[Resolution adopted by the special collective bargaining convention, UAW, April 1961, Detroit, Mich.] SECURITY FOR DEFENSE PRODUCTION WORKERS The present national need for a strong and modern military defense, and the imperative international necessity for achieving as speedily as possible an enforcible mutual disarmament agreement are both undeniable. In meeting these needs, however, the defense production workers, their families and their communities must not be treated as expendable. Programs must be developed and implemented to protect them from the hardships and disruptions that now flow from changes in military programing, in procurement policy and in defense technology, and that may occur in the future as a consequence of disarmament. Defense production workers are among the most insecure in the Nation. Changes in the balance of our defense effort since World War II, first, from ground defenses to aircraft, and then from aircraft to missiles, have led to layoffs of tens of thousands of workers, usually without adequate provision to transfer them to other jobs or to help them move to areas of new employment opportunities. Further changes in defense production programs will undoubtedly create similar problems in the future. An effective international agreement for mutual disarmament would bring tremendous benefits to the country and the world but it would also create great problems of displacement of workers. in defense industries. There should be established under the proposed National Planning Agency a Commission on the Economics of Disarmament. This Commission would have the responsibility, among others, of trying to foresee as far ahead as possible the specific shifts in defense production requirements that changes in defense techniques or defense requirements or disarmament might make necessary; and to prepare programs designed to bring about the changes with as little injury as possible either to workers and their families or to the economies of affected' communities. This would involve the replacement of existing defense production with production for other defense or peacetime purposes wherever possible, with adequate provision for maintenance of workers and their families during the reconversion period. When local employment opportunities could not be developed for all displaced workers it would mean assistance in finding jobs. elsewhere and in meeting the costs of moving themselves and their families and relocating in new communities. Toward these ends we propose that the Government take the necessary steps to encourage defense production contractors, through research grants and direct research assistance, to prepare themselves for conversion to production of civilian goods with the least possible delay if and when military contracts are terminated in whole or in part. Research aids should be directed toward the development of marketable new products that could be manufactured to the maximum extent possible with the existing machinery of the plants involved and with use of the existing skills of the work force. Grants should be available for retraining workers to the extent that may be necessary to facilitate the conversion process. Loans on liberal terms should be made available by the Government to aid the employers involved to purchase such additional machinery as they may need. We propose also that the Government adopt the principle that protection of workers against the financial losses of job displacement when a contract ends or is canceled is a legitimate cost of a defense production program. Legislation to implement this principle should be enacted and the Government should actively encourage contractors to work out with the unions of their employees. practical measures for such protection. The special nature of the insecurity suffered by workers in the defense industries is a direct outgrowth of the national need for an adequate defense force. equipped with the most modern weapons available. The burdens and sacrifices. involved in meeting that national need should not be permitted to fall disproportionately on the defense workers, their families, and their communities.. 74094-61--23 Hon. J. W. FULBRIGHT, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE UNITED NATIONS, INC., Chairman, Foreign Relations Committee, DEAR SENATOR FULBRIGHT: I understand that you are holding hearings on S. 2180, a bill to establish a U.S. Disarmament Agency for World Peace and Security. While the American Association for the United Nations does not lobby in support of legislation, I think it is quite proper for me to express my individual feelings which, I think, are shared by the members of the board of directors and the chapters of the association. The establishment of this Agency serves notice to the world that the United States is committed to a program of disarmament; believes that it must come hand-in-hand with the development of a world society based on law; and that the U.S. Government is prepared to recruit the staff and to undertake the planning to make a practical contribution to the development of the methods and techniques of inspection and control that must come hand-in-hand with disarmament. The purpose of the act is clearly set forth in section 2, which is "a world 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." The President of the United States defined the purpose of the disarmament program in even stronger terms when he said: "It should drive toward the creation of a peaceful world society in which disarmament, except for the forces needed to apply international sanctions, is the accepted condition of international life." These statements of purpose are very important. A school exists which takes the position that disarmament might actually be harmful to the cause of peace and consequently what is needed is arms regulation and control. Prof. Quincy Wright, a member of the board of directors of the American Association for the United Nations, has forcefully pointed out the weakness in the control argument. He said: "Disarmament means the ending of the use of force or threat of force as an instrumentality of diplomacy; arms control means the prevention of actual war while use and threat of force continue as the underlying instrument of diplomacy. Arms control is logically inconsistent because you cannot make the threat of force credible but at the same time innocuous." Quite obviously, total disarmament must be accompanied by inspection and control, step by step; but inspection and control are the mechanisms to achieve disarmament, not the ends in themselves. Disarmament in a vacuum of international lawlessness would not be possible. If a strong United Nations based on a warld of law were not developing, the argument would go to the control school. But in the long run armaments are an anachronism in a world of law, as the individual bearing of arms, except in crisis, is an anachronism in a peaceful community. Consequently, the President and the legislation clearly speak of a world organization. Now it must be very clear that what the organization meant is the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and the specialized agencies-in other words, the vast complex of machinery which has developed since the San Francisco Conference. One point, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make in conclusion. The American contribution to the development of this machinery is the specific concern of the Department of State. To this extent, the Agency must bear a subordinate relationship to the Department of State. Faithfully yours, Senator J. W. FULBRIGHT, Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. CLARK M. EICHELBERGER. PLATFORM FOR PEACE, Seattle, Wash., August 18, 1961. DEAR SENATOR FULBRIGHT: Platform for Peace wishes to submit the enclosed statement for inclusion in the record of the hearings on S. 2180. Sincerely yours, ANNE M. STADLER, Chairman. STATEMENT OF PLATFORM FOR PEACE IN SUPPORT OF S. 2180 AND H.R. 7936, BILLS ESTABLISHING A U.S. DISARMAMENT AGENCY FOR WORLD PEACE AND SECURITY Platform for Peace, an organization established in 1960 for the purpose of bringing into the political debate the great issues of peace and war, and consisting of approximately 300 persons-educators, doctors, lawyers, housewives, and others living in the Pacific Northwest-urges the enactment of S. 2180 (H.R. 7936) during this session of the Congress. The facts of life in the nuclear age have rendered war obsolete as a method of resolving international disputes. Yet the facts of international life have required the United States to pour an increasing amount of its productive wealth into armaments annually for the last decade. The armaments race continues unchecked. Experts have predicted that the odds are 10 to 1 that the world will be plunged into nuclear war within the coming decade if the present pace of the arms race continues. The security provided by our Military Establishment is tenuous at best. It is essential that we augment that security with a Government agency whose function and purpose is to find alternatives to the war system. In the past our peace posture at the disarmament negotiations has been poor. We have given too little attention to the real needs of the underdeveloped nations in our preoccupation with military strength. We have failed to employ sufficient resources to study the underlying causes of war. We are not even certain of the domestic effects of disarmament, and we have no plans for general demobilization. Under these circumstances it is difficult to convince the watching world that we sincerely seek any agreement to disarm. The present crisis over Berlin only emphasizes the urgent need for this legislation. It is obvious that situations producing high international tension will continue to arise. These crises are partially the result of the armaments competition between the major powers. It is hoped that agreements reached on arms control will also serve to mitigate the political tensions between the major power blocs. Many responsible leaders have pointed out that crises such as Berlin will continue to plague us, and that the only hope of avoiding the escalation of such crises into nuclear war is constructive work to reach agreement on disarmament or arms limitations. Senate bill 2180 provides for the most comprehensive agency ever proposed by any nation for the study of this problem of living and resolving conflict in a disarmed world. While there are several private institutions studying related problems, such as the University of Michigan's Center for Research and Conflict Resolution, and the Independent Research Program on Economic Adjustments to Disarmament, these can have little significance until governments accept the challenge of disarmament and commit sizable resources to achieving it. The proposed U.S. Disarmament Agency for World Peace and Security is a major step in that direction. The main purposes of the proposed Agency are excellently stated in the bill. It is important that our efforts toward disarmament be concentrated and that they be under the supervision of the Secretary of State so that our traditional foreign-policy-forming office will be equipped with the latest tools of disarmament diplomacy. The need for research in understanding the causes of war, in planning for the effects of disarmament, and in developing adequate inspection plans to make agreements enforceable is tremendous. James J. Wadsworth, probably our greatest authority on the state of the art of disarmament research has said that the lack of research in this field greatly hampered him during his 8 years of negotiations with the Soviet Union. The most important long-range research objective is section 31 (1) which is directed to our understanding of the causes of war. When we understand these factors, we can systematically avoid those positions which lead to war and take such actions as will promote the peace and welfare of mankind. The need for negotiation toward disarmament is obvious and is best done by the organization which has direct responsibility for research in the field. This combination should give the negotiating team more confidence that their position is truly in the Nation's best interest and should reduce the time required to evaluate new proposals. Most people are not aware of the problems inherent in reaching a test ban agreement, nor are they aware of the necessity for the successful conclusion of such an agreement. They do not understand what would be gained if we could turn our resources wholly to peacetime needs. They are afraid that disarmament might mean depression, perhaps even economic panic. They do not believe that alternatives to the war system are possible. The Disarmament Agency can do much to plan the Nation's transition to a disarmed economy and, as research is done, to suggest alternatives to war. Finally, the operation of any disarmament control system is logically included in the Agency's functions so that those closest to the research and negotiations, who realize most fully the importance of carrying out an agreement, will possess the technical knowledge to do so. The broad nature of the bill is excellent since, at this time, one cannot predict the ultimate scope and function of an agency which, hopefully, will lead the world toward peace. It seems of particular importance that the President be authorized to transfer related functions from other agencies or departments to the Disarmament Agency as provided in section 47. We believe that an independent agency which is not torn by the conflict of vested interests in defense and the military will be more effective in formulating long-range disarmament policy, and will be free to develop the necessary working relationships with other governmental agencies. It is the fervent hope of Platform for Peace that S. 2180 and H.R. 7936 will be enacted into law during the present session of the Congress so that the U.S. Disarmament Agency can embark on its challenging assignment and begin immediately to contribute to the solution of problems which will be encountered at the impending disarmament negotiations. The U.S. Government, which is founded on the belief that all men are creatures of worth and dignity, that all men have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is the logical leader in the world's effort toward a condition in which men's futures are not jeopardized by the terrible threat of nuclear war. The enactment of this bill into law should be a clear demonstration to all the world of our sincere desireto explore thoroughly every avenue toward world peace. Respectfully submitted. PLATFORM FOR PEACE, AMERICAN COALITION OF PATRIOTIC SOCIETIES, INC., Senator J. W. FULBRIGHT, Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR FULBRIGHT: Enclosed is a copy of a statement in behalf of the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies on the proposed Disarmament. Agency for inclusion in the hearing record. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Very truly yours, MILTON M. LORY, President, American Coalition of Patriotic Societies. STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN COALITION OF PATRIOTIC SOCIETIES ON THE PROPOSED DISARMAMENT AGENCY I. GENERAL The concept of the proposed large Disarmament Agency is naive and its purported objectives are illusory, unrealistic, and impossible of attainment. It has aspects deleterious to our national interest. It is premised upon the same internationalist, "one world," "do good" philosophy which underlay our geopolitical defeats in mainland China, in Korea, in the Tachens and Vietnam, in Suez, in Panama, in Cuba and Laos. This "Alice in Wonderland," (or "Alice in Washington"), philosophy underlay our decline in power and prestige in international power politics, while the U.S.S.R.'s and Red China's "Great Leaps Forward" and Japan's and West Germany's burgeoning resurgence were accelerating. Our decline was rightly decried by Mr. Kennedy in his campaigning last year. But, incongruously, his administration now adheres to the same philosophy in proposing the expanded Disarmament Agency. II. BACKGROUND A. The Soviet Union clamored for "disarmament" in the League of Nations in the 1930's. Then, as now, it was a useful tactical gambit for her. Then, as now, her leaders did not, of course, believe their own propaganda. But then, as now, the Washington "Alices" were ensnared by the Soviet trap baited with the Alices' own pompous concern for their "world image" and they tried to outdo the Soviets in zeal for "world peace and security." One upshot was the KelloggBriand Pact "outlawing war," making us the laughing stock of the rest of the world, particularly of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and Tojo. B. The 1921 Washington Naval Limitation Agreements were "bought and paid for" by the United States scrapping our then modern battle fleet. Any reductionof-arms agreements now will have to be analogously purchased by disproportionate U.S. reductions. C. From the "Forrestal Diaries," pages 290-291, July 11, 1947: ***The thing that I think we have to hammer home is the fact that there is practically no basis for any realistic talk about disarmament until the Russians have made it manifest and clear that they want the substance and not merely the sham of peace in the world *** even talk of disarmament is highly dangerous because of the American tendency always to take for granted that other nations have the same objectives as ourselves * * * I am most apprehensive of our people's mistaking the discussion of disarmament for the fact ** *” Page 217: "*** Forrestal entered in his diary the gist of an intelligence report on Soviet atomic strategy. This represented Soviet policy as one of pressing for disarmament and outlawry of atomic weapons on the world stage while refusing to allow any inspection of Russia's own atomic activities. The result would be to create a world opinion that would force the Western Powers to disarm and drop their atomic development, permitting the Soviet Union to continue its own atomic operations while the West slept ***.” III. INSPECTIONS A. The Soviets will not agree to an inspection system which we would deem adequate. However, should the Alices in Washington Wonderland and the Red Queen Nikita agree on some kind of token inspection system, it could not be effective and would be circumvented by the Soviets. B. The ordinary intelligence procedures, overt and covert, of all nations concerned would be more effective than any inspection system that can be agreed upon. IV. DELETERIOUS EFFECTS A. The proposed Agency would be another costly (at taxpayers' expense) activity, manned by people for the most part amateurs in the Agency's field, however eminent in other professions. B. It would further "play into the hands" of the Soviets by augmenting the emphasis upon the "will-o'-the-wisp," already over-long and futile negotiations, with net propaganda gains for the Soviets. C. The U.S. public's expectations for a mystical "world peace and security" are being inflated. When its futility inevitably becomes evident, they will be disillusioned with their Alices in the Washington Wonderland. And the rest of the world will laugh contemptuously. A. The proposed Disarmament Agency should be voted down by the Congress. B. The necessary international dealings on arms reductions (and nuclear test banning) should be handled by career Foreign Service and military components of the State and Defense Departments of requisite technical competence. AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, Senator J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT, MY DEAR SENATOR FULBRIGHT: I respectfully transmit herewith a copy of a recent letter to President Kennedy. This letter deals with Senate bill 2180 on which your committee recently has held hearings. The letter has been prepared by Prof. Charles E. Osgood, professor of psychology and director of the Institute of Communications Research, the University of Illinois. |