aid of arms, and how the security and rights of nations can be protected, and how needed changes and rights can be brought about in a disarming or disarmed world, and if there is any merit at all in this field, then the provision for the necessary research to create and support measures to that end may prove to be one of the most valuable features of this very fine bill. Thank you. Senator HUMPHREY. I think that is a very valuable contribution to this discussion, Mr. Larson. I really believe that the emphasis that you have placed upon the alternative to the use of force as a means of guaranteeing security and settling disputes is something that we must emphasize and that considerable research and study is needed in this area. I notice Ambassador Stevenson commented on the same thing at Santa Barbara or Berkeley? Mr. LARSON. Yes. Senator HUMPHREY. We are indebted to you for your leadership in world law and in organization to bring about world law and to enforce it. ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE OF DISARMAMENT AGENCY Mr. Larson, before you leave, I would like to ask just, first of all, if you support this measure? Mr. LARSON. Yes. Senator HUMPHREY. Do you feel that the administrative establishment provided in this measure will be workable? Mr. LARSON. Yes. I think it is probably the best combination that could be worked out under the circumstances. This is a perennial problem, as we all know, in how to set up a Government organization so as to get the benefits of the departmental association and the benefits of the necessary direct contact with the President, and partly on the basis of the experience with USIA and other Government organizations, I think this is the best you can do. PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF ESTABLISHMENT OF DISARMAMENT AGENCY Senator HUMPHREY. Because of your experience with the USIA and as special adviser and assistant to the President of the United States, do you feel that this bill, if adopted, will psychologically have an affirmative impact? Mr. LARSON. I think this would be a splendid thing from the point of view of the image of the United States overseas, and in convincing people that we mean business about peace and disarmament. One thing you certainly learn in conducting the information activities of the Government is that one fact is worth a million words, and this is a solid fact. This, I think, will speak volumes for our intentions overseas. NEED FOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION THIS SESSION Senator HUMPHREY. If we could pass this measure before the next session of the United Nations or during the time while the coming General Assembly of the United Nations is in session, do you feel it would have a good impact for the stature of our country? Mr. LARSON. Yes. I think it is particularly important that it be passed this summer because of the difficult period into which we are heading, and I think it would make a real contribution in the months ahead. Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you very much. We will include all of your statement and, by the way, I want the record to include by reference the documents which Mr. Larson has presented here. We will include, of course, the appendix as a part of the total testimony of Mr. Larson. Mr. LARSON. Thank you. Senator HUMPHREY. Thank you very much. (The prepared statement of Mr. Larson is as follows:) STATEMENT BY ARTHUR LARSON, DUKE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL My name is Arthur Larson. I am from the Duke University Law School, Durham, N.C. I wish to thank the committee for this opportunity to present some comments and data on one aspect of the pending resolution. That aspect is the role of research in the problem of disarmament and peace. As to the occasion for my interest in this topic, I may say that for the past 3 years I have been devoting my full time to the effort to marshal the research and intellectual resources of the United States in the cause of peace. My activities relevant to that objective include the following: Director of the World Rule of Law Center, Duke University; vice president and general counsel of the Peace Research Institute, Washington, D.C.; vice chairman of the Peace Research Committee sponsored by the Institute of International Order; and member of the American Bar Association's Special Committee on World Peace Through Law. I wish to stress, however, that I am speaking not as a representative of any of these organizations, but as a private individual. A strong feature of the pending bill is its emphasis on the need for research relating to disarmament. One of the most promising developments of the past few years has been the rapid growth of realization that homework, in the form of adequate research, is indispensable to the building of peace. There was a time, some years earlier, when one might have got the impression that peace and disarmament could be achieved if we could only somehow attain a simultaneous surge of good feeling between the world's contending powers. There were many organizations devoted to the cause of peace, but the idea of systematic, sustained, and technical research in a wide variety of areas as a prerequisite to disarmament and peace had not yet taken hold. As a subject for major research in colleges and universities, the problem of peace, war, disarmament was certainly not prominent, and perhaps not even quite respectable. and The beginning of the new approach was probably attributable, in the first instance, to the physical sciences. Negotiations on inspection and controls quickly exposed the fact that no real solution could be arrived at without a tremendous amount of scientific data on such matters as the feasibility of detecting certain explosions under certain conditions at certain distances, and so on. Not far behind the physical scientists in the realization of need for research came the lawyers and economists. The place of research in these fields was less immediately obvious, but could be easily demonstrated. For example, on the same problem of inspection, which was constantly insisted upon as an indispensable part of our disarmament proposals, it was soon realized that failure to provide answers to certain legal questions could be just as fatal as failure to provide scientific data. To take only the most obvious illustration: Suppose the Soviet Union, by some miracle, had agreed to a detailed inspection system. Suppose, also, that the Soviet inspectors one day had arrived at the plant gate of McDonnell Aircraft Co., and suppose that McDonnell Aircraft Co. had said, "This is private property" and slammed the gate in the inspectors' faces. The legal question is obvious. How much inspection of private property in a private enterprise economy can American negotiators legally promise? This problem was actually anticipated and made the subject of a book by Louis Henkin entitled "Arms Control and Inspection in American Law." Another aspect of the impact of legal research on disarmament concerns working out the right kind of dispute-settling mechanisms under a disarmament agreement. The fall 1960 issue of Daedalus contains two articles by Louis Sohn and myself dealing with some aspects of this question. As to economics, the biggest question is the economic impact of disarmament. Plainly, if there is fear on the part of labor, business, and the public that substantial disarmament might cause widespread unemployment and recession, the effect on prospects for disarmament might be damaging in the extreme. With such clear-cut illustrations as these in the fields of science, law, and economics for a start, there rapidly grew up the realization that there were similar contributions to be made in many other professions and disciplines, including communications, political science, history, sociology, psychology, anthropology, philosophy, and others. In September 1959 a small Committee on Peace Research was formed under the auspices of the Institute for International Order. Dr. Harold Taylor served as chairman of the committee. This committee, with the financial help of the Institute for International Order, undertook the preparation of five programs of research, which have now been published. They cover the areas of (1) the technical problem of arms control, (2) economic factors bearing upon the maintenance of peace, (3) international rule of law, (4) national and international decisionmaking, and (5) communication and values in relation to war and peace. In these five fields alone several hundred specific research projects were identified and described. Perhaps the best way to form an idea of the range, number, and practicality of these projects is to list the tables of contents of these five "designs for research." Accordingly, as an appendix to this statement there is attached a list of these reports with their authors and with the table of contents. It is hoped that the committee will find this listing useful in lending concreteness and detail to the various references in the pending bill to research in these fields. These reports have been widely circulated, and meetings have been held and are being planned to encourage research along these lines by the academic research community. Since the Peace Research Committee was only an informal group, it was thought desirable to create a more permanent organization to fol low up the opportunities that the growing interest in peace research was affording. Accordingly, there was organized, in the spring of 1961, a nonprofit corporation in the District of Columbia under the name of the Peace Research Institute. Ambassador James J. Wadsworth is devoting his full time to the work of this institute as its president. Its purposes include forwarding research in all areas prevalent to peace, through assistance in provision of ideas for projects, in seeking both public and private financing, in enlisting the interest of competent people, in distributing the products of research, and in keeping people in the various fields systematically informed of work in progress and completed. The Peace Research Institute also is prepared to undertake contract assignments from Government departments and agencies and get the work done under arrangements appropriate to the particular project. There are many other organizations, institutes, and centers concerned with various aspects of peace, war, and disarmament. This particular effort has been stressed here because it matches, in its conception of the variety of needed research, the concept reflected in the pending resolution, which, while mentioning the need for scientific and technical studies, also goes on to cite the need for research in economic, personnel, international organization, communications, political, legal, social, psychological, and military matters. The pending resolution also wisely makes provision for the conduct of research through the facilities, not only of the Agency and other Government units, but also of private organizations and institutions. The relative advisability of so-called in-house research and research by outside organizations cannot be the subject of a generalization. It depends on the character of the project, the staff and facilities available within the Agency, and many other factors. The purpose here is merely to call attention to the fact that, over the past few years, there have grown up a number of institutes and centers which exist for the specific purpose of carrying out the kind of research contemplated by the resolution, and which have access to combinations of talent which probably could not efficiently be assembled within the Government for a particular project. In private organizations, there is frequently gain in efficiency through the ability to utilize the precise combination of backgrounds and specialties needed for a particular project, and to profit by the freedom, freshness, and opportunities for exchange that are possible in a university or research center setting. One final thought supporting the need for broad research: it is becoming increasingly evident that workable disarmament proposals will have to recognize that disarmament cannot be conducted in a vacuum. Armaments have been built up for a purpose. That purpose, among other things, is to protect the particular country's rights, including the right to security. No nation is going to disarm unless something is put in the place of armaments to protect those rights and that security. In the human story, that "something" has always been law. The word "law" is used here in its broadest sense, as embracing not only rules and principles of conduct, but appropriate mechanisms and organizations for settling disputes and conducting relations in an orderly way. In the most recent disarmament proposals of the United States, those of June 1960, there was explicit mention of the need to develop such rules and organizations as a corollary of the process of disarmament. If future disarmament proposals are based on this broad concept of the total problem, the task of legal, political, organizational, and related research will be correspondingly greater. I am personally convinced that disarmament will not get to first base unless our negotiators repeatedly and emphatically insist that disarmament can only be discussed meaningfully within the broader problem of how disputes between the United States and the Soviet Union, not to mention other countries, can be settled fairly and peacefully without the aid of arms, and how the security and rights of nations can be protected and needed changes in rights brought about in a disarming or disarmed world. If there is any merit at all in this view, then the provision for the necessary research to create and support measures to this end may prove to be one of the most valuable features of S. 2180. APPENDIX. REPORTS TO THE COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH FOR PEACE-TITLES, AUTHORS, AND TABLES OF CONTENTS PROGRAM OF RESEARCH No. 1-THE TECHNICAL PROBLEM OF ARMS CONTROL (By Bernard T. Feld, Donald G. Brennan, David H. Frisch, Gerry L. Quinn, and Robert S. Rochlin) 1.3 Aerial and outer space reconnaissance and surveillance. 1.4 Verifying activities of known facilities. 1.5 Maintenance of stockpiles. 2. Inspection of records: 2.1 Fiscal inspection. 2.2 Verification of reported production and inventory. 3. Nonphysical inspection : 3.1 Public requests for information. 3.2 Questioning key people. 3.3 Professional activities of key specialists. 3.4 International intelligence network. C. A summary of information on inspection of specific weapons and delivery systems: Table I. D. Discussion of table I: 4. Nuclear tests. 5. Nuclear weapons stockpiles. 6. Chemical and biological weapons-Field tests. 7. Biological weapons-Research and development. 8. Biological weapons-Deployment. 9. Missile tests. 10. Submarine stockpiles. 11. Submarine force estimation. 12. Conventional weapons. . E. Interaction between permitted and forbidden activities: 13. Fission and fusion bombs. 14. Space research. 15. Militarization of aircraft. 16. Convertibility of factories. 17. Military organizations and forces. F. Inspection systems. G. Common problems of inspection systems: 18. Statistical sampling techniques. 19. Positive functions for the inspection system. H. Experiments. I. Recommended priorities. J. Bibliography on arms control. |