Tucson Daily Citizen from Tucson, Arizona on April 30, 1963 · Page 14
Get access to this page with a Free Trial

Tucson Daily Citizen from Tucson, Arizona · Page 14

Publication:
Location:
Tucson, Arizona
Issue Date:
Tuesday, April 30, 1963
Page:
Page 14
Start Free Trial
Cancel

Kitiz*ti PublUhid, Every Aiterncwii Except Sunday MEMBER OF, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS TtM Amcttffl rmi- to MHIIIM ·txcVnivtlv N'{* ui» «« rtujbllttliw MCI' ni^ws ^rfnKc *n mil WCll » «ll A ;OF UNITED PRESS [NTERNATIONAL PUBLISHED BY THE CITIZEN PUBLISHING CO. Established 1870 Phone MA 2-5855 ,- PAGE 14 TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 30, 1963 There's Some Controversy About American Security «/ Arizona's two senators and three representatives Jn the United States Congress were sent copies of the .Citizen's April 3 article and editorial on a "disarma- ;ment" treaty which the Kennedy administration has proposed to the Geneva Disarmament Conference. All of them were invited to comment for publication. The responses received are on this page today. ': Sen. Carl Hayden was the only Arizonan in Congress who failed to respond. Of the four who did answer, three endorse the Citizen's stand and one opposes it. * * * Sen. Barry Goldwater feels'the Citizen has performed a public service by drawing attention to the proposed treaty. He calls it a dangerous document which is generally unknown to the American people, and states: "I find very little evidence that even the members of, .Congress are conversant with it." In a strong and unequivocal statement, Rep. John Rhodes of Maricopa County makes it clear he has opposed the scheme since its.beginning. He speaks of the complete lack of understanding as to how the Communist conspiracy operates. He finds it "incredible that thinking people would consider entrusting the future of Western civilization to any force except Almighty God and the strength He has given us to defend ourselves." Rep. George Senner Jr., from Arizona's 3rd congressional district, responded with a brief and pithy statement which makes his opposition to a transfer of armaments quite clear. . Rep. Morris K. Udall--of Arizona's 2nd congressional district, which includes Pima County -- has responded with the only dissenting opinion. He requested that if his statement were published--and the Citizen does publish it in the interest of fairly presenting both sides--it be published in full. It is printed in full on this page, word for word, exactly as he sent it. Another long column also appears on the page. It is the Citizen's comment on Rep. UdalFs statement. We' publish this comment because of the lengthy and detailed nature of Mr. Udall's criticism. His statement, which contains some facts and some inaccuracies, dwells mostly on minor points and fails to cope with what we regard as the real core of the problem. Our objections to the proposed treaty fall into two categories: 1--Internal Factors. The faults within the proposed treaty itself are provisions to (a) disarm America but arm the United Nations, (b) pass new laws forcing compliance with the treaty on individual American citizens and (c) submit this nation, without reservation, to the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court, which is an arm of the United Nations. 2--External Factors. These are outside the treaty, as first drafted, but within the negotiations about inspections and controls to insure compliance. The terms and demands specified in the treaty are subject to negotiation and revision. They could be watered down to such a point that Russia could get away with keeping most of her armaments while the U.S. disarmed. In the test-ban treaty talks, U.S= negotiators have shown a fearful weakness. * * * From the standpoint of anyone whose primary concern is national security and preservation of individual liberty, the whole scheme seems naive and unrealistic. We don't deny that the government officials who concocted it sincerely want peace. But we are forced to wonder why their particular plan for peace seems to aim so clearly at the goal of world federation--and why they apparently seem willing for America to take such risks in following their program for the pursuit of peace. ^^-v£^x^^^^^S^v^v^*^S*^^ Arizona, AlbTM. EARLY DAY HISTORIANS Edited By Albert R. Buehman PROGRAM FOR PEACE OR PLAN FOR SURRENDER? Congressmen Speak On 'Disarmament u u u u u u Most Dangerous Document By BARY GOLDWATER U.S. Senator from Arizona Let me congratulate you on the Citizen's exhaustive treatment of what I regard as one of the most dangerous documents existing today--"Blueprint for the Peace Race." Not only is this document for general and complete disarmament generally unknown to the American people, but I find very little evidence that even the members of Congress are conversant with it. I FULLY SUBSCRIBE to the premise set forth in your editorial that "the first great danger (s that Russia might agree to the treaty and then cheat on it." I think we could very -definitely count on their cheating any time such a move might serve their national-international interests. We know from past experience that the Soviets never honor an agreement. I believe that the Kennedy administra- tion's dangerous preoccupation with the idea of what the President hopes will be a "major break-through" on disarmament has led our government to make many dangerous concessions to the Soviets at Geneva. And I' am convinced that many of the moves being made today in the field of defense--moves such as dumping of the manned bomber, dismantling of our bases in Italy and Turkey, the abandonment of Skybolt, the slowdown on Nike- Zeus, etc.--come under the heading of unilateral disarmament. YOU WILL FIND by studying the proposed disarmament treaty offered by the U.S. that we are gradually filling in Stage I of the proposal without any reciprocity on the part of the Soviets. Again, let me say I believe the Citizen has.done a great public service in drawing attention to this dangerous document. I only wish every other newspaper in America would follow your example. O O 0 Opposed By REP. G. F. SEIWER 3rd District, Arizona Pursuant to your letter dated April 4, 1963, and the enclosure of Page 16 of the April 3rd edition of the Tucson Daily Citizen, my position is as follows. I am unalterably opposed tp turning over this nation's defense and security to any person, group, other nation or association. Period--end of sentence. SEN. CARL HAYDEN also was Invited to comment on the Citizen's April 3 editorial page concerning current U. S. disarmament proposals, but he has not responded. O O O More And More Alarmed By REP. JOHN J. RHODES 1st District, Arizona I am aware of the plan proposed by the United States for world disarmament. Ever since becoming aware of it, I have protested its very existence. I am unalterably opposed to it. I VOTED AGAINST establishing the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. I am more and more pleased that I did so, but more and more alarmed that there were not enough negative votes to have defeated the legislation which authorized the creation of this agency. It is my hope that at some time in the future enough Congressional votes can be gathered together to do away with it ... Our disarmament proposal is so fatuous that I am amazed the Russians have not accepted it, for these reasons: 1--the plan provides for complete disarmament of all nations. We will keep our agreement and disarm. The Russians will not; 2--the plan provides that in Stage 3 the only force in the world, other than those designed for internal police work, would belong to the U.N. The Russians will completely infiltrate that force and control it, We will not. Even talking of disarmament in this particular period of our history shows a complete lack of understanding as to the Communist conspiracy. A Communist Is taught to lie and cheat to attain his ends , . . ALSO, COMMUNISM has as its base the premise that it must control the entire world. How could you possibly consider disarming when you are faced by 'an ideology which is by its very nature dedicated to destroy your way of life? t · ." Adding to this the instability of the U.N,, it seems even more incredible that thinking people would consider entrusting the future of Western civilization to any force except Almighty God and the strength He has given us to defend ourselves. ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW LEARNED HIS ARIZONA HISTORY FIRST-HAND Personal observation was the foundacion stone for Will C. Barnes' success and fame as an Arizona historian. He is shown here with his favorite pack mule as he was about to embark on an exploration trip into the Arizona wilderness in search of facts for his famous book, "Arizona Place Names." This photo, made in the early 1920's, was taken on the edge of a pine forest. In J.880 Barnes was a military telegraph operator in the signal corps, stationed at Ft. Apache, Ariz. His bravery in action against hostile Apaches won for him the Congressional Medal of Honor. After 25 years as an Arizona cowman he was enrolled as inspector of grazing in the U.S. Forest Service. For the following 21 years he was Assistant U.S. Forester in Washington. Born in San Francisco June 21,-1858, Barnes died in Phoenix Dec. 17, 1036. As a daring soldier, rancher, geographer, legislator and outstanding historian, the name of Will C. Barnes will live forever in Arizona history. (Courtesy Arizona Pioneers' Historic?! Society.) U.S. 'Peace Plan* Is Defended By REP. MORRIS K v UDALL 2nd District, Arizona I appreciate .haying the opportunity to comment on the article and editorial appearing in the Citizen on April 3 on the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. While this letter was in preparation I wrote you a preliminary response indicating 1) that I am not in favor of taking any chances bn our national security, but 2) that I do not agree with either the inferences or some of the statements of fact made by Bill Milburn in his article and the Citizen in its editorial. I will now elaborate on my statement. Complicated Subject Disarmament is hot an uncomplicated subject. I most certainly do not favor placing the security of the United States in jeopardy. For this reason I have had to tell many well-meaning friends that I cannot subscribe to their view that this nation should disarm unilaterally. On the national level, in the Congress and in successive Administrations, there has never been serious consideration of unilateral disarmament, and I doubt that there ever will be. General disarmament* placing equal responsibilities on all participating nations, is something else. While it is a long way from achievement and hardly a live possibility here and now, disarmament is a proper objective of any civilized nation, particularly in.an era threatened by instant annihilation and burdened by ever-increasing military expenditures. I would point out to those who ridicule efforts at disarmament that, even if nuclear war never comes, this unending armament race could ultimately cripple our economy and bankrupt us as a nation. If we were to maintain defense spending at the level of the last Eisenhower budget--and we have already had to increase our military spending 16 per cent--the cost in just 10 years would be $500 billion, and in 20 years a trillion dollars or more. These are not figures pulled out of the air; they represent the cost of merely maintaining our present position in the armament race. In the light of these cold facts--and totally apart from the frightening prospect of nuclear war by accident or design-I think it is altogether fitting and proper that our nation do what it can to slow down or halt the armament race. Inconsistency Reading your article and editorial I find this startling inconsistency: 1) You state that the United States proposal for general disarmament would play into the hands of the Russians by allowing them to avoid disarmament while we disarm, and by giving them control of a "U-N. dictatorship", but 2) You acknowledge that the Russians have turned down our proposal because they are waiting to find a "loophole" in it. While Bill Milburn is an honest and able reporter, I find several major errors of fact in his article and can only conclude that the errors come from his background materials. In this connection I think your readers should be aware that Mr. Milburn's article is patterned after an article published in the News-Globe of Amarillo, Texas, on January 20 of this year. The News- Globe article, in turn, appeared to borrow heavily from a flyer being circulated in an anti-disarmament campaign by Gerald L. K. Smith of Los Angeles, Calif., publisher of "The Cross and the Flag." In other words, certain of the errors in Mr. Milburn's article would seem to have had their origin in these or other similar articles published in recent months. Following are three of the more serious errors in Mr. Milburn's article: 1) "The commander-in-chief of U.N. military forces is assistant secretary-general for Security Council affairs . . . That office is held by a Russian Communist . . . It seems incredible that no man other than a Russian Communist has ever been commander-in-chief of the U.N. forces." 2) "According to some lawyers, 'pursuant to the treaty making power of the President' means that treaty (the disarmament treaty) could be made binding on the U.S. without further action by Congress. The U.N. charter is a treaty, already ratified, and the disarmament proposal might be considered an executive agreement amplifying the original treaty." 3) "An American refusing (to give up his personal firearms) might suddenly find himself involved in an 'international legal dispute.' He could be arrested and tried by the so-called International Court of Justice." Each of these statements is wholly false. Following are the facts: 1) There is no such position in the United Nations. There is a position known as Undersecretary-General for Security Council and Political Affairs. Created by Art. 47 of the U.N. Charter, this position, as it has evolved, is similar to that of clerk of the House of Representatives. This officer is not, and never has been, responsible in any way for United Nations military forces. Ail United Nations military commands have baen established under a separate Charter provision, Art. 29. No Russian has ever served as commander of any United Nations military operation, either at the level of the top command in New York or in the field--in Korea, in Egypt, in the Congo or anywhere. The most famous United Nations military commander was an American by the name of Douglas MacArthur. The statement is often made that "the assistant secretary-general for military affairs is and has always been a Communist", etc. As Wm. Ran- dolph Hearst Jr. pointed out recently: "The chairmanship is not held by the Russians, but rotates among the five nations, a senior officer of another country taking over each new month." This officer is not the master of the security council. HK is its servant. V/e can veto anything he proposes to do. 2) The "treaty making power of the President under the Constitution" is a precisely defined power about which there can be, and is no dispute. Art. II, Sec. 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides that the President ". . . shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur." The usage in this case is identical to usage in countless pieces of legislation over the past 174 years. The notion that ratification of the U.N. charter obligates this country to disarm or authorizes the President to commit us to disarmament without approval of Congress is completely without foundation. There are those who believe that John Kennedy is about to turn over our defense department to the United Nations. I do not share this belief. · Nor do I believe that Carl Hayden, Barry Goldwater, Wm. Fulbright, John Tower, Mike Mansfield and Everett Dirksen would ever consent to any treaty which turned over our military security to the United Nations--or to anyone else. The ratification of treaties requires 67 senators. I'm not worried about the U.S. Senate selling our country down the river--and I think it takes a vivid imagination to suppose that it ever would. 3) The International Court of Justice exists only to settle disputes 1 between nations and has no jurisdiction whatsoever over individual citizens. (Incidentally, the News-Globe did not make this mistake.) Furthermore, nothing in the United Nations charter grants to that body sovereignty over member countries or their citizens. The notion that the United Nations would become a super-state having sovereignty over the entire world is a spectre raised through the years by opponents, not only of the United Nations, but of the old League of Nations as well. Called Their Bluff Beyond pointing out these particular inaccuracies I want to say that the inferences running through the article and editorial can only be the product of a lack of understanding of what this country is attempting to do in proposing a program for general disarmament. There is no secret plot in Washington to abolish our armaments and turn our nation over to the Russians. The same Congress that created the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency voted the largest Defense budgets in our history. For years the Russians have been telling the world that they want peace and we want war. In this proposal we have called their bluff. We have set forth iron-clad terms under which we would'be willing to disarm. Mr. Milburn, the News-Globe, Mr. Smith and others ignore all of the many specific, rigid, unyielding demands we set forth for Stages I and II--as absolutely mandatory requirements for entrance into Stage III--and leap to the preposterous conclusion that we would accept the terms of Stage III even though the Russians had failed to keep their promises every step of the way over a period of years! This kind of logic defies credulity. In the end, Mr. Milburn does a great disservice to his readers by suggesting that establishment of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency somehow gave some mysterious "Mr. Foater" a blank check to wipe out our military might in spite of the opposition of Congress and the American people. This is a view of history which sees hobgoblins around every corner. The truth is thai this agency exists only to engage in research in the fields of arms control and disarmament, and to make recommendations on the basis of this research to the President, heads of the Defense Department and other agencies. Any agreement obligating the United States to disarm, if it were ever 'reached, would have to be approved by two-thirds of the members of the Senate or, if it took the form of an executive agreement, by a majority of the members of both houses of Congress. Overwhelming Majority The act creating this agency was passed by an overwhelming majority of both houses of Congress, including the leadership of both political parties. It was supported by former President Eisenhower, former Vice President Nixon, former Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, former Secretary of State Christian Herter, the ranking Republicans on Senate and House foreign relations committees, and a substantial majority of Americans as revealed by the Gallup Poll. I see no reason to believe that all these people are either disloyal or naive. General MacArthur, hardly a man to be called "soft" on Communism, had this to say recently on disarmament: "The tremendous evolution of nuclear and other potentials of destruction has suddenly taken the problem away from its primary consideration as a moral and spiritual question and brought it abreast of scientific realism. It is no longer an ethical equation to be pondered solely by learned philosophers and ecclesiastics, but a hard-core one for the decision of the masses whose survival is the issue . . . Many will tell you with mockery and ridicule that the abolition of war can only be a dream--that it is but the vague imagining of a visionary. But we must go ' on or we will go under." I agree with Gen. MacArthur and disagree with Mr. Milburn. FOUNDATION FOR TYRANNY? A Threat To Security And Liberty By WILLIAM S. MILBURN Citizen Assistant Editor This is an answer to Rep. Morris Udall's criticism of the Citizen's April 3 article and editorial exposing the potential dangers in current U. S. disarmament proposals. Mr. Udall's unabridged statement is carried in adjoining columns. Although it contains some valid points, it is generally misleading. Above all, it is dangerously reassuring. This is a time of crisis for the republic. Although many Americans want desperately to be reassured, it is better that they be informed. Mr. Udall belabors what he calls "three of the more serious errors" in the Citizen article. His remarks are partly true, partly false, and must be commented on point by point: 1 -- Undersecretary-General for Security Council and Political Affairs is the correct title, although use of the shorter designation to describe the same position is not uncommon. Mr. Udall's statement that this position was created by Article 47 of the U.N. charter is wrong. The position is not menticr."d anywhere in the charter. It was created as a result of later arrangements and can be considered as generally authorized by the charter's Article 97: "The Secretariat shall comprise a Secretary-General and such staff as the organization may require . . ." and Article 101: "The staff shall be appointed by the Secretary- General under regulations established by the General Assembly." Military Committee Never Works The Military Staff Committee mentioned by Mr. Udall was created by the charter and exists as an adjunct of the Security Council. The committee is composed of the chiefs of staff of the five permanent members of the Security Council, and the chairmanship rotates. All of which is beside the point because the Military Staff Committee never does anything but meet and agree to meet again. It got deadlocked early in U.N. history and has not really functioned at any time. It is never given any work to do and obviously, cannot exercise strategic direction of U.N. military forces. The Undersecretary-General for Security Council and Political Affairs, on the other hand, functions as one of the key executives in the Secretariat. This is the position which has been held consecutively by seven Communists. The Secretariat wields more power than it did originally. A review of the news coverage of the Congo operation reveals that, once it had been launched, it was largely directed from the Secretariat. The Military Staff Committee, as a nonfunctioning arm of the Security Council, had nothing to do with it. Mr. Udall cites as a safeguard the fact that the U. S. can exercise a veto in the Security Council. Perhaps he forgets that former Secretary of State Dean Acheson, in 1950, helped sponsor and pass a "Uniting for Peace" resolution which makes it possible to by-pass that safeguard. If a "breach of the peace" threatens and if the Security Council fails to act, because of a veto -or any other reason, a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly can launch a U. N. military operation. And that's a dangerous provision, considering the shift of power in the General Assembly, which could backfire against a disarmed America. 2 -- Rep. Udall may be right in saying that an executive agreement by the President could not implement the disarmament program. The April 3 article merely said that some lawyers believe it could. The Constitution does spell out the treaty-making power. It calls for approval by two-thirds of the Senators PRESENT. This does not mean the 67 senators Mr. Udall mentions, unless all 100 are present at the time. 3-- -We are aware that the statute of the International Court of Justice says. "Only staffs may be parties in cases before the court." T : ' precludes, at this time, the trial of an in^.idual there-- as Rep. Udall points out. Perhaps some persons feel it is looking too far ahead to project a time when the push for global federation will change the statute and make such trials possible. However, the U.S. government's proposals do contain more immediate threats to the rights of individual Americans. Consider these points: (a) The proposed "disarmament" treaty would force participating nations to "enact national egislatipn in support of the treaty imposing legal obligations on INDIVIDUALS and organizations under their jurisdiction and providing appropriate penalties for noncompfiance " (b) Treaty law overrides constitutional law and can cancel out the Bill of Rights.- (c) The proposed treaty also would require nations to "accept WITHOUT RESERVATION, pursuant to Article 36 paragraph 1 of the statute Court of Ju stice, the COM- PUT c ^ v - - . , - PULSORY jurisdiction of that Court to decide international legal disputes." (d) After the ratification of the U.N. charter which is a treaty the U. S. State Department officially declared that "there is now no longer any real difference between domestic and foreign affairs. (State Dept. Publication 3972-- F. A. Policy Series 26, September, 1950.) Tyranny Is Possible Considering these points -- and they should be considered carefully as a possible foundation on which a tyranny could be built -- how can any American feel sure his constitutional rights would not be put in jeopardy if the treaty were adopted? Rep. Udali has dwelled at length on a number of general and specific points, most of them quite minor, without approaching the real core of the problem. He does not comment on these most pertinent points: 1-- The proposed treaty, even if faithfully carried out by all participants, would not disarm the world but would disarm nations and arm the United Nations. 2 -- Control of the U. N. is slipping away from Western powers and moving toward the African, 1 Asian and Eastern European nations. Instead of discussing the real issues, Mr. Udall speculates (incorrectly) regarding our sources^ Then he says that the act creating the. disarmament agency was passed by overwhelming majorities of both Houses of Congress. He lists the names of some prominent supporters. All this is beside the' point. The opposing minorities included some solid Americans, too. The important thing in this connection is that the act (Public Law 87-297) did not include the potentially dangerous treaty. That was drafted later by the new agency. No Inconsistency Rep. Udall professes to see a "startling inconsistency" in these two points: (1) that the U.S. proposal would allow the Russians to avoid disarmament while we disarm; (2) that the Russians have turned down our proposal because they are waiting to find a loophole in it. There is no inconsistency here. Both of the statements relate to the matter of inspections and controls to insure compliance. If these are adequate, cheating is unlikely. If they are not, 1 cheating by the Russians is highly probable. American negotiators already have made many concessions on the matter of inspections and controls. It seems quite possible that the Russians have been stalling, waiting for the final concession and compromise which could peg inspection at such a low level that the Reds could sign a treaty but continue testing and arming with a good chance of avoiding detection. Rep. Udall writes of "iron-clad" terms under which the present administration would be willing to disarm. He says that we have ignored the "specific, rigid, unyielding demands" set forth for Stages I and II as "absolutely mandatory" requirements for entrance into Stage III. That is not true. The Citizen article referred to provisions designed to protect participating nations and to keep one from gaining a military advantage over another. Of course such terms and demands are in the treaty proposal, but they are subject to negotiation under awkward circumstances. Four months before the proposed treaty was submitted to the Geneva Disarmament Conference, the U. S. had agreed to merge nuclear test- ban talks with general disarmament negotiations Sen. Thomas J. Dodd (D-Conn.) called this agreement a "major concession to the Soviets." The issues of disarmament and inspection to verify compliance with a test-ban treaty were both submitted to the judgment of an 18-nation conference, composed of five Western nations five Communist nations and eight so-called neutral nations. "This was a situation that was bound to produce even further pressures for accommodation to the Soviet viewpoint," according to faen. Dodd. ,. ThT f chas Proved to be the case. Step by step, the U. S. stand on inspections and controls has vfp^ e fr a u? r and Y eaker ' Sen - Dod d has re- Erer1en^ hl T S f t0ry -° f A TM ri can concessions at great length. It is impossible to include even a s i"? I " ar y ° f them in this space. But it CM be" stated emphatically that they spell out a story of tfnn nf ' ^-M ^^^ «rm stand to a position of incredible weakness. U.S. Terms Not 'Iron-CIad' It is sheer lunacy, despite what Rep. Udall says, to regard these terms as "iron-clad" or "unyielding." In fact, the news of the past few months suggests strongly that the U.S. has started to disarm unilaterally. uJ^T/n" 7 G °! d ^ ater 'J n shar P contrast to Rep. Udall, says: "You will find by studying the proposed disarmament treaty offered by the U S that we are gradually filling in Stage I of the reci P rocitv on «* P** of Gen. MacArthur's statement, as quoted by Mr Udall, is excellent but it is impertinent to this discussion We, too, are for peace. We are fo? honest and honorable efforts to maintain The Citizen opposes any scheme which might threaten the security of the American nation or jeopardize the liberty of American citizens Much can be said to support the concept' that the proper type of world organization can heln promote harmony among nations. Nothing but unrealistic theory and idealistic mumbo-jumbo can be. offered to support a plan which would give the present UN. control of an all-powerful world army, capable of crushing America. It doesn't take a particularly "vivid imagination"-- as Mr. Udall suggests it does-- to foresee danger in this program. The founding fathers were aware of the dangers inherent in government--any government-- and created a protective system of checks and balances. Even then the people would not accept the Constitution until the Bill of Rights had been added. A healthy distrust of government is typically American. Blind trust in government is un-American. Where basic rights are concerned, it is safer to proceed on the assumption that they might be in jeopardy. I I/ f;

What members have found on this page

Get access to Newspapers.com

  • The largest online newspaper archive
  • 11,200+ newspapers from the 1700s–2000s
  • Millions of additional pages added every month

Try it free