This is a chapter in World Peace Efforts Since Gandhi,
which is published as a book.
For ordering information, please click here.
Click below to see and hear this chapter.
What can fairly be called peace
is the result only of enforceable law;
under modern conditions,
general disarmament is the precondition
of enforceable world law.
Grenville ClarkThe proposition "no peace without law"
also embodies the conception that
peace cannot be ensured by a continued arms race,
nor by an indefinite "balance of terror,"
nor by diplomatic maneuver,
but only by universal and complete national disarmament
together with the establishment of institutions
corresponding in the world field to those which
maintain law and order within local communities and nations.
Clark and SohnEither world problems will be settled
through real world organization, meaning world law,
or they will be settled by world war.
Norman Cousins
In 1913 the prophetic H. G. Wells wrote the novel The World
Set Free in which
he described a war that was fought with
"atomic bombs."
This war was so catastrophic that the
survivors initiated a world government
to end the war and use
science for beneficial purposes.
Nuclear physicist Leo Szilard
read this book in 1932 and could not forget it.
Four years later
he realized that nuclear fission was so dangerous
that scientists
must work together to prevent a disaster.
After conducting an
experiment proving fission in 1939, Szilard urged his colleagues
to be careful not to let the Nazis become aware of this.
In September
1942 Szilard warned in a memo,
We cannot have peace in a world in which
various sovereign nations have atomic bombs
in the possession of their armies
and any of these armies could win a war
within twenty-four hours after it starts one.1
By early 1945 Szilard realized that Germany was losing the
war and that
the only likely use of the atomic bomb would be offensively
against Japan.
On March 25 Albert Einstein gave Szilard a letter
of introduction
so that he could meet with President Roosevelt.
In his memo Szilard warned that using atomic bombs could
"precipitate
a race in the production of these devices
between the United States
and Russia."2
After Roosevelt died, President Truman had
his new Secretary of State,
James F. Byrnes, meet with Szilard.
Byrnes argued that using the bomb would justify the great expense
of the
Manhattan Project and that it would make it easier
to manage
the Russians in eastern Europe.
General Groves assured Byrnes
that the Russians did not have uranium,
though Szilard tried to
contradict this.
In June 1945 Szilard met with the Committee on
Social and Political Implications of Atomic Energy, and their
report written
by Eugene Rabinowitch and Szilard argued
against
using the bomb in combat against Japan, warning,
If the United States were to be the first to release
this new weapon of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind,
she would sacrifice public support throughout the world,
precipitate the race of armaments,
and prejudice the possibility of reaching
an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.3
They recommended demonstrating the weapon in an uninhabited
area.
However, Secretary of War Henry Stimson told his assistant
John J. McCloy
that the bomb would help the US regain the lead
from the Soviet Union,
and he was intent on using it for military
victory and to enhance postwar power.
In July Szilard circulated a petition that collected 68 signatures
of scientists,
mostly from the Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory.
A more moderate petition to warn the Japanese was
supported by
67 scientists at the Oak Ridge Lab.
General Groves kept the petitions
for a week and gave them to Stimson
on the first of August, but
he did not show them to President Truman
until after the bombs
were dropped.
On August 6 the first uranium bomb killed about
100,000 people in Hiroshima immediately,
and nearly that many
would die later from burns and radiation sickness.
Three days
later the first plutonium bomb killed about 75,000 people in Nagasaki,
and again about that many would die later.
This experience resulted in millions of Japanese becoming critics
of military force and especially nuclear weapons.
Several hundred
thousand people joined the War Resisters International (WRI)
that
had been founded after the First World War, while many religious
people
became members of the International Fellowship of Reconciliation
(IFOR)
that had been initiated before World War I by Quaker Henry
Hodgkin and
German pastor Friedrich Siegmund-Schultze, who was
arrested 27 times
during the First World War and was in exile
during the Second.
The first annual Memorial Day was held at Hiroshima
on August 6, 1946.
A campaign to make August 6 World Peace Day
spread around the world.
Norman Cousins returned from the 1949
memorial ceremony with a peace petition
signed by 110,000 Hiroshima
residents, but President Truman refused to accept it.
The U. S. military
was still occupying Japan when the Soviet Union exploded
its first
atomic weapon on August 29, 1949, and they made sure
the news
was censored from Japanese newspapers.
They also tried to suppress
Japanese post-war novels such as
City of Corpses by Yoko
Ota and Summer Flower by Tamiki Hara.
John Hersey's powerful
novel Hiroshima was published in 1946,
but it was not allowed
into Japan until the
Authors' League of America protested in 1949.
On September 1, 1951 in Tokyo 20,000 people gathered for a peace
rally.
H. G. Wells had also portrayed the need for world government in
his 1933 novel,
The Shape of Things to Come, which was
made
into a successful film with Raymond Massey in 1936.
Republican
Wendell Wilkie, who had lost the presidential election in 1940
to Roosevelt,
published One World in 1943; this book was
serialized in a hundred newspapers
and sold two million copies
in two years.
Perhaps the most effective advocacy of world government
was
The Anatomy of Peace by Emery Reves that came out in
June 1945
and was translated into twenty languages by 1950.
Soon
after the Hiroshima bomb exploded, Norman Cousins wrote his famous
editorial
or Saturday Review that "modern man is
obsolete," arguing that
the need for world government could
no longer be ignored.
By 1949 the United World Federalists (UWF)
had
720 chapters in the U. S. with 46,775 members.
By early 1946 the new Federation of American Scientists (FAS)
had 3,000 members,
and Rabinowitch started the Bulletin of
Atomic Scientists with its "doomsday clock,"
which
they set at seven minutes to midnight and still revise periodically.
The FAS published the book One World or None, which included
articles
by Einstein, Bohr, Urey, Bethe, Oppenheimer, and Szilard.
They supported the Baruch Plan for the international control
of
atomic weapons, but this effort failed.
When President Truman
announced in February 1950 a program to develop
the hydrogen bomb,
the FAS warned that the Russians would build them too.
On November
1, 1952 the United States tested a thermonuclear device (H-bomb)
that was a thousand times more powerful than an atomic bomb.
Less
than a year later the Soviet Union tested their first hydrogen
bomb.
The Communists around the world supported the World Peace
Council;
but in most countries it had little influence over non-Communists
because they refused to criticize the policies of the Soviet Union.
Many philosophers and proponents of world peace have expressed
ideas similar
to the credo of the World Federalists, that world
peace depends upon world justice,
which depends upon enforceable
world law, which depends upon world government.
Probably the most
discussed plan for effective world law is the comprehensive proposal
to strengthen the United Nations delineated by Grenville Clark
and Louis B. Sohn
in their book World Peace Through World Law.
Grenville Clark graduated from Harvard Law School in 1906.
Foreseeing the likelihood of American involvement in the First
World War,
he put forward the "Plattsburgh Idea," which
led to the recruitment
of 60,000 line officers between 1915 and
1917.
During the First World War he served in the United States
Army.
He supported the New Deal, helping to draft the Economy
Act of 1933.
Yet he opposed FDR's scheme to pack the US Supreme
Court in 1937.
At the beginning of World War II when the Nazis had occupied
Norway,
Clark initiated the Selective Service Act of 1940 to prepare
the US for the war.
He served as a consultant to Secretary of
War Stimson for the next four years.
He was aware of the A-bomb
development, but in June 1944 he left that position
"in order
to devote myself to efforts to prevent future wars, the appalling
results
of which on the assumption of nuclear weapons were already
apparent in 1944."4
He wrote a letter to the New
York Times that was published on October 14, 1944
in which
he criticized the Dumbarton Oaks proposals
for repeating the basic
errors of the League of Nations.
He complained that by giving each nation only one vote in the
General Assembly
it was bound to be only a subordinate organ
because
it would not be fair to the large nations.
When Bernard Baruch
proposed on June 12, 1946 that the United States transfer
its
monopoly on nuclear weapons to an international authority,
Clark
strongly supported the idea.
In 1950 Clark published A Plan for Peace, asserting
that disarmament of all arms
by all nations is the only real hope
for enduring peace, and this "disarmament
must be supported
by institutions of world law
through a world federation of universal
membership."5
He recommended a federal structure in which
all powers, not expressly delegated
to war prevention, be reserved
to the nations and their peoples.
In the promotion of economic
and social welfare the powers of United Nations
agencies to inquire
and recommend should be strengthened.
Written from
an American perspective, Clark's plan
was submitted to the United
States Congress.
Five essential points of the plan are to:
1) encourage discussion of the shocking implications of a third world war;
2) recognize that complete disarmament is necessary to a stable and peaceful world,
and that disarmament requires effective world law and government;
3) urge the United States to explore proposals for disarmament
and revision of the United Nations;
4) maintain military resistance to Communist expansion while
working toward an overall settlement; and
5) realize that executive officials need new ideas
from the people and help from Congress.
Clark explained why the "peace by strength" doctrine
of deterrence is so insecure
and leads to a continuous arms race.
In deterring Russia the United States had also alarmed her, resulting
in a vicious circle
in which each side accused the other of aggression
and imperialism,
while each increased its armaments, engendering
more suspicion and fear,
and thus more armaments, etc.
A Pax Americana
achieved through conquest, like the Pax Romana, could never last.
A constructive plan for general disarmament and enforceable world
law is needed.
Clark faced the obstacles to his plan and also looked at
the
counter forces working in its favor.
The nations' reluctance to
modify their claims to unlimited sovereignty is a major problem.
People must overcome their fear of "foreigners" and
develop a world consciousness.
Conflicts of religion, particularly
between Christians and Communists,
could be a stumbling block,
but with some tolerance it should not prevent a solution.
Recriminations
between the east and west were a great psychological handicap,
but this atmosphere could be improved with effort.
Pessimism that
such a new system could ever be instituted in a short time
could
be a negative self-fulfilling prophecy; but again,
working for
a realistic solution could dissolve that attitude.
Skepticism
about the Russians' willingness to negotiate
in reasonable terms
is a common attitude in America.
Yet a plan that is in everyone's
interest would be
beneficial to Russians as well as Americans.
Most of the counter forces to these obstacles are steadily
increasing in strength.
The severity of modern war is becoming
worse rapidly.
A world war is becoming more likely to be instant
mass suicide.
Self-interest is enhanced with world order.
The
crushing economic burden of armaments would be drastically reduced,
and the psychological relief could be euphoric.
Besides the problem
of the superpower rivalry, there is a general need for peace
to
prevent the various small wars and to use resources to improve
the general welfare.
The federal principle of government is being
understood by more people
because of political evolution in various
countries and regions.
New generations are producing new leaders
with new ideas
that are more appropriate to our new problems.
Clark had great vision, and he prophetically remarked that a crisis
often gets worse
until the proud opponents look down into the
dark abyss
that awaits them if they do not change.
The closer
we get to the brink of disaster, the more likely we are to find
a solution.
Louis B. Sohn was born in Lwow, Poland the year World War I
began.
He earned his first law degree at John Casimir University
in Lwow.
He participated in the San Francisco Conference that
established the United Nations,
and he was a legal officer in the United Nations Secretariat for
two years.
In 1951 he joined the faculty at Harvard Law School.
He also worked on the Law of the Sea Treaty.
Clark and Sohn collaborated in suggesting a Revised United
Nations Charter
in their book World Peace Through World Law,
which was first published in 1958.
They refined their ideas
in a second, revised edition in 1960.
Subsequent revisions in
1966 and 1973 offered an additional alternative
to a revised UN
Charter by suggesting a new world security and
development
organization to supplement current UN functions.
This discussion
will focus on the proposed UN Charter Revision.
The basic premise agreed with President Eisenhower's statement
in 1956,
"There can be no peace without law."6
Thus
for world peace, enforceable world law is required.
By presenting
a detailed plan Clark and Sohn hoped to stimulate
world-wide discussion
of the needed world institutions.
World law is essential because
of the increasing number and destructive power
of modern weapons,
because more nations are acquiring nuclear weapons,
and because
of the resources wasted on the arms race;
in 1973 Sohn added the
concern about protecting the environment and natural resources.
They proposed revising the United
Nations because of the UN's
established functions and purpose
of preventing war.
However, they admitted that forming a new institution
could also serve the same principles.
In fact, in 1962 Clark and
Sohn formulated their proposals in the form of a
comprehensive
Draft Treaty between the US and USSR,
which would not require
revision of the UN Charter.
The Clark-Sohn Plan is based on these principles.
First, genuine
peace depends on an effective system of world law
which can ensure
complete disarmament with institutions to state
clearly the law,
courts to apply the law, and police to enforce the law.
Second,
world law must be formulated in a constitution and statutes
forbidding
nations to use violence, except in self-defense,
and must be applicable
to all nations and individuals.
Third, world judicial tribunals
and organs of mediation and conciliation
must be established in
order to use peaceful means of adjudication
instead of violence
or the threat of violence in the solving of all international
disputes.
Fourth, a permanent world police force must be maintained,
with careful safeguards
against abuse, in order to suppress any
violation of the world law
that prohibits international violence.
Fifth, complete disarmament of all nations must be "accomplished
in a simultaneous
and proportionate manner by carefully verified
stages
and subject to a well-organized system of inspection."7
Sixth, the tremendous disparities in the economic conditions of
different regions
of the world must be mitigated by world institutions
in order to resolve conflicts and instability.
Seventh, humanity's
common resources and environment
must be managed and protected
equitably.
Supplementary principles suggested that the world law must
apply to all nations
and individuals, and nearly all nations must
be participating actively in the institutions.
Also, the basic
rights and duties of all nations should be clearly defined
in
the constitutional document with the world body's powers limited
primarily to the area
of war prevention, while all other powers
are reserved to the nations and their peoples.
Now let us briefly outline the features of the Clark-Sohn Plan
for a Revised Charter of the United Nations.
For the plan to go
into effect, nearly every major nation must agree to become a
member.
Every independent state in the world would be eligible
for membership,
and ratification would require at least five-sixths
of all nations,
nations combining at least five-sixths of the
world population,
plus all four of the largest nations and at
least six
of the ten next largest nations in population.
The few
remaining non-member nations would be required
to comply with
the disarmament plan and world law.
Voting in the General Assembly would be adjusted according
to a nation's population,
and the Assembly would be given adequate
powers
to maintain peace and enforce the disarmament process.
The 1973 Clark-Sohn voting proposal suggested the following:
the
four largest nations would have thirty representatives each;
the
next ten largest nations would have twelve each;
the next fifteen
nations would have eight each; the next twenty nations six each;
the next thirty nations four each; the next forty nations three
each;
and the smallest nations, those with under one million inhabitants,
would have one representative each.
This particular scheme of
weighted voting is perhaps one of the weakest elements
of their
plan, but they admit that they are not dogmatic about its specifics.
Certainly, if the General Assembly is going to be given greater
powers,
some system which takes into account the
population differences
among nations must be devised.
Clark and Sohn suggested stages
eventually leading to the election of representatives
by popular
vote, although at first some nations would probably
insist on
choosing them in their national legislatures.
An Executive Council would replace the Security Council,
and
the veto power would be abolished.
The four largest nations (China,
India, USSR, and US) would be permanent members.
Five of the next
ten largest nations would alternate with the other five as members
and the remaining eight members would be chosen by the Assembly.
"Important" matters would require a vote of twelve of
the seventeen members,
a majority of the nine larger nations,
and a majority of the eight other members.
The Economic and Social
Council and the Trusteeship Council
would be continued
and enlarged
for greater responsibilities subject to the General Assembly.
Disarmament is carefully worked out by Clark and Sohn to eliminate
national military forces in a step-by-step process.
Complete disarmament
down to the level of local police is required
because of the destructive
power of modern weapons.
Even a small number of nuclear weapons
or biological and chemical weapons
would leave the world very
insecure, and they would make it difficult
for the world police
force to deter or suppress international violence.
Besides, nations
would not need armies if the world police force is protecting
every nation and their people from international aggression.
Each
nation would need only enough police forces and weapons
to quell
internal disruptions and the violence of criminals.
The original Clark-Sohn Plan scheduled the verified disarmament
process
over twelve years, but the Draft Treaty cut that time
in half.
Nevertheless, the process was essentially the same.
The
first two years (or one in the Draft Treaty) would stop further
military build-up,
establish the UN Inspection Service to make
a detailed arms census
for every nation, and allow time to verify
those facts.
Then each nation would disarm ten percent of their
forces each year
(or six months) for the next ten years (or five
years).
Each step would be carefully verified by the Inspection
Service,
and if necessary the process would be delayed until compliance
was achieved.
A Nuclear Energy Authority would become responsible
for all nuclear materials.
An Outer Space Agency would also be
created to ensure the peaceful use of space.
Some of the national
armaments would be given to the UN Peace Force,
which would come
up to its full strength by the end of the disarmament process.
Every nation in the world would be bound by the disarmament
and
at its conclusion would be reduced to lightly armed police.
A World Police Force would be the only military force permitted
in the world,
once disarmament was completed.
Clark and Sohn devised
various safeguards to prevent any nation
from taking control of
the World Force.
Thus major roles are given to people from the
smaller countries.
This force would be under the direction of
the General Assembly and would have
between 200,000 and 400,000
professional soldiers,
drawn mostly from the smaller nations.
No more than three percent of the force could be from any one
nation,
and the forces would be scattered around the globe in
various regions
with no permanent military bases in any of the
larger countries.
A Peace Force Reserve would have between 300,000
and 600,000
volunteers on call in case of an emergency.
The Peace
Force would be equipped with the most modern weapons;
but biological,
chemical, and nuclear weapons would be forbidden.
If nuclear weapons
somehow were illegally produced and became a threat,
the General
Assembly could order the Nuclear Energy Authorit
to release nuclear
weapons to the Peace Force.
Otherwise nuclear weapons would be
forever banned.
A Military Staff Committee of five persons drawn
from the smaller nations
would direct the Peace Force under the
civilian authority of
the Executive Council and ultimately the
General Assembly.
The Revised Charter required every nation to settle all international
disputes
by peaceful means such as negotiation, inquiry, mediation,
conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, etc.
All nations
would be obligated to submit any "legal question," which
in the opinion
of the General Assembly (or the Executive Council)
endangers the peace of the world,
to the International Court of
Justice for a final and binding decision.
Those disputes which
are not of a legal nature would be brought to the
World Conciliation
Board for a voluntary agreement or would be referred to
the World
Equity Tribunal for a solution,
which could be made binding by
the General Assembly.
The International Court of Justice would
have compulsory jurisdiction on all cases
submitted to it by the
Assembly as well as disputes over treaties
international agreements,
and the UN Charter.
Individuals responsible for violations of
the disarmament
provisions could also be prosecuted.
A civil police
force of less than 10,000 would aid
the Inspection Service in
detecting such violators.
A World Development Authority would aid the underdeveloped
areas of the worl
in improving their economic conditions in order
to alleviate the immense disparities
between their circumstances
and those of the industrialized nations.
A United Nations Ocean
Authority would manage the resources of the seas.
A UN Environmental
Protection Authority would coordinate environmental programs,
collect data, and monitor and assess services.
As of 1973 Sohn
suggested $75 billion for world development,
$12 billion for the
Peace Forces, and $3 billion for the other agencies.
This budget
of $90 billion represented less than half of
the world's military
expenditures for the year 1970.
Obviously the world economy would
be greatly enhanced by such a plan.
They also suggested an over-all
limit of three percent
of the gross world product for the UN budget.
Each nation would be taxed by the General Assembly according to
its
gross domestic product with a "per capita deduction"
for the poorest nations.
No nation could be taxed more than four
percent of its GDP,
and each nation would collect its own taxes
for the UN fiscal office in the nation.
Once the Revised UN Charter
was ratified, no nation would be allowed to withdraw.
A Bill of Rights is annexed to the Revised Charter to protect
individual rights
such as freedom of religion, communication,
assembly and petition, and a fair trial
without double jeopardy, ex post facto laws, excessive bail,
cruel and unusual punishments,
unlawful detention, or unreasonable searches and seizures.
The
many useful organs of the United Nations would be continued,
such
as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO),
the
International Labor Organization (ILO), and the World Health Organization
(WHO).
The purpose of the Clark-Sohn Plan was not to delete any
of these useful functions
but to strengthen the UN's ability to
prevent war by making the General Assembly
and Security Council
more representative and filling the major lacks of the UN,
namely
the lack of effective disarmament, the lack of a standing world
police force,
the lack of a judicial system with compulsory jurisdiction
over international disputes,
and the lack of a reliable revenue
system.
To the obstacles Clark saw in 1950, Sohn added the resistance
of the vested interests
in armament, both in the military and
industry,
as well as the vested interests in traditional diplomacy.
However, the advanced "delivery systems" of nuclear
weapons
had made the problem much more urgent.
In addition, pollution
of the environment is becoming more critical as is the disparity
between the developed northern hemisphere
and the underdeveloped
southern hemisphere.
The year after the Clark-Sohn Plan was first proposed, Soviet
Premier Khrushchev
visited the United
Nations and on September 19, 1959 suggested in a speech
that
general and complete disarmament could be the best approach to
peace.
The next day the "Declaration of the Soviet Government
on General and Complete Disarmament" was filed with the United
Nations.
On December 1, 1959 the United States, the Soviet Union,
and ten other major countries agreed to the Antarctic Treaty,
which banned all weapons and military activities from Antarctica.
The next year the two superpowers negotiated
reduction of forces
and limiting nuclear testing.
Although he had campaigned on an erroneous contention that
the United States
was behind the Soviets in a "missile gap,"
President Kennedy fulfilled another
campaign pledge to create
the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency;
he was greatly aided
in this by Republican John McCloy.
On September 25, 1961 President
Kennedy spoke before the United Nations
General Assembly and said,
"Mankind must put an end to war,
or war will put an end to
mankind."8
The goal of disarmament must no longer be a dream
but had become a practical question
of life or death; its risks
were small compared to the costs of an unlimited arms race.
Kennedy
presented the American plan and asked that negotiations continue
"without interruption until an entire program for general
and complete disarmament
has not only been agreed but has been
actually achieved."9
He suggested that the logical place
to begin was with a test-ban treaty.
In this speech at the United Nations Kennedy also said that it was not
enough
to destroy arms, they must also create world-wide law with
enforcement
as they outlaw world-wide war and weapons, saying,
"We prefer world law in the age of self-determination,
to
world war in the age of mass extermination."10
He suggested
that UN machinery be improved to provide for
"the peaceful
settlement of disputes, for on-the-spot fact-finding,
mediation
and adjudication, for extending the rule of international law."
He concluded that his generation would be remembered either
for
destroying the planet or for saving future generations from war.
Never before did the world have so much to gain and so much to
lose.
"Together we shall save our planet, or together we
shall perish in its flames."11
On September 20, 1961 the Soviet Union and the United States
issued a
"Joint Statement of Agreed Principles for Disarmament
Negotiations"
known as the McCloy-Zorin Agreement.
This agreement
declared,
The United States and the U.S.S.R. have agreed
to recommend the following principles as the basis
for future multilateral negotiations on disarmament
and to call upon other States to cooperate in reaching
early agreement on general and complete disarmament
in a peaceful world in accordance with these principles.
1. The goal of negotiations is to achieve agreement
on a program which will ensure that
(a) disarmament is general and complete
and war is no longer an instrument
for settling international problems, and
(b) such disarmament is accompanied by the establishment
of reliable procedures for the peaceful settlement of disputes
and effective arrangements for the maintenance of peace
in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter.
2. The program for general and complete disarmament
shall ensure that States will have at their disposal
only such non-nuclear armaments, forces, facilities
and establishments as are agreed to be necessary to maintain
internal order and protect the personal security of citizens;
and that States shall support and provide agreed manpower
for a United Nations peace force.
3. To this end, the program for general and complete disarmament
shall contain the necessary provisions,
with respect to the military establishment of every nation, for:
(a) Disbanding of armed forces,
dismantling of military establishments, including bases,
cessation of the production of armaments
as well as their liquidation or conversion to peaceful uses.
(b) Elimination of all stockpiles of nuclear, chemical,
bacteriological, and other weapons of mass destruction
and cessation of the production of such weapons;
(c) Elimination of all means of delivery
of weapons of mass destruction;
(d) Abolishment of the organization and institutions
designed to organize the military effort of States,
cessation of military training,
and closing of all military training institutions;
(e) Discontinuance of military expdenditures.12
The Joint Statement also suggested that disarmament be implemented
in stages
with adequate verification for each stage by effective
international control.
Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister Vasily Zorin
would not agree on the verification terms
recommended by McCloy
because the Soviets suspected
they could be used as "legalized
espionage."
McCloy put the US position on record by including
the following statement in a letter the same day to Zorin:
"Such
verification should ensure that not only agreed limitations or
reductions
take place but also that retained armed forces and
armaments
do not exceed agreed levels at any stage."13
The
McCloy-Zorin Statement is considered a high point
in disarmament
efforts during the Cold War.
An 18-nation committee on disarmament
was formed in December 1961.
The Soviet Union presented a draft
treaty for general and complete disarmament
on March 15, 1962
and proposed a nuclear-free zone in Europe on March 28.
The United
States presented their draft treaty for disarmament on April 18,
and by August both superpowers were negotiating a draft treaty
to present to the 18-nation disarmament committee.
In May 1962 Clark and Sohn recast their proposals as a
"Proposed
Treaty Establishing a World Disarmament and
World Development
Organization
within the Framework of the United Nations."
The US proposal gave the International Court jurisdiction
over
disputes on the disarmament during the first stage,
while the
Soviet version did not mention the International Court at all.
The Clark-Sohn Plan offered incentives to most people in the world
with its development provisions, but the Soviet and US proposals
ignored this need.
The Soviets were reluctant to give up their
veto in the Security Council,
and the American proposal was vague
on how the UN would enforce disarmament.
However, the Clark-Sohn
treaty gave the new
disarmament organization enforcement authority.
The Soviet Treaty would have led to a disarmed world, but it would
not have provided
a workable system for settling international
disputes.
The US treaty would have begun to try to deal with international
conflicts
only after the first stage of disarmament.
Both the US and Soviet plans would have resulted in a balance
of national power
instead of the world-based enforceable world
law of the Clark-Sohn approach.
The Clark-Sohn Plan had the advantage
of solving unanswered questions
prior to agreement and implementation
so that confidence in the future could be gained.
Obviously none
of these proposals were implemented.
After the Cuban missile crisis
in October 1962,
the Soviets decided to catch up with the US in
the nuclear arms race.
The Clark-Sohn proposals were presented as a useful basis for
discussion
of these questions, and they did stimulate much thought.
Saul Mendlovitz and Richard Falk used World Peace Through World
Law
as a foundation upon which to build elaborate teaching
materials for discussions on world order.
The Institute for World
Order developed outstanding educational materials
from experts
around the world in their World Order Models Project (WOMP).
Such
notables as Herman Kahn and Andrei Sakharov
recommended careful
study of the Clark-Sohn proposals.
As early as 1973 these materials
had been studied in
about 500 colleges and universities in the
United States.
Why have these ideas not yet succeeded?
Richard Falk pointed
out in a Study of Future Worlds that change-oriented groups
have not been responsive to law-based appeals,
which are at the
same time both radical and conservative.
Law and order is a conservative
approach, while giving up national sovereignty
to world institutions
is a radical change.
Amitai Etzioni in The Hard Way to Peace
asked what could be done
to accelerate the historical processes
that would lead to these solutions.
He suggested the formation
of supranational communities and also
economic and political development
around the world.
Falk and Mendlovitz credited the Clark-Sohn
Plan with providing a framework
of international law within which
the widest possible
shaping and sharing of human values could
take place.
1. Quoted in One World or None: A History of the World Nuclear
Disarmament
Movement Through 1953 by Lawrence S. Wittner,
p. 20.
2. Ibid., p. 24.
3. Ibid., p. 25-26.
4. Grenville Clark: Public Citizen by Gerald T. Dunne,
p. 141.
5. A Plan for Peace by Grenville Clark, p. ix.
6. World Peace Through World Law by Grenville Clark and
Louis B. Sohn, p. xv.
7. Ibid., p. xvi.
8. A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House
by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.,
p. 484.
9. Ibid.
10. Kennedy by Theodore C. Sorensen, p. 521-522.
11. A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House
by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.,
p. 484.
12. Documentary History of Arms Control and Disarmament,
p. 470-471.
13. Ibid., p. 469.
This is a chapter in World Peace Efforts Since Gandhi,
which is published as a book.
For ordering information, please click here.