"LEAD-NOT RESPOND" 3. With adequate research, study, and planning we can provide greater leadership toward a disarmed world with a secure rule of law. We have too often been silent or negative when confronted by disarmament proposals from the U.S.S.R. Seldom have we seized the initiative by presenting our own comprehensive proposals. To lead we need information, ideas, and plans which the proposed Agency can provide. "SAFEGUARD NATIONAL SECURITY" 4. Such an Agency can protect our immediate national security by facilitating the evaluation of disarmament or test proposals. Our negotiators have sometimes had to deal with ideas which have been inadequately investigated. A continuing Agency can do such research and make less likely the acceptance of proposals harmful to our national security. -"9 "DEMONSTRATE SINCERITY' 5. Too frequently, we have given only lipservice to our disarmament negotiations and have viewed them as cold war propaganda. The establishment of a Disarmament Agency will demonstrate our sincerity to the Communist nations as well as to our allies and to the neutral nations. It should encourage the establishment of similar agencies by other national governments to study this major problem of the 20th century. "NOW IS THE TIME" Some will question the need for disarmament research, study, and negotiation when we have been unable to achieve any results in recent negotiations with the U.S.S.R. This is fallacious thinking because whatever may be the difficulty, the need grows greater each year. The horrendous destructive power of nuclear weapons generates an increased pressure of public opinion throughout the world to find a way to secure peace. This pressure upon the leaders of all nations is not lessened because they are busy with crises such as Congo, Cuba, Laos, or Berlin. In fact the tensions generated from such crises demonstrate ever more clearly the need to press forward with all honorable means to find acceptable answers in the areas of disarmament, world law, and peaceful settlement of international differences. "COST IS NEGLIGIBLE” The cost of such an Agency is minute as compared to the more than $45 billion we are spending on our Military Establishment. If we can spend such sums on arms for our national security and for peace, we can certainly afford the few millions of dollars required for the proposed Disarmament Agency. War has become obsolete and upon statesmen rests the heavy responsibility of finding an acceptable substitute. The proposed Disarmament Agency should be brought into being at the earliest practicable date in order to help the leaders of our country in this great task. The achievement of peace on earth and good will toward men is closely linked to the complex and difficult problems of disarmament in its broadest concept. The Methodist Church has repeatedly expressed itself as favoring a world free from the threat and scourge of war in which the use of law replaces the resort to force on an international level. We believe disarmament is one of the important facets of the complex problem of obtaining a secure peace with freedom. The 1960 General Conference of the Methodist Church adopted a statement on disarmament which included the following: "Disarmament is no simple goal, for its accomplishment requires agreement of all major powers, not only on the principles of disarmament, but also upon the delegation to the United Nations of the necessary authority and power to control, inspect, and enforce disarmament. In the face of national prejudices, suspicions, and fears this is a stupendous task. Its difficulty is exceeded only by necessity and urgency. Negotiations must be pressed with all major powers to find an acceptable path to disarmament. "We commend the President, the Congress, and the State Department of the United States on their attention to disarmament, but we call for an expansion of effort and staff to develop a comprehensive, safeguarded disarmament plan upon which to focus negotiations. "We call upon the United States and all other governments to declare complete, universal, and enforcible disarmament to be their goal and to move in this direction. "We further call upon the United States and all other governments to exert forceful, imaginative, patient, and dedicated leadership toward the achievement of such disarmament." Senator HUMPHREY. We will recess until 2 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m. the committee recessed to reconvene at 2 p.m. the same afternoon.) AFTERNOON SESSION Senator HUMPHREY (presiding). Mr. Larson, would you mind coming up to the table? Before calling on you, Mr. Larson, I want to make just a few announcements. Due to the fact that some of the witnesses have come from out of town and have made arrangements to return home, I have asked the witness schedule to be arranged so as not to inconvenience our out-of-town visitors. I also want to announce that any of the witnesses who wants to file his or her statement, instead of giving it orally, will not only be permitted to do so but encouraged to do so. Again, I want to explain the absence of my colleagues by telling you that we have this important foreign aid bill on the floor now which requires all hands from this committee to be on deck, except these unsteady hands, I guess. Our first witness is Mr. Arthur Larson, who has had a distinguished career in the Government, in the Office of Price Administration, the Labor Department, as Director of the USIA, and as special adviser toPresident Eisenhower. He is now associated with the School of Law at Duke University. Are you the dean of the school there? STATEMENT OF ARTHUR LARSON, WORLD RULE OF LAW CENTER, DUKE UNIVERSITY Mr. LARSON. No, the chief connection is director of this new research center which is Senator HUMPHREY. The World Rule of Law Center? Mr. LARSON. That is right, trying to build up the application of law to peace. Senator HUMPHREY. May I add also that you served as a delegate to the European-American Assembly in Switzerland. I enjoyed that opportunity to be there with you, Mr. Larson. Go right ahead. Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I am going to submit, as you suggested, a written statement for the record and now merely summarize it as briefly as I can. NEED FOR WIDE RANGE OF DISARMAMENT RESEARCH ACTIVITIES I am concerned with one principal aspect of the pending bill, and that is what I consider to be one of its finest features, the strong emphasis on a need for a wide range of research activities. This, I think, is a very interesting and significant development in the whole approach to peace and disarmament. A few years ago if you had said to somebody, "I am going to give my whole life and my whole time for research into disarmament and peace," the person would not have known what you were talking about. Something has happened in the last few years, and research in the interest of peace and disarmament has become very well understood, whereas some time back it was not only not prominent but probably not even respectable. I think maybe the beginning of this new approach could be attributed to the physical sciences. It became very obvious early in the game that you could not talk about inspection and controls unless you had a great deal of data on how far away you could detect a nuclear blast of such and such proportions, and so on. Not far behind, I think, came the lawyers and economists and the others. Now, this was not quite so self-evident because it is not quite as easy to see where legal and economic and other research fit into the pattern. But if you take an illustration like this, for example, I think it becomes fairly clear. We have made inspection the cornerstone of our disarmament policy for a long time and, yet, suppose we did have a disarmament agreement, and suppose a Russian inspector one day showed up in a tour of a defense plant, and the proprietor of the plant says, "This is private property" and slams the plant gate. Now, where are we? You see what I mean. We have a very definite legal question on how much inspection of private enterprise property our negotiators can really promise. This is a legal question. It is not an insoluble one. In fact, there has been a whole book written about it by Louis Henkin, called "Arms Control and Inspection in American Law." Senator HUMPHREY. Who was that? Mr. LARSON. Louis Henkin, of the University of Pennsylvania. Senator HUMPHREY. Isn't that a recent book? Mr. LARSON. Something over a year ago. Senator HUMPHREY. Who was the author of the most recent study that came out under the auspices of the Brookings Institution? Are you familiar with that study? The gentleman was at the Mr. LARSON. Well, there have been several. Mr. LARSON. Another obviously legal problem is the question of how you settle disputes under disarmament treaties, and so on and, of course, on the economic side, as almost every witness has mentioned up until now, there is the one outstanding question of the economic impact of the reduction of armaments, and so starting with these obvious illustrations, there grew up a realization that there were similar contributions that could be made by research in all kinds of fields, including communications, political science, history, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and many others. RESEARCH PROJECTS FORMULATED BY COMMITTEE ON PEACE RESEARCH In 1959 a small committee was formed, called the Committee on Peace Research, and this committee undertook to approach this whole problem by attempting to formulate every concrete and practical research project in these various fields, the principle of which could be thought of, and we have produced now and published a set of books here which is a set I will make available to the committee which I hope some can come through Senator HUMPHREY. Are you making those available to the chairman of the subcommittee? Mr. LARSON. That is right. Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you. Mr. LARSON. And they contain something like 500 identified research projects under different heads. One is the technical and scientific problems of arms control; the second is the economic factors bearing on the maintenance of peace; the third is the international rule of law; the fourth is national and international decision making; and the fifth is communication and values in relation to war and peace. Since obviously these cannot be put in the record as such, I have taken the liberty to include as an appendix to my written submission simply the table of contents of these five volumes, and I think merely skimming through these 500 or so topics for research will give a certain concreteness to the idea of what we mean when we talk about research in the interest of peace and disarmament. FORMATION OF PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE Now, since this committee was only an informal group, it was felt advisable to follow this up with a more permanent organization and, accordingly, there was formed the Peace Research Institute in Washington, D.C., a nonprofit corporation which has just been formed, and Ambassador James J. Wadsworth, who spoke this morning is the fulltime president of that new organization. This organization now has been set in motion for forward research in all areas relevant to disarmament and peace in every possible way and in every possible field through the provision of ideas for projects, through such books as these, through helping with public and private financing, through enlisting the interest of competent workers, undertaking contract assignments from the Government, distributing the products of research, and in keeping research workers informed about what the others are doing and, of course, there are many other organizations, institutes, centers, and so on concentrating these various fields of peace and war and disarmament. CONDUCT OF RESEARCH BY NONGOVERNMENTAL GROUPS Now, I think one of the wise features of the proposed bill is that it makes provision for the conduct of research through the facilities not only of the agency itself and other Government agencies, but of private and outside organizations. Senator HUMPHREY. Yes. Mr. LARSON. Of course, the relative advantage of what is known as in-house research as against research by outside organizations cannot be made the subject of generalization. It depends upon what kind of people you have in the organization, the nature of the project, and so on. But the purpose here is simply to call attention to the fact that over the past few years there has grown up a number of institutes and centers that exist for the specific purpose of carrying out this kind of research, the kind contemplated by this resolution, and which have access to combinations of talents which, perhaps, in some instances could not be as efficiently assembled in the Government for a particular project. NEED FOR BROAD RESEARCH Finally, I would like to make one observation on the need for broad research. It is becoming increasingly evident that workable disarmament proposals will have to recognize that disarmament cannot be achieved in a vacuum. Armaments have been built up for a purpose and not out of sheer cussedness. That purpose, among other things, is to protect the particular country's rights, including the right of security, and no nation is going to disarm unless something is put in the place of armaments to protect that security and those rights, and in the human story that is something that has always been involved. I am using law in a very broad sense as embracing not only rules and principles of conduct, but appropriate organizations and mechanisms for settling disputes and conducting relations in an orderly way, and in future disarmament proposals if they are based on this total concept of the problem, then the task of legal and political and organizational and related research of the kind that is listed specifically in the bill will be correspondingly greater. DISARMAMENT DISCUSSIONS IN BROADER CONTEXT I am personally convinced that disarmament will not get to first base unless our negotiators repeatedly and emphatically insist that disarmament can be discussed meaningfully only within the broader problem of how disputes between the United States and the Soviet Union and between other countries can be fairly and peaceably settled without the |