Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

could be kept at high levels, and the problem of transferring resources and manpower to different types of work, and perhaps to different areas. Ways would have to be found of countering the unfavorable international impact of such a program. The effect of an arms cutback on economic growth would have to be carefully evaluated. Nor are these all the problems by any means. There is plenty for the Disarmament Agency to do in the economic field. But again, the very fact that an agency of the Government will be thinking and planning about these problems of transition should be an impetus toward the removal of this subtle barrier to disarmament.

In another feature of the bill, the Director of the new Agency will have responsibility, subject to current regulations, of disseminating information abroad concerning U.S. disarmament activities. This recognition of the importance of the propaganda aspects of the disarmament effort is most heartening. Despite all our efforts we have never really gotten across to the world the idea that America is sincerely seeking disarmament. With their spurious peace appeals, and their continuous propaganda, the Russians have ridden this issue hard for a good 10 years. In contrast the United States has too often appeared, or been made to appear, as slow moving, or halfhearted, in its disarmament efforts. This is demonstrably false, but we haven't done the job in proving it. One of the tasks of the new Disarmament Agency will be to tell the story, the very creditable story, of America's disarmament efforts.

The new Agency will also be able to employ people of outstanding calibre, to hire experts and consultants, to utilize the services of Government employees in other departments who will be detailed to the Disarmament Agency. The Agency will have its own facilities for the conduct of research, but may construct new laboratories as the Director deems necessary. The Director will also have the responsibility, in consultation with other Government agencies, and subject to approval by the President, of developing suitable procedures for coordinating the activities of the Disarmament Agency with those of such other Government agencies as might be affected. Without further elaboration of administrative details, let it be said that the new Agency will be equipped, as far as we in Congress can make it possible, to be a solid, successful operation, right from the start. Incidentally, the Director has to make an annual report of the Agency's activities, which he will submit to the President, who in turn transmits it to Congress. This report may include recommendations for additional legislation. Congress is very interested in what the Disarmament Agency will be doing, and does not intend to impose a format which cannot be changed by the lessons of experience.

Before I close, may I just sum up for you the reasons for my support for the Disarmament Agency bill. First, it forcefully demonstrates that the United States not only understands, but fully sympathizes with the most deep-seated desire of the people of the world, namely the desire for peace. Secondly, it indicates that we are ready to place the full resources of the U.S. Government behind the search for paths to a relaxation of tensions, and ultimately, to the establishment of lasting peace. Thirdly, it centralizes and places on a continuing basis the hitherto fragmented and somewhat episodic efforts of the United States to develop a disarmament policy. Fourthly, it will mean that our disarmament negotiators will have the benefit of consultation with men who are continuously investigating, thinking, and writing on the problems of disarmament, preparatory to any conference in which we may engage. Fifthly, it will be a progaganda stroke of the best kind in the cold war, namely an action which will be considered admirable because its very purpose is admirable. It will win us a victory for here is a point at which the interests of the United States and those of all mankind indisputably coincide.

The Disarmament Agency has been a long time in coming. In fact, it is overdue. I hope and believe that the Congress will get on with its passage, for we need to get to work.

STATEMENT OF NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, INC., NEW YORK, N.Y. The National Council of Jewish Women supports S. 2180, the proposal to establish a U.S. Disarmament Agency for World Peace and Security.

We are a 68-year-old organization with 123,000 members in 329 affiliated local units. For 15 years we have maintained that U.S. policies directed toward insuring conditions of peace must include determined efforts to limit and control armaments and all other forms of mass destruction. We believe that inter

national agreement on inspection and control of disarmament must be reached and that the United States must continue its efforts in this direction.

The efforts made by our Government during these years are well known. The importance and positive hope with which the American people invest proposals for cessation of the nuclear arms race has been reflected by the sense of urgency that each reopened negotiation meeting has produced. We believe that people throughout the world feel this same sense of urgency and look to the United States for imaginative leadership in the search for workable means to achieve peace and disarmament. The technicalities-scientific, political, economic, military, and administrative of arriving at proposals both practical and negotiable are enormous. There is concurrently great importance in giving adequate evidence to the people of America and the world, that despite these technicalities our Government's efforts are sincere and we will continue to explore all possible and practicable roads.

Senator Humphrey has pointed out-and surely many concerned people will agree that we have gone to disarmament conferences in the past poorly prepared technically, uncertain of our objectives and of procedures to be followed. In matters of grave concern such as this, good intentions are not enough.

It is obligatory that we provide the dedicated men we send to negotiations with the best we can offer in research, study, and well-prepared proposals based on such data. It is understood that more extensive U.S. research on arms control and inspection techniques is necessary; that objects of such research include studies of maintenance of peace and security at each stage of disarmament, and of proposed central inspection systems. Private citizens, scholars, scientists, industry and private foundations have already devoted time and effort to pursuing answers to some of these problems. It is incumbent that our Government do no less. The establishment of the proposed agency would make possible the expansion and strengthening, as well as the coordination of all efforts by Government and private institutions.

We urge that you do all you can to make the passage of this legislation possible.

STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD G. BRENNAN 1

I should like to record my support of the Disarmament Agency bill (S. 2180) submitted to this Congress by the administration. A reasonably extensive background in the subject areas with which the projected Agency would be concerned leads me to believe that the draft bill, if promptly enacted, would lead to substantial improvements in national security.

In the course of assembling material for the book, "Arms Control, Disarmament, and National Security," it became grievously apparent that studies of real depth on most of the problems of arms control did not exist either in or out of the Government. In an attempt to provide some substantive studies under private auspices, a major study of arms control problems was undertaken by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in the summer and fall of 1960. That project made it clear that even an intensive 3-month program is not sufficient to achieve major progress; yet most preparation periods provided for drawing up U.S. positions prior to international disarmament talks in the past have been considerably shorter than this.

It is worth stressing that the projected Disarmament Agency is not in opposition to the Department of Defense or to other agencies of the Government. The Disarmament Agency, just as much as its sister agencies elsewhere in the Government, would be concerned with strengthening national security in a variety of ways. However, by concentrating on those ways that have traditionally received less attention from the Departments of State and Defense, it would offer modest new hope of achieving substantial improvements in national and international security by means of arms control.

The following note was appended to Dr. Brennan's statement: "Dr. Donald G. Brennan, a mathematician and student of national security affairs affiliated with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is editor of the recent volume 'Arms Control, Disarmament, and National Security' (Braziller, 1961), and of its forerunner, the special issue on arms control of Daedalus (journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences) in fall 1960. He was codirector of the 1960 summer study on arms control conducted at Boston last year under the auspices of the American Academy and is a regular participant in the Harvard-MIT Seminar on Arms Control and in the Conferences on Science and World Affairs. Dr. Brennan is a member of the executive committee of the Federation of American Scientists."

Even if there appeared to be no prospect of achieving explicit agreement with potential enemies on the subject of arms regulation and control in the immediate future, it would still be important for us to be prepared to treat the subject of arms control and disarmament with some of our best resources on a permanent and continuing basis. The studies that are required to prepare convincing and viable policy positions require a long lead time, involving issues too complex to be dealt with in the course of a few weeks. In addition, disarmament studies must relate to a constantly changing military and political environment which requires that arms control be considered as a continuing process, in which changes in the political setting or an evolving military technology must be constantly reevaluated and corresponding adjustments made in control arrangements. For this purpose continuous studies are required.

We should be preparing right now for our negotiation positions of next year. Although the prospects for immediate negotiations are not bright, it is certain that there will be future negotiations-if not next year, then the year after. The Agency should conduct studies of negotiation-oriented problems related to arms control. These involve technical, military, political, and economic components, that are nowhere treated in integrated fashion in other departments. Let us mention two specimen problems of his type.

First, in the area of technical studies, the subject of nuclear test detection and concealment is one that has received adequate study and attention only after we became involved in negotiations aimed at outlawing nuclear tests. We should have had in view in late 1958 some of the technical problems which have only come into view since late 1959. A clearer understanding of the technical problems and possibilities of monitoring nuclear tests would, in all likelihood, have led us to think of the test ban in different ways from the beginning, and would have led us probably to a different position at the official negotiations.

The second example, involving a military problem, is also drawn from the area of the nuclear test ban. It would be fair to say that only in the very recent past has there been any serious attempt to understand in detail the military consequences of the nuclear test ban under various assumed conditions, such as whether the Russians do or do not cheat. In the light of careful military studies of potential military consequences, it now appears that the risks of an imperfectly inspected test ban are not intrinsically unacceptable. This would clearly have influenced our view of the requirements of inspection for a nuclear test ban.

The Agency should be able to conduct research and studies on a broad range of problems relating to arms control aspects of national security policy, not merely a few specific problems concerning the test ban. Many students of these matters feel that we have not been prepared with sound national policies at any international conference for many years. The projected Agency, if suitably funded, should be able to close this glaring gap in our national posture.

STATEMENT OF HERMAN KAHN OF THE HUDSON INSTITUTE, INC.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to submit this statement for your record. I should like respectfully to urge the prompt passage of H.R. 7936, a bill to establish a U.S. Disarmament Agency for World Peace and Security. Such an agency can help fill a very urgent need; it is a long overdue step in the right direction.

The committee is well aware, of course, that there is nothing new in working for "world peace and security." These have always been objectives of our policy, and both the State and Defense Departments, as well as the National Security Council and other agencies, have been trying to maintain peace and to increase security, both our own and the world's. Nor is disarmament a novel approach to these objectives. The bill defines "disarmament" as including "the elimination, reduction, control, limitation, inspection, verification, or identification of Armed Forces and armaments of all kinds under international agreement or measure, including the necessary steps in connection with disarmament to create and strengthen international organizations for the maintenance of peace." We have already been doing some disarmament, thus defined, through treaties, U.N. participation, negotiations, Executive orders, and tacit understandings. Measures that have some "disarmament" aspect have been correctly viewed as requiring the balancing of many military, political, diplomatic, economic, and technical considerations. Disarmament has been properly seen as one very

important kind of political and military policy among many, all aiming to insure peace, security and survival.

Disarmament is intrinsically neither more nor less a means of advancing world peace and national security than are other kinds of foreign and military policies. But given an accelerating military technology and an ever more dangerous arms race, various disarmament and arms control arrangements will become increasingly attractive as ingredients of national policy alternatives. The attempt to achieve workable agreements and controls will become increasingly more worth while, in spite of the obvious obstacles and the risks and other costs that will be entailed.

The fact that the new agency will be semi-independent will serve to direct attention to policy planning in this area, to secure greater integration with other branches of Government, and to meet the needs of the negotiators. The provisions of this bill relating to the functions of policy formation, negotiation of international agreements, public information, inspection and control, and cooperation and coordination, should help to increase the proper appreciation of both the central importance of disarmament policies and the need for overall policy integration.

This bill provides well for the coordination, evaluation, and implementation of policy. The provisions concerning policy research and planning, however, interest me particularly.

The list of research interests given in section 31 of the draft bill is admirably comprehensive, ranging from immediate technical problems to the at least equally difficult and important "scientific, economic, political, legal, social, psychological, military, and technological factors related to the prevention of war with a view to a better understanding of how the basic structure of a lasting peace may be established." It is almost impossible to overstate the importance and practicality of a well-financed, farsighted research program, and this bill can provide much of what is needed. Moreover, the bill is remarkably well conceived in leaving flexible the means of this research. Research must inform policymaking, and should never dominate it. Conversely, too close a tie with policymakers may impair the quality of the research. What is needed is a mixture of research styles, some relatively "responsible," and others relatively "creative." Otherwise there may be insufficient freedom to make mistakes, to abandon projects, to look into far-out alternatives in order to discover why we should or, what can be equally important, why we should not follow them. When the researchers are too close to the policymakers they too must be circumspect, judicious, and prudent; they cannot look into the total range of possibilities without impairing the stance of the negotiators or other policymakers. This is fatal to the kind of imagination that can result in policy "breakthroughs" or truly intelligent longrun planning. Not only do the researchers become apologists for the policymakers, but the latter may even be called on to defend the notions of the research people.

Experts must be played against each other; there must be free competition in ideas even within a secret planning agency, or there will be no new ideas. Certain studies should be done that will take, say 3 to 10 people 2 or 3 years to complete regardless of shifting priorities in the meantime. Other studies to which substantial resources have been committed must occasionally be dropped, without embarrassment to the organization or the individuals involved. That is the nature of research, unless it is to be pedestrian. It is striking-even shocking that, within the Government, so far only the military has been able to carry on good long-range policy research. In many fields crucial to our survival it has been impossible to prepare intelligently for more than immediate problems, and therefore very often not even the immediate problems have been prepared for. It will be administratively difficult, however, to create research facilities of the kind that will insure truly well-informed policies and unimpeded negotiations on all these matters. As I have written earlier:

"Such an organization has many needs that are hard to supply-financial stability, flexible hiring policies, and incredibly elastic working conditions; access to all kinds of proprietary and secret information; independence of individual projects to the point where it is almost the rule that many project leaders will make fools of themselves; protection against crash programs and too many urgent requests for help; and so on. There are also some things it does not need— immediate and sympathetic access to the highest levels of policymaking, for example" (app. I, "Improve Policy Formulation," in "On Thermonuclear War." Princeton, 1960, at p. 590).

I have confidence that the Administrator of the new Agency will not permit the research function to become too well integrated with the policy evaluation function. I would endorse this bill with enthusiasm. I respectfully recommend that it be enacted promptly and be given an appropriation adequate to its strategic importance to our hopes for world peace and national survival.

NATIONAL SOCIETY, DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION,

Mr. J. W. FULBRIGHT,

Chairman, Foreign Relations Committee,
Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Washington, D.C., August 17, 1961.

DEAR MR. FULBRIGHT: May I respectfully request that this statement be made a part of the hearing on S. 2180 to establish a U.S. Disarmament Agency for World Peace and Security held before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee August 14, 15, and 16, 1961.

History has proved that the control of their armed forces by the people is a vital element for freedom and independence of action of a nation. Therefore, the more than 2,600 delegates to the Continental Congress, National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution who represented 186,400 women in all parts of the United States adopted unanimously the following resolution:

"DISARMAMENT

"Whereas fear of nuclear war has already led this Nation into a self-imposed ban on underground nuclear testing without exacting a similar concession from the Soviet Union, thereby endangering national security; and

"Whereas the head of the U.S. delegation to the East-West Conference in March 1960 urged the establishment of an international police force under the control of the United Nations after curtailment of national arms and armies, thereby sacrificing the principle of the inherent right of self-defense of every nation; and

"Whereas disarmament could only result in loss of national sovereignty in a Communist-dominated world government;

"Resolved, That the National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution, affirm that any consideration of disarmament threatens the sovereignty and independence of this and other non-Communist nations so long as the major Soviet political objective continues to be the total domination of the world;

"Resolved, That the National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution, urges the Congress of the United States of America to exert every possible effort necessary to guarantee and maintain a strong and independent national military force capable at all times, and under all conditions of preserving our national sovereignty."

The stated purpose of the act to establish this Agency is as follows: "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."

Since there is no conceivable way to make the Soviet also disarm, we must realize that the world government to which we will surrender our sovereignty will be controlled by the Soviets and will be the worldwide dictatorship they have been planning for years.

The establishment of the U.S. Disarmament Agency for World Peace and Security could subject us to the following:

1. Complete disarmament of our Nation rather than reduction or limitation of armaments.

2. A permanent world peace force under international authority to forestall or suppress any breach of disarmament or other violation of world law. 3. A disarmament treaty, a world law, in constitutional and statutory form applicable not only to nations but also to individuals whose activities endanger international peace.

4. World judicial tribunals to interpret and apply this world law.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »