Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-01-13

ceived your ommunication,
promptly acknowledged II with
the promise that I would In due
course give you Q considered
reply. ! now do so.
Your communication seems
to fall into three parts: the
need for peace: your coptention
that peace Is endangered BY
the collective self defense ef-
forts of free world nations:
and your specific proposals. !
shall respond In that same
order and make my own pro-
posals.
I.
Peace and good win among
men have been the heartfelt
desire Of peoples since time
immemorial. But professions Of
peace by governmental leaders
have not always been q de-
pendable guide to their actual
intentions. Moreover. 1t seems
to me to be profitless for US 70
debate the question Of which
Of our two governments wants
peace the more. Both Of us
have asserted that our respec-
tive peoples ardently desire
peace and perhaps you and I
feel this same urge equally.
The heart Of the matter be-
comes the determination Of the
terms on which the mainte-
nance Of peace can be assured,
and the confidence that each
Of US can justifiably feel that
these terms win be respected.
In the United States the
people and their government
desire peace and in this coun-
try the people exert such con-
stitutional control over govern
ment that no government could
possibly initiate aggressive war
Under authority already given
BY our Congress. the United
States can and would respond
at once II we or any Of our
allies were attacked. But the
United States cannot initiate
war without the prior approval
OF the peoples representatives, in
Congress. This process requires
time and public debate. Not
only would our people repudiate
any effort TO begin an attack
but the element Of surprise. so
important In any aggressive
move. whould be wholly lacking.
Aggressive war by US Is not only
abhorrent: it is impractical and
impossible.
The past forty years provide
an opportunity to Judge the
comparative peace records Of
our two systems. We gladly sub
NIT our national record for re-
specting peace to the impartial
judgement of mankind. I can
assure you. Mr.. Chairman. that
In the United States the waging
OF peace has priority in every
aspect. and every element. Of
our national life.
II.
You argue that the danger of
war Is increased because the
United States and other free
world nations seek security on
q collective basis and on the
basis Of military preparedness.
Three times In this century
wars have occurred under cir
cumstances which strongly sue-
gest. II indeed they do not
prove, that war would not have
occurred had the United States
been miIitarily strong and COM
mitted in advance to the de-
tense Of nations that were at
tackled.
On each Of these three occa-
sions when war came, the
United States was militarily un-
prepared. or ill-prepared. and
1t was not known that the
United States would 60 to the
aid Of those subjected to armed
aggression. Yet now it appears.
Mr.. Chairman. that you con-
tend that weakness and dis
unity would make war less
likely.
! may be permitted perhaps
to recall that In March. 1889,
when he Soviet Union felt
relatively weak and threatened
by Fascist aggression, It con-
tended that aggression was rife
because "the majority Of the
non-aggressive countries, par
ticularly England and France,
have rejected the policy OF COL
lective security" and Stain
went on to say that the policy
Of let each country defend It.
self as 1t likes and as best II
can means conniving at
aggression. giving free rein to
war"
No Longer Weak
Now the Soviet Union Is no
longer weak or confronted by
powerful aggressive forces. The
vast Sino-Soviet bloc embraces
nearly one billion people and
large resources. Such q bloc
would Of course be dominant in
the world were the free world
nations to be disunited.
1t is natural that any VINO
want to impose their system on
the world should prefer that
those outside that system
should be weak and divided,
But that expansionist policy
cannot be sanctified by pro-
testations Of peace.
OF course the United States
would greatly prefer It II col
lective security could be OBJ
tanned on q universal bash
through the United Nations.
This was the hope when IN
1945 our two governments and
others signed the charter Of
the United Nations. conferrine
upon It's Security Council pri-
mary responsibility for the
maintenance Of international