NEED FOR DISARMAMENT PEACEFULLY ENFORCED, THROUGH LAW This was a little bit off the subject of the Disarmament Agency, but a world of law requires courts. Mr. LEVERING. It does and disarmament requires law and courts, because the idea that you can disarm without setting up an alternative means of security through law seems to me to be considerably farfetched. It has not happened that way within nations, nor is it likely to happen among nations. I might mention along the line you have suggested that eight of our people are here in the Capitol today working on this matter and there is a delegation from North Carolina that is coming next week. We have had 60 or more come to Washington to work specifically on these things and we are doing what we can do to help. In summary, I would simply say that we do not think this change, this basic change from relying on national armament to disarmament under law peacefully enforced is impossible. We think it is essential. We think it is important to get underway as rapidly as we can. We think this bill is a tremendous step forward and we intend to do everything we can to help get this passed and underway and supported once it is in operation. Thank you, sir. Senator HUMPHREY. I thank you and compliment you on your statement. (Mr. Levering's prepared statement follows:) STATEMENT OF SAMUEL R. LEVERING IN BEHALF OF THE FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION My name is Samuel R. Levering. I am appearing today as chairman of the executive council of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, Washington, D.C. We appreciate this opportunity to give our strong endorsement to S. 2180 to create a U.S. Disarmament Agency for World Peace and Security. While our committee does not claim to speak for all Friends because the organizational structure of the Religious Society of Friends does not lend itself to official spokesmen, I feel it is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of Friends welcomes this expansion of our Government's efforts for world disarmament. We wish to commend President Kennedy for fulfilling the pledge he made on March 7, 1960, at Durham, N.H., and the promise in the Democratic platform, to increase greatly the Government's efforts toward disarmament. The new Agency which has been recommended by John J. McCloy builds upon the beginning made during President Eisenhower's administration when he created a U.S. Disarmament Administration in the State Department in 1960. For many years, members of both parties in both the Senate and House have at one time or another urged the establishment of a Department of Peace and other methods of expanding the Government's efforts in the field of peace. The Senate Subcommittee on Disarmament has also performed an outstanding public service during the past 6 years in informing Members of Congress and the general public on the problems, and opportunities of world disarmament. Our own Friends Committee on National Legislation for some 8 years has also urged greater Government efforts in studying and preparing for world disarmament. The most recent statement in the form of a communication to the then President-elect John F. Kennedy, on December 12, 1960, suggests that the President appoint a topflight administrator responsible to the Secretary of State, dedicated to unremitting efforts toward world disarmament, as head of a much expanded Disarmament Administration. The effectiveness of the Disarmament Administration will depend in great measure on the stature of the man chosen to head it and on his firm dedication to the achievement of world disarmament. He should be given appropriate rank and the opportunity to participate in basic policy discussions. Such a Disarmament Administration should concentrate on adequate study and research on effective solutions of the many political, scientific, economic, and technical problems of disarmament as you proposed in your address of March 7 at the University of New Hampshire. Disarmament efforts should be closely coordinated with efforts for political settlements. The administrator of this agency might well profit from the assistance of an advisory citizens committee composed of distinguished Americans. The need for a U.S. Disarmament Agency for World Peace and Security should be apparent to all. The advent of nuclear, chemical, and bacteriological weapons of unparalleled destructive power has made imperative the abolition of war in our generation. The prophet's dream of beating swords into plowshares has become a practical necessity. This dream cannot become reality merely by wishing for it. It will take a firm commitment to the goal of world disarmament, hard, clear thinking and planning, and the carrying through of policies in the face of strong countervailing pressures. The search for peace is complex and many faceted. Some Government programs are already helping to build the climate and conditions of peace-the international educational and cultural exchange programs, the constructive use of our agricultural abundance through Public Law 480, humanitarian economic aid and technical assistance programs which reach the people and help build stable democratic governments, the Peace Corps which offers young Americans a new opportunity to serve others around the world. But much remains to be done. The creation of a U.S. Disarmament Agency can help fill this gap by carrying on greatly needed research projects, by giving the Disarmament Agency Director direct access to the President with participation in National Security Council meetings having to do with disarmament, and by creating a general advisory committee of 15 outstanding citizens. We wish to make these comments about the bill and its implementation: 1. The goal of world disarmament should be taken seriously.— Congress, in approving legislation to create a U.S. Disarmament Agency and the administration in implementing it should make clear that the United States is, in fact, committing itself to a new and intense search for national security through world disarmament. A full commitment is essential. Lip service to disarmament, while adding billions to the military budget, opens one to the charge of hypoc risy. Each new international crisis should be the occasion for searching for creative solutions which are steps toward disarmament and world law, rather than a new arms buildup and a new excursion to the brink of nuclear disaster. We hope that the Congress and the administration will take seriously the first paragraph of the statement of purpose of S. 2180: "An ultimate goal of the United States is a world which is free from the scourge of war and the dangers and burdens of armaments; in which the use of force has been subordinated to the rule of law; and in which international adjustments to a changing world are achieved peacefully. It is the purpose of this act to provide impetus toward this goal by creating a new agency of peace to deal with the problem of disarmament." The director and staff of the U.S. Disarmament Agency should be firmly committed to this goal and Congress should appropriate the necessary funds to carry out the purposes of the legislation. We also suggest deletion of the word "ultimate" in the statement of purpose: "An ultimate goal of the United States ***" This task of achieving world disarmament is immediate and pressing. Each year the arms race continues new and more terrible weapons are developed. More nations come into possession of them. Their control is placed at lower and lower echelons of command. This process cannot continue into the indefinite future without a mistake, an accident, or an irrational act which could touch off a worldwide nuclear holocaust. 2. Disarmament policies should be closely linked with political solutions. One of the lessons of history is that disarmament cannot be considered in a vacuum. The President, in his letter of June 29, supporting this bill noted "the complex interrelationship between disarmament activities, foreign affairs, and the national security." Disarmament negotiations will not be fruitful if tensions rise in Berlin, the Formosa Straits, or the Middle East. Billions of dollars for guns and other U.S. military assistance to newly developing countries in Latin America, Africa, and southeast Asia strengthen their military class and build vested interests in a system of national armaments. No real progress can be made toward world disarmament without including Chinese Communist representatives in the negotiations. Two efforts to neutralize or demilitarize important areas have been. successful in recent years-the Austrian Peace Treaty and the Antarctica Treaty. A close examination of the facts which culminated in the signing of these treaties might suggest ways to achieve agreement in other important areas, such as outer space, the high seas, and Berlin, Germany, and Central Europe. 3. The increasingly important role of the United Nations and related international institutions in achieving peace should receive major attention. Section 3 of the act, in defining "disarmament" rightly notes that this includes necessary steps "to create and strengthen international organizations for the maintenance of peace." We believe such a study would show that the processes of the United Nations, unsatisfactory and rudimentary though they may now be, have succeeded in helping avoid major conflagrations, perhaps even nuclear wars, in such places as Suez and the Congo. Research and recommendations on measures to strengthen the United Nations should be given high priority by the new agency. 4. The new agency should devote considerable attention to the economic consequences of disarmament.-While the major problems in the field of disarmament are political, research on the economic effects of disarmament can allay the unfounded fears which many citizens have that disarmament would bring on a depression. This is a question of international importance as well. Last year, the U.N. General Assembly approved à Pakistani resolution for a U.N. study of the economic and social consequences of disarmament. This study is now underway, headed by distinguished consultants from the United States, U.S.S.R., Great Britain, France, India, Pakistan, Sudan, Argentina, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. 5. The new agency should conduct extensive research into the psychological factors related to the prevention of war, as authorized in section 31(1).-The UNESCO constitution begins: "The Government of the States Parties to This Constitution on behalf of Their Peoples Declare: that since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that defences of peace must be constructed." We need much more information on the role that fear, suspicion, and insecurity play in intensifying the arms race. An act which appears defensive to one side seems clearly provocative to the other. A greater attempt to understand the real and imagined fears of the participants in the arms race might well open up new areas in which progress can be made. The whole concept of "deterrence" which is based on threats and fear to keep the peace and prevent aggression needs to be examined. The Stanford Research Institute in its 1959 report to the Foreign Relations Committee suggested that the psychological assumptions of this deterrence theory have not received the careful analysis they deserve, although the policy requires the spending of billions of dollars and involves great risk to our Nation and the world. In summary, we urge this committee to approve the President's proposal to create a U.S. Disarmament Agency for World Peace and Security. The estimated annual cost of $6 to $7 million is only about one-tenth of 1 percent of the additional funds voted this year by Congress for military purposes. If this new Agency plays a useful role in reducing and eliminating our Nation's and the world's vast military expenditures, it will have effected an economy of major proportion. Even more important, it can play an important role in contributing to the abolition of the age-old and outmoded institution of war and pave the way for the next great step forward for mankind. Senator HUMPHREY. Mrs. Wilson Wing, of the Maryland Committee for a Nuclear Test Treaty, Baltimore, Md. STATEMENT OF MRS. WILSON WING, MARYLAND COMMITTEE FOR A NUCLEAR TEST TREATY, BALTIMORE, MD. Mrs. WING. Thank you. Senator HUMPHREY. How are you today? It seems as though I am meeting many good friends. Mrs. WING. We feel very friendly toward you, all of us so interested in world peace and progress in disarmament. We would not like you to feel put upon, because there are some 15 Marylanders in this room at the moment. Senator HUMPHREY. I have met some of these delightful Marylanders. I want to welcome the young folks, in particular. By the way, how many of you have noticed the number of young people who attend our hearings? True of every hearing we have in Washington is the interest of the young people and, in particular, I say most happily, the women, in these matters of legislation. I want to compliment the young people on coming. If I had my way, we would have the rooms made twice as big, open the doors twice as wide, and invite in the young people, and we might even shorten up the press tables. The one in this room is short. very BACKGROUND OF THE MARYLAND COMMITTEE Mrs. WING. I shall not take but a few minutes of your time, Senator. I feel that I am here as a representative of a citizens group. You are seeing us, the Maryland Committee for a Nuclear Test Treaty. We came together out of concern for survival and security, established a steering committee, and accepted the ad hoc goal of support for the nuclear test treaty. The steering committee meets biweekly and reports back to a larger group by mail and in meetings. The steering committee includes the senior partner of a Baltimore law firm, a professor of Goucher College, a corporation vice president, a professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, a newspaper publisher, a public relations specialist, and the women members are wives of professional men and have to their credit thousands of hours of volunteer work at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, the Citizens Planning and Housing Association, the League of Women Voters, the United Nations Association, their schools, colleges, churches, and political parties. Members of the committee have served in both major wars of this century, and most of us have traveled or lived abroad for long periods of time. We are not affiliated with any national group nor have we any professional staff. What did we do, what did we find, what do we want? We accepted the dilemma as posed by Gen. Douglas MacArthur on June 11, 1961, at Lansing, Mich. : No longer can it (war) be a successful weapon of international adventure. If you lose, you are annihilated. If you win, you stand only to lose. No longer does it possess even the chance of the winner of the duel. It contains only the germs of double suicide. Because the nuclear test ban negotiations were in progress, because such a treaty was the policy of our Government and gave hope of success, we began work on this subject. By so doing we demonstrated the basic American belief that citizens must bear responsibilities for the workings of their government. One of our members prepared a solid background paper on the history of disarmament negotiations since 1945 and of the nuclear test treaty negotiations in particular. Others discussed the report of the National Planning Association on how arms control and disarmament efforts might be organized within the Federal Government structure. Some of us called on Senator J. Glenn Beall, Congressman Samuel Friedel, and Congressman Daniel Brewster and discussed their attitude toward a ban on the testing of nuclear weapons. We urged |