve our position at the bargaining table in Geneva or anywhere else.

If we could wait until such time that we enter the treaty and accept it as the rest of the world has accepted the treaty and gave it the same scope, then I think it would have moral force.

I understand essentially that is your position.

Mr. BUNDY. That is right.

Senator CHURCH. I am in full agreement. I don't have to ask any questions.

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you, Senator Church. I was going to suggest you read his statement. It is a very clear and fine statement. Thank you, Mr. Bundy.

Now we will call on the Honorable Joseph S. Clark, our former colleague here. Senator Clark, we are glad to welcome you back to the committee.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH S. CLARK, PRESIDENT, WORLD FEDERALISTS, U.S.A.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is no secret that I wish I were still here.

I appreciate your willingness to hear me this morning, and I will try not to detain you long.

COALITION ON NATIONAL PRIORITIES AND MILITARY POLICY

I appear as the chairman of the task force on the Coalition on National Priorities and Military Policy. This coalition consists of the 37 national civic groups, the list of which will be appended to my statement. Primarily they are the major religious groups of the country running all the way from the Quakers and we Unitarians on

the left to the Catholics on the right, and includes also the Federation of American Scientists, the National Education Association, United Automobile Workers. It is a pretty wide spectrum group.

MEMBERS AND ADVISERS OF COALITION'S TASK FORCE

The other members of this task force are Herbert Scoville, Jr., Alton Frye, Allan Parrent, Ronald L. Tammen, Jeremy Stone and Morton Halperin. Our advisors are Adrian S. Fisher and Jerome Wiesner. I think you will agree these are competent experts in the whole area of arms control and disarmament.

PAMPHLET ENTITLED, "THE CONTROL OF CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL

WEAPONS"

Others far better qualified than I will deal with the technical, the military, the legal and the administrative aspects of this protocol.

In my judgment, the whole case has been brilliantly stated in this pamphlet prepared by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace called "The Control of Chemical and Biological Weapons," a copy of which has gone to every member of this committee.

If you would look at it you will see that there are a wide variety of extremely competent scientists, social scientists, lawyers, diplomats, who have put their names on this document and I commend it to you. My own view is that the time for further study has gone and that we ought to fish or cut bait.

By the way, Mr. Chairman, could I have my testimony printed as part of the record and then just add a little?

Senator SPARKMAN. Yes, it will be.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you.

Senator SPARKMAN. All of your statement will be printed and you can handle it as you see fit.

Mr. CLARK. I think I can save time by not reading the whole thing.

DELAY IN APPROVAL OF PROTOCOL

I am primarily concerned, both as a citizen and as a former member of this committee, with the moral aspects of this protocol, and I hope I won't shock my former colleagues when I say that to me it is a monstrous thing that for 45 years, during 12 of which I was a Member of the Senate, so I am particeps criminis too, the Senate of the United States has refused to give its approval to an international treaty prohibiting the use in war of asphyxiating poisonous or other gases and bacteriological methods of warfare. I don't know where our moral sense has been for those 46 years.

Senator SPARKMAN. I saw that statement. Let me ask you this question. You were a member of this committee for 12 years?

Mr. CLARK. Yes. No, now, I wish I had been, only 4. I was a Member of the Senate for 12 years.

Senator SPARKMAN. Did you know the treaty was before us?

Mr. CLARK. It wasn't because President Truman took it back. It wasn't until President Nixon submitted it that it was down here again for ratification is my understanding.